Search found 193 matches

@Dima: Yeah. They've passed up on 'bigger better faster more' for 'make it all fit together properly'. It's a lot more strategic than the previous lot. I'm digging it.

@Southern Land: It's a different beast, but just as worthwhile. Empire is the culmination of the mega-strategy Total War concept. It all fits together really well, and it's huge and diverse. Shogun 2 streamlines everything so you can focus better on precision strategy. That said, I've already made a number of strategic errors.

Ehem... normal cough, cough.

I could never accept that difficulty level could affect the values to that great a degree. 6 million Yen per season should never happen, no matter what difficulty you are playing. I am still not sure what combination of elements went into that little auto-hack. I wonder if the AI was reaping that much cash before I redirected his funds?

No surprise that I own it already, and have played it a fair bit over the last few weeks. It is amazingly gorgeous, and I like the experience system. The overall play style is a lot tighter than usual, which is also a plus.

The down points are that there isn't a HUGE diversity in units. Specifically, there isn't much reason to play through as each different clan; not that I can see, anyway. Same goes for castles. You spend a far amount of time laying siege to five different types of castles. I would have hoped for a bit more variation or uniqueness to each. The other down point was that in my first campaign I somehow managed to start raiding enemy trade routes for about 6 million Yen per season, which kind of took the challenge out of it. I have restarted, and I am hoping it doesn't happen again.

I still love it, though, for all my complaints. I still play everything from TW Rome forwards.

Jesus... are you guys still going? Are you ever going to stop? EVER?

I know, maybe you can all jerry-rig some sort of massive online game of CC where all of you are wired up so that when your soldiers die you get 10,000V electric shocks to the groin. That way, you can all express physically the sentiments that you seem to be trying to express in writing.

People are ridiculous.

Wow, mooxe, you had me scratching my head for a bit there; it's been so long.

The first wargame ever would have to be 1/72 scale army men in the mud under the carport.

I think the first board wargame was probably Mechwarrior.

The first computer wargame... it was either Defender of the Crown or The Ancient Art of War. I can't remember which came first.

I am now wondering how many here are old enough to remember these games.

EDIT - Ha! Well, mooxe, I see you are at least! Wink

vonB - I hope my comments show to clearly be fence-sitting. I'm just saying that there's good points and bad points to the current CC situation, and it would be nice to have this game move into the present, but that is a Utopian dream.

It's a shame really; people who've never played CC don't know what they're missing out on, and we are all missing out on a modern CC experience. Close Combat is the best RTS experience outside of Total War. Actually, maybe the Creative Assembly will move into the WWI & then WWII eras for their next couple of games. After all, they've pretty much gone back over the old material again so there's not much room left in the ancient world for another TW game. That would do me just fine.

Not a lot has happened in the last 3 months. Work has consumed a lot of time and energy. Things seem to have settled down this month - thank christ - and I actually have time to think now, so I should hopefully get back into it soon. The German units list is the big hurdle at the moment. I might have to steer around that one for the time being.

Why can I never just leave this s#!@ alone?

Whilst I don't necessarily agree with the severity of the original rant, I can agree that it would be nice to have an evolution of CC instead of what amounts to just the offspring of the original games. However, I love the CC recipe, and so I can enjoy playing any of the games.

I also think people tend to glorify memories of the past. CC1 was crap, but a good idea. CC2 was awesome, but not perfect. CC3 evolved the game in some directions, but devolved in others. I've still never played CC4. CC5 had all of the elements for awesomeness, but was slapped together. CCMT again moved back to the CC3 model, both in how it was set out, and in the whole "move forwards in some aspects, move backwards in others". RTB doesn't interest me.

The Matrix efforts seem to me as though they are learning to make their own game by remaking the old ones. That may sound harsh, I don't know, but it's true. Each game is a reworking of the original version of that game, and each Matrix game then takes the things they added to the previous remake, adds it to the next remake, and then adds new reworking on top of that. They have added a lot of cool things, but the fact remains that it's still the same engine. A very old engine.

Graphically, and operationally, the game would benefit from a major re-working. I keep saying it; the formula that makes CC so good is: no unit building/limited squads, limited ammo, overhead view, strategic level & battle level maps, and team psychology. Make a new (3D doesn't have to be a bad word) engine that sticks to that recipe, and I reckon it would still be as good, if not better, than the originals.

vonB's comments have me intrigued. I hope to see the memoirs. Wink

Hey schreck', does the "dartboard of Matrix" moniker ever get tiresome? ;)

I'm 98% positive I tested the blown bridge passage thing when I first played the game, and it wouldn't let me pass. Unless coding has been accidentally altered in a patch, or there's particular bridges that it happens with - but that second one would be odd, as I would think this attribute was coded into the exe.

Like I said, the only thing I can think of is that, if the "freedom of passage" thing is about tracing passable terrain to map connections, then it may be in the map terrain coding. In other words, if S3T have inadvertently made a permanent connection between both banks when cleaning up the terrain coding that doesn't disconnect when the bridge element state changes to "blown", then the engine wouldn't register a terrain obstacle, so it would still let you pass.

