Welcome to Close Combat Series
  Login or Register Home  ·  Downloads  ·  Forums  ·  Combat Camera  ·  Help  

  Survey
Do incapacitations count as a soldier's kills?

Yes
No



Results
Polls

Votes 1179
Comments: 1

  Shout Box!!

Only registered users can shout. Please login or create an account.

  Main Menu
Articles & News  
    Help
    Player`s News
    Site News
    Multiplayer
    Terrain Challenge
    Boot Camp
Community  
    Forums
    Downloads
    Combat Camera
    MOOXE @ Youtube
    Statistics
Members  
    Private Messages
    Your Account
    Logout

  Donations
Anonymous - $25.00
08/15/2022

Anonymous - $25.00
08/15/2022

Anonymous - $25.00
12/18/2021

Anonymous - $100.00
11/08/2021

Anonymous - $15.00
04/09/2021

Anonymous - $100.00
04/05/2021

Anonymous - $20.00
02/20/2021

Anonymous - $10.00
12/29/2020

Anonymous - $1.00
11/06/2020

ZAPPI4 - $20.00
10/10/2020

Find our site useful? Make a small donation to show your support.



Search for at
Close Combat Series Advanced Search


Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
 Author
Message
 
Felixtheboss77




PostPosted: Sat Sep 22, 2007 12:57 pm Post subject: Reply with quote

I think it would be cool if all battles are at the same time and you could switch between them!?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Snikksnakk4




PostPosted: Mon Dec 17, 2007 5:41 pm Post subject: Reply with quote

In a new version I would like to see:
- Medics attached to command squads treating wounded soldiers.
- Special units: Rangers, forward observers, RM, Hitler Jugend etc.
- Based on CC3, refit a unit with new men. Too many times I've seen great squads be disbanded because they lost 2-3 men.
- Transportation, let men rid with tanks or halftracks around the map. Faster gameplay.
- You command only a single regiment, lets you alternate between which battalion/company that fights that battle while other rests behind the front line ---> reinforcements while playing.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Captain_Animal




PostPosted: Wed Jan 02, 2008 11:07 am Post subject: more suggestions Reply with quote

I have been thinking of all the different little details that I think would improve playing the CC games. Perhaps there is a reason for them being in the game or not. Perhaps something could be used för a new CC game.

-At the start of the second battle of the same terrain the enemy had managed to build a gun turret in front of me. Interesting.
-I´m missing some kind of engine sound from vehicles. Just like mortars - the closer you are the more you can hear them. You hear armour long before you spott them.
-I was able to rest my units during a breakout battle. That was a good way to save my guns but perhaps it would have been better to loose everything that wasn´t mobile. That kind of battle are most often quite deperate.
-It seems to be nearly impossible to hurt tanks without anti-armour weapons. Not even if I have ten soldiers on top of a enemy tank they manage to shoot through the "observation openings" or put a grenade on the engine. Tanks that travel lonely, like the AI does, are most likely to die. Or at least should be.
-I sometimes miss the possibility to, at least, temporarely abandon guns or vehicles. The soldiers are now bravely sitting in their broken vehicles and waiting for death. It would be good if they could be used to defend their vehicle or gun.
- Among the categorys armour, inf, support... there could be one with supply. Then I could choose to bring a recovery-vehicle to the battle and save guns and damaged vehicles. My damaged vehicles somehow returns to me even if I have to withdraw. And perhaps some sort of first aid station or fieldambulance. Then units can bring wounded to them instead of dragging the wounded along. Or pick up wounded on the battlefield. Or a truck with more mortar-am. There are room for more units on the battlefield.
- Somehow some enemys survive if I place many well aimed highexplosive grenades at their muzzleflash ( or ontop of them) when they not are visual.
- Vehicle crews could sometimes do something about their vehicle when it for example throws a track. It is possible to fix and its better to try to do something instead of doing nothing when its completly calm.
- Camouflaging guns would be good so that they not are spotted so easily.
- Units are not digging in at all or the are not doing so during battle.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Sharp-shooter




PostPosted: Thu Jan 24, 2008 2:42 pm Post subject: Reply with quote

Hi every body!

Snikksnakk4 wrote:
In a new version I would like to see:
- Medics attached to command squads treating wounded soldiers.

Yes, good idea!

Quote:
- Special units: Rangers, forward observers, RM, Hitler Jugend etc.

Hmm... I'm not sure... but forward observers is necessary.

Quote:
- Based on CC3, refit a unit with new men. Too many times I've seen great squads be disbanded because they lost 2-3 men.
- Transportation, let men rid with tanks or halftracks around the map. Faster gameplay.
- You command only a single regiment, lets you alternate between which battalion/company that fights that battle while other rests behind the front line ---> reinforcements while playing.


