Future changes to a Close Combat game
Select messages from
# through # Forum FAQ
[/[Print]\]
Goto page Previous  1, 2  :| |:
Close Combat Series -> The Mess

#21:  Author: Joe98 PostPosted: Wed Mar 05, 2008 12:40 am
    —
-

In all the games so far, the player chooses whether the game runs at Slow, Medium or Fast.

All experienced players play at the Fast speed.

When CC6 is released it should be set at the Slow speed by default. The reason, is that reviewers might otherwise be tempted to call the game ‘click fest” as the detractors already do. But if the game is running at the Slow speed he could not do that.

Also, CC6 should have a 4th speed – Pause - and give orders. So the options would be:

Pause
Slow
Medium
Fast

The thing about Pause and give orders is that critics of the game will be silenced. Experienced players would never use Pause and give orders.

-

#22:  Author: Senior_DrillLocation: 22134 PostPosted: Wed Mar 05, 2008 2:02 am
    —
I could except Pause to give orders for solo play only. Never in H2H.

#23:  Author: Pzt_Kevin_dtnLocation: USA PostPosted: Wed Mar 05, 2008 2:32 am
    —
I don't think I could except pause at all. Part of the greatness of this game is trying to manage multiple resources in real time. Some of my most favorite battles have been intense close combat where everything is flying about all at once and you have to concentrate the best you can to take your objective or hold your line while everything is falling apart around you.

#24:  Author: Joe98 PostPosted: Wed Mar 05, 2008 4:17 am
    —
Pzt_Kevin_dtn wrote:

I don't think I could accept pause at all.



Pause and give orders would never be used by experienced players.

Instead, it would be mentioned by a game reviewer and many of thje game's detractors would buy the game.

-

#25:  Author: Ef13 PostPosted: Thu Mar 06, 2008 4:58 am
    —
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.


I have to disagree here. the reason as you said above 'the hard things are very simple and the simple things are very hard'
I can't say for certain exactly how CC does it's vehicle pathing, but a Grid based map system is far easier to deal with in all respects. The problem comes from the fact that a vehicle can be rotated and moved at any arbitrary angle and that a vehicle covers more than one terrain tile at the same time. Infantry pathing by comparison is braindead easy. Only 8 possible angles and only occupies one element in the grid.

For each grid point that vehicle occupies, any one of the 9 or 16 points can prohibit a move, requiiring a new path to be searched. I also suspect that the game has a limit on the number of stops-and-turns a vehicle will make to reach the goal.
Senior_Drill wrote:

It is hard to draw pathing lines that cross into different rows and columns.
This isnt difficult unless there is limit on the number of turns that can be make and or the line is drawn at an arbitrary angle.



Close Combat Series -> The Mess


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

Goto page Previous  1, 2  :| |:
Page 2 of 2