Close Combat Series :: View topic - What the problem with CCMT weapons, a consumer debate..

What the problem with CCMT weapons, a consumer debate..

through

[^/[Print]\]

Close Combat Series -> Close Combat Modern Tactics

#1: What the problem with CCMT weapons, a consumer debate.. Author: AT_Stalky,

Posted: Mon Apr 21, 2008 12:38 pm
—
What the problem with CCMT weapons, a consumer debate..

“What’s wrong with CCMT, I can’t find any wrong with it” says Schrecken (S3 / Matrix man)…

What the problem with CCMT…

People are dying like flies in CCMT.
Weapons performance is way off and totally unrealistic in every category..
Weapons are set wrong, weapons that have not HE in reality have HE in CCMT, weapons that have AP / Sabots rounds in reality lack em in CCMT (not a single tank or AFV has Sabot / AP ammo in CCMT)…

If one takes it step by step. One may starts with “why” does the ppl die so easy by small arms fire. More why they die so easy from HE later.

Here we go…

This is just a few comment on the file you can see here, plz have a look for your self.

Let the debate start.

The small arms setting in CCMT is a bit strange.
The M4A1 and M16A4 (class 72&12&90) with its 5.56 is set to have a penetration of 8mm steel at 500 meter, in reality its more like 3.5mm.. Maybe even more important is that the PB = Point Blank values are 100 meter for the M16 rifle in CCMT, but in a combat situation the rifle has just some 40- meter as “Point Blank”…
It has a “long range” of 800 meters. But in combat situation most soldiers can’t use the M16 like that, max some 3-400 meters…

This is the same LMG, one in US hands and one in UK hands, they both use the same 5.56mm nato round:

Same MG in US hands under name M249

In Brittish hands…

The (Class 87) Brittish L108A1 5.56mm Light MG is a 5.56mm NATO MG, In CCMT it can penetrate 25mm steel at 500 meters… How about that for a 5.56 round, in reality is like 3.5 mm… It’s the same MG as Sweds use (Ksp 90) or US (M249), its made by FN under name Minimi.
The US version “M-249 5.56mm SAW” (Class 9) has lower values then the same weapon in British hands.. (se a bow) But still the values are totally off there too, In CCMT it penetrates 8mm steel at 500 meter..
As aditional strange thing is that they hav in CCMT a point blank at 120 meters… In reality its maybe less then half.

The “Type-68 AKM Assault Rifle” (class 35) … Has a standard WP 7.62*39 (Kalashnikov round)
IN CCMT this is the one mother of a gun, it has a “long range” of 2500 meter, and can penetrate 6mm steel at that distance… (about the same performance as a 37mm AT gun… at that distance)

The “AK-74 Assault Rifle” (Class 33) is the modern Kalashnikov, in CCMT it has a Point Blank at 100! meters and a long range of 1000 !!! meters… At 1000 meter it can penetrate 6 mm steel !!!. It has the 5.45mm*39 WP round……………….

The “RPK-74 Light MG” (Class 3 Cool

in CCMT this LMG has a POINT BLANK at 250 meters, well, let’s say in reality it’s something like 1/5 the of that… and most interesting is, it has a longer “Point Blank 250meters” then the SNIPER RIFLES!!! The Sniper Rifles in CCMT has a Pont blank from 150 - 225 meters... Very interesting LMG I must say…

The “AK-47 Assault Rifle” (Class 32) in CCMT it can penetrate 8mm steel at 500 meters… in reality it can hardly do that at 100 meters, with normal rnd…

And, the Machine“DSHK 12.7mm HMG” (class 71) is set to penetrate 18 mm steel at 3500 meters in CCMT. But in reality the standard Bzt2 bullet can just make 15mm at 100 meters, or the B32 bullet 20mm at 100 meters…
(( as for penetrating power, the 12,7mm DShK penetrates 18mm at 3500 meter that can be compared to a Pak 38 5cm AT-gun but just at 2500 meters but ONLY in CCMT))

Here we have 3 types .50 HMG in CCMT:

In CCMT this .50 on a tripod this has 3000 meter range and higher accuracy of all .50. Its POINT BLANK is 300 meters!

In CCMT this AA mounted .50, has a point blank at 50 meters

In CCMT this .50 HMG is on a Stryker, it has v good sensors and optical aiming devices, its Point blank [b]is JUST 30 meters and, it has a long range of just 1000 meter its has less range and less accuracy then the tripod monthed 50 HMG, wich has a range of 3000 meters! ...[/b] !!

Also the Amphibious Assault Vehicle use this Coaxis .50

In CCMT notice that the .50 Coaxis AFV MG with optics (class 1) has a point blank at just 30 meters!!!... And the AA .50 (class 64) has a Point blank at 50 meters!!, and the tripod mounted .50 (class 20) has a point blank at a stunning 300 meters!!!. But in reality the Coaxis should have longest range and best accuracy... Here its all reversed!
Notice how all of em has different penetration data in CCMT... The tripod mounted .50 has grater range and higher accuracy... Puzzelinge... The Coaxis stable optical sensor has the lowest range and lowest accuracy, but only in CCMT...

And its more on the .50 front in CCMT:

Even more strange is the US made .50 in UK hands, its called "L1A1 12.7mm HMG" (class 99) monted on a tripod in CCMT. It must have some fun ammo, as as it can penetrate 200mm steel at 600 meters, and 150mm steel at 3000 meters, with a aoutstanding accurracy! Well, not even the King tiger 88mm L71 can do this, not even close (King Tiger can penetrate a humble 132mm at 2000 meters! Stupid germans! They shold have replaced the 88 L71 with the CCMT .50 HMG!)

Well, this is a start… Any thoughts…??

(edit and fixed broken image link, and spellings)

Last edited by AT_Stalky on Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:32 pm; edited 3 times in total

#2: Author: Dima,

Posted: Tue Apr 22, 2008 7:07 am
—
hi,

Quote:

Well, this is a start… Any thoughts…??

yes some thoughts here...

Useless thread as seems noone from the developers gonna reply here becoz:

Looks like they don't understand what u r talking about.
Looks like they didn't make any research at all and answering in this thread will point that out.
Looks like they just copy pasted random data from different versions of CCM and CC3/4/5/mods as they don't understand what they r doing. And answering in this thread will point that out.

Why bring that crap here and discuss it? They seem to be statisfied with sales so why should they bother chnging anything...
...u were stupid enuf to buy it - now be even more stupid to remake the game to make it playable Razz

.

I don't really understand how Matrix allowed such "product" to be released - prolly corruption Wink

.

And i will never believe such kind of "product" was chosen for the USMC as the training simulator....

It's like simulator of CC, well untalented parody on CC.

#3: Author: Therion,

Posted: Tue Apr 22, 2008 12:41 pm
—

AT_Stalky wrote:

Well, this is a start… Any thoughts…??

I think that we need some documented data on RL weapons and their performance first.

As for ranges:
What do they mean?
IMO point blank range is point blank range (according to teh internets, point blank range of M4 is about 300m), medium range is maximum effective range and long range is maximum range.

Long range for AK-47 seems to be based on maximum range.
On the other hand M4 long range isn't maximum range.

Nightmarish data weirdness aside, I think that the main problem is that CC is pretty obsolete when it comes to weapon stats.
It derives penetration and accuracy from the same stat (weapon range), which means that one or both of these stats are probably wrong.
It means that for example it can't simulate the same weapon being fired with different optics.
Similarly, there's no division into penetration and stopping power, which means that weapons that have high penetration but leave small wounds can incapitate target that they would need several shots to incapitate in real life.

Also, there's a question of loss of performance of weapons on battlefield.
IMO it should be handled by the game engine, not the weapons data.
There are many states that should affect accuracy:
Accuracy, experience, morale, suppression, wind, etc.
In a good system one should expect to be able to enter weapon tests data, weapon/projectile stats and get a realistic battlefield result.
If the results are wrong, then there's something wrong with calculations.
If soldiers can hit targets at maximum range that is much longer than maximum effective range, then there's something wrong with calculations.

