I like microgestion but NO in a RTS i have my wargames with their turns and hexagons.
Exactly!
Since CC is an RTS (with no pause while issuing order feature like Blitzkrieg or Theatre of War)...adding micromanagement is not a good choice.
And since the old system without Girlie Soldiers (TM) works almost flawlessly...
microgestion = micromanegement, sorry for my bad english.
schrecken, when i see a MG team doing supression fire on their own i believe it and about Rambo soldiers... well, i dont say i send soldiers to the death and want they made a banzai charge, i only say that if units ALLWAYS try to save their lives game could be a little :zzz and we cant see medals in table of results, sometimes try to save your life is like suicide (you search cover outside a house when you are shooted from 2nd floor??? i play DoD and can say is better do an assault than wait behind a cover.).
Well, micromanegement in CC could be frustrating because CC isnt a Combat Mission where you can give orders taking your time, if you think micromanegement is good why dont put more than 15 units on the battlefield??? think if is hard command 15 units now if you increase the number of clicks per action......... i want give orders to 2-3 squads and at least leave alone 1 minute and dont find it dead when i returns or see they where i dont want.
I played CoI again for a few hours last night, and CCMT, and yes its a bit infuriating reissuing orders, but at least they live longer.
example.
cc3 original, if u sent 12 inf teams running deep into enemy territory, if ambushed, u would loose 1/2 if u didnt cancell orders. CoI it just dosent happen. they live, yes for 'ladder' matches it sucks, objectives not reached because of 1 sniper or morter round, but they live.
ill post a few dozen 'girly soldiers' in another post...just for fun.
Anzac, increase unit ability to survive dont means they allways abort your orders, for me is made more important command soldiers, a good sarge kick some assholes because EY they are soldiers and have orders (if soldiers allways abort i want a option called "Patton´s Fury" to punish bad soldiers hehehe) but sarge loves their little bastards and if fire is to heavy he take other actions.
Does anyone know if they fixed the bug that when a BG is out of supply and loses squads in a fight, they aren't ever actually lost? (sorry if this has been covered I couldn't find any reference).
That bug was a real PITA on CC5, a BG in a strong defensive position, cut off and surrounded, with low ammo, could still last for ages as long as it wasn't routed in a fight, because it never actually lost any squads/vehicles (so a heavy tank BG could hold on for a long time, or a decent inf in a castle). It meant we had to do our own manual force pools for any BG that had taken losses while out of supply.
Also a BG that suffered a forced disband didn't lose any of its force pool, which it should have according to the manual.
What about the buildings bug where some buildings had spots where soldiers could never be killed?
The bugs are coming back to me now... at the end of a tense fight with both sides having low morale, the game would often crash, losing the battle result. Is that resolved?
There was another bug where sometimes BGs moving into a new map would for some reason take half of the map... and sometimes on the wrong side of the Front...!
Anyway this new version sounds great, I am very happy that someone has updated Close Combat, I have not played it for years now but it is still the best WW2 combat wargame... it makes modern attempts seem like arcade games IMO (eg sudden strike, band of brothers, etc etc).
Does anyone know if they fixed the bug that when a BG is out of supply and loses squads in a fight, they aren't ever actually lost? (sorry if this has been covered I couldn't find any reference).
That bug was a real PITA on CC5, a BG in a strong defensive position, cut off and surrounded, with low ammo, could still last for ages as long as it wasn't routed in a fight, because it never actually lost any squads/vehicles (so a heavy tank BG could hold on for a long time, or a decent inf in a castle). It meant we had to do our own manual force pools for any BG that had taken losses while out of supply.
Also a BG that suffered a forced disband didn't lose any of its force pool, which it should have according to the manual.
What about the buildings bug where some buildings had spots where soldiers could never be killed?
The bugs are coming back to me now... at the end of a tense fight with both sides having low morale, the game would often crash, losing the battle result. Is that resolved?
There was another bug where sometimes BGs moving into a new map would for some reason take half of the map... and sometimes on the wrong side of the Front...!
Anyway this new version sounds great, I am very happy that someone has updated Close Combat, I have not played it for years now but it is still the best WW2 combat wargame... it makes modern attempts seem like arcade games IMO (eg sudden strike, band of brothers, etc etc).
