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 448
Comments: 0

  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, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next
 Author
Message
 
Stwa

Rep: 308.9
votes: 16


PostPosted: Fri Sep 26, 2014 3:07 am Post subject: Re: Disenchanted Reply with quote

Tejszd wrote (View Post):
Tanks can not drive over the Pegasus bridge in TLD since the path finding update in 2011


Hey, the last time you mentioned this, I checked out the map, and it is definately the coding that prevents vehicles crossing. I was using the map in CCMT.

Anyway, the fix took less that 5 minutes with 5CC.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Tejszd

Rep: 130.8
votes: 19


PostPosted: Fri Sep 26, 2014 3:11 am Post subject: Re: Disenchanted Reply with quote

I agree Stwa that it is not a hard a fix. What pisses me off is that Matrix seems to expect everyone who paid for the game to fix it themselves.... Those of us who can do but new players who do not mod will think what a stupid game and just stop playing. It is that attitude that is preventing the re-releases from growing the community more than just a handful....
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Stwa

Rep: 308.9
votes: 16


PostPosted: Fri Sep 26, 2014 3:52 am Post subject: Re: Disenchanted Reply with quote

Good Point.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Troger

Rep: 17.5
votes: 2


PostPosted: Fri Sep 26, 2014 4:41 am Post subject: Re: Disenchanted Reply with quote

mooxe wrote (View Post):
Troger wrote (View Post):
Lol, LostTemple made this.  The laughs I'm getting from it help deal with the pain and frustration.



The granddaddy of them all from igotmilk, he made this one either in 2006 or prior,,,,



Lol, oh man.  I was conflating this one and LostTemple's.  I think a part of this was aimed at the random people who were making incredibly bizarre requests for things (medics, uber-soldats) that were definitely outside the scope of this game.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Troger

Rep: 17.5
votes: 2


PostPosted: Fri Sep 26, 2014 5:30 am Post subject: Re: Disenchanted Reply with quote

schrecken wrote (View Post):
Is Jim still on the team? ... he was against any fixes


What a bastard.  How is it that someone like him gets the say of what can/cannot happen?

Now it's Iain at Slitherine who is calling the shots, and I don't trust his judgement at all--he's goes on how about Close Combat is a "realistic combat simulator", and calls those of us posting online and active in mutliplayer 1% of the CC-playing population.

Schrecken, I know guys like you put  a lot of work into things, but I don't understand your trolling of those of us who posted against the releases and calling them out for what there were.  I remember you defending the only noticeable addition to Cross of Iron, the now famous and STILL present girly soldiers ('enemy spotted', 'redeployment adorted' ad-fucking-nausem).  How could you defend that crap?  It's ruined every release since.  Whose idea was that anyways?

johnsilver wrote (View Post):
I liked the F/Pool system pretty much from the outset of CC5 over the style CC3 had and thought it was a vast improvement, getting rid of the forced resting of individual troops that both CC3/COI have, along with restrictive purchase points. CC4 was getting that way and the maps were sweet also.


I like CC5's BG-based system more too, but CC3's point-based had its merits. I liked the point-based aspect itself, the ability to refit troops, didn't love resting them but it's not technically forced and I suppose there is some realism in that.

You can't argue for one or the other, you really can't, or at least you shouldn't.  They are both great and I think they both deserve a place in this game.  I really wish both would be present.

schrecken wrote (View Post):
pvt_Grunt wrote (View Post):

I am dissapointed because I want CC5 fixed and added to with ALL the features available. Turn them off in the background if they are not needed in the version. Matrix wont properly plan and run CC projects, and I think this is a deliberate decision by their managers.


That was indeed the plan and why in WaR the features had switches... what happened after i became sidelined is anybody's guess.

Also planned was for new releases to become all part of one game.. you just chose which scenario wou wanted to play, War, tLD,ABTF etc... this was the genesis of thew /D switch.

Theoretically if you had purchased an update you could then tweak your own game by turning various features on and off.. eg adding night turns and bridge blowing to WaR, parachute drops to tLD etc ... following this path any bugs would be eventually eradicated with each new release as it was a development of the one set ogf code.

Unfortunately this did not happen


Interesting.