The original state of things at release definitely disconnected the opposite bank on all the bridges that got blown up during my initial campaign.

Oh, whilst digging around, I discovered that the 60mm Mortar and 81mm Mortar have their valid target value set as 7 (All), whilst all the other mortars in the list are set at 4 (Ground).

I'm assuming that 4-Ground is the correct entry, so you may all want to dig in there and change those around. Not sure how much of a difference it makes, but... you never know.

Still slowly working through entering the data into a workbook. Currently on AlsTeams, Soldiers (all the Allied soldier types), and Weapons.

Current working Soldiers list is this:

UK 2inMtr/LeeEnfield
UK 2inMtr/Sten
UK 3inMtr/Sten
UK 4.2inMtr/Sten
UK Ack Pack
UK Bren
UK EnfieldNo2
UK LeeEnfield
UK LeeEnfield(T)
UK PIAT
UK PIAT/Sten
UK Sten/EnfieldNo2
UK StenMk2
UK StenMk5
UKAB 2inMtr/Colt
UKAB 2inMtr/Sten
UKAB 3inMtr/LeeEnfield
UKAB 3inMtr/Sten
UKAB 4.2inMtr/Sten
UKAB Ack Pack/Colt
UKAB Bren
UKAB Bren/Colt
UKAB BrowningHP
UKAB Colt
UKAB LeeEnfield
UKAB LeeEnfield(T)
UKAB LeeEnfield(T)/Colt
UKAB Pattern1914MkII
UKAB PIAT/Colt
UKAB PIAT/Sten
UKAB StenMk5/BrowningHP
UKAB StenMk5/Colt
UKAB StenMk2
UKAB StenMk5
UKAB Vickers
UKAB Vickers/Colt
UKGP 2inMtr/Sten
UKGP Bren/Colt
UKGP LeeEnfield
UKGP PIAT/Sten
UKGP Sten/Colt
UKGP StenMk2
UKGP StenMk5
UKRE LeeEnfield/Exp
UKRE StenMk2/Exp
UKVC Colt
UKVC EnfieldNo2
UKVC StenMk2
USAB 50cal
USAB 50cal/Carbine
USAB 60mmMtr/Carbine
USAB 81mmMtr/Carbine
USAB BAR
USAB BAR/Colt
USAB Bazooka
USAB Bazooka/Carbine
USAB Carbine
USAB Carbine/Colt
USAB Flamethrower/Colt
USAB Garand
USAB GarandGrn
USAB GarandM1C
USAB GarandM1C/Colt
USAB GreaseGun
USAB GreaseGun/Colt
USAB M1919A4/Colt
USAB M1919A6/Carbine
USAB Thompson
USAB Thompson/Colt
USEng Carbine/Exp

Which may change a little as we work through it all.

Adding in three weapons for the allies:

4.2inch Mortar
Browning HP
Pattern 1914 Enfield Mk 2

Now, we know the HPs weren't taken up as standard loadout by the AB until after OMG, but I saw Sean Connery with one, so...

... I'm not sure of when Inglis started actually being able to supply these, but they are just such an awesome weapon that we had to put in at least a small number of them for high ranking COs. I mean, come on... who doesn't want one of these babies in their squad?

Also, keeping with what I've found from research, the main squad suppression weapon will be the M1919A6. However, as it seems clear some BAR managed to work their way into the squads somehow, we will have at least a couple/few BAR teams available.

Since this is a mod for LSA, this thread will now continue here.

Well, this is where it belongs, I guess.

I'm going to tie it all in by linking back to the end of the original thread in TLD here.

So, to business...

Am I blind? I can't seem to see the 4.2 inch mortar anywhere in the LSA weapon list. Been over it a couple of times now.

Is there something I'm missing, or is this true?

Sadly, I'm not reading anything of the paper variety currently.

I'm listening to The History of Rome podcast and reading The Walking Dead comic on iPod.

I'm also working on the mod for LSA which entails reading a lot of web articles about weapons and ammo load-outs.

And, in the background, I've been working on an RPG system for the last 20 years. Currently, I've been doing a lot of reading about different mythologies and the like. Ireland has an incredible mythological history attached to it.

ARGH! Damned be to data entry. I had one team in the wrong place, so now I've got to go through and validate all of the data again.

Expletive!

One of my idea for advancing CC was to have your divisional and/or battalion HQs and Support formations as either seperate units, or a combined mobile unit on the stratmap. They would be pretty useless if not unable to fight against combat formations, but would be used in the following way:

* HQ Bgs give morale and combat bonuses to battle BGs, and possibly things like expanding the setup area on the battle maps, allowing for intel on opposing teams and such.
* Support formations provide artillery support for units on the same map and all adjacent maps, even if there's no map connection.


	Login or Register	Home · Downloads · Forums · Combat Camera · Help