More, the game should be able to differentiate between penetration and stopping power.

Dima wrote:

Why bring that crap here and discuss it?

Because it may be useful for my mod Razz

#4: Author: AT_Stalky,

Posted: Tue Apr 22, 2008 1:10 pm
—
Na, then you don’t understand what “Point Blank" row is in CC... It’s at point blank range in battle...
300 meter as Point Blank???? Point blank is a high prob range for hit mate... In battle with an AK its like 40 or 50 meter depend on the gunner, even 30 meter for some gunners. Some Snipers or marksmen have far longer PB ofcose..

Qoute: “There are many states that should affect accuracy:
Accuracy, experience, morale, suppression, wind, etc.”

Apart form wind... Man, have you played CC so little so you have not seen that theas things are effecting accuracy in CC??? You should probly pay more attention when you gaming… And probly play CCMT less… This is what CC simulates best…

Qoute “In a good system one should expect to be able to enter weapon tests data, weapon/projectile stats and get a realistic battlefield result.”

What?? Its what the values are used for and what made CC so grate from other games. PB- Close – medium – Long and Acc and penetration at them different ranges….

Qoute “It derives penetration and accuracy from the same stat (weapon range), which means that one or both of these stats are probably wrong.
It means that for example it can't simulate the same weapon being fired with different optics.”

What are you talking about??? It can simulate same weapon used with or without optics man… You just make a new weapon for it…. In CCMT all M16/M4 have same values… It don’t matter if they have optics, or red dots, or just open iron sights (only DM is set difrent)…
This is the REASON we have many weapon slots mate… So each of them weapon should have had its own set of data… A red dot should have faster time for fire, and grater accuracy at close range and be same as open iron in long range.. A Scoped shall have better accuracy, but take longer to aim, thus make it less good in close combat (as in real life).. The open iron sight shall have a middle of them values… Its just to make a weapon with them values for EACH WEAPON man…
Don’t you understand this??

#5: Author: Dima,

Posted: Tue Apr 22, 2008 1:21 pm
—
hi,

Quote:

IMO it should be handled by the game engine, not the weapons data.
There are many states that should affect accuracy:
Accuracy, experience, morale, suppression, wind, etc.

apart from wind it seems that's exactly what CC engine does Smile

Quote:

If the results are wrong, then there's something wrong with calculations.

calculations r wrong when the inputs r wrong.

#6: Author: AT_Stalky,

Posted: Tue Apr 22, 2008 2:04 pm
—
In CCMT…

About the M4A1 5,56 DM ”designated marksman”
1) M4 DM version has THE faster reloade time compared to the other regular M4 – M16 its just (10) = 1 secund.
2) its time to fire is 0.1 second same as the rest of the M4 and M16, (its a sniper rifle..)!!!!
3) ….and its SETUP TIME is fastest of them all (10) = 1 secund (its a sniper rifle..)!!!!

#7: Author: Therion,

Posted: Tue Apr 22, 2008 2:19 pm
—

AT_Stalky wrote:

Na, then you don’t understand what “Point Blank" row is in CC... It’s at point blank range in battle...
300 meter as Point Blank???? Point blank is a high prob range for hit mate... In battle with an AK its like 40 or 50 meter depend on the gunner, even 30 meter for some gunners. Some Snipers or marksmen have far longer PB ofcose..

So, it's a point blank like in coloquial speech.
Then what real point blank range would be in CC? Short range? Medium range?

Also, could you link to sources of your data? They could be useful for modding.

AT_Stalky wrote:

Qoute: “There are many states that should affect accuracy:
Accuracy, experience, morale, suppression, wind, etc.”

Apart form wind... Man, have you played CC so little so you have not seen that theas things are effecting accuracy in CC???

I have seen them affecting accuracy.
Which is nowhere near using 9000-11000 rounds to get a kill in battle, that you mentioned in WH40000 thread.

AT_Stalky wrote:

What are you talking about??? It can simulate same weapon used with or without optics man…

I'm talking about how weapon penetration doesn't change when optics are changed. For example a weapon with standard optics may have close range for accuracy 150m and weapon with excellent optics may have close range for accuracy 500m (like Springfield in CC5). Penetration may change between 150 and 500m, so the weapon with 500m will have less realistic penetration (like in for example penetration being different on 150, 300 and 500m).

#8: Author: AT_Stalky,

Posted: Tue Apr 22, 2008 2:38 pm
—
Qoute "So, it's a point blank like in coloquial speech.
Then what real point blank range would be in CC? Short range? Medium range? "

And why dont you go to library and get some serios books about ammo spending in combat, or how combat effect humans and there ability. Combat is not the shooting range you know where everyone hits half bad to good, only a few operates as on the shooting range on a battlefield.

#9: Author: Dima,

Posted: Tue Apr 22, 2008 3:36 pm
—
hi,

Quote:

Which is nowhere near using 9000-11000 rounds to get a kill in battle, that you mentioned in WH40000 thread

brr, u r scaring me Rolling Eyes

as i've already explain to u in CSO/CCO in combat most of time soldiers shoot toward direction of the enemy not at enemy himself.
take squad in CC and fire at house to suppress potential enemy there while other units maneuvre and then count the number of bullets spent to get 1 kill.

#10: Author: AT_Stalky,

Posted: Tue Apr 22, 2008 3:50 pm
—
If you want to do case studies then do so, you will learn a lot.

I have also explained this to you before, you even posted under my post:
http://www.closecombatseries.net/CCS/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&t=4282&start=0

I quote my self:
“”Or try Iraq, since 2002 (to 2007)USA have used a half a billion rounds (500 000 000)rounds. Of em about 20 to 30 % has been used in combat situation, rest in training.
So they used between 100 000 000 to 150 000 000 rounds to kill how many Iraqis?

((this year alone USA will make 1.8 billion 1 800 000 000 5.56 & 7.62 rnds))””

And you shall know that the 500 000 000 (half a BILLION) rounds used in Iraq, they INCLUDE all calibres from 5.56 to largest calibres…..

Think about it, or even better start make some own research..

OK MEN We are drifting, lest Get back to original topic… See first post again plz… And continue from there…

#11: Author: Therion,

Posted: Tue Apr 22, 2008 5:37 pm
—
So, why don't you write about why the HE is so deadly? We are dying to hear it.

Personally, I would add the question of helmets and body armour.
Insurgent shouldn't have them and Urbanian body armour should be stronger.

AT_Stalky wrote:

And why dont you go to library and get some serios books about ammo spending in combat, or how combat effect humans and there ability.

I don't have such books in any of local libraries.

AT_Stalky wrote:

Combat is not the shooting range you know where everyone hits half bad to good, only a few operates as on the shooting range on a battlefield.

Which as you and Dima said is already taken in account in to-hit calculations.
Weapons file is about performance of weapons, not about performance of soldiers.
If a soldier can't fire the weapon accurately because of battlefield conditions, then it should be dynamically simulated by the game engine, not by base weapons data.

Dima wrote:

Do they fire toward direction of the enemy when they have clear line of sight too?
Also, if they do, then game should have some distinction between firing at enemy and firing in direction of enemy.

Have you ever seen CC soldiers or AI teams firing towards buildings or muzzle flashes to suppress them?
Again, it's an engine problem.

#12: Author: AT_Stalky,

Posted: Tue Apr 22, 2008 6:40 pm
—
Oh, I wonder what’s so hard to understand Theiron?

Limits and CC Engine problems? hmm, lets see:

Have you look at the initial post? You fined it “it’s an engine problem” when they set 2 of the same weapons with different penetrating power… The British SAW 5.56 with 25mm steel penetrating power vs the US m249 with less values.. is that a “CCMT engine problem”?

Is the .50 values set in the different weapons “an engine problem” in CCMT ??? A tripod HMG is more accurate then a Coaxis .50? And the penetration of them is set different, is that an “engine problem” ?? And here coaxis have A POINT PLANK of 30 meter, and AA of 50 meters, and the .50 tri pod has 300 METER POINT BLANK… How about that, is that a CC “engine problems” ???

