Close Combat Series :: View topic - Close Combat the Bloody First FAQ

through

[^/[Print]\]

Close Combat Series -> Close Combat The Bloody First

#1: Close Combat the Bloody First FAQ Author: Nomada_Firefox,

Posted: Sat Apr 05, 2014 9:08 am
—
Hi, I would like start this tread for speak about the new game but just mostly about the true information about the game, I feel how there are many real information about it but it is not joined at one single thread around the world.

Now these are the questions and the answers which we know by the moment:

-What is CC Bloody First? it is a new Close Combat game developed at 3D with the Unity3D engine. Unity3D is a game engine used at many proyects and at many games which you can see around the world, you can find here more information about it. http://unity3d.com/pages/what-is-unity?gclid=CMqyhdf2yL0CFanjwgodSZoAsQ

Unity3D runs probably at all the O.S that we know. From Android to Windows and Apple. Even if it is a 3D engine, it can be used with 2D and with many type of games. It has free tools but by the moment, we do not know if we will use them for edit the new CC.

-How will it look? Ultimate General is probaby the best example by the moment from a strategy tactical game at unity3D http://www.ultimategeneral.com/ , if the new CC looks similar to this, it would be great.

But there will not be a strategic map / battlegroup system as in previous releases, so sharing teams between BGs isn't really applicable. We do not know if it will remember to the old CC3 or the CC2 but we know how the game will be set in the US 1st Division who fought through Tunisia, Sicily and Normandy. There will be 3 campaigns. Steve McClaire told how the campaign may have what calls, `triggers` and `decision points. Looking this, probably it will not be so lineal than CC3 campaign and probably you will be able re-route the direcction from your forces.

At words from creators, CC players will not have problems playing the game because it is similar to other CC. Other words from them tell us how even if it is a 3D game, it does not need the latest computer and it has a perspective view from the top as other CC.

You will be able rename your teams.

At this version there will not be snow maps.

There will be a destructible environment, not at 100% but similar to CC games or better.

AI and other features are new at 100%.

-Will it be moddable? We know how texture graphics, data and sounds will be able edited. There will be a scenario editor with a map editor integrated. If it is a map editor, probably we will be able to make new maps at 100% and easier than at other CC games. The data will be similar as at other CC games. We do not know if we will be able replace or edit the 3D models but it would be great if we can.

With the map editor we can edit the maps from the game, change dimensions and more. Probably will be the best.

-Multiplayer? it will be a 1vs1, it had been great if it had been a 2vs2.

The game is announced for be released this year 2014, probably in the last quarter of the year.

Well, if you know more, please tell us. About personal opinions, these are great news, I like it. Specially because now it is not as 10 years ago when 3D games were starting and there were a lot of gameplay games. Specially because another failures from a CC at 3D tried center the view at first person losing all the tactical view and this time it will be more as a CC but at 3D.

#2: Re: Close Combat the Bloody First FAQ Author: Nomada_Firefox,

Posted: Thu Apr 10, 2014 9:48 am
—
Steve McClaire sayed one thing very interesting about the game.

Quote:

The Blood First's focus is different than previous games. You will be leading a rifle company (plus attachments) through several major campaigns, rather than fighting a single operation, ordering large units around at the strategic level. So the new game will be much more focused on the tactical combat.

After this and previous comments I do not know what I think. What is the amount of men from a rifle company? if we speak from a rifle team, 6 men is not too and it would be more as a men of war game but if it is a company....a company can be formen by more of 100 soldiers. What do you think about it?

#3: Re: Close Combat the Bloody First FAQ Author: mooxe,

Posted: Thu Apr 10, 2014 12:39 pm
—
Here's what I scraped up to..

Quote:

That brings us to the Bloody First. A brand new 3D version (Unity 3D) of Close Combat, designed in such a way you will still feel like your playing the classic Close Combat, or so they say! The Bloody First is the US 1st Division who fought through Tunisia, Sicily and Normandy. You will be able to play through all three campaigns. Another huge difference will be this campaign mode, it will be more CC3 style than CC5, and it will be down to the platoon level vice company. The campaign may have what Steve McClaire calls, `triggers` and `decision points.` That is to say if you meet certain criteria in a battle, you may be faced with decisions on where to go next, or the game will put you into action again. Along with a new engine there will be new AI, new pathfinding, maps... you name it. A partially destructible environment may be implemented. Think about the game Breach by Atomic in 2009, that was their main selling point. Modability is also being taken into account. The long awaited engine sound feature will finally be implemented, with an on/off switch. Lets hope this feature comes with the added feature of the default setting being off. This will be the 13th version of Close Combat with no multiplayer support beyond 1v1 ---disappointing! Release date, sometime in 2014.

#4: Re: Close Combat the Bloody First FAQ Author: Nomada_Firefox,

Posted: Fri Apr 11, 2014 8:08 pm
—
What do you think about this?

Quote:

You will be leading a rifle company (plus attachments)

What can be the size from a rifle company? 180 men? I wait that he is not speaking from a team of 6 men.

#5: Re: Close Combat the Bloody First FAQ Author: dgfred, Location: N.C., USA

Posted: Fri Apr 11, 2014 8:34 pm
—
Yeah... even now men are part of a squad, battalion, regiment, division, etc. and you are leading them.

#6: Re: Close Combat the Bloody First FAQ Author: mooxe,

Posted: Fri Apr 11, 2014 8:37 pm
—
I bet Mark Hamill will be one of the soldiers.

#7: Re: Close Combat the Bloody First FAQ Author: Nomada_Firefox,

Posted: Sat Apr 12, 2014 4:35 am
—

mooxe wrote (View Post):

I bet Mark Hamill will be one of the soldiers.

This is funny, you have won me at ironic. Cool

But this time, I do not see nothing for to be worried, very probably it will be a good game and it will be very good for the community because new players will join it.

#8: Re: Close Combat the Bloody First FAQ Author: johnsilver, Location: Florida

Posted: Sat Apr 12, 2014 7:33 am
—

Quote:

I bet Mark Hamill will be one of the soldiers.

That's hilarious. Any mention of a star wars character is sure to get Nomada involved with the game.

Let's not forget that many of us thought "Sudden Strike" was going to be an exciting game before it's release as well and it also allowed the player to command large amounts of men. We might wait until more information trickles down after that major disappointment.

#9: Re: Close Combat the Bloody First FAQ Author: Nomada_Firefox,

Posted: Sat Apr 12, 2014 8:13 am
—

johnsilver wrote (View Post):

Quote:

I bet Mark Hamill will be one of the soldiers.

Let's not forget that many of us thought "Sudden Strike" was going to be an exciting game before it's release as well and it also allowed the player to command large amounts of men. We might wait until more information trickles down after that major disappointment.

I feel that you have bad memory because Sudden Strike never was sold as a wargame or a Close Combat type game, it was a RTS from the begining. I know very well, I have them to the right of me.

Quote:

That's hilarious. Any mention of a star wars character is sure to get Nomada involved with the game.

Thanks. Yes, even I have dreamed with a SW version from this new game. Lately I was making one for Panthers in the Fog but unfortunately, Panthers in the Fog is not a good game for modding, I find it very unfriendly.

#10: Re: Close Combat the Bloody First FAQ Author: johnsilver, Location: Florida

Posted: Sat Apr 12, 2014 9:07 am
—

Quote:

Lately I was making one for Panthers in the Fog but unfortunately, Panthers in the Fog is not a good game for modding, I find it very unfriendly.

