Close Combat Series :: View topic - Close Combat Wacht am Rhein Preview at Wargamer

Close Combat Wacht am Rhein Preview at Wargamer

through

Forum FAQ

[^/[Print]\]

Close Combat Series -> Close Combat Wacht am Rhein

#1: Close Combat Wacht am Rhein Preview at Wargamer Author: schrecken, Location: Sydney, Australia

Posted: Wed Sep 10, 2008 8:11 pm
—
http://www.wargamer.com/article/2557/close-combat-wacht-am-rhein-preview%C2%A0

#2: Author: Desertmouse, Location: south of London

Posted: Wed Sep 10, 2008 9:12 pm
—
oh boy oh boy oh boy
i want it
please can i put this on my xmas list

ps. are they true green vehicle graphics ?

#3: Author: mooxe,

Posted: Wed Sep 10, 2008 9:49 pm
—
The P-51 has the D-Day stripes on it. I am not even sure if thats correct or not, but I assume the stripes were taken off by the time that takes place in this game.

#4: Author: squadleader_id, Location: Soerabaja

Posted: Thu Sep 11, 2008 1:02 am
—

Looks like the interface screens will be presented with black borders at higher res...locked at 800x600...not streched to fit like the old version. CoI and CCMT interface screens are also not streched to fit...so if you run the game at higher res...the box looks so small.
Streched to fit option is not avalable? What's the deal with locking the interface res at 800x600 anyway? Is there a special graphic setting to fix this?

#5: Author: mooxe,

Posted: Thu Sep 11, 2008 1:22 am
—
Why cant we run the interface at 800x600 and the game at a different resolution? Running the interface at 1440x900 would make a pretty unnatractive screen. I think its because those images you see on the interface are like jpgs all pieced together like a puzzle and they cannot be resized.

#6: Author: squadleader_id, Location: Soerabaja

Posted: Thu Sep 11, 2008 2:04 am
—
The interface screens can be resized (automatic stretch to fit) on the old games (CC3-CC5, IIRC CC2 has locked 800x600 aspect).
The graphics, buttons and text of the interface screen is small enough as is...now you have to peer through a small boxed image when you play the game at high res Sad

I don't play CoI or CCMT that much...that's why I keep forgettin to post about this locked small size (800x600) interface screen flaw...until this WAR preview thread.

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

Posted: Thu Sep 11, 2008 2:32 am
—
Very Nice guys.

I can't wait to have this one.

I do hope the strat map is as easily editable as mentioned so I can change it.

We still need a St.Vith & the Northern Shoulder mod Smile

#8: Re: Close Combat Wacht am Rhein Preview at Wargamer Author: pzjager, Location: Paris

Posted: Fri Sep 12, 2008 5:25 pm
—

schrecken wrote:

http://www.wargamer.com/article/2557/close-combat-wacht-am-rhein-preview%C2%A0

Looks very nice.
That's really something I like
Just one thing: 4 turns a day in a 15 days (or so) campaign is very long.... Most of the today CC players will not play so long...
But anyway,

Go on!

Cheers
*PJ

#9: Author: pzjager, Location: Paris

Posted: Fri Sep 12, 2008 5:26 pm
—

platoon_michael wrote:

Very Nice guys.

I can't wait to have this one.

I do hope the strat map is as easily editable as mentioned so I can change it.

We still need a St.Vith & the Northern Shoulder mod Smile

Happy to see that you are still with us

PJ

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

Posted: Fri Sep 12, 2008 9:40 pm
—

Quote:

ust one thing: 4 turns a day in a 15 days (or so) campaign is very long.

That is up to 4 turns per day... It could also be 1 turn per day.

This can be used by a modder to his advantage for a shorter campaign ... if so desired.

eg.. a 7 day campaign with 3 or 4 turns per day

a 25 day campaign with 1 turn per day

or many variations as you need for your mod.

