Close Combat Series :: View topic - admittedly accursed fan (read cheerleader for those peckerwo

admittedly accursed fan (read cheerleader for those peckerwo

through

[^/[Print]\]
Goto page Previous 1, 2 :| |:
Close Combat Series -> Close Combat Wacht am Rhein

#21: Author: Flamethrower,

Posted: Sat Jul 19, 2008 2:16 pm
—

Roel wrote:

As a games developer, I would rather invest my money in improved H2H accesibility (IMO, that's where the real value of CC is) than trying to improve AI and finding out afterwards that it's still a joke.

Just an opinion...
Cheers,

Roel

that observation/opinion is right on point IMHO - understanding that the hard-core corps of CC fans will have to see the finished WaR when it is available to believe that is the best CC yet (and they will) - the critical issue is, as you have identified, the accessibility of H2H play - while admittedly COI was not the Holy-Grail-new-CC everyone was looking for, it was a good product - the real failure was the BHQ bungle...er...bundle

there are thousands of us CC fans out there, WaR is going to be a terrific product, will we all connect?

#22: Author: Mr_Tank,

Posted: Sat Jul 19, 2008 2:41 pm
—

Polemarchos wrote:

shortened a bit: ip.s.2. As far as i know it does not work this way with EU products in the States. A BMW 3.16 costs (basic version) costs 26.000 $-30.000$ in the States, in the city in which they are manufactured they cost at least 26.000 Euro. So if EU compnies can adapt market situation in the states, why cant matrix adapt to economic reality in the EU. Or are you looking for cows to melk. Btw. just because the Euro is high doesnt make us Europeans richer, so i dont see any reason paying you more than any other individual on this planet for one and the same game.

As long as there are diffences in the income from country to country, there will be diffences in prices.
Matrix' primary goal is to make money, if they can make more money by charging different prices, then that's what they'll do. Ie: A coca-cola is much cheaper in the eastern EU than in the western parts, same product.
When the €'s value is rising, this should normally make non european products cheaper in the EU.

#23: Author: Therion,

Posted: Sat Jul 19, 2008 2:45 pm
—

RD_Thomas_Ross wrote:

My only request is that people quit ragging on the game til they have played it.

So, you're going to tell me that it won't be like CC5 and won't have a strategic minigame, but a campaign where one commands a single platoon/company sized unit? That it will have mountable vehicles, map editor with triggers and other enhancements to the tactical gameplay?

How about the cheerleader quitting treating his taste as an objective truth?

Roel wrote:

2. To me, one of the greatest assets of CC5 has always been the 'scaled' approach, where a battle at a lower level determines what happens at a higher level. This greatly increases the scope of the game, since you can model any type of campaign, be it at the tactical level (as you prefer) or at the more strategic level.

I can't play a campaign at the tactical level in CC4/5. It would require a different campaign mechanics than a campaign with a strategic minigame.
CC5 still has battalion sized units, with some weird things like a battle between two platoon/company sized units causing whole battalion to withdraw or even disband.

Roel wrote:

I suppose it's a matter of taste Smile

Unless you're the cheerleader Razz

. Then it's an objective fact.

#24: Author: Polemarchos, Location: Polemarchopolis

Posted: Sat Jul 19, 2008 2:49 pm
—

Mr_Tank wrote:

all very true if we talk about material subjects of trade. I was referring to a digital download. If I buy a song from Apple store online it costs the same, no matter if i am in Nicaragua or the Fidshi islands.

Your argument applies if the item is produced in the country that consumes it or if it is manufacrued elsewhere, taxed and shiped to customer.

A digital salery generates no further cost, only more revenues... that as far as i know does not work with WTO standards.

Last edited by Polemarchos on Sat Jul 19, 2008 9:11 pm; edited 1 time in total

#25: Author: Flamethrower,

Posted: Sat Jul 19, 2008 4:41 pm
—

Therion wrote:

How about the cheerleader quitting treating his taste as an objective truth?

and how bout this for subjective - yer a crybaby with no sense of humor - kiss my ass

but you are setting yerself up to eat crow if WaR comes out and everybody raves about it and you've crapped all over it in advance
- and maybe even the Great Therion likes it - what then?

#26: Author: RD_Thomas_Ross, Location: Pontiac Illinois

Posted: Sat Jul 19, 2008 4:56 pm
—

Therion wrote:

RD_Thomas_Ross wrote:

My only request is that people quit ragging on the game til they have played it.

Where in my comment was ANYTHING stated about gameplay,style,anything other than to be OBJECTIVE until YOU can make a SUBJECTIVE opinion.....

Can I make a OBJECTIVE opinion? No as having been part of the team.

COULD I make a SUBJECTIVE opinion? Yes but I wont because my opinions are mine and I havent been released from my NDA so I dont feel comfortable discussing it...even though it seems to be the current topic of choice.

All I ask is wait and see.....

If you like it great...If not then mod the shit outta it or develop your own game.....

#27: Author: ANZAC_Tack, Location: Australia

Posted: Sat Jul 19, 2008 11:44 pm
—
pricing in australia....i havent bought a game in god...7 years? simtek/s3t send me a copy,thats about all i get lol....and now i dont know if ill even get that because some disshonourable barstard broke there NDA.

#28: Author: flick,

Posted: Sun Jul 20, 2008 12:07 am
—
I just want basic common sense from the AI,that's all. In the brothers in arms series, I've been slaughtered rushing in too fast, and all in fancy 3d.

on some levels in CCIV, I've actually got up and made lunch, while my men kept to their positions..I came back 10 minutes later, and all happend, was that a panther tank got confused by a bridge.

