Close Combat Series :: View topic

through

[^/[Print]\]

Close Combat Series -> CC5 Stalingrad

#1: Angriff Author: Manoi, Location: Brussels

Posted: Thu Jan 29, 2015 4:14 pm
—
Angriff : a Stalingrad mod for GTC

As I have said I'm back to business! The plan is to make a new Stalingrad mod for GTC (a patch is coming for the multiplayer for it).
This is not an adaptation but well a new mod. New maps, new stratmap, new data. I've accumulated a lot of infos on Stalingrad and I hope to improve the historical accuracy. I have to thank Conrad who has helped me to improve my graphics skill.
We are at the very early stage of the conception. My first "target" was the stratmap. The graphics are basically done and the cutting of the maps is in progress.
At the same time, I'm busy to develop the graphics of the maps. All the buildings will be made in 3D that allows an isometric view (it allows also a better respect for the proportions and a easier way to make the shadows).
Elements file will be also revisited to adapt some values and to add specific new ones.

Here is a preview of the work I have made on the wooden huts and buildings. They are untexturized models with full shadows. I will post the final results soon. Note the different telegraph poles.

hut1.jpg

Description:

Filesize:

545.27 KB

Viewed:

643 Time(s)

#2: Re: Angriff Author: Ivan_Zaitzev,

Posted: Thu Jan 29, 2015 7:15 pm
—
Great news! Stalingrad is one of my favorite mods. I will have to buy GTC just to play this. Surprised

#3: Re: Angriff Author: Drizzt,

Posted: Thu Jan 29, 2015 9:06 pm
—
Excellent the 3D effect idea. I'm curious to see the final result. How many years from the CC5 stalingrad mod? Yet, today, I continue to consider Stalingrad mod maps the best I ever seen. And the interface the best graphic interface I ever seen in a CC mod. I'm sure you will do an excellent work also this time.

Drizzt

#4: Re: Angriff Author: Tejszd, Location: Canada

Posted: Fri Jan 30, 2015 4:00 am
—
Sounds good! I'll definitely be checking back and looking for updates....

#5: Re: Angriff Author: dj,

Posted: Fri Jan 30, 2015 5:10 am
—
Yes my friend Manoi, keep it up after the other project dies down! I think it's the 10th yr anniversary since the first mod. Where is Dima?

#6: Re: Angriff Author: ke_mechial,

Posted: Fri Jan 30, 2015 9:44 am
—
wow great news! I thoroughly loved the graphics and new characters!

#7: Re: Angriff Author: Hexagon,

Posted: Fri Jan 30, 2015 2:39 pm
—
Great news!!!

A little question, is going to cover the summer-autum no???

Thanks and good luck.

#8: Re: Angriff Author: Manoi, Location: Brussels

Posted: Sat Jan 31, 2015 12:57 pm
—
> Hexagon : the mod covers the initial German attack on the city (10 ~ 12/9/1942 to begin october 1942)

> Drizzt : As has said Dj I think it is almost 10 years that this mod was done (argh!) but when I look back to the maps graphics now I find them naive.

Here a test on a destroyed L5 building

rubble test.jpg

Description:

Filesize:

434.49 KB

Viewed:

617 Time(s)

#9: Re: Angriff Author: Drizzt,

Posted: Sat Jan 31, 2015 2:08 pm
—
To Manoi: of course time has passed. It’s probably also because of the fact that I’m fascinated by the eastern front (particularly Stalingrad), but I still consider your stalingrad maps the best to play among all other mods.

About your new picture: rubble effect it’s very good, and what I find really impressive it’s the shadow of that building: excellent work!

Drizzt

#10: Re: Angriff Author: platoon_michael, Location: Right behind you

Posted: Sat Jan 31, 2015 5:30 pm
—
I agree with Drizzt that your graphic editing skills are very impressive.

I'm almost worried are the Sprites gonna cheapen the great work you've done once they are placed inside the buildings?

Hopefully the long term goal of using the Sprites from TBF to be used in GWTC is something that can be done.

#11: Re: Ang Author: Pzt_Crackwise, Location: Switzerland

Posted: Sat Jan 31, 2015 8:17 pm
—
The shadows make a huge difference. Awesome!

#12: Re: Angriff Author: Nomada_Firefox,

Posted: Sun Feb 01, 2015 9:24 pm
—
Good see you modding again. Unfortunately, I see GTC as a death game, the IA is bad and the multiplayer is worse. Bloody First is now the next step.

#13: Re: Angriff Author: Dima,

Posted: Sun Feb 01, 2015 9:51 pm
—

Quote:

Good see you modding again. Unfortunately, I see GTC as a death game, the IA is bad and the multiplayer is worse. Bloody First is now the next step.

GTC is the best CC so far.
as far as I heard The Bloody First will not be a success...

#14: Re: Angriff Author: Nomada_Firefox,

Posted: Sun Feb 01, 2015 10:42 pm
—

Dima wrote (View Post):

Quote:

Good see you modding again. Unfortunately, I see GTC as a death game, the IA is bad and the multiplayer is worse. Bloody First is now the next step.

GTC is the best CC so far.
as far as I heard The Bloody First will not be a success...

I would not say how a game will not be a success if I have not played it and we have seen very few. I would not trust, never, at bad opinions from people angry with BF creators or similar things because they were expulsed from the team because they were expensive and very few necessary for the team of creators.

If GTC is the best CC so far, the CC are dead because it is a piece of shit with a very bad IA as all the other CC with exception from the CC2 and the multiplayer does not run. I have made a mod for GTC but it was a lose of time because when you make a mod for 4 players, it is not too fun. My unique reward was return to look the CC games, enough but I could get the same with less work.

#15: Re: Angriff Author: Dima,

Posted: Sun Feb 01, 2015 11:07 pm
—

Nomada_Firefox wrote (View Post):

If GTC is the best CC so far, the CC are dead because it is a piece of shit with a very bad IA as all the other CC with exception from the CC2 and the multiplayer does not run. I have made a mod for GTC but it was a lose of time because when you make a mod for 4 players, it is not too fun. My unique reward was return to look the CC games, enough but I could get the same with less work.

well I don't care about AI as IMO playing CC against AI is like wanking Smile

the only real concern for me is Girly Soldiers...

#16: Re: Angriff Author: Tejszd, Location: Canada

Posted: Mon Feb 02, 2015 12:10 am
—

Dima wrote (View Post):

GTC is the best CC so far. as far as I heard The Bloody First will not be a success...

So the added features in PiTF/GTC outweigh the lost features of LSA?
- ability to change individual teams?
- ability to attack from 2 VL's when you have 2 BG's on a map
- ability for a 2nd BG to lend units to the frontline BG
- ability to play H2H without going through a Matrix/Slitherine forum/server

#17: Re: Angriff Author: Stwa,

Posted: Mon Feb 02, 2015 1:25 am
—

Dima wrote (View Post):

[quote]as far as I heard The Bloody First will not be a success...

Somewhere I read that too, I just cant remember where. The project is in a mess?

If true, there is one platform (PitF), that does not have a GJS mod. Laughing

#18: Re: Angriff Author: Nomada_Firefox,

Posted: Mon Feb 02, 2015 9:37 am
—

Quote:

Somewhere I read that too, I just cant remember where. The project is in a mess?

The unique clear mess is how they expulse to some people which they worked in the previous CC games because they were not neccesary for the next proyect. Just it and how this people is too rancorous and now they are spreading rumors about a how it will be a bad game.

But the point is how they are liers because all we know how if these people would continue in the proyect, they would be telling wonderful words about it. At the end, we can not trust at this people.

#19: Re: Angriff Author: Stwa,

Posted: Mon Feb 02, 2015 12:55 pm
—
Hey Firefox,

I hope you are doing well. I have noticed your interest in this title and with any luck, the project will go gold.

My hope is that this title obsoletes everything before it, but there have been other 3D attempts where this did not happen.