How did I know that when you returned and were active here lately that you were indeed working on a modding project Nomada? Question

It's a shame that your project turned out to be difficult. You are one of the guys figured would return one of these days and create a mod for that engine, though didn't think it was going the SW project 1st.

I give you much credit for the attempt at it. Very Happy

#11: Re: Close Combat the Bloody First FAQ Author: Nomada_Firefox,

Posted: Sat Apr 12, 2014 2:05 pm
—
Yes, after try edit panthers of fog, I start to feel that at this game the base files are too sincronized with the exe and when you try to make some different, it gives you a big error. Specially I feel it because I have not seen a new mod for it and it was release more one year ago. I will continue trying but I do not see it with good eyes. I wait that Bloody First does not suffer the same problems because it is not friendly modding.

#12: Re: Close Combat the Bloody First FAQ Author: Pzt_Kanov, Location: México

Posted: Thu May 08, 2014 8:35 pm
—
what you think of this:

"The current plan (subject to change) is that there will be some customization options that become available as you go through the campaign -- a second BAR for a US rifle squad, an extra SMG, etc. The player will get to pick which team gets the upgrade. In other situations a specific soldier can earn an award/bonus by achieving something noteworthy, and this may include a weapon. For example, causing X enemy casualties in one battle with your rifle might award a sharpshooter title, and a scoped rifle. "

#13: Re: Close Combat the Bloody First FAQ Author: DoktorPaj, Location: Norrköping

Posted: Thu May 08, 2014 8:55 pm
—
I think that sounds great. I'm all for the ability to customize squads directly implemented in the game, it spares one from the trouble of using QClone or notepad. It also sounds great that it makes the soldiers individuals in a deeper way. Reminds me of the campaign medals given to troops in COI, which made a better distinction between vets and green troops.

What I would like most is sort of a "weapon pool" or "Soldier Pool" to compose squads using soldiers and weapons from the pool instead of having fixed squads. I mean, when fighting a campaign I might loose certain squads in the game and get stuck with a force pool composed of recon teams, with a soldier pool I could keep managing full squads perfectly fitted for certain tasks, such as focusing SMGs on assault squads instead of having ten squads each with two SMGs and several rifles.
But anyway I think the new feature sounds like a step in the right direction, looking forward to seeing what will come of this.

#14: Re: Close Combat the Bloody First FAQ Author: Pzt_Kanov, Location: México

Posted: Thu May 15, 2014 5:42 pm
—

Quote:

There will be ragdolls for when a soldier is hit.

Awesome? I say yes.

#15: Re: Close Combat the Bloody First FAQ Author: platoon_michael, Location: Right behind you

Posted: Thu May 15, 2014 6:39 pm
—
I don't know what they mean by that.
Ragdoll

#16: Re: Close Combat the Bloody First FAQ Author: Pzt_Kanov, Location: México

Posted: Thu May 15, 2014 7:46 pm
—
That the soldier will behave like a ragdoll when hit.

Some games do this specially for death animations, it supposedly makes for a more realistic movement but it also makes for some funny screenshots where the character might end in a funny pose or whatever, it is the opposite of what we have now with death animations that are predetermined and always the same.

#17: Re: Close Combat the Bloody First FAQ Author: platoon_michael, Location: Right behind you

Posted: Fri May 16, 2014 2:39 am
—
Wasn't it said that the Sprites will be slightly larger than what we have now?

#18: Re: Close Combat the Bloody First FAQ Author: DoktorPaj, Location: Norrköping

Posted: Fri May 16, 2014 6:39 am
—
I haven't heard it, but it must be that way if they are going to use ragdoll physics. If they are the current size nobody would be able to see the difference.

#19: Re: Close Combat the Bloody First FAQ Author: Pzt_Kanov, Location: México

Posted: Fri May 16, 2014 10:14 pm
—

DoktorPaj wrote (View Post):

I haven't heard it, but it must be that way if they are going to use ragdoll physics. If they are the current size nobody would be able to see the difference.

I was hoping for something like this.

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3234740&mpage=1&key=&#3234740

Specially since Mana is working on "The bloody first" too. It may be that way but the current screenshots of TBF are too small to notice any detail.

#20: Re: Close Combat the Bloody First FAQ Author: DoktorPaj, Location: Norrköping

Posted: Fri May 16, 2014 10:53 pm
—

Pzt_Kanov wrote (View Post):

DoktorPaj wrote (View Post):

I haven't heard it, but it must be that way if they are going to use ragdoll physics. If they are the current size nobody would be able to see the difference.

I hope it will get better, like you said it is just alpha yet. It must improve from the Screenshot where the soldier graphic to me seem very basic. But really, there isn't much they can do with so small figures. What I really hope for with it is the AI, as long as they keep the psychological models (which has been one of the major differences between CC and other games) and can make the enemy more aggressive I am happy.

#21: Re: Close Combat the Bloody First FAQ Author: vobbnobb,

Posted: Sat May 17, 2014 2:13 pm
—
ragdoll just means game physics to act more earthy like this guy
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NEIfXokdLMU

for instance soldier falls down hill if he is shot, that is ragdoll

That would look cool in close combat, in pitf soldiers already look like they fly out of buildings when it's hit with HE rounds, but it's not ragdoll.

#22: Re: Close Combat the Bloody First FAQ Author: heizlegend,

Posted: Wed May 21, 2014 8:58 pm
—

Nomada_Firefox wrote (View Post):

-Multiplayer? it will be a 1vs1, it had been great if it had been a 2vs2.

So has it already been decided that his game will only be 1vs1 multiplayer?

I am a longtime fan of the series, and am probably a relatively young player. I started playing the series in early teens and played through the first 4-5 of the series and played a lot of CC3 multiplayer. I haven't purchased the last games of the series after those because ,quite frankly, they are just rehashes as good as the series is.

I heard the news about the new engine and became very excited, but was quite disappointed when I read it will still be 1v1 MP. Me and a friend have always dreamed of playing CO-OP campaign close combat. For us personally that would be a huge addition and would definitely be the difference between purchasing and possibly not purchasing the game.

I really think at least 2v2ai and hopefully a co-op campaign mode would be great for sales, especially if released on steam. I don't think it would require a whole lot. Honestly if we just controlled the same units, or could split up the squads how we chose, but have the rest of the campaign be identical to normal single player we would be more than ecstatic, even if that means the host does all of the decision making in the menu/squad selection screens and then 2p is granted control once the actual map starts.

#23: Re: Close Combat the Bloody First FAQ Author: Nomada_Firefox,

Posted: Thu May 22, 2014 5:29 am
—
At this moment, I would be more worried about if the matrix lobby run better.

Quote:

Me and a friend have always dreamed of playing CO-OP campaign close combat.

If you are playing against a friend, it would be 1vs1. At multiplayer games there is not a IA faction, never. But if you want play with your friend a campaign sharing the same forces, it is easy, just you can share the savegame with your friend and each of you can play a battle from the campaign.

Quote:

I really think at least 2v2ai and hopefully a co-op campaign mode would be great for sales, especially if released on steam. I don't think it would require a whole lot. Honestly if we just controlled the same units, or could split up the squads how we chose, but have the rest of the campaign be identical to normal single player we would be more than ecstatic, even if that means the host does all of the decision making in the menu/squad selection screens and then 2p is granted control once the actual map starts.

Make a multiplayer game requires a lot of research, time and money, increase the amount of players probably would need a lot of things that they have not at this moment where they are making a new first version working at a new engine and they have needed 2 years for it.

