Close Combat Series :: View topic

through

[^/[Print]\]

Close Combat Series -> The Mess

#1: New Close Combat Author: Ivan_Zaitzev,

Posted: Thu Jul 18, 2013 10:05 pm
—
Right now via twitter The Wargamer is twitting some interesting stuff live from Historicon.

https://twitter.com/Wargamerdotcom/status/357980687086780416
https://twitter.com/Wargamerdotcom/status/357981626724130817
https://twitter.com/Wargamerdotcom/status/357982037124194304

Close Combat: Operation Epsom and a 3d Close Combat for 2014!

#2: Re: New Close Combat Author: platoon_michael, Location: Right behind you

Posted: Thu Jul 18, 2013 10:37 pm
—
Thanks for the info,it is very much appreciated.

@ Matrix
Thanks for another FUCKING Normandy game.

Cant wait. Rolling Eyes

#3: Re: New Close Combat Author: DoktorPaj, Location: Norrköping

Posted: Thu Jul 18, 2013 10:40 pm
—
New Close Combat is great news!
A new Close Combat on the Western Front doesn't feel quite as great, but that's a matter of taste.

I guess I'll just have to keep waiting for an opportunity to fight on the Eastern Front.

#4: Re: New Close Combat Author: platoon_michael, Location: Right behind you

Posted: Thu Jul 18, 2013 10:45 pm
—
Eastern Front would be AWESOME.

It's a shame no one gets that

#5: Re: New Close Combat Author: Pzt_Kanov, Location: México

Posted: Thu Jul 18, 2013 11:55 pm
—
"New Features:

-Improved tree shadows. Now 33% more realistic
-New soldier stat showing his hair color
-New bird sounds
-British voices now with more accent
-Normandy, Normandy, Normandy! until you puke!!!!
-Total number of units in battlefield you can manage upped from 21 to 22!
-Battle map expanded 50km by 50km
-Zoomed in battle map to get more detail now a vehicle occupies the whole screen!
-Strategic units represent depleted squads
-Strategic map covers the whole Euro-asian continent
-Improved AI (extensive beta tested by our trained blind monkeys)
-Improved pathfinding (will only need 5 patches, we swear!)
-Incredible Multiplayer experience! relish on the magic like capacity to play against another single human being across the planet!!!!!!!
-New bloated engine thanks to all the new features. Experience jerky strat map movement that simulates a general with PTSD and long load times to create suspense!
-No sharing units between Battlegroups, because extensive beta test done by our trained monkeys has found sharing of units is extremely difficult to understand and might cause you brain cancer.
-No cool private version features because just don't lol.
-No unified CC version with all the old features plus new ones because that's the stupidest thing ever! stop asking for it!
-No easy to use quick battle scenario editor because it is so old! that was for CC2 get with the times grandpa!
-Points to buy units??? what are you an old lady and a loser?? NO!
-Printed Manual? we are trying to make a game here!
-Videos? there are plenty on youtube!
-New weapon sounds and Icons? lol that's a good one
-And more than 100+ half-thought improvements."

#6: Re: New Close Combat Author: DoktorPaj, Location: Norrköping

Posted: Fri Jul 19, 2013 12:13 am
—
It looks like they're trying to make the newer ones as messy as possible ignoring the community as much as possible, maybe then we'll stop asking them for more and better Close Combats.

Goddamn Close Combat Normandy: Electric Boogaloo.

#7: Re: New Close Combat Author: Pzt_Kanov, Location: México

Posted: Fri Jul 19, 2013 1:30 am
—
Price: $799.00 plus tip

#8: Re: New Close Combat Author: TheImperatorKnight,

Posted: Fri Jul 19, 2013 5:11 pm
—

Pzt_Kanov wrote (View Post):

"New Features:

-Improved tree shadows. Now 33% more realistic
-New soldier stat showing his hair color
-New bird sounds
-British voices now with more accent
-Normandy, Normandy, Normandy! until you puke!!!!
-Total number of units in battlefield you can manage upped from 21 to 22!
-Battle map expanded 50km by 50km
-Zoomed in battle map to get more detail now a vehicle occupies the whole screen!
-Strategic units represent depleted squads
-Strategic map covers the whole Euro-asian continent
-Improved AI (extensive beta tested by our trained blind monkeys)
-Improved pathfinding (will only need 5 patches, we swear!)
-Incredible Multiplayer experience! relish on the magic like capacity to play against another single human being across the planet!!!!!!!
-New bloated engine thanks to all the new features. Experience jerky strat map movement that simulates a general with PTSD and long load times to create suspense!
-No sharing units between Battlegroups, because extensive beta test done by our trained monkeys has found sharing of units is extremely difficult to understand and might cause you brain cancer.
-No cool private version features because just don't lol.
-No unified CC version with all the old features plus new ones because that's the stupidest thing ever! stop asking for it!
-No easy to use quick battle scenario editor because it is so old! that was for CC2 get with the times grandpa!
-Points to buy units??? what are you an old lady and a loser?? NO!
-Printed Manual? we are trying to make a game here!
-Videos? there are plenty on youtube!
-New weapon sounds and Icons? lol that's a good one
-And more than 100+ half-thought improvements."

You forgot a few:

-MG42s... MG42s everywhere
-Downgraded multi-player lobby and match-making forums
-Improved Tank mechanics. Now they don't turn in circles and show their bum to the enemy - they show their side instead!
-Plenty of mods by the Close Combat community

#9: Re: New Close Combat Author: Ivan_Zaitzev,

Posted: Sat Jul 20, 2013 12:42 am
—
Apparently the new game will be called Close Combat: Gateway to Caen.
https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=10151504482681516&id=20431466515

#10: Re: New Close Combat Author: platoon_michael, Location: Right behind you

Posted: Sat Jul 20, 2013 3:01 am
—
Maps I have seen for Operation Epsom looks to me like another shitty strategic map in the making like PiFT.

-Printed Manual? we are trying to make a game here!

I cant poke fun at that one since I'm a printer by trade and unfortunately printed material is going the way of the dodo.

The hair color though,that was awesome.
Maybe we can watch it turn gray as the soldiers experience grows instead of gaining rank.

#11: Re: New Close Combat Author: DAK_Legion,

Posted: Sat Jul 20, 2013 7:13 am
—
Please read the last message by Maná in the post....kurks 1943....more details of this new close combat

#12: Re: New Close Combat Author: TheImperatorKnight,

Posted: Sat Jul 20, 2013 7:46 pm
—
According to Matrix Game's Twitter page, the new game will be called Close Combat: The Bloody First - but this may be a mistake.

Also, the screenshots on Matrix Forums basically look like Panthers in the Fog. http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3368558

So I guess PitF isn't "the last traditional Close Combat game" like they made it out to be.

#13: Re: New Close Combat Author: Dima,

Posted: Sat Jul 20, 2013 7:58 pm
—
Haha, Panther G vs Cromwell IV is everywhere - so dramatical, but unfortunately unrealistic Smile

Funny that a gunner and loader of Cromwell IV forgot of a coaxial BESA Smile

But we should wait and see, could be a good thing - so many good guys are involved Wink

#14: Re: New Close Combat Author: Pzt_Kanov, Location: México

Posted: Sat Jul 20, 2013 8:42 pm
—
It looks like GJS for PitF.

I guess asking for it to be sold as DLC for PitF is too much uh? hehe

#15: Re: New Close Combat Author: platoon_michael, Location: Right behind you

Posted: Sat Jul 20, 2013 8:54 pm
—
So where exactly is the 3D?

#16: Re: New Close Combat Author: Pzt_Kanov, Location: México

Posted: Sat Jul 20, 2013 8:59 pm
—
Did you put your 3D glasses on Micheal?

#17: Re: New Close Combat Author: platoon_michael, Location: Right behind you

Posted: Sat Jul 20, 2013 9:12 pm
—
I don't have any.

This is not at all what I thought the game would look like.

I was expecting something like COH graphics.

#18: Re: New Close Combat Author: Stwa,

Posted: Sat Jul 20, 2013 11:58 pm
—

platoon_michael wrote (View Post):

@ Matrix
Thanks for another FUCKING Normandy game. Cant wait. Rolling Eyes

Agreed, another FUCKING Normandy game. Exclamation

But, I knew it was coming. ITS A GJS SUMMER. Cathartes is the MAN. Laughing

Me thinks they are gonna keep cranking these out 1 per year, until doomsday. Razz

Its like that old TWIGHLIGHT ZONE episode where the cast (thats us) is on a passenger train that keeps arriving at THE SAME STATION. Laughing

@Kanov,
I loved your post. Very funny.

#19: Re: New Close Combat Author: Ivan_Zaitzev,

Posted: Sun Jul 21, 2013 1:10 am
—
This one and the 3d one are two different games. If you read the twitts at the first post you will see that The Wargamer is talking bout two different games.

But yes, It's a real shame they are still pointing at Normandy.

#20: Re: New Close Combat Author: platoon_michael, Location: Right behind you

Posted: Sun Jul 21, 2013 2:50 am
—

Ivan_Zaitzev wrote (View Post):

This one and the 3d one are two different games. If you read the twitts at the first post you will see that The Wargamer is talking bout two different games.

But yes, It's a real shame they are still pointing at Normandy.

Whoops,
My bad.
I thought they said after PiFT we were getting a new 3D game

At this point I'd have to say this is just down right embarrassing to watch.

Kinda like reading all of Stwa's post about how great CCMT all these years only to watch him drop the ball when somebody actually wants help in the modding forums and Stwa totally missed it. Laughing

.

Stwa's only friend

#21: Re: New Close Combat Author: Tejszd, Location: Canada

Posted: Sun Jul 21, 2013 3:36 am
—
They did say that PiTF would be the last non 3D Close Combat but maybe it is taking more effort/time to do then originally thought. So ithey will release, what right now looks like an add-on to PiTF, another 2d game.....

Wonder....
- what, if any, new features are going to be coded for it???
- what the cost will be (add-on or full game)???

#22: Re: New Close Combat Author: southern_land,

Posted: Sun Jul 21, 2013 4:20 am
—

Stwa wrote (View Post):

platoon_michael wrote (View Post):

@ Matrix
Thanks for another FUCKING Normandy game. Cant wait. Rolling Eyes

probably the first time I've ever agreed with Stwa

#23: Re: New Close Combat Author: squadleader_id, Location: Soerabaja

Posted: Sun Jul 21, 2013 5:38 am
—

Dima wrote (View Post):

Haha, Panther G vs Cromwell IV is everywhere - so dramatical, but unfortunately unrealistic Smile

Too bad the simple rank graphics glitches are never looked at...I'm spotting more panzer crews with infantry double litzen collar insignia and red arty waffenfarbe.
The CC5 engine restricted rank graphics slots...the Matrix rereleases opened up those restrictions...but the devs time and time again messed up these simple graphic details Rolling Eyes

But it's great to hear that this time good people are taken on board! Good luck, Guys!

#24: Re: New Close Combat Author: Sapa,

Posted: Sun Jul 21, 2013 4:49 pm
—
I HAD TO comment...bought them all but this time..hmmm..WHY cant you leave the fucking hedges and the year 1944!? use the year but make a East front game please!!

Is it the same team that will "test" it this time? Shocked

/Mats

#25: Re: New Close Combat Author: TheImperatorKnight,

Posted: Sun Jul 21, 2013 7:36 pm
—

Sapa wrote (View Post):

I HAD TO comment...bought them all but this time..hmmm..WHY cant you leave the fucking hedges and the year 1944!? use the year but make a East front game please!!

Is it the same team that will "test" it this time? Shocked

/Mats

Couldn't agree more. If they're doing a Brits vs German game (first time ever!) they could have chosen North Africa, or Italy or something. Crete even. Anywhere but Normandy!

#26: Re: New Close Combat Author: squadleader_id, Location: Soerabaja

Posted: Sun Jul 21, 2013 10:24 pm
—
Easier to do Normandy...same old looking maps that you can cut-and-paste from the old games/mods and no need to work on new element files (the current Normandy element file for the rereleases still needs tweaking) Very Happy

Basically the same nations, units and weapons...same vehicles with samey camo schemes etc.

So.........more time to work on the new features and introduce new bugs! Rolling Eyes

Prolly gonna buy it anyway...for a few weeks of fun before putting it away waiting for those patches Twisted Evil

#27: Re: New Close Combat Author: Tejszd, Location: Canada

Posted: Mon Jul 22, 2013 6:39 am
—
Here is the comments from the Matrix developer pn the new CC's from the Matrix forum PiTF forum: http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3368361

Steve McClaire wrote:

Gateway to Caen is planned for release towards the end of this year (or early next) and will be based on the existing Panthers in the Fog engine with all new maps and units to support the campaign setting (Operation EPSOM). There are also plans to redo many of the game graphics (vehicles, effects, etc) as well as the sounds. Code changes are still being discussed at this time so I can't give you anything specific on that yet.

The Bloody First is planned for release next year and will use the new 3D engine.

Steve

#28: Re: New Close Combat Author: platoon_michael, Location: Right behind you

Posted: Mon Jul 22, 2013 11:22 am
—
The Bloody First is planned for release next year and will use the new 3D engine.

Assuming the Bloody First is referring to the 1st Inv. Div (It's first up in a Google search) you can either assume Africa or Normandy.
I would hope it's not a Modern day game such as Korea,Vietnam,Iraq

Of course I hope it's another Battle of the Bulge game,but won't hold my breath on it.
Wouldn't make sense to call it that.