Is the penetration power of the 5.56 and the 5.45 and 7.62 WP round at grate distance is that “ENGINE PROBLEMS” ??

How about the UK used .50 that is better then a 88mm L71 gun.. Is that an “CC engine problem” to??

Is the monster values set in the Type 68 assult rifle an “CC engine problem” where a 7.62 WP round outperforms a 37mm AT gun…???

Is the lacking of Sabots to the main gun of all tanks and AFV in CCMT is that “Engine Problems” to ???

Why is the M4 marksman weapon set to have less time to set up and fire, but in reality a sniper used rifle take long time to set up and get a shot of the a regular rifle… is that “engine problems” ???

Is it an “engine problem” when a LMG has Longer Point blank then the SNIPER RIFLES in CCMT!!! And Btw why does that russian LMG has so long Point Blank, is not better then the Brittish or US LMG... WHY?? Is it an "Engine Problem"

Is it an “Engine problem” when the .50 coaxis HMG has a point blank lesser then the M4 and M16 rifles… !!!!!!!!!!!!! Rolling Eyes

I sit an “CC engine problem” when the M4 and M16 has same values even if some have iron sights and some red dots rifles… ? Rolling Eyes

And, what you think they do with all em round in Iraq, 500 millions rounds fired in 5 years?? What they fired em on?

There is nothing wrong with the CC engine, if one know how to set the data…
I have to believe my initial post is so hard to understand that you just cant understand it. Im Swedish and probly v hard to understand. I tried with grapix image side by side compare of the data but I probly failed in making it understandable..

Im sorry, I cant explain it any better.

edit spelling.

Last edited by AT_Stalky on Tue Apr 22, 2008 7:31 pm; edited 3 times in total

#13: Author: AT_Stalky,

Posted: Tue Apr 22, 2008 6:45 pm
—
BTW are you or have you been a CCMT game tester for Simtec or S3 or Matrix Theiron?

#14: Author: AT_Stalky,

Posted: Tue Apr 22, 2008 8:21 pm
—
Okay,

We are moving on, stay on topic plz.

This is interesting, here is the UK “L85A2” (Class 84). It’s a 5.56 nato round.
And lets compare it so the US M-4 5,56 rifle. In CCMT the L85 has a penetration of 18mm, US rifle has less then half????! WHY?
Where is the logic in this??

((The UK L85 rifle outpreforms the 2cm Flak L 115 with its Pzgrenade at 500 meters... That is in CCMT... ))

#15: Author: AT_Stalky,

Posted: Tue Apr 22, 2008 9:08 pm
—
Lets look at the way they set Point Blank and the medium range for some coaxis MGs in CCMT

Lets see the point blank and medium values. :
The “M2 .50cal Coax HMG” has a Point blank 30 meter. A medium range of 400 meters.

The “L94A1 7.62mm Coax” is a coaxis 7,62 nato ammo MG in Challenger tank, has a Point Blank at 100 meters, and can penetrate 25 mm steel…
This 7,62 MG has longer medium range at 500 meters..

The “M-240 7.62mm Coax MMG” is a US 7,62 Nato ammo MG in many AFV. It has a Point Blank at 75 and it can penetrate less then half of what the UK 7,62 MG abow can..
And it has a medium range of 500 meters..

The “PKMT 7.62mm coax” is a 7.62 coaxis in Russian tanks. It has a Point Blank at 200 meters,
It has an outstanding medium range of 1000 meters…
Its double the ranges then the .50 and the nato 7.62 Coaxis MG abow…

This Russian gun PKMT ::

Is an awesome weapon no doubt! But… Not that awesome… In CCMT at 1000 meter it can penetrate 10mm steel, but the US M240 can just penetrate 8 mm at 500 meters... (both are really wrong ofcose)

What is the logic in this? Is there any logic at all?? Anyone have a idea?

Please help me...

Last edited by AT_Stalky on Tue Apr 22, 2008 9:36 pm; edited 2 times in total

#16: Author: Therion,

Posted: Tue Apr 22, 2008 9:28 pm
—

AT_Stalky wrote:

Oh, I wonder what’s so hard to understand Theiron?

Limits and CC Engine problems? hmm, lets see:

Have you look at the initial post? You fined it “it’s an engine problem” when they set 2 of the same weapons with different penetrating power… The British SAW 5.56 with 25mm steel penetrating power vs the US m249 with less values.. is that a “CCMT engine problem”?

Is the .50 values set in the different weapons “an engine problem” in CCMT ??? A tripod HMG is more accurate then a Coaxis .50? And the penetration of them is set different, is that an “engine problem” ?? And here coaxis have A POINT PLANK of 30 meter, and AA of 50 meters, and the .50 tri pod has 300 METER POINT BLANK… How about that, is that a CC “engine problems” ???

Is the penetration power of the 5.56 and the 5.45 and 7.62 WP round at grate distance is that “ENGINE PROBLEMS” ??

How about the UK used .50 that is better then a 88mm L71 gun.. Is that an “CC engine problem” to??

Is the monster values set in the Type 68 assult rifle an “CC engine problem” where a 7.62 WP round outperforms a 37mm AT gun…???

Is the lacking of Sabots to the main gun of all tanks and AFV in CCMT is that “Engine Problems” to ???

Why is the M4 marksman weapon set to have less time to set up and fire, but in reality a sniper used rifle take long time to set up and get a shot of the a regular rifle… is that “engine problems” ???

Is it an “engine problem” when a LMG has Longer Point blank then the SNIPER RIFLES in CCMT!!! And Btw why does that russian LMG has so long Point Blank, is not better then the Brittish or US LMG... WHY?? Is it an "Engine Problem"

Is it an “Engine problem” when the .50 coaxis HMG has a point blank lesser then the M4 and M16 rifles… !!!!!!!!!!!!! Rolling Eyes

I sit an “CC engine problem” when the M4 and M16 has same values even if some have iron sights and some red dots rifles… ? Rolling Eyes

Of course they aren't. I didn't feel like commenting on them, because those weapon data errors are downright pathetic and speak for themselves.

When I talked about the engine, I referred about your custom of talking about how soldiers perform differently on battlefields and on shooting range.

AT_Stalky wrote:

And, what you think they do with all em round in Iraq, 500 millions rounds fired in 5 years?? What they fired em on?

Judging by videos on YT, they don't know.

AT_Stalky wrote:

There is nothing wrong with the CC engine, if one know how to set the data…

Bullshit, there's a lot of things in this area that are wrong with the CC engine and could use improvement. Starting with enemy AI and soldier behaviour and ending with some of the aspects of how weapons work. Especially mortars. I hate CC mortars Evil or Very Mad

.
Try playing Firefight and you'll see.

#17: Author: AT_Stalky,

Posted: Tue Apr 22, 2008 9:40 pm
—
Ok ic, I missunderstod sry. Yes.

And about CCMT mortars..... more about it later... First small calibre.

Thanx for the imput Theiron.

#18: Author: Therion,

Posted: Wed Apr 23, 2008 1:44 pm
—
Here's how CC5 ranges look in a tactical shooter. I hope that it has a good perspective:

FP120M.jpg

Description:

120 meters - end of Medium Range for M1 Garand.

Filesize:

86.59 KB

Viewed:

18809 Time(s)

FP40M.jpg

Description:

40 meters - end of Close Range for M1 Garand.

Filesize:

89.41 KB

Viewed:

18809 Time(s)

FP20M.jpg

Description:

20 meters - end of Point Blank range for M1 Garand.

Filesize:

104.85 KB

Viewed:

18809 Time(s)

#19: Author: Therion,

Posted: Wed Apr 23, 2008 1:49 pm
—
400 meters - only 100 meters more than the end of CCMT close range for M-16.

FP400M.jpg

Description:

400 meters - end of Long Range for M1 Garand.

