Troger wrote: |
Those that I think are already implemented in military versions of CC have an asterisk, meaning they would be in any future commercial release. |
Joe98 wrote: |
Already available in Close Combat Modern Tactics |
Troger wrote: |
Those that I think are already implemented in military versions of CC have an asterisk, meaning they would be in any future commercial release. |
Troger wrote: |
Preface; I made this list of changes a while ago with the intention of posting them on CSO's forums. Never did, I guess I felt people there would oddball suggestions and the like. Anyhow, these were changes I thought were important, I hope one day I see a CC with some of these improvements.
A list of changes I think should be on the top of the agenda in the future CC development, in no special order. Please suggest logical and sensible changes you would like to see (no Panzerschreck-MG42-Med pack totting Ubergrenadiers, you've people got the wrong game). Most of these suggestions where taken from various threads at CSO, no credit was given to the person(s) who thought of them. Just be proud of yourself! Also some of these features may of been features in certain CC's but are being stated so they are all in ONE game. Some of these are just recycled from previous CC games or upgrades to existing features. |
Quote: |
- Both point based and stratmap/BG system in one game (work it out! PEOPLE WANT BOTH!!) |
Quote: |
- Ability to make the game windowed. How many times have you waited for your opponent to spend five hours planning out the next world war -- and thought, wow I could be writing that email right now or be looking at picture? Or maybe hide tried to hide CC from the boss? |
Quote: |
- Larger screen resolutions (A most for larger map sizes) |
Quote: |
- New commands (Assault: Units ASSAULT the target, simple. Hide: Ambush will not suffice, there must be an order which allows YOU the right to control when you give away your position, any others?) |
Quote: |
- Ability to blow bridges (cc2) |
Quote: |
- Scale of soldiers to vehicles and vehicles to the landscape (houses, etc) (too small) |
Quote: |
- Increased multiplayer stability (especially if it will have the option of more than two players) |
Quote: |
- Mount/Dismount * |
Quote: |
- Tank pathfinding (this should be flawless, without question. If I tell it to go 5 meters to the right, it goes 5 meters to the right.) |
Quote: |
- Vehicles that can travel/move in deep water; DD Shermans,etc. (Supposedly can already by done) |
Quote: |
- Scenario editor (like that of CC3's for point based games, but most have FREE DEPLOY and a CCREQ integrity and not restrictive) |
Quote: |
- Larger map sizes * |
Quote: |
- Ability to watch/record games * |
Quote: |
- Password protected GCs |
Quote: |
- The ability to take over your teammates force in case of disconnection, or voluntary withdrawal. (In more than 1v1 games) |
Quote: |
- Viewable forcepools during the strategic phase. |
Quote: |
- Keep it 2D (FOREVER, CC7,CC8,CC9.... a 3d CC would be a real time pause-fest nightmare or make it a side project; 2D CC offers enough) |
Quote: |
- Mafi's, TJ's, ArmeeGruppeSud's modability suggestions (on a few threads) |
Quote: |
- Built in plugin manager * |
Quote: |
- Dig In (although it would take awhile and be of little use in game with a low timer) |
Quote: |
- Editable timer (like CC3's) |
Quote: |
- Ability to tell a squad to exit a map |
Quote: |
- Controllable vehicle crews (Once they bail, can already be done but code them so it's like that in the first place) |
Quote: |
- Ability to tell vehicles to bail out (to save experienced crew members and use them when they are refitted) |
Quote: |
- Ability to zoom in/zoom out (just like CC3, and the ability to zoom farther out without going to the all map view) |
Quote: |
- Command teams have more influence on the actions of surrounding teams |
Quote: |
- Ability to have more then 15 units (also the ability to allow hosts or scenario creators to determine how many spots your allowed to use for each side) |
Quote: |
- Ability to displace and tow artillery and AT guns to alternate locations (must for huge maps) |
Quote: |
- Cheat prevention, data match ups and signifying when player has different files from another player |
Quote: |
- Refit, Rest, Rearm system of CC3 |
Quote: |
- A button which, when a unit is selected and that button pushed,allows you to see the whole FOV of that unit. This has been in games like Commandos and a few others. Would help assist in placement. |
Quote: |
- Ability to deploy tank obstacles, mines, etc before a map, maybe they can be purchased? * |
Quote: |
- Negative elevation or a one point standard of elevation on maps. This would give trenches, shellholes, and other places of depression better cover over there surrounding land. Was this never thought of? |
Quote: |
Most importantly:
Show equal attention (if not more) to the H2H experience as it is those in community who have kept this game alive. Luckily some of these changes have already been instituted in military released versions of CC so a lot of the fixes above are already done. Those that I think are already implemented in military versions of CC have an asterisk, meaning they would be in any future commercial release. Changes/Addons I think would be interesting topics to discuss: -Reinforcements (would be worked out before hand and used as a 'reserve' if called on'). But what would be the point of this, besides being able to slightly deceive your enemy? If you want a reserve keep them in the back of the map and don't use them till needed. |