Now if you like CC games and you want see more updates at the future, you should buy the game. If you think that do not buying it, you will launch a message to the creators about improve it, yes, you will launch the message but they will not release more CC games.

#24: Re: Close Combat the Bloody First FAQ Author: Pzt_Crackwise, Location: Switzerland

Posted: Thu May 22, 2014 9:56 pm
—
@Nomada Firefox: It is true that ideally we should try to support the developers to make better CC games by buying their products. However, normally they should also give us the confidence that they will be doing a *good* job, not above average, not a "will just have to do" game, but a *really good* game. I don't buy 40 Euro games all the time after all, it is quite a decent sum of money!

So far, I personally believe I have supported the devs by purchasing some of the re-releases. However, I was quite disappointed for most part to see that the community demands/suggestions were not considered properly in these games. They implement a nice thing in one of the games, then they remove it in another. Especially Panthers in the Fog with their stupid lobby system was the final straw.

As far as I have read here people commenting on the new features in The Bloody First (assuming they are going to remain like that), it again confirms the general Matrix/Slytherine behaviour. Now they do 3-D stuff, that looks like our normal CC and that's great! But then they say there won't be multi-story buildings now... I mean when you add something new, don't just take away something good which has existed in the games for years.

#25: Re: Close Combat the Bloody First FAQ Author: mooxe,

Posted: Fri May 23, 2014 1:53 am
—

Pzt_Crackwise wrote (View Post):

@Nomada Firefox: It is true that ideally we should try to support the developers to make better CC games by buying their products. However, normally they should also give us the confidence that they will be doing a *good* job, not above average, not a "will just have to do" game, but a *really good* game. I don't buy 40 Euro games all the time after all, it is quite a decent sum of money!

So far, I personally believe I have supported the devs by purchasing some of the re-releases. However, I was quite disappointed for most part to see that the community demands/suggestions were not considered properly in these games. They implement a nice thing in one of the games, then they remove it in another. Especially Panthers in the Fog with their stupid lobby system was the final straw.

As far as I have read here people commenting on the new features in The Bloody First (assuming they are going to remain like that), it again confirms the general Matrix/Slytherine behaviour. Now they do 3-D stuff, that looks like our normal CC and that's great! But then they say there won't be multi-story buildings now... I mean when you add something new, don't just take away something good which has existed in the games for years.

You don't have to buy it to support it. Just being part of the community is enough. The community is exactly why its being produced, over and over. I bet the majority of people who purchased the games were not really part of this prior. I hear what Crackwise is saying about features added and removed. It always seems like one step forward two steps back. But on the other side, I am sure the power that be are dictating when a new Close Combat comes out and the people doing the work must decide what can be added in that time frame. So you can see where the problem is.

I am not sure whats keeping Close Combat going anymore for Matrix/Slitherine. Originally it was the community and mods, and that's what spawned the rereleases back in 2004 or 2005. Now the community is much smaller, new mods are very rare, and rarely played, probably completely unknown to the vast majority of buyers. Online play is basically finished.

So The Bloody First looks like a step forward. But since its a new engine we're starting all over again. They have a release year of 2014 and Gateway to Caen isn't even out yet. It won't be a reboot, just a re-animation.

#26: Re: Close Combat the Bloody First FAQ Author: Nomada_Firefox,

Posted: Fri May 23, 2014 4:33 am
—

Quote:

You don't have to buy it to support it. Just being part of the community is enough. The community is exactly why its being produced, over and over.

Sorry Mooxe but you are wrong, you do not support the community if you do not buy the games.

There is not relation between the amount of the community and the amount of games produced because at the end, they count more the amount of games sold. No money=no new games.

About the death from CC community, you have told it. The last games were made with a engine made 14 years ago. They were old before they were released but why? because they could not make a new game with the amount of money from the game sold.

Now at other point, how do you make more players from the games? selling games is the unique solution. We need a better game and Bloody First has all the attributes for this.

-3D graphics.

-Gameplay.

-Story.

#27: Re: Close Combat the Bloody First FAQ Author: mooxe,

Posted: Fri May 23, 2014 11:04 am
—
Well they started re-releasing them because there was an online community, they were not making any money from us then. Ask yourself this, would the community have been created from the re-releases alone? I say no, and they certainly would not of made 7 new versions without us around. They keep releasing versions because they are making some money at it. Saying we have to keep buying the game to support them and get a new Close Combat is incorrect. They could of just made a new one from the beginning.

We really do not know if TBF will be a better game. We've been down this path how many times now? COI, CCMT, TLD, WaR, PITF, LSA and the upcoming GWTC. Its got the best chance to be a better version because they are redoing the AI and pathing.

#28: Re: Close Combat the Bloody First FAQ Author: TheImperatorKnight,

Posted: Fri May 23, 2014 11:28 am
—

Nomada_Firefox wrote (View Post):

Now at other point, how do you make more players from the games? selling games is the unique solution. We need a better game and Bloody First has all the attributes for this.

-3D graphics.

-Gameplay.

-Story.

How do you make more player from the games? Simple.

Improve the single player experience.

You can argue until the cows come home about multiplayer and mods, but if the base game isn't up to scratch, you won't get multiplayers or mods. This is perhaps why few people are making mods for games like PitF. The AI is so shocking, it's not worth their time and effort. The multiplayer's fine, but it's hard to convince people to buy a game when the single player is poor and there's trouble finding players.

We've not heard much about the AI in TBF except to say it'll be new and improved. If they fail to deliver on this promise of a decent AI, no one will buy the game.

#29: Re: Close Combat the Bloody First FAQ Author: Nomada_Firefox,

Posted: Fri May 23, 2014 12:41 pm
—

Quote:

Well they started re-releasing them because there was an online community, they were not making any money from us then

Sometimes I feel if people have good memory, when they made the releases, there were not a single lobby for play CC games, all them were gone and they or microsoft disabled mplayer. What multiplayer community were there when they released the game? no one. Just players joining where they could but nobody could count them and we were claiming a good lobby for the new games for years, now we have a lobby but we have not a good lobby.

Quote:

We've not heard much about the AI in TBF except to say it'll be new and improved. If they fail to deliver on this promise of a decent AI, no one will buy the game.

Yes, you are right, if they lie, nobody will use it but you forget with too many thoughts how Bloody First is 100% new. It is not the same engine from the 14 years before.

I agree and nobody doubts that a good game is necessary for obtain more players. But with exception from how the matrix games lobby works, by the moment, we need trust in the words from the creators. Just I´m tired from read bad theory.

Quote:

You can argue until the cows come home about multiplayer and mods, but if the base game isn't up to scratch, you won't get multiplayers or mods. This is perhaps why few people are making mods for games like PitF. The AI is so shocking, it's not worth their time and effort. The multiplayer's fine, but it's hard to convince people to buy a game when the single player is poor and there's trouble finding players.

This is the join from more of one problem, nobody go to mod a game played by very few people, be at multiplayer or be at singleplayer. The unique exception can be when you make some very especial which you can not find by another way and you can attract players for your game. About me, I have not modded PITF because I had problems editing it and I have not bought the original game, yes, probably I can sound hypocrit with this but I have given more to Matrix than I could take from them and at the end, I have not used it more....if I would make a mod, I would buy the game because I would be playing it.