#20: Re: Angriff Author: Nomada_Firefox,

Posted: Mon Feb 02, 2015 3:01 pm
—

Stwa wrote (View Post):

Hey Firefox,

I hope you are doing well. I have noticed your interest in this title and with any luck, the project will go gold.
[quote]
My hope is that this title obsoletes everything before it, but there have been other 3D attempts where this did not happen.

I could see the other attempts from first hand and clearly, BF is a very different proyect. At GI Combat and Squad Assault, they centered most of the tactical combat at a first person camera, at BF, there is not a first person camera and even if it is at 3D, the view is very close to the classic Close Combat top view.

For the record, the addition from buildings at CC made at first place at 3D is not new. I used some like this at my Star Wars mod years ago. Even I used a 3D map editor for the maps........

#21: Re: Angriff Author: Dima,

Posted: Mon Feb 02, 2015 8:20 pm
—

Tejszd wrote (View Post):

Dima wrote (View Post):

GTC is the best CC so far. as far as I heard The Bloody First will not be a success...

yes, LSA sux.

#22: Re: Angriff Author: Manoi, Location: Brussels

Posted: Mon Feb 02, 2015 9:31 pm
—
[quote="Nomada_Firefox";p="79244"]

Stwa wrote (View Post):

For the record, the addition from buildings at CC made at first place at 3D is not new. I used some like this at my Star Wars mod years ago. Even I used a 3D map editor for the maps........

It was even already done in CC3 but for the Stalingrad mod and me , it's a new way of working....

And I'm very happy with the result so far, the maps are more "understandable"

#23: Re: Angriff Author: Tejszd, Location: Canada

Posted: Mon Feb 02, 2015 10:03 pm
—

Dima wrote (View Post):

Tejszd wrote (View Post):

Dima wrote (View Post):

GTC is the best CC so far. as far as I heard The Bloody First will not be a success...

yes, LSA sux.

One thing you can say about you Dima, is that people know where you stand on things as there is no middle ground.

LSA is in a tough spot I will admit.

WAR/TLD are more compatible with CC5 mods thus are better targets for CC5 mod conversion
GtC does have some newer features that put it ahead of LSA; camouflage, mortar targeting, vehicles carrying troops, towing guns, and some do consider the ability to not change individual units a plus

But in addition to the features lost from LSA I don't know if I'm a fan of the larger scale maps (I thought I would be in favour 1 scale or less different scales) but I do no like how you see less of the map. Maybe I just need a higher res monitor??

#24: Re: Angriff Author: Manoi, Location: Brussels

Posted: Mon Feb 02, 2015 10:14 pm
—

Tejszd wrote (View Post):

. Maybe I just need a higher res monitor??

With which resolution are you playing?

#25: Re: Angriff Author: Dima,

Posted: Mon Feb 02, 2015 10:39 pm
—

Tejszd wrote (View Post):

GtC does have some newer features that put it ahead of LSA; camouflage, mortar targeting, vehicles carrying troops, towing guns, and some do consider the ability to not change individual units a plus

not enough? :)

Quote:

But in addition to the features lost from LSA I don't know if I'm a fan of the larger scale maps (I thought I would be in favour 1 scale or less different scales) but I do no like how you see less of the map. Maybe I just need a higher res monitor??

1920x1080 here, but yes I like when ATGs can engage targets at 700m.

#26: Re: Angriff Author: Pzt_Crackwise, Location: Switzerland

Posted: Mon Feb 02, 2015 11:43 pm
—
Sorry to say, but GtC has a very messed up multiplayer. Start an operation with a human opponent and come back and report here your crash ratio to the battles launched.

We started testing my custom GC with xlegione today and had 2 crashes in 4 battles launched in total. (No airstrike, no artillery, no truce etc. were random crashes. You can see my post regarding that on Matrix forums)

I would say under these circumstances, TLD is probably the best among the new releases in terms of stability.

#27: Re: Angriff Author: Stwa,

Posted: Mon Feb 02, 2015 11:58 pm
—
I have 1360 x 768 LCD monitor. I got the first one in 2001, and it cost me through the wazoo.

It lasted about 8 years, and I replaced it with another 1360x768, even though the sales guys kept saying I should get higher res.

But 1360x768 would work with CC5 back then, and just the flat screen itself made CC5 look awesome.

#28: Re: Angriff Author: Nomada_Firefox,

Posted: Tue Feb 03, 2015 5:26 am
—

Pzt_Crackwise wrote (View Post):

Sorry to say, but GtC has a very messed up multiplayer. Start an operation with a human opponent and come back and report here your crash ratio to the battles launched.

I agree. Clearly Manoi, Dima and some people more are telling wonderful things about the game because they are interested at this and they are not telling the true. One true which if you take a small look around the world, you can see clearly.

Multiplayer---------------------> A piece of shit.

IA--------------------------------->Another piece of shit.

Big maps------------------------->I see a lot of people lately telling how they would like smaller maps and clearly the IA would be better in them.

People playing the game---->Very few.

#29: Re: Angriff Author: Stwa,

Posted: Tue Feb 03, 2015 6:46 am
—

Nomada_Firefox wrote (View Post):

Multiplayer---------------------> A piece of shit.

IA--------------------------------->Another piece of shit.

Big maps------------------------->I see a lot of people lately telling how they would like smaller maps and clearly the IA would be better in them.

People playing the game---->Very few.

Yes, of course.

The FEW, the PROUD, the GOOBERS!

Hey Firefox; I am sorry, but its over, its in the record book. You can lead the horses to water but you can't make them drink. The map size thingy was so obvious.

Some of these guys are probably getting a nickel, every time Matrix sells another download! That is probably what is really going on.

But, if these guys wanna make a new mod, then go for it. Sounds great!

#30: Re: Angriff Author: Manoi, Location: Brussels

Posted: Tue Feb 03, 2015 10:45 am
—
This topic is about the Stalingrad mod, not on the best choice of CC version for a mod. If nobody will play it, too bad for us but we assume this choice.

And please Stwa and Nomada : don't presume or assert any things that you are not sure only for the pleasure of teasing some conflicts.

Thanks

#31: Re: Angriff Author: Nomada_Firefox,

Posted: Tue Feb 03, 2015 11:20 am
—
Are you a moderator now? just I was answering answers from other people. You speak from GTC, how great it was and I have told you how wrong you are. Nothing more. You can mod all you want, at least you can be how nobody go to pay you as you tried at a first moment......

I can not speak about Stwa but I do not presume nothing. I have not told any lie. GTC has a bad IA, a bad multiplayer and the maps are too big.

If you do not like these trues, very well, but do not call us liers with "presume nothing" because it is not true and you do not help a shit ignoring the true. I know many people which they liked CC games but they do not play them more because the multiplayer is very bad.

#32: Re: Angriff Author: Manoi, Location: Brussels

Posted: Tue Feb 03, 2015 11:54 am
—
Nomada : I have never said GTC was great or show me where I have made this assertion! Personaly, I have choiced this version for some reasons : size of 8 pixels by meter makes it easier for me to draw the maps, last 2D version with few bugs (except the problem of the multiplayer) but I don't deny there are for the moment some big flaws.
I know that a patch is coming for the multiplayer (only thing here is to hope but I trust Cathartes) and I note that I have to do the maps smaller!- (although as modder I like to draw big maps! Wink

For the AI, I think it is not better or worse than the previous version (personal opinion) but I'm not a good player enough for this Smile

For Angriff, I draw the maps with the VLs already predifined (and mainly the exit VL) so there will be no more (or at least) less AI deployement in open areas, it's one of the little thiings that we can do to make the game more challenging.

I was opening this topic to receive feedbacks, suggestions on our work, not to begin a perennial discussion over the low quality of work from games producers... Wink

#33: Re: Angriff Author: Manoi, Location: Brussels

Posted: Tue Feb 03, 2015 12:07 pm
—

Nomada_Firefox wrote (View Post):

You can mod all you want, at least you can be how nobody go to pay you as you tried at a first moment......