#11: Author: diggin.robat, Location: Land of the krauts

Posted: Fri Sep 12, 2008 10:45 pm
—
All in all the new features sounds great.
I guess, that 7 men/squad is the usual maximum? It would have been nice for modding to have add more men in a unit, which are also correctly shown at the interface srceens. There should be room enough for at least 10men, but I guess, it is too late to add this.

diggin

#12: Author: squadleader_id, Location: Soerabaja

Posted: Fri Sep 12, 2008 10:58 pm
—
The features are very nice!
Shrecken, any info on how to get the 800x600 game interface to auto-stretch filling the screen like the old version? 800x600-boxed (with black borders) on 1280x1024 is just too small...and some people also play at higher res (ie: 1400x1050).

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

Posted: Fri Sep 12, 2008 11:23 pm
—
i play at 1280x1024 and there is no issue with size

but i will review that topic

#14: Author: squadleader_id, Location: Soerabaja

Posted: Fri Sep 12, 2008 11:30 pm
—
Thanks...
At 1280x1024 the box is still viewable...but having the box stretch to 1280x1024 is much preferable.

#15: Author: ANZAC_Tack, Location: Australia

Posted: Sat Sep 13, 2008 5:53 am
—
SL, i already had words about the size months ago, when u get BIG screens like 1920*1080 42" LCD the stretch out looks like an atari/commodore 64 graphics. the smaller size is best in my opinion.

sulla said its due end of this month on CSO 7 hours ago.

#16: Author: squadleader_id, Location: Soerabaja

Posted: Sat Sep 13, 2008 7:34 am
—
Tack, CC on 42" LCD is not really the norm Wink

I still think stretched out is better than a tiny box...maybe for bigger screens stretch it out too 1400x1050 or thereabouts...smaller box but not tiny box with huge black borders.
But I guess it's too late now.
And considering that CoI and CCMT came out with locked aspect 800x600 interface screens also.

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

Posted: Sat Sep 13, 2008 1:32 pm
—
On the Home page here at CCS it states that

Quote:

Redirection chance of an Allied BG.

Should that say "Axis" ?

Quote:

Disbanded battlegroups have the option to retreat to a friendly map if routed or be disbanded

Can I assume that if the BG in question is surrounded it only has the choice of being disbannded ?

Does weather effect vehicle/troop movement?

Can the colors that appear on the strat map be changed or are they locked in as green/red?
Can another overlay be applied instead of those colors like in the original CCIV strat map?

One more:
Is an option to create a MMCCIV available/in the works/possible?
Might make it easier to play that huge GC.

#18: Author: flick,

Posted: Sat Sep 13, 2008 8:14 pm
—
No mention of an AI overhaul?

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

Posted: Sat Sep 13, 2008 9:24 pm
—
Includes AI ovehaul

Allies redirected by german agents

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

Posted: Sat Sep 13, 2008 9:26 pm
—
re: AI

Quote:

So I figured the first scenario would be a pushover, right? Wrong. I had a bunch of infantry, a couple of MG squads, a couple of mortar teams, and a couple of bazooka teams. And what pops out of the woods? Some Panzers and Jagdpanzers. Not good. I emailed Jim Martin and shared my experience. I could almost hear him chuckling in his reply: “Glad you're having fun with it. RE: Andler - It kicks everyone’s butt. Actually the first two rows of maps should if you're playing as Allies. Nothing like a little historical accuracy to put you in the same state of mind as the infantry dude on the initial splash screen.” Well, good morning, Sunshine. He succeeded on that account.

#21: Author: mooxe,

Posted: Sat Sep 13, 2008 9:37 pm
—
To hear a guy who has been beaten by a game he rarely if ever plays means nothing. That portion of the review is good for outsiders, but we know the AI sucks no matter what. The Germans on day 1 are going to overpower you on many maps I am sure. Its mostly because they have heavy tanks and the American only have 57mm ATG and Zooks.

Lets not please confuse superior forces with superior tactics!

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

Posted: Sat Sep 13, 2008 9:45 pm
—
I was about to add... he was an inexperienced player. (had to eat breakfast first)

As an experienced player you will have an enhanced experience as compared the original CC4

#23: Author: flick,

Posted: Sun Sep 14, 2008 10:47 am
—
So a bit better then? That's a shame, but if it was possible to get the AI we want, I think they would of done it by now. I don't think it's from a lack of trying.

At least the modding aspects look a lot better.

