I think this is the main difference between us tbh. Single-player, CC2 and CC3 are miles ahead of CC5 - but CC5 has superior multiplayer. And I would argue multiplayer is necessary for CC5 because the single player is broken. It's the same with LSA. The AI sucks so bad, it's not worth 'fighting' a 45 minute battle just to find out it deployed one squad in this corner, one squad over on the other side of the map... Battles vs AI in CC2 and CC3 last 10 minutes, and are a lot more intense.
And no, I've not played CC5 multiplayer. And no, I don't pay CC5 that often either. Coincidence? Probably. For me, the battles take far too long to wage, and I can't help but think that the strategic map takes away from the fact that this series is called 'Close Combat' - not 'strategic modern warfare meets Risk'. The developers clearly wanted CC5 to appeal to the multiplayer market, at the expense of the single player game, and because of that they split the community.
Quote:
I believe it is my last reply to you if you won't strat proving your points...
I could dig out my books, but tbh, it's probably not worth it. We're just going round in circles. At the end of the day, it boils down to single player vs multiplayer, and it's down to a personal decision as to which is favourable.
Posted: Sun Sep 16, 2012 2:39 pm Post subject: Re: Historical Accuracy or Game Play?
Quote:
And no, I've not played CC5 multiplayer. And no, I don't pay CC5 that often either. Coincidence? Probably. For me, the battles take far too long to wage, and I can't help but think that the strategic map takes away from the fact that this series is called 'Close Combat' - not 'strategic modern warfare meets Risk'. The developers clearly wanted CC5 to appeal to the multiplayer market, at the expense of the single player game, and because of that they split the community.
i've not been playing CC vs AI since 1998 or so...but they say pzjager's mod CC5:Der Kessel is a hell vs AI.
Quote:
I could dig out my books, but tbh, it's probably not worth it. We're just going round in circles. At the end of the day, it boils down to single player vs multiplayer, and it's down to a personal decision as to which is favourable.
you have should done it before making such bold statements...
but I agree about MP vs SP - but IMO CC is not meant to be played vs AI, so who cares about SP?
f.e. in my mods I don't care at all...
Posted: Mon Sep 17, 2012 6:52 am Post subject: Re: Historical Accuracy or Game Play?
Quote:
but IMO CC is not meant to be played vs AI, so who cares about SP?
f.e. in my mods I don't care at all..
The AI in some mods is not bad and cannot agree with CC being "meant" for H2H. When i 1st got into CC, H2H was where was at only also with CC3 mainly at the MS room when there was regularly 40+ people there, but then a game came out that (IMO) had many things exactly like CC offered and was better H2H in Combat Mission and many of us who played only that way ventured to it.
CC was (and is) to me at least, far better vs the AI than CM and why (in my case) came back all these years later and several mod makers have made the ones have played since then even better.. WAR, TLD, CC4 and 4.
TheImperatorKnight is very active and passionate about close combat. I wonder why he never fucking posted again?
What do you mean? Here? On this forum? I've posted a reasonable amount on this forum recently... despite being busy on youtube.
If you meant why I didn't carry on posting in this topic, it's because I ended up moving house in November 2012 (and had no internet for two months) and then I forgot about it.
Posted: Sat Sep 07, 2013 12:42 pm Post subject: Re: Historical Accuracy or Game Play?
Maybe. But the only reason I said anything was because Anthony_nz sent me a PM entitled "Fucking cunt.." because he disagreed with my comments here. I won't entertain him with a reply to that.
I'll admit that I was wrong on a few points. I'm man enough to own up to my mistakes. However, I still play a lot of CC2, even more so than any other CC game. And I know why that is: The GAMEPLAY is fantastic.
Posted: Sun Sep 08, 2013 2:26 pm Post subject: Re: Historical Accuracy or Game Play?
YAWN
I vote for gameplay.
Too bad the re-releases didn't make that their focus. There is always a percentage chance that you can't complete a campaign or tactical battle because of the same-old show stopping bugs.
And, as a general rule, it is bad form to reveal to the public the contents of any PM. Just my opinion. Remember, at least at this site, mooxe is an adminstrator, and he can also function as the NSA if necessary.