And little from me: the connection the mechanic or system (limit of ammunition, individual soldiers behaviours etc.) from Close Combat 5 and graphic arts from Company of Heroes. I think that it would be good.

Sharp-shooter

P.S. I apologize for my poor English Wink.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
RISadler




PostPosted: Sat Jun 07, 2008 8:49 am Post subject: Reply with quote

The map should simulate the "fog of war" with:
  • depending whether accurate information (maps) are available or you have already taken it, the map should be dark by default;
  • visiblility (field of view) by overlaying known, but currently unseen territory, light gray.
The inset map should show captured territory with a green overlay.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
 
myguineapig




PostPosted: Fri Jun 13, 2008 12:52 am Post subject: Reply with quote

for me, it wouldnt feel like Close Combat if it was 3D
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Therion

Rep: 27.4
votes: 4


PostPosted: Fri Jun 13, 2008 1:54 pm Post subject: Reply with quote

For me too.

One thing that I'd love to see in CC6 would be a decent dynamic campaign where the player isn't a company commander/battalion commander/theatre commander/Immortal God Emperor, but a commander of platoon/company sized unit that is given orders.


Wonderland - my mod for Armored Brigade

Killing for peace is like fucking for orgasm.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
ANZAC_Tack

Rep: 22.3
votes: 1


PostPosted: Sat Jun 14, 2008 4:17 am Post subject: Reply with quote

I remember a programmer saying one day his ultimate war game would go from the 5 star generals planning, down to any level of planning, 2 d style,then into a CC 2d/3d,then when he wanted, zoom down as a sildier,tank commander, or even a pilot! imagine that, strategic, shooter and real time strategy. so many times i have had a MG that cant see,a gun that was JUST out of LOS or a tank that wont drive like i wanted, zoom down, fix it, and zoom back...way kool idea.


espree de corp
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail MSN Messenger
 
Therion

Rep: 27.4
votes: 4


PostPosted: Sat Jun 14, 2008 12:32 pm Post subject: Reply with quote

Sounds like Operation Flashpoint.


Wonderland - my mod for Armored Brigade

Killing for peace is like fucking for orgasm.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
slbm




PostPosted: Wed Aug 27, 2008 7:32 pm Post subject: Reply with quote

Well, I have some thoughts about the "future close combat" as I have been playing the series since CC2 release. I don't know if anyone is going to read it and make any use of it, but i'll post it just in case Smile

Gameplay:
* I believe, that the playing system with the strategy map introduced in CC IV is quite good and I like it. But some questions should be changed.

* If at the end of a battle player has some troops in an area that is isolated, the troops inside this area should be "remembered" somehow and bound to that area. I can believe, that over the night some foot soldiers might get in or out. But I don't think, that deploying an 88 mm FlaK 36 right at the nose of the enemy between two phases of the same day looks realistic. There should be an option to withdraw such isolated troops or reinforce them (with random losses on their "way"), but certainly without any heavy equipment.

* The player should be able to "hand over" his positions to another battlegroup without loosing entire map. Now if I disband/withdraw a group and replace it with another all my positions turn into no-man's land. Why?

*If the we are fighting on the "X" map, and the "Y" map, adjacent to the "X" has been occupied by some side for quite a time (certainly before the current battle turn) there should be a possibility, that an AI-controlled recon team (some recon vehicle, infantry squad maybe) appears from the directoin of that map.

* Gun/tank crews behaviour should be remodelled. They should not just lay on the battlefield in such a stupid manner. I can't know for sure, but I suspect, that if I were a tank crewmember, I wouldn't lie under my burning tank full of fuel and ammunition.

*If our gun/tank gets damaged beyond repair or simply destroyed, but a crew survives, we should be able to give them new tank/gun just as it was in CC3. It would be more reasonable, than putting some reserve troops.

*Let's imagine the situation, that we have two identical guns in one battle. One of them gets knocked out, but crew survives. The other one is still firing, but its crew suffered losses. In reality those people out there would be colleagues from the same battery, so the ones without a gun would certainly help the others (provided they would not be in panic of course). So they should join the still-active crew instead of lying somewhere nearby.

*I really think, that at larger maps (like eastern front ones) we should have - at least sometimes - artillery tractors. They would allow the player to withdraw from position impossible to defend without loosing precious equipment.

*There should also be an option to abandon gun/tank just as someone mentioned above.

*Of course there should be a fog of war. We should not be able to observe dead bodies of enemy killed with indirect mortar fire, if no our troops actually see them. Now random mortar-firing allows to discover enemy troop concentrations in this manner.

*We should not be informed so well about results of anti-tank fire. How a tank crew would know, that they "damaged" or "immobilized" an enemy vehicle, which is 1000 m away? Of course, sometimes results of the hit are obvious - when the turret blows up or if the infantry actually see destroyed tracks. But not always. The same for artillery support. How would the officer in command know that the howitzer fire has immobilized a tank, which has not even been detected?