I guess it's possible the name could be all smoke and mirrors for now and I wouldnt be surprised if it was.
Just seems like a very UN-attractive name to me.

I never found the Maps from Jim's Africa Mod to be attractive to me,not that they weren't well done just very bland.
I mean how much can you really do with a desert map?

Oh well,wait and see,hope for the Best

#29: Re: New Close Combat Author: platoon_michael, Location: Right behind you

Posted: Mon Jul 22, 2013 11:46 am
—
A Battle of the Bulge game in 3D if done properly is without a doubt the BEST avenue to take.

Weather if done properly would be Awesome.
Strategically speaking it's always been the best of the CC series.

Last edited by platoon_michael on Thu Jul 25, 2013 1:05 am; edited 1 time in total

#30: Re: New Close Combat Author: Sapa,

Posted: Mon Jul 22, 2013 3:34 pm
—
WAR, TLD, LSA and PIF..yes there are roads on the map and at least me whants the vehichles to use them without getting them bogged down all the time and the girlie Soldiers is nice (at least in Euro 2013 ladies(specially the Swedish ones and the nice black girl from France that runs like hell) but i dont like them in CC...

What is the problem really..i cant understand why their isnt noticed in any of the new games that you have to click with your mouse 500 times every battle! It doesent matter that you change the game to better Graphics (yes it is nice) when the Girls ruines the game..

Im an old fool playing the game since -97 and you still havent succeded in making a good Close Combat 2!

Shame on You Matrix! (yes its 2013 now)

Mats

#31: Re: New Close Combat Author: TheImperatorKnight,

Posted: Mon Jul 22, 2013 4:24 pm
—
I see why they're doing Normandy again (because it sells, and is easier like squadleader said), but I'm sure a "Close Combat: Rommel" based in North Africa would probably sell just as well. I don't know why they don't just try something new.

#32: Re: New Close Combat Author: DoktorPaj, Location: Norrköping

Posted: Mon Jul 22, 2013 5:20 pm
—
According to Steve McClaire
[quote]...in the single player grand campaign you will be carrying a force of the US 1st Infantry division through three campaigns... [/quote]

we may not be able to fight on both the German and Allied side in the game. The ability to fight on either side in a campaign was always the best part of close combat for me, just as the individual unit selection system, and now they've removed both.

#33: Re: New Close Combat Author: platoon_michael, Location: Right behind you

Posted: Mon Jul 22, 2013 11:08 pm
—
Gateway to Caen will be a stand-alone game -- Panthers in the Fog will not be required to play it.

As a general caveat, The Bloody First is fairly early in development, and anything I say is 'the current plan' and may change before release.

The Bloody First campaign is going to look more like CC3's campaign system -- in the single player grand campaign you will be carrying a force of the US 1st Infantry division through three campaigns: Tunisia, Sicily, and Normandy. It will be more dynamic than CC3 though, as there will be triggers and decision points that will alter the 'flow' of an operation and campaign. Say your objective in an operation is to seize a hill, and you do it easily and quickly. This could trigger a counter-attack battle, or it could trigger a follow-on battle where you are pursuing the defeated enemy down a long road map. If you capture a given road junction you may get a choice of where to proceed from there, etc.

Steve

I didn't see what DoktorPaj posted but there's no reason for me to look any further.
If what he Dok posted is true
That's everything I didn't want in a game.

No Strategic Map?

Reading that is just a huge dagger for me.
Kinda like finding out that Rich Super Model you've been fucking for years has been cheating on you with a Midget.

Looks Like I better learn how to create graphics and hopefully,somehow,maybe keep WAR interesting for me.

Next

Last edited by platoon_michael on Mon Jul 22, 2013 11:18 pm; edited 1 time in total

#34: Re: New Close Combat Author: TheImperatorKnight,

Posted: Mon Jul 22, 2013 11:17 pm
—
No strat map, but they're making a CC3 campaign that's more dynamic. That's a win.

It sounds a lot like their Panzer Corps campaign (it might not be). If it is, I'm really looking forward to it because that system works well. Anyone who like CC3's (and possibly CCMT's?) campaign system will like this.

#35: Re: New Close Combat Author: Pzt_Kanov, Location: México

Posted: Tue Jul 23, 2013 12:59 am
—
To be fair it does not says specifically with those words that there isn't going to be a strategic map. And reading it well it really has more similarities with CC2 campaign, for example in CC2 if you failed to grab the Arnhem rail bridge (First Battle in the campaign) then you could not retreat from the Arnhem Operation to Oosterbeek and you where doomed to stand fast or die at the Arnhem Bridge (That is if you actually made it there), other form of trigger was the delay of constructing bridges if the real ones were blown up. There were a couple of situations like that when the outcome of one battle affected the strategic outcome sometimes of another OP like the polish drops.

CC3 was straight up linear combat operation and campaign, I think Steve meant that the similarities of CC3 with the new 3D CC is more in the form of carrying the same core force (Battle group or groups??) through several campaigns and watching them gain experience.

At least that is what I want to believe he meant.

#36: Re: New Close Combat Author: Stwa,

Posted: Tue Jul 23, 2013 2:36 am
—

platoon_michael wrote (View Post):

Kinda like reading all of Stwa's post about how great CCMT all these years only to watch him drop the ball when somebody actually wants help in the modding forums and Stwa totally missed it. Laughing

SchneleMeyer = AT_Stalky or pvt_Grunt, or maybe Homeland Security. Laughing

That kind of stuff is Tejszd's department. Idea

#37: Re: New Close Combat Author: Stwa,

Posted: Tue Jul 23, 2013 2:40 am
—

southern_land wrote (View Post):

probably the first time I've ever agreed with Stwa

I thought your were "IN" on the Nibiru thing. (so its the second time). Shocked

#38: Re: New Close Combat Author: southern_land,

Posted: Tue Jul 23, 2013 6:37 am
—

Stwa wrote (View Post):

southern_land wrote (View Post):

probably the first time I've ever agreed with Stwa

I thought your were "IN" on the Nibiru thing. (so its the second time). Shocked

the end of life as we know it (in both ways) LOL

#39: Re: New Close Combat Author: Dima,

Posted: Tue Jul 23, 2013 7:24 am
—
Sounds like it will not have a stratmap like in CC4-PITF, most probably just a map with locked missions on it - linear with some cross-roads.
That would actually make sense to play vs AI and might have a quite interesting SP GC.
But then MP would downgrad to single battles and small ops on 1 map - definitely not my way Smile

.

Anyway sounds alot like Combat Mission to me.

#40: Re: New Close Combat Author: TheImperatorKnight,

Posted: Tue Jul 23, 2013 8:25 am
—

Pzt_Kanov wrote (View Post):

And reading it well it really has more similarities with CC2 campaign...
CC3 was straight up linear combat operation and campaign, I think Steve meant that the similarities of CC3 with the new 3D CC is more in the form of carrying the same core force (Battle group or groups??) through several campaigns and watching them gain experience.

It basically sounds like the best of both. In Panzer Corps you have one unit that you go through the campaign with (like CC3), but depending on how well you do on a specific mission affects which battles you fight, or even where the campaign ends up (like CC2). So, if you get decisive victories all the way through, you end up invading the USA. But if you only get marginal victories, you may end up in Berlin. I think that's the type of campaign system they're hinting at, but probably limited to one battle or area.

#41: Re: New Close Combat Author: Stwa,

Posted: Tue Jul 23, 2013 8:00 pm
—
Say your objective in an operation is to seize a hill, and you do it easily and quickly. This could trigger a counter-attack battle, or it could trigger a follow-on battle where you are pursuing the defeated enemy down a long road map. If you capture a given road junction you may get a choice of where to proceed from there, etc.

Steve

This is what I have been doing all along with CCMT Operations. I just name the next battle choices in the OP-Order for the current mission. Idea

I am glad, that after 15 years, they have finally seen the light. Laughing

But because most people that play the game are lazy, they need the system to load the next battle for them, rather than simply selecting it themselves from a menu. [slaps forehead]

Anyway, I explained my approach here

What is a CCMT Campaign?

#42: Re: New Close Combat Author: Stwa,

Posted: Wed Jul 24, 2013 5:05 pm
—

southern_land wrote (View Post):

the end of life as we know it (in both ways) LOL

touche

#43: Re: New Close Combat Author: Stwa,

Posted: Wed Jul 24, 2013 5:15 pm
—
The Bloody First campaign is going to look more like CC3's campaign system -- in the single player grand campaign you will be carrying a force of the US 1st Infantry division through three campaigns: Tunisia, Sicily, and Normandy. It will be more dynamic than CC3 though, as there will be triggers and decision points that will alter the 'flow' of an operation and campaign. -Steve

Sounds, like the very first Medal of Honor game (the one for PCs NOT consoles). Only that was a frist person shooter, which was totally cool, except the maps were too small. If I hadn't traded that game away, I might play it instead of 3D CC. Laughing

BUT WAIT: What about Castle Wolfenstein. Question

Satchel charges in the gondolas were the best. Laughing

With 3D, they have the ability to model specific places on Earth, the height data exists and is frequently used by games. But me thinks this team won't do that.

And if the places seem fictional, then alot of the people here that visit this site, will not be amused. But fortunately for Matrix, the people that visit this site on a regular basis are a tiny fraction of the total purchasers of a game.

#44: Re: New Close Combat Author: TheImperatorKnight,

Posted: Wed Jul 24, 2013 6:19 pm
—

Stwa wrote (View Post):

This is what I have been doing all along with CCMT Operations. I just name the next battle choices in the OP-Order for the current mission. Idea

I am glad, that after 15 years, they have finally seen the light. Laughing

15 years too long Confused

but for the first time since the classics, we might have a great single-player experience. Break out the champagne!

#45: Re: New Close Combat Author: Dima,

Posted: Wed Jul 24, 2013 7:17 pm
—

TheImperatorKnight wrote (View Post):

Stwa wrote (View Post):

This is what I have been doing all along with CCMT Operations. I just name the next battle choices in the OP-Order for the current mission. Idea

I am glad, that after 15 years, they have finally seen the light. Laughing

15 years too long Confused

but for the first time since the classics, we might have a great single-player experience. Break out the champagne!

there are alot of good WW2 games with great single-player experience.
The main thing that has been keeping CC alive is H2H GC.

#46: Re: New Close Combat Author: platoon_michael, Location: Right behind you

Posted: Wed Jul 24, 2013 8:33 pm
—

Stwa wrote (View Post):

Say your objective in an operation is to seize a hill, and you do it easily and quickly. This could trigger a counter-attack battle, or it could trigger a follow-on battle where you are pursuing the defeated enemy down a long road map. If you capture a given road junction you may get a choice of where to proceed from there, etc.

Steve

This is what I have been doing all along with CCMT Operations. I just name the next battle choices in the OP-Order for the current mission. Idea

I am glad, that after 15 years, they have finally seen the light. Laughing

But because most people that play the game are lazy, they need the system to load the next battle for them, rather than simply selecting it themselves from a menu. [b][slaps forehead][/b]

Anyway, I explained my approach here

What is a CCMT Campaign?

Picking your own Battle is better than having a long term Battle Battle plan?

#47: Re: New Close Combat Author: TheImperatorKnight,

Posted: Wed Jul 24, 2013 10:19 pm
—

Dima wrote (View Post):

there are alot of good WW2 games with great single-player experience.
The main thing that has been keeping CC alive is H2H GC.

You can't blame Matrix for switching to single-player after the way the community complained about multiplayer in PitF.

And I disagree. The main thing that has been keeping CCS alive is H2H, but the fanbase at large is largely single-player based.

#48: Re: New Close Combat Author: platoon_michael, Location: Right behind you

Posted: Thu Jul 25, 2013 1:09 am
—
You can't blame Matrix for switching to single-player after the way the community complained about multiplayer in PitF.

You couldn't be anymore Stupid if you tried.

#49: Re: New Close Combat Author: Tejszd, Location: Canada

Posted: Thu Jul 25, 2013 1:51 am
—
The problem with PiTF multiplayer is they took something that worked good, as long you know how to open your ports, and forced all connections to go though their server(s) which did not (at first). On top of that the servers may not be around in year plus which will make H2H not work but we are still playing CC5 H2H a decade after release and with the original company, Atomic, closing its doors....

Last edited by Tejszd on Thu Jul 25, 2013 4:11 am; edited 1 time in total

#50: Re: New Close Combat Author: mooxe,

Posted: Thu Jul 25, 2013 3:39 am
—

TheImperatorKnight wrote (View Post):

Dima wrote (View Post):

there are alot of good WW2 games with great single-player experience.
The main thing that has been keeping CC alive is H2H GC.

Removing multiplayer because we complained at how it was implemented is beyond childish.

Theres not one single thing keeping Close Combat or CCS alive. Its a combination of things that go back 15 years now.

The H2H ability of Close Combat was the main driving factor in why CSO (imo) and CCS (not an opinion haha) were started. I think if there was no H2H there would of been little reason to get online and collaborate, therefore games probably would not of been modded to the extent they were. If there was never H2H, CCMarines would of never been created and Matrix Games probably wouldn't of picked up the series due to no community showing interest in furthering the series.

Suppose they do leave out multiplayer on the next one.... They will be able to push that through the door so much quicker. No H2H testing at all, no H2H code and no lobby to continue supporting. Makes sense for them. I bet you even the AI will be just as incredibly stupid as it is now. Setting up an ATG behind a house surrounding my 3m hedgerows, and tanks turning their backs to other tanks.