As another general rule, there are about a half-dozen highly educated EF experts at the site. I am not one of them. But, slinging EF BS, just because its EF, is usally not a winner, if you know what I mean.
Single Player, Single Battle, is not viable using CC4, CC5, WAR, TLD, LSA, and PITF. The community needs to make a collective 110% effort to ressurect MP.
These same games, were (and are to this day), considered more historically accurate, because you can roughly approximate the TOEs for the forces involved in the game. That being said, things do break down somewhat as there is an 8 man team maximum.
The AI (the part that makes command decisions) CAN NEVER even closely approximate a Human Player. That being said, using smaller maps, and fewer victory locations, REDUCES the number of required command decisions of the DEFENDER.
Maybe. But the only reason I said anything was because Anthony_nz sent me a PM entitled Im an idiot
I'll admit that I was wrong on a few points. I'm man enough to own up to my mistakes. .
Sorry about that. I should not of made a post here. Or sent you a PM. And the name of the message was foul and offensive.
I also didn't make my self clear because i was angry and in a rush.
You have miss understood me (my fualt) I stupidly felt you were being unfairly treated on the thread. It seemed to me you were making fair points, and other people on this thread were sort of trolling you. And being overly vague with there response.
Thats all..
I thought i was supporting you. Not bashing you. Instead i just made a complete ass of my self. (for the hundreth time.. I like your youtube Channel BTW.
^^^^ Thanks for going on topic.
How about the unforgivable uniforms of CC5. I think that takes the cake.
Maybe. But the only reason I said anything was because Anthony_nz sent me a PM entitled Im an idiot
I'll admit that I was wrong on a few points. I'm man enough to own up to my mistakes. .
Sorry about that. I should not of made a post here. Or sent you a PM. And the name of the message was foul and offensive.
I also didn't make my self clear because i was angry and in a rush.
You have miss understood me (my fualt) I stupidly felt you were being unfairly treated on the thread. It seemed to me you were making fair points, and other people on this thread were sort of trolling you. And being overly vague with there response.
Thats all..
I thought i was supporting you. Not bashing you. Instead i just made a complete ass of my self. (for the hundreth time.. I like your youtube Channel BTW.
^^^^ Thanks for going on topic.
How about the unforgivable uniforms of CC5. I think that takes the cake.
If this is the case, then I'm happy to forget about it
I see what you did, and I get what you were trying to do (in hindsight), although you didn't make yourself clear at the time and it appeared that you were bashing me. Now I understand, and I'm glad I have you backing me up. So no hard feelings, Antony
As far as this forum goes, they're not exactly the most friendly bunch (some are - and those that have helped me, I greatly appreciate). But like you said, if you disagree with them, they won't take no quarter. And unfortunately, I disagree with them. A lot. Let me give you an example:
I'm going to admit something now. CC5 was the second game in the series I picked up. (I now own 6 cc games I think, and have played a couple more.) But I've never completed the vanilla campaign of CC5. I've tried. God knows I've tried. But I get so bored, so so bored. And I know why. The inadequate strategic map. The large-ish maps. The boring maps. Battles take ages. The poor AI. The crashes to desktop during multiplayer. That stupid starting music that drives you insane if you listen to it for more than five seconds... doo do do, doo do do, doo do do dodoo do do, aaarrggghh!
If I can't complete the game, then I don't care how accurate the units are or how historic the game is. The problem is the gameplay.
Now Anthony, let this be an example to you. The vultures are circling, and they're about to rip me to shreds for daring to talk down of their beloved CC5
Stwa wrote:
And, as a general rule, it is bad form to reveal to the public the contents of any PM. Just my opinion. Remember, at least at this site, mooxe is an adminstrator, and he can also function as the NSA if necessary.
I wouldn't have done under normal circumstances. If people want to send me PMs telling me I'm wrong in a nice way (think I'm opening pandora's box here lol) then that's fine.
Also, I'm no "expert" on the Eastern Front, although I have read a lot of books. CC3 was ok. They sacrificed HA for gameplay, and that's fine by me. It made for a fun game, even though infantry were rendered useless due to all the tanks you could take. It was very fun though, and it wasn't a chore to play like some of the huge-tactical-maps-and-poor-strategic-map games.
