Close Combat Series :: View topic - purely on pricing topic.

through

[^/[Print]\]
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4 Next :| |:
Close Combat Series -> Close Combat Wacht am Rhein

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

Posted: Wed Oct 22, 2008 7:11 pm
—
These parts of the game you deem "faulty", I see as features..... that's why I choose to play CC as opposed to 500 other games I could choose to play.

My tank won't cross the impassable hedge, deep river, narrow street no matter how many times I try to tell it to... there is a driver on board and it's his decision.

that's not to say I don't get as furious as anybody when they make the "wrong" decision..... but that's only when I'm losing.

#42: Author: flick,

Posted: Wed Oct 22, 2008 7:21 pm
—

#43: Author: Therion,

Posted: Wed Oct 22, 2008 7:26 pm
—

schrecken wrote:

These parts of the game you deem "faulty", I see as features.....

Yeah. AI tanks running in circles and infantry crawling aimlessly on their deployment zone while all the VLs are on opposite end of the map is a great feature Rolling Eyes

schrecken wrote:

My tank won't cross the impassable hedge, deep river, narrow street no matter how many times I try to tell it to... there is a driver on board and it's his decision.

Which has nothing to do with what we are talking about here.

#44: Author: mooxe,

Posted: Wed Oct 22, 2008 7:35 pm
—
Is this a debate on whether or not vehicle pathing is a problem? Its been a problem since day 1 and we all know it.

CSO Simtek or S3T admitted this was a problem years ago. They said they reworked it, not fixed it. This really means they changed it to the liking of someone with a different opinion.

So do you guys want Schrecken to say, "We tried to fix vehicle pathing but it can't be fixed with our limited resources and timelines." Maybe he can copy and paste that in his next post?

As far as I know, there is one single programmer working on this. The rest of the guys are people from these forums. Theres not much to expect from a rerelease, except the same recycled game with some added on features. These products are not what we have waited for.

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

Posted: Wed Oct 22, 2008 8:17 pm
—
Close Combat is close Combat.

Until we create CC6 it will always be so.

But, I don't want my men/vehicles to be automatons doing my fiendish bidding without question.

I like and want their twist on my orders.

#46: Author: flick,

Posted: Wed Oct 22, 2008 9:30 pm
—
Five T-34's trying to drive through a building like deranged ant-eaters, is a 'twist' on orders?

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

Posted: Wed Oct 22, 2008 10:27 pm
—
Who ordered them to move to the VL?... it was the AI not something disciussed in the posts just above.... we were discussing how teams carry out your orders.

With up coming releases you will see occurances such as that pictured have been reduced/allieviated/diminished as it is something that annoys everybody.

This swarming Bee's effect won't entirely be overcome though until there is a new AI.

The way is open for anyone to write a new game... go forth and conquer.

#48: Author: squadleader_id, Location: Soerabaja

Posted: Thu Oct 23, 2008 1:44 am
—

schrecken wrote:

But, I don't want my men/vehicles to be automatons doing my fiendish bidding without question.

I like and want their twist on my orders.

We're always going to be on opposite sides on this issue, Shreckie Wink

Here we go again. Why waste time fixing something that wasn't broken in the first place?
Men/Vehicles were not automatons in the old versions...and they do sometime twist your orders (depending on the situation). Men/Vehicles still abort movement, refuse to fire, go to ground or even run away...but only at certain situations (ie: leader KIA, losing multiple squad members/crews, under heavy fire, pinned down etc)...way more realistic. With the new 'AI fix/feature' (ie: Girlie Soldiers[TM])...you actually turn men/vehicles into automatons...they automatically abort movement (and sometimes look for cover) anytime they see the enemy or get shot at...you call that realistic? And where's the added gaming value in that briliant new feature, eh? Smile

#49: Author: Flamethrower,

Posted: Thu Oct 23, 2008 3:50 pm
—

Therion wrote:

Flamethrower wrote:

the whiners have a line up - the usual suspects - but there will be another longer line of folks that dig the hell out of this new version of CC

So, you are defending those crooks from Atomic Games? Frankly, it makes me sick. Yeah, but junkies always defend their dealer.

Anyway, what it has to do with the new release?