I just hope that the AI attacks faster, I hate waiting for ages for an attack.

#24: Author: Therion,

Posted: Sun Sep 14, 2008 5:01 pm
—

mooxe wrote:

To hear a guy who has been beaten by a game he rarely if ever plays means nothing. That portion of the review is good for outsiders, but we know the AI sucks no matter what. The Germans on day 1 are going to overpower you on many maps I am sure. Its mostly because they have heavy tanks and the American only have 57mm ATG and Zooks.

Lets not please confuse superior forces with superior tactics!

That's why I no longer read (p)reviews nowaday... wait, I stopped believing them about 10 years ago.

#25: Author: bkp_mik,

Posted: Tue Sep 16, 2008 6:42 pm
—
I believe all we have to do is to wait for WAR to play h2h on it Smile

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

Posted: Tue Sep 16, 2008 8:57 pm
—
Any chance we can get some map previews?

please?

#27: Author: Sapa,

Posted: Thu Sep 18, 2008 6:20 pm
—

platoon_michael wrote:

Any chance we can get some map previews?

please?

Well, i dont dare to post anything more.. Embarassed

/Mats

#28: Author: Troger, Location: L4W's place, Australia

Posted: Fri Sep 19, 2008 1:27 am
—
Glad to see some work being put in on this re-release.

Hope this one doesn't include the infantry (which refuses to act as infantry) with the now-popular 'enemy spotted'.

Maybe one of you should make sure that when you try to use an infantry unit it does what it's supposed to, just a thought.

#29: Author: squadleader_id, Location: Soerabaja

Posted: Fri Sep 19, 2008 9:00 am
—

Troger wrote:

Glad to see some work being put in on this re-release.

Hope this one doesn't include the infantry (which refuses to act as infantry) with the now-popular 'enemy spotted'.

Maybe one of you should make sure that when you try to use an infantry unit it does what it's supposed to, just a thought.

You mean the new 'Girlie Soldiers' AI enhancement introduced to the CC engine since CoI?
I'm sure this will be included Smile

#30: Author: Sapa,

Posted: Fri Sep 19, 2008 4:47 pm
—
With this "great Mad

" Ai improvement i suppose i could only use half of the teams in the BG each battle if i should click on them 50 times Sad

Mats

#31: Author: IronStringbean,

Posted: Fri Sep 19, 2008 5:28 pm
—

squadleader_id wrote:

Troger wrote:

You mean the new 'Girlie Soldiers' AI enhancement introduced to the CC engine since CoI?
I'm sure this will be included Smile

I'm assuming this "enhancement" was added to take care of the dreaded AI "crawl of death" tactic. I wonder if they could code it so it only applies to the AI. Either that, or only to the standard move command; so if I want to get my squad the hell out of a house thats under fire, I can use the move fast command, or sneak command if I want them to crawl away under cover.

#32: Author: squadleader_id, Location: Soerabaja

Posted: Fri Sep 19, 2008 6:18 pm
—

IronStringbean wrote:

squadleader_id wrote:

Troger wrote:

You mean the new 'Girlie Soldiers' AI enhancement introduced to the CC engine since CoI?
I'm sure this will be included Smile

AI crawl of death can be crudely fixed by coding Infantry as Vehicles...used in most VetMods.
As for the 'girlie soldier' AI...not sure why this 'enhancement' was introduced...maybe to make the game harder? The enemy AI still sucks...but gameplay is harder because you have to keep clicking on your units and babysit every move...brilliant! Wink

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

Posted: Fri Sep 19, 2008 9:29 pm
—

Quote:

you have to keep clicking on your units and babysit every move

I don't

maybe you sit your guys out in the open where they attract fire.... try short "Move fast" orders to get them to safety.

#34: Author: squadleader_id, Location: Soerabaja

Posted: Fri Sep 19, 2008 11:43 pm
—
The thing is...with the old engine...you can assign movement waypoints...and your squads/AFVs will execute the order like real soldiers. They will only abort movement if under heavy fire or if they lose a leader. With the 'new' AI...waypoints are useless...your units will abort movement when they see the enemy.

