Command and Control On or Off?

RayM · Post by **RayM** » Sun Mar 31, 2002 9:58 am

As part of my learning curve, I've turned to investigating C&C and how and when I should use it or not. For the moment, I'm trying to figure out the mechanics and well as how I can use it to improve my play...or it is more useful purpose in reducing the click fest that I'm sure the larger scenarios include? I've looked in the 5.0 manual and found some information and one question in the FAQ chapter.

My tutorial play so far involved turning it off and moving the units. However, I realize that larger scenarios will call for using it in some or perhaps many upcoming battles.

I (and probably other new players as well) would be interested in any observations more experienced players would like to make about the subject. Thanks.

Fallschirmjager · Post by **Fallschirmjager** » Sun Mar 31, 2002 10:06 am

Im new as well and I hate it.

I fail to see how its fun.
Its a game and the whole point of interactive games is for me to control what I see on screen.

Supervisor · Post by **Supervisor** » Sun Mar 31, 2002 10:10 am

It really adds a whole new perspective to the game when it's on.

“On” means that headquarters units generate command points (orders) and must expend them to change the formation objective, change a unit stance, call in artillery strikes or move away from the formation objective. “Off” means that units do not generate or need orders. Note that even if command control is enabled, some headquarters and recon units do not have to expend orders to move away from the formation objective.

The SPWAW Command and Control system is not intended to be a realistic simulation of command in the Second World War, but it is intended to force a player to do three things:
1. Think ahead. You have to think through a plan about where you what your troops to be at least a couple of turns in advance. If you change your mind in the middle of a battle, you may find your troops unable to comply with your new orders.
2. Maneuver by platoon. You are typically a battalion or regimental commander, commanding several companies whose basic maneuver element is the platoon. SP: WAW units may besquads and individual vehicles, but players need to think in terms of maneuvering platoons.
3. Pay attention to stance. Troops can be either advancing or defensively seeking cover. Alternating platoons from supporting positions “in cover” with those carefully advancing will greatly reduce casualties. Certain actions performed by units in the game require the use of “orders.” In general, orders are needed to call in artillery and to order friendly units to deviate from pre-assigned objectives. Key to this are the formation commanders or “HQ” units. These are identified easily by the parentheses (i.e. (+) or (8) around the unit formation pip, or troop indicator). As the formation takes casualties, the new HQ unit will be identified in this way, making it easier to determine who are the important command units. Command and control is easy to use if you remember the three things outlined above:
• Have a scheme of maneuver – this is implemented using objectives. The most common mistake is “just moving the troops” without assigning an objective. You will always be running out of orders and get very frustrated!
• Keep you platoons together, if possible all within 3 hexes of the HQ. That will maximize unit cohesion advantages to morale and suppression recovery and ensure they remain in contact with the HQ. When moving always move the HQ LAST so you don’t leave a unit out of command and control
• Use stance appropriately. Advance in bounds by formation with one formation coving the advance of another from a defend stance. This will maximize OpFire opportunities and give defending units the opportunity to get “in cover”.

I hope this helps sum things up about C&C

Fallschirmjager · Post by **Fallschirmjager** » Sun Mar 31, 2002 10:18 am

I wasnt knocking it.
I guess the point I was trying to make was that the game makes me commander and that I can issue unlimited commands

KG Erwin · Post by **KG Erwin** » Sun Mar 31, 2002 10:54 am

Hey, I think Command & Control is something that Combat Leader should address in a better way than the complexities of SPWaW. I never use it. I prefer the old board-game "hand of God" approach, in that I can move any unit within the limits of their movement factors. The HQ units become what I feel they should be, simply rallying points. However, I still try to keep my units organized in a cohesive manner and try not to lose communication with their respective HQs.

White Phosphorus · Post by **White Phosphorus** » Sun Mar 31, 2002 11:01 am

Originally posted by Fallschirmjager
I wasnt knocking it.
I guess the point I was trying to make was that the game makes me commander and that I can issue unlimited commands

Commanders cannot issue unlimited commands. Creveld's "Command in War" does a very good job describing just how real battle command takes place. Commanders cannot control individual units, and they can barely handle formations. They don't sit in front of a screen with the entire battle at their fingertips. They come up with a general 8 - 150 page battle plan, distribute it among their subordinates, and order it's execution. Once the battle starts they can barely keep up with what's going on (confusing static laden battle reports, smoke shrouded over flights, hills that allow you to see only a small part of the fight), ordering a change from the top down is extremely difficult, especially when nobody is sure of what is actually taking place.

