[Wastemoreland]

Think I´ll hold on to my money a little longer.  

[zon]

[schrecken]

I couldn't agree more Zon

Though there are a few issues being attended to, this is a fun and egaging release of Close Combat.

[Sapa]

Its a great game!! As someone says, it need some improvements as all PC games....

But where in hell is all the Tiger I that was at Arnhem!!??  

[7A_Woulf]

Can't blame people if they wait for the patches, but if you're a fan of CC you must buy it!!  

While I'm waiting for the first patch before I restart my h2h GC I'm having a blast with the AI. Yes there are issues, but I haven't been beaten by the AI since CC3 and the Battle of Berlin mod (with vetmod), and now it has kicked me from the Arnhem bridge!!  

And 'glass-trees', well... Took a look at it while I played now, up to some 75-100 meter through a forest before I've got LOS hindrance; -It feels like, I don't know, but reality maybe? (Take a walk in a nice summer deciduous forest today and look how far you can see...)

Cheers

[Lt_2nd]

I agree that this game has the potential to be fun and engaging, however I am not going to be playing it much except for a test battle or so until it is patched and the major items are sufficiently addressed.

I do appreciate the hard work and intent that was put into releasing this game, however I am really frustrated that things that have been problems in the past and were for the most part fixed in previous releases are once again problems such as the horrendous vehicle pathing , etc, While on the other hand items (protection values/element coding) which have not really been problems/or excessively complained about by the CC community to my knowledge were adjusted in this release.

[Hoogley]

For interest's sake, I just played as the Germans to test out the complaints about the Brit's on Valkenswaard map never advancing.  The game was line vs line, no time limit, end if morale fail.  I camped in the village at the top of the map.  

Now, I will say that the Brit's weren't what I would call aggressive, but they did make an effort to attack me.  Mostly infantry attacks, which I repelled with ease.  But, they did try to advance two tanks, one of which took out my AT gun before I took it out.

I don't know, maybe they stopped advancing because they were smart enough to realise the futility of it.  They could have swarmed me with armour to take out my infantry screen, then advance infantry into the buildings to deal with my AT core at close quarters, or at least to provide a distraction whilst their tanks maneuvered in to take them out. That would have been a worthy tactic, but I've never seen an AI force use a tactic that well orchestrated ever in CC.  

I think maybe the issue is having a short time limit on the battles.  These maps are too big for a short game; the AI will never make a calculated advance in time.  Hell, I'd never make an advance in time; you should see how cautious I play.    But, I just played for about 30-45mins ending in a truce - thank god the AI finally agreed after I made a probing infantry push, since neither I or the AI were keen to attack.  I think having no time limit might have been a mistake on my part.  I'd probably set it to 30 or 45 mins.  I reckon that's the only way you'll get a decent game against the AI.

If that's not it, then there's something screwy going on.

[vonB]

I think we can apply a little basic logic here; if vehicle pathing was easy to fix, then it would have been (and in a previous release), so, obviously it is not easy to fix (translate 'expensive').  It isn't easy.  I know this from first hand experience (well, second hand, but working with the first hand...).

The vehcile pathing and the tactical AI are intimately related, and messling with this logic opens up a potential can of worms, and the risk of turning it all into a real dog's breakfast, i.e. really screwing everything up.

Of course it 'should' be done, but that is a different agenda for the developers and publishers who have to find the finance to try and fix it.  Once the Owners (Destineer) Publishers (Matrix) Developers (S3T/Whoever) and anyone else have taken their slice of the pie, what funds are left to pay good programmers to change something that could take some time, and like I said, not without risk.  I guess bugger all.  CC just does not sell enough copies to pay for it.  Thats would be my take.

So, I wouldn't hold your breath waiting for it to be 'fixed'.  Tweaked maybe, but not fixed, though we can but hope...

[Lt_2nd]

I understand your point, but what I was trying to say is that I thought the vehicle pathing was sufficiently addressed in WaR and TLD, which are the two most recent releases by Matrix prior to LSA. I do not really care about the AI effectiveness since I try and play mostly MP, though I do understand the concerns of other who do play single player. That being said, IMO, the AI was better in the past two releases in WaR and TLD than compared to LSA. Granted it was perfect, but I dont expect any game to be completely perfect. However I was sufficiently happy with the vehicle pathing and AI in these releases.

Though, I am guessing maybe there was an attempt to adjust/improve the AI in the new LSA which may have adveresly affected the vehicle pathing?