This line from wargamer preview answer to many of this.
Quote:
Battlegroups can now be recycled if disbanded or never come back to game play.
A "retreat" function has been added to the strategic system so that instead of simply disbanding 100% of the time a unit might retreat to a friendly unoccupied map, depending on the outcome of the battle.
"they have this, almost perfect, against all odds feeling... can't really put my finger on it"
How does PJ's mods play as the Russians?
Sorry, forgot to answer this properly..since PJ has improved the AI (dunno how much by)in his mods, is it safe to say that the AI is improved for WAR?
Sorry to keep harping on, but if PJ can do it, surely the official creators can?
Thanks x
Any of the viewed improvements in the AI of any mods are simply a manipulation of data that can have/and does ramifications on other units and in other parts of the engine. The only legitimate way to truly improve the AI across the scope of all units, is to make changes within the exe. You can bet they've done what they can
About these "Girlie Soldiers" - Is this not linked to the experience of the troops? Let me explain: An inexperienced soldier will act different than a veteran, and will go to ground very fast whenever there is fire in his direction, until such time as he learns (experience) to differentiate between sporadic fire and aimed shots.
I am busy playing the Meuse Crossing mod and, not to be disrespectedful, but those French soldiers are a bunch of sissies. I had a Beobachter team pinned with rifle and mortar; they were panicking; I ordered a Tromblon team to rush... they never made it, because they went to ground each time the enemy was sighted.
Na, its in CCMT to, and we talked to them who played the leaked beta.
And MOST importent of all, Schrecky has fiersly defended the girly soldier in public after it been critisised (saying the "girly soldier" enhancement is good, and its realistic and will not be removed), so ITS in that way ALSO CONFERMED FROM THE TEAM LEADER OF THE WaR production, that this atleast WAS in the War before.. So, NO its not just a "Story"... Its genuine consernes...
Seeing what Linebacker NOW have said, one may belive the developer has turned down the girly thing, if so its v good. And I aplaud it.
All this story from girl soldiers is only a bad comment from people who have not played WAR.
Have you played CoI and CCMT?? Firefox, I know you even started to make a WW2 mod for CCMT...but did you actually play some CCMT (more than a few quick test battles)? The girlie soldiers AI are there...I dunno how you could have missed "the girls" considering you're a veteran CC fan
I think AT_Stalky summed it up well in the post above
Na, its in CCMT to, and we talked to them who played the leaked beta.
And MOST importent of all, Schrecky has fiersly defended the girly soldier in public after it been critisised (saying the "girly soldier" enhancement is good, and its realistic and will not be removed), so ITS in that way ALSO CONFERMED FROM THE TEAM LEADER OF THE WaR production, that this atleast WAS in the War before.. So, NO its not just a "Story"... Its genuine consernes...
I think that you have misinterpreted schecks comments. While your so-called "girly soldier" action may in fact be more realistic, nowhere has there been an outright code change, or enhancement as you call it, to make the AI act this way. You mention COI and CCMT having this...because they are built on the same engine...CC3. You seem to be missing my message, that if you liked soldier modeling in CC5...which you say was the best (although most people in these forums will disagree with you), then WAR should be at least that good, because the CC5 engine was the starting point, and nothing was done to the code to make the AI less aggressive.
Of course, that all being said...if you want to have a more arcade game-like experience and always have your soldiers do what you want, just click "Always Obey Orders"
It would be nice if there was a more customisable AI in CC with different mentalities for different units, ranging from WWI-style marching into MG fire "like all Real Men do" to seeking cover after first shot.
Personally, I've read/heard of some creepy stuff like Chinese soldiers in KW marching into quad HMG fire and about British commandos in WWII (IIRC it was after capturing the Pegasus bridge) casually marching through a bridge under sniper fire and without helmets just to show their contempt for death.
It would be cool if such attitudes could be shown in CC.
I think that you have misinterpreted schecks comments. While your so-called "girly soldier" action may in fact be more realistic,nowhere has there been an outright code change, or enhancement as you call it, to make the AI act this way.
So lets see, you are arguing that the new "girly thing" is more realistic, but at the same time you say nothing has been shanged? okay....