Short move fast orders? Sounds like micromanagement to me Wink

#35: Remake? Author: jscusmc69, Location: USA

Posted: Sat Sep 20, 2008 12:58 am
—
All in all looks good would like to see some dif maps like Fishbach and that area where 116th PZ got my dads tanks-D co707tk Bn on Skyline drive 17Dec 1944. This is another must have in the series. Razz

Marines NEVER retreat they ADVANCE in a different direction!!
jscusmc69 RVN

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

Posted: Sat Sep 20, 2008 5:17 am
—

Quote:

Sounds like micromanagement to me

Close combat is not about assigning orders to your teams then walking away for half an hour to come back and see the result.

Micro managing is telling individual soldiers where to stand, when to reload and what to aim at.

#37: Author: squadleader_id, Location: Soerabaja

Posted: Sat Sep 20, 2008 7:46 am
—
Micromanagement compared to the old system...a lot more clicks then the old version.
So then...what's the use of waypoints in the new version when units will abort movement at the first sign of enemy activity? You said yourself that to play the new version it's best to assign short "move fast" orders.

I know WAR is done and just waiting release date...so there's no way to fix the new 'girlie soldiers' AI. CoI and CCMT shipped with the 'girlie soldier' AI and not too many people complained about it right? Wink

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

Posted: Sat Sep 20, 2008 8:50 am
—

Quote:

You said yourself that to play the new version it's best to assign short "move fast" orders.

No I didn't

I said it's the best way to get out of the line of fire.

I use way points effectively by not running my men through territory controlled by enemy machine gunners..... you may play the game differently, let's call it RAMBO style.... but suffer the consequences by having a lot of dead men.

Quote:

and not too many people complained about it right

correct!

#39: Author: squadleader_id, Location: Soerabaja

Posted: Sat Sep 20, 2008 9:16 am
—
The 'girlie soldiers' AI is just poor game design...any way you put it.
The reason why not many people complained about this in CoI and CCMT...'cause most CC fans don't really care about them or play them that much Very Happy

And don't exaggerate...you don't need to run your 'girlie men' Rambo style through enemy MGs...can't you accept that the 'girlie soldier' AI just makes simple waypoint movement almost impossible with soldiers ducking and aborting movement at the first sign of enemy activity.

BTW, in the old games...playing Rambo style will always result in a lot of aborted movement...remember that in the old version men will duck and abort movement orders when under heavy fire, losing a leader etc...realistic enough. In the new version...playing any style will get the same results. Unless keep clicking and herd your girls in short movement bursts. Or what Shreck seems to enjoy...moving your girls in friendly territories only...avoid the enemy at all costs because if they see the enemy...the girls will duck and abort everything Very Happy

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

Posted: Sat Sep 20, 2008 9:52 am
—
I haven't seen this.

Lot's of Operation Mars games this week where assaulting troops met with great success.

Russians are resurgent and may yet march on Vya'zma.

You should try playing Cross of Iron on-line a real blast.

But... it's almost time to reset the server as the timeline has expired.

****Note: Men in the open get shot at... use buildings, terrain and smoke to conceal your movements.

***Note 2: If you are caught in the open use short move fast order to reach nearby cover while suppressing the opponent with mortar fire.

#41: Author: Lt_2nd,

Posted: Sat Sep 20, 2008 4:22 pm
—
Appears to be a major improvement, looks like it could take some time to finish a GC, either way I am looking forward to its release and getting back into close combat

#42: Author: Therion,

Posted: Sun Sep 21, 2008 12:42 pm
—

schrecken wrote:

I use way points effectively by not running my men through territory controlled by enemy machine gunners..... you may play the game differently, let's call it RAMBO style.... but suffer the consequences by having a lot of dead men.

Err...
It happens even when fire is very inaccurate or low intensity. Also, even vehicles can stop because of being fired upon.
Why would a humvee stop when fired upon? To catch more bullets or what?

Old CC games had soldiers aborting movement only under heavy fire (and they started crawling before aborting movement). It was better.

#43: Author: Tejszd, Location: Canada

Posted: Sun Sep 21, 2008 3:30 pm
—

Therion wrote:

schrecken wrote:

The best setting is somewhere in between the two described. The crawl of death description/name came about because in older CC titles the soldiers did keep crawling under fire until the whole squad was dead.