If this is the case, I understand and appreciate the intent to improve the game, but all it takes is simple playtesting for these issues to be evident.

While the LSA has adding some features taking the CC series a step forward, some adjustments have taken it back to settings  that were fixed years ago. (eg, vehicle pathing IMO is as bad as it was in the original CC2)

I know this game has a small community of supporters and is not a rainmaker like the Call of Duty series as in regards to the profit and financing, However if myself and others are paying $40 for a new game, I dont think it is an unreasonable request or expectation for LSA to be fuctioning as good as the past two releases, if not better.

[Tejszd]

Probably right Lt_2nd Corporal, they were trying to tweak the WAR/TLD and tweaked the wrong thing....

[squadleader_id]

From The Blood's post at the Matrix Forum...looks like the devs tweaked the new LSA build to achieve more accurate weapons penetration and terrain protection values corelations...doing away with the old CC data abstraction/translations.  Looks good in theory...but wasn't tested enough prior to release.  I hope the upcoming patch will iron out most of the glitches and inconsistencies.
With the new data recalculations...porting old mods to LSA will be a tougher job though...you can't just cut-and-paste and reuse the original mod data files.  Modders will need to adjust the datas based on the new recalculated LSA data  

Personally, I think it's pretty late in the day to fix something that wasn't broken...considering that LSA is the last of the re-release series.  Why not implement the new changes for the new CC engine (the long awaited CC6)?
With the new changes...data consistencies between WAR/TLD and LSA are non existent.  And for new WAR/TLD patches...will S3T implement the new LSA data recalculations or use "the old way"?  Even more headaches for modders me thinks  

I hope the "glass trees with leaves on ground level" issue will also be addressed in the patch.

[Tejszd]

Ya, with those comments/details it seems CC5 mod conversations are best targeted for WAR and TLD..... Might also be getting to the end of the enhancements to WAR/TLD now with LSA requiring such different data....

But who knows....

[Hoogley]

I'm still not sure that going backwards with the trees is preferable.  The change of philosophy - tree foliage would mostly be above eye-level, and therefore not block LOS - makes a lot of sense to me.  It took me by surprise at first, I'll admit, but I've now switched to always having the trees turned off, and I've quickly grown to like the new system.  Maybe there could be a compromise where the element beneath trees - "undergrowth", or "leaf litter", or something like that - could hamper LOS slightly... ?

Actually, I'm starting to look at this as "CC Rulebook: Version II".  So far, all of the reasoning I've read for the changes that have been implemented make a whole lot of sense.  I'd hate to follow the "Microsoft" philosophy, and keep to the "old ways" just because we're comfortable with them rather than because they work best or are the most logical.

It does need refinement though, I agree.  And, yeah, it should have been all sorted out before release.  With major alterations like these, they should have been playtested to a cutting edge refinement.  But, they weren't.  At least S3T are on the case and working towards fixing the bugs.  I'm hoping it all gets righted.  But, I don't think we should just scrap the new ideas and go back to the way it was.

Pathing, however, really needs some work.  Infantry and vehicles alike.  I'm getting a few too many "can't go there"'s.

[squadleader_id]

The tree thing needs more tweaking.
"old way" - tree leaves blocked LOS...but this was a compromise because they represent the tree leaves "crown" that block LOS to higher elevation or from higher elevation (especially buildings).
Engine limitation means that the leaves crown extend down the whole tree trunk (which doesn't suit all tree types obviously).
"new way" - leaves are now set at ground level height (representing heaps of fallen leaves?)...so trees are now just tall trunks without crowns or branches with minimal LOS blocks at higher elevations.

[Pak40]

[Hoogley]

[squadleader_id]

[Hoogley]

[Dundradal]

I have noticed that only rarely do trees block AT rounds. Thanks for explaining the elevation issue. It make sense...even if in reality it doesn't...now.

[ronson]

Not strictly Arnhem, but this is a view into the Reichwald just below Kleve, however it is fairly representative of the wooded areas  around the region. It does show pretty well how limited the visability is in this type of terrain.

While on the subject of woods, should mortars be allowed to deploy/fire from woods?
If I recall correctly, our mortar platoon were always positioned well away from any kind of overhead obstruction, tree lines/power lines etc. The reason given for this was because of the risk of the bomb striking an obstruction on its outbound journey, this would lead to a lack of accuracy at best and a premature explosion at worse.

Cheers
Ronson