badinfo · Post by **badinfo** » Sun Mar 31, 2002 11:08 am

Squad Leader had the hand of God approach but several board games and many miniatures rules used C+C rules to more effectively simulate the realities of command. The chit system used in Yaquinto's Close Assault was a novel approach that worked pretty well. GDW's Command Decision also used a limited number of orders per turn to encourage planning ahead and use of formation movement instead of moving each individual unit willy nilly. None of them were perfect, but they gave a better feel IMO. The Combat Mission use of AI for your troops as well as the puter controlled ones is nice, though they still let you move every unit.
Most games end up with a compromise of some sort. You should only be ordering platoons around as a company commander but your units dont think for themselves so the designer has to let you move them too, but you have the benefit of "helicopter view" to make decisions, info that your troopies wouldnt have in most cases.
Battalia is the only game I have played that tries to put you in the commanders saddle as it were, and even there you can scroll around the battlefield and see things you shouldn't. I tried playing Combat Mission a few times from the worms eye view, was interesting but somewhat difficult to pull off. Worth a try though lol.

skukko · Post by **skukko** » Sun Mar 31, 2002 1:30 pm

Hi

C&C On is way to get everything out of spwaw. It is only thing that makes AI behave as it should be.

Ok, there is also oddities in that behavior as tanks not moving, trucks retreating to AIs retreat flag and stubborn defenders that die but not retreat.

I don't agree that spwaw handles complicated this issue, it is in reality very complicated to keep contact and reverse to another location without radios, damaged lines to arty, dispersed platoons of infantry...etc...

If you want to know difference in command structure and support that is gained by it, try to play US or German with C&C On. It relatively easy compared to early SO, UK and Japan... Did you know that T-34s didn't have radios, only few in whole brigade, and guys were signaling with flags to each other in manouvers ? Its hard to do in battle so most of the time Sovjets didn't have any tactics but numeral advantage and belief in their matter. Same thing in SO infantry, even in -44 infantry did leave their positions because they didn't know about their flanks, were they secured or not. And when you've tried this take Brits and set their infantry and armor in co-op... Later in war this contact-issue was not big disadvantage and nations were quite even.

How then simulate chaos after first shots if not with playing C&C On ? It is annoying and gets you mad sometimes, but its realism that I would like to see simulated even more. Might in next generation game, CL or CA have ot

And playing pbems C&C On is great !

mosh

zaxilon · Post by **zaxilon** » Sun Mar 31, 2002 3:16 pm

I like the "Hand of God" approach as some of you put it. I dont really care to have someting other than me control my pieces in a game. To me playing with C&C on is kind of like Napolionic gaming using Column Line and Square rules. It is to restrictive for my taste. If this were a real time game format then that would make things a lot different but I can spend several weeks if I want to deciding some trivial action during gameplay.

I have been gaming for many decades and I have played many rulesets with many formats like boardgames, miniatures and computer games in many different genres. My gaming friends and I have created many of our own rulesets. So I know what I like. If I decide I want to make a change on the fly I want to do it. Hey, its a game. I enjoy the tactical aspects and I dont care to get caught up in the paperwork as it were. I have played many games where they were centered around C&C ruleings and they are fun but I dont want that here. Here I want it flexible. I dont mind my units being inactive due to being out of contact. But I dont want my entire order of battle disrupted on a technicality. Because then the game becomes centered around C&C orchestration and that is not what I want.

Well, just my opinion, and you know what they say about opinions.

Later,
Zaxilon

Warrior · Post by **Warrior** » Sun Mar 31, 2002 4:27 pm

99.9% of the time I play with C & C off. I like to think that my troops are all elite killers who can think for themselves. They know the objectives, and don't need help from some brass hat to get to them!

On the other hand, when I design, I make an effort to keep units together so a player who likes C & C won't have too much trouble, but I never test my scenarios with it on.

Major Destruction · Post by **Major Destruction** » Fri Apr 05, 2002 8:41 am

One problem for players new to using C2 is that they expect to practice with it in scenarios. Many, if not most, scenarios were not designed with C2 in mind and therefore will not play properly with C2 ON.

I always play with C2 ON in pbem but rarely in scenario play unless the designer has made mention of the fact that C2 has been designed into the scenario.

I have been playing Russian Steel with C2 on and it works very well.

My scenario Gotanda's Advance was designed for play with C2 ON and is equally playable as Japan or Australia. It does not, therefore, play well with C2 OFF.

Colonel von Blitz · Post by **Colonel von Blitz** » Fri Apr 05, 2002 1:23 pm

This talking about C&C and Stance made me wonder; If I leave C&C off, does it matter what is my units stance...is there point switching stances back and forth though C&C is off? Just wondering

Colonel von Blitz

skukko · Post by **skukko** » Fri Apr 05, 2002 3:11 pm

Herr Colonel; I don't know if stances affect without C&C. They might be help formation/unit to dig foxholes faster but do stance give them extra cover.. that I don't know.

Anyway, I'll have to say that I am now little confused as Rockin Harry found from manual text that pretty clearly says that AI don't give **** to C&C state. What I've said about C&C and gaming it On is base on experience, my own gaming, so you may think what you want about value of my opinions in AI and C&C On

mosh

Major Destruction · Post by **Major Destruction** » Fri Apr 05, 2002 6:28 pm

Good question Skukko,

If your unit is in defend stance and is in cover, then you change the stance to advance, the unit remains in cover. But does the unit continue to enjoy the same benefits of cover in advance stance as in defend stance?