WaR is the only re-release I don't have, I didn't know there were more toggable options.  The direction of going to more toggable on/off options (night battles, etc.) is great, and the only way any new feature shoulds have been implemented.  Give the players the control.  

Anyways, good posts by Michael, dj, Johnsilver, Grunt, Mooxe, Crackwise, Tejszd.  As crackwise said, make your voices heard on GTC's Steam page and Matrix, you never know.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
schrecken

Rep: 195
votes: 15


PostPosted: Fri Sep 26, 2014 6:34 am Post subject: Re: Disenchanted Reply with quote

Troger wrote (View Post):
schrecken wrote (View Post):
Is Jim still on the team? ... he was against any fixes



Schrecken, I know guys like you put  a lot of work into things, but I don't understand your trolling of those of us who posted against the releases and calling them out for what there were.  I remember you defending the only noticeable addition to Cross of Iron, the now famous and STILL present girly soldiers ('enemy spotted', 'redeployment adorted' ad-fucking-nausem).  How could you defend that crap?  It's ruined every release since.  Whose idea was that anyways?



The Blood implemented that without consultaion or notification as far as I know.. so well picked up by the community.

I believe the effects were reduced/toned down at least twice while i was involved but it is hard coded.

I am a conservative player and did not play Rambo style so it's effects went little noticed by me in general game play... only when testing specifically was it noticeable.... but it is a control that would favor Rambo style players.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website GameRanger Account
 
Stwa

Rep: 308.9
votes: 16


PostPosted: Fri Sep 26, 2014 10:51 am Post subject: Re: Disenchanted Reply with quote

he's [Ian] goes on how about Close Combat is a "realistic combat simulator", and calls those of us posting online and active in mutliplayer 1% of the CC-playing population. -Troger

I remember you [Schrecken] defending the only noticeable addition to Cross of Iron, the now famous and STILL present girly soldiers ('enemy spotted', 'redeployment adorted' ad-fucking-nausem).  How could you defend that crap?  It's ruined every release since.  Whose idea was that anyways? -Troger


Ian might be wildly overstating online posters that are active in multiplayer. Eliminating multiplayer from the code-line would help to streamline the exe file, and make it easier to maintain over time.

IMHO Girly soldiers is one of the most realistic enhancements to CCMT. It certainly helps to create parity with the AI. It forces the human player to be very attentive when trying any kind of Rambo movement. And it even can make withdrawing from a position more difficult.

The fact that so many players cannot really form a true consensus regarding strategic and tactical game features, makes life more difficult for the developers of CC.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Stwa

Rep: 308.9
votes: 16


PostPosted: Fri Sep 26, 2014 11:14 am Post subject: Re: Disenchanted Reply with quote

The fact that so many players cannot really form a true consensus regarding strategic and tactical game features, makes life more difficult for the developers of CC. -Stwa

Late in my CC gaming experience, I eventually formed the opinion that the developers NEED NOT take into consideration the ideas of a very small, finite group of on-line posters, that promoted multiplayer gaming.

The countless threads at this site alone reveal this utter lack of consensus as to what features constitutes a valid Close Combat game. It would be better for developers to follow their own ideas regarding the development of additional CC releases.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
johnsilver

Rep: 61.3
votes: 4


PostPosted: Fri Sep 26, 2014 12:10 pm Post subject: Re: Disenchanted Reply with quote

Quote:
The countless threads at this site alone reveal this utter lack of consensus as to what features constitutes a valid Close Combat game. It would be better for developers to follow their own ideas regarding the development of additional CC releases.


That is why CC spread out into CCMT, RTB, the new ideas went into LSA and were further refined in PITF and GTC.

So many of us are for different agendas. Many (most IMO) are for sticking to the older, more tried 2d format, but Matrix sees that market as not profitable enough and are going to work on the 3d model towards the younger market, where the money and market potentially is.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
mooxe

Rep: 212.9
votes: 25


PostPosted: Fri Sep 26, 2014 2:06 pm Post subject: Re: Disenchanted Reply with quote

schrecken wrote (View Post):

The Blood implemented that without consultaion or notification as far as I know.. so well picked up by the community.

