Close Combat the Bloody First FAQ
Select messages from
 # through # Forum FAQ
[/[Print]\]
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next  :| |:
Close Combat Series -> Close Combat The Bloody First
#41: Re: Close Combat the Bloody First FAQ Author: Privateryan1,  PostPosted: 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 PostPosted: 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,  PostPosted: 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 PostPosted: 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,  PostPosted: 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,  PostPosted: 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,  PostPosted: 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,  PostPosted: 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 PostPosted: 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):

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.


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,  PostPosted: 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,  PostPosted: 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 PostPosted: 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,  PostPosted: 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 PostPosted: 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,  PostPosted: 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 PostPosted: 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 PostPosted: 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 PostPosted: 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,  PostPosted: Mon Jun 02, 2014 9:54 am
    —
Quote:
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.

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 PostPosted: 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.
Close Combat Series -> Close Combat The Bloody First


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

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next  :| |:
Page 3 of 4