Charles2222 · Post by **Charles2222** » Fri Apr 05, 2002 8:52 pm

Colonel Von Blitz:

This talking about C&C and Stance made me wonder; If I leave C&C off, does it matter what is my units stance...is there point switching stances back and forth though C&C is off? Just wondering

Ahhhh. That may be one of the more obscure, but main reasons why many don't use C&C. If you jockey between defense and attack constantly, you'll never have enough orders. I remember I used to play like that when I first started playing (not an insult BTW, but I mention that to relay that it is possible to forget how you used to think, even if the old strategy had some advanatges you might currently miss somewhat. I've clearly had times even offensives where changing stance to defend would've been beneficial, but my mindset has changed so much that it's difficult). I was so keyed up on the idea that defensive stances gave me advantages in the attack that I neglected to consider how signifigantly it was slowing my attacks. About the only practical way I might consider switching to defense would be if the mission were defensive in the first place and a unit got knocked into advance by virtue of it's knocked from it's original spot, or anywhere I have guns towards some distance from the front (of course all but a few recon units would be in defense for defensive missions).

I'm sure those used to dealing with waypoints have thought of the idea of setting waypoints on either their own flank or the enemy rear, so that waypoint resetting is often unnecessary, but switching back and forth between stances can EAT orders big time.

One bad thing often enough about scenarios that use C&C, is that the designer doesn't think of assigning waypoints for you. In any case, even if they do, they may often be waypoints that might be very counter to how you want to use a platoon. First turn of a battle, especially since scenarios are often too short, isn't a good time to be resetting waypoints, much worse for some nationalities than others.

Major Destruction · Post by **Major Destruction** » Sat Apr 06, 2002 1:23 am

One more word on waypoints.
Setting waypoints is beneficial for scenario designers who wish for the AI to move the computer player's forces along a pre-determined path.
Waypoints do not affect how the human player's units will move unless the human player switches some of his units over to computer control in the Headquarters Menu. Setting waypoints during your deployment might help you to rmember your original plan once the battle has advanced a few turns. I have not found any use for this tactic.

This is a trick that I often use when playing online battles where I may wish to advance a company to a certain point on the map behind my main advance. Then, I can concentrate my limited time on my front line units and allow the AI to move my computer controlled units after my time has expired. This tactic is not without inherent problems caused by the movement of your opponent's units. In PBEM play I can see no advantage whatever to turning over your units to the AI.

Warrior · Post by **Warrior** » Sat Apr 06, 2002 2:34 am

Originally posted by Major Destruction
My scenario Gotanda's Advance was designed for play with C2 ON and is equally playable as Japan or Australia. It does not, therefore, play well with C2 OFF.

Now I know which scenario to use when I decide I need to learn more about C&C.

Greg McCarty · Post by **Greg McCarty** » Sat Apr 06, 2002 9:31 am

If you wan't to experience a game of SPwaw which simulates
as close as possible the actual command difficulties of a
WWII tactical situation --then use C&C. I use it when I want
the maximum challenge from a scenario. I don't usually use it
in MCs because they're tough enough as it is. I hear a lot of people whine about it. But one does have a choice here.
The questions you must ask yourself are: how much realism
do I want to experience? --and how good at this game do I want to become? I'll make an analogy:

You want to run this "hot-rod" wide open? There's the
accellerator; its called C&C. Your move.

skukko · Post by **skukko** » Sat Apr 06, 2002 4:47 pm

Now I know which scenario to use when I decide I need to learn more about C&C.

by Warrior

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Hey man; I have whole Tiger campaign made for hardcore C&C On gamers

I did some very nasty things that loose their value if campaign is played C&C Off...

Check it out and say what you think:

http://www.militarygameronline.com/steelpanthers/

mosh

El Vito · Post by **El Vito** » Sat Apr 06, 2002 6:36 pm

Playing with CC on is for us crusty veterans. maybe when you get older you can play with the big boys. there may be flaws but its better than all-knowing squads out of contact with everyone cuz the platoon leader is 2 kliks away. CC on is just a more realistic type of fight where you have to think more as a platoon and company. It also reduces the efficiency of accurate artillery because the FO's only have so many orders. You also have to take more time at the start to set objectives and some attention to detail with your units and who they are drawing orders from. I can pull all kinds of manuevers with my radioless Russian tank formations. River crossings, purges, whatever. CC on also encourages you to buy whole Companies so you can get the CO. commander. I know, I know, your halftrack was one hex away from the infantry squad but it was out of contact and couldnt pick it up. so why didnt you give the infantry unit and halftrack the same objective if they are different formations. The realism factor outweighs some of the little problems that can be overcome with a little electrical activity in the synapses. and believe me I got very little of it going on and I can still manage CC on.
El Vito

Command and Control On or Off?

Command and Control On or Off?

I want it OFF

CC on is the real thing