#51: Re: New Close Combat Author: Stwa,

Posted: Thu Jul 25, 2013 4:18 am
—
Suppose they do leave out multiplayer on the next one.... They will be able to push that through the door so much quicker. No H2H testing at all, no H2H code and no lobby to continue supporting. Makes sense for them. I bet you even the AI will be just as incredibly stupid as it is now. Setting up an ATG behind a house surrounding my 3m hedgerows, and tanks turning their backs to other tanks. -mooxe

As we age, we all get slower, and dumber, and dumber, so forth and so on. Laughing

But being a software development type myself, there is no greater joy in programming than ripping out huge amounts of ugly, seldom used, legacy code. And that is precisely what CC multiplayer represents. Try ripping singleplayer from the game and see how well sales do. Razz

@Dima

For some reason, I just get the impression that there is even less MP campaigns in progress. I hardly ever hear of anyone finishing a SP campaign, never mind a MP campaign. I say rip them both, and come up with something that people can complete without having to dedicate huge amounts of their time. Perhaps the solution would be a CCMT campaign. Yea, maybe so. Idea

#52: Re: New Close Combat Author: Pzt_Kanov, Location: México

Posted: Thu Jul 25, 2013 5:52 am
—
what's with the name calling guys? I thought we were not another teen gamers forum. Multi has always been a huge part of CC I doubt very much that they will axe it but you never know with those guys (or guy? I dont know anymore). Why they couldnt institucionalize CCReq so as to be enbedded into the game itself and develop it further to allow custom BG in custom OPs is beyond me. But yeah the issue with multiplayer is the developers fault and is such a cop out to eliminate it so as to not having to deal with that again.

Anyways, dont get mad just yet steve hasnt confirmed anything worth getting mad at except they are going to charge full price for gjs mod for pitf.

Anyone willing to lend me 59 dollars?

#53: Re: New Close Combat Author: nikin,

Posted: Thu Jul 25, 2013 7:00 am
—
If you're expecting releases from Matrix - Close Combat is lost to you.
If you believe that a SP is acceptable - Close Combat is lost to you.
The game died with the advent of CC LSA.

The site has a dozen people who understand why this is so. The rest either eat everything that is offered to them, or worn with strange ideas. Was marginalized community.

Cheers, nikin

#54: Re: New Close Combat Author: Stwa,

Posted: Thu Jul 25, 2013 9:51 am
—
Well, that was deep. Laughing

Its the campaign based games that hose single player, and if you haven't figured that out yet, Close Combat is lost to you. Exclamation

Imagine a single player game on a 40x40 map with 4 VLs that are controlled by the AI from the start. Make both sides equal in firepower, and then hide the VLs (their symbols) from the Human Player. Or, how about no VLs at all. Laughing

Most NOOBS wont play that game, because the greater majority of players, need to start shooting right after they hit begin, or the game just isn't any fun for them.

@Kanov,

Ya, it is kinda hard to imagine Matrix ripping multiplayer from any CC title.

#55: Re: New Close Combat Author: TheImperatorKnight,

Posted: Thu Jul 25, 2013 10:24 am
—

Tejszd wrote (View Post):

The problem with PiTF multiplayer is they took something that worked good, as long you know how to open your ports, and forced all connections to go though their server(s) which did not (at first). On top of that the servers may not be around in year plus which will make H2H not work but we are still playing CC5 H2H a decade after release and with the original company, Atomic, closing its doors....

Ah, but it does work now. Yes, I get that when the servers go down, that's it. But the server system works much easier and I wouldn't go back to direct IP if I had a choice. Only problem with it is you can't find players using it, but there's been a few suggestions that could improve it to make it easier to find players. Maybe we'll see them.

Stwa wrote:

For some reason, I just get the impression that there is even less MP campaigns in progress. I hardly ever hear of anyone finishing a SP campaign, never mind a MP campaign. I say rip them both, and come up with something that people can complete without having to dedicate huge amounts of their time. Perhaps the solution would be a CCMT campaign. Yea, maybe so.

When I look at the forums for CC (here and over at Matrix/Slitherine), I wonder if the series is dead. Then I look at some of Martix's better games (like Panzer Corps) and see all the activity, and I wonder why CC isn't so popular. What worked back in 1997 doesn't work in 2013. Times have changed, and things need to change if CC is to stay alive. A CCMT/Panzer Corps-like campaign system could work - it might not do - but it's worth a shot, rather than giving us the same game systems over and over.

Mooxe wrote:

Theres not one single thing keeping Close Combat or CCS alive. Its a combination of things that go back 15 years now.

Of course there is, I understand that. I was trying to point out that (unlike here) most players are playing single-player. When someone buys a game, first thing most will do is play single-player. Multiplayer may come later, but single-player comes first. If you have poor single-player, why would you bother going to play multi-player? It's holding CC back because the single-player has gotten no better (I'd argue worse) than it was in the 90's.

And I doubt they'll get rid of multiplayer - I just think the scenarios you'll play won't be balanced. If they do make it like the Panzer Corps campaign, it'll be a lot more challenging to play as the Allied player than the Axis player. In PC, the Axis player only had a few turns to capture all objectives, which is tough against the AI (depending on difficulty settings etc). The Allied player would have more resources because the Allied side was built for the AI. But imagine playing against a human player, with all what the AI had been given. An unbalanced game + human players = a challenge for any multiplayer person here.

In short, this could be better for everyone.

#56: Re: New Close Combat Author: TheImperatorKnight,

Posted: Thu Jul 25, 2013 10:26 am
—

Stwa wrote (View Post):

Most NOOBS wont play that game, because the greater majority of players, need to start shooting right after they hit begin, or the game just isn't any fun for them.

I'm not a newb, but sometimes I crave returning back to CC2 so I can get my start-battle-start-shooting fix Razz

#57: Re: New Close Combat Author: Stwa,

Posted: Thu Jul 25, 2013 10:42 am
—

TheImperatorKnight wrote (View Post):

Stwa wrote (View Post):

Most NOOBS wont play that game, because the greater majority of players, need to start shooting right after they hit begin, or the game just isn't any fun for them.

I'm not a newb, but sometimes I crave returning back to CC2 so I can get my start-battle-start-shooting fix Razz

Sure, everyone does from time to time. That's why I play WW2, to get my shooting fix. And don't forget the screaming too, "I cant take it anymore" or "we're screwed". WW2 CC is so toy like, if you know what I mean. I got the impression, they fixed a lot of that with PiTF, when I saw some of the lifers whining that they were going up against 8 man teams, with their 4 or 5 man teams. Just like CCMT. And me thinks they where whining about their SINGLE PLAYER GAME. Shocked

But you can't play this without a NO TIME LIMIT button. Laughing

#58: Re: New Close Combat Author: TheImperatorKnight,

Posted: Thu Jul 25, 2013 10:54 am
—
@Stwa. That looks interesting. So they're just hidden right? In that case, I'd just destroy the enemy and win that way. Would probably take forever though because of the map size Sad

But back on topic - there's no way Matrix would take away multi-player from CC. At worst, it'll be unbalanced. It'll be interesting to see if they'll stick with the server system or not though. I hope they keep it (but improve it), but we'll see.

#59: Re: New Close Combat Author: Stwa,

Posted: Thu Jul 25, 2013 11:06 am
—
there's no way Matrix would take away multi-player from CC. - TheImperatorKnight

You are correct, of course. I'm not really sure why we started discussing it, like it could actually happen. Laughing

But, imagine if they did can multiplayer. The most immediate effect might be the silence from the ever shrinking circle of Multiplayer Chauvanists, that keep telling us how great multiplayer is. Its been discussed for IONS, but multiplayer is just too weeniefied. There is no drama, no death, and its too politcally correct. And everyone insists on "equal" force for each side. How lame is that?

I'd just destroy the enemy and win that way. - TheImperatorKnight

NO, NO, NO. Only a NOOB does that! There is a company sized OPFOR unit scattered around in the hills. We need Modern Tactics. I used 9 artillery barrages at an average of 12 rounds per barrage. At $1,000 bucks per shell, thats about $108,000 dollars. Next I brought in some Apaches, for schmucks that got scared and stood up after the barrage. After the Apaches, there will be fixed wing strikes, with napalm.

#60: Re: New Close Combat Author: Bungarra, Location: Murchison region, West Australia

Posted: Thu Jul 25, 2013 3:08 pm
—
Crikey.... lets just see what comes out Rolling Eyes

#61: Re: New Close Combat Author: TheImperatorKnight,

Posted: Thu Jul 25, 2013 3:24 pm
—

Stwa wrote:

You like causing trouble, don't you? Smile

I don't see the point in having equal sides. Surely the challenge lies in having a disadvantage?

Stwa wrote:

I'd just destroy the enemy and win that way. - TheImperatorKnight

NO, NO, NO. Only a NOOB does that! There is a company sized OPFOR unit scattered around in the hills. We need Modern Tactics. I used 9 artillery barrages at an average of 12 rounds per barrage. At $1,000 bucks per shell, thats about $108,000 dollars. Next I brought in some Apaches, for schmucks that got scared and stood up after the barrage. After the Apaches, there will be fixed wing strikes, with napalm.

a) How did you find the enemy? Did you scout the positions first with infantry, or just fire away?
b) I wonder how this would work if your enemy had the same level of support as you? Or if they had air superiority?
c) You still destroyed the enemy - so I was right Wink

Bungarra wrote:

Crikey.... lets just see what comes out

Agreed. I'll be shutting up for a while now.

#62: Re: New Close Combat Author: Stwa,

Posted: Thu Jul 25, 2013 8:16 pm
—
You still destroyed the enemy - so I was right Wink

-TheImperatorKnight

Well, not exactly. I know your specialty is WW2, so I am not surprised that you are not up to snuff on the nuances of Modern Combat. Laughing

The map was actually a 25x25, not a 40x40, which has about 2.5 times the area.

Well, you gotta figure the bad guys were hiding in the hills, plus I have played this mission before. But, there were over 100 OPFOR soldiers, and as I look around and try to count bodies, I don't see that many. Now for the gruesome details.

1102.5 gallon fuel capacity for Typhoon
370 gallon fuel capacity for Apache
Cost of jet fuel $3 per gallon (July 2013)
Cost of 155mm HE artillery round (apx) $1,000
Cost of Hellfire missle (basic) $25,000 - Note: the cave busters we used would cost more

108 155mm shells (9 barrages at 12 rounds per barrage) = $108,000
12 hellfires/2 birds in Typhoon strikes. $300,000 (Hellfires) + $6,615 (fuel) = $306,615
16 hellfires/1 bird in Apache strikes. $400,000 (Hellfires) + $1,110 (fuel) = $401,110

Total cost of CAS & AS = $815,725
Note: the Typhoon doesn't really carry the Hellfire, but it does in CCMT.

As I feared, OPFOR had a company sized unit with RPGs, AKs, and a few grenade launchers on the AKs.

#63: Re: New Close Combat Author: russ109,

Posted: Fri Jul 26, 2013 3:48 am
—
Fantastic, I like Normandy!!!

#64: Re: New Close Combat Author: southern_land,

Posted: Fri Jul 26, 2013 6:46 am
—

russ109 wrote (View Post):

Fantastic, I like Normandy!!!

boo Rus, Boo!!!!! Shocked

#65: Re: New Close Combat Author: russ109,

Posted: Fri Jul 26, 2013 11:57 am
—

southern_land wrote (View Post):

russ109 wrote (View Post):

Fantastic, I like Normandy!!!

boo Rus, Boo!!!!! Shocked

Ha ha.

How you doing Shane?

#66: Re: New Close Combat Author: Sapa,

Posted: Sun Jul 28, 2013 9:24 am
—
I love you both! <3

#67: Re: New Close Combat Author: Ivan_Zaitzev,

Posted: Sun Jul 28, 2013 9:05 pm
—

nikin wrote (View Post):

The game died with the advent of CC LSA.

Why?

#68: Re: New Close Combat Author: Schmal_Turm,

Posted: Mon Jul 29, 2013 3:36 am
—
I agree with the question of Ivan_Zaitze: Why?

With the advent of LSA/PitF the German player, using the tactic of two units in the same battle area, can now incorporate into battle the tactical reason for the Tiger I, namely as a fire brigade able to run around the battlefield to appear in areas needing shoring up. I have been doing a lot of reading of late and this was the proper use of the Tigers in combat using movement by rail as they generally did not survive the long trek overland without many breakdowns along the way. Luckily for them they generally had an excellent repair crew with each motorized unit able to put many of the breakdowns back into service in a relatively short time. This is incorporate into CC, in some measure, as some of the tracked vehicles do come back into service by the next turn.

The other good reason for the same two units in one area is that then when a different unit takes over an area from a previous unit the replacing unit no longer has to run around to all of the VPs to secure them since they are already in control. With the previous system it created the unrealistic option of having to run around collecting all of the VPs that were already in control. It also gives the defending unit a better advantage, as it should be, on any area under control by a previous unit.

These are the reasons that it would be great if all of the previous mods could be modified to the new system although I am more than happy to get them in any way that you "MOD GODS" can make them up. Many thanks for all of your hard work. Maybe some day I will take the trouble to find out how you guys do it.

