Hicks wrote (View Post): |
If they're using the fixed first two platoons from Panthers in the Fog and Gateway to Caen again then my interest has plummeted in it. Having to play as the US again was already turning me off but the fixed platoons are a major disincentive. |
pvt_Grunt wrote (View Post): | ||
Yes it sounds that way. Third platoon is "support" and can be individually chosen. I dont mind it personally. But, I got used to CC4 and fixed forcepools. |
mooxe wrote (View Post): |
The changes were made to reflect someone else's view of realism.
Close Combat has always been pulled in two directions. Simulator and war game. |
Hicks wrote (View Post): |
I'm just hoping that the forcepools can be easily modified. I think it's a frustration with the connection and history that is made with your troops and then the requisition system negates that, how the player as commander is unable to build and deploy forces that they think will best operate in a situation - particularly when CC3 and CC5 were so brilliantly accomodating. |
mick_xe5 wrote (View Post): | ||
To be fair, the PITF/GTC req system tracks every soldier in the entire BG, some of which were brigades. Req in CC3 & 5 spawned entire new teams of soldiers and voided the combat histories of every team sent to the rear. Ideally we'd have both - CC2 & 3's what-if/points req for online play/single battles, and PITF?GTCs req by platoon for campaigning, with full tracking for both. But if only one system can be had I'd prefer the realism of platoon req. But then Ive always leaned toward CC as simulation rather than wargame. All the better for 'connection' and immersion that, much like CC3, TBF has a narrow focus on one company. .Looking forward to a GC with a real Band of Brothers feel to it. Cant say I'll miss the strat layer much as it never seemed more than a game of checkers on top of CC's tactical game of chess. Im sure, given Steve's track record for opening up the CC file structures, that my taste for an occasional fantasy scenario like bazookas vs panzers or a lone sniper vs a US BG will be easily modded. |
mick_xe5 wrote (View Post): | ||
To be fair, the PITF/GTC req system tracks every soldier in the entire BG, some of which were brigades. Req in CC3 & 5 spawned entire new teams of soldiers and voided the combat histories of every team sent to the rear. Ideally we'd have both - CC2 & 3's what-if/points req for online play/single battles, and PITF?GTCs req by platoon for campaigning, with full tracking for both. But if only one system can be had I'd prefer the realism of platoon req. But then Ive always leaned toward CC as simulation rather than wargame. All the better for 'connection' and immersion that, much like CC3, TBF has a narrow focus on one company. .Looking forward to a GC with a real Band of Brothers feel to it. Cant say I'll miss the strat layer much as it never seemed more than a game of checkers on top of CC's tactical game of chess. Im sure, given Steve's track record for opening up the CC file structures, that my taste for an occasional fantasy scenario like bazookas vs panzers or a lone sniper vs a US BG will be easily modded. |
Hicks wrote (View Post): | ||||
You've described the sentiment brilliantly. It was th ability to manually refit teams from CC3 that I miss as well, that and the choices it caused if you had limited ability to refit and challenges to account for. I'm hoping we'll have the ability to withdraw and flee again too. As the maps got bigger and the ai dawdleded, more time was spent waiting around, when you were up against a fight you couldn't win it became a case of trying to break your own troops morale, just to be able to get to the next battle. Why these things were removed I don't know... |
pvt_Grunt wrote (View Post): | ||||||
Dont forget it's also a business decision. There has to be a large difference between versions to make a case for purchasing the newer one. Changing the maps or the entire engine is too much (this version excepted) so adding forcepools (CC4), then going back to requisitions (CC5) then going back to points (LSA) then fixed platoons (Pitf) makes for a selling point. Otherwise it's just a mod or DLC. This is just my theory, I have no proof but will still argue to the death |
mick_xe5 wrote (View Post): |
The transition to 3D alone is probably enough "drag the game kicking and screaming into the present day" for the devs I'd imagine. Plus, from the features section of the TBF product page - "For the first time the armed forces of Italy appear in an official release". Dollars to donuts we'll be able to swap the Eyties with 1ID and have an Italian GC. |
mick_xe5 wrote (View Post): |
IMO it was high time that CC moved on from the clunky 10x10 or 16x16 pixel grids underneath the map grfx. Coding these for terrain type and elevation was a thankless task. The results were riddled with errors and omissions. And god help the mapmaker trying to code anything not perpendicular to a map edge. That gave us soldiers who looked like they were outside a bldg on the map graphic that were actually in it according to the map.txt. 3D means true slopes and contours rather than a layer cake in 1/2 meter increments. TBF's new viewshed tool, which wasnt feasible in 2D, ought to make us realize how little team-level situational awareness was available doing 'radar sweeps' with the LOS line. |
output generated using printer-friendly topic mod. All times are GMT