But TheImperatorKnight I feel reading you how you have not played to all CC games, the IA always was bad, even worse than at PITF in the older CC games and 14 years ago with a bad IA but a good multiplayer, there were thousands of players more than now. At the end, the good IA is not the most important, just at this moment probably we will see one better because the engine is new, if the engine was the old CC engine with few changes, the IA would continue being a shit.

At the end, you must have some confidence in the creators and do not start to be negative when we have not seen more of two screenshots from the game.

#30: Re: Close Combat the Bloody First FAQ Author: heizlegend,

Posted: Tue May 27, 2014 3:18 pm
—
Has there been any consideration to putting the series on steam? Or putting the new game to be greenlit on steam? I think there is a lot of potential to bring in way more sales if the game was released there. I don't know why you wouldn't. There are plenty of people with fond memories of CC that have probably forgotten about it. Put it up and steam and I think you could generate a lot of interest.

Hell, make a kickstarter. If it meant the possibility of >2 player MP or especially co-op, I'd donate to it.

But at least steam, at this point in pc gaming I feel that is practically a requirement. It would definitely be the only realistic way to generate new players. They rebooted Age of Empires II, AOE III, and Age of Mythology on steam, and from what I can tell they've done pretty well, and all they did with those is raise the resolution and remade the multiplayer. I see no reason CC couldn't enjoy similar success, especially with the new 3d engine and a updated multiplayer.

#31: Re: Close Combat the Bloody First FAQ Author: vobbnobb,

Posted: Tue May 27, 2014 4:24 pm
—
I too am surprised when I mention Close combat 1 many people have heard of it, because it was a big game back then and many played and loved it. I get a lot of "Oh yeah I remember that game". When close combat first came out in the late 90's, there was a different breed of people playing it. These people have had books on ww2 and knew about tactics and tanks capabilities of the period just by reading. The people cared more about strategy and history and less about cheating. They didn't want to modify files to their advantage. They knew why they were loosing and what to do for a fix to it. They knew about high ground, the effects of smoke cover etc. There was more people who had hands on board game experience as well. Today there are fewer and fewer people out there who are still like the 90's guys. Today if they can't cheat or win a battle they uninstall it, these people don't want a challenge, they want a massive force that plows over everything with heavy armor. CC doesn't work that way. If their Tiger gets destroyed they blame it on bad AI rather than things that can destroy one etc. Matrix has really improved the strategy aspect but the strategist are a dying breed. People don't appreciate or understand a good game anymore as they did back then. Today this goes hand in hand with other things such as throwing it out when it breaks instead of trying to fix it. Back then people used to fix things that broke. I learned many tactics in cc4 and cc5 that, that now I can just basically sneak up slowly through cover to a medium tank and destroy it with the Garand AT grenade or thrown TNT easily. Took me awhile to get used to PITF and I myself thought it was a huge unfair advantage of the axis to have all those panthers. I read about the old tactics, gun velocities etc. I found out why the ai was so poor on greenhorns and amazing on vets. I learned about the ability to use air/artillary strikes in the strat map to bomb the group in the map and what it does to their morale and numbers. I realized that helped greatly. I didn't really realize there is a reason one group is red and the is bright green vets. I figured out a way to turn the greenhorns that are red into the experienced vets by cycling the teams constantly through the forcepool in PITF campaign mode to eventually make whole forcepool experienced shock troops. There is more to learn tactic wise in CC games that you may think, and it's really more of a game than just moving units around to capture flags trying to win. Do I think CC games are underrated? TOTALLY.

As far a multiplayer goes, you do have to worry about cheaters modifying files. Again this goes back to the dying breed of a pure honest non cheating player. Valves games on steam has VAC anti-cheat that makes sure the h2h players files are not modified and the original ones by cross checking them with the original on server file before playing if VAC considers it a cheat it bans them perma, only if the server is VAC protected. I don't know how Matrix does the anti cheat system. But maybe something like that would work.

#32: Re: Close Combat the Bloody First FAQ Author: pvt_Grunt, Location: Melbourne, Australia

Posted: Tue May 27, 2014 7:35 pm
—
As a confirmed "90's guy" I give that a +1

Now I'll just boot up my 28k modem and dial in for a game Razz

#33: Re: Close Combat the Bloody First FAQ Author: Nomada_Firefox,

Posted: Tue May 27, 2014 9:14 pm
—

Quote:

Has there been any consideration to putting the series on steam? Or putting the new game to be greenlit on steam?

Personally it would be good by the publicity but probably other many people do not like steam, at least with the system of matrix, you buy the game, you install it and you can play it without be logged at another system. Other option can be release a steam version and one normal version but I feel that the story has showed how it is a bad idea, specially for multiplayer and mods.

About kickstarter, they do not need it, probably they have made it with all the money won in the other cc games and at the end, Slitherine is a company with enough power for the proyect.

Of course some of you want better features as a 2vs2 multiplayer and more but I feel that you are not valuing how Slitherine is making a new game and they do not go to use nothing from the previous versions, just the system of game will be the same. I´m sure that if this new game has success, they will add more features with the past of the time because at difference from previous CC games, the unity3d engine will accept them without problems.

At other point, thanks to unity3d, perhaps this new game can be played at other O.S as Mac or even at Android, who knows but at least unity3d was made for them.

#34: Re: Close Combat the Bloody First FAQ Author: stiener, Location: Gibsons B.C. canada

Posted: Thu May 29, 2014 4:26 am
—
well...this is interesting for sure.
i dont think im going to like the way they have decided the squads will be picked. from what i can glean from this is you fight with what the game gives you? that blows.
and its linear like CC3?? ....ACKKK...jesus...thats a step back. that means you cant really change the GC and you end up playing on the same old maps over and over again?

IMO the options they had in LSA were rockin...and then they discontinue them...WTF??

for sure im not buying Caen and TBF until at least the 1st patch is out... [ there may not be more than 1 patch for these games as they seem to move on to the next CC game before fixing all the shit thats wrong and thus delivering a game thats 1/2 finished and a disapointment to us all. ] .....im damn tired of wasting my time play testing CC games for them and then have them NOT listen when we find shit thats wrong.

the graphics look ok to me and i like the idea thats its NOT full 3D with multiple camera angles and it still has a top down view. the explosions rock.

IMO they screwed up how the squads are picked in PITF and i think were going to get more of the same in the next 2 games and that will make the game shitty IMO.
like i said above they should have kept the LSA options and the point system that it had and improved from there ...not taken all that away.

#35: Re: Close Combat the Bloody First FAQ Author: Privateryan1,

Posted: Sat May 31, 2014 1:13 pm
—
The way I see it is , take away the Strategic level and you might as well put the redicilous new game on X-Box or Play Station . The reason most of us stay with this game is that we can be creative . We can produce new STUFF . Fighting as a single company is NOT Close Combat , no matter where it can be fought or how . The game is going backwards and all the new so called cool 3D graphics will not hide the fact thay are planning to stray away from the core of the game = War Strategy

#36: Re: Close Combat the Bloody First FAQ Author: Nomada_Firefox,

Posted: Sat May 31, 2014 2:53 pm
—
There is another small preview here http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2014/05/30/the-flare-path-slitherincoming/#more-209993
It shows part of the vehicles from the game.

#37: Re: Close Combat the Bloody First FAQ Author: Pzt_Kanov, Location: México

Posted: Sat May 31, 2014 4:15 pm
—

Privateryan1 wrote (View Post):

The way I see it is , take away the Strategic level and you might as well put the redicilous new game on X-Box or Play Station . The reason most of us stay with this game is that we can be creative . We can produce new STUFF . Fighting as a single company is NOT Close Combat , no matter where it can be fought or how . The game is going backwards and all the new so called cool 3D graphics will not hide the fact thay are planning to stray away from the core of the game = War Strategy

I disagree.

