Close Combat Series :: View topic - So, what are the NEW exciting features in the tactical game?

So, what are the NEW exciting features in the tactical game?

through

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

#1: So, what are the NEW exciting features in the tactical game? Author: Therion,

Posted: Mon Jul 28, 2008 6:41 am
—
I heard a lot about new features for strategic minigame.
As a Close Combat fan, I'm interested mainly in the real close combat part.
So, what are the NEW, exciting features in the tactical part of the game?

#2: Author: AT_Stalky,

Posted: Mon Jul 28, 2008 8:02 am
—
Haha, well, as I read, its like CCMT, u have to micromanage the units as they stop move as they see some action.
I realy hope they scrap that to the relise.
Apart from that, what can we expect from a 9 year old re-relise, well one thing you can expect, Is a modern totaly up to daye price tag on it.

#3: Author: squadleader_id, Location: Soerabaja

Posted: Mon Jul 28, 2008 9:32 am
—
I think Therion was referring to the Tactical Level gameplay of WaR.
As I recall Therion hates the unrealistic Tactical Game design in CC4-CC5...and I've posted on the other thread...most wargames will have some things simplified or abstracted. The Tactical Level of CC is simplified and somewhat abstract...but it works better than most TBS wargames.

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

Posted: Mon Jul 28, 2008 9:49 am
—
At_Stalky = Troll

Can't help yourself can you ... must be those endless summer days.

#5: Author: squadleader_id, Location: Soerabaja

Posted: Mon Jul 28, 2008 10:00 am
—
But Stalky's right...the stupid units_aborting_move_due_to_minor_enemy_action_so_you_have_to_micromanage_units_and_wear_out_your_mousebuttons "feature" should be fixed. It adds nothing positive to CC gameplay and it's very annoying!

*Edit: Oops, I didn't read Therion's post carefully.

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

Posted: Mon Jul 28, 2008 10:40 am
—
I can only think you (all) send all your teams running to all corners of the map.

No wonder you get high casualties and get annoyed when they duck for cover... you play like girls.

#7: Author: Therion,

Posted: Mon Jul 28, 2008 10:54 am
—

squadleader_id wrote:

Err...
CC is stil one of the most realistic wargames on tactical level.
What I don't like is that it's almost untouched since CC3. That's 9 years without innovation.
It's like getting the same game over and over again.

Last edited by Therion on Mon Jul 28, 2008 11:01 am; edited 1 time in total

#8: Author: squadleader_id, Location: Soerabaja

Posted: Mon Jul 28, 2008 10:58 am
—

Therion wrote:

squadleader_id wrote:

I think Therion was referring to the Tactical Level gameplay of WaR.
As I recall Therion hates the unrealistic Tactical Game design in CC4-CC5...and I've posted on the other thread...most wargames will have some things simplified or abstracted. The Tactical Level of CC is simplified and somewhat abstract...but it works better than most TBS wargames.

In which thread?

I meant Strategic Level...sorry *burp* Very Happy

#9: Author: Therion,

Posted: Mon Jul 28, 2008 11:04 am
—
Yeah, I don't like Operational Combat 4 and Operational Combat 5.
I definitely prefer new Close Combat games.

#10: Author: squadleader_id, Location: Soerabaja

Posted: Mon Jul 28, 2008 11:06 am
—

schrecken wrote:

I can only think you (all) send all your teams running to all corners of the map.

No wonder you get high casualties and get annoyed when they duck for cover... you play like girls.

Is this your defense for this cool new gameplay enhancing addition to the CC engine??? Very Happy

As always Shreckie's a great spokesperson for Simtek/S3T Wink

Ducking for cover or stopping movement and scrambling for cover when under heavy enemy fire, getting pinned down or losing a leader is fine...and realistic.
But ducking for cover when seeing an enemy unit or when the first shot is fired? Are these soldiers or girls we're simulating?

CC is a game that's played almost like a TBS wargame (but in realtime)...micromanagement and real time gaming just don't go together.
The engine worked very well without the new 'girly_soldiers' AI behaviour...so why change it?

#11: Author: Polemarchos, Location: Polemarchopolis

Posted: Mon Jul 28, 2008 12:50 pm
—

schrecken wrote:

you play like girls.

good old schreck, little schopenhauer

always ad personam and ad nauseam argument... pls use ad argumentum or reductio ad absurdum if you wanna convince anybody here...