I.

every work deserves salary but I have understood now that my best reward will be the satisfaction of the (eventual) players... Smile

#34: Re: Angriff Author: Drizzt,

Posted: Tue Feb 03, 2015 12:20 pm
—
Manoi, I'm glad you have included in your work vision also the single player: I agree with you that GtC IA is not better or worse than previous versions, and I agree that the main problem about it are the maps too big: medium map size I think it's a good compromise between "strategy" (big maps = more strategy to use, particularly in multiplayer, I suppose) and a "decent" IA (small maps are the best). Keep up the good work.

Drizzt

#35: Re: Angriff Author: Manoi, Location: Brussels

Posted: Tue Feb 03, 2015 12:52 pm
—
now the question : which sizes of maps are considered as bigs or small (also regarding that the scale is different (8 pixels by meter instead of 5 pixels by meter)?

Maps in GTC have size with multiple of 192 pixels (24 meters). Do you think that the placement of VLs and the shape of the map may influence the AI behaviour? As sample ,is it possible that an elongated rectangular map with concentrated exit VLs at each end, will influence the AI to rush trough the map (I'm thinking here at the first map of the LSA campaign)?

I'm drawing my maps in this way :

the stratmap is an elongated (North - South) rectangle. Germans attack from the western side and their objectives is to take all the maps at the eastern border of the stratmap. So I have to make maps where germans are forced to rush to the east so I gather all the exit VLs on the right side of the maps. I was thinking to keep this shape (more or less) for every maps.

VL layout.jpg

Description:

Filesize:

33.52 KB

Viewed:

294 Time(s)

#36: Re: Angriff Author: Stwa,

Posted: Tue Feb 03, 2015 12:59 pm
—

Manoi wrote (View Post):

This topic is about the Stalingrad mod, not on the best choice of CC version for a mod. If nobody will play it, too bad for us but we assume this choice.

And please Stwa and Nomada : don't presume or assert any things that you are not sure only for the pleasure of teasing some conflicts.

Thanks

Yup, and I ASSERT you made an inquiry about monitor sizes. I answered that. Were you only speaking to TJ?

I also ASSERT, that you think all work (mods?) are entitled to salary. I disagree, but suggested a possible method of payment, PRESUMABLY by Matrix.

And, one of the THINGS that are messing THINGS up, are the map sizes. I PRESUME that Firefox and Drizzt concur.

Finally, I can only PRESUME that you will consider these remarks as the FEEDBACK you were seeking?

#37: Re: Angriff Author: Manoi, Location: Brussels

Posted: Tue Feb 03, 2015 1:03 pm
—

Stwa wrote (View Post):

I also ASSERT, that you think all work (mods?) are entitled to salary. I disagree, but suggested a possible method of payment, PRESUMABLY by Matrix.

I have tried it... not interesting! Laughing

#38: Re: Angriff Author: Drizzt,

Posted: Tue Feb 03, 2015 1:34 pm
—
About pixel/meter I should check Tga files (in this moment I can't), but, about size, I can say that maps like Belyy Koldez or Balakleia in Kharkov mod are the medium size I have in mind (I like also the shape). Probably they are more medium-small than medium-big, but I think they can work (don't see the Vls, just the size).

About Vls: in CC5 I would say bad idea, but in re-releases I think it can work (setting also campaign.txt and BGs.txt in a certain way). But to be honest, I see the following main problem: when russians will win some battles (total victory in the map) will go to the next having alredy conquered a great part of it only for the fact to enter on it. My suggestion is to set some Vls in the center (for the IA it's always a good thing). I think also that some of exit Vls must be in the border central part considering the "logical" design of every map in stratmap (many maps have some other maps at north, south, east, west so exits should not be all in the east point of a map): in few words my vision is more like a "railway" from west to east with the center well occupied, but I think that your idea it's excellent for the "invasion maps" (the starting german maps in GC). Of course, it's just my vision.

Drizzt

#39: Re: Angriff Author: Stwa,

Posted: Tue Feb 03, 2015 1:47 pm
—
Then they are creeps!

OK, it has been awile for me. But here goes the map size thing again. I have spoke on this many times in the past. For WW2 ...

In deployment tiles (which I believe equate to 24m square) even in the pevious scale.

18x18 - 20x20 = large map
15x15 - 17x17 = medium map
12x12 - 14x14 = small map

For CCMT I initially used 25x25 = large map = 600 meters square. An original CCMT map being 4800x4800 pixels / 40 deployment tiles per side = 120 pixels square per deployment tile. An element being 40 pixels square?

600 meters square would be a goodly size for any infantry only conflict, and considered very large for any map containing plenty of obstructions found in a city like Stalingrad.

The main conflict is large maps could be needed to satisfy the needs of the campaign game, which could be in direct conflict with using the same map for a single battle, and of course, single battles are used many times for multiplayer.

The fact that you cannot have 2 sets of VL (one for campaign games) and (one for single battle and multi player) presents the most formidable challenge.

#40: Re: Angriff Author: Manoi, Location: Brussels

Posted: Tue Feb 03, 2015 2:08 pm
—
Maps size in Stalingrad should not be a problem as the amount of covers and obstacles is high enough to make a small map interesting. However I think I will go rather to medium maps.

Thanks Drizzt I was indeed speaking of the exit VL's. Important VLs will be placed in the center of the maps (central station, Pavlov house, Mamayev Kurgan etc...). My idea was mainly for the exit VLs and to shift them more to the right side of the maps to force the Germans to cross the maps to seize them. I'm afraid that on a square map the AI will scatter his units and with exit VLs in the central border, AI would take them and camp on it regardless these VLs are less important that the east one that leads to the Volga. In terms of Stratmap and maps the Russians will be clearly advantaged (Russian campaign may be unfortunately more boring, but in every case I think that 2 separated grand campaigns are necessary), but it was also the case in the reality.

#41: Re: Angriff Author: Manoi, Location: Brussels

Posted: Tue Feb 03, 2015 2:14 pm
—

Stwa wrote (View Post):

Then they are creeps!

OK, it has been awile for me. But here goes the map size thing again. I have spoke on this many times in the past. For WW2 ...

In deployment tiles (which I believe equate to 24m square) even in the pevious scale.

18x18 - 20x20 = large map
15x15 - 17x17 = medium map
12x12 - 14x14 = small map

For CCMT I initially used 25x25 = large map = 600 meters square. An original CCMT map being 4800x4800 pixels / 40 deployment tiles per side = 120 pixels square per deployment tile. An element being 40 pixels square?

600 meters square would be a goodly size for any infantry only conflict, and considered very large for any map containing plenty of obstructions found in a city like Stalingrad.

The main conflict is large maps could be needed to satisfy the needs of the campaign game, which could be in direct conflict with using the same map for a single battle, and of course, single battles are used many times for multiplayer.

The fact that you cannot have 2 sets of VL (one for campaign games) and (one for single battle and multi player) presents the most formidable challenge.

Thanks

I agree with you on the VLs problem. It would even be interesting to have different sets of VLs for each side in single campaign

#42: Re: Angriff Author: Manoi, Location: Brussels

Posted: Tue Feb 03, 2015 2:25 pm
—

Stwa wrote (View Post):

600 meters square would be a goodly size for any infantry only conflict, and considered very large for any map containing plenty of obstructions found in a city like Stalingrad.

The main conflict is large maps could be needed to satisfy the needs of the campaign game, which could be in direct conflict with using the same map for a single battle, and of course, single battles are used many times for multiplayer.

.

I'm busy to consider this problem in the cutting of the stratmap. Compared to the old Stalingrad mod, I was forced to gather important key points on the same map (as sample grain elevator and South railwaystation or Stalingradskii (airfield) and Pilots school) but all the maps will have a good cover of the city. (600 meters should be enough to respect the geographical accuracy)

#43: Re: Angriff Author: Stwa,

Posted: Tue Feb 03, 2015 3:02 pm
—
If true, then the shapes of the maps can be made to loosely conform to the shapes of the strat map sectors. Its an old adage, and I am sure you are already aware, to use mainly square of near square maps for the main areas of confrontation and long side rectangles for the bottlenecks or transistions on the strat map.

But all that is just a generalization, the strat map will become mostly the authority regarding the shapes of the maps.