Close Combat started as a company level simulation, in CC1 you managed a core of forces (roughly a BG of cc5) through a series of linear interconnected maps. It was called CLOSE COMBAT for a reason, because you were there on the fight, you cared for those sprites, you remembered their last names. The Strategic layer has its good side, it is cool to move your units around and conquer maps to claim them for your color, it gives you a sense of achieving something at the end to feel like you can change history etc. But it also detaches you from your single units, I can't be bothered to care for them sprites because there are so many that I don't remember if on the last fight pvt Muller did something heroic so I send his squad on a suicide mission next battle because he is just "one more" and nothing special, and the strat layer is so simple that it might just as well not be there as such and just "pretend" is there and let the game do the moves of strategic units in a semi-historical manner, like CC2 which has the best campaign system IMO. If only the strat layer had more options, like a true logistical system or something...

As this is a completely new engine that has its own quirks and features I think is only fitting that it goes back to its root and starts improving from there.

Edit: Thanks for the link Firefox!

#38: Re: Close Combat the Bloody First FAQ Author: Nomada_Firefox,

Posted: Sat May 31, 2014 5:27 pm
—

Quote:

The Strategic layer has its good side,

Do you know what made the inclusion of the strategic map in the close combat games? it kills all our options from to see a new mod which it would add a new operation. Yes, we could see many new mods for the CC5 but it was the unique CC game where there was a complete tool for create a new strategic map easily.

If the game had been as CC3 forever, we had seen more mods from many different operations because you would not lose a lot of work at make a new strategic map.

Now, we will not see a game with a strategic map and it will add a complete map editor where we can make maps at 100%, it will help a lot in the creation of many mods and I´m sure that many people will join the community.

#39: Re: Close Combat the Bloody First FAQ Author: Privateryan1,

Posted: Sat May 31, 2014 5:43 pm
—
But my problem with this is will we be only able to play on a single map . if that's the case then we are truly going backwards . Many of us , myself included have never strayed away from CC3/COI because of the requisition points ( purchase ) system and what I was hoping for the advancement of the Close Combat game is that they would bring the best of what CC3/COI and CC5 has to offer and bring them together .To me it seems to be going in the opposite direction or just maybe I dont know enough about what the new game will be like . Would love to have to eat my words later . Razz

#40: Re: Close Combat the Bloody First FAQ Author: Nomada_Firefox,

Posted: Sat May 31, 2014 9:07 pm
—
I do not see a single map, probably we will see the same amount of maps played linearly and I like it because it is the same system from CC3, one system where you can make a new mod very easily. Other options very similar to CC3, they will be the improve of your teams and units, they have told how after a battle and depending from how you made it, you will receive better units.

Now you can speak me about how good was the strategic map but.......how many new mods have we seen at the last CC games with a strategic map? very very few. I feel how the people which they like the strategic map or they are not interested at the mods or they can not imagine how many work can take to make a strategic map.

Now if I can not make a new strategic map so fast as with the CC5 tool, I do not want a strategic map.

#41: Re: Close Combat the Bloody First FAQ Author: Privateryan1,

Posted: Sat May 31, 2014 9:46 pm
—
What would be wrong with :

An easily moddable start map
Easy selection of units and battlegroups
Requisition points for unit purchase
Moddable amount of days or endless game
Easily changeable maps
Choice of nationality of forces , British , American , Russian ect
Amount of off map support . Air strikes , ect
Printable after battle reports
Yes im dreaming !!! Laughing

#42: Re: Close Combat the Bloody First FAQ Author: DoktorPaj, Location: Norrköping

Posted: Sat May 31, 2014 10:43 pm
—
Maybe not TBF related, but I would like to have a pain tool or something for the ingame map so I can mark where I spot enemy troops. PITF did help a little bit with that with the fading icons of spotted enemies, but something more interactive would be very useful. Actually had the same issue with Great Battles of WW2: Stalingrad, where my aviation would spot the enemy positions for me and I couldn't remember where to direct my artillery fire.

#43: Re: Close Combat the Bloody First FAQ Author: Nomada_Firefox,

Posted: Sat May 31, 2014 11:42 pm
—

DoktorPaj wrote (View Post):

Maybe not TBF related, but I would like to have a pain tool or something for the ingame map so I can mark where I spot enemy troops. PITF did help a little bit with that with the fading icons of spotted enemies, but something more interactive would be very useful. Actually had the same issue with Great Battles of WW2: Stalingrad, where my aviation would spot the enemy positions for me and I couldn't remember where to direct my artillery fire.

At this moment, the game must be close to the beta and I feel that all the suggestions will not be at least for this game, perhaps for a future version but you can not think that they add nothing more at this moment. Of course we do not know more of a 25% from the game and we have not seen more of two screenshots, this is sad and non sense coming from the creators, there are not more games as CC and nobody go to copy your work by publish a few screenshots more, all this secrecy is from childs.....

#44: Re: Close Combat the Bloody First FAQ Author: Troger, Location: L4W's place, Australia

Posted: Sun Jun 01, 2014 12:37 am
—
Moving away from the strat map is not good. The only reason I can see them going to a unit-based approach is so they can get the game out quickly (for whatever reason that may be).

If anybody remembers, the main gripe of some CC3ers was that they hated the strat map--and those CC3 users, with no new content to turn to, were lost to CC community long before CC5 died out. I enjoyed the CC3 system and I love the CC5 system, so why can't we have both? I have always been for a game that would allow multiple approaches when it comes to battles, operations, and campaigns. Point-based, BG-based, and strat-map based. To put it simply, an editor that would allow the user to say switch from CC3 to CC5 editor mode. It's more work, but it really doesn't seem like it be that hard to code since the logic is already there. It would mean you could create a single battle and choose between the stock BG (or even better, create custom BGs) or allow certain (or all) units to be purchased based off a number of points (with each unit being a certain value). With operations/campaigns, it's just a matter of choosing the CC3 route or CC5 route. What's so hard about that? Why can't we have both? I don't think anyone can argue the immersive element that the strat map brings to the game--especially when appropriately applied to small theaters of operation (Gateway to Caen should exhibit that). The main point of allowing all approaches would be to please everyone, and NOT split the player base across multiple releases.

Which reminds me, there have been so many rereleases that I can't even keep track of them all. It's a mess, and any new CC games need to take a much different approach. How is this team going to handle follow-ups to TBR? When you buy a follow-up in a game, you typically get radically improved graphics (not really the point of Close Combat), and/or a new engine--or radically reworked engine--with new features/interfaces. None of the re-releases have been any of that, and each one has had a $50 price tag. They've milked the hell out of the situation, and while they could claim budget constraints or it being publisher-"enforced" (seems to be a common practice over at Matrix), they need to rethink how they go about it with games on the new engine. They just risk alienating their base and annoying the customer.

#45: Re: Close Combat the Bloody First FAQ Author: Nomada_Firefox,

Posted: Sun Jun 01, 2014 8:09 am
—

Quote:

I enjoyed the CC3 system and I love the CC5 system

Quote:

Why can't we have both?

Do you like mods? a strategic map which it can not make easily, it kills all the mods.

At other way, I´m surprised with you people, you do not appears understand how it is a complete reboot from the saga where Bloody First will be a complete new game. The previous versions from CC were made with a engine badly edited for 18 years. You can not wait that they add the same features at a first version.

