Author |
Message |
Topic: Close Combat 2: A Bridge Too Far |
NeOmega
Replies: 1
Views: 13645
|
Forum: H2H Multiplayer Posted: Sat Feb 09, 2013 10:29 pm Subject: Re: Close Combat 2: A Bridge Too Far |
where did u disapear 2? it says no player found! |
Topic: AT guns |
NeOmega
Replies: 16
Views: 30890
|
Forum: The Mess Posted: Sat Feb 09, 2013 5:06 pm Subject: Re: AT guns |
or let me restate that for the purpose of the game it dosnt add up vs lets say getting an option to surpress a large section of a wheat feild or whatever otherwise u are telling them to fire at a small section of ground in real life u surpress a larger area therefore for in the game the offence needs to be able to target back |
Topic: AT guns |
NeOmega
Replies: 16
Views: 30890
|
Forum: The Mess Posted: Sat Feb 09, 2013 2:40 pm Subject: Re: AT guns |
thats all this post was about coi and rr at guns are crazy i love the russian font but blind fireing everywhere? all the time with line of site issues its crazy and unrealistic |
Topic: AT guns |
NeOmega
Replies: 16
Views: 30890
|
Forum: The Mess Posted: Fri Feb 08, 2013 11:44 pm Subject: Re: AT guns |
not 2 mention u are going off base if its dug in it better be in a gun whole otherwise its not dug in in coi and if it isnt in a forest there isnt trees and shit around it ive seen it on the top hill in the second map first op invisible. in real life my recon on the 1st hill under 300 meters should see it but i even moved them under 100 meters still nothing and yes its shooting i can see the plums of smoke but my men cant see it its like they need glasses and if u read my original post you would see that i agree at guns may get the 1st shot(most defenders do) but they give there positions away and yes most of your camo is for Air recon(pre attack) purposes that way i dont have u marked on my map. i take the close combat map litterally that at gun sits where it sits your adding all kinds of speculative thinking "oh it could have this it could have that dug in bla blah blah" also theres a big difference between buttoned up driveing and driving open top which is standard until u get a read on the enemy its also how they man the mg and comunicate with infantry (radio sometimes work shity) |
Topic: AT guns |
NeOmega
Replies: 16
Views: 30890
|
Forum: The Mess Posted: Fri Feb 08, 2013 10:38 pm Subject: Re: AT guns |
oh and i just read your post and yes it is classified as artillary by your reasoning a light and heavy bomber wouldnt both be bombers becouse one goes farther maybe your alil 2 old |
Topic: AT guns |
NeOmega
Replies: 16
Views: 30890
|
Forum: The Mess Posted: Fri Feb 08, 2013 10:38 pm Subject: Re: AT guns |
oh and i just read your post and yes it is classified as artillary by your reasoning a light and heavy bomber wouldnt both be bombers becouse one goes farther maybe your alil 2 old |
Topic: AT guns |
NeOmega
Replies: 16
Views: 30890
|
Forum: The Mess Posted: Fri Feb 08, 2013 10:34 pm Subject: Re: AT guns |
let me put it simply whats harder 2 see infantry? or a at gun surounded by infantry? its pretty clear mathmaticaly to me |
Topic: Will we ever see a Close Combat game on another system? |
NeOmega
Replies: 1
Views: 22490
|
Forum: The Mess Posted: Fri Feb 08, 2013 9:50 pm Subject: Re: Will we ever see a Close Combat game on another system? |
release cc2 on psn network, i wish |
Topic: AT guns |
NeOmega
Replies: 16
Views: 30890
|
Forum: The Mess Posted: Fri Feb 08, 2013 9:39 pm Subject: Re: AT guns |
camo on vehicles and artillery primarily for air. i got that from my experience in the united states army. at gun doug in thus invisible? trust me when it fires withen a k of you you will get a pretty clear idea where it came from. gun bunnys dont rely on camo in a fire fight they require protection from other ellements u make it sound like its some sort of sniper instead of artillery and it is artillery. spotting from inside vehicle tank apc whatever u are right we tankers relied on the eyes on the ground but thats why we have eyes on the ground. and ther are alot of eyes to see defencive positions and giant guns. and dont get camo twisted its not some miracle that makes everything invisible. infact night time was the only time it impressed me. |
Topic: AT guns |
NeOmega
Replies: 16
Views: 30890
|
Forum: The Mess Posted: Fri Feb 08, 2013 6:32 pm Subject: AT guns |
why do alot of people think they should be extremly hard to see? in COI ive had recon under 100 meters still invisible and REAL RED is worse. we are talking a 1500+ lbs gun. some say it could be camoflauged i say artillery camo is primarily for air recon. you can tell its a big ass man made object that is throwing some big ass rounds out. this is close combat people, an american soldier qualifies at 300 meters with a m16 i qualified at 1 mile with a m2 50 cal yet they cant see the at gun? granted it should and would prob get thefirst shot but to stay invisibe as if it had some sort of star trek cloaking devise WTF! the creaters need to keep it realistic cc2 was a simulation but the later u go it fills more arcade im not sure about cc 4,5 and the remakes but the russian front is rediculous right now cc3 regular seems it could be a good sim but cant find anyone to play regular everyone is rr or coi. |
Topic: DISCONECTIONS |
NeOmega
Replies: 1
Views: 3673
|
Forum: Close Combat 2: A Bridge Too Far Posted: Thu Mar 08, 2012 9:12 pm Subject: DISCONECTIONS |
There are a couple different msg's u get on cc2 when you get disconected I figure the net congeustion msg is when there is a real disconect it gives u the option to wait and attemp a reconction ofcourse it seems to never reconect however there is a different msg where a soldier yells game aborted all of a suden and you get a msg saying the game was aborted returning to main menue or something like that any way i know this is the same msg you get when someone quites in deployment......does anyone have a better understanding of this? |
|