Matrix Games Forums

Yes, forever. Wasn't it available in the old Steel Panthers series? Maybe not the first SP but the second? I remember using it back then or at least when it first became available.

I've never played with it off....

Yes I do, usually.

Often the AI is normally too easy to beat without it.

I've found no problem losing to the AI without C&C! [;)]

nope

No, but I want to learn one day

Yes.

Nope.



MM

I use it for preference, but find that many scenarios are not well written for C&C. "Not intended for C&C but I've tried to keep units together" is usually a bit of a trap, I find. this is often code for "a company of tanks will appear on turn 12 in a forest within your rear perimeter".

It must be difficult to write in a way that provides a challenge if you are God (C&C off)and yet is still playable with C&C.

I can understand that C&C produces some weirdo situations. There are cases when obvious cover-seeking options are not pursued. I can't believe that a unit cresting a rise and coming under fire would sit there and take it without withdrawing 50m. But I'm not a military man so perhaps doctrine is indeed as dumb as C&C.

I use it on occasion, mostly dependant on the # of actual units that I find myself in command of, the real military works on a combination your aquired rank and the size of the force u govern. example { generals don't command squads,and corprals don't command divisions} command structure works by equaling your rank to your assets, I usually get about 3500point start to my campaign endevors which gives me a losely equaled regiment, 800 to 1500 men with all crews and attached specialty squads, so my command should be at least a major if not a colonel,then from regiment to division,1500 toabout 5000 men u get into brigadeer and leiutenant generals and so on and so on.
When my battles have a lot of support I tend to buy more secondary HQs and command posts which when u think of the logistics of so much intersquad intercommand radio traffic theyed need a bloody switchboard and how those runners don't smash face first into each other is beyond me. when u get too many forces for your command unit a natural gap in messages and orders can be expected thats when u should turn on C&C. RT

Yes.

But ... it really doesn't make any difference, at least not in PBEM Meeting Engagements.

No.

I've tried it many times, but the way the game engine chooses to move units under its control just isn't developed enough. After kicking it around for a few years, I decided that giving the AI additional units (vs. having my units 'behave' like their's do) results in a more realistic battle IMO. Its simply a matter of personal preference.

Note: threads on this topic (and there have been many) always devolve into fights!

Nope

Too lazy to learn it! [:'(]

C&C = NO

Never use it. Its nice that its there, but I much prefer playing without it. I do try, however, to design my scenarios in such a way that if one choose to use it, the units at least begin the game "in contact."

WB

C&C ON? Yes whenever possible in pbem but rarely against the computer opponent.

NEVER......I've had my share of "micro-management".....It sucks and does not work on the real battlefield, anymore than it does in this great game.

ORIGINAL: Wild Bill

Never use it. Its nice that its there, but I much prefer playing without it. I do try, however, to design my scenarios in such a way that if one choose to use it, the units at least begin the game "in contact."

WB

Very interesting, WB - you're scenarios play so well with it on that I just assumed you used it yourself! Many thanks for considering the rest of us when you design! Best,

Procrustes

Affirmative......

(since V1.0)

Something about 50/50 when playing user made scenarios (incl. my own) and If I would play PBEM, C&C surely would divide boys from men (when selecting the opponent). [:D]If I would still play computer generated stuff, switching C&C on would not really add more fun to the game.[8|]