Stwa wrote:
Single Player, Single Battle, is not viable using CC4, CC5, WAR, TLD, LSA, and PITF. The community needs to make a collective 110% effort to ressurect MP.
And that's the problem. If CC single player isn't viable - then why bother keeping single player in the games? You may as well get rid of it! I mean, it's hardly worth keeping it in if you're having 21 units fighting over maps that are 40 miles wide against an AI that clearly can't cope. But be warned, if you take it away, a lot of people will wash their hands of the series. I'm not going to sit there playing an online campaign over direct IP with all the problems you have connecting, maintaining the horrid connection, rebooting the game when it crashes, things like internet going down or opponents not being able to play when you can etc etc.
I've been asked to do campaigns online by people here. And maybe one day I'll try it. But there's no way I'm committing to anything right now with the current system - or my current schedule. (Although, if anyone wants to play a PitF Campaign I may take you up on that sometime in the future when I get some free time.)
Stwa wrote:
These same games, were (and are to this day), considered more historically accurate, because you can roughly approximate the TOEs for the forces involved in the game. That being said, things do break down somewhat as there is an 8 man team maximum.
The AI (the part that makes command decisions) CAN NEVER even closely approximate a Human Player. That being said, using smaller maps, and fewer victory locations, REDUCES the number of required command decisions of the DEFENDER.
One thing I always disliked about CC2 was the fact that I had ~40 guys on Arnhem Bridge, whereas in real life there were 750 Brits. Every building on that map was occupied by British troops. And I, as the player, am sat there in maybe 10 of them.
Then you look at the bigger maps in the later games. You still command ~40 guys, but now the battlefield is huge. They get lost. The combat is no longer CLOSE. Apart from the fact that the series should be renamed Distant Combat, where's the historic accuracy in that? Ok, the units are more historic, sure. But hold on, if there wasn't enough troops in the field before, how is this more accurate?
Answer: it's not
Smaller maps are necessary. NOT JUST FOR THE AI. But for more accuracy and better gameplay, both single-player and multiplayer. And for those who say "it's all about moving, flanking, maneuver" - you could still do that in CC2 or CC3! The difference is that the battles last 10 minutes and are a lot more intense.
Posted: Sun Sep 08, 2013 5:33 pm Post subject: Re: Historical Accuracy or Game Play?
Quote:
And, as a general rule, it is bad form to reveal to the public the contents of any PM. Just my opinion. Remember, at least at this site, mooxe is an adminstrator, and he can also function as the NSA if necessary.
haha... the mini-NSA.
Maps do need to be smaller. They map size is out of control now. The largest maps in CC5 were about as big as I could stand them being. I am pretty sure the average map size of CC3/4/5 are all very similair Knight. I haven't read through this whole thread but have any of the map makers weighed in on map size vs game play? They are the ones responsible for making these giant murals. Speak up!
Join Discord for technical support and online games.
Posted: Mon Sep 09, 2013 12:12 am Post subject: Re: Historical Accuracy or Game Play?
Quote:
even though infantry were rendered useless due to all the tanks you could take.
Granted, memory is pretty bad and nearly a decade since H2H play, but I recall the German 75mm and 88's, though few doing a sweet job vs the Russian hordes of armor.
Quote:
And, as a general rule, it is bad form to reveal to the public the contents of any PM. Just my opinion
Ahh STWA.. You should wear a Blue Helmet here.. The peacemaker..
Posted: Wed Sep 11, 2013 12:15 am Post subject: Re: Historical Accuracy or Game Play?
If CC single player isn't viable - then why bother keeping single player in the games? You may as well get rid of it! I mean, it's hardly worth keeping it in if you're having 21 units fighting over maps that are 40 miles wide against an AI that clearly can't cope. -TIK
Because, the developers wanted players to have a means to hone basic skills, before moving on to human opponents.
