Who plays C&C

[vahauser]

Greetings Overlord,

I would be happy to play a battle of your choice. My 2 strong preferences are C&C ON and that I get to choose my own Troop Quality. Other than that I am very open. Let me know what kind of battle you want to play and I can set it up by Friday evening. Let's have some fun!

--Victor

P.S. In regards to what Capt. Pixel posted, I believe that there are ways to accomplish river crossings with C&C ON more efficiently and with virtually no headaches (at least where C&C is concerned) than the way he described it. C&C does not have to be a ball and chain even though that is the way many perceive it.

[TheOverlord]

Sounds good to me.

Say GE (me - I need the help in the C&C area as this is my first human cc game!) you can take what you like, any year, ~5000 points, lg map, everything on. Let the weather and visibility be random.

I dont care either way about limits on arty and air strikes (my preference is to have no limits but I am flexible) and engineer placed mines ok.

I have seen you mention troop quality in many of your posts. I understand the impact it has on rally, command, accuracy etc. and on the impact to unit cost....but why do you like to set it yourself? Are you looking for more realism? Just want to understand your thoughts incase I am missing something...

PS - I am expecting to get woomped, but it will hopefully be a good learning experience.....please give me any C&C pointers or point out my blunders when I make them.

[vahauser]

Hi Overlord,

How about December 1941, Soviet (me) vs German (you) Meeting Engagement, 5000pts each, Full Daylight, random visiblity, random weather, large map

True Troop Cost ON
Rarity OFF

1000pts max for artillery/airstrikes
airdrops ok
special ops ok

Historical Characteristics OFF
National Characteristics ON
Limited Intel ON
Command Control ON
Unit Comm ON
Vehicle Reliability ON
Weapon Reliability ON
Reduced Squads OFF
Limited Ammo ON
Mines ON (but no initial purchase)
All Preferences 100%

Sound okay?

The reasons I almost never (ok, never) play with Historical Charateristics ON is: 1) All units for each side are priced at Encyclopedia costs regardless of their quality; and 2) I like to imagine that whatever battle I am fighting is at the critical time and place (the focal point as it were) and that the units at said focal point (especially the ones I'm commanding) are of higher quality than the "historical average" which is what you get with Historical Characteristics ON. So that is why I strongly prefer Historical Characteristics OFF and to set my own Troop Quality. That said, I will choose 81 as the Soviet Troop Quality for our battle and you may choose whatever you like.

--Victor

[Orzel Bialy]

French - German Battle looks fine to me...although I like to use rarity on most of the time to limit "unrealistic" numbers of certain weapons/units that would not have been available historically.

but, I can live without it if need be...just a preference. Other than that...set it up and mail it to me.

[Goblin]

A question, not criticsm...

Doesn't giving yourself high quality troop everytime take away from the C&C? I mean, the point of it is to have more of a challenge. If you just set the quality that high to begin with, why not just turn it off? Thanks.

Goblin- A Goblin is confused

[Orzel Bialy]

since not all troops in an Army are of the same caliber. A higher rating would make them more likely to remain "within command" and therefore, somewhat defeat the true purpose of having the C&C feature turned on.

It is a very good question Goblin.

[Goblin]

I blindly stumble into one every now and again....


Goblin

[Les_the_Sarge_9_1]

winning with crud is infinitely more satisfying than playing with super dudes.

My last Long Campaign I never once upgraded my core infantry from basic standard issue troops.

Then again I hardly had need for them eheh, the enemy always ran afoul of my armour. My armour I occasionally upgraded. But I found it more found going from one mark to the next as was done in history. Rather than junk to super tank.

[TheOverlord]

Ok sounds good to me.

Good point Goblin, Orzel on the troop quality.

I will take an 81 as well for troop quality to level the playing field and lets see what happens.

I have never played with C&C against a human (I hope vhauser is human anyways... ) and this is really an experiment in that for me.

I usually prefer to have rarity on and reduced squads on as well since it represents another "reality" of the situation in WW2, but if you want to argue realism, there are many aspects of it....and I just want to play. I will try these rules and who knows. If I dont like them then I will request different settings next game. No big deal.

Besides, if I can beat someone with their own rules then it is all the sweeter!

So I have slots 4 (havent heard from knife in 2 + weeks so he is out), 5, 11,12,13 open.

[Tomanbeg]

Originally posted by Capt. Pixel
I tried C&C on again with H2H. My first battle set up with half my force moving east through Moscow (Jess's map) and the other half moving Northwest ACROSS A RIVER.