CSO_Linebacker wrote:
You mention COI and CCMT having this...
Noware have I said COI... I dont play COI...
CSO_Linebacker wrote:
and nothing was done to the code to make the AI less aggressive.
Hmmm? Noware have I said that the AI is less agressive, I have said the soldiers go to ground to easy, and vehicles stop move order as they are shot at... Its not the same thing......
CSO_Linebacker wrote:
Of course, that all being said...if you want to have a more arcade game-like experience and always have your soldiers do what you want, just click "Always Obey Orders"
Hm...
No, I just say that whats MADE the CC SERIES so good and made it last for so many years is JUST the soldier behaviour, that is the single most important thing for this game that make it so much better then all other games. So why change it for the worse?
So I don’t want the “girly soldier” enhancement, witch is more realistic you argues, though nothing has been changed..? So if I don’t like it, you tell me I can use “always Obay orders” in WaR, but I just simply say I want the old soldier behaviour setting from CC5 in WaR?
I just hoped you listend to feedback, but nevermind.
(edit: fixed a written thing)
Last edited by AT_Stalky on Fri Oct 24, 2008 4:56 pm; edited 2 times in total
I think that you have misinterpreted schecks comments. While your so-called "girly soldier" action may in fact be more realistic, nowhere has there been an outright code change, or enhancement as you call it, to make the AI act this way. You mention COI and CCMT having this...because they are built on the same engine...CC3. You seem to be missing my message, that if you liked soldier modeling in CC5...which you say was the best (although most people in these forums will disagree with you), then WAR should be at least that good, because the CC5 engine was the starting point, and nothing was done to the code to make the AI less aggressive.
Of course, that all being said...if you want to have a more arcade game-like experience and always have your soldiers do what you want, just click "Always Obey Orders"
Shreck's comments were pretty specific.
What he described was "girlie soldiers" AI just like CoI and CCMT.
Shreck's post about the soldier AI was very different to what you posted...Shreck even questioned our playing/fighting tactics
CCMT was built from CC3? I always thought it was CC5 based but stripped of campaigns features.
And AFAIK you can never achieve arcade-like game experience from CC...even if you click "Always Obey Orders"...they still won't 'march into fire' like C&C (or fill blanks with most mainstream RTS title) soldiers.
Shreck's comments were pretty specific.
What he described was "girlie soldiers" AI just like CoI and CCMT.
Shreck's post about the soldier AI was very different to what you posted...Shreck even questioned our playing/fighting tactics
So true ID,
and Linebacker, if you whant to, I can post qoutes from all shreckes "colourefull" expression and agrues in this regard.
Okay...one more time (because every time I brought this up, no response )
- Old CC AI:
Soldiers abort movement (and go to ground, sometimes crawling back to cover, sometimes performing the famous crawl of death), Vehicles abort movement (and stop in their tracks) only under certain conditions (and most people would agree that they're quite realistic AI behavior): leader KIA/WIA, multiple soldier/crew casualties, heavy enemy fire, pinned down.
- New CC AI AKA "Girlie Soldiers":
Soldiers abort movement (and go to ground, sometimes crawling back to cover), Vehicles abort movement (and stop in their tracks) when fired upon or when they see the enemy.
Featured in CoI and CCMT.
Edit: It's pretty obvious which AI is more realistic...not to mention that the new girlie AI introduces uneeded micromanagent in the form of repeated clicking to reissue orders over and over. Also...when vehicles stop...their waypoints (needed to compensate for poor vehicle pathing) are gone also.
I'm hoping that WAR is using the old CC AI (at least from Linebacker's post about AB men rushing 200m across open ground under fire).
But based on Shreck's posts...definitely girlie soldier AI was used
@ Theiron,
Movement is protection, moving object is v hart to hit, speed is important as speed/time-exposed is a major factor give advantage/disadvantage to either you/enemy. If you use speed right, your in an advantage, and can reach enemy before he can regroup or call up ppl, if you give the enemy the time, he will use that to call up his force and regroup his force and pick you of one by one.
That’s why Atomics CC series soldier modelling has been so successful. Isnt it the whole base of the CC success?, or is it CCs grapix we like so much?
Why change the soldier modeling? ?
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
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!
)