I believe the effects were reduced/toned down at least twice while i was involved but it is hard coded.

I am a conservative player and did not play Rambo style so it's effects went little noticed by me in general game play... only when testing specifically was it noticeable.... but it is a control that would favor Rambo style players.


I think this "feature" went overboard. In the originals movement would not be aborted unless the fire was too heavy. The troops would go to a crawl but still head in the right direction. Now they just outright cancel their movement and head backwards, not always towards cover. When your opponent is fighting out of the deploy box, all you have to do is create some indirect fire to cancel the movement of many teams at once. This can be extremely annoying if your teams are all heading in different directions/house/hedges. This feature is not that much different than "never act on initiative" which we all turn off online.


Stwa wrote (View Post):

The fact that so many players cannot really form a true consensus regarding strategic and tactical game features, makes life more difficult for the developers of CC. -Stwa

Late in my CC gaming experience, I eventually formed the opinion that the developers NEED NOT take into consideration the ideas of a very small, finite group of on-line posters, that promoted multiplayer gaming.

The countless threads at this site alone reveal this utter lack of consensus as to what features constitutes a valid Close Combat game. It would be better for developers to follow their own ideas regarding the development of additional CC releases.


You're right there is no consensus. Most of us probably could agree that the game is sub par now, lacking online players and a less than decent AI. So theres something wrong from our point of view, maybe not from the devs as they know exactly what they are doing... push the game out and do better than break even, success. I would say that the devs did follow their own ideas regarding the development, and here we are, are we better off?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
 
Stwa

Rep: 308.9
votes: 16


PostPosted: Fri Sep 26, 2014 4:20 pm Post subject: Re: Disenchanted Reply with quote

I think this "feature" went overboard. In the originals movement would not be aborted unless the fire was too heavy. The troops would go to a crawl but still head in the right direction. Now they just outright cancel their movement and head backwards, not always towards cover. When your opponent is fighting out of the deploy box, all you have to do is create some indirect fire to cancel the movement of many teams at once. -mooxe

IMHO your statement supports my point. Your experience with this feature is very different than mine, so therefore no consensus on the feature's usefulness. I never play MP, so their is no human opponent. And if you were really worried about the AI using indirect fire to mess with your guys in the deploy box, then don't give the AI anything to create indirect fire with. In CCMT you can get very creative with the deployment zones as well.

I have always been able to pull off human wave (Rambo) tactics despite this feauture. Banzii charges in Okinawa is an example. You just need to charge with more than one team.

I tried to explain along the way, that map sizes and the campaign games themselves actively work against the usefulness of the AI. In the end the tactical game using a modfied CCMT/CC2 Redux was outstanding.

I bought CCMT in 2009, then WAR in 2013. I use WAR for CC4. No regrets really. We tried to tell people to not buy the games until they have been out for a few years, but people don't listen and buy CC games seconds after they have been released by Matirx.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Stwa

Rep: 308.9
votes: 16


PostPosted: Fri Sep 26, 2014 5:12 pm Post subject: Re: Disenchanted Reply with quote

You're right there is no consensus. Most of us probably could agree that the game is sub par now, lacking online players and a less than decent AI. So theres something wrong from our point of view, maybe not from the devs as they know exactly what they are doing... push the game out and do better than break even, success. I would say that the devs did follow their own ideas regarding the development, and here we are, are we better off? - mooxe

Fortunately or unfortunately, because the game can offer a differrent experience to different players, your experience was very different than my own. I remember some time ago, when I started a thread to fix up CC4 Classic from WAR, so I could show forumites how to set this up and how to add a WAR mod using Yuma's modified maps. So altogether WAR would then support 150 maps for WAR, CC4 Classic, and CC4 Classic Woodsie (Yuma's maps). These additions to WAR took just a few days to complete. It was hardly sub par, and I remember playing 3 battles, where the AI kicked my ass in each battle.

Matrix management mainly determines the development cycle, and therefore the recommendation has been to wait several years before purchasing a released CC title.