And at 600 meters X 8 pixels per meter you are back to 4800 pixels (the size of an original CCMT map). My system, a vintage Athelon 2000, with an antique Radeon 9600 processes a CCMT map with no problems, even vehicles move smoothely with 2 GB of ram.

I would just caution that 600 meters might be a very large map using the sizes I gave above. The main problem, being that the number of VLs (which are 16) has not been scaled up like the ground scale. Just assuming a factor of 8/5 or 1.6 you might need 16 x 1.6 = ~26 VLs. The assumption being that the software measures distance between VLs simply using pixels while possibly not accounting for the distance in meters, and in so doing compelling units controlled by the AI to do nothing. (ask Steve) Please note the area or size of the VLs has been scaled properly.

A similar situation may exist when it relates to movement and its speed. Some people were reporting slower movement speeds, perhaps because of the sizes of infantry and vehicles, or perhaps the longer distances now required as measured in pixels, (again ask Steve), becuase if true, there are more scales in effect besides the ground scale.

#44: Re: Angriff Author: Drizzt,

Posted: Tue Feb 03, 2015 5:34 pm
—
to Manoi: I had misunderstood about Vls (I thought you speak about also the normal Vls). Now it's clear. In this case.. Yes, east: maybe not all toghether so much at east (not too much near one each other), but anyway yes, all in the "second part" of the rectangle.
About square shape and IA: I agree with you. The maps of my examples are rectangles "more high", but yes, also them can be less competitive than a "classic" rectangle map. I think that the important thing it's don't carry to the extreme this concept (map rectangles really too low), for don't lose the possibility to flank the enemy or sneak behind him. Anyway, I have trust in your judgement.

Drizzt

#45: Re: Angriff Author: Nomada_Firefox,

Posted: Tue Feb 03, 2015 6:20 pm
—

Manoi wrote (View Post):

Nomada_Firefox wrote (View Post):

You can mod all you want, at least you can be how nobody go to pay you as you tried at a first moment......

I.

every work deserves salary but I have understood now that my best reward will be the satisfaction of the (eventual) players... Smile

If you are not happy, you can make mods for any game from steam workshop. But request money by a mod, it kills the idea from a mod.

At the end, you should not try sell us BF as worse than GTC. From BF we do not know too much and from GTC we know everything.

#46: Re: Angriff Author: Manoi, Location: Brussels

Posted: Tue Feb 03, 2015 8:15 pm
—

Nomada_Firefox wrote (View Post):

At the end, you should not try sell us BF as worse than GTC. From BF we do not know too much and from GTC we know everything.

??? I work on TBF!

#47: Re: Angriff Author: Manoi, Location: Brussels

Posted: Tue Feb 03, 2015 8:20 pm
—

Drizzt wrote (View Post):

to Manoi: I had misunderstood about Vls (I thought you speak about also the normal Vls). Now it's clear. In this case.. Yes, east: maybe not all toghether so much at east (not too much near one each other), but anyway yes, all in the "second part" of the rectangle.
About square shape and IA: I agree with you. The maps of my examples are rectangles "more high", but yes, also them can be less competitive than a "classic" rectangle map. I think that the important thing it's don't carry to the extreme this concept (map rectangles really too low), for don't lose the possibility to flank the enemy or sneak behind him. Anyway, I have trust in your judgement.

Drizzt

thanks. the goal is to make previews and ask the opinion of the community throughout its development.

#48: Re: Angriff Author: Nomada_Firefox,

Posted: Tue Feb 03, 2015 9:00 pm
—
[quote="Manoi";p="79298"]

Nomada_Firefox wrote (View Post):

??? I work on TBF!

If you work at BF, why are you speaking bad about it?

#49: Re: Angriff Author: Manoi, Location: Brussels

Posted: Tue Feb 03, 2015 9:50 pm
—
[quote="Nomada_Firefox";p="79300"]

Manoi wrote (View Post):

Nomada_Firefox wrote (View Post):

??? I work on TBF!

If you work at BF, why are you speaking bad about it?

???? where? Shocked

#50: Re: Angriff Author: Pzt_Crackwise, Location: Switzerland

Posted: Wed Feb 04, 2015 12:14 am
—
Firefox, I think Manoi opened this thread to get input for his mod. No need to start an unnecessary flame war here. Send him a private message or something instead, if you really want to ask him other stuff.

#51: Re: Angriff Author: Stwa,

Posted: Wed Feb 04, 2015 2:01 am
—

Pzt_Crackwise wrote (View Post):

Firefox, I think Manoi opened this thread to get input for his mod. No need to start an unnecessary flame war here. Send him a private message or something instead, if you really want to ask him other stuff.

++ Pzt_Crackwise

It would seem to moi that 2D CC titles, at least from Matrix, may finally be behind us. If true, what is done is done, and it is all history now. It went down the way it went down.

The good news and the bad news: A modder has several platforms to choose from. Each with different capabilities and even scales. Eeek!

So, if you can't find a way to have fun with CC, you are just a sicko. Laughing

#52: Re: Angriff Author: Tejszd, Location: Canada

Posted: Wed Feb 04, 2015 3:25 am
—
Medium/Large maps or medium maps with cover at the entry VL's are required.

You do not want maps like some of those in CC4 which were small and lacked cover which resulted in immediate fire fights between soldiers/tanks and then artillery/mortar support dropping into the small entry area. There was no tactics on maps like that....

#53: Re: Angriff Author: dj,

Posted: Wed Feb 04, 2015 4:59 am
—
Wow, best thread ever. AI Sucks. No Multiplayer Sucks. We all know AI and Multiplayer sucks on almost every CC game released with the exception of CC2 for AI. The current owners of CC game simply do not have the financial resources or realistic budget to truly fix the game the way we know it needs to be. In the meantime, just be grateful Manoi wants to make a new mod and stop being such cynics.

#54: Re: Angriff Author: Nomada_Firefox,

Posted: Wed Feb 04, 2015 3:35 pm
—

Manoi wrote (View Post):

Nomada_Firefox wrote (View Post):

Manoi wrote (View Post):

Nomada_Firefox wrote (View Post):

??? I work on TBF!

If you work at BF, why are you speaking bad about it?

???? where? Shocked

People sayed how it would not be a success and you did not defend the game. Just you were selling the good points from GTC. One thing which I can understand. But not about BF.;)

Pzt_Crackwise, are you a moderator? you are nobody for say to the people what they must speak.

[quote]You do not want maps like some of those in CC4 which were small and lacked cover which resulted in immediate fire fights between soldiers/tanks and then artillery/mortar support dropping into the small entry area. There was no tactics on maps like that....

At multiplayer can be but at singleplayer, with GTC, at a big map, you must wait to the IA for hours and it will launch a kamikaze attack where you would not see any tactic.

In the other point, you will not be able play a multiplayer game without lag and crashes at GTC most of the times. If you do not trust it, check the matrix games forums, last Close Combat games are the unique games with thousands of reclamations from players about how it runs bad at multiplayer and lately people have started to request a better IA for BF, mostly because they are tired from multiplayer games.

Now your choice but it is the true.

#55: Re: Angriff Author: Stwa,

Posted: Thu Feb 05, 2015 3:20 am
—
Hi Firefox,

I know you are trying to present what you believe to be the truth concerning these titles.

But even at this stage in the game, most of us are simply observers. Just do the research before you buy. It probably holds true for many games now days, and for a lot of good reasons.

But I was talking with someone in a CCMT forum that reminded me that he had wasted $30 bucks on lots of stuff during his lifetime, so purchasing a game that didn't turn out so well is no big deal.

Maybe find a title you do like, and rock and roll.

#56: Re: Angriff Author: dj,

Posted: Thu Feb 05, 2015 4:59 am
—
@Manoi - is there any way you can make the maps smaller? It is OLD problem with the AI issues with larger maps. PJ I remember also had a way to address this for his Stalingrad mods besides the smaller maps, don't recall exactly what he did.

#57: Re: Angriff Author: Nomada_Firefox,

Posted: Thu Feb 05, 2015 5:45 am
—

Quote:

I know you are trying to present what you believe to be the truth concerning these titles.