Filesize:

130.82 KB

Viewed:

18804 Time(s)

#20: Author: AT_Stalky,

Posted: Wed Apr 23, 2008 2:23 pm
—
Yah, good ilustrating on this issue theiron. I shall see if i also can fined some similar ilustrations in real military training manuals..

#21: Author: Therion,

Posted: Fri Apr 25, 2008 12:57 pm
—
Hmm...
Does anyone know where in the internet I can find RL penetration data for small arms ammo and some information on effects of HE weapons?

#22: Author: Therion,

Posted: Wed Apr 30, 2008 11:45 am
—
*bump?*

#23: Author: Tula,

Posted: Mon May 19, 2008 12:53 am
—
Interesting topic you bring up here.. When I first got this game I was personally annoyed with what seemed to be incredibly unrealistic kill power of some of the weapons at ranges they should not even reach. On looking at the actual data I only had a three phrase sentence to describe it... "What the F**K... Not only that I was quite annoyed with the lack of an accurate Opfor TO&E..

Great thing is this is one very easily modded game with very little effort to create a more accurate representation of a modern battlefield. I'm currently working on a Russian mod to this game covering Soviet and later Russian involvement in Afghanistan to Chechnya. In doing so I changed the data of the Weapons to reflect correctly what capabilities they should have. This simple moding has really brought the Close combat back into Close combat Modern Tactics...Differences are night and day between the stock version and the moded version.

This actually IMHO has increased the fun and usefulness of this game as you really do have to use current Infantry and armor tactics. Real close action fights are now brutal but long range sniping and skirmishes just suppress and disorient. Not obliterate you... You can keep your armor in the right place to still support but not get whacked by an RPG because you can actually get infantry close enough to support the armor and suppress the Hand AT weapons before having the whole team obliterated by some dude with an AK at 500 meters.. Something which is bizarre as the damn thing can barely reach 100 meters in reality.

I'm not sure how or why many parts of the weapons data was chosen in the way it was but I can assure you that if you change it to be more realistic this game really changes and becomes very challenging...

#24: Author: Neural_Eclipse,

Posted: Wed Jun 11, 2008 11:59 pm
—
Unbelievable... are those really the values Matrix Games used for the weapon data? ... Why??? Honestly, this has a huge WTF factor to it.

Real world data:

This is good for cartridge weights, which I am sure were input wrongly as well, but it is not in metric unfortunately, so you would have to convert from grains to grams.
Velocities of ammo types
Example of what you can find at FAS.org, the penetration of the BMP-2's 30mm AC can be found in this link.

So is somebody making a mod to correct these horrible values? I do not own the game yet, but I would love to have a more realistic version of it compared to... well... I don't have words to describe the mess the weapon data is in. I would make the mod myself, but.. without the game in my hands, I cannot do that just yet.

So I am guessing the first patch did not address the f'd up values? I guess I'll just play Red Storm Rising for CCV for now..

#25: Author: Therion,

Posted: Thu Jun 12, 2008 12:47 am
—

Neural_Eclipse wrote:

Matrix Games

Errr...
Atomic Games and Simtek.
Amusingly, those Sci-Fi values were used by Atomic Games, when they were making a "simulator" for USMC XD .

Neural_Eclipse wrote:

So is somebody making a mod to correct these horrible values? I do not own the game yet, but I would love to have a more realistic version of it compared to... well... I don't have words to describe the mess the weapon data is in. I would make the mod myself, but.. without the game in my hands, I cannot do that just yet.

I was working on such mod, it was almost ready about month ago, but I never finished it because I have trouble with getting the game to use AP ammo for cannons.

So, basically it works, but mainly for infantry and light vehicles.
On the other hand, it features civilians.
And recently I experimented with uhhh... addding Space Marines XDDDDDDDDD .

Neural_Eclipse wrote:

So I am guessing the first patch did not address the f'd up values?

Nah, it only added more horror Very Happy

#26: Author: schrecken, Location: Sydney, Australia

Posted: Thu Jun 12, 2008 12:53 am
—
The 2A72 30-mm gun data seems fine in game.

it cannot defeat an Abrams "class" vehicle

It can defeat a Bradley "Class" vehicle in certain circumstance

It can defeat a Stryker "Class" vehicle in most circumstance

and will generally defeat any vehicle in a lesser "Class"

#27: Author: Neural_Eclipse,

Posted: Thu Jun 12, 2008 3:10 am
—

Therion wrote:

I have trouble with getting the game to use AP ammo for cannons.

Have you tried copying cannon data from other CC titles that had the ammo loading setup right? I can't think of anything else to try. How would the soldier in the game determine which ammo to use? Does it go with 'higher blast radius' for anti infantry?

Oh, and I know that Atomic Games and Simtek made the original engine/morale simulator, but I was talking about this incarnation of the game specifically~ I suppose Matrix Games is just the publisher then.

Therion wrote:

And recently I experimented with uhhh... addding Space Marines XDDDDDDDDD

Is there body armor in the game? <3 Power Armor, but never could put it into the older CC titles, as the only armor on men was helmets.

Did your Space Marines have proper Bolters? Specifically, hand held Grenade Machine Guns? ;p That's what they are supposed to be, right? :D

#28: Author: AT_Stalky,

Posted: Thu Jun 12, 2008 10:07 am
—
Neural_Eclipse the game also has another major bug, NOT A SINGLE vehicle has AP round or Sabots even in the data........................
How can one realise a military game with this major defect?

The values of the HE and HEAT is even more sad then the small calibre values. Uhh...

IMO This sad product CCMT should never had been realised to the market.
It brings nothing good to the Close Combat name.

#29: Author: schrecken, Location: Sydney, Australia

Posted: Thu Jun 12, 2008 10:41 am
—
Lucky for all the happy owners your opinion doesn't carry much weight..

But your concerns have been noted with thanks.

#30: Author: AT_Stalky,

Posted: Thu Jun 12, 2008 11:45 am
—

schrecken wrote:

Lucky for all the happy owners your opinion doesn't carry much weight..

But your concerns have been noted with thanks.

I’m aware my opinion don’t carry much weight to you or to the rest of the developer team. It’s a bit frustrating for me, as I expected CCMT to be a functional product, and realism a high priorety.
But you’re also not aware the data is so massively fecked up in the game it’s all but playable.

You nor non in the development team is humble enough to listen to the consumers; instead you just badmouth and just argues with consumers or even name call consumers who dare say anything not positive about your products. Matrix / S3 professional serious business ethics?

“concerns noted” is that all?
Not even when the data errors are presented to you (as in this thread) in a side by side comparison and detailed explanation in a graphics manner that a child should understand, you can bring your self to be humble enough to say or take in that CCMT data has MAJOR flaws..
And how can a military game be realised with no armour fighting vehicle having AP or Sabot munitions?? “concerns noted” ??

Thank you mr Matrix Consumer Relation man for your time and for not listen to me.

#31: Author: ANZAC_Tack, Location: Australia

Posted: Thu Jun 12, 2008 12:15 pm
—
Im in no way sticking up for shrecky, but hay, at least a S3T person is here reading ALL comments, is here making things happen, is listening...

...yes yes yes...i know, he may not be responding with immediate patches,and the best public relations way,but at least we have seen one patch,try getting one from atomic,SSI,simtek....GONE....nobody from them employed,its history. S3T is here and watching, the notes for CC6 wish list must surely carry weight.

also think about those who we all know for over 10 years, are in there now doing stuff...that gives me much happiness....I wont blowhard about there stuff,or shrecky,future games...but there will be a future.

long live close combat...
...burp

#32: Author: AT_Stalky,

Posted: Thu Jun 12, 2008 1:54 pm
—
Tack, I have not really the same feelings about this as you have.

I’m a PAYING consumer, you not Tack, you part of the S3 Matrix developers test team, right?

ANZAC_Tack wrote:

Im in no way sticking up for shrecky, but hay, at least a S3T person is here reading ALL comments, is here making things happen, is listening...