So to answer your final question. Yes my CC experience has been better than the experience I got when playing Reg CC4 and CC5. So scan through this thread, read my older posts, where I advocated that newbies might want to get CC5. In the end, I ditched this suggestion. Precisely what Tejszd was advocating when this thread was started way back when.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Troger

Rep: 17.5
votes: 2


PostPosted: Sat Sep 27, 2014 3:23 am Post subject: Re: Disenchanted Reply with quote

Stwa wrote (View Post):

The countless threads at this site alone reveal this utter lack of consensus as to what features constitutes a valid Close Combat game. It would be better for developers to follow their own ideas regarding the development of additional CC releases.


These guys doing whatever they want to do?  We're already getting that and look how far that's gotten us.

So, uh, yeah, I think YOU are in the minority with your opinions, especially this one.  Great games weren't created by a couple "big thinkers" alone, they are developed through feedback, and lots of it from a community of players.  The only reason they have the code is because of this community.  

As for the girly soldiers.  A majority of players do not like it.  All this talk about it countering "ramboing" is utter nonsense.  That was never problem in Close Combat. Like has already been said, since there are "all" those people that love the girly soldiers, the amazing "night" feature, restrictive BGs, watching paint dry, etc., make it an OPTION to play with it or without it.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Stwa

Rep: 308.9
votes: 16


PostPosted: Sat Sep 27, 2014 8:37 am Post subject: Re: Disenchanted Reply with quote

These guys doing whatever they want to do?  We're already getting that and look how far that's gotten us. -Troger

In my experience it got me CCMT and WAR, a significant improvement.

The only reason they [Matrix] have the code is because of this community.  -Troger

Actually, didn't Matrix make a contract with Atomic Games and Destineer?

As for the girly soldiers.  A majority of players do not like it.  All this talk about it countering "ramboing" is utter nonsense.  That was never problem in Close Combat. -Troger

Here is a video where swarms of troops could race across the entire map. No wonder mooxe thinks the AI sucks. This particular battle is silly and does little to make me believe that CC is a simulator, but rather an arcade game.

The attackers can Rambo through the walls of a building in a matter of seconds. They can swarm like a flock of locust shoulder to shoulder,  and indirect fire doesn't seem to hurt them. They can cram an entire platoon into a town house. Even when they become fatiqued, there doesn't appear to be any real consequence.  And despite enemy fire and explosions going off all around these guys, they never seem to pause, except to cram a house to avoid some mortar rounds (as directed by the human player).


Link


Last edited by Stwa on Sat Sep 27, 2014 9:07 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Pzt_Crackwise

Rep: 64.9
votes: 1


PostPosted: Sat Sep 27, 2014 9:06 am Post subject: Re: Disenchanted Reply with quote

@Stwa:  I somewhat agree that the Rambo tactics in CC5, even though they were fun, were probably not very realistic. Since the troops can just pass through the building walls, it was possible to charge into melee a lot of times.

The current girly soldier situation makes these type of tactics much harder. However, it is annoying because as said by others here, the units just stop whatever they are doing and lie on their bellies out in the open when they are under fire. And you need to keep them ordering so that they move forward (or retreat). This also makes it harder to do heroic deeds such as assaulting tanks.

Summarizing, even if it may result in slightly more realistic gameplay, girly soliders as it is, is detrimental for gameplay and makes it much harder to advance let alone assult on a map as the attacker. It would be fine, if this thing was optional or at least troops with low experience and morale got affected by it.

Again, as Troger pointed out, when you add new features just don't remove the old ones, keep them and make them optional. If these optionalities are not included in-game, at least keep them accessible from data sheets/excel files etc. so that the modders can tweak them. This is the major mistake Matrix guys have been doing in all these years! And we have told them this countless times...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Stwa

Rep: 308.9
votes: 16


PostPosted: Sat Sep 27, 2014 10:02 am Post subject: Re: Disenchanted Reply with quote

Quote:
The current girly soldier situation makes these type of tactics much harder. However, it is annoying because as said by others here, the units just stop whatever they are doing and lie on their bellies out in the open when they are under fire. -Pzt_Crackwise


My God man, don't move teams out in the open. If your team goes vis, its probably gonna die.  Exclamation

Quote:
Summarizing, even if it may result in slightly more realistic gameplay, girly soliders as it is, is detrimental for gameplay and makes it much harder to advance let alone assult on a map as the attacker. -Pzt_Crackwise


This creates parity with the AI. I thought you guys all wanted a better AI? But, multiplayers are generally just GAMERS. They care less about realism and more about ARCADE and COMPETITION like at Tournament House.