I´m not speaking about what I believe. I speak about believe the players.

I do not speak about lose or not $30, but most of the GTC titles are more expensive than $30. However, I have bought most of them.

But I was speaking about three problems from the game.

-Bad IA.

-Bad multiplayer.

-Very few players.

If Manoi wants ignore all these three points very good. But at least as DJ says, he can try improve some of them with smaller maps. With smaller maps, he would fix the two first points.

#58: Re: Angriff Author: johnsilver, Location: Florida

Posted: Thu Feb 05, 2015 7:04 am
—

Quote:

PJ I remember also had a way to address this for his Stalingrad mods besides the smaller maps, don't recall exactly what he did.

Hi DJ,

Yeah, PJ and Selhexe were talking about that on one of the OLD Stalingrad post/topics long ago and PJ posted how he did it, it was when PJ went ballistic over Selhexe making that vetmod for DK. Digging up that topic should find the answer.

Werf

#59: Re: Angriff Author: Stwa,

Posted: Thu Feb 05, 2015 8:03 am
—

Quote:

I´m not speaking about what I believe. I speak about believe the players.

OIC, I doubt that. Do you REALLY speak for all these .... what ... PLAYERS?

Quote:

I do not speak about lose or not $30, but most of the GTC titles are more expensive than $30. However, I have bought most of them.

I have never paid more than $30 for any modern CC title. Perhpas you need self discipline or therapy or both.

Quote:

But I was speaking about three problems from the game.

There you go again.

Quote:

-Bad IA.

Just your opinion. I have always thought the AI not so bad, when you consider what it does.

Quote:

-Bad multiplayer.

Just your opinion. Multiplayer requires an environment apart from the code-line of the game.

Quote:

-Very few players.

A total non-issue. In all the games I have played over the last 5-6 years. I have needed only one player. Myself!

Quote:

If Manoi wants ignore all these three points very good. But at least as DJ says, he can try improve some of them with smaller maps. With smaller maps, he would fix the two first points.

So I didn't see that Map Size made the top three. Are you high?

#60: Re: Angriff Author: DAK_Legion,

Posted: Thu Feb 05, 2015 8:18 am
—
PJ said.....you are an american fat......

#61: Re: Angriff Author: Stwa,

Posted: Thu Feb 05, 2015 8:26 am
—

DAK_Legion wrote (View Post):

PJ said.....you are an american fat......

I am not fat! Razz

#62: Re: Angriff Author: Nomada_Firefox,

Posted: Thu Feb 05, 2015 12:50 pm
—

Quote:

I have never paid more than $30 for any modern CC title. Perhpas you need self discipline or therapy or both.

All your answers are lies and people can see them easily. Even the old CCMT cost more of $30. http://www.matrixgames.com/products/350/details/Close.Combat.-.Modern.Tactics.

Perhaps you have not bought any CC game at all your life.

Now I was making a serius discussion. But What, I do not go to continue arguing with you because you look to me as a troll.

#63: Re: Angriff Author: Stwa,

Posted: Thu Feb 05, 2015 1:15 pm
—
Hi Firefox,

I suggest you take some time off from the thread to grow up. It will do you some good me thinks.

http://www.matrixgames.com/news/982/Matrix.Games.Holiday.Sale.is.Here!

#64: Re: Angriff Author: Stwa,

Posted: Thu Feb 05, 2015 1:41 pm
—
Here is another ...

http://www.slitherinebravo.net/pr/HolidaySale2013/MG_MG_SALES_HolidaySale2013_CatalogMG_01.pdf

#65: Re: Angriff Author: Stwa,

Posted: Thu Feb 05, 2015 1:59 pm
—

Nomada_Firefox wrote (View Post):

Even the old CCMT cost more of $30. http://www.matrixgames.com/products/350/details/Close.Combat.-.Modern.Tactics.

I know it is late, but you might want to check that again Firefox.

If it is GTC's multiplayer that is messin with ya, I read on the Slitherene site, that you may need to move closer to their server in England. But if you do that, you wont be able to wear your burka. Or is that in France, I forget.

And just for fun, how about 2008.

http://www.matrixgames.com/news/545/Matrix.Games.Announces.the.2008.Holiday.Sale

#66: Re: Angriff Author: Manoi, Location: Brussels

Posted: Thu Feb 05, 2015 6:34 pm
—
Patch 1.02 for GTC is available. I think (and I hope) there are no more excuses to continue the mod now.
I will begin a new thread about Angriff! in the GTC section.

#67: Re: Angriff Author: Stwa,

Posted: Fri Feb 06, 2015 8:05 am
—

johnsilver wrote (View Post):

Quote:

PJ I remember also had a way to address this for his Stalingrad mods besides the smaller maps, don't recall exactly what he did.

I am just guessing, but me thinks it probably had to do with zombies. I myself have done a thing or two with zombies, and yes with zombies, map size is a non-issue.

#68: Re: Angriff Author: Nomada_Firefox,

Posted: Fri Feb 06, 2015 9:48 am
—

Manoi wrote (View Post):

Patch 1.02 for GTC is available. I think (and I hope) there are no more excuses to continue the mod now.
I will begin a new thread about Angriff! in the GTC section.

Now perhaps you can delete the multiplayer problem from the equation but you should value the IA problem with big maps.

#69: Re: Angriff Author: Manoi, Location: Brussels

Posted: Fri Feb 06, 2015 11:06 am
—

Nomada_Firefox wrote (View Post):

Now perhaps you can delete the multiplayer problem from the equation but you should value the IA problem with big maps.

I will limit the size. Maybe no small maps as CC4 but more medium maps that allow flanking moves.

#70: Re: Angriff Author: Pzt_Crackwise, Location: Switzerland

Posted: Fri Feb 06, 2015 11:34 am
—
Yes Manoi, small maps such as those in CC4 really do not allow proper tactics. I totally agree with your decision to go on with larger maps!

On pure multiplayer perspective, I think GJS had the best map sizes, but I agree with Firefox that large maps make playing against the AI even more boring. But as I always say, playing CC against AI is just a waste of time. Everyone should play multiplayer if possible! Smile

Even if people cannot commit to long-lasting operations, I think playing single battles is still pretty good. And assuming we had a stable game (hopefully with the latest patch) with a lot of balanced single battles created by players, reviving the ladder (a la Tournament House) in this case would be pretty cool.

#71: Re: Angriff Author: Stwa,

Posted: Fri Feb 06, 2015 12:44 pm
—
I consider CC4 Baugnez a small map. It has always been a lot of fun with plenty opportunities for good tactics too.

It is 13x13 or 312 meters square.

It is just that for a lot of players the only tactics they comprehend are related to movement, like flanking.

#72: Re: Angriff Author: Stwa,

Posted: Fri Feb 06, 2015 1:07 pm
—
I would consider CC3 Stalingrad 3 a medium map (17x17) or 408 meters square. Again with lots of potential for tactics.

#73: Re: Angriff Author: Stwa,

Posted: Fri Feb 06, 2015 1:36 pm
—
CC5 Cap de la Hague would be a large map. In fact the largest I allow. (20x20) or 480 meters square. Plenty of tank action on this one if you like.

Over time the developers kept modifying the maximum map allowed in the subsequent titles.

But they didn't take into account other factors related to the AI on the larger maps. They didn't really touch that code.

#74: Re: Angriff Author: Pzt_Crackwise, Location: Switzerland

Posted: Fri Feb 06, 2015 3:26 pm
—
That Cap de la Hague map is actually pretty good I think in terms of size.

The problem with small maps when playing against a human opponent is that, it limits you a lot (as the attacker) due to not having much choice in terms of attack direction. Thus, the defender can basically deploy whatever he has on one spot. Whereas, in medium to large maps the attacker can follow a less obvious attack route combined with feint attacks. Of course this involves a little bit of gambling and opponent skill assessment sometimes, but that's the fun of it.

#75: Re: Angriff Author: Nomada_Firefox,

Posted: Fri Feb 06, 2015 4:15 pm
—

Manoi wrote (View Post):

Nomada_Firefox wrote (View Post):

Now perhaps you can delete the multiplayer problem from the equation but you should value the IA problem with big maps.