And you must undertand how bad was the previous engine because at more of 10 years very very few features were added, just because the code was a piece of shit.

Hopefully, after Bloody First, they will make more features in the new game easily than at previous CC games and looking better.

#46: Re: Close Combat the Bloody First FAQ Author: Privateryan1,

Posted: Sun Jun 01, 2014 10:05 am
—
We will of course wait patiently ,but Im sure that the vast majority of CC gamers are watching a slow death and as Troger said , their milking the hell out of it for what seems to be a quick buck . I don't see the game going anywhere in a progressive direction any time soon ! Crying or Very sad

#47: Re: Close Combat the Bloody First FAQ Author: Nomada_Firefox,

Posted: Sun Jun 01, 2014 1:34 pm
—

Privateryan1 wrote (View Post):

We will of course wait patiently ,but Im sure that the vast majority of CC gamers are watching a slow death and as Troger said , their milking the hell out of it for what seems to be a quick buck . I don't see the game going anywhere in a progressive direction any time soon ! Crying or Very sad

The community are the players and the unique way for increase them is a new game. Now they are making it and there is not reason to think how it will not be a very good game because it has not exactly the same features from the previous games.

In fact, the previous games made a slow death, why? because they were not a solution and all them have a strategic map by example but they could not get new players from the world. One thing which probably Bloody First can get with more success.

Now, people you are living in the past and we must think in the future.

#48: Re: Close Combat the Bloody First FAQ Author: russ109,

Posted: Sun Jun 01, 2014 2:03 pm
—
I am always amazed with the negativity surrounding any CC release. My thoughts if you don't like what you see don't buy it!, no one is forcing you too!!

The only way you can truly judge the game is by playing it, and no game is perfect or ever will be for all.

#49: Re: Close Combat the Bloody First FAQ Author: Troger, Location: L4W's place, Australia

Posted: Sun Jun 01, 2014 3:08 pm
—

Nomada_Firefox wrote (View Post):

Do you like mods? a strategic map which it can not make easily, it kills all the mods.

That's why I said, include both a way to make battles/operations/campaigns in a strat-map like CC4/5 and with a point-based requisition system like CC3.

Nomada_Firefox wrote (View Post):

At other way, I´m surprised with you people, you do not appears understand how it is a complete reboot from the saga where Bloody First will be a complete new game. The previous versions from CC were made with a engine badly edited for 18 years. You can not wait that they add the same features at a first version.

I understand TBF will be a new game, on a new engine. You missed the point.

Nomada_Firefox wrote (View Post):

And you must undertand how bad was the previous engine because at more of 10 years very very few features were added, just because the code was a piece of shit.

Yes, CC probably needs a modernized approach when it comes to its programming. No one is arguing with that point either.

Nomada_Firefox wrote (View Post):

New game with new programming/graphics is good, new game with features people find integral to a CC game missing? Bad.

Nomada_Firefox wrote (View Post):

In fact, the previous games made a slow death, why? because they were not a solution and all them have a strategic map by example but they could not get new players from the world. One thing which probably Bloody First can get with more success.

Uh, no one here is arguing that a strat map is the basis of all success of a new CC game.

russ109 wrote (View Post):

I am always amazed with the negativity surrounding any CC release. My thoughts if you don't like what you see don't buy it!, no one is forcing you too!!

Russ, you mistake negativity for being critical. People care about this game and want to see it succeed.

#50: Re: Close Combat the Bloody First FAQ Author: Privateryan1,

Posted: Sun Jun 01, 2014 3:25 pm
—
My negative comments are based on my recent experience while ( trying ) to play panthers In The Fog . I hate to be critical and I don't like having to criticize peoples hard work but : Despite installing the game on a modern two year old PC , the game is terribly slow and patchy and scrolling is a nightmare . Even the look of the troops is different and hard to look at . The only good thing I can say about the whole game is that the maps are good and yes I will be salvaging them for my CC5 mods as can be seen in the attachment !

#51: Re: Close Combat the Bloody First FAQ Author: Nomada_Firefox,

Posted: Sun Jun 01, 2014 5:29 pm
—

russ109 wrote (View Post):

I am always amazed with the negativity surrounding any CC release. My thoughts if you don't like what you see don't buy it!, no one is forcing you too!!

The only way you can truly judge the game is by playing it, and no game is perfect or ever will be for all.

I agree at 75%. With Gatheway to Caen we can see clearly how it is before we play it. But yes, there are too many negative people around here. They say how they are worried about the last work but I have been around here and at more communities for more of 14 years and I have seen this type of negative comments before. Even sometimes I have made them.;)

Troger, your answers have not sense..........

Quote:

New game with new programming/graphics is good, new game with features people find integral to a CC game missing? Bad.

These two sentences are oppose one to the other.

Quote:

Uh, no one here is arguing that a strat map is the basis of all success of a new CC game.

You say how nobody argue that a strat map is very important and before you tell how delete important features is bad....

But I have read all the messages before and at other sites and you are wrong in the second sentence because most of the people say how the lack of strategic map is bad.

Quote:

Russ, you mistake negativity for being critical. People care about this game and want to see it succeed.

Do you think that now, less of 6 months before the release of the game, your critic opinions will help to the game, one game which you have not played by the moment, and these critic opinions will increase the amount of players at the CC community. Because I´m sure that they will not help, equal than my critics about Gatheway to Caen game.

Quote:

My negative comments are based on my recent experience while ( trying ) to play panthers In The Fog . I hate to be critical and I don't like having to criticize peoples hard work but : Despite installing the game on a modern two year old PC , the game is terribly slow and patchy and scrolling is a nightmare . Even the look of the troops is different and hard to look at . The only good thing I can say about the whole game is that the maps are good and yes I will be salvaging them for my CC5 mods as can be seen in the attachment !

Your comment is clearly off topic because you are speaking from other game made with a 14 years old engine. Have fun. In fact PITF is the CC5 engine with a few additions.

Quote:

I will be salvaging them for my CC5 mods as can be seen in the attachment !

But please do not say us how you have very good computer when you do not say nothing about play CC5 because at a modern computer, you can not play it, the game crashs many times and when it does not crash, the scroll is a piece of shit and this is one of many other problems, the unique way for play CC5 today without problems, it is at a old computer and I´m writting it at a computer with more of 8 years......

#52: Re: Close Combat the Bloody First FAQ Author: Troger, Location: L4W's place, Australia

Posted: Sun Jun 01, 2014 5:58 pm
—
I think you are having trouble understanding. It's never a good thing if a feature (one that has been rather integral to all CC releases since CC4) goes missing. A strat map is part of the Close Combat experience now, so not having one is bad. And, if there are those that have said they will not buy any new game because it does not have strat-map based campaign/operations, the solution is simple: include a strat map. Again, my original point was that there are people who like the linear style of CC1-3 and those that like the strat map of CC4-5; so include a way to do both. Refer back to my first post in this thread at the bottom of page 3.

Will our comments make a difference for TBF? No, probably not. Will it make a difference for the games that follow it? Possibly. So, don't worry about the timing of people's comments.

#53: Re: Close Combat the Bloody First FAQ Author: Nomada_Firefox,

Posted: Sun Jun 01, 2014 9:13 pm
—
I understand you very well, it is not my problem if you wrote one sentence which it was the oposite from another.;)

I can and I do not go to try that you like more a game and you buy it, it is your problem but if one thing I know, it is how Bloody First will get the attention from many new people and they will buy the game probably.