Quote: |
- Ability to choose which floor squads go into |
Quote: |
- Ability to choose HE/AP ammo |
Quote: |
- Ability to select where individual soldiers go (to some degree within 5m's of squad leader) |
Quote: |
- Ability to attach BG's to other BG's (in stratmap/bg based games, ie. Heavy tank battalion attachs to infantry regiment, BG now consists of whatever tank/command tanks used by that battalion, this makes sense for Germans cause they did it a lot also for the Allies) |
Troger wrote: | ||||||||
Yea, I know, are you stupid? I suppose this is why I never posted this text. Because of obnoxious comments like yours 'Joe98'. The point of this point is to shed some light of features that people should be incorporated with a future CC release (that isn't a worthless re-release).
Note the bold. You just repeated what I said, so what's your point Joe? Just interested in repeating things I said? Great second post Joe. |
Senior_Drill wrote: | ||||||||
This one is worthy of an entire thread of it's own where suggestions of how to model it can be knocked around. I've seen a couple ideas on this that seemed workable; hopefully someone can remember the details.
That is getting there with CCMT, but there still are some issues, the biggest one in just getting connected through routers and firewalls and game lobbies. If nothing else, some test that tells all the players who has the lowest capability machine and give a probablility of completing the battle. For connectivity issues, there should be a wizard that tries to connect to a test battle server and can walk a player through any router, port forwarding and firewall problems.
In CCMT. What is needed is an Any Size (within some reason) that does not need black "out of bounds" borders for small maps and could be at least 2000 meters square or "taller" than it is wide, like 3500 meters X 1200 meters.
Yes, and to block the cheaters is only the least of it. This is around in the latest mil sim, so will undoubtedly make CC6. The check is done in the multiplayer screen as the player joins and has really helped in testing to ensure everyone had the same versions of the .exe. It needs to be expanded to include the a check on the data files and graphics as well. |
Pzt_Kevin_dtn wrote: |
1. Point Base System - I don't really care for this system but I consider myself as open minded and would love to better understand the strategic mentality around this system. I much prefer the CCV strat system. So my core question is WHY do people like/want a point based system? |
Quote: |
2. Multiplayer stability - I agree completley. I think our multiplayer environment is greatly limited because of the complexity involved in setting up firewalls, routers etc. Why is it that I can play a number of other mulitplayer games online h2h and I don't have to do a single thing to setup the capability? |
Quote: |
3. Larger map sizes - I would not make them too large. OR I would suggest that the available slots be tied to the size of a map. My concern is that a 1v1 game with 15 slots per side creates a game of sneaking around and limited contact. A smaller make forces Close Combat, hence the name of the game. Now if we have a larger map then make 30 slots vs 30 slots available of something. I want to fight and not just try to sneak beind the lines for position. |
Quote: |
4. Cheat Prevention
WHAT?!? - This is the first open comment that I have ever read on this topic. I have fought 100's if not over a 1000 h2h battles and have often wondered about this. I consider myself a decent h2h player who is capable of handling an assault or staging a good defense. But I have fought a few battles in my CC career where I had a good BG with capable forces and I got walked over. My forces couldn't hit the broad side of a barn and my opponent killed everything in his path. So after such battles I often wondered if a "knowledgable" person is able to tweak the code to give themselves an advantage. I always assumed that if someone attempted this that the game would crash because of conflicting files. This completely ticks me off if you are telling me that people can manipulate the code to their advantage AND still engage in a stable fight. This puts a bitter taste in my mouth thinking about this and it sullies the integrity of the game. I guess I have been naive all this time. This reminds me of one of my very first h2h battles against a complete stranger. He setup a SINGLE battle with me attacking into a map as the Allies. When the game started I was facing 10 Tiger tanks... needless to say it was over in about 2 min. Shame on anyone who feels that their skills aren't adequate enough and need to resort to cheating via file manipulation to get a win. |
Pzt_Kevin_dtn wrote: | ||
The only type of cheating that I'm aware of is the type you discribe. Pet battles and maps weighted to the host player. However, a file check system would also help when players might have different versions of a mod. Catching the mis-match before the game starts (and probably crashes) saves everybody time and frustration. |
Senior_Drill wrote: |
Geez, Troger, feeling a little touchy are we?