Those who play C&C know you can get your barges to go ONE WAY across the river, but getting them to turn around and come back is a whole different matter. Especially since their commands come from the truck on the far side

For me... C&C Off.

Depending on how wide the river is, it is possible to set your flag in the middle of the river. That way you have the barges full movement points in either direction. The other solution is to put your zero in a barge and run it up next to your reluctant subordinate an scream at him to go the other way. "TURN RIGHT,RIGHT. NO, YOUR OTHER RIGHT"! River crossings are not supposed to be easy.
T.

[vahauser]

Higher Troop Qualities do not mean lots of extra Order Points. Most of my formation commanders when I choose TQ 91 have 3 Order Points. My company commanders sometimes get 4 and my A0 usually gets 5. My FOs usually get 3.

The reason I prefer a higher TQ is because I think that historically the second-line ("average") troops were not sent to the sectors of heaviest fighting. This is especially true regarding mechanized forces of all European combatants. The panzers and tank corps and armored divisions were all composed of the best men available. They were all "above average" because they were meant to be where the fighting was heaviest. And since the name of the game is Steel Panthers, then I expect there to be lots of meeting engagements between veteran, above-average armored battlegroups. In cases of delays and defends, then I guess it is okay for the advancing/assaulting force to be above-average and the defenders to be "average". But in any case, in all armies where combat forces are meant to attack, then those attacking forces are by definition going to need above-average quality, and that is historical. And since my battlegroup is supposed to the spearhead of whatever battle I'm fighting, then I have no problem using the best troops I can afford. To me, it's highly historical.

I suppose that when fighting with "minor nations" that had no mechanized strike forces, then just about any TQ could be used, although even in that situation the best troops available would still be used for attacking. As far as I know, "average" troops were rarely if ever used for attacking.

[Irinami]

You make some good points, vahauser. I would agree in general, but don't forget the local counteroffensive. That would just be whatever units you have on hand at the time. Second line, REMF's... although probably lead by at least regular combat arms.

[Goblin]

Aren't the 'best troops' represented by the various 'elite (+10 experience/morale) troops available in the game at any given time? For example, if the default setting for a given year/month is 70 for the Germans, the elite SS are given a plus 10. If you purchased these, you simulate buying elite troops for an attack. I can see setting the values occasionally to simulate a very experienced, combat savvy unit. Thanks for the answer to the questions though...

Goblin

[Orzel Bialy]

where are you getting these very insightful questions? Is Hawk sending them to you via e-mail for you to post? LOL

Just kidding of course...:p You're a sharp guy...just like that point on your furry green head.

[vahauser]

The way I see it, the SPWAW Troop Quality spectrum ranges from 20 (untrained mobs) to 140 (elite superheroes). I personally believe that units throughout this spectrum existed during WWII. For instance, Michael Wittmann was certainly a TQ 140 by the time he died. If you imagine the TQ spectrum as a standard bell curve distribution, then most units will cluster around the 60-80 range. However, when it is considered that German mobile divisions made up about 15% of the German Army and that the other European combatants had about the same percentage as the German Army regarding mobile divisions, then it is not a stretch to say that when you are playing with panzer formations, then you are playing with the top 15% of the German TQ spectrum. I realize that this spectrum varies per year of the war, but the top 15% is still pretty darned good no matter what the year.

I do realize that there are occasions where circumstances dictate that a commander must fight with anything at hand. However, since I prefer to play with spearhead combat troops (like Grossdeutschland, Guards Mech Corps, etc.), then I always see my battlegroup as the cream of whatever parent formation it is derived from. I don't usually play with "average" or inferior troops because it doesn't hold my interest to fight with conscripts against militia. The only time I fight those kinds of battles are when playing designed scenarios.

In addition, if the SPWAW points pricing scheme works properly, then it should not matter what TQ a player chooses. 5000 points of TQ 30 units should be equivalent to 5000 points of TQ 120 units in an SPWAW battle. My experience is that this is not exactly the case. When defending, lower TQ units can still give a good account of themselves (i.e., are relatively cost effective) against high TQ units. But when attacking, low-quality units suffer badly. I see this as historical and I think that SPWAW has it mostly right. The highest TQ I ever played against in a PBEM was 105 (German) and I had TQ 85 (Soviet). I won that battle (a meeting engagement) because the TQ 105 units were so expensive that he had to achieve a kill ratio that he found impossible to achieve.