No it’s not listening, your confusing it with him try to control the talk in a fan forum and what is said here about his products, I have NEVER seen anything like this in ANY gamers forum, I don’t know but its arguable a bit shady business practice of a developer?
And by the way, what is he making happening SO FAR, I have complaind for 6-7 month now about CCMT missreble data...
Matrix and S3 have chosen not to listen to the consumers, but to try to control what the consumers are SAYING about CCMT instead, that’s an interesting approach. .

ANZAC_Tack wrote:

...yes yes yes...i know, he may not be responding with immediate patches,and the best public relations way,but at least we have seen one patch,try getting one from atomic,SSI,simtek....GONE....nobody from them employed,its history. S3T is here and watching, the notes for CC6 wish list must surely carry weight.

One crappy patch adding nothing in data except MORE errors and EVEN more unrealistic values.
And if Atomic is gone, as they are, shall I be MORE happy for S3 matrix realise CCMT with such poor data?? Im not.. How can you be??
Im not jump up and down happy applauding anything just because it bare the name Close Combat. PERIOD.
For me the Close Combat name, ISN’T A SIGN FOR QUALITY OR A SIGN TO APPLAUD JUST FOR IT OWN SAKE; I applaud the realism the Close Combat product brought with em (Atomic made so far), not the name in it self.
Anyone realise a product with Close Combat name and expect me to pay for it, and to be happy the series continues is sadly mistaken, I will applaud only QUALITY and realism. PERIOD. How do you feel about this Tack?
If S3 and Matrix can’t deliver that, then it’s not quality “Close Combat” game in my book, and I wont have it. And whats the use of a crap product anyway tack, apart from the fancy name that use to be synonym of quality and realism!!

ANZAC_Tack wrote:

also think about those who we all know for over 10 years, are in there now doing stuff...that gives me much happiness....I wont blowhard about there stuff,or shrecky,future games...but there will be a future.

Hmm, what good does that do Tack, we have the data of CCMT, thats what they have ACTUALLY manage to DELIVER so far, and when its pointed out its crap, they still don’t listen, so Im sorry but I cant see any thing to applaud or be happy about. 10 years or 12 years or whatever don’t shange the current miserable status of CCMT…. Or Does it?
Or maybe im misunderstand you, and you meant all them modders who have been doing stuff for 10 years, they are sure something to aplaud and be happy about.

ANZAC_Tack wrote:

long live close combat...
...burp

Yes , at the end we agree on something Tack Smile

but dont expect me to jump up and down if its not quality, sorry..

I WANT A REALISTIC WAR GAME PRODUCT, THAT LIVE UP TO THE CLOSE COMBAT NAME! I want a professional handling of the consumers and fans. Is that to much to ask for after 8 years of draught?

#33: WH40000 Author: Therion,

Posted: Thu Jun 12, 2008 2:51 pm
—

schrecken wrote:

But your concerns have been noted with thanks.

So, there will be a patch?

Neural_Eclipse wrote:

Therion wrote:

I have trouble with getting the game to use AP ammo for cannons.

Well, older titles tended to use HE against infantry and AP/HT against vehicles. It seems that it's dependent on Blast Radius and Blast Rating.
If Blast Rating is much higher, then it will use HT even if AP has greater penetration.
And changing BR of AP to higher would kill the point of adding AP ammo.

Neural_Eclipse wrote:

Oh, and I know that Atomic Games and Simtek made the original engine/morale simulator, but I was talking about this incarnation of the game specifically~ I suppose Matrix Games is just the publisher then.

Atomic Games made CC1 - CCM.
Simtek worked on various versions of CCM and CCMAT and CC3:CoI and CCMT.

Neural_Eclipse wrote:

Therion wrote:

And recently I experimented with uhhh... addding Space Marines XDDDDDDDDD

Is there body armor in the game? <3 Power Armor, but never could put it into the older CC titles, as the only armor on men was helmets.

You probably had old Qclone files.
There's body armour but there are some problems.
Soldier armour works correctly only in CCIV.
In CCV it gives a total invulnerability to a protected body area and in CCMT helmets don't give any protection.
So, I gave those marines a 50mm body armour with probability of 1 for head and 128 for body.

Neural_Eclipse wrote:

Did your Space Marines have proper Bolters? Specifically, hand held Grenade Machine Guns? ;p That's what they are supposed to be, right? Very Happy

Yeah. I borrowed Bolter graphics from the CC5 WH40000 mod (as I'm not releasing the SM part anyway XD ). They are pretty deadly and accurate Very Happy

UO0149.jpg

Description:

One Marine is worth a hundred other soldiers.

Filesize:

97.26 KB

Viewed:

9426 Time(s)

UO0145.jpg

Description:

A Combqat Squad purging the impure.

Filesize:

177.86 KB

Viewed:

9426 Time(s)

UO0136.jpg

Description:

A Tactical Squad cleansing the unclean.

Filesize:

198.22 KB

Viewed:

9426 Time(s)

#34: Author: schrecken, Location: Sydney, Australia

Posted: Thu Jun 12, 2008 11:36 pm
—
concerns noted and documented and will be addressed in due course.

Of course if you have a burning need to edit the data and supply us with same, this will undoubtedly speed the process.

Any contributions will be duly scrutinized and acknowledged as is our policy ... see credits.bmp

Get on board, don't be a nay sayer.

#35: Author: ANZAC_Tack, Location: Australia

Posted: Fri Jun 13, 2008 5:40 am
—
"I’m a PAYING consumer, you not Tack, you part of the S3 Matrix developers test team, right? " Yes.

I also Agree the quality of the data is questionable. when i tested i spent hundrens of hours, and i thought it needed further tweaking of data.

CCMT was a fizzer for me,as it had NO ops or GC,i said so before release,and after. yes its a fun single game, and i enjoyed it.

#36: Author: AT_Stalky,

Posted: Fri Jun 13, 2008 7:19 am
—

ANZAC_Tack wrote:

"I also Agree the quality of the data is questionable. when i tested i spent hundrens of hours, and i thought it needed further tweaking of data.

.

I also Agree the quality of the data is questionable. when i tested i spent hundrens of hours, and i thought it needed further tweaking of data

Hehh..
I had no idea you can Wright so diplomatic Tack.
Razz

#37: Author: AT_Stalky,

Posted: Fri Jun 13, 2008 7:31 am
—

schrecken wrote:

Matrix Staff Man:

concerns noted and documented and will be addressed in due course.

Of course if you have a burning need to edit the data and supply us with same, this will undoubtedly speed the process.

Any contributions will be duly scrutinized and acknowledged as is our policy ... see credits.bmp

Get on board, don't be a nay sayer.

Do the work your self. Start prioritize what the consumer think is important, either continue to waste time by interfere in the consumer debates about your product or make a shange and use that time to research weapon data so badly needed in CCMT.. That you should have done long ago… Fix it, it’s your broken product that YOU HAVE SOLD FOR MONEY.

I wonder how you would sound as a car sales man, talking to a complaining consumer who’s car is broken down? Maybe like this:
“concerns noted and documented and will be addressed in due course.

Of course if you have a burning need, repair the car your self, and supply us with the solution how you fixed it, this will undoubtedly speed the process. Don't be a nay sayer. "

Are you Serious? Get to work man!

#38: Author: schrecken, Location: Sydney, Australia

Posted: Fri Jun 13, 2008 11:14 am
—

Quote:

Are you Serious? Get to work man!

Please send money, it greases the the gears of industry.

or like everyone else, volunteer your time and and much can be achieved.

#39: Author: squadleader_id, Location: Soerabaja

Posted: Fri Jun 13, 2008 11:37 am
—

schrecken wrote:

Quote:

Are you Serious? Get to work man!

Please send money, it greases the the gears of industry.

or like everyone else, volunteer your time and and much can be achieved.