Now you can tell me how good is the strategic map but the strategic map killed the modding community. From the first moment that people needed to make a strategic map manually, they lose all the interest in the games and very few new mods were made.

Now if you feel that a community like this can live without mods, very well, this is your opinion but the proofs tell us how all the community was at a slow death by this reason.

About CC3 and previous CC games, I was around here and the community was a lot bigger. Thousands of people played CC3 and I did not see any problems because there was not a strategic map.

About me, I like both styles but I see Bloody First as a reboot from the Close Combat games and I do not think that add a strategic map in the first version be possible because I understand very well what is make a complete new game. We will be lucky if we can make new maps easily and modding the game. This is more that we can find at thousands of games around the world.

Of course, after Bloody First, I wait that they continue making new improves at the new engine and who knows what we will see.....

#54: Re: Close Combat the Bloody First FAQ Author: Troger, Location: L4W's place, Australia

Posted: Sun Jun 01, 2014 10:10 pm
—

Nomada_Firefox wrote (View Post):

Now you can tell me how good is the strategic map but the strategic map killed the modding community. From the first moment that people needed to make a strategic map manually, they lose all the interest in the games and very few new mods were made.

Now if you feel that a community like this can live without mods, very well, this is your opinion but the proofs tell us how all the community was at a slow death by this reason.

About CC3 and previous CC games, I was around here and the community was a lot bigger. Thousands of people played CC3 and I did not see any problems because there was not a strategic map.

Your point about the strat map interfering with the ease of mod creation makes sense but there are many who are passionately against only having a linear CC2/3-style approach--so, as I've said two times now, that is why both a CC3 approach and CC5 approach should available in an editor.

#55: Re: Close Combat the Bloody First FAQ Author: Privateryan1,

Posted: Sun Jun 01, 2014 10:16 pm
—
I agree with you totally Troger , why on earth should the game be going backwards . No strategic map means were going back to the dark ages . As i said earlier , if it continues to go in this direction , they may as well put it on play station and hand you a rifle ! Embarassed

#56: Re: Close Combat the Bloody First FAQ Author: Tejszd, Location: Canada

Posted: Mon Jun 02, 2014 1:15 am
—
There is no reason having a strat map has to prevent single maps from being added.

They could put one location in the editor that is not connected/used in the strat map and when clicking on it asks you to point to the desired map in the naps directory (the map name for the single would need to saved in the single battle instead of the nap number).

The above has been suggest to Matrix but has never made it to the top of the development task list....

#57: Re: Close Combat the Bloody First FAQ Author: Troger, Location: L4W's place, Australia

Posted: Mon Jun 02, 2014 3:07 am
—

Tejszd wrote (View Post):

There is no reason having a strat map has to prevent single maps from being added.

They could put one location in the editor that is not connected/used in the strat map and when clicking on it asks you to point to the desired map in the naps directory (the map name for the single would need to saved in the single battle instead of the nap number).

The above has been suggest to Matrix but has never made it to the top of the development task list....

Seems like it should be a top priority. Unless my memory is failing me, it was the strat-map/bg-based operation and campaign system (especially CC4s restrictive forcepools) that turned away many Close Combat players. All that is needed is an editor that can switch between CC5's strat-map/bg-based system and operation/campaign style and point-based requisition system of CC3. They attempted a hybrid of the two approaches in LSA (but it didn't really work). It's just a matter of keeping the capability there, we don't even need a single player strat-map based campaign/operations and linear campaign/operations. We need a robust editor capable of CC3-style and CC5-style.

#58: Re: Close Combat the Bloody First FAQ Author: Pzt_Kanov, Location: México

Posted: Mon Jun 02, 2014 3:11 am
—
Not having a strat map is not a deal breaker for me, but I agree with you Troger and Tejszd, theres absolutely no sense in not having both forms of gameplay specially when there's a third party application that does just that. I'm talking about CCREQ, they could just have implemented it into the game itself after a little polish and have the best of both worlds.

#59: Re: Close Combat the Bloody First FAQ Author: Nomada_Firefox,

Posted: Mon Jun 02, 2014 9:54 am
—

Quote:

Where was you 14 years ago? when CC4 was released, there was thousands of players more than in the next version. The players abandoned the game in the next 7 years without a new game.

At this link, you can see how we played 14 years ago to Very Happy

CC4 http://www.igl.net/zcc4/index.php The dates from the description are a bit bad but I can tell you how I played more of 200 battles in september 2001, nothing strange, I had a broken leg.......

Quote:

I'm talking about CCREQ

CCrep does not work as you say. I told previously about it here http://www.closecombatseries.net/CCS/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&t=4275&start=45

Of course it does not make a strategic map.

I feel that we should forget the previous 18 years old engine. Steve and their team have told thousands of times how the code is very difficult from edit and I trust them with this. Now living in the past is not the point.

Returning to Bloody First, Steve told me this about the campaign yesterday. http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3624254

Quote:

The Bloody First focuses on the US 1st Infantry Division. You will be able to play from the Axis side, but there is no Axis campaign in the game, focusing in a similar way on the path of an Axis division through 1942-44. We're already discussing ideas for subsequent releases that focus on the Germans, however.

#60: Re: Close Combat the Bloody First FAQ Author: platoon_michael, Location: Right behind you

Posted: Mon Jun 02, 2014 11:03 am
—
Firefox is correct in that the CC Community was very Large before CCIV.
He's also correct that many of those "Hated" the fixed force pools in CCIV,And while I'm only around 90% sure, I think the strategic map as well.

Then we lost the Microsoft Zone.

I'm not sure of the timeline but it was probably several years before CCV saw a New strategic map implemented in CCV.
And it was indeed very frustrating to people trying to figure out how to use StratEdit in order to get a new Strategic Map into the game.
I want to say GJS was the first Mod to do that.

If memory serves me correctly Meuse was the first full blown mod for CCV,yet the installation was a TOTAL Nightmare!

I kinda expect TBF to follow the same path that the original CC games did when they first came out.
No strategic map at first,but the next version will (I'm assuming)
I just hope that this time they build on the Core of new options from each version,Not eliminate them.

#61: Re: Close Combat the Bloody First FAQ Author: Nomada_Firefox,

Posted: Mon Jun 02, 2014 2:52 pm
—

platoon_michael wrote (View Post):

I kinda expect TBF to follow the same path that the original CC games did when they first came out.
No strategic map at first,but the next version will (I'm assuming)
I just hope that this time they build on the Core of new options from each version,Not eliminate them.

Yes, this is the point that many people do not understand. I like a lot more if they build a very good core which it can be improved with the past of the time than if they start making a botched job. This time is a reboot.

GJS was not the first mod with a strategic map, GJS was released 4 or 5 years after CC5 and yes, we did not see a CC5 mod with a new strategic map before 3 or 4 years after the release of the game.

What good times were these with the beautiful fights against the Platoons, specially Platoon_Leader, I would like know what was from him. The last time that I saw him, it was some years ago when he asked me about a file.

#62: Re: Close Combat the Bloody First FAQ Author: Pzt_Kanov, Location: México

Posted: Mon Jun 02, 2014 5:43 pm
—
The news of only one side campaign really does sucks.

#63: Re: Close Combat the Bloody First FAQ Author: Troger, Location: L4W's place, Australia

Posted: Mon Jun 02, 2014 6:04 pm
—

platoon_michael wrote (View Post):

Firefox is correct in that the CC Community was very Large before CCIV.
He's also correct that many of those "Hated" the fixed force pools in CCIV,And while I'm only around 90% sure, I think the strategic map as well.