Lastly, the choice of the word "elite" when describing units for purchase purposes is an unfortunate choice I think. I would've used the word "first-rate" which is more consistent with the word "second-line". To me, the only elite units are those above TQ 100.

Here is another way to look at it. If you have a King Tiger, then who are you going to put in command of that expensive vehicle, a recent graduate of the tank-training school or the experienced combat veteran?

[Goblin]

The +10 simulates an experienced combat veteran! Elite +10 in the purchase menu simulates that you are buying top quality, experienced veterans. It seems to me that you do not want to play with these, but with super troops, that were much rarer than you make them out to be. Sure, Wittmann was in that range, but I will wager that most of his Tiger Drivers were in the Elite +10 category (in game terms). That still represents top quality troops.

It strikes me that you took a big stand on C&C, belittling the players that don't use it, and then don't really use it yourself, because you are seeding the field. No wonder you got bored with C&C off, if you played with these kind of soldiers. Try playing with the computer generated values before you next talk down at us.

Goblin- A Goblin is hopping mad now:mad:

[Orzel Bialy]

A Goblin that is HOPPING MAD is never a good thing! Everybody run for the bunkers!!!

[Goblin]

I would, of course, crush you, Birdy Boy, but my troops are busy routing in our battle. Russian Infantry suck in 1940. I should have requested 90's across the board...:rolleyes:

Goblin

[vahauser]

Goblin,

There is another reason that I don't like to use computer-generated values (i.e., Historical Characteristics ON) . When you play with Historical Characteristics ON you pay Encyclopedia costs for all units. Years ago there was a listing of what the Historical Characteristics for each nation were. For instance, the Germans in 1941 used to have a base experience rating of 80 as I recall and the Soviets in 1941 used to have a base experience rating of 60 I think. I have no idea what the base values are today with SPWAW 7.1 (does anybody know?), but I bet they are close to those ratings. The problem is that both sides pay Encyclopedia costs for all their units. What that means is that the Soviets are getting TQ 60 units but paying TQ 70 prices and the Germans are getting TQ 80 units but paying TQ 70 prices. And since I don't agree with such a policy of building in a pricing advantage/disadvantage, then I definitely prefer playing where I set my own Troop Quality and paying the price for the quality I choose.

I think you are fixating on the word "elite" and seem to believe that playing with high-TQ "elite" units somehow makes C&C non-functional. I assure you that this is not the case. If what I think you are saying were true, then why would I limit my TQ choices to the 81 to 91 range I normally prefer? Why wouldn't I just go all the way and always choose TQ 120 (the max allowed by the game)? I'd be happy to let you have a force of TQ 120 units against my TQ 91 units and we can have at it with C&C ON and you can see for yourself if high-TQ units ruin C&C ON. I think you are angry about something, but whatever it is I don't think it is a reasonable anger being directed at me or at C&C ON.

If anything, you should be directing your anger at the artificial pricing advantages/disadvantages that playing with Historical Characteristics ON forces on players.

--Victor

[Goblin]

I use the words 'Elite +10' because that is the label they are given in the purchase list. When you buy Grenadiers, you get the set value for the year. When you buy SS Grenadiers (labeled elite +10), you get the set values +10. There are your veteran troops.

Remember, that plus ten applies to experience and morale only. Most nations leadership ratings are lower than their morale and experience ratings. By setting the numbers, you get a huge leap in leadership ratings, because when you set the numbers, it sets all three to that level.

I believe you limit yourself to 81-91 because you won't get anyone to play with you otherwise.

You came across with a holier-than-thou attitude about loving the challenges that C&C holds, and that people that do not play it were on a lower level of the game than you. Then you constantly demand troops of a higher quality than the game gives. I bet you buy the troops with the +10 bonus also. That gives you an effective 91-101 rating. Sounds tough. Lemme guess... Playing them really is no easier than playing the Russians at computer set ratings in 1941?

Play with True Troop ON. That ends your argument about costs. It automatically lowers the cost of less experienced units, and raises those of more experienced units. Set your ratings at 40 and buy a company of tanks. Then set it at 120 and do the same. See? The cost argument is invalid. That leaves just the superior quality of the troops. If you set the number high, your 'challenging' C&C isn't so tough. That is what I suspect you shoot for.

I tried hard to not be insultive. As a matter of fact, I edited this several times before posting. You did, however, insult alot of us. Then you ask demand from everyone you play with to set the numbers at something much easier to play with. Thats where my anger comes in. I would not have said a word to you (trust me) otherwise. I don't believe I am alone in my feelings either. I just spoke up first.


Goblin