Matrix Games Forums

Here's a good visual argument for larger deploy areas for forces entering a map...

overview...

I'll pass the suggestion along Zon. Thanks!

Yeah but why didn't the Germans expand their zone by moving their guys through the building to the North? That set-up area looks pretty viable to me. The problem for the AI (I assume it's the AI that got massacred?) is that it sees the victory location in Southeast corner as being closer so it goes there. Put a VC at the south end of the brown building and the problem disappears?

Or rotate the VLs so that the 'to Westervoort' VL moves to where 'to Velp' was, the 'to Velp' VL moves to the top right map corner, and the 'to North Arnhem' VL moves to the west side of the bridge road. The revised 'to Westervoort' VL location is one deployment tile column to the left of where 'to Velp' is now, making the new 'to Westervoort' deployment area almost reach the bldg circled in red.

Yeah you could compensate by changing the maps but that seems somewhat limiting to me. Then all your maps have to have little pockets of protection which seems like a homogenous way of approaching it. Not to mention that removes a part of what makes CC interesting. i.e. when a human opponent chooses to enter a map with bad deploy in hopes of gaining a larger strategic advantage. The risk factor.

If the AI could be made to consider the protection available when making moves on the strat map that would be ideal but that sounds like an impossibility to me. Then again, I'm not a programmer so I don't know. Perhaps VL's could have a "protection" value associated with them but then that's a judgement call by a person. Another point for all to disagree upon. Not sure there's an easy answer that would satisfy all.

Some good suggestions. Worth giving some thought for possible ways of enhancing the system. Keep firing the ideas off.

The Arnhem bridge massacre above is really just a good illustration of the sort of problems such a narrow deploy presents at times, the realism issue aside. It's just too tough to break out of the box in many cases, especially when friendly terrain and buildings are lacking and the attacking force is the AI. A well-placed MG and a mortar barrage can beat up a force pretty bad, pretty quick. With all those targets packed together, you can't miss. I may be missing something integral to the map entry system, but I don't see any reason the deploy areas can't be widened, even if there is an infringement on a neutral VL.

But in your specific example, if the set-up is made bigger won't it infringe on your control of Southeast Corner. I seriously would not be happy about losing the corner of that building without a fight.

Peterk1 you're right. That's one reason why the deploy is as it is. The VL is preventing the oncoming BG from owning that VL or putting it in no mans land. Wouldn't make much sense if the British didn't control that VL by the bridge but I can also see the point Zon is making. Some good stuff to think about.

No, I would not want to give up the key bridge buildings to an entering BG. What I was thinking is that BGs would not penetrate far at all on entry, but would have more of shallow and wide starting point along the map edge (probably more realistic).

Hi guys I think the Assault on Mook by KG Goebel is a key example of a deployment zone that will lead to a massacre.

This would be impossible in a HvH IMO

ORIGINAL: zon

No, I would not want to give up the key bridge buildings to an entering BG. What I was thinking is that BGs would not penetrate far at all on entry, but would have more of shallow and wide starting point along the map edge (probably more realistic).

Ah okay. Cool idea. Sort of a front type thing. Would be a nice enhancement. Will suggest it to Steve. Thanks Zon.

ORIGINAL: Rift

Hi guys I think the Assault on Mook by KG Goebel is a key example of a deployment zone that will lead to a massacre.

This would be impossible in a HvH IMO

Yeah that's one instance which neither a wide nor deep deploy zone would make a bit of difference. I'm pretty sure it'd be a bad idea to have deploy zones tailored to each VL. Hard coding as little as possible is preferred for obvious reasons.

Changing the VL's will improve how the AI moves, but it should have used the blue building to begin with for a lot of troops to start with good cover/protection. Then these units could provide covering fire for advancing....

Agreed. That's some pretty good cover with a nice covered route up the east side of the map. I'm wondering how a more aggressive AI will effect this facet of things? Even less likely to make use of available cover? Pros and cons to every decision.

ORIGINAL: Tejszd

Changing the VL's will improve how the AI moves, but it should have used the blue building to begin with for a lot of troops to start with good cover/protection. Then these units could provide covering fire for advancing....

And good use of smoke would help, but come to think of it I don't think I have ever seen AI use smoke, except for vehicles under fire.