Where did Firefox say that? Wasn't I the one who said that? Surprised

platoon_michael wrote (View Post):

I agree wholeheartedly and am hopeful this is the case. Though I am worried they will not go back to a strat map or a CC3-style point-based requisition system. I think they want to keep it easy on themselves and do what they are doing with TBF--they will be able to churn out endless titles then. Then again, I don't see how people will like the loss of strat map gameplay and in it's place receive something that will probably be ultra-linear--so they might be forced by community demand to go back to it.

Last edited by Troger on Tue Jun 03, 2014 2:34 am; edited 1 time in total

#64: Re: Close Combat the Bloody First FAQ Author: platoon_michael, Location: Right behind you

Posted: Mon Jun 02, 2014 11:38 pm
—
sorry Troger

Too many posts......too few brain cells for me sometimes.

#65: Re: Close Combat the Bloody First FAQ Author: AT_Stalky,

Posted: Sat Jun 14, 2014 6:56 pm
—
One side only.. Is that really a good idea`?

#66: Re: Close Combat the Bloody First FAQ Author: Nomada_Firefox,

Posted: Sat Jun 14, 2014 9:21 pm
—

AT_Stalky wrote (View Post):

One side only.. Is that really a good idea`?

We are not sure at 100% about how it will be. The unique thing that we know, it is how the grand campaign story is set for the US troops but nobody have told us about how the German troops are controlled and what happens at multiplayer and at single battles. I can think how probably you can play with germans but you will be at a constant retreat without any trigger giving you a piece of story.

#67: Re: Close Combat the Bloody First FAQ Author: southern_land,

Posted: Sat Jun 14, 2014 9:30 pm
—

AT_Stalky wrote (View Post):

One side only.. Is that really a good idea`?

No, It is Ameri-centric and just look through this forum at how many non Americans play CC

#68: Re: Close Combat the Bloody First FAQ Author: Pzt_Kami, Location: IRAN

Posted: Sun Jun 15, 2014 10:28 am
—
If this game is supposed to be played only as Allies (US) ,then this is a HUUUGE downside for this game !

#69: Re: Close Combat the Bloody First FAQ Author: Bungarra, Location: Murchison region, West Australia

Posted: Sun Jun 15, 2014 1:17 pm
—
Like every new Close Combat game thats ever been produced....

The crystal ball sayers predict doom & gloom....

I may be wrong but I don't think the developers will cut their own throats by not listening to what their bread & butter want..

ie... us as a community... after all if we don't buy it... who will...

I think in reality we don't have anything to worry about Very Happy

Bring it on........ Wink

#70: Re: Close Combat the Bloody First FAQ Author: Nomada_Firefox,

Posted: Mon Jun 16, 2014 3:45 am
—

southern_land wrote (View Post):

AT_Stalky wrote (View Post):

One side only.. Is that really a good idea`?

No, It is Ameri-centric and just look through this forum at how many non Americans play CC

I have doubts about if how many you have played this type of games, usually people like play with the bad guys, it happens in the WWII and it happens at SW, at ST, at Stargate, in a WWIII game, every time happens, it is not matter about where you live.

Quote:

The crystal ball sayers predict doom & gloom....

What do you know about the game? nothing or very few.

#71: Re: Close Combat the Bloody First FAQ Author: MarkM,

Posted: Tue Jul 22, 2014 9:38 pm
—
I'll throw my 2 cents in.

No GC map/campaign. aka, GJS style, = a no sale for me thx.

All you get are 1 off battles head to head against your friend....sigh. Please they are so boring without the accompanying GC.

Their own GC will not interest me, as only playing a real person appeals to me. The AI just sucks.

#72: Re: Close Combat the Bloody First FAQ Author: fry30,

Posted: Wed Jul 23, 2014 6:06 am
—
Starfox, get over yourself already. And please don't come back at me with some disjointed nonsense. The community is the game. Furthermore, what's got you so certain that this game is going to be different than any other rehashed version of our beloved Close Combat? You're past fan-boi, you're just delusional. Makes me wonder if you've got a stake in this whole mess. I hope TBF is great, but I'm not... I'm not going to do this anymore. Make a mod and be out.

#73: Re: Close Combat the Bloody First FAQ Author: Nomada_Firefox,

Posted: Sun Jul 27, 2014 8:35 am
—

Quote:

And please don't come back at me with some disjointed nonsense.

The unique guy here telling non sense words are you. I feel how you have not read nothing about Bloody First and even if it is not true, probably you have not played any CC or other game which it can be modded at years.

As always I see around here people very negative, I feel how all them are very focus at this site and they have not been around the net because at first place many of the modding features from CC games, specially the last, they are unique. There are a lot of games in the world but just a few can be edited.

Second, Bloody First will be a different game, not a rehashed version because it uses a new engine, one good engine without all the old bugs where many new features can be made.

For end, 5 persons barely are all the community. Specially 5 very negative persons which they have not analized the facts.

#74: Re: Close Combat the Bloody First FAQ Author: stiener, Location: Gibsons B.C. canada

Posted: Mon Aug 25, 2014 1:23 am
—
seriously...???? a one sided GC? WTH?? my god.......if this is true then its ANOTHER CC disapointment Shocked

can anyone but this rumour to bed for sure????

#75: Re: Close Combat the Bloody First FAQ Author: Pzt_Crackwise, Location: Switzerland

Posted: Mon Aug 25, 2014 10:48 am
—

stiener wrote (View Post):

seriously...???? a one sided GC? WTH?? my god.......if this is true then its ANOTHER CC disapointment Shocked

can anyone but this rumour to bed for sure????

Have you also heard about the limitation that the houses will be limited to 1 story only? I hope they manage to have multistory buildings, but if not, it is for sure another disappointment.

#76: Re: Close Combat the Bloody First FAQ Author: Hetser, Location: rigaud quebec,canada

Posted: Fri Sep 05, 2014 3:50 am
—
No multi-story buildings in TBF means that spotting, anti-tank (bazookas, 57mm) will be at a disadvantage. That was the Allies' salvation in PitF if you survived long enough to figure that out.
Technically speaking the armor was thinner on top and infantry hard to spot in multi-story buildings.

#77: Re: Close Combat the Bloody First FAQ Author: Sapa,

Posted: Sun Sep 07, 2014 6:27 am
—
Nomada..youre telling people that they now nothing about CC and never played the game...and the new one will be bugfree and its nice to play oneside...its great that you have all this information..are you a Matrix employed?

The Community has been used to all the "new" bugfree releases and how could you be soo sure of that a NEW Engine will be the salvation? Shocked

Are you one of the "running girls" ? Very Happy

#78: Re: Close Combat the Bloody First FAQ Author: fry30,

Posted: Sun Sep 07, 2014 8:40 pm
—
That's pretty much what I'm saying.

#79: Re: Close Combat the Bloody First FAQ Author: platoon_michael, Location: Right behind you

Posted: Mon Sep 08, 2014 3:45 am
—
It's designed to work that way and is working properly.

#80: Re: Close Combat the Bloody First FAQ Author: stiener, Location: Gibsons B.C. canada

Posted: Wed Sep 10, 2014 3:32 pm
—
platoon michael.......love the sarcasm bro.....thats a matrix come back answer.....LMAO!!!!!

Close Combat Series -> Close Combat The Bloody First

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

Page 1 of 1