It would be interesting to see what the Marines version of CC is using, as I would think they would insist on the most accurate model possible for the training they do....

#44: Author: Therion,

Posted: Sun Sep 21, 2008 7:24 pm
—

Tejszd wrote:

That's the AI problem. IMO the best option would be a "force move" command, where the squad would run until a morale failure.

#45: Re: Remake? Author: pvt_Grunt, Location: Melbourne, Australia

Posted: Sun Sep 21, 2008 8:21 pm
—

jscusmc69 wrote:

Marines NEVER retreat they ADVANCE in a different direction!!
jscusmc69 RVN

LOL - Well said!

There was a thread long ago about family members who served in WW2, some great stories came out

#46: Author: ANZAC_Tack, Location: Australia

Posted: Mon Sep 22, 2008 5:42 am
—
the last "beta" i noticed sherman tanks refusing to close on enemy infantry within approx 50m,issuing same line'under fire' style command, and sit there, reversing orders countermanded,if not blatentely refused! i lost only a handfull of tanks because of this in months/hundrens of hours playing, but still it happened.
like shrecky said, u have to adjust your game playing, i had to ajust masively when i went from CCIII to CCV,everything acted slightly different(it looked the same,some same maps from GJS where in CCIII WF mod,just all soldiers/tanks/guns approx 20% larger,sounds/explosions also changed. CCIII was more "rambo" but higher casualties.

in a previous beta they where 'baby girls', ducking on sight of any enemy,and doing the 'crawl of death' cowering back to whence they came(if within 30m) or to cover...sort of like a human would...but it was tweaked to just 'girlies' in last beta. i did grumble and moan about this,but accepted it was balanced in the end.

#47: Author: squadleader_id, Location: Soerabaja

Posted: Mon Sep 22, 2008 8:04 am
—
I hope at least the 'girlie soldiers' will crawl or retreat back to cover by themselves. Aborting movement and stopping in the open like in CoI and CCMT is worse than the 'crawl of death'.

#48: Author: Sapa,

Posted: Mon Sep 22, 2008 3:25 pm
—

squadleader_id wrote:

I hope at least the 'girlie soldiers' will crawl or retreat back to cover by themselves. Aborting movement and stopping in the open like in CoI and CCMT is worse than the 'crawl of death'.

It feels like this new change is destroying all of the joy with a great game update, but who am i to complain..i am just a swede Sad

Mats

#49: Author: Therion,

Posted: Mon Sep 22, 2008 5:25 pm
—
I wish someone would make a patch that woul remove it from CCMT...

#50: Author: Flamethrower,

Posted: Mon Sep 22, 2008 8:27 pm
—

squadleader_id wrote:

I hope at least the 'girlie soldiers' will crawl or retreat back to cover by themselves. Aborting movement and stopping in the open like in CoI and CCMT is worse than the 'crawl of death'.

I have to disagree, the feature that causes aborted movement, in general is caused by sending units to do something they shouldn't/wouldn't, and IMHO is an improvement - it makes gameplay more demanding and more realistic - command radius is more important than before

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

Posted: Mon Sep 22, 2008 8:37 pm
—

Quote:

I wish someone would make a patch that woul remove it from CCMT...

You can't patch the user.

It's simple... If you run out into the open waving your arms in the air then you're going to get shot out.

No body does that , except Russians with Komisars behind them... but my readings on that support the huge number of Russian POW's that went to ground rather than be shot ... I don't know why they did that, I'd choose death before dishonour.

#52: Author: Therion,

Posted: Mon Sep 22, 2008 9:48 pm
—
Again, there's a difference between going down under inaccurate enemy fire and between going down when a burst from enemy MG42 mows down a few soldiers.

In previous CC games, soldiers aborted movement when fire was too much. Now they abort movement under any fire.
Also, why the hell are vehicles stopping under fire? Humvee stopping under fire begs for an RPG and tanks stopping during overrunning because of fire are even worse.