#69: Re: New Close Combat Author: Pzt_Kanov, Location: México

Posted: Mon Jul 29, 2013 4:11 pm
—

Schmal_Turm wrote (View Post):

I agree with the question of Ivan_Zaitze: Why?

With the advent of LSA/PitF the German player, using the tactic of two units in the same battle area, can now incorporate into battle the tactical reason for the Tiger I, namely as a fire brigade able to run around the battlefield to appear in areas needing shoring up.

Agree, the last two releases have been mostly big improvements, the problem for me is that they dumbed down a great feature from LSA when they released PiTF because they changed the way troops are selected which is all nice and a very welcomed improvement since you can replace active troops without losing their stats, but they went the easy route and just dropped the sharing of units from two BG's occupying the same map, because "Drawing units from the reserve BG was not retained for Panthers for a number of reasons. The main reason was because most feedback indicated it was overly complicated, and didn't really justify the amount of UI complexity or confusion it created"

In other words, Matrix thinks you're dumb and did you a favor by dropping the "overly complicated" feature.

#70: Re: New Close Combat Author: Stwa,

Posted: Mon Jul 29, 2013 4:47 pm
—
In other words, Matrix thinks you're dumb and did you a favor by dropping the "overly complicated" feature. -Kanov

Isn't that the same reason the gave for canning direct connect?

#71: Re: New Close Combat Author: Pzt_Kanov, Location: México

Posted: Mon Jul 29, 2013 5:19 pm
—

Stwa wrote (View Post):

Isn't that the same reason the gave for canning direct connect?

I think so.

Maybe in the future, the close combat series will be just a series of videos or cinematics because it will be determined by Matrix to be overly complicated to play them.

#72: Re: New Close Combat Author: nikin,

Posted: Tue Jul 30, 2013 8:13 am
—
COI
A lot of new bugs. But the attempt to tie the game for a strategic map (MMCC3). But it is almost impossible to use.
This part is also a failure.
This is where the bug is born, when the infantry came under fire - canceled the order to move (even sneak). Further in all Matrix releases!

CCMT
In fact, not related to the Matrix.

TLD
There are obvious advantages.
1) Removed crashes occurred in CC5. This is very serious - in cc5 I interrupted several H2H campaigns for this reason. The game is stable, including Gameranger.
2) Fixed many bugs on the strat map.
3) Editable campaign settings. You can give up the dreary night fights and edit naval/arty/air support and more.

PS The original TLD campaign stupid - I do not recommend playing it.

LSA
2 BG on map. I consider a plus, though doubtful (incredible flexibility in a short time).
Further only disadvantages.
1) Bug with a loss H2H save. Again? WTF
2) The new scale maps (buildings, roads, etc.). Incredible ugliness, especially while maintaining the same measure of length.
Please evaluate this nonsense. If you opted out of the game prescribed length. And use as a base - the soldiers size (for maps, vehicles).It turns out that it is necessary to recalculate all the range in the game + recalculate the height of all elements (logical if the house has become wider and the height should be increased). Done that? - no, The grenade was flying on a 30 game meters and remains. And she do not care what the size of houses, roads and everything else changed. And you want to play this garbage? All this is equally true for PITF.
3) Data - shit. In one way or another applies to all of the original games. This part is very bad (see point 6).
4) Locked units - crap.
5) Bridges - made with bugs.
6) Subtotal - no mods for the game. It shows. Normal players rarely play in the original. It is always better to wait for an adequate mod (i not about LSA GJS anyway).
7) Grand total - H2H meaningful game impossible.

PITF
Experiments continue. No direct connect, 21 unit, new recruitment system, 32bit color, big trees, towed guns. Brrrr.
Still, it was announced that this is the last game on this engine. Lied?
But, as I said, most of the community - freaks. Will eat anything they give.

Cheers, nikin

Last edited by nikin on Tue Jul 30, 2013 12:51 pm; edited 2 times in total

#73: Re: New Close Combat Author: DAK_Legion,

Posted: Tue Jul 30, 2013 11:37 am
—
TLD..The Present/future for CC Players;)

#74: Re: New Close Combat Author: TheImperatorKnight,

Posted: Tue Jul 30, 2013 2:24 pm
—
I love how everyone has their favourite CC games and is very opinionated as to which ones are the absolute best and which ones are the absolute worst. This is proof that the developers (past and present) have got things wrong. Each game in the series should improve on the last - but they don't - some get worse or stay the same or maybe get slightly better. So this means I can argue that PitF is good, whilst you can argue that it isn't. I can say CC2 is my favourite, whilst you stay loyal to CC5.

And an example of this -

Quote:

TLD..The Present/future for CC Players;)

Except this is a game I don't have, nor would I wish to have.
Didn't like CC5 (unmodded obvs) so why would I buy the remake? Especially when Nikin says the LTD campaign is "stupid".

And there you have it. All this proves is that instead of improving the series each step at a time, the developers have been making questionable changes which haven't necessarily improved the game at all, but have changed the feel of each game.

So when I see -

Quote:

TLD..The Present/future for CC Players;)

... I just think, yep, we're never going to agree until they bring out a game that is clearly superior to anything that's come before it. Which is why I'm hopeful that the CC The Bloody First's new campaign system gets it right and is liked by all.

But it clearly won't be Sad

#75: Re: New Close Combat Author: nikin,

Posted: Tue Jul 30, 2013 3:35 pm
—
DAK_Legion modder actually. Therefore, it may see more than others. Probably you have it mixed up with someone.

In fact, there is no holy war. Smart understand. Others can play anything, even WoT.

#76: Re: New Close Combat Author: Schmal_Turm,

Posted: Tue Jul 30, 2013 8:11 pm
—
I think, ultimately, there will never be a game that everyone likes. I see definite improvements in Panthers that I like. I know from some previous games that the Panther was never really given the armor protection from the front that it should have to the point that I preferred the Tiger I to it as it generally lasted longer in battle. And I know that the Tiger was not as well protected from the front anyway. I like the way the units are chosen as that way some armor nut doesn't get to just pick a large amount of them without also choosing the infantry and the other supporting weapons to create a combined arms team. I know there were times that I would have loved to choose maybe an MG42 but I couldn't really forgo a tank to do that.

From my point of view, mind you, I don't really play H2H so I am just coming from the standpoint of AI, but I am thoroughly enjoying Panthers. I guess to me all this nitpicking of the game I don't really understand. Most of it seems so trivial to me. I just want to have a challenge and enjoy the game.

From the standpoint of Realism vs Playability that I have considered lately after doing very extensive reading of borrowed books and books that I recently acquired, on the Western Front the Germans were lucky to have achieved almost any victories. With the Allies having almost complete mastery of the air as well as on-call heavy artillery, to think of really any of these games in a realistic way is somewhat misplaced. From history we know that the German Wehrmacht had a number of days for the Bulge without having to worry about air interdiction and ultimate destruction. But this and the shortage of fuel severely hampered what they could achieve at the end. I was reading where Peiper was told by his superiors to not worry about his flanks during the Bulge and to just keep going. Well, he eventually ran out of fuel and ended up sneaking his way back to Germany. Some of these things are fine in a realistic sense but how much can you do and still have good playability. I guess it all depends on what your victory conditions are. When I played Russian Campaign and then COI I knew that ultimately I would lose in a sense. I just got satisfaction out of destroying as many Russian tanks as possible and delaying the end for as long as possible, which is eventually what the Germans ended up doing on the Eastern Front even though they realized they would never triumph. I was reading somewhere that either the Germans or the Allies, or both, figured that the ratio of tank loses would be somewhere in the area of 5 to 1 for the Allies on the Western Front and more like 8 to 1 for the Russians. When I look at my own statistics I use that as a guide to see if I am doing well. The challenge for me is knowing that I only have so much German armor to accomplish what I need to do. Makes it pretty exciting.

As I said on a previous entry: at best these games are simulations.

#77: Re: New Close Combat Author: DAK_Legion,

Posted: Tue Jul 30, 2013 8:22 pm
—

TheImperatorKnight wrote (View Post):

I love how everyone has their favourite CC games and is very opinionated as to which ones are the absolute best and which ones are the absolute worst. This is proof that the developers (past and present) have got things wrong. Each game in the series should improve on the last - but they don't - some get worse or stay the same or maybe get slightly better. So this means I can argue that PitF is good, whilst you can argue that it isn't. I can say CC2 is my favourite, whilst you stay loyal to CC5.

And an example of this -

Quote:

TLD..The Present/future for CC Players;)

Quote:

TLD..The Present/future for CC Players;)

I think that two people can play a campaign TLD without any kind of problem
I think that a person can PORT a OLD Mod to TLD.if I did not create more port is because I did not want...I like to involve the future players port to whom they are finalized and improve for everyone else....matrix perhaps not be happy with my work so it seems when now sells mods.
I think that TLD can avail all the maps created for CC3(your favourite is CC2 but for me the best CC3 and CCMT)
The present and future is a game that you can connect with another person in the world and play CC without PRLOBLEM,no bugs,no NASTY MESSAGES,etc.....

all this right now I think...the present and future.....TLD

#78: Re: New Close Combat Author: Stwa,

Posted: Tue Jul 30, 2013 9:32 pm
—
The new scale maps [LSA] (buildings, roads, etc.). Incredible ugliness, especially while maintaining the same measure of length. -nikin

Agree entirely. The entire mapping concept since LSA has gone haywire. As a general rule I don't like ugly maps. Very Happy

Fortunately for me, there are plenty of CCM, CC4, and CC5 maps, and modifcations of those maps.

#79: Re: New Close Combat Author: Stwa,

Posted: Tue Jul 30, 2013 9:37 pm
—
I guess to me all this nitpicking of the game I don't really understand. Most of it seems so trivial to me. -Schmal_Turm

Ya think Question

That's what older, underempolyed geeks do. (tirvial nitpicking) Very Happy

It's really aggravating. And then toss in the never ending MP Chavanism, that just won't go away, despite the fact that hardly anyone does MP. Laughing

#80: Re: New Close Combat Author: Stwa,

Posted: Tue Jul 30, 2013 9:45 pm
—
all this right now I think...the present and future.....TLD -DAK Legion

Agreed. I really thought that the lifers and uppers here at CCS would push mods to TLD. I was almost under the impression that would be the case.

But, Cathartes (perhaps a Matrix employee), wants to do LSA and PitF. That is fine with me, but perhaps Mr. Cathartes, wouldn't mind porting GJS to TLD. Razz

#81: Re: New Close Combat Author: Pzt_Kanov, Location: México

Posted: Tue Jul 30, 2013 11:26 pm
—
GJS was intended for TLD first but then LSA offered a couple more features like stacking of BG's and static BG's.

Battle for Caen is in essence GJS for TLD I think. I haven't tried it yet but that is the impression I have, even if the data is completely different now it has its roots in the GJS mod for CC5.

And also, it is fun to be a cynic sometimes, I mean it's not like we are not telling truths and just complaining over nothing. I know the criticism is not going to end ever, you can't please everybody but at least you can minimize it. How nice would be if we were complaining just because of the color of the UI in CC games, or because the uniforms are the wrong shade of feldgrau instead of complaining about real errors and omissions.

#82: Re: New Close Combat Author: TheImperatorKnight,

Posted: Tue Jul 30, 2013 11:49 pm
—

Pzt_Kanov wrote (View Post):

How nice would be if we were complaining just because of the color of the UI in CC games, or because the uniforms are the wrong shade of feldgrau instead of complaining about real errors and omissions.

That would be a lot better than the way things are now. It's weird, but there's a part of this community that seems to complain when a new game is announced - as though they don't want another CC game to be made. And the irony is that they're probably right to complain! A new game will divide the community a little more because you'll have people who think that game's the best, and won't be able to agree with the rest.

#83: Re: New Close Combat Author: Tejszd, Location: Canada

Posted: Wed Jul 31, 2013 2:02 am
—
TLD for existing mod makers and mods is the heir to CC5 because of its better backwards compatibility with the previous king (CC5) and its better stability.

LSA for new mods could be an alternative with its list of new features over TLD as long as the last patch finally gets the new features working properly and hasn't introduced any instability. The downside is the learning curve for mod because of the break with old calculations/force pools/etc.

PiTF has some new features over LSA but you lose some things; 2 BG handling and direct H2H (if Matrix shutsdowns the server or goes broke like Atomic H2H will no longer work). The downside again is the learning curve to mod and the break with previous data/maps.

#84: Re: New Close Combat Author: Stwa,

Posted: Wed Jul 31, 2013 5:17 am
—
Battle for Caen is in essence GJS for TLD I think. -Kanov

Yep, they told me that one or twice already. I just keep forgetting. Confused

#85: Re: New Close Combat Author: nikin,

Posted: Wed Jul 31, 2013 5:22 am
—

Pzt_Kanov wrote (View Post):

Battle for Caen is in essence GJS for TLD I think.

Wow. You mix greatest game with dirt. Chances are you're inexperienced, but do not do that anymore.

#86: Re: New Close Combat Author: Slyguy3129, Location: Texas, USA

Posted: Wed Jul 31, 2013 10:21 am
—
The most depressing thing just happened.

I read a post on CCS about a CC game, and it was centered on graphics, and worse on 3D graphics.....

CC is dead, God save CC! Never thought I'd live to see the day the CC community would want 3D graphics. The top-down is CC, period. Like the gun barrell before the Bond movie(yes I know, they are twits, they should put it back). Cool with improving that, but I will not buy a non top down CC. It won't be CC, just something with its name slapped on to get money, ala the amazing FPS we got years ago.