#12: Author: AT_Stalky,

Posted: Mon Jul 28, 2008 1:49 pm
—

schrecken wrote:

At_Stalky = Troll

Can't help yourself can you ... must be those endless summer days.

Yeh, they must be so proud of you at the consumer relation department at Matrix Games, name calling for the ??? time, wow you handle the consumers and fans with skill.

So I see your trying to shift focus from real debate to just insults and crap as usual.

What was wrong with my statement?

1) How many want to micromanage there Close Combat game as one have to in CCMT? What was wrong with that statement?
2) I said the price of WaR will have a modern price tag, as in Same price as new developed games, as in high price… What was wrong with that statement?

Why don’t you just cut out the amateurish name calling crap and atleast try to, or pretend to, be professional for once.

So tell us what was wrong with 1) and 2)?

#13: Author: Tejszd, Location: Canada

Posted: Mon Jul 28, 2008 4:07 pm
—

Therion wrote:

I heard a lot about new features for strategic minigame.
As a Close Combat fan, I'm interested mainly in the real close combat part.
So, what are the NEW, exciting features in the tactical part of the game?

Therion wrote:

CC is stil one of the most realistic wargames on tactical level.
What I don't like is that it's almost untouched since CC3. That's 9 years without innovation. It's like getting the same game over and over again.

That is a good question, though the game has seen some upgrades over the 9 years. CCMT additional support types is/was good but the value of “Digging In” especially and even the “Mount/Dismount” to some degree is/was low. It’s funny as people wanted these features, including me, but I never use “Digging In” and seldom use the “Mount/Dismount” feature. Having said that, since they are a realistic option and are there I would not remove them. CCMAT has civilians, obstacles, IED’s, mines, triggers for events and more that we probably don’t know about based on requests from the US Marines. The downside to CCMT and CCMAT is that there are no operations or grand campaigns as the military doesn’t need those for training purposes. What would be good is to have the CC3/COI or even better a CC4/5 campaign/operation layer with the CCMAT engine. But I have no idea of the effort to do that or if they can even release CCMAT to the public yet.

Matrix/S3T will have to answer what is NEW but what in battle changes would people like to see?

Edit: just fixing some grammar/spelling

Last edited by Tejszd on Mon Jul 28, 2008 5:25 pm; edited 3 times in total

#14: Author: Therion,

Posted: Mon Jul 28, 2008 5:00 pm
—

Tejszd wrote:

Digging in and Mount/Dismount were added in Atomic Games period - that's 5 years between CC3 and CCM/RtB with only minor changes. It's no wonder that CC series disappeared from mainstream market (actually, I remember that CCIV/CCV got some pretty bad press for that in Polish gaming magazines).

Tejszd wrote:

CCMT additional support types is/was good but the value of “Digging In” especially and even the “Mount/Dismount” to some degree is/was low. It’s funny as people wanted these features, including me, but I never use “Digging In” and seldom use the “Mount/Dismount” feature. Having said that, since they are a realistic option and are there I would not remove them. CCMAT has civilians, obstacles, IED’s, mines, triggers for events and more that we probably don’t know about based on request from the US Marines.

Fixed wing/rotary support choice is purely aesthetic as there are no AA defences in game and it functions exactly like in CC5 (Hello? It's 2008!).
I use mount/dismount pretty often. Sometimes I use digging in (it would probably be more useful in multiplayer/player versus player in non-urban terrain), but I really miss the ability to set such defences pre-battle.

Tejszd wrote:

What would be good is to have the CC3/COI or even better a CC4/5 campaign/operation layer game/layer with the CCMAT engine. But I have no idea of the effort to do that or if they can even release CCMAT to the public yet.

Adding strategic layer to CCMAT wouldn't make sense, as it would remove the benefit of triggers. Full usage of CCMAT features would require a linear/branching campaign with a story - similar to Operation Flashpoint.
Not to mention, that it would eat the precious development time that could be used to perfect the actual gameplay.

#15: Re: So, what are the NEW exciting features in the tactical g Author: mooxe,

Posted: Mon Jul 28, 2008 5:50 pm
—

Therion wrote:

As has been previously stated, you are or recently were part of the beta testing team. You tell us.

This game has seen a bunch of new features and upgrades but they are spread across so many versions. Why they can't be all compiled into one new version or rerelease doesn't make sense.