Over time the forumites at CCS have tried to get the developers at Matrix to design CC into a multiplayer arcade game. This has been going on for years, despite the fact that guys like Ian have reminded us that multiplayers are a tiny fraction of the total.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Pzt_Crackwise

Rep: 64.9
votes: 1


PostPosted: Sat Sep 27, 2014 11:00 am Post subject: Re: Disenchanted Reply with quote

Yeah Stwa, good luck honing your skills on that *ultra-über-mega* smart and competent AI!  Even the noobest human in the world would put up a better fight than the CC AI. I realize you (and similar single-player lovers) have fun carrying out search and destroy missions on static AI soldiers deployed as stupidly as possible, lol. No proper attack/defense objectives, no tactical withdrawal, no smoke screen usage... idiotic deployment...  However, this is not a thread to discuss the merits of multiplayer vs singleplayer. We have talked about these a lot before.

You know, many people on this forum would not criticise these Matrix guys as much if they kept the multiplayer like shit as it is, BUT instead improved the single-player so much that playing against the AI is actually fun and realistic! This is not the case, so I don't understand how you can support Matrix behavior in this context.

And CC was never a hardcore simulator, anyway. It is a mixture of arcade and simulation elements. And a game needs to find a good balance between realism and historical accuracy to be playable and enjoyable at the first place, whether simulation or arcade. As an example to illustrate my point, consider the following concept: In reality it is said mortars and artillery were the Nr.1 cause of infantry casualties in WW2. It means if implemented like that, the in-game HE support would be yet even more devastating, rendering the game much less fun (due to the unrealistic small deployment areas). There are already many abstractions and plenty of things toned down in this game, which makes it far from a simulation.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Stwa

Rep: 308.9
votes: 16


PostPosted: Sat Sep 27, 2014 12:00 pm Post subject: Re: Disenchanted Reply with quote

Yeah Stwa, good luck honing your skills on that *ultra-über-mega* smart and competent AI!  Even the noobest human in the world would put up a better fight than the CC AI. I realize you (and similar single-player lovers) have fun carrying out search and destroy missions on static AI soldiers deployed as stupidly as possible, lol. No proper attack/defense objectives, no tactical withdrawal, no smoke screen usage... idiotic deployment... -Pzt_Crackwise

Your just rambling and spewing inaccurate BS because its the best you can do when you are in attack mode. Over time, I have been attacked by the BEST just because I like CCMT.

No proper attack/defense objectives, no tactical withdrawal, no smoke screen usage... idiotic deployment... -Pzt_Crackwise

You have become incoherent. Maybe you should clean your bong. But hey, pay no attention to moi, you can always go back to bitching about Matrix. I just don't want to do that anymore. My bad.  Laughing
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
mooxe

Rep: 212.9
votes: 25


PostPosted: Sat Sep 27, 2014 12:30 pm Post subject: Re: Disenchanted Reply with quote

Crippling the human player to give the AI a chance is the wrong way to go about it.

In my Carentan video, the rambo tactic could of easily been smashed if the AI deployed better. You'll notice some of my men running fast across open areas never came under fire. I shouldn't have free will to run across roads like that.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
 
Stwa

Rep: 308.9
votes: 16


PostPosted: Sat Sep 27, 2014 1:03 pm Post subject: Re: Disenchanted Reply with quote

mooxe wrote (View Post):
Crippling the human player to give the AI a chance is the wrong way to go about it. In my Carentan video, the rambo tactic could of easily been smashed if the AI deployed better.


!@#$%^&*()_+  Question  Laughing

On my system, troops may hit the dirt when they take a substantial amount of fire, or even if they vis enemy troops. It would appear this happens to human player teams and AI teams.  

The AI deployment has NO EFFECT on your ability to dash through the walls of a structure. In CCMT your teams would take much longer to enter the structure and therefore might be noticed and shot up by the AI.
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, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  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!