Matrix Games Forums

The map preview display mechanism was updated for all versions. If you've got the most recent update applied the map preview should be reflecting the current deployment. If not I'll enter a bug for it and it'll get fixed at the first opportunity, as is always the case.

Finally got around to testing this out.
It looks as if the deployment issue may have been corrected.
The map preview on the other hand still depicts the last Battles deployment on the strategic screen and not what is actually going to be the new deployment.
It does depict the correct deployment while on the Bttlegroup screen but that info is unfortunately not available until after one has committed their strategic moves.
I do have the most recent update.

Hi Platoon Michael,

I'm not sure what you're expecting to see. If you are looking at the deployment state for a map before you execute strategic moves, it can really only show you the state at the end of last turn (i.e. the previous battle).

If there was no previous battle on this map (new game, or the map wasn't contested last turn) there's no way to predict for certain what the map is going to look like when it comes to the battle resolution portion of the strategic turn.

Thanks,

Steve

The 8th/3rd FJ just left Losheim and moved to Bullingen,bypassing the Allied 14th Calvary Group.
Peiper moves from North Eifel into Losheim.

This is how the strategic map shows what supposed to be your current holding of the map.

But that's from what the last Battle actually ended up being.
This is Peipers actual placement on Losheim.
Looks like the Allies do get pretty poor positioning after one BG leaves a map then another enters.
You can see all the VL's I held from the previous Battle because they are half Axis,half Allies.
Kinda two points here,sorry.

Thanks for the screenshots.

ORIGINAL: Platoon_Michael
This is how the strategic map shows what supposed to be your current holding of the map...

At what point during the strategic turn did you create this screenshot? Before or after you hit Execute to resolve moves?

This is Peipers actual placement on Losheim...

This is correct, given the previous screenshot and the BG entry. When one German BG moves out and another moves in the previous map and VL control becomes neutral. This includes a buffer area around every VL, which is what is making a fair bit of Allied territory switch to neutral. And then KG Peiper's entry zone cuts even further into the remaining Allied controlled area, leaving them without a lot of ground. I'll consider reducing the size of the buffer around the VLs in this case, but otherwise it is working as intended. You've got a US BG that has basically been overrun and cut in half in the previous battle(s), and then it is hit from a different direction in the second.

Steve

At what point during the strategic turn did you create this screenshot? Before or after you hit Execute to resolve moves?
Doesnt matter,Game still displays the last Battles control of the map.


This is correct, given the previous screenshot and the BG entry. When one German BG moves out and another moves in the previous map and VL control becomes neutral. This includes a buffer area around every VL, which is what is making a fair bit of Allied territory switch to neutral. And then KG Peiper's entry zone cuts even further into the remaining Allied controlled area, leaving them without a lot of ground. I'll consider reducing the size of the buffer around the VLs in this case, but otherwise it is working as intended. You've got a US BG that has basically been overrun and cut in half in the previous battle(s), and then it is hit from a different direction in the second.

Steve.

I understood that,reducing the buffer zone would be an added plus.
But if you look at my previous posts where I have done the same except entered the map from the same location as the enemy did you'll see that their deployment becomes very much out of whack.My earlier post on what happened at Hotton is the best example of how bad the game decides whats given to an opponet.
In the original CCIV there was an 8am Battle and a 4pm Battle,WAR just says Turn 1 Turn 2.
I would like to believe that the time still applies thus one would imagine that in the hours after the first battle and before the second Battle the enemy would collect their dead and reposition.
Here it appears the moves are instantly.Thus leaving the enemy no time to regroup.

[Deleted by Admins]

I'm not certain if I'm responding to the spirit of the conversation 9I hope so!) but I have enjoyed the 'strategic layer' that comes into play with hitting my opponent from different maps on consecutive turns. I imagine the coordination is there for the one group to not move out much before the follow-on attack...and I like the poor deployment as reward/punishment.

ORIGINAL: nietsche

I know that attacking is supposed to be hard and that defending is easier ... however the current tiny deployment areas for attackers results in too many "turkey shoots" where a single artillery strike, mortars and a deployment of tanks/guns can wipe out the attackers in a couple of minutes. This is made worse by the likelihood of vehicles losing tracks if they start in wooded areas.

The Defender only needs to defend roads and a little bit of attention to infantry through the woods.

Broader attack areas would help overcome this problem and not significantly cause trouble with the defense "advantage" that you should have.

It all results in a significant loss of realism.

Great post nietsche. This is one of the main reasons I always prefered CC3 or Cross of Iron to the other versions for H2H games.

The attacker should have the element of suprise in the attack. The attacker should have the option of attacking into a map at a point where the attacker chooses and where the defender can be misled. That is one of an attackers advatages; they choose the point of attack. In the CCIV set up the defender always knows where you attack point is and knows where all your units will start when entering a new map. The CC3 style didnt have this problem, when you advance into a new map you get more area to deploy in.

Considering ones location in there current deployment of Battle(Town/Area they occupy now) I can debate this one all day.


I agree I liked the CCIII/COI deployment better but in all honesty the attacker doesn't have his perfect wish of where to attack from.
He attacks from where his current location is to the location he wants to concur.

Now he may send a Unit or Units out to his Flanks( something CCIII and COI has by it's longer deployments zone) but in all honesty his main thrust will always be in one key area.

Now if you can surround an enemy BG on the Strategic Map during a Grand campaign you have many more options to attacking.

LSA tries to address the deployment zone issues between the strat layer and the battle map with the following changes;

You can have 2 connections between maps instead of 1

- If the attacker held both VL’s on the adjoining map they would get 2 entry areas giving them a larger deployment area and making the defender have to guess where the main effort will come from


You can have/move 2 BG’s onto a map; 1 frontline and 1 reserve

- When moving 2 BG’s onto a map the 1 moved as attacker gets to deploy the larger force while the 2nd could deploy a small force thus making the defender guess which BG/Entry VL the main effort will come from

It's just to be bad that there is still some bugs in the game and that the old CC5/WAR/TLD data has to be changed to work under LSA.