#29: Author: squadleader_id, Location: Soerabaja

Posted: Sun Jul 20, 2008 1:45 am
—

flick wrote:

I just want basic common sense from the AI,that's all. In the brothers in arms series, I've been slaughtered rushing in too fast, and all in fancy 3d.

on some levels in CCIV, I've actually got up and made lunch, while my men kept to their positions..I came back 10 minutes later, and all happend, was that a panther tank got confused by a bridge.

I don't think much can be rebuilt or improved on the AI...it's basically still the old game just repacked and with addons.
Sapa's report of units going to ground and aborting movement after being fired upon or spotting enemy units is also annoying. This 'enhancement' appeared on CoI and CCMT. This AI behaviour also appears on previous versions on CC...but only after a unit is under heavy fire...the new version makes units go to ground or stop too easily...leading to unneeded micromanagement.

#30: Author: Flamethrower,

Posted: Sun Jul 20, 2008 5:29 am
—

Therion wrote:

Unless you're the cheerleader Razz

. Then it's an objective fact.

O and er....Therion...it is Therion isn't it?.... since you are ...er..."Perturbed"...with me and want to get into it with me ...why don't we just go ahead and get it on?

for instance....I heard a ridiculous rumor that you were actually a member of the WaR development team under another "name"......but that couldn't be true could it?...no way because then all yer slagging of WaR in this thread under the pretense that you don't know what it is like would really be farcical wouldn't it?...especially since I didn't see that "other" person post all these complaints of yours in the secure development forums Rolling Eyes

is this why you "hate" the CC community? ....these kinds of vicious rumors?

#31: Author: squadleader_id, Location: Soerabaja

Posted: Sun Jul 20, 2008 7:16 am
—

Therion wrote:

CC is still a wargame...not a strict war sim.
As in most wargames, you're going to have some abstractions.

Personally, I view the CC4/CC5 battles as contacts between spearhead Coys of the Battalion. You can also argue that the battle represented in the game is just a section of the large battle...with the rest of Battalion assets involved in off map/off game battles.

There's always going to be some sort of abstraction in any (war)game.
2 battles each day (the 6am and 2pm battles)...that's abstract also.
No night battles is also a weakness of the current CC engine.

Although there are abstraction and unrealistic aspects of the tactical level of the game...the CC system is still one of the best available to PC wargamers.

Back to WaR...it's not going address these limitations of the CC4/CC5 engine...but it's way more interesting than the 'shallow gameplay' of just single battle actions in CCMT Wink

#32: Author: Therion,

Posted: Mon Jul 28, 2008 7:03 pm
—

squadleader_id wrote:

CC is still a wargame...not a strict war sim.
As in most wargames, you're going to have some abstractions.

Especially if you add absurdities by bolting on a operational minigame on a tactical wargame.

#33: Author: Roel,

Posted: Mon Jul 28, 2008 7:08 pm
—

Therion wrote:

squadleader_id wrote:

CC is still a wargame...not a strict war sim.
As in most wargames, you're going to have some abstractions.

Especially if you add absurdities by bolting on a operational minigame on a tactical wargame.

maater of taste, no? Wink

#34: Author: Therion,

Posted: Mon Jul 28, 2008 8:46 pm
—

Flamethrower wrote:

O and er....Therion...it is Therion isn't it?.... since you are ...er..."Perturbed"...with me and want to get into it with me ...why don't we just go ahead and get it on?

Ah, dear Cheerleader, I never hid the fact that Therion and Perturabo is one and the same person. Though I'd prefer if neither of them would be asked any questions by curious gamers.

Flamethrower wrote:

for instance....I heard a ridiculous rumor that you were actually a member of the WaR development team under another "name"......but that couldn't be true could it?...no way because then all yer slagging of WaR in this thread under the pretense that you don't know what it is like would really be farcical wouldn't it?...especially since I didn't see that "other" person post all these complaints of yours in the secure development forums Rolling Eyes

Oh, now we are talking about what who posts in the secure development forums?
As for talking about it on development forums... What would be the effect? None. Why? Because whatever people say about the beta W.a.R., they will buy the full game because almost everyone loves the strategic minigame and everyone loves modding.

Flamethrower wrote:

is this why you "hate" the CC community? ....these kinds of vicious rumors?

No. I dislike the CC community, because it's composed mainly of Operational Combat 5 fans, which creates obvious conflict of interests.

Flamethrower wrote:

kiss my ass

Flamethrower wrote:

but you are setting yerself up to eat crow if WaR comes out and everybody raves about it and you've crapped all over it in advance

Like when I loved CCMT while most of people complained about lack of campaign?

Flamethrower wrote:

- and maybe even the Great Therion likes it - what then?

Liking or not is irrelevant. I'll be too busy playing "shallow", "uninteresting" and "unreplayable" games with weird and outdated things like consistency and realism to care about what others play.

#35: Author: Flamethrower,

Posted: Mon Jul 28, 2008 8:56 pm
—
well I guess you told me what for eh? Rolling Eyes

#36: Author: ANZAC_Tack, Location: Australia

Posted: Tue Jul 29, 2008 5:57 am
—
flamer got flamed...oh the irony...but by now u must be black as the ace of spades, and just used to 'another day at the office' (no previous puns intended)

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

Posted: Tue Jul 29, 2008 6:37 am
—
Interesting analogous use of a sinking ship and a flacid member.

I applaud such creativity

#38: Author: mooxe,

Posted: Tue Jul 29, 2008 10:49 pm
—
I too was amused.

Close Combat Series -> Close Combat Wacht am Rhein

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

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