1: Atomic Games? Crooks? Say what? You pissants need to keep up on current events
2: You are sick? You have my commiseration
3: Yes I am a CC junkie - bite me

#50: Author: Flamethrower,

Posted: Thu Oct 23, 2008 4:05 pm
—

squadleader_id wrote:

We're always going to be on opposite sides on this issue, Shreckie Wink

good guys - over here
pissants - over there

#51: Author: AT_Stalky,

Posted: Thu Oct 23, 2008 4:24 pm
—

Flamethrower wrote:

squadleader_id wrote:

We're always going to be on opposite sides on this issue, Shreckie Wink

good guys - over here
pissants - over there

@ Flamethrower
Try to stick to the subject, and facts in the most mature way you are able to. Please.

You may be Admin at CSO (or even OIC? of CSO) and this is how you are use to handle ppl at CSO, please continue to do that at CSO (if you whant to).
But this is NOT CSO, this is CCS, (look at the banner at top) ok.

With all respect, please think before post.

#52: Author: Flamethrower,

Posted: Thu Oct 23, 2008 4:50 pm
—

AT_Stalky wrote:

Flamethrower wrote:

squadleader_id wrote:

We're always going to be on opposite sides on this issue, Shreckie Wink

good guys - over here
pissants - over there

pretty funny stuff considering the consistent attacks on CC developers in these forums...I say "what is good for the goose is good for the gander"

so you think maturity is a determining factor in your forums? right - you have a handful of crapartists (like yourself) that make a lot of criticisms based on on the ongoing and pathetic bullcrap perception of CC game developers as evil overlords while in reality a team of genuine enthusiasts bust their humps for the benefit of CC players

kiss my ass

#53: Author: AT_Stalky,

Posted: Thu Oct 23, 2008 5:08 pm
—

Flamethrower wrote:

AT_Stalky wrote:

Flamethrower wrote:

squadleader_id wrote:

We're always going to be on opposite sides on this issue, Shreckie Wink

good guys - over here
pissants - over there

Hm, and some more personal insults and name callings…

What did I mean with mature replies, well, name-calling like “Piss-ant” (copyright Flamethrower) and now “crapartists & kiss my ass” (copyright Flamethrower), isn’t really mature, its rather uneducated and childish, suggesting a not mature reply from some who grasp for something hard to hit with when his words and facts and arguments has run dry..

About criticism about the ongoing CC re-relise, yes, im one of them who don’t shear on anything just because it has the name Close Combat on it, and if they like now, relies WaR with the “girly soldier” enhancement I believe it will not be a positive thing for the consumers, and that will be negative on the sales of the product, (see how easy it is if one apply some logic to it)…

So, when you see me as a ENEMY just because I don’t shear-on whatever is made to WaR, your sadly mistaken, few cares as much as Close Combat as I do, but caring about something one really love don’t go well with shearing on whatever it turns into.

#54: Author: Flamethrower,

Posted: Thu Oct 23, 2008 5:22 pm
—

AT_Stalky wrote:

Flamethrower wrote:

AT_Stalky wrote:

Flamethrower wrote:

squadleader_id wrote:

We're always going to be on opposite sides on this issue, Shreckie Wink

good guys - over here
pissants - over there

1. I am a CC enthusiast (it suits my combative nature and 40 year fascination with WWII armored warefare)
2. I freely give my time to CC in a variety of ways (but it is always a selfish reflection of my addiction to the game)
3. If you care a great deal about CC we have more in common that we have in opposition: apparently we both have a passion for CC
4. WTF is "shearing"?
5. Sorry but I can't take credit for the term pissant: pissant is an epithet for an inconsequential, irrelevant, or worthless person, especially one who is irritating or contemptible out of proportion to his or her significance.
6. I repeat - pucker up

Last edited by Flamethrower on Thu Oct 23, 2008 5:28 pm; edited 1 time in total

#55: Author: CSO_Linebacker,

Posted: Thu Oct 23, 2008 5:28 pm
—
What is the continual mention of 'girly soldiers'? Am I missing something. I charged 13 AB teams across 200m of wide open 'Grass Field' straight into schreckies entreched mg and infantry teams...with no smoke screen cover...and the first team did not go to ground until they were within about 75m of schreckies positions. Most did not go to ground until I gave a fire order.

