Close Combat Series :: View topic

through

[^/[Print]\]
Goto page : Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 Next :| |:
Close Combat Series -> The Mess

#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

Close Combat Series -> The Mess

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

Goto page : Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 Next :| |: Page 3 of 9