Matrix Games Forums

I think the point system is good enough to simulate limited resources. CC2 also had limits on the number of each type of unit you could bring into each operation. I think the combination of those two mechanics was an excellent way to abstract lots of complex things (like road and air drop capacity) into something that was fun and playable, keeping the focus at tactical combat while still allowing some control of what operation to send the most reinforcements to, and to a degree what kinds of units to use for each operation.

There are two things that I still find great :
- bridges that can  be blown up
- soldiers that can stay on a bridge while some soldiers go under a bridge

ORIGINAL: crushingleeek

Part of the challenge (and part of the fun) is picking a balanced and appropriate force for the upcoming battle.

I see it slightly differently, because i don't always need balanced fights to have fun. Sometimes I find it pretty exciting to fight a delaying battle...see if i can just hang on to that one last victory location before i need to pull back the forces. Can my ill equipped engineers hold on against an armored platoon/company? If its too balanced everytime, to me, it gets monotonous. I'm talking about single player, campaign though...H2H may be different.

That's excactly how I play this game and how I played CC4 and 5. I love the freedom to vary the composition of my own battelgroup and also the one of the AI opponent. I never liked the fact that the only difference between the difficulty levels was the composition of the BGs since the most interesting units are not available if you want more or less difficult battles. Hence I usually play "Line". I therefore love the fact that I can virtually strentghen the opponent and/or weaken my troops without effect on any points.
So the freedom to fight with and/or against the forces I can personally choose from without any limitations through points is a vital factor that makes me enjoy the CC-series.
IMHO the game would loose a lot of replayability with a point system that limits your choices what forces you can field. It would make you play the same battles over and over again. I bought COI and only played it 2 or 3 times. I did not like the point system to choose my forces and every battle almost felt like the one before. Never played it again.

TomDude,

The point system, as I would implement it if I were the game designer, would allow you to fully pick your force, just up to a limit that's realistic. In other words it would be more flexible than the typical CC2 battle where you only had enough points to buy an extra mortar.

For example, if you wanted 2 King Tigers in your battlegroup then you wouldn't have too many points left over, but still enough to fill your ranks with infantry and a couple of cheaper support elements - but if wanted 2 King Tigers and 3 Panthers then you'd be out of luck, or at least out of any more points to spend for infantry.

Also, the point cap could vary between battle groups. Armored unit caps would be higher than infantry unit caps. This way you're still forced to pick realistic yet flexible infantry battle groups.

A goal of any wargame is to be realistic yet fun to play. I believe that a point system could be created to allow this.

For me the forcepool as it is is a good idea. However it would be great if tanks, guns & infantry would gain experience through my various battles and if I choose let's say infantry from my forcepool it would allow me to select the goup with the experience I think is needed [;)]
I think it was at CloseCombatSeries where someone pointed to the bug/feature that my battlegroup loose medals when I deselect the battlegroup for the next battle. So in terms of programming the class soldier should have all the experience and medals it has gained through a battle. If I deselect the group for the next battle it should be not recycled.
I don't want super heroes but it would help to motivate myself and take more care bringing a group of men throough a campaign. All IMO [:)]