I will limit the size. Maybe no small maps as CC4 but more medium maps that allow flanking moves.

Just two points, first this is a close combat and second the IA will not flank you, never.

#76: Re: Angriff Author: Drizzt,

Posted: Fri Feb 06, 2015 4:28 pm
—
Nomada, it's you (you = the human player) that for the fun sometimes flank the enemy (the enemy IA in single player or a Human player in multiplayer). Medium map size (it's better medium-small than medium-big) it's the compromise (I think good) between multiplayer players needs and single player players (like me) needs.

Drizzt

#77: Re: Angriff Author: Manoi, Location: Brussels

Posted: Fri Feb 06, 2015 4:29 pm
—

Nomada_Firefox wrote (View Post):

Manoi wrote (View Post):

Nomada_Firefox wrote (View Post):

Now perhaps you can delete the multiplayer problem from the equation but you should value the IA problem with big maps.

I will limit the size. Maybe no small maps as CC4 but more medium maps that allow flanking moves.

Just two points, first this is a close combat and second the IA will not flank you, never.

the problem is to find a compromise between single and multiplayer.

#78: Re: Angriff Author: Stwa,

Posted: Sat Feb 07, 2015 3:34 am
—

Manoi wrote (View Post):

the problem is to find a compromise between single and multiplayer.

To begin with, me thinks you should re-state the problem as follows:

To find a compromise between single and multi-battle. Solve that issue first.

Multi-battles (even on the same map) and in the context of an operation or a grand campaign are in direct opposition to single-battles (on the same map) as it relates to map sizes and the number and placement of VLs on the corresponding maps.

With CCMT, the campaigns and operations were eliminated, therefore this problem was solved.

With a campaign game format, you could just simply eliminate the single-battles. One tab and its corresponding entries would be removed. Players can still design operations that involve fewer and fewer maps, but they can never quite get to a single map - single battle. The minimum maps in an operation could be 3 or perhaps 2, as enforced by the system.

There is still the issue of single player vs. multi player. But it has far fewer issues than the one mentioned above.

#79: Re: Angriff Author: Stwa,

Posted: Sat Feb 07, 2015 5:14 am
—
One other point regarding single battle vs multi battle.

Atomic must have understood this problem. After all, its is really a no brainer. Lets see, I have this map. In one case I just want to fight a single (one) battle, and in the other case I want this map to support many battles. So, since I want to use the map for many battles, I probably need to make it larger.

But, when I want to make any map larger (even for scaling purposes), I may need to use more VLs on the larger map. So, Atomic tried to partially resolve this issue by creating major and minor VLs. Some VLs are worth more victory points than others. For instance, in CCMT, the VLs are worth the same amount of victory points.

It is the fixed number of teams and VLs, that in the end put real limitations on the size of each and every map. Why, because the area of map can increase exponentially. And the number of teams and the number of VLs are NOT increasing in an exponential way.

12x12 = small map = 144 square deployment tiles - 15 teams - 16 victory locations

16x16 = medium map = 256 tiles - 15 teams - 16 victory locations

20x20 = large map = 400 tiles - 15 teams - 16 victory locations

30x30 = campaign map = 900 tiles - 15 teams - 16 victory locations

As the maps increase in size, they have less value when utilized for a single battle, but perhaps more value when utilized for many battles, except for the one glaring dichotomy presented above.

And to boil all tactics to 2 distinct types: 1. Concentration of force(this includes flanking), and 2. Mutual support. Me thinks you could say these 2 tactics, are again in opposition to one other as it relates to map size or area.

#80: Re: Angriff Author: Stwa,

Posted: Sat Feb 07, 2015 10:04 am
—
So as it turns out, especially in the context of tactics; you can get an exponential increase in the number of VLs that is roughly correlated to map size.

16 is the maximum number of VLs, but you can manually enforce a maximum value for each map size as follows;

12x12 = small map = 144 square deployment tiles - 15 teams - 2 victory locations

16x16 = medium map = 256 tiles - 15 teams - 4 victory locations

20x20 = large map = 400 tiles - 15 teams - 8 victory locations

30x30 = campaign map = 900 tiles - 15 teams - 16 victory locations

I implemented basically this arrangement with my own map collections. But, when you look at this situation and relate it to the two tactics (concentration of force, and mutual support), is it any wonder when map sizes increase that the AI becomes less and less capable.

Of course, the AI is further handicapped by the fact that it probably has no memory (short or long term). So, imagine playing against another human player with this disability.

Over time, I have listened to many players express the benefits of movement; usually flanking, as an essential ingredient for game play. What I discovered was the players were really expressing the idea of a flank march, not simply flanking an enemy unit. There can be a considerable amount of difference.

So, for any map to allow, one side or another to take all or most of its force and flank march it in a way where they arrive at a 90 degree angle to the tangent that would represent the defenders battle "line", would require another substantial increase in map size.

Me thinks these players have a necessity to win the battles that they play against the AI, so large maps are their favorite, since movement tactics, like marching most of your force to a flank, are somewhat simple in nature. In conclusion, these players publicly disdain the AI.

Perhaps this kind of movement should be reserved for the strategic layer.

#81: Re: Angriff Author: Nomada_Firefox,

Posted: Sat Feb 07, 2015 8:55 pm
—

Manoi wrote (View Post):

Nomada_Firefox wrote (View Post):

Manoi wrote (View Post):

Nomada_Firefox wrote (View Post):

Now perhaps you can delete the multiplayer problem from the equation but you should value the IA problem with big maps.

I will limit the size. Maybe no small maps as CC4 but more medium maps that allow flanking moves.

Just two points, first this is a close combat and second the IA will not flank you, never.

the problem is to find a compromise between single and multiplayer.

Can be but even at multiplayer, I do not like big maps because you need a lot of games in the same map.

How many maps do you go to add? how have you avoided the limits from GTC? because clearly some rows are set forever for some settings and if you move them, it will give you errors. In fact, I´m not sure if more maps, arrows and connections than the original can be added. Less, probably yes but more........who knows.....because I do not know at this moment.

Other question. Do you use the Bloody First map editor for your maps? Steve told how it can export a image from the terrain and other from the objets for improve manually the maps. But I suppose how it can be used for other CC maps.

#82: Re: Angriff Author: Stwa,

Posted: Sun Feb 08, 2015 10:56 am
—
So, maybe it is worthwhile to discuss single player vs multi player and how these modes affect map size, if at all. It was always thought that CC games in general were multi player centric, and I would agree with that assumption.

In the discussion of map sizes, I discussed the possibility of removing single map - single battles as a possible solution to the map size issue because there were just a single set of VLs that could be assigned to any map, no matter how that map was used, either as a single battle, or for multiple battles in an operation or campaign.

But, Atomic never did that, did they? Why? Atomic wanted to retain single-map single-battle for multi player games. Sure, single player could use the single maps for single battles, but there could be a number of flaws in that arrangement. These flaws, like large maps and poor AI performance, could be mainly mitigated in a multi player environment.

So, now days, pretty much no matter what game you select, there are constant player requests for a better AI. There is a lot of social phenomena behind these requests. Without going into each one, perhaps scheduling time is chief in circumstance. The same phenomena is occurring in network television, where viewers do not want to alter their personal schedules, but would rather request and view this same content upon demand.

Single players want to use the game's content now, upon demand; not later by appointment. But now days even dedicated multi player sites that provide a dedicated multi player environment cannot always guarantee that your appointment to play will be scheduled today, upon request or demand.

So, as single players replaced multi players in the single map single battle space, the flaws associated with using campaign maps for single battle purposes became exacerbated.

#83: Re: Angriff Author: Stwa,

Posted: Sun Feb 08, 2015 12:38 pm
—
To be sure, there is nothing about single or multi player that diminishes game play apart from the requirement that the AI must be a component in the single player environment.

There is no doubt in my mind that all developers at all stages of the CC franchise have understood this. The solution, has always been to restore multi player gaming in the CC titles, and lately by directly furnishing the multi player environment.