And I didn't realize that the only Theater to see combat/action/War was Normandy. Marvelous.

#87: Re: New Close Combat Author: pvt_Grunt, Location: Melbourne, Australia

Posted: Wed Jul 31, 2013 11:24 am
—
Normandy again? I've alredy fought through more hedgerows than the 4th infantry division!

#88: Re: New Close Combat Author: Pzt_Kanov, Location: México

Posted: Wed Jul 31, 2013 4:16 pm
—

nikin wrote (View Post):

Pzt_Kanov wrote (View Post):

Battle for Caen is in essence GJS for TLD I think.

Wow. You mix greatest game with dirt. Chances are you're inexperienced, but do not do that anymore.

You seem a little bit worked up, maybe we are getting lost in translation. I have some questions to clear this up:

Is it not true that Battle for Caen is based on TRSM, itself a sub-mod of GJS for CC5?

What is greatest game and what is dirt?

I'm inexperienced in a lot of things, can you specify in what thing you are judging me to be inexperienced?

And why are you telling other people to not do things?

#89: Re: New Close Combat Author: platoon_michael, Location: Right behind you

Posted: Wed Jul 31, 2013 5:07 pm
—
Focus on the Facts here ladies. :)

As a general caveat, The Bloody First is fairly early in development, and anything I say is 'the current plan' and may change before release.

Fair enough,I get that.

The Bloody First campaign is going to look more like CC3's campaign system

Does not say there will or will not be a strategic map,but if you look at CCIII there was no strategic map.
But based on what PiFT looks like I can't help but wonder why they scaled the strategic map back.
I.E.
from 64 maps to what 38 for PiFT?

-- in the single player grand campaign you will be carrying a force of the US 1st Infantry division through three campaigns: Tunisia, Sicily, and Normandy.

Does not say there is no H2H,how did one come to think H2H was going to be dropped?

Tunisia, Sicily, and Normandy.
Fair enough to say that the mere mentioning of Normandy makes any long time fan of the game want to Puke.

It will be more dynamic than CC3 though, as there will be triggers and decision points that will alter the 'flow' of an operation and campaign. Say your objective in an operation is to seize a hill, and you do it easily and quickly. This could trigger a counter-attack battle, or it could trigger a follow-on battle where you are pursuing the defeated enemy down a long road map. If you capture a given road junction you may get a choice of where to proceed from there, etc.

I have no comment on that as I would just have to see how/what he exactly means when the game is released.

Steve

No matter how many knee jerk reactions we have (my self included)
one things for sure...........Time will tell.

What do you like?
What does he like?
What do I like?
Doesn't matter,there gonna make what they want based on the same thing everything else in life is based on...What they and the new engine can and cant do and Time,Money.

#90: Re: New Close Combat Author: platoon_michael, Location: Right behind you

Posted: Wed Jul 31, 2013 5:39 pm
—
Not until stwa posted something about scale did I understand why I didn't like PiFT
And I cant even remember what it was he said.

That and I find it very difficult to find my troops under the Trees.

The dedicated server?
My first thought was,I hope this makes it easier to find players.
MSN was a dedicated server,we all thought that was cool.
2nd thought was,will it go the way of the dodo like msn did and then we have no way of playing.
3rd thought was they did to prevent piracy.
I never really used the direct connect method very much.
But based on what happened to MSN I can see why people were upset about losing the direct connect method.

I just always assumed they would make a game with a larger strategic map like WAR or tLD add digging in,troops boarding vehicles and 2on2 3on3 whatever H2H and maybe hopefully something like CCIIIMM or whatever it was called.

I would have bet my last $ that was the direction game would have gone.

I like what I like,nothing I can do about that.
You like what you like,nothing I can do about that either.

But I'm not buying a game that doesn't have a strategic map or Multiple BG's on a strategic map.

#91: Re: New Close Combat Author: Slyguy3129, Location: Texas, USA

Posted: Wed Jul 31, 2013 6:02 pm
—
They are taking away the strategic map and adding 3d graphics?

This will kill the series, CC3 system worked because we had never had the map before. Now that we have it CC3/COI are nice little games, but nothing compared to CC4/5/WaR/TLD/LSA.

I think Matrix has finally milked CC for all the money they could make on it, now they are looking to cash in on just the name, which is apparently the only thing the new games will carry.

I want new CC games, I want a larger Strategic map, a viable AI, the END OF THE TAKING COVER CANCEL ORDER BULLSHIT (Absolute worst thing Matrix has done to the series), I want to fight somewhere other than Normandy (Afrika/Italy/Poland/France/Rus(though Rus would have to be a large game with multiple addons or w/e to add more GCs)), I want more of a variety of vehicles along with the upgrade refit option ala CC3/CoI rather than an automatic throw units around.

The next two games announced are absolutely nothing I want, why do Caen? We have GJS out the wazoo on multiple version of the new releases, plus TLD GC covers that area as well. If anything do the entire Op Overlord, from landing to breakout. Say from June 6-August something. If you absolutely have to be in Normandy again, do it that way.

And for the love of all that is good and mighty if they do in fact go to a "3D" engine ala CoH Combat Mission ect, I won't buy it, and it will be the death of the CC series. Anything from that point on will just be CC in name, and nothing else. I can't believe they would even think about it after the FPS CC in the early 2000s.

Last edited by Slyguy3129 on Wed Jul 31, 2013 6:14 pm; edited 1 time in total

#92: Re: New Close Combat Author: mooxe,

Posted: Wed Jul 31, 2013 6:06 pm
—

Quote:

add digging in,troops boarding vehicles and 2on2 3on3 whatever H2H and maybe hopefully something like CCIIIMM or whatever it was called.

I would have bet my last $ that was the direction game would have gone.

I also assumed enhancing the H2H ability was what would happen since CC5 was completed.

We can all agree that CC is played primarily in single player mode. Maybe the reason for that is something to do with how multiplayer is implemented. Close Combat is such a mess now, so many versions with different features spread through all of them. Bugs that have been around for years. No real progression after 13 years.......

#93: Re: New Close Combat Author: platoon_michael, Location: Right behind you

Posted: Wed Jul 31, 2013 6:26 pm
—
I would spend $50/$60 maybe even go as high as $70 for an add on to WAR if it had 2on2 H2H,Digging in,Troops mounting vehicles,Towing of AT_Guns, Blown Bridges ,static and multiple BG's on one map for WAR any time of the day.

And be set for life.

I just always assumed that if one game can do it any of the others should be able to do it.
But I'm not a programmer.

But you'll be hard pressed to tell me it can't be done.

#94: Re: New Close Combat Author: nikin,

Posted: Wed Jul 31, 2013 7:20 pm
—

Pzt_Kanov wrote (View Post):

Is it not true that Battle for Caen is based on TRSM, itself a sub-mod of GJS for CC5?

And it allows you to equate the two? Conceptual differences between TRSM and GJS. Therefore, your statement shows incompetence in this matter.

Cheers, nikin

#95: Re: New Close Combat Author: Pzt_Kanov, Location: México

Posted: Wed Jul 31, 2013 7:38 pm
—
Agree, releasing a new separate game with one or two new things and sometimes taking away features does not sounds like the best course of action.

What they should have done in the first place is release WaR and then any subsequent iteration as an add-on campaign module for WaR improving the core game with every new addition. It saves work for the programmer too because he can focus on one game instead of five or six, it makes the price more affordable for us since we would have the base game already, better price means more consumers and more profit for the developers, they could even release small add-ons for vehicles, sounds etc at fair prices.

TLD and WAR are practically the same now, their file formats are clones I think, since I could play WaR Vetbob by platoon_michael and I don't remember modifying anything substantial. So it means it could be done.

In CC2 days everyone that played it knew what CC was, nowadays everyone has their own idea of what CC is and the guys with the least good ideas have the code, go figure.

#96: Re: New Close Combat Author: Pzt_Kanov, Location: México

Posted: Wed Jul 31, 2013 7:41 pm
—

nikin wrote (View Post):

Pzt_Kanov wrote (View Post):

Is it not true that Battle for Caen is based on TRSM, itself a sub-mod of GJS for CC5?

And it allows you to equate the two? Conceptual differences between TRSM and GJS. Therefore, your statement shows incompetence in this matter.

Cheers, nikin

I did not equate them. Re-read the post please.

#97: Re: New Close Combat Author: TheImperatorKnight,

Posted: Wed Jul 31, 2013 8:26 pm
—

Slyguy3129 wrote (View Post):

They are taking away the strategic map and adding 3d graphics?

This will kill the series, CC3 system worked because we had never had the map before. Now that we have it CC3/COI are nice little games, but nothing compared to CC4/5/WaR/TLD/LSA.

I don't think it would. Then again, I'm probably the only guy on these forums that doesn't like the current strategic map system. My preference is for a much more fluid system like they had in Achtung Panzer, or just doing it the way they did it in Panzer Corps (which didn't have a strat map, but did allow you to change the flow of the campaign).

Either way, we've had static strategic map and 2d graphics. Now it's time to move into the 21st millenium.

Slyguy3129 wrote:

And for the love of all that is good and mighty if they do in fact go to a "3D" engine ala CoH Combat Mission ect, I won't buy it, and it will be the death of the CC series. Anything from that point on will just be CC in name, and nothing else. I can't believe they would even think about it after the FPS CC in the early 2000s.

Again, the game needs updating. The reason few people play this game is because it's been out-performed by competitors. 3d graphics, better AI, better UI, more engaging gameplay etc...

platoon_michael wrote:

I just always assumed that if one game can do it any of the others should be able to do it.
But I'm not a programmer.

A big developer probably could do a lot of things - but Matrix/BlackHandStudios aren't big developers. They have to work on one or two things at a time. For example, PitF only really gave us 3d graphics and a new force pool system.

mooxe wrote:

Close Combat is such a mess now, so many versions with different features spread through all of them. Bugs that have been around for years. No real progression after 13 years.......

Exactly. Agree 100%.

This was my point a few posts back. We haven't seen the Series progress - that's why every one of us has a different CC game that's their favourite. Every CC game has its pros and cons - but none are truly "superior" to the others. It's preference as to which ones are better than others.

Whereas, we should be seeing a gradual improvement in the games. We should be able to say "CC3 was good back in the day, but the latest game is clearly superior", but you can't. You can't say any game in the Series is better than the others, because they're not. And that's proof that the Close Combat Series hasn't been improving. It's just remained pretty much the same as it was in the 90's.

#98: Re: New Close Combat Author: buuface, Location: Thailand

Posted: Thu Aug 01, 2013 2:34 am
—
Battle for Caen (TLD) is based on GJS by the fact that it uses GJS original strategy map, many tactical maps and most unit graphics.

But all the data (v93) and the mod as a whole is more well refined in its current state more playable than GJS6.0.

GJS6xx has more potential imo because of the LSA engine features but is still in an early beta stage and currently NOT very well balanced for H2h

#99: Re: New Close Combat Author: Slyguy3129, Location: Texas, USA

Posted: Sun Aug 04, 2013 10:08 pm
—

TheImperatorKnight wrote (View Post):

Slyguy3129 wrote (View Post):

Slyguy3129 wrote:

Again, the game needs updating. The reason few people play this game is because it's been out-performed by competitors. 3d graphics, better AI, better UI, more engaging gameplay etc...

platoon_michael wrote:

I just always assumed that if one game can do it any of the others should be able to do it.
But I'm not a programmer.

mooxe wrote:

Close Combat is such a mess now, so many versions with different features spread through all of them. Bugs that have been around for years. No real progression after 13 years.......

Yes, you are the only person to not like the biggest improvement to the series since selecting the troops you can take into battle, simple as that.

If you are picking up CC at any point in time ever, and I do mean ever, and you are expecting to be wowed by the graphics, you clearly do not know CC, nor would you be the type of people that CC appeals to. Saying they need better graphics is the same argument that console users use for their kiddy video games. Its why movies suck now, all graphics and no substance. You, and people who think like you, are going to ruin a game series that has stood for almost twenty years now. CC will be nothing more than CoD, all graphics and no substance, and it took a big leap in that direct with PiTF. It will continue to make leaps everytime someone suggest they should drop the Top-Down and go full 3-D. Lose that, and you lose CC. Period. It would kill the series, and I would much rather it died in Top-Down, than in 3-D bastardizing the name Close Combat.

#100: Re: New Close Combat Author: TheImperatorKnight,

Posted: Mon Aug 05, 2013 11:41 am
—

Slyguy3129 wrote (View Post):

TheImperatorKnight wrote (View Post):

Slyguy3129 wrote (View Post):

Slyguy3129 wrote:

Again, the game needs updating. The reason few people play this game is because it's been out-performed by competitors. 3d graphics, better AI, better UI, more engaging gameplay etc...

platoon_michael wrote:

I just always assumed that if one game can do it any of the others should be able to do it.
But I'm not a programmer.

mooxe wrote:

Close Combat is such a mess now, so many versions with different features spread through all of them. Bugs that have been around for years. No real progression after 13 years.......

But, the danger is, if CC doesn't change with the times, it will die. I'd rather see the CC series continue than have it die.

#101: Re: New Close Combat Author: nikin,

Posted: Wed Aug 07, 2013 10:53 am
—

TheImperatorKnight wrote (View Post):

But, the danger is, if CC doesn't change with the times, it will die. I'd rather see the CC series continue than have it die.