#53: Author: flick,

Posted: Mon Sep 22, 2008 11:40 pm
—

squadleader_id wrote:

I hope at least the 'girlie soldiers' will crawl or retreat back to cover by themselves. Aborting movement and stopping in the open like in CoI and CCMT is worse than the 'crawl of death'.

Won't that mean you have to click new commands, over and over again, as you get fired upon?

#54: Author: squadleader_id, Location: Soerabaja

Posted: Tue Sep 23, 2008 12:02 am
—

Flamethrower wrote:

squadleader_id wrote:

I hope at least the 'girlie soldiers' will crawl or retreat back to cover by themselves. Aborting movement and stopping in the open like in CoI and CCMT is worse than the 'crawl of death'.

Well, aborting movement and retreating back to cover is realistic...but aborting movement all together so that you have to give 'girlie squads' new movement orders (sometimes over and over) is just bad game design and just adds unneeded micromanagement!
Any way you put it it's bad game design...and should never have been implemented in the first place.

#55: Author: squadleader_id, Location: Soerabaja

Posted: Tue Sep 23, 2008 12:06 am
—

flick wrote:

squadleader_id wrote:

I hope at least the 'girlie soldiers' will crawl or retreat back to cover by themselves. Aborting movement and stopping in the open like in CoI and CCMT is worse than the 'crawl of death'.

Won't that mean you have to click new commands, over and over again, as you get fired upon?

That's right! Exactly! Smile

Great game design, eh? And a really neat feature Wink

Why bother fixing the the enemy AI? Just make the game harder to play for players...make them have to click more and micromanage things...brilliant! Very Happy

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

Posted: Tue Sep 23, 2008 12:08 am
—
If your men get caught in the open they generally try and save their lives despite their commander ordering them to stand up and be shot.

If fired upon they will at first go to ground and then seek cover... usually successfully.... they will also retun fire !

If you want to keep ordering them to get up and run you may need to re-issue orders a couple of times.

This is ultimately a fault on the part of the player.

CC is not a FPS with 10 health points and health/powerups.

CC has a psychological model each of the soldiers conform to... you (the player) are not in remote control of each and every man like a FPS.

You get to issue orders and your men seek to carry them out..... if your orders are erroneous the men will disobey.

#57: Author: squadleader_id, Location: Soerabaja

Posted: Tue Sep 23, 2008 12:14 am
—

Therion wrote:

Again, there's a difference between going down under inaccurate enemy fire and between going down when a burst from enemy MG42 mows down a few soldiers.

In previous CC games, soldiers aborted movement when fire was too much. Now they abort movement under any fire.
Also, why the hell are vehicles stopping under fire? Humvee stopping under fire begs for an RPG and tanks stopping during overrunning because of fire are even worse.

Agreed...I posted something like this on this thread.
The old engine/version handles this more realistically...and makes for better gameplay.

With this new 'girlie soldier' enhancement the waypoints feature only works if you're manouvering units in friendly territory far away from the enemy. If you send units into enemy territory...grab your mouse tightly and herd them slowly forward with multiple mouse clicks... Very Happy

#58: Author: squadleader_id, Location: Soerabaja

Posted: Tue Sep 23, 2008 12:38 am
—

schrecken wrote:

If your men get caught in the open they generally try and save their lives despite their commander ordering them to stand up and be shot.

Squads/vehicles have inherent squad leaders.
In the old engine if the squad leader is wounded or killed...squads will abort order. More realistic and better for gameplay.
Squad leaders makes battlefield decisions too...they don't radio in to ask for new orders every time they get shot at Smile

Quote:

If fired upon they will at first go to ground and then seek cover... usually successfully.... they will also retun fire !

If you want to keep ordering them to get up and run you may need to re-issue orders a couple of times.

Like I said before...old engine does this too...but only if the fire is very intense or the squad/vehicle loose their squad leaders.

Quote:

This is ultimately a fault on the part of the player.

CC is not a FPS with 10 health points and health/powerups.

I think most of us know this...most of us played the CC series from the days of CC1. We know CC isn't Company of Heroes or Blitzkrieg (why use FPS analogy When there's plenty of mainstream WW2 RTS to compare CC to?) Wink

Quote:

CC has a psychological model each of the soldiers conform to... you (the player) are not in remote control of each and every man like a FPS.