The options for the producers were as follows: Use smaller maps, re-code the AI, or attract multi players back to the CC franchise. Using smaller maps is not an option because in so doing you break the campaign game. But if you use large maps, that breaks the AI. So, the only solution left is more multi players.

Without multi players, the situation is irreconcilable. The campaign game format, in vogue since CC4, is simply hosed for single players, and this fact will never be corrected by the producers.

Single players should choose CC2, CC3, CC4, COI, and perhaps CCMT and avoid CC5, WAR, TLD, LSA, PitF, and GTC.

CC4 Classic which comes with WAR is recommended, because it has the same small maps as CC4.

Last edited by Stwa on Mon Feb 09, 2015 12:44 pm; edited 1 time in total

#84: Re: Angriff Author: johnsilver, Location: Florida

Posted: Sun Feb 08, 2015 4:17 pm
—

Quote:

Single players should choose CC2, CC3, COI, or CCMT and avoid CC4, CC5, WAR, TLD, LSA, PitF, and GTC.

There is a theme at play there and it goes beyond small/large maps. Smile

#85: Re: Angriff Author: dj,

Posted: Sun Feb 08, 2015 5:57 pm
—
Listen, we ran numerous surveys in the past and the majority of people prefer Single Player vs AI. Not because they don't like Muliti-player / H2H, it is because they have issues with networks, security, slow internet connection, they are not allowed to use employer's PC to dial-in to game networks, etc. Or people are just too busy and only have time to play quick 15 minute battle.

Yes I think only the original CC2, CC3 and maybe CC4 are the only games suitable as is for AI gameplay. Ever since CC5 it has fallen off a cliff and AI has only gotten worse with the re-writes. Some mods are barely playable against AI but not many.

#86: Re: Angriff Author: Stwa,

Posted: Sun Feb 08, 2015 6:19 pm
—

johnsilver wrote (View Post):

Quote:

Single players should choose CC2, CC3, COI, or CCMT and avoid CC4, CC5, WAR, TLD, LSA, PitF, and GTC.

There is a theme at play there and it goes beyond small/large maps. Smile

Perhaps, I just don't have the energy to get that determined, one way or another.

With not too much work, a single player could put CC5 in play by cutting down a few maps and re-locating the corresponding victory locations.

And who knows about BF. I did do a little reading on what it takes to add 3d models to it, and was somewhat discouraged. So, I am no longer going to expect/anticipate much.

#87: Re: Angriff Author: johnsilver, Location: Florida

Posted: Sun Feb 08, 2015 7:01 pm
—

Quote:

It doesn't help with some mods having extremely limited areas of attack for units (the AI) to deploy initially from either. Some mods being developed for H2H play etc..

One can always the tools available and "stiffen up" what is already there. This isn't all that difficult when working with CC3-5. It's not a perfect cure and as long as the AI isn't hemmed in with only a small handful of deploy zones.. It works somewhat to improve the situation a tad. Historical accuracy out the window.

#88: Re: Angriff Author: Nomada_Firefox,

Posted: Sun Feb 08, 2015 8:25 pm
—

dj wrote (View Post):

Listen, we ran numerous surveys in the past and the majority of people prefer Single Player vs AI. Not because they don't like Muliti-player / H2H, it is because they have issues with networks, security, slow internet connection, they are not allowed to use employer's PC to dial-in to game networks, etc. Or people are just too busy and only have time to play quick 15 minute battle.

Yes I think only the original CC2, CC3 and maybe CC4 are the only games suitable as is for AI gameplay. Ever since CC5 it has fallen off a cliff and AI has only gotten worse with the re-writes. Some mods are barely playable against AI but not many.

I have a good point about because today people like more the singleplayer. 15 years ago, there was not a single RTS with good IA and multiplayer games was more popular, there were more and better game zones than now. At the end, 15 years ago we accepted how we could live without a good IA.

Today, people have seen many RTS with good IA and they have started to see the singleplayer option as a very good option. There are few or no one good game zones, MMO games were a disaster Rolling Eyes

. Now people can not see a game without a good IA.

About CC games, only the CC2 was fun against the IA. Mostly by the maps and by the good grand campaign. Of course there is one thing which we have not seen more after CC3, the selection of units by amount of points, I liked it.

#89: Re: Angriff Author: Tejszd, Location: Canada

Posted: Sun Feb 08, 2015 8:47 pm
—
WAR/TLD displayed points for single H2H games but did not enforce their use.

LSA used the point system and enforced it. Single battles could be setup with assigned BG's and points per BG.

What LSA lacked was the ability of CC3/COI to add single maps for single battles. It was suggested to Matrix to have a 2nd maps directory for them but was never done.

#90: Re: Angriff Author: Stwa,

Posted: Mon Feb 09, 2015 2:06 am
—
While there are plenty of people here at this site, that are qualified to speak about this phenomena. So these people will place all this in the context of their own experiences. I have done the same.

The Developers have roughly produced a CC title every year for over 8 years. In all that time, they ignored the trend to single player single battle, and DJ has helped us to fill in the blanks.

In that time period, I purchased two titles for a total of 46$. CCMT and CC4 Classic (WAR). I got CC4 Classic because it supported small soldiers. And I ditched CC4 and CC5 because both titles did not support small soldiers.

There was never a time during this 8 year period, that I thought that I was missing out on the CC experience, no matter how many platforms were made to support GJS.

So, any mod, that uses a game title that appeared on my "avoid" list above is bound to disappoint single players, and there really is NO WAY a modder (like Manoi) can solve that. On, the other hand Multi Players should be elated. These games are for you!

CC producers, developers, and modders, have simply ignored the modern trends to single player game play.

Last edited by Stwa on Mon Feb 09, 2015 12:42 pm; edited 1 time in total

#91: Re: Angriff Author: Nomada_Firefox,

Posted: Mon Feb 09, 2015 9:59 am
—

Quote:

CC producers, developers, and modders, have simply ignored the modern trends to single player game play.

You do not know the true and you are being too hard. You should read more.....

The CC producers have not ignored nothing. First 15 years ago, probably nobody knew how make a decent IA for a RTS like this. Specially with a engine made more of 15 years ago. Now, they have made the re-makes, PTIF, GTC with this old engine and if you had read the interview, the unique interview about Bloody First. You had read this.

Quote:

“There’s more problems with the old engine than Close Combat fans realise, probably,” McNeil says. “The UI, for example, is completely impenetrable. Place a first-time player in front of Close Combat 3 today. It will probably be 10 minutes before they get a rifle team to move.”

Clearly modders could not fix it and creators could not fix it. It gave thousands of troubles just for a small change. By this reason, with Bloody First we should see some very different and a lot better. Because probably they have coded the best from the original game in unity3d but they have not added the old problems.

If you are thinking how BF is a return to the past because there are not a strategic map by example. I do not considerer it as a return to the past. It is more a restart and if we are logic, the work is very good for a first attempt at Slitherine. Specially if we compared it with previous attempts from Freedom games. At least the two Slitherine proyect screenshots look as a CC game.

#92: Re: Angriff Author: Manoi, Location: Brussels

Posted: Mon Feb 09, 2015 11:30 am
—

Nomada_Firefox wrote (View Post):

How many maps do you go to add? how have you avoided the limits from GTC? because clearly some rows are set forever for some settings and if you move them, it will give you errors. In fact, I´m not sure if more maps, arrows and connections than the original can be added. Less, probably yes but more........who knows.....because I do not know at this moment.

Other question. Do you use the Bloody First map editor for your maps? Steve told how it can export a image from the terrain and other from the objets for improve manually the maps. But I suppose how it can be used for other CC maps.

The number of maps is not fixed yet but more than the original yes.

I don't use the TBF editor for some reasons, I think it's not the best tool to make 2D maps even if it is possible. I' working with blender and photoshop.

#93: Re: Angriff Author: Stwa,

Posted: Mon Feb 09, 2015 12:28 pm
—

Nomada_Firefox wrote (View Post):

You do not know the true and you are being too hard. You should read more.....