Nonsense. Matrix does not develop Close combat. On one small achievement has ten minuses. Obvious bugs in their releases are not eliminated over the years.

In addition, because of the lack of knowledge they have, come on old rake.
For example, I mentioned the change maps scale in LSA and PITF (without the necessary data changes). This has already been passed in CC5 Stalingrad. And it was recognized error.

A similar mistake is too narrow strategy map in TLD.

21 unit in PITF another is not a calculated innovation. Another solution existed - for example union of two mortars in one unit is able to release 1-2 slots.

Last designed game that was indisputable innovation - CC Marines lineup.

The original games have always been bad, and the responsibility falls on the shoulders of modders. Required tools has always been.
Unfortunately modders crap. It came down to drawing maps and vehicles.
There is only one modder who is able to solve such problems and bring together all the pieces of the puzzle (game mechanics + limitations and realistic data for the troops, vehicles and weapons).
The other modders molded cakes in the sandbox and they blame for the current situation.

Cheers, nikin

#102: Re: New Close Combat Author: Bungarra, Location: Murchison region, West Australia

Posted: Wed Aug 07, 2013 11:09 am
—
Not quite sure what you are trying to say Nikin...

But I can assure you that I and every one here at CCS have the utmost respect for all modders here...

That the game itself is released with flaws is unfortunate.

But the dedicated crew of modders has only made our experience better.

They can only work with what they have & I dips my lid to them...

Long may they continue to do so..

#103: Re: New Close Combat Author: nikin,

Posted: Wed Aug 07, 2013 11:48 am
—
2Bungarra

If you want to see a direct connection then I'll show you.

Mod CC3 Real Red - terrible data (see here http://www.closecombatseries.net/CCS/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&t=9047). And that data using Matrix for CC COI.

Same Matrix take big map sizes from GJS for TLD and other releases... and further increases the limit on size of maps. And now Cathartes making a map for the mod with the new maximum size (4800x4800 pixels). The circle is closed.

Now began games with soldiers size and more.

Contribution modders to downgrade Close Combat is difficult to overestimate. IMHO.

#104: Re: New Close Combat Author: AT_Stalky,

Posted: Wed Aug 07, 2013 7:39 pm
—
This thread feels like 8 other threads made in-between the re-releases…

Kanov & Mooxe much expressed my thoughts. The series have not developed into a version that is superior. Has it progressed at all?

3D, hm, I don’t know…

Somehow the devs seemed that more maps was superior and an improvement, 64 maps… Well, 44 was too many for most players, who can honestly say that they finished a GC in CC4-5. We are exhausted when we come to the 20 th round, (apx 200 games played). How many half finished or started GC's do you have in yer save folder? Now PITF has 35 maps, that’s better… But, a well made well thought out GC is way more important than the number of maps.

My thoughts today, is that the dev either should accept that the game is a multiplayer game, and try to adjust the product to that. That includes a simple to use multiplayer lobby, with no need to open ports etc.. It may also require that the GC idea may be radically changed from the CC3 linear, and CC5 style GC to something new. Perhaps, several parallel smaller operations with much fewer games in each operation are the way to go? Maybe like 5 – 10 games per operation. That makes it much easier for a player to fine a H2H opponent that can actually commit to a manageable number of games within a reasonable timeframe. Somthing like that may draw ppl to the lobby. Though... What’s probley needed is an analysis why H2H has declined and died, and make adjustments to workaround the reasons and focus development to that.

Or, if the H2H game is thought to be history and impossible to revive then the developers should focus on improve the AI, so it meats the wishes of the gamers. But I believe that the dev needs to decide where to go with the product, instead of this half in between – non satisfied situation we are in now where AI players are not satisfied and H2H just don’t work with current lobby and GC styles…

Again, the new CC in 3D, with the new “unity engine”… With one programmer… I strongly doubt that the programmer and that engine will be an “improvement” or a successor of the CCs engine that mimics the soldiers moral, panic, skills and almost human like behaviour. I seriously doubt that… Maybe a successor of Red Alert…..
Or the programmer need to gut the old CC-games soldier behaviour- code and include it in the new 3D-CC, but then, it will the same ole CC with added optical chewing gum.

#105: Re: New Close Combat Author: jockthesock,

Posted: Wed Aug 07, 2013 9:22 pm
—
Should do a series on the battles on the German frontier. Riechwald forest, Heurgen forest etc.

#106: Re: New Close Combat Author: Cathartes,

Posted: Wed Aug 07, 2013 10:30 pm
—

Quote:

Same Matrix take big map sizes from GJS for TLD and other releases... and further increases the limit on size of maps. And now Cathartes making a map for the mod with the new maximum size (4800x4800 pixels). The circle is closed.

So I killed the series!? My bad.

Oddly enough, I always liked the Carter Family's rendition of "Can the Circle be Unbroken" I guess I really took it to heart.

#107: Re: New Close Combat Author: Stwa,

Posted: Thu Aug 08, 2013 12:35 am
—
Same Matrix take big map sizes from GJS for TLD and other releases... and further increases the limit on size of maps. And now Cathartes making a map for the mod with the new maximum size (4800x4800 pixels). The circle is closed. -nikin

Perhaps, but the scale HAS changed since PitF and 4800x4800 pixel map equals 600 meter battlefield. In the older scale you needed 3000x3000 pixel map for that. Which was still huge for infantry battles. So I am guessing, they (Cathartes et al) want vehicle battles, but 600 meter map is still too small for that. So infantry battles get screwed and vehicle battles remain screwed. Laughing

It is not the Carter Family, but I like this version.

Link

#108: Re: New Close Combat Author: Stwa,

Posted: Thu Aug 08, 2013 12:57 am
—
What they should have done in the first place is release WaR and then any subsequent iteration as an add-on campaign module for WaR improving the core game with every new addition. It saves work for the programmer too because he can focus on one game instead of five or six, it makes the price more affordable for us since we would have the base game already, better price means more consumers and more profit for the developers, they could even release small add-ons for vehicles, sounds etc at fair prices. -Kanov

Exactly my thought down through the years and I have said so many times.

However, there was a small problem with that. And that problem was Atomic and Destineer. And maybe Matrix too. Matrix didn't just call over to Destineer one day and say "Hey, how about we re-release your CC game titles." They had to work the contract out over a long period of time, so maybe someone was being obstinate. There were no CC WW2 releases from Destineer or Atomic from 2000-2005.

So, someone in the equation wanted each game brought up to current OS DX standards and released one at a time. LSA was optional if sales were good, and then after LSA, Matrix could do whatever they wanted, hence PitF.

#109: Re: New Close Combat Author: nikin,

Posted: Thu Aug 08, 2013 6:32 am
—

Cathartes wrote (View Post):

So I killed the series!? My bad.

Map size - a moot point.
But CC5 GJS - the most popular mod. And he shows a very casual attitude towards data. And it has set the bar as high as for other modders, and for Matrix.

For example, old GJS vehicles data taken from CC3 Real Red (see above).

Or maps encoding (see image). And this Benouvill (as other maps) Matrix taken without changes!!!

This is evidence that the data for the Matrix is secondary. Question - it would be a different attitude from Matrix, if we had modders-professionals?

2Stwa I tell about LSA (not about PITF) + Map size does not determine range of duels - too many obstacles (especially in Normandy).

2013-08-08 10 19 53.jpg

Description:

Old Benouville - select grass field

Filesize:

638.44 KB

Viewed:

11960 Time(s)

#110: Re: New Close Combat Author: pvt_Grunt, Location: Melbourne, Australia

Posted: Thu Aug 08, 2013 8:02 am
—

AT_Stalky wrote (View Post):

… Maybe a successor of Red Alert…..

Now you're talking! I could really use a few Tesla towers to help defend Gold beach Wink

#111: Re: New Close Combat Author: Sapa,

Posted: Thu Aug 08, 2013 8:34 am
—
If there will be rain in Operation Epsom, please give me the option to turn it of it because i dont want the running Girls to get Dirty..

/Mats

#112: Re: New Close Combat Author: AT_Stalky,

Posted: Thu Aug 08, 2013 8:50 am
—

pvt_Grunt wrote (View Post):

Now you're talking! I could really use a few Tesla towers to help defend Gold beach Wink

3D CC, added realism now with Medic dogs, and Tanja.

#113: Re: New Close Combat Author: AT_Stalky,

Posted: Thu Aug 08, 2013 9:04 am
—
Nikin, the bad map codes in the matrix versions…

What’s funny is perhaps not that they have taken maps from the GJS -mod without fixing less than perfect codes… The codes in GJS -mod are actually really good, especially compared to the new maps made for the “new” matrix CC. Look at some of the new maps made for (as an example) TLD, they must have used Picasso as a subcontractor to make the swiping-clutch like code…. CC Realism = very good map codes, and a very good elements file.

The implications of the errors in the WaR - TLD – LSA – PITF elements file and map codes tells a story. How can such errors be made by a competent developer, again and again and...… Why dint the testers pick that up. Why havnt the developer been able to translate the complains about LOS to the error in the elements file and the code and the elevations of the maps?

Lets face it. As long as the developer don’t have a competent quality leader, we will not get a good game from them. Consider what Nikin point at, and my example above, can such a developer make an “improved” version of CC…?

Me, I doubt it.

#114: Re: New Close Combat Author: Stwa,

Posted: Thu Aug 08, 2013 11:24 am
—
OK,

Good observation Stalky ... but

IS ANYONE ELSE DETECTING THIS VIRUS WHEN THEY CONNECT TO THE CCS SERVER. Question

I am wondering because it was funny at first, but now its no longer funny. It has been going on all day. Shocked

#115: Re: New Close Combat Author: nikin,

Posted: Thu Aug 08, 2013 11:32 am
—

AT_Stalky wrote (View Post):

The codes in GJS -mod are actually really good,

How? I open GJS 4.4 mappack, take Benouville map and create this image. Picasso started right here ...

And the fact that the Matrix code trash - not in doubt.

#116: Re: New Close Combat Author: Mana,

Posted: Thu Aug 08, 2013 3:27 pm
—
As the Dutch say "the best steersmen are ashore" fits perfectly in this thread Wink

#117: Re: New Close Combat Author: AT_Stalky,

Posted: Thu Aug 08, 2013 3:52 pm
—

Mana wrote (View Post):

As the Dutch say "the best steersmen are ashore" fits perfectly in this thread Wink

Indeed, I even have a image of the steersman.

Last edited by AT_Stalky on Sun Aug 11, 2013 9:44 pm; edited 1 time in total

matrix close combat captain (kopia).jpg

Description:

Matrix blackhand CC developer steersman

Filesize:

229.18 KB

Viewed:

11694 Time(s)

#118: Re: New Close Combat Author: Pete, Location: Nijmegen, Netherlands

Posted: Thu Aug 08, 2013 4:03 pm
—
Mana, I wish I hadn't read your Dunglish. You may want to look up the correct translation.

#119: Re: New Close Combat Author: Pzt_Kanov, Location: México

Posted: Thu Aug 08, 2013 5:41 pm
—

AT_Stalky wrote (View Post):

Mana wrote (View Post):

As the Dutch say "the best steersmen are ashore" fits perfectly in this thread Wink

Indeed, I even have a picture of the steersman.

Pete wrote (View Post):

Mana, I wish I hadn't read your Dunglish. You may want to look up the correct translation.

Too funny! Laughing

#120: Re: New Close Combat Author: Mana,

Posted: Thu Aug 08, 2013 6:16 pm
—
There are probably several translations for this saying, please forgive me for choosing the one you didn't like pete.

What I ment to point out was that there is allot of confusion in this thread that is largely based on assumptions. Both cathartes and I have nothing to do with Blackhand nor Matrixgames. The fact is, is that they are publishing our work officially. Luckily we have the rights to adapt the engine slightly and have Steve McLair on our side.

Every close combat release has had it's ups and downs, my guess is that it is a matter of what people would like and choose to see.
Currently we're doing everything within our capabilties to make this release better than it's predecessor. And I'm sure some people will like it and some won't.

So I'm very happy to do my share within this community!

#121: Re: New Close Combat Author: AT_Stalky,

Posted: Thu Aug 08, 2013 7:01 pm
—

Mana wrote (View Post):

Both cathartes and I have nothing to do with Blackhand nor Matrixgames.

Okay,

Mana wrote (View Post):

The fact is, is that they are publishing our work officially.

what..

Mana wrote (View Post):

Luckily we have the rights to adapt the engine slightly and have Steve McLair on our side.

uhhhm

Mana wrote (View Post):

Currently we're doing everything within our capabilties to make this release better than it's predecessor.

hmmuhm

BTW, is that a fishing boat? considering the..

#122: Re: New Close Combat Author: schrecken, Location: Sydney, Australia

Posted: Thu Aug 08, 2013 7:35 pm
—

Code:

What they should have done in the first place is release WaR and then any subsequent iteration as an add-on campaign module for WaR improving the core game with every new addition. It saves work for the programmer too because he can focus on one game instead of five or six, it makes the price more affordable for us since we would have the base game already, better price means more consumers and more profit for the developers, they could even release small add-ons for vehicles, sounds etc at fair prices. -Kanov

That was the plan when WaR was released, hence the /D switch to swith to the game you want to play.

#123: Re: New Close Combat Author: Stwa,

Posted: Thu Aug 08, 2013 7:55 pm
—
So,

Is it possible, then to port LSA back to WAR/TLD.