So you guys at S3T (the artist formerly known as Simtek) are still not getting paid for your work?? Are you all volunteers workers?
Well...Matrix is making (some) money from your work, guys Smile

#40: Author: ANZAC_Tack, Location: Australia

Posted: Fri Jun 13, 2008 12:08 pm
—
I have never been paid a cent at S3T,and probably wont ever. all i get is a copy of the final product,and name in credits...

yes Crazy tack, making $$$ for ex cso boys...blah blah blah..If i willingly do this, its a choice,if i went in employment and didnt get paid, thats criminal.

I get out of it is seing new systems,new maps,new graphics,see how things are done, i have a say on the project to some degree, i would love to mention the changes already...and how god dam nice it operates...but alais i cannot.

I enjoy it foremost,its addictive...EXACTLY THE SAME REASON i spent SO much time testing and helping dima on TRSM,and helping PJ on SOC,and L4W on early projects, why im SLOWLY doing voice cues for SL,and want to help with the project and testing...is FUN and learning for me.

I know people think im the sucker, i have been outright told so( the day ross posted his resignation here and reasons, i went into a spin for weeks on how much i was 'used',but now i have no regrets,and gladly do them again).

If anybody wants my help with testing, or just comments...Im a post away!

Im Nobody's Lacky Boy...If the product stinks, i'll have no problems saying so,after release...

#41: Author: AT_Stalky,

Posted: Fri Jun 13, 2008 12:28 pm
—
Hmm I said:

AT_Stalky wrote:

You say:

schrecken wrote:

Quote:

Are you Serious? Get to work man!

Please send money, it greases the the gears of industry.

or like everyone else, volunteer your time and and much can be achieved.

Then maybe you should rethink what YOU are contributing WITH, so something POSITIVE can be achieved.
It seems you believe silence the critique will make CCMT better? The emperors new clothes?

As for volunteer, Im a consumer so my responsibility end when I have bought the product. PERIOD.
THOUGH I have contributed to CCMT with criticism (see this thread and In many other threads) that is in detail pointing out the MAJOR flaws of CCMT.
If you would look for example in this thread, you MAY understand how much WORK and TIME I put into analyzing and bringing the flaws of CCMT into an easy understood format that YOU should/ought to use to make CCMT better. (ever thought about that?)
The “reward” I have got from YOU when I bring things forward is nothing but bitching and name-calling and badmouthing. Is that how Matrix and S3T pay and reward the “contributors” and feedback for there products??
IF so, Thank you mr Matrix /S3T consumer realtions man, and you also CCMT "resercher", and project leader of CCMT. ...
Its a puzzle why so few whant to "help" and contribute eyy, huu...

Its time YOU and the "crew" start THINKING!

#42: Author: squadleader_id, Location: Soerabaja

Posted: Fri Jun 13, 2008 12:31 pm
—
Strange...so both CoI and CCMT were developed without paying the people who worked on the project? Who paid for the CC licensing deal? Matrix? That's why they charge so much on games that were made for free? A bit odd to me Smile

What about D-Day and Wacht Am Rhein (?) are those freebie projects and then sold for max dollars too?

#43: Author: Therion,

Posted: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:46 pm
—

schrecken wrote:

Quote:

Are you Serious? Get to work man!

Please send money, it greases the the gears of industry.

or like everyone else, volunteer your time and and much can be achieved.

schrecken wrote:

Please send money, it greases the the gears of industry.

People sent the money when they bought the game.

ANZAC_Tack wrote:

CCMT was a fizzer for me,as it had NO ops or GC,i said so before release,and after. yes its a fun single game, and i enjoyed it.

Blah.
The general concept of CCMT is my favourite from all the CC series and will probably remain so unless CC6 will have a realistic dynamic campaign.
I enjoy playing it as a casual game, but I think that it lacks a lot as a good military game.
I mean things like realistic data, engine upgraded to handle modern weapons correctly, AI that actually works and a decent 200+ page manual with weapon/vehicle data, organization tables, and examples of modern conflicts (iM1A2 Abrams manual had most of these things).

#44: Author: AT_Stalky,

Posted: Fri Jun 13, 2008 4:30 pm
—
OK. Lets see here if i can sum this up,

1) First we buy the CCMT game that is sold for “max dollars” 2) and then we complain about the weapon data and other defects in the game, 3) as we do the developer are bitching at us for point out flaws in the game, 4) now the developer start ask us to send him more money to fix the defects in the game, 5) then we the consumers are also asked to fix the game weapon data for the developer and send it to him!

Hmmmmmmmmm?

#45: Author: Neural_Eclipse,

Posted: Fri Jun 13, 2008 4:43 pm
—

AT_Stalky wrote:

OK. Lets see here if i can sum this up,

1) First we buy the CCMT game that is sold for “max dollars” 2) and then we complain about the weapon data and other defects in the game, 3) as we do the developer are bitching at us for point out flaws in the game, 4) now the developer start ask us to send him more money to fix the defects in the game, 5) then we the consumers are also asked to fix the game weapon data for the developer and send it to him!

Hmmmmmmmmm?

Yeah this is all royally f'd up... I do not think I want to buy this game anymore if this is how the developer treats customers. The complaint about the absolutely ridiculous data is so legit that bitching about the fact that it was brought up is just wrong from a common sense perspective. There is no excuse.

#46: Author: squadleader_id, Location: Soerabaja

Posted: Fri Jun 13, 2008 4:59 pm
—
Matrix struck a sweet deal indeed...getting games for free from Simtek/S3T...and selling them at "max dollars"...hoping the CC freaks and the CC Community will just gobble up anything CC thrown at them Smile

And since the sales emphasis is on direct download...Matrix don't even have to spend money on discs and packaging...sweet!!! Smile

#47: Author: schrecken, Location: Sydney, Australia

Posted: Fri Jun 13, 2008 10:02 pm
—
I don't get it stalky.

You are not being made to shut up.. your concerns are being noted.

No one is contradicting your posts... except when you go off the rails and start talking about things you know nothing about.

No one has asked you to stop criticising the game...please continue, some of your posts make sense when you stick to factual arguments instead of heading off into flights of fancy.

You cannot ask for any more, surely?

When questions are asked I give honest answers eg 30mm cannon cannot defeat an Abrams etc.

It's you, stalky, doing the badmouthing, read your own posts.

Neural eclipse

The game plays very well as is... there may be a few anomilies within the data but these , generally, aren't born out in game play.

If you played the game you would see that.

#48: Author: Dima,

Posted: Fri Jun 13, 2008 11:08 pm
—
I was trying to be out of this thread as imo it's stupid, but couldn't hold myself any longer.

Quote:

I don't get it stalky.

that's obvious u don't (check my first reply to this thread http://www.closecombatseries.net/CCS/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&t=4904&start=0 ).

Quote:

No one is contradicting your posts... except when you go off the rails

must be real insane to start contradict obvious things.

Quote:

some of your posts make sense when you stick to factual arguments instead of heading off into flights of fancy.

for more information check my first reply to this thread http://www.closecombatseries.net/CCS/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&t=4904&start=0

Quote:

You cannot ask for any more, surely?

Lot of Laugh Very Happy

Quote:

When questions are asked I give honest answers eg 30mm cannon cannot defeat an Abrams etc.

how about Bushmaster MkII 30mm? Wink

i know that in CCMT it can pen T72 frontal armor at at least 1240m Smile

Quote:

It's you, stalky, doing the badmouthing, read your own posts.

when everybody is so against yer logics, it's time to look at yerself, friend Smile

Quote:

The game plays very well as is... there may be a few anomilies within the data but these , generally, aren't born out in game play.

u know, i agree with u, but what can we do against so many? Wink

Quote:

If you played the game you would see that.

i did play, i saw it is crap Smile

#49: Author: AT_Stalky,

Posted: Fri Jun 13, 2008 11:37 pm
—

schrecken wrote:

When questions are asked I give honest answers eg 30mm cannon cannot defeat an Abrams etc.

Schrecken
Na, It dint start with your post about the 30mm gun, I dint even reply to that post. ............ Though the data for that 30mm cannon is way of to ofcose, but more about that later.

