Matrix Games Forums

I'd be extremely happy if someone did a mod to the original maps with VLs shown. I hate hidden VLs .

Anyone know what the design decision was here? I thought they took VLs out until I took stumbled on my first one.

The design decision was made by the US Marines.

The focus was not on securing that 1 spot but by controlling an area... the inclusion of a viewable VL took the focus off the real job required.

The marines saw viewable VL's as an unrealistic modelling of a way to depict an objective.

It also encouraged the "VL Rush"

what do you think, I'd sure like to hear more of a discussion on this.

The design decision was made by the US Marines.

The focus was not on securing that 1 spot but by controlling an area... the inclusion of a viewable VL took the focus off the real job required.

The marines saw viewable VL's as an unrealistic modelling of a way to depict an objective.

It also encouraged the "VL Rush"

what do you think, I'd sure like to hear more of a discussion on this.

It would be nice to have the option to turn them on if you want. After your explanation, I am happy either way. I am having fun, but still have a lot to learn.

I don't see the point to hide 'em totally, as the mission orders (objectives) are not crystal clear on the VLs (on some yes, but not on all of 'em). I get the area control aspect, but since that exact spot still needs to be taken, you now have to "hunt" for the VL (you'll know 'em by heart after a few times of playing tho...) I don't want something huge to point out the spot. Maybe just put a small marker to identify the VL.

Another thing I like about VLs, is that when ordering fire support without knowledge of enemy positions, you'd go for strategic points on the map. The obvious bridges and crossroads are ofcourse good targets, but knowing the VL's gives you some good targets too. In a real situation you would use fire support if available to soften the defences anyhow before moving in on a priority objective.

Another reason for making the VLs visible to me is the strict time limit on the maps. As you're pressed with time anyhow, it would be nice to know by a glance where to push...

Just my two cents.

We're listening... good points that will be considered.

I would understand it the objectives were a little more clear. Some maps have victory conditions as "WIN!" Am I supposed to control heights? Junctions? Urban areas? VL's guide us in the direction our thrust should be in. Coupled with time limits it is a recipe for frustration.

One scenario has that Instruction in the briefing.

It is a get to Know CCMT scenario.... mount your vehicles , drive off into the battle... tally Ho!

needle said:

(you'll know 'em by heart after a few times of playing tho...)

CCMT has a powerful editor.. you can open a scenario and move all the "Vl's" around to different areas, change the deployment areas, adjust the forcemix  and post them here:

tt.asp?forumid=515

I think we all knew YEARS ago that hidden VLs would lead to easter egg hunts. Once players find out where the VLs are on commonly used scenarios, the reason they are hidden becomes useless. A person can also make a scenario with VLs scattered around, host it, and ofcourse know where they all are and the opponent has no idea. The only way in this game without significant changes to solve the VL rush problem is to add a timer to them. Player X has to hold VL Y for Z number of minutes or seconds.
 
The real job the USMC were using CCM for was cognitive training, to teach people how to make decisions. They didnt really play to win, they played to learn, hence why there wasnt much requirement for VLs. Unless CCMT is a recruiting tool for the USMC I cant understand how this hidden VL issue ever made it to the final release. There should at the very least be an on/off button.

ORIGINAL: needle

I get the area control aspect, but since that exact spot still needs to be taken, you now have to "hunt" for the VL (you'll know 'em by heart after a few times of playing tho...) I don't want something huge to point out the spot. Maybe just put a small marker to identify the VL.

Variable VL locations make a lot of sense (I think) for random, disposable scenarios. But "Knowing 'em by heart" kinds of kills the replay value and defeats the purpose, IMO.

ORIGINAL: mooxe
Unless CCMT is a recruiting tool for the USMC I cant understand how this hidden VL issue ever made it to the final release. There should at the very least be an on/off button.

CCMT's TOE is US Army so it's not USMC advertising.
I'd also like to have viewable VL's.
Search and destroy is too tasking.

If not tags pointing to the exact location, then the general area where the VL's are located would be nice. I could live with that too. I really don't want VL tags that change when they're occupied, as this is an obvious target for support fire. In real life you wouldn't know if the objective is occupied or not anyway, unless you have imagery or other recon material available.

Nice idea... More text to describe the VL on the map.
E.g. "Mosque", "Residential Block", etc.
Anyway, when I create my own missions, I will take this into consideration.

I've worked with Marines, and spent about ten years on active duty in the army.  If you are not going to show VLs, that is great, but you do owe us some type of ops graphics.  I expect to see objectives clearly marked, routes to be taken marked, check points marked.  Known or suspected enemy locations should be marked, unit boundaries should be marked, ect...   Give me at least the objectives and routes/checkpoints and I won't need VLs.  Without that it turns into a guessing game that I bet the marines did not deal with...

ORIGINAL: needle

I'd be extremely happy if someone did a mod to the original maps with VLs shown. I hate hidden VLs .

A mod that shows VLs can be easily made with in-game Editor - one just needs to put Landmark Lables over all VLs.

My problem with the VL's isn't so much that they are hidden, its these 2 things:

1) They aren't always at what I would consider strategic locations.  They are often out in the far corners of the map where I wouldn't normally waste any of my units and seem to contribute little to control of the area.  Look at Scenario 01 for example.  What significance to the VL's in the NE and SW corners have?  And why are there none on the ridge line north of where the US forces start?  Can we at least put them in the obvious observation points like along ridge lines, tops of hills, etc?

2) You have to stumble right over them to tigger them.  It should be who has more troops in the general area.  Then its not about an easter egg hunt its about occupying an area which makes more sense.  Another example from Scenario 01:  The obvious (and correct) VL location at the top of the bald hill in the NW section of the map was originally controlled by the OPFOR.  I wiped out their entire force, they didn't have a single unit left on the map, I sent an AFV up to the top of the ridge with 10 minutes left in the game and waited till the timer ran out.  It was still OPFOR controlled and I ended up with a draw!  Why? because I hand't found the exact 'hex' that the VL was in.  That makes no sense to me. 

I'll post a couple of engagements today with marked VL's..... let me know what you think.

ORIGINAL: CptJake

I've worked with Marines, and spent about ten years on active duty in the army.  If you are not going to show VLs, that is great, but you do owe us some type of ops graphics.  I expect to see objectives clearly marked, routes to be taken marked, check points marked.  Known or suspected enemy locations should be marked, unit boundaries should be marked, ect...   Give me at least the objectives and routes/checkpoints and I won't need VLs.  Without that it turns into a guessing game that I bet the marines did not deal with...

Your right, they didn't. What they did do is draw those markups on an 8" x 11" printed map, which you can do too if you really need to.

New user made map and scenario with VL's

http://www.closecombat.org/CSO/index.php?name=CmodsDownload&file=index&req=viewdownload&cid=33&orderby=dateD

"Your right, they didn't. What they did do is draw those markups on an 8" x 11" printed map, which you can do too if you really need to. "
 
Except I didn't design the scenarios, the scenario designer ought to provide the ops graphics.   Heck, most of the mssion statements would flunk a student in BNCOC or the officer basic course for a combat MOS.  It makes it hard as the player to figure out what is expected.  I can go with a military style order and graphics, but unless the scenario designer lets me, the plyer, know what is expected it is very difficult.
 
Jake