I realize the BRIDGE BLOW would be lost, Laughing

, but apart from that, would it be possible. Question

I recently acquired WAR, and I have a sense that I am not wasting enough time in my life. [no quotes please Laughing

]

#124: Re: New Close Combat Author: Stwa,

Posted: Thu Aug 08, 2013 8:04 pm
—
Luckily we have the rights to adapt the engine slightly and have Steve McLair on our side. -mana

OK, so who is on the OTHER SIDE Question

Is it Matrix ... Stalky ... pvt_grunt Confused

Tell us.

#125: Re: New Close Combat Author: Pzt_Kanov, Location: México

Posted: Thu Aug 08, 2013 8:10 pm
—
In theory it could work, you will just need the maps and all the lsa files, put them in a separate folder inside the main install dir and use the /d switch.

Of course you have to take into consideration the whole points to choose units thing, static BG's designation and other stuff that probably adds columns to the data files. I can't confirm if LSA does in fact adds some columns to data files since I don't have it, if it doesn't then your task of importing it to TLD or WaR would be easier. As I said in another post I could play the VetBob mod for WaR by platoon_michael on TLD by just pasting the files in there.

I think it would be best to treat LSA as the ultimate re-release CC pre-PitF and port everything to it.

#126: Re: New Close Combat Author: Stwa,

Posted: Thu Aug 08, 2013 8:17 pm
—
Yup,

In the begining, that's what I thought too. Everything should go to LSA. But, that's when the maps really started to change. Everything on them got beeger, without a corresponding scale change for movement and weapon ranges. There are just too many titles out there and the purgatory continues.

I suppose if you were going to port to LSA, shouldn't you just port to PitF. Question

I am hoping Schrecken can think of a way where the maps can be changed (without actually changing them), so they count as modified, so if someone were to rip them we wouldn't be messin with the EULA. Laughing

#127: Re: New Close Combat Author: Stwa,

Posted: Thu Aug 08, 2013 8:26 pm
—
I think it would be best to treat LSA as the ultimate re-release CC pre-PitF and port everything to it. -kanov

You know what would really sell me on that idea. If every mod that is ported to LSA, retains the original LSA art for the UI (background, counters, etc.), no matter what mod it is. Idea

For instance, port CC4 (the battle of the bulge), with the itty bitty maps. And cut a few of the really small ones out of the mod. So that you end up with 30 or so maps.

But no matter how small the maps are, be sure to use all 16 Victory Locations on each map. Laughing

I could go for a mod like that. Seriously. Cool

#128: Re: New Close Combat Author: Pzt_Kanov, Location: México

Posted: Thu Aug 08, 2013 8:33 pm
—
But PiTF doesn't have the super-awesome ability to combine BG's with out merging them!

Plus PitF has so many things different that you might as well just start from scratch. You can't just take TLD files and adapt them to PitF for example like you could in theory do with LSA-TLD (can someone that has War or TLD and LSA confirm how different are they in the data please?).

You don't have to play LSA if you don't like it, but if you have the means why not porting the other released versions that does interest you? LSA has everything from previous available CC plus new cool features. Is the last one that looks normal for us old vets too. You can ditch the maps and add new ones. Are there not like more than 600 maps for CC3 alone out there?

I don't have money to spend right now to do this but I will have hopefully by the end of the year and then I will go wild baby!

#129: Re: New Close Combat Author: Stwa,

Posted: Thu Aug 08, 2013 8:40 pm
—
Good point on the maps.

For some reason, I have this beeg problem with the apparent map scale changing every game. It really bugs me. I am guessing most people aren't that bothered by it.

I might even take a shot at moving CCMT over, if DAK_Legion would pitch in.

OH WAIT Exclamation

This just popped up while I was typeing, and I knew Stalky would be interested, so I took a screen shot.

Last edited by Stwa on Sun Aug 11, 2013 10:20 pm; edited 3 times in total

#130: Re: New Close Combat Author: nikin,

Posted: Thu Aug 08, 2013 8:46 pm
—

Mana wrote (View Post):

Both cathartes and I have nothing to do with Blackhand nor Matrixgames. The fact is, is that they are publishing our work officially. Luckily we have the rights to adapt the engine slightly and have Steve McLair on our side.

Dream Team. Some results have already been achieved:

Steve McLair will postpone work on patches;
Mana interrupted his work on mod Kursk 43;
Cathartes delayed release GJS.

Mana wrote (View Post):

Currently we're doing everything within our capabilties to make this release better than it's predecessor.

I am confused by the lack of combat experience of this team. Their criteria are vague.

In general, under the brand Matrix I do not expect anything more.

Last edited by nikin on Thu Aug 08, 2013 8:56 pm; edited 1 time in total

#131: Re: New Close Combat Author: Stwa,

Posted: Thu Aug 08, 2013 8:55 pm
—
What is up with this place. Question

Mooxe, this site is going to hell in a handbasket.

Last edited by Stwa on Sun Aug 11, 2013 10:21 pm; edited 1 time in total

#132: Re: New Close Combat Author: Stwa,

Posted: Thu Aug 08, 2013 9:03 pm
—
In general, under the brand Matrix I do not expect anything more. -nikin

OK, I get it. It just takes me longer than the others.

So, where are we going to get our CC titles now. Question

#133: Re: New Close Combat Author: Stwa,

Posted: Thu Aug 08, 2013 9:11 pm
—
WOW,

They just keep popping up. First, at the top of the screen, then on the bottom of the screen. It's like they have been here at our site. There is one for everybody. Laughing

Last edited by Stwa on Sun Aug 11, 2013 10:22 pm; edited 1 time in total

#134: Re: New Close Combat Author: Stwa,

Posted: Thu Aug 08, 2013 9:36 pm
—
OK,

You guys are nine pages in, and I am getting the feeling that you haven't reached a consensus. Laughing

If true, does anybody mind if we take a break, and do something that is fun. Question

Never mind. Idea

Last edited by Stwa on Sun Aug 11, 2013 9:24 pm; edited 2 times in total

#135: Re: New Close Combat Author: mooxe,

Posted: Thu Aug 08, 2013 11:00 pm
—
I guess the Train-wrecks thread will be resurrected soon.

#136: Re: New Close Combat Author: Stwa,

Posted: Thu Aug 08, 2013 11:18 pm
—
Sorry mooxe, My bad, its all my fault. Crying or Very sad

I don't have money to spend right now to do this but I will have hopefully by the end of the year and then I will go wild baby! -kanov

So how much are we talking about here. LSA?

PM your shipping address and I don't mind spotting you. (DDL and box) You can pay me back the next time you are in Arizona. Laughing

#137: Re: New Close Combat Author: Pzt_Kanov, Location: México

Posted: Fri Aug 09, 2013 12:10 am
—
Well that was... unexpected.

PM sent!

#138: Re: New Close Combat Author: Stwa,

Posted: Fri Aug 09, 2013 12:29 am
—
OK,

Got your PM. I will take care of it tonight or in the morning.

If anyone else wants a better price on a digital download for LSA, check this out.

LSA Digital Download

#139: Re: New Close Combat Author: pvt_Grunt, Location: Melbourne, Australia

Posted: Fri Aug 09, 2013 6:53 am
—

Stwa wrote (View Post):

Luckily we have the rights to adapt the engine slightly and have Steve McLair on our side. -mana

OK, so who is on the OTHER SIDE Question

Is it Matrix ... Stalky ... pvt_grunt Confused

Tell us.

Just holding the moral high ground against the biased hordes below... Twisted Evil

#140: Re: New Close Combat Author: johnsilver, Location: Florida

Posted: Fri Aug 09, 2013 7:46 am
—

Stwa wrote (View Post):

OK,

Got your PM. I will take care of it tonight or in the morning.

If anyone else wants a better price on a digital download for LSA, check this out.

LSA Digital Download

Never heard of that software site before. They actually have some decent prices on a couple looked at also STWA.. Weird how after all the time we learn sumfin' new...

JS

#141: Re: New Close Combat Author: Tejszd, Location: Canada

Posted: Fri Aug 09, 2013 8:50 pm
—
WAR and TLD have parity in features after all patches are applied thus a WAR or TLD mod can be run on the other CC exe. The data/graphics/ect. are very close to CC5 and not that hard to port mods to.

LSA broke a lot of backwards compatibility. Some changes made sense as they req'd (ex. bridge blowing data/graphics, static BG's) for new features while others (ex. armour, gun and element protection) made less sense at least to mod makers and or porting mods (supposedly the formula changes make new data easier/more consistent). Love some of the new features and think NEW mods should target LSA but for porting WAR/TLD is a much easier job/target.

PiTF broke some backwards compatibility (ex. forcepools, maps) and took some very important LSA features away (ex. attacking with multiple BG's) while adding some things (ex. better graphics, more units per BG in battle, towing guns) but to I do not put it ahead of LSA....

#142: Re: New Close Combat Author: Stwa,

Posted: Sat Aug 10, 2013 4:56 am
—
Here comes one of those "once upon a time stories"

A long, long, time ago, I finally discovered a PC game (beyond solataire), that instantly and forever got my attention. It was a combat flight simulator. At the time I had no idea that such games (or simulations) even existed for the PC. And moreover, how could the lowly PCs of that day even have enough resources to execute such a simulation.

But as I involved myself in the simulation, it also came to my attention that there was a sponsored on-line community site just for this game. Up to this time, I had never involved myself in any such community, and I found this particular community very fascinating. Of course I was a lurker at first. And there was no way, I could do any kind of modding. So, I would download a few aircraft skins from time to time and that was about it.

Oddly, what kept me going back to the site day after day, were the people that I would meet, and all the activity that seemed to be going on all around. The leaders of this site were very energetic, and would try to involve community members in a variety of extensive modding projects. Now this was in the day, where the game developers never ever visited the community, and modders in general were despised by the game producers. But that didn't bother anyone at this site, and modding teams assembled and went about their work with spirit.

And this spirit was spirt of inclusion that could provide a task for every individual that wanted to participate in a project. Of course, flight simulators are very extensive, and apart from 3D models, there are skins, screen art, tons of scripts, research, and more research. People invloved themselves with the idea that they would not be involved with the game producers or the game developers, and they with their manpower advantage, and their spirit, would produce a much better product than the original developers.

And eventually, their came a project, that was so interesting, so vast, and so exciting, that almost every active community member wanted to add their labor to see the project through to its conclusion in the shortest amount of time possible. But, the project was daunting, and work proceeded for a period of years.

When the first phase of the proejct was nearing completion and the installation software seemed to be the only task remaining, anticipation was at a fever pitch. But then, something shocking happened. Community members logged on and discovered that the two primary leaders of the project, the ones that were collecting and combining all the work from every individual that had made a contribution, had decided to present this work to the original game producers to see if this work could be sold, or if some other money arrangement could be made.

And in the end, all this community work became the property of the two project leaders, and they alone were to benefit in a financial way. At this point the spirt of inclusion had vanished.

Now, I know, this kind of thing doesn't happen here at CCS. But this whole episode, that I witnessed at that community, left me with the conviction that perhaps modding teams beholding to the developers and producers, should re-side with the developers and producers. It's a clear seperation of choice and morality.

But, if the community cannot be spared, and the forces of nature look overwhelming, then sing and sing proudly.

Link

#143: Re: New Close Combat Author: nikin,

Posted: Sat Aug 10, 2013 5:30 am
—

Tejszd wrote (View Post):

WAR and TLD have parity in features after all patches are applied thus a WAR or TLD mod can be run on the other CC exe. The data/graphics/ect. are very close to CC5 and not that hard to port mods to.

LSA broke a lot of backwards compatibility.

It has played a cruel joke with the TLD. Because there moved everything, even outright shit.
CC5 -> LSA not so difficult, if not change scale of maps. But again LSA and PITF are not worthy sequel.

Last edited by nikin on Sat Aug 10, 2013 5:33 am; edited 1 time in total

#144: Re: New Close Combat Author: Stwa,

Posted: Sat Aug 10, 2013 5:58 am
—
2Stwa I tell about LSA (not about PITF) + Map size does not determine range of duels - too many obstacles (especially in Normandy). -nikin

True, but NOT always true, even in Normandy.

Last edited by Stwa on Sun Aug 11, 2013 9:16 pm; edited 1 time in total

#145: Re: New Close Combat Author: Pzt_Kanov, Location: México

Posted: Sat Aug 10, 2013 5:03 pm
—

Stwa wrote (View Post):

Here comes one of those "once upon a time stories" ...

Wow what a couple of jerks.

I'm not against modders pitching their idea to the developers as long as its their own work, some very great games have come up this way. Of course we all prefer modding as something made by a community member or team for the community free of charges.

Are the tool makers also getting some of the dough for the "official" mods? I mean with out the tools and guides no mod will be possible.

#146: Re: New Close Combat Author: platoon_michael, Location: Right behind you

Posted: Sat Aug 10, 2013 6:13 pm
—
Okinawa anyone?

#147: Re: New Close Combat Author: Stwa,

Posted: Sun Aug 11, 2013 12:50 am
—

platoon_michael wrote (View Post):

Okinawa anyone?

I can't really recall, but me thinks Okinawa was one of the first CC5 mods to come out.

Anyway, I can't remember if the mod maker extensively used community "labor" for the mod. Question

But anyway, I do remember that in the end, he put this work onto a CD, and you could order them. Idea

The mod was free, but there was a $15 postage and handling fee. Laughing

#148: Re: New Close Combat Author: Stwa,

Posted: Sun Aug 11, 2013 1:05 am
—
oops, posted in wrong forum ... Laughing

[slaps forehead]

#149: Re: New Close Combat Author: platoon_michael, Location: Right behind you

Posted: Sun Aug 11, 2013 2:45 am
—
Dynamites Okinawa Mod was being sold on e-bay.