This thread had been about weapon data error in CCMT, as a consumer debate amongst consumers, debating your product. ( I know that as I started the thread, also se first page and Subject)

However maybe it started to go "bad" from this later post below:

schrecken wrote:

Lucky for all the happy owners your opinion doesn't carry much weight..

But your concerns have been noted with thanks.

But ofcose this is just one of many many of your "replys" to me when I say something about your products.

#50: Author: schrecken, Location: Sydney, Australia

Posted: Fri Jun 13, 2008 11:59 pm
—

Quote:

how about Bushmaster MkII 30mm? Wink
i know that in CCMT it can pen T72 frontal armor at at least 1240m Smile.

Why do you say that?

#51: Author: schrecken, Location: Sydney, Australia

Posted: Sat Jun 14, 2008 12:02 am
—
stalk

I was invited in

Quote:

Useless thread as seems noone from the developers gonna reply here becoz:

#52: Author: AT_Stalky,

Posted: Sat Jun 14, 2008 6:00 am
—

schrecken wrote:

The game plays very well as is... there may be a few anomilies within the data but these , generally, aren't born out in game play.

If you played the game you would see that.

When I see a post like this I just want to laugh, then I realise your serious.

And It don’t get better when it’s from the developer of the game and there consumer relation man / researcher man /project leader man.

Thanx Mr, for your time

#53: Author: AT_Stalky,

Posted: Sat Jun 14, 2008 6:05 am
—

schrecken wrote:

stalk

I was invited in

Quote:

Useless thread as seems noone from the developers gonna reply here becoz:

Don’t get me wrong Mr, your welcome but don’t de-rail the debate with these type of post, stay on topic and keep to facts please.

I dont whant to split this topic but I will, If it dont go back to be a consumer debate about small calibre weapon data in CCMT.

Please

#54: Author: squadleader_id, Location: Soerabaja

Posted: Sat Jun 14, 2008 7:29 am
—
Can't really blame Shreckie and the rest of the Simtek "workers" for releasing crap...they weren't getting paid for their work...they were working on this commercial game with max dollar price for free...so blame the system I guess Smile

Okay...let's get back on topic Very Happy

#55: Author: ANZAC_Tack, Location: Australia

Posted: Sat Jun 14, 2008 11:13 am
—
has it been misconstruded by my comments that nobody was ever paid in simtek? I know there was problems with future's,and another from cso who went,but im not aware of any others. to my current knowledge they got paid, i'd like to be corrected.
I'd also like to know some day what the f*&^ happened to simtek,and its people before S3T.all i know is i got this email one day...rest is history

#56: Author: squadleader_id, Location: Soerabaja

Posted: Sat Jun 14, 2008 11:39 am
—

ANZAC_Tack wrote:

has it been misconstruded by my comments that nobody was ever paid in simtek? I know there was problems with future's,and another from cso who went,but im not aware of any others. to my current knowledge they got paid, i'd like to be corrected.
I'd also like to know some day what the f*&^ happened to simtek,and its people before S3T.all i know is i got this email one day...rest is history

Look at this thread:
http://www.closecombatseries.net/CCS/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&t=4352

That thread and a couple of others at CSO mentions about Simtek artists working on commercial projects without getting paid...ouch!

#57: Author: Therion,

Posted: Sat Jun 14, 2008 12:25 pm
—

squadleader_id wrote:

Can't really blame Shreckie and the rest of the Simtek "workers" for releasing crap...they weren't getting paid for their work...they were working on this commercial game with max dollar price for free...so blame the system I guess Smile

It has nothing to do with lack of payment.
The CCM data was already fucked up before Simtek took over. The problem is that no one bothered to correct it. More, they added more data from space.

#58: Author: squadleader_id, Location: Soerabaja

Posted: Sat Jun 14, 2008 12:33 pm
—

Therion wrote:

squadleader_id wrote:

It has nothing to do with lack of payment.
The CCM data was already fucked up before Simtek took over. The problem is that no one bothered to correct it. More, they added more data from space.

Umm...CCM was produced by Simtek Wink

#59: Author: schrecken, Location: Sydney, Australia

Posted: Sat Jun 14, 2008 9:55 pm
—

Quote:

Umm...CCM was produced by Simtek

Close Combat: Marines (2004) - A training tool developed by Atomic Games for the Department of Defense to help train Marines.

Simtek and then S3T have developed it further from there at the request of the USMC up to what is now known as CCM6, basically Alien v Predator RTS.

Developement has mainly concentrated on adding features at USMC request. Various "broken" parts were fixed along the way..... developement continues at this time.

#60: Author: schrecken, Location: Sydney, Australia

Posted: Sat Jun 14, 2008 10:05 pm
—
But back on topic.

S3T are looking at a further patch for CCMT.

If anyone can come up with a comprehensive list of needed fixes this will speed the process.

If you have found data anomilies let me know all of them... not a single line at a time

We currently have a short list but as time permits it is being extended.

We are not going to put out a patch a week as piecemeal fixes but a largish all encompassing patch is what is envisioned....

Consider that a small graphic change to 1 vehicle could mean a 30mb download or a single map alteration could be 100mb.

Posts like Bushmaster can pen T72 at 1240 metres don't help when the data shows otherwise... every shell fired is a roll of the dice.

#61: Author: AT_Stalky,

Posted: Sat Jun 14, 2008 10:10 pm
—

schrecken wrote:

S3T are looking at a further patch for CCMT.

Finally…. Thank you.
But I will not smile until I have seen the patch, and tested it..

#62: Author: Therion,

Posted: Sat Jun 14, 2008 11:43 pm
—

squadleader_id wrote:

Umm...CCM was produced by Simtek Wink

I'm talking about CCM 3.1.

#63: Author: ANZAC_Tack, Location: Australia

Posted: Sun Jun 15, 2008 3:52 am
—
how can we send youl this list, start a new post or email? i always had a problem with the infantry AT weapons capability of the US, i used some 6 rounds on a meseum piece T55 at 450M,it still shot me to hell...because the rounds hit the front, not top as designed.

#64: Author: AT_Stalky,

Posted: Sun Jun 15, 2008 10:29 am
—
Serious Tack, its more easy to send a list of the weapon data THAT DON’T NEED serious attention. This is not a "adjust" or “tweaking” that is needed it’s a massive total remake of basically all weapon data.
If the patch are to be made it shall be done properly.

#65: Author: Therion,

Posted: Sun Jun 15, 2008 12:14 pm
—

ANZAC_Tack wrote:

how can we send youl this list, start a new post or email? i always had a problem with the infantry AT weapons capability of the US, i used some 6 rounds on a meseum piece T55 at 450M,it still shot me to hell...because the rounds hit the front, not top as designed.

My mod has tripled penetration for Javelin and Predator to replace top-attack.

CCMT engine isn't really suitable for simulating modern warfare - it doesn't simulate guided missiles, AA weapons, etc.

#66: Author: ANZAC_Tack, Location: Australia

Posted: Sun Jun 15, 2008 12:34 pm
—
excellent idea! make the penertation simulate top attack. i was truely bumbfounded lastyear i was told modern at weapons fly up and hit top of tank! reminds me of british project of the 80's when they tried to make 81mm morter rounds tank finders, smart as it has 25mm on average on top not 100mm+

#67: Author: schrecken, Location: Sydney, Australia

Posted: Mon Jun 16, 2008 1:05 am
—
I would argue that PB penetration should be quite low to simulate direct fire and then as the range goes beyond that increase the penetration to simulate the top attack.

#68: Author: Therion,

Posted: Mon Jun 16, 2008 1:26 am
—
I would argue that PB range must be very high to simulate the accuracy of said missile.

#69: Author: schrecken, Location: Sydney, Australia

Posted: Mon Jun 16, 2008 1:32 am
—
Accuracy does not correlate with penetration

#70: Author: ANZAC_Tack, Location: Australia

Posted: Mon Jun 16, 2008 5:46 am
—
both good arguments, keep penetration low untill the missile rises up,i dont know, 150M? then *4 penetration after that range. brilliant.