Perhaps, but I purchased my first CC game in 1999. And for the most part I have been "at it" since then.

And, I think it was said before: It is all history now, in the record books, over, done, etc!

Nothing personal to all involved, it is business, that is all, no one is really that unhappy, or upset, or anything. I am just a consumer, and unfortunately, the CC games only made me part with 46 bucks. Very simple, actually.

I only picked up 2 titles, because I never saw what I wanted, and also because I found a really good title (for moi), and that was CCMT, which turned out to be very good for single players and multi players that wanted to do the single battle thing.

And I think you can give a task to different programmers, and you will get variable results. For instance, in the time our CC teams(s) were producing me thinks 7 titles over an eight year period: Pocus over at Ageod, basically wrote their engine from scratch basically by himself, and with Thibeau they published a dozen titles.

I am not sure, but didn't Creative Assembly get started after the publication of CC5? I cant remember.

As for Matrix, they have produced around 250 titles, of which 7 are Close Combat related; about 2.8 percent of the total. But I would imagine the CC titles do not produce 2.8 percent of the revenue.

Matrix as a business is very successful and they will not be made or broken based on the performance of the various CC titles.

#94: Re: Angriff Author: Stwa,

Posted: Tue Feb 10, 2015 1:57 am
—

Stwa wrote (View Post):

Matrix as a business is very successful and they will not be made or broken based on the performance of the various CC titles.

But Philippe Malacher (Pocus) and Philippe Thibaut of Ageod could have been made or broken with their work. And I think these 2 guys had to make many sacrifices that maybe you and I would not have made, just to attain Agoed's level of success. Maybe that is the difference.

#95: Re: Angriff Author: Stwa,

Posted: Tue Feb 10, 2015 2:36 am
—

Nomada_Firefox wrote (View Post):

...if you had read the interview, the unique interview about Bloody First. You had read this.

Quote:

There hasn't been a programmer made that hasn't found themselves in this situation at some point in time. I think this statement is very harsh, in the sense it implies that Matrix programmers, are incapable of rising above this all to common phenomena.

At the same time, this statement implies that titles produced by Matrix before The Bloody First, are sub-standard (and perhaps not worth having) because of the situation enumerated.

Perhaps Slitherene has found some analyst somewhere than can walk things back to help identify issues with event driven code. Without even doing that you can devolve into tenants of the industry that seem silly and go from there. For instance,

One database good. Two databases bad.

One code-line good. Two code-lines bad.

#96: Re: Angriff Author: Ivan_Zaitzev,

Posted: Tue Feb 10, 2015 2:44 am
—
Maybe you should take your discussion to another topic and leave this one for the Stalingrad mod. Rolling Eyes

#97: Re: Angriff Author: Stwa,

Posted: Tue Feb 10, 2015 3:28 am
—

Ivan_Zaitzev wrote (View Post):

Maybe you should take your discussion to another topic and leave this one for the Stalingrad mod. Rolling Eyes

I feel the very same way in regards to your post. Rolling Eyes

Besides, there may be no need for that.

Manoi wrote (View Post):

I will begin a new thread about Angriff! in the GTC section.

#98: Re: Angriff Author: Stwa,

Posted: Tue Feb 10, 2015 4:40 am
—

Stwa wrote (View Post):

The options for the producers were as follows: Use smaller maps, re-code the AI, or attract multi players back to the CC franchise. Using smaller maps is not an option because in so doing you break the campaign game. But if you use large maps, that breaks the AI. So, the only solution left is more multi players.

So, they ask for feedback. But when you give it, they don't like it.

All I have done is tell other single players that like single battles, what CC platforms may work best for that. And people don't dig it.

But TIK decided the first option; "Use smaller maps". was VIABLE. And me thinks he feels he can make smaller maps and still have a credible campaign game. There was lots of praise for TIK. And why not, he cut down the GTC maps to CC2 map sizes, which generally means small maps to moi.

Here is a link to one discussion regarding this effort.

http://www.closecombatseries.net/CCS/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&t=10639

#99: Re: Angriff Author: Stwa,

Posted: Tue Feb 10, 2015 7:05 am
—

Stwa wrote (View Post):

So, what about the second option: re-code the AI. Firefox weighed in on that by citing an interview regarding the re-release software.

In that interview, the responder made it seem like the programmers could not work with it. A very strange answer indeed. I have met many programmers during my lifetime, and I have never met one, that wouldn't JUMP at the opportunity to re-write significant amounts of any system.

In this interview, perhaps the responder was just trying to fool [or console] users and explain why they [Matrix] could not provide program modifications to the re-releases. But I have to wonder, maybe the responder was simply stating that the decision NOT to rewrite AI code was based on economics alone.

Here is a quote from an article from the Wargamer, where Steve McClaire is one of the responders. The article is from 2010. McClaire provides more detail about the programming issues, but he makes it apparent to me, HE DOES NOT FEAR THE CODE LINE. Here is a link to the interview in total:

http://www.wargamer.com/article/2970/interview-close-combat-remakes

Quote:

Published on 1 DEC 2010 12:14pm by Scott Parrino

WG: For Steve, were there any big hurdles to clear in programming when doing the remakes of the older Close Combat titles?

Steve: The biggest programming challenge is the size and age of the Close Combat code base. This is a game engine that is some 15 years old now, has been through roughly a dozen major releases, and has been worked on by a lot of different developers over the years. There is a fair bit of baggage, as the engine was originally designed for Mac and Windows cross-platform development, and there are some design compromises, as it needed to perform well, in real-time, on the hardware available 15 years ago. So fitting new features into the existing structure can be a challenge, and some of the existing components can be tricky to modify. As a result it’s sometimes preferable to just re-write a whole component from scratch, and of course this takes extra time.

#100: Re: Angriff Author: Nomada_Firefox,

Posted: Tue Feb 10, 2015 11:04 am
—

Quote:

I don't use the TBF editor for some reasons, I think it's not the best tool to make 2D maps even if it is possible. I' working with blender and photoshop.

Perhaps, is it the easiest way? many people do not know about photoshop and blender is a 3d tool, I suppose how you use it for objects. But personally I like more 3dmax, however 3dmax is not free.

At other point, Steve told how the BF editor lets you export a layer from the terrain and other layer from the objects for improve your maps at photoshop. This is the reason because I feel how this feature can be used not only for import the old CC maps, it can be used for new maps at previous CC games.

#101: Re: Angriff Author: Stwa,

Posted: Tue Feb 10, 2015 2:07 pm
—

Stwa wrote (View Post):

So what about the third option: attract multi players back to the CC franchise.

So Matrix was not very active with option 1 and 2. Why? Because those options would cost them money. But with option 3, Matrix could do a lot and not spend a dime.

Here is a interesting topic, where Steve McClaire tells a fan that CC is not marketed to single players insinuating CC is not intended for single players. This is a good way to get more multi players, by just confusing single player wannabees with BS.

I always play pc game single-player. The CC games are sold as single-player games. But I think they are not good single-player games. And so I feel that I waste my money (these games are not cheap). -CC single player fan

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3627475

#102: Re: Angriff Author: dj,

Posted: Fri Feb 13, 2015 8:07 am
—
How does using smaller maps "break the campaign game"?

CC is expensive and is basically a waste of $ if you are expecting even a half-baked game vs AI. It has kind of been lie for many years now with false promises of "improved AI" when the AI still sucks or sucks even worse than the prior release. I just buy CC when it's on sale now.

#103: Re: Angriff Author: Stwa,

Posted: Fri Feb 13, 2015 9:58 am
—
Hey DJ,

Well, it is just a guess on my part.

But it seems some campaign games may rely on a larger map to produce a bottleneck or an area within the campaign to stall the advance of the attackers, and the attackers my spend several days attacking or battling back and forth on a single map.

With smaller maps, the AI might perform better, but the AI has no memory, so the human player might be able to roll the AI off the map, where the campaign expects there to be a protracted battle. This would probably make the campaign not so neat.

Close Combat Series -> CC5 Stalingrad

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

Page 1 of 1