If this is still not good enough for you, remember this:

Most commanders have said that the hardest thing to do is to get a soldier to move forward when being shot at. There are several quotes by former infantry commanders who say that about 90% of all soldiers are useless in combat, but that there are just enough heroes to carry the day.

#56: Author: AT_Stalky,

Posted: Thu Oct 23, 2008 5:52 pm
—
Linebacker,

I have seen this in CCMT, and I talked to ppl who played the leaked WaR beta (and read what they written here in CCS), and they say WaR is same as in CCMT in this regard (if not worse).

Now I hear what you say, and that sounds promising… Smile

That suggest the soldier behaviour have been changed back to what it was in CC5 (perfect). Smile

I have no idea if they changed back the soldier behaviour after the “massive” critics’ of it, I really hope so. That imply the developer listen to “feed back”, and that suggest that the developer acts professional. But I suppose a professional developer listen to the fans who dare to say what they think is good OR BAD, and not just to them who blindly shears on anything they do (what the use of such feed back). As its in the developers own interest to listen to hard and valid feedback. And what’s good for the fan is good for the developer and vice versa..

I just have to w8, and see what ppl say after WaR is relised (still doubts it been fixed, but I hope it has), if soldier modelling is tuned back to CC5 setting I may just buy WaR, if the price tag is not to “enhanced”.… Smile

#57: Author: Therion,

Posted: Thu Oct 23, 2008 8:28 pm
—

Flamethrower wrote:

1: Atomic Games? Crooks? Say what? You pissants need to keep up on current events

Yes, selling faulty products without informing customers about those faults (faulty vehicle pathing for example) makes them crooks.
But hey, game developers never heard about customer rights. They are too enthusiastic for that sort of thing.

Flamethrower wrote:

so you think maturity is a determining factor in your forums? right - you have a handful of crapartists (like yourself) that make a lot of criticisms based on on the ongoing and pathetic bullcrap perception of CC game developers as evil overlords while in reality a team of genuine enthusiasts bust their humps for the benefit of CC players

Who says that the developers aren't genuine enthusiasts?

#58: Author: CSO_Linebacker,

Posted: Thu Oct 23, 2008 8:49 pm
—
Stalky,

The leaked beta was probably 15-20...if not more...builds ago while things were still getting polished. I have never seen the agressive counterattacks in any version of CC...including vetmods...as I you will see in WAR. Let's just say that the AI does not like losing VLs...especially major VLs or exit VLs.

One thing that has not been mentioned when discussing enhancements, is that the AI uses a 'base' battle plan depending on what type of BG it is, and what type of BG it is facing, and this is fully customizable by the modder now.

#59: Author: ZAPPI4, Location: Belgium Liege

Posted: Thu Oct 23, 2008 9:22 pm
—

Flamethrower wrote:

AT_Stalky wrote:

Flamethrower wrote:

squadleader_id wrote:

We're always going to be on opposite sides on this issue, Shreckie Wink

good guys - over here
pissants - over there

Well, i...

First of all, if you dont respect a moderator, and admin or a member you dont need to
insult him. If u dont like who manage CCS, it's easy, forget the adress.

You are on a Fan site here at CCS. So why should me not critic our loveled
CCx? The way of a community is to reach THAt moment when, like one voice
everyone say : Perfect, dont touch anymore to the game, u reach the perfect game.
And yes, we said maturity, and no insult will bring CCS upper. But it seems
that some people dont integrated this point.

#60: Author: flick,

Posted: Thu Oct 23, 2008 9:39 pm
—

CSO_Linebacker wrote:

Stalky,

The leaked beta was probably 15-20...if not more...builds ago while things were still getting polished. I have never seen the agressive counterattacks in any version of CC...including vetmods...as I you will see in WAR. Let's just say that the AI does not like losing VLs...especially major VLs or exit VLs.

One thing that has not been mentioned when discussing enhancements, is that the AI uses a 'base' battle plan depending on what type of BG it is, and what type of BG it is facing, and this is fully customizable by the modder now.

This has really perked my interest.

Close Combat Series -> Close Combat Wacht am Rhein

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

Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4 Next :| |: Page 3 of 4