#71: Author: Dima,

Posted: Mon Jun 16, 2008 7:42 am
—
Therion,

CC engine simulates "top attack" pretty good w/o such perversions u make or other suggest here.

#72: Author: Therion,

Posted: Mon Jun 16, 2008 9:51 am
—
By making it indirect?
Whouldn't it, like, allow to fire them without LOS?

schrecken wrote:

Accuracy does not correlate with penetration

Doesn't, like, accuracy drop to 5/8 of the base value when range is close and to 3/5 on medium?
It's a fire and forget ATGM, not a big bazooka.

#73: Author: Therion,

Posted: Mon Oct 20, 2008 12:00 pm
—
Hey, At Stalky, do you know that "Accurate and realistic modern equipment modeling" and
"Accurately depicting modern tactical warfare and it’s challenge" are some of the main selling points of CCMT Very Happy

?
Will there be a patch that implements various types of guided missiles, different kinds of armour, AA weapons, top-attack guided missiles and other things neccessary for an accurate modern equipment modelling or are these just empty promises?

#74: Author: AT_Stalky,

Posted: Mon Oct 20, 2008 2:16 pm
—

Therion wrote:

1) Hey, At Stalky, do you know that "Accurate and realistic modern equipment modeling" and
"Accurately depicting modern tactical warfare and it’s challenge" are some of the main selling points of CCMT Very Happy

?
2) Will there be a patch that implements various types of guided missiles, different kinds of armour, AA weapons, top-attack guided missiles and other things neccessary for an accurate modern equipment modelling or are these just empty promises?

1) Wow

non could have guessed that.

2) Yeh, I wonder to,

#75: Author: Therion,

Posted: Wed Oct 22, 2008 8:59 am
—
It makes me wonder. Are there any laws that forbid intentionally deceiving customers?

#76: Author: stormrider_sp,

Posted: Tue Nov 25, 2008 3:30 pm
—

schrecken wrote:

Quote:

Are you Serious? Get to work man!

Please send money, it greases the the gears of industry.

or like everyone else, volunteer your time and and much can be achieved.

I just sent for a broken game. Why dont you FUCK YOURSELF! Do your job motherfucker.

#77: Author: stormrider_sp,

Posted: Tue Nov 25, 2008 3:34 pm
—

schrecken wrote:

I don't get it stalky.

You are not being made to shut up.. your concerns are being noted.

No one is contradicting your posts... except when you go off the rails and start talking about things you know nothing about.

No one has asked you to stop criticising the game...please continue, some of your posts make sense when you stick to factual arguments instead of heading off into flights of fancy.

You cannot ask for any more, surely?

When questions are asked I give honest answers eg 30mm cannon cannot defeat an Abrams etc.

It's you, stalky, doing the badmouthing, read your own posts.

Neural eclipse

The game plays very well as is... there may be a few anomilies within the data but these , generally, aren't born out in game play.

If you played the game you would see that.

No, the problem is clearly YOU!

#78: Author: schrecken, Location: Sydney, Australia

Posted: Tue Nov 25, 2008 7:37 pm
—
Welcome stormrider_sp

Nice to see you

Very interesting and thought provoking comments..I'll look into your suggestions today as you are obviously skilled and experienced in such matters.

Maybe you have some screen shots we can look at, I know most posters here would be interested.

see you on the battlefield
cheers

#79: Author: QM, Location: Australia

Posted: Wed Dec 03, 2008 1:22 am
—

schrecken wrote:

Welcome stormrider_sp

Nice to see you

Very interesting and thought provoking comments..I'll look into your suggestions today as you are obviously skilled and experienced in such matters.

Maybe you have some screen shots we can look at, I know most posters here would be interested.

see you on the battlefield
cheers

#80: Author: Stwa,

Posted: Tue Dec 16, 2008 10:04 am
—
Idea

Last edited by Stwa on Fri Jul 17, 2015 3:22 am; edited 1 time in total

#81: Author: Therion,

Posted: Tue Dec 16, 2008 3:22 pm
—

Stwa wrote:

Its not really good for business, me thinks.

What do you mean?

#82: Author: mooxe,

Posted: Tue Dec 16, 2008 4:02 pm
—
We dont delete threads here.

#83: Author: Stwa,

Posted: Tue Dec 16, 2008 4:50 pm
—
Idea

Last edited by Stwa on Fri Jul 17, 2015 3:21 am; edited 1 time in total

#84: Author: Therion,

Posted: Tue Dec 16, 2008 5:18 pm
—
Deleting/locking a thread because one user lost his cool is counterproductive.

#85: Author: Stwa,

Posted: Fri Dec 19, 2008 5:12 am
—
Idea

Last edited by Stwa on Fri Jul 17, 2015 3:22 am; edited 1 time in total

#86: Re: What the problem with CCMT weapons, a consumer debate.. Author: CSO_Sbufkle, Location: Canada

Posted: Thu Jan 22, 2009 5:52 pm
—
You know... I got CCMT, played it a few times and basically never touched it since.. maybe becuase I had alreayd played and helped with CCM and CCRAF I had already then played this essentially...

So unimpressed I never cam into this forum and see this post 9 months later...

Stalky... I am impressed by your post.

Maybe S3 should hire people like you, not cheerleaders...

#87: Author: AT_Stalky,

Posted: Thu Jan 22, 2009 6:08 pm
—
Haha thanx Sbuf.

When I think about it, Schrecky actually promissed a patch for CCMT, its at 6 pages in this thread .... :

schrecken wrote:

But back on topic.

S3T are looking at a further patch for CCMT.

If anyone can come up with a comprehensive list of needed fixes this will speed the process.

If you have found data anomilies let me know all of them... not a single line at a time

We currently have a short list but as time permits it is being extended.

We are not going to put out a patch a week as piecemeal fixes but a largish all encompassing patch is what is envisioned....

Yes, that was promissed in Sat Jun 14, 2008 9:05 pm, more then 7 month go.
Still no patch to my knowlage.. . Schrecky? Have I missed it, or has it not been made?

#88: Author: schrecken, Location: Sydney, Australia

Posted: Thu Jan 22, 2009 8:28 pm
—
Various parts of the patch are in testing at the moment.

Also an upgraded modswap.. also currently in testing.

#89: Author: CSO_Sbufkle, Location: Canada

Posted: Fri Jan 23, 2009 3:34 pm
—

schrecken wrote:

Various parts of the patch are in testing at the moment.

Also an upgraded modswap.. also currently in testing.

So whats the timeline?

I am currently working on my retirement.. yet that takes efftect only in 26 years....

I have a data review Im working on that will be done this Monday?

The check is in the mail?

Timeline?

#90: Author: schrecken, Location: Sydney, Australia

Posted: Fri Jan 23, 2009 7:15 pm
—
It should be available when it is completed and tested.

#91: Author: meade95,

Posted: Fri Apr 17, 2009 6:56 pm
—
I have tweaked and editing my CCMT - For many of the weapons errors - Have created my own SOF /SEAL / 75th Ranger units, etc, etc.....

Is there any chance I can just get these other updated / mods...in the worksheet form. Not as the mod - Where I have to install.

I would like to just use the worksheet to add to....what I'm already doing....but not replace all the work that I have done.

#92: Author: schrecken, Location: Sydney, Australia

Posted: Fri Apr 17, 2009 8:01 pm
—
Just copy the data.txt files and paste into your worksheet

#93: Author: meade95,

Posted: Fri Apr 17, 2009 10:30 pm
—

schrecken wrote:

Just copy the data.txt files and paste into your worksheet

?? When you DL Spinel mods. (from http://closecombat.matrixgames.com/ccmt/ccmt.html)....they come in some other file format (they don't extract out as txt files)....

Close Combat Series -> Close Combat Modern Tactics

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

Page 1 of 1