*Tanks should certainly make some noise.

*As for the medics, mentioned by some people above, I see no real sense. The cases addressed by battlefield medics were usually heavy ones and we would not see those people back in combat during the same operation. Healing them "fast" would seem unrealistic.

*Environment should be a bit more destructible. Small wooden house hit by a 150 mm howitzer shell should collapse. Also a heavy tank should not be forced to go around a small tree or a wooden fence.

*Infantry should be more dangerous to tanks at close distance (as mentioned above) - I mean killing crew through slits and so on.

*There should be an option to "button/unbutton" tank crews - for better visibility (but at the cost of increased vulnerability).

*It should be possible to order mortar crews to fire their small arms (in defence for instance) even if they have some mortar shells left.

*Of course there should be artillery/air observers. They should be able to determine not only location of the target, but also direction of a bomb run.

*The aircraft should miss sometimes, especially when the target is close to friendly lines. I would love to see an anti-tank airplane accidentally attacking a friendly vehicle sometimes.

INTERFACE
*I would prefer good old 2D view, though I would not care if there was a 3D option of course.

*When selecting troops for the battle we should be able to see weapons' statistics to prepare a better "mix". Not everybody remembers all the characteristics against all the targets.

*Minefields shoud not be always visible.

AI
*Of course should be more aggresive. It should also adapt to the operation's objectives and "know" if it is only a local counterattack, or is it "expected" to quickly advance.

*AI troops should be able to use basic "fire and manoeuvre" tactics. It is simple enough to be coded I think.

*I would love to see the AI shooting also if they are not certain of enemy presence. For instance when attacking a house, I usually have one team shooting at it even (or especially) when I don't know if there is anyone inside. Just to provide cover to another team, which is on the run. AI should also to that sometimes.

*Gunners should choose their ammo more carefully. They should not always use their best ammo, if the target does not require it. It is not necessary to use a 7,5 cm Pzgr. 40 against a Stuart for instance and the gunner might want to save his best ammo for a more powerful enemy.

I hope that some day someone would make the wonderful CC series even better.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Ost_KinsK

Rep: 11.6


PostPosted: Sun Sep 26, 2010 8:04 pm Post subject: Re: My Close combat 6 idea Reply with quote

my cc6:

buildings within the more detailed effects on the shots, damage constructions, 100x100 Players Idea
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
MattyFo

Rep: 0.2


PostPosted: Mon Sep 27, 2010 6:44 am Post subject: Re: My Close combat 6 idea Reply with quote

I think CC6 should made as a fictional, modern day war. That way it could allow for a more "user-controlled" campaign. For example, The player could be able to decide the initial invasion, decide where to attack, where, if at all, to drop Airbornes, which units to be the spearhead etc.

  I think it would be a very neat addition if the enemy, and your side, could place artillery regiments, and AA positions somewhere in the stratmap.  This would allow heavy artillery barrages and no air support on the connecting maps.   That way before you start you main invasion, you could do Recce missions to find out where the enemy is the weakest, where there artillery and AA Guns are.  Also like in CCMT you should be able to have more than just one Air Strike, Mortar Barrage, Artillery.

Supply units would have to be implemented aswell, their purpose would be to supply the Regiments on connecting maps, with ammo and fuel, and allow for reinforcements.  Maybe they even move a tad slower then the Infantry and Armored Divisions?  Just a thought. If an Infantry Division moves to far ahead of the supply units and come under heavy combat they must dig in and wait for resupply, or pull back.

Also Medical Squads and field hospitals could be used aswell.  When a soldiers becomes incapacitated, he can be picked up by a medical team and be taken to a field hospital which must be on every map and defended by your team.  Of course the same goes for the enemy aswell.  Without medical aid unit's that are left incapacitated will die after a certain amount of time and raise the death toll of your war.

Another cool thing, having mentioned the "death toll", would be a way of measuring your citizens support for the war.  Somewhat like the moral system.  The more soldiers that die in the war, the less your citizens will support you.  Also a money system would be a realistic feature.  As you use Tanks, Infantry, Artillery, Air Strikes, etc.  it will cost you money and maybe you have a certain budget to abide by or something like that.  Or maybe the more money you spend the less likely your people will support you.  Once you lose support for your war you essentially lose the war and fail your mission.  

Lastly, and I think everyone would agree on this one, a complete overhall on the AI.  This game would need a much smarter and tactically sound AI.  They would have to understand the concepts of war, flanking, the proper use of mortars and artillery.  They would have to have the abilty to read the users movements and strategies in order to effectivley stop them and provide a very challenging game. The AI would also have to know ehre on the maps would be an ideal place to have ambushes etc.