The only reason it does make sense that they are not all compiled into one is by looking at Matrix Games. They prefer a quick recycle of the software rather than costly upgrades.

#16: Re: So, what are the NEW exciting features in the tactical g Author: Therion,

Posted: Mon Jul 28, 2008 7:21 pm
—

mooxe wrote:

As has been previously stated, you are or recently were part of the beta testing team. You tell us.

Me? I can't reveal new features that aren't announced to the public.

Everyone was asking about the historically realistic glorious strategic minigame that is the very heart and soul of Operational Combat 4 and 5, so I just thought that I'll ask about the "shallow" and "uninteresting" part called Close Combat.

mooxe wrote:

This game has seen a bunch of new features and upgrades but they are spread across so many versions. Why they can't be all compiled into one new version or rerelease doesn't make sense.

The only reason it does make sense that they are not all compiled into one is by looking at Matrix Games. They prefer a quick recycle of the software rather than costly upgrades.

If I understand correctly from what was said on various public furums, by representatives of Matrix and Simtek, they don't have resources and Matrix paid so much cash for the licence that they have to sell re-releases for the same price as new games.

#17: Re: So, what are the NEW exciting features in the tactical g Author: mooxe,

Posted: Mon Jul 28, 2008 7:38 pm
—

Therion wrote:

mooxe wrote:

As has been previously stated, you are or recently were part of the beta testing team. You tell us.

mooxe wrote:

Well the Operations and GC add depth and replayability to the gameplay. Most of us realize that the actual Close Combat tactical gameplay will not change.

Yes they dont have the resources I guess. Some of us dont have any sympathy for Matrix Games, a game company that took a game we loved so much and ended up not doing really anything to it except putting it virtual store shelves again. Over the past decade almost we hoped, made wishlists, and knew exactly what we wanted for the next version. Since Matrix is the only company around with the power to do anything, we blame them no matter what.

I don't believe Matrix ever wanted to do anything with the game. Just recycle it and get some revenue. The people the community who are and were on the team pushed any new features that you may have seen. Just more reason to blame Matrix.

Anyways, you say you can't reveal whats new in this game. I suppose asking everyone else to post what they have seen from the leaked beta is also in alignment of your NDA? I dont care what people talk about here, you just seem a bit contradictory to what you value!

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

Posted: Mon Jul 28, 2008 8:12 pm
—

Quote:

What was wrong with my statement?

1) How many want to micromanage there Close Combat game as one have to in CCMT? What was wrong with that statement?
2) I said the price of WaR will have a modern price tag, as in Same price as new developed games, as in high price… What was wrong with that statement?

1) Seems like you want to blame the game for your lack of skill in modern warfare.... I wipe my opponents off the map whining about "lethality"...

2) So far the CC's I've seen released are half the price of the XBox games my kids buy.... I get years of enjoyment from CC, they get weeks.

Looks like CC is cheap at less than the cost of a tank of Gas.

Are you sure you're not French?.. seems Grognard fits perfectly.

#19: Re: So, what are the NEW exciting features in the tactical g Author: Therion,

Posted: Mon Jul 28, 2008 9:07 pm
—

mooxe wrote:

Most of us realize that the actual Close Combat tactical gameplay will not change.

It's a self-fulfilling prophecy.

mooxe wrote:

Anyways, you say you can't reveal whats new in this game. I suppose asking everyone else to post what they have seen from the leaked beta is also in alignment of your NDA? I dont care what people talk about here, you just seem a bit contradictory to what you value!

People from Simtek answer questions about the game. At least, they were very happy to answer questions about the strategic minigame.

schrecken wrote:

1) Seems like you want to blame the game for your lack of skill in modern warfare.... I wipe my opponents off the map whining about "lethality"...

Strawman argument, he was talking about realism, not about difficulty level. Lethality of modern warfare isn't based on sniper AKMs with effective range of 2500m and anti-tank mortars.

#20: Author: platoon_michael, Location: Right behind you

Posted: Tue Jul 29, 2008 12:15 am
—
quote]2) So far the CC's I've seen released are half the price of the Xbox games my kids buy.... I get years of enjoyment from CC, they get weeks[/quote]

Gotta go with that one.
The only PS2 or PS game I have played over the years is Madden.
(The REAL Football)

Everybody wants more for CC than what it is now,it's just the way society is.
They see all the glittery console games and want the same for CC.

I know I do.

Close Combat Series -> Close Combat Wacht am Rhein

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

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