And not just for postage.

#150: Re: New Close Combat Author: Pzt_Kanov, Location: México

Posted: Mon Aug 12, 2013 6:49 pm
—
That was a weird chapter on the long history of close combat community. If I remember correctly he was selling it on a CD ready to install but at the same time it was available for download for free or wasn't?.

#151: Re: New Close Combat Author: Antony_nz,

Posted: Fri Aug 30, 2013 2:18 am
—
I love Okinawa. Its the perfect battle to turn into a mod.
Thanks for the CC history lesson. New readers will find that interesting.

Im very interested in the new Close Combat. I just hope to god they make it better and stay out of Normandy.

Guadalcanal is perfect for the next Close Combat. But if they truly plan on upgrading close combat then Italy Grand Campaign is my pick.
Its not like there are Even made mods for it..

#152: Re: New Close Combat Author: Pete, Location: Nijmegen, Netherlands

Posted: Fri Aug 30, 2013 5:25 pm
—
Anthony, try Ortona '43 if you are looking for a mod on the Italian campaign.

#153: Re: New Close Combat Author: Antony_nz,

Posted: Sun Sep 01, 2013 7:16 am
—
I cant find it, do you have a link?

I used the search feature.

:UPDATE: http://www.closecombatseries.net/CCS//modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&t=10069
Needs too be on the DL section
Thanks looks amazing. Will download it ASAP

#154: Re: New Close Combat Author: platoon_michael, Location: Right behind you

Posted: Wed Sep 04, 2013 12:56 am
—
There will be custom maps for The Bloody First. There will not be a strategic map / battlegroup system as in previous releases, so sharing teams between BGs isn't really applicable. Details like intro videos or descriptive text are still under discussion.

Steve

#155: Re: New Close Combat Author: Pzt_Kanov, Location: México

Posted: Wed Sep 04, 2013 3:52 pm
—

platoon_michael wrote (View Post):

There will be custom maps for The Bloody First. There will not be a strategic map / battlegroup system as in previous releases, so sharing teams between BGs isn't really applicable. Details like intro videos or descriptive text are still under discussion.

Steve

Is this the signal to get officially mad? Laughing

#156: Re: New Close Combat Author: platoon_michael, Location: Right behind you

Posted: Wed Sep 04, 2013 4:13 pm
—
I see no reason for that.

It is what it is.

#157: Re: New Close Combat Author: Tejszd, Location: Canada

Posted: Thu Sep 05, 2013 5:06 am
—
CC3/COI fans will be happy without the CC4/CC5 strat map I guess....

#158: Re: New Close Combat Author: southern_land,

Posted: Thu Sep 05, 2013 5:18 am
—

Tejszd wrote (View Post):

CC3/COI fans will be happy without the CC4/CC5 strat map I guess....

hurt them, kill them, throw their bodies down a well!!!

#159: Re: New Close Combat Author: Gun_Pierson,

Posted: Fri Oct 25, 2013 9:59 am
—
So they're working on a next gen of CC, interesting. I still play CC2, CC3 and CC5. CC2 because fighting for those supply lines is awesome. CC3 because upgrading your units and seeing them getting xp, medals etc. creates an incredible amount of bonding with your troops. CC5 because Panzerjager's Stalingrad Der Kessel and Operation Circle mods are just tons of fun. The Afrika mod is also good.

I stopped buying after CC5 because they just recycled old stuff from that point on.

The last 10 years I've been writing a CC next gen script on and off, so I'm very curious to see what they will come up with. A new engine has always been a must as well as modern graphics without loosing the CC feel. Better get some talented coders, designers and what not in.

And most importantly, they should know what makes a game fun. What keeps people hooked and what not. Why did big budget games like Star Wars the old Republic and Diablo 3 fail? And what makes a game like League of Legends so good and popular? What are the pros and cons of each Close Combat game? If they don't know the answers to stuff like that then there's a high chance to fail. I hope the head game designer knows what he's doing. If not, contact me lol.

There's certainly a big potential for a next gen Close Combat type game, if done right.

#160: Re: New Close Combat Author: mooxe,

Posted: Wed Jan 29, 2014 7:05 pm
—
In case you don't browse Slitherine forums....

http://slitherine.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=142&t=47611&sid=0128c62348f779e64b0e888aebc6de41

Next Close Combat (with Unity engine) will function on the iPad.

#161: Re: New Close Combat Author: Tejszd, Location: Canada

Posted: Thu Jan 30, 2014 2:23 am
—
hmmm, not sure if that is good or bad.

A mouse is a lot more accurate than a finger when pointing and clicking so hopefully they do not have to make all the buttons bigger covering up more of the map which we see less of since PiTF (the map scale was changed making a bigger/more detailed map but you see less distance)....

#162: Re: New Close Combat Author: mooxe,

Posted: Thu Jan 30, 2014 4:36 am
—
http://unity3d.com/gallery/made-with-unity/game-list?field_platform_tid=All&field_genre_tid=All

You can sort through the games made for iOS, it may give an idea of what they can do. Unity engine lets you make cross platform games. Graphics are great.... but they've never been the crux of Close Combat. This sites last Close Combat will be Gateway to Caen anyways. The 3D version will be so different that it won't apply here and to most users who are still lurking.

#163: Re: New Close Combat Author: pvt_Grunt, Location: Melbourne, Australia

Posted: Thu Jan 30, 2014 6:54 am
—

mooxe wrote (View Post):

This sites last Close Combat will be Gateway to Caen anyways. The 3D version will be so different that it won't apply here and to most users who are still lurking.

If the new CC keeps the name I can foresee many new users visiting this site - you'll need to change your website to 2D-CC Series with none of that new-fangled 3D thingamajiggie allowed.com.

#164: Re: New Close Combat Author: Manoi, Location: Brussels

Posted: Thu Jan 30, 2014 8:11 am
—
Is it not better to wait to see the final product before making any conclusions? I don't know what is waiting us with Bloody first but a lot of people were crying that nothing new was done after CC5! Now that there is an innovation, give Matrix a chance to renew this game. If they fail, it will always remain Gateway to Caen to make mods... Wink

#165: Re: New Close Combat Author: platoon_michael, Location: Right behind you

Posted: Thu Jan 30, 2014 11:44 am
—
The two things that stand out the most to me is they already stated there will be no strategic map.

And I recall on CSO when just the mere mentioning of a new CC (Which ended up being the re-releases) their were pages and pages and multiple threads with excitement.
So far I see nothing of the sorts for the new 3D CC.
The forums for the new 3D game are just as dead as the WaR forums.

I do have a wait and see attitude,but I do not have high hopes.
The lack of high hopes stem from what I've seen out of the re-releases.

The iPad?
I could care less.
Don't have one
Don't want one.

That and the NoteBook are killing the Printing Industry (My Profession).

#166: Re: New Close Combat Author: mooxe,

Posted: Thu Jan 30, 2014 1:33 pm
—
Close Combat in 3D has been tried twice so far. GICombat and EYSA. They were basically literal translations of CC into 3D. Neither of them took off for more reasons than one. Definetly not just because it was 3D.

Who says 3D is how this game has to evolve anyways? Theres still tons of hex based and top down 2D RTS games being pumped out. The new 3D version will be so out of whack from the original concept of the game you will only recognize it by the name.

#167: Re: New Close Combat Author: dj,

Posted: Thu Jan 30, 2014 3:35 pm
—

mooxe wrote (View Post):

Close Combat in 3D has been tried twice so far. GICombat and EYSA. They were basically literal translations of CC into 3D. Neither of them took off for more reasons than one. Definetly not just because it was 3D.

Who says 3D is how this game has to evolve anyways? Theres still tons of hex based and top down 2D RTS games being pumped out. The new 3D version will be so out of whack from the original concept of the game you will only recognize it by the name.

Exactly...all the big shot Gaming Industry Executives are like clones that copy each other. They assume that everything must be 3D , when in fact some games are a terrible fit for that and will not succeed.

#168: Re: New Close Combat Author: platoon_michael, Location: Right behind you

Posted: Thu Jan 30, 2014 10:03 pm
—
I did buy both GI Combat and EYSA.

I cant say I didn't like what they did,but I did have a hard time playing them.
I actually thought they were fun to play.
They were hard for me to play though with the scrolling,view,LOS

I'm hoping that tbf is gonna follow the same path as the original games but with just a slightly tilted view or maybe even a broader view.
Hence giving it that 3D look.

If you look at how the original series and then the re-releases have been created/re-created I'm also hoping that tbf is the CCIII version and then the sequel will come with the strategic map.
Just seems like they prefer to dink and dunk with upgrades rather than do them all at once.

It shouldn't be too long before we get some screen shots and probably a video.
Hopefully ingame stuff and not screen art.

#169: Re: New Close Combat Author: Stwa,

Posted: Thu Jan 30, 2014 10:17 pm
—
Maybe, one of the main attributes regarding 3D, is the labor savings over 2D games, where humans hand draw the game's artwork in advance.

Even shadows on vechicles, must be pre-drawn, sometimes requiring up to 64 images for all the various (clock) positions of the vehicle.

It (the labor issue) is certainly a drawback to new material, as there just aren't enough map makers to churn out everything we want. Southern_land is great, but we need about 10 more quys just like him.

All that being said, I eventually came to the conclusion, that I would stick with the current 2d games, and play them until they could no longer run on the box. And when the day comes that they can't run on the box, I would just give it all up, and find some other hobby.

And it would seem to me, that I have accomplished more than I thought I would with CCMT. Sometimes I wish I hadn't done all the WW2 stuff. It was a big time waster, but fun nevertheless.

Last edited by Stwa on Fri Jan 31, 2014 10:30 am; edited 1 time in total

#170: Re: New Close Combat Author: platoon_michael, Location: Right behind you

Posted: Thu Jan 30, 2014 10:29 pm
—

Stwa wrote (View Post):

Maybe, one of the main attributes regarding 3D, is the labor savings in having humans hand draw the game's artwork in advance.

Even shadows on vechicles, must be pre-drawn, sometimes requiring up to 64 images for all the various (clock) positions of the vehicle.

It (the labor issue) is certainly a drawback to new material, as there just aren't enough map makers to churn out everything we want. Southern_land is great, but we need about 10 more quys just like him.

All that being said, I eventually came to the conclusion, that I would stick with the current 2d games, and play them until they could no longer run on the box. And when the day comes that they can't run on the box, I would just give it all up, and find some other hobby.

And it would seem to me, that I have accomplished more than I thought I would with CCMT. Sometimes I wish I hadn't done all the WW2 stuff. It was a big time waster, but fun nevertheless.

I can agree with all of that.

#171: Re: New Close Combat Author: Manoi, Location: Brussels

Posted: Fri Jan 31, 2014 7:03 am
—
me too! Very Happy

#172: Re: New Close Combat Author: Stwa,

Posted: Fri Jan 31, 2014 10:31 am
—
OK, I didn't phrase that very well, so I went back and corrected the original post. The Edit is highlighted in red. Confused

#173: Re: New Close Combat Author: Tejszd, Location: Canada

Posted: Sat Feb 01, 2014 3:04 am
—
I'll wait and see how the game looks before judging. They say it will be 3D but top down still....

Making game not have a strat and more like CC3/COI I think is to reduce the work required. Plus it changes things up from the last few releases they have done (I wonder if they are seeing dropping sales?)....

#174: Re: New Close Combat Author: Nomada_Firefox,

Posted: Mon Mar 24, 2014 9:40 am
—
Hi all. I have not written here for years but at least I check the forum when I find some of time (or I should tell you when I want...... Wink

). The fact is how I was very surprised the past friday when I discovered all about this new 3D CC. By the moment and after look the very few information about it, it looks well and I do not go to be too critic when there are not too information or even a single screenshot about it.

About what I think from 3D and the few features told about it. For me, the strategic map with many battlegroups always as a piece of shit, it killed many mods and it stopped all the conversions from the old mods to the new games. By this reason I would be more happier if we can just join some maps at a linear mode making a campaign as CC3. It would be a lot easier.

I would like know what engine are they editing for the game. I have read about unity but I would like more information. I do not make me ilusions but I wait that we can edit the 3D models from the new game or at least to add new models. I´m not afraid from edit models at 3D, if I can make a AT-AT walking, I would be surprised if I can not edit this, it is a matter from the correct tools and some of time learning them.

I hope that they can add at 3D graphics all the amount from the CC data, I would not like a new RTS, I want a wargame.

About ipad......I´m not interested at this but a android version would be a lot better for me

About the other CC games, Kanov told it.

Quote:

I think it would be best to treat LSA as the ultimate re-release CC pre-PitF and port everything to it.

It would be a better option than continue editing TLD, I have seen how some mods where ported to it. But personally the best option would be port all them to Panthers in the Fog, of course there are problems, there are not tools for edit the maps. The point from the conversions is always to use the best features.

With the new CC 3D, I would like that they do not release one new game each year and they will release DLC, thanks to this method, a bigger amount of mods can be created and they can continue winning money.

And well, this is my opinion about the new game.

Close Combat Series -> The Mess

output generated using printer-friendly topic mod. All times are GMT

Page 1 of 1