I think it would be a great game, in the style of CC of course.  You have the ability to plan and execute your OWN war.  You could lead you side to great victory or perhaps lose support and have it end up like Vietnam.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
DAK_Legion

Rep: 86.3
votes: 20


PostPosted: Mon Sep 27, 2010 6:00 pm Post subject: Re: My Close combat 6 idea Reply with quote

Hi!

OK,Vietnam,VietNam,VIETNAM;).....

Maybe Operation Starlite..............or Battle of Hue City.....or Tet Offensive;)

matrix,simtek..maybe should give a jump to modern warfare Wink


heia Safari!!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Ost_KinsK

Rep: 11.6


PostPosted: Fri Oct 29, 2010 9:35 am Post subject: Re: My Close combat 6 idea Reply with quote

only WWII. moderm war sux. Evil or Very Mad
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Eroneurosis

Rep: 18.9


PostPosted: Fri Oct 29, 2010 3:08 pm Post subject: Re: My Close combat 6 idea Reply with quote

Quote:
matrix,simtek..maybe should give a jump to modern warfare

Quote:
only WWII. moderm war sux.

Unfortunately, I do not know any strategy game of modern warfare that is really good as the WWII. I think it would be a great challenge.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
 
Hoogley

Rep: 15.7
votes: 4


PostPosted: Sat Oct 30, 2010 1:59 am Post subject: Re: My Close combat 6 idea Reply with quote

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.


"I have come here to kick ass and chew bubblegum... and I'm all out of bubblegum." - They Live
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
verba

Rep: 16.9
votes: 1


PostPosted: Wed Nov 17, 2010 8:48 pm Post subject: Re: My Close combat 6 idea Reply with quote

Ok great ideas exept "losing the war when you lose civilian support"??

Maybe if you have certain options to let the people see things your way,

BUT then we will lose the core idea of the series. So still a no-no

They have to change mounting/unmounting , and repairing, add medics or hospitals etc I d vote for that
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
schrecken

Rep: 195
votes: 15


PostPosted: Wed Nov 17, 2010 9:09 pm Post subject: Re: My Close combat 6 idea Reply with quote

Quote:
* 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.


I envision this to work like command influence on the battle map...press the spacebar and see the number of tactical maps that the HQ would effect






Quote:
* Support formations provide artillery support for units on the same map and all adjacent maps, even if there's no map connection.



I envision this as enabling disabling off board support to adjacent battle maps.... this would do away with fixed support enabled maps as is in place currently.

maybe a series of subordinate counters that are moved at the movement phase.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website GameRanger Account
 
DAK_Legion

Rep: 86.3
votes: 20


PostPosted: Fri Dec 17, 2010 2:57 pm Post subject: Re: My Close combat 6 idea Reply with quote

will be for next year 2011????


heia Safari!!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
androwski

Rep: 1


PostPosted: Mon Mar 21, 2011 11:55 pm Post subject: Re: My Close combat 6 idea Reply with quote

CC6 needs:
- A second map, to that you can switch to, while on the tactical map, that shows the height of the landscape instantly by holding down a key. Major features of the regular tactial map are getting feded out here. Task of this map is to deliver topographic information instantly.  Like a tobographic map with lines that mark area with the same height.  Different colours can be applied here.. Green always marks terrain that is lower than the selected unit. Red terrain is always higher.       -No more cumbersome scanning with line of sight neccesary then.
:: You all know that situation, when your unit doesn´t shoots because of a major elevation issue, that you noticed just to late.

- a third map, accessible by another key, to see what the selected unit can see. Employment here of the proven system: -Green: visible, -dark green: sight is blocked a bit, -red: no vision at all             And Application of fog of war only with this function and with high contrast. An "alltime on" fog of war would create problems with seeing some important details on the map, because under well enough contrasted fog of war, some map details getting faded and the FoW could not display unit vision details detailed enough.


CC6 does not need:
-to much eye candy. For a fun game it is enough, when every important detail is visible. Yes, it is ok, when it is possible to recognize a specific vehicle by it´s features. Remember: perfection is reached, when you can´t take more away.
PC games werent overloaded with eyecandy, when CC was created, atleast compared to today. Instead, i think, developers where happy for the first time then to have enough recources, to create what we love today as CC.
Compare //Total Annihilation// and it´s successor //Supreme Commander// for that to, if you like. SupCom is to overloaded for my taste.

thx for reading that bad english

-Andre
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
 
Post new topicReply to topic printer-friendly view Close Combat Series Forum Index -> The Mess
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next


 
   
 


Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum




Forums ©





In August of 2004, Zappi, Homba, Bambam887, RedScorpion and MOOXE all pitched
in to create this Close Combat site. I would to thank all the people who have visited and
found this site to thier liking. I hope you had time to check out some of the great Close Combat
mods and our forums. I'd also like to thank all the members of our volunteer staff that have
helped over the years, and all our users that contributed to this site!