I've been asked to do campaigns online by people here. And maybe one day I'll try it. But there's no way I'm committing to anything right now with the current system - or my current schedule. -TIK
Ah yes, as the gaming community ages, some (but not all), decide to become responsible, engaging in activities such as job employment, marriage, child rearing, and the like. Campaign games which require scores of 30 minute battles, fall to the wayside. I too never finished a CC5 campaign, in Single Player.
Then you look at the bigger maps in the later games. You still command ~40 guys, but now the battlefield is huge. They get lost. The combat is no longer CLOSE. Apart from the fact that the series should be renamed Distant Combat, where's the historic accuracy in that? Ok, the units are more historic, sure. But hold on, if there wasn't enough troops in the field before, how is this more accurate? -TIK
Large maps have done their part to diminish the overall CC experience. Despite mooxe's recent appeal for the responsible parties to "stand up", they are not going to do that. As I have said before, its all in the record now, nothing can be turned back.
Smaller maps are necessary. NOT JUST FOR THE AI. But for more accuracy and better gameplay, both single-player and multiplayer. And for those who say "it's all about moving, flanking, maneuver" - you could still do that in CC2 or CC3! The difference is that the battles last 10 minutes and are a lot more intense. -TIK
Fortunately, you can make smaller maps from larger maps. I did that with all the CCM maps, and it made a big difference. For example, you could make every LSA map smaller, and Redo the BTD's with fewer victory locations. And, Nomanda Firefox's LSA mod eliminated many of the non-essential maps altogether.
Usually, I just feel sorry for the developers. A few months ago, some forumite, suggested that I play GJS for LSA. I found this somewhat remarkable, since at the time it wasn't clear to me that ANY campaign in LSA could actually be completed.
Ah yes, as the gaming community ages, some (but not all), decide to become responsible, engaging in activities such as job employment, marriage, child rearing, and the like. Campaign games which require scores of 30 minute battles, fall to the wayside. I too never finished a CC5 campaign, in Single Player.
I'm wondering how many people did ever finish a CC5 campaign. I bet for a lot of people it was maybe once... if ever.
Large maps have done their part to diminish the overall CC experience. Despite mooxe's recent appeal for the responsible parties to "stand up", they are not going to do that. As I have said before, its all in the record now, nothing can be turned back.
Why did they decide to go for such big maps in the first place? I mean CC5 maps were big enough, but they look tiny compared to some of the ones we're getting now. This just must be a "Texas" mentality of "Bigger is Better", when it's definitely not the case. It makes me wonder if the developers actually play these games themselves on a regular basis, because if they did, they'd realise the error of their ways.
Posted: Sat Sep 14, 2013 9:19 pm Post subject: Re: Historical Accuracy or Game Play?
I particularly enjoy these discussions about the merits, and unfortunately, demerits of the CC gaming system, and I generally agree with most of the complaints leveled. Trying to finish a campaign, with all the time consumed in the process can be quite taxing. I have decided because of a number of factors that no turn should be longer than 15-20 minutes. Anything longer and my men are having to throw their empty weapons at the enemy. I am still trying to access the wisdom of the applied use of the morale factor in determining the stop of the turn. Many times after the enemy forces were beaten morally the VLs that were given up were not to my advantage to try to defend and with a little more time I could have taken a more strategic location.
I am wondering if part of the reason there isn't much H2H is because a number of the players are somewhat intimidated by playing against an opponent other than the AI. I know now that since I have had the chance to play innumerable games against the AI that I have honed my techniques so that I would feel more confident playing H2H. Just getting ATGs to survive very long was a chore in itself. Since I nearly always play as the Germans I am then the underdog and so being fairly conservative in my attacks is a given. I have never really felt confident in a reckless attack my technique of standoff distance for the German tanks and guns is the same as was actually used, at least with the heavier guns. I remember someone asking for advice some time back on tactics at this site and no one to my knowledge offered any. (I did decide to send a PM to acquaint him with one of my better tactics.) I even gave a particular technique that I came up with for the use of flamethrowers to my brother who didn't know of it and he uses them all the time. It seems to me that many players would rather not give up their tactics so as to have the advantage over their opponent.
"No plan ever survives first contact with the enemy." Moltke
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!
.jpg)
I like your youtube Channel BTW.