|
schrecken wrote: |
I don't kow how you look at the world Trogs
but CCMT is neither a military release or a Future commercial release. It is a current commercial release and you can buy it here: http://www.matrixgames.com/games/store.asp?gid=350 and get the first mods maps etc here http://closecombat.matrixgames.com/ccmt/ccmt.html |
Senior_Drill wrote: |
BTW, Troger, though it may be only his second post here, Joe98 has been around CC and all the other CC forums for a lot longer than you have. And he has always been very civil, something that you don't appear to be able to do. It's the unnecessary, rude and hostile responses like yours that have been a less than appealing trademark of this forum. |
Quote: |
I'm a rarity in this world, I call things how I see them. I have no alliances to anyone here, I have been just as shrill towards Mooxe. |
Quote: |
You know, I find stupid comments horridly obnoxious. |
CSO_Linebacker wrote: |
I saw on the thread something about file checking. If you are playing multiplayer, CC already tells you if your data files do not match your opponents....at least since CC3 |
Pzt_Kevin_dtn wrote: |
1. Point Base System - I don't really care for this system but I consider myself as open minded and would love to better understand the strategic mentality around this system. I much prefer the CCV strat system. So my core question is WHY do people like/want a point based system? |
Troger wrote: | ||
I'm more partial to the forcepool system too, but point-based has it's merits. Especially when it comes to single battles. There has to be a way to implement both and let the user choose. You alienate one group, it's very 50/50. |
Senior_Drill wrote: |
It's also good to keep in mind that all these suggestions and opinions might not have any effect on CC6. It is my understanding that the programming of the new engine is already underway and has been for a while and much of this may or may not fit in or mesh with how it is being built.
But they may! So it is still a good thing to keep in the fore front. I wouldn't worry too much about game play, as most of the suggestions add only a couple more buttons or menus. I did see the two newest military sims before I left that add several "features" with new buttons and menus in game play and they didn't slow things down after quickly learning them. The real focus of a lot of the suggestions are to the modding side of the game, where a lot more options and menus would be included. One of the aims was (and probably still is) to make the game "modder" friendly, something that Atomic worked hard against in CC3 to CC5. |
Senior_Drill wrote: |
@ CSO_Linebacker and Troger: Troger is right, Linebacker, which GJS and Meuse mod players can attest to during the update periods for those mods. |
Troger wrote: |
...., excellent pathfinding and I'd be overjoyed, those things, to me, are very simple things .... |
Pzt_Kevin_dtn wrote: |
I don't think I could accept pause at all. |
Senior_Drill wrote: |
One of the axioms from Murphy's Laws of Combat is the sometimes the hard things are very simple and the simple things are very hard. Pathing is one of those hard things is due to the square grid "hex" system that underlies the map graphics for element and elevation coding in all the existing CC game engines. It is hard to draw pathing lines that cross into different rows and columns. If CC6 goes with a real hexagonal grid and those hexes are done at the 1 hex = 1 meter scale instead of the CC 1 "hex" (really a square) = 2 meters, it would go a long way towards getting good vehicle movement. Also, having the tank size as a rectangle instead of a square would help things as well. What we see on the map as a pretty, retangular tank is actually seen by the game engine as a square set of data that most often is wider than the graphic, or longer than the graphic. This leads to problems when the too wide square tries to go down the too narrow set of elements. It keeps bumping into things it can't enter. Make the tank's "square" too small to match the graphic width, and you get funny stuff like the long tank trying to hump the one in front of it. |
Senior_Drill wrote: |
It is hard to draw pathing lines that cross into different rows and columns. |
output generated using printer-friendly topic mod. All times are GMT