You get to issue orders and your men seek to carry them out..... if your orders are erroneous the men will disobey.

Really?...I didn't know that! Cool features! /*sarcasm mode ON*/ Very Happy

#59: Author: Tejszd, Location: Canada

Posted: Tue Sep 23, 2008 12:45 am
—
I guess we'll have to see what the game is like once it is released....

#60: Author: QM, Location: Australia

Posted: Tue Sep 23, 2008 3:10 am
—

Tejszd wrote:

I guess we'll have to see what the game is like once it is released....

Well I for one cant wait to give it a run round the block a few times, looking forward to it.

#61: Author: IronStringbean,

Posted: Tue Sep 23, 2008 4:48 am
—

Flamethrower wrote:

squadleader_id wrote:

I hope at least the 'girlie soldiers' will crawl or retreat back to cover by themselves. Aborting movement and stopping in the open like in CoI and CCMT is worse than the 'crawl of death'.

I don't know about that. On the defense, I like to ambush the enemy and then fall back before the squad is over-run. Many many times in CoI, I'll order my squad out the back of a house only to have them drop to the ground and scramble back to the walls to get blasted to pieces--when safety is merely feet away as they can't get shot through the house. And it's just not because they don't want to stand up to get shot; sneak commands get canceled just as easily as move fast commands. That's my biggest gripe. I can shrug it off if they dont' want to stand up, but when they're "girlie squads" even when im ordering them to sneak out the back of house... it gets frustrating.

#62: Author: Flamethrower,

Posted: Tue Sep 23, 2008 11:29 am
—

squadleader_id wrote:

again - totally disagree - the feature adds challenge and realism
& not so much the need for micro management but for better management

autopilot command versus more interactivity? no contest

#63: Author: mooxe,

Posted: Tue Sep 23, 2008 12:32 pm
—

squadleader_id wrote:

That's right! Exactly! Smile

Great game design, eh? And a really neat feature Wink

Why bother fixing the the enemy AI? Just make the game harder to play for players...make them have to click more and micromanage things...brilliant! Very Happy

Most people play CC5 GC's with the initiative setting turned off. This helped your men from getting up and running away on thier own assaults thereby making you go and micromanage them back to thier hidey holes.

#64: Author: squadleader_id, Location: Soerabaja

Posted: Tue Sep 23, 2008 12:46 pm
—

mooxe wrote:

squadleader_id wrote:

That's right! Exactly! Smile

Great game design, eh? And a really neat feature Wink

Why bother fixing the the enemy AI? Just make the game harder to play for players...make them have to click more and micromanage things...brilliant! Very Happy

Okay...so I take it most people don't like micromanagement.
Well...initiative on or off...in the rereleases you have to micromanage just to get your troops moving in the right direction Smile

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

Posted: Tue Sep 23, 2008 12:51 pm
—
I just give them move orders

#66: Author: squadleader_id, Location: Soerabaja

Posted: Tue Sep 23, 2008 1:00 pm
—

Flamethrower wrote:

again - totally disagree - the feature adds challenge and realism
& not so much the need for micro management but for better management

autopilot command versus more interactivity? no contest

Yeah right...
How about vehicles aborting movement that Therion mentions...before you can click their next order (probably repeating the order 3 times)...the thing's already blown up...great feature! Very Happy

How about what I mentioned about the original CC design of squad leaders and how they lead the squad...what do they do in the new 'girlie soldiers' version? Just another soldier with a higher rank but no leadership function? Wink

Autopilot? Who mentions anything about autopilot??

Fact:
- Old CC...squad/vehicle aborts movement only when leader is KIA/WIA or enemy fire is too intense (probably resulting in some squad/crew members KIA/WIA). So there's a probability that a good order squad/vehicle might survive a hail of enemy bullets and still reach their destination (hey, the squad/vehicle got lucky...heavy enemy fire but not accurate).

- New CC...squad/vehicle aborts movement at the first sign of enemy activity.
No choice...player has to herd the squad/vehicle to safety or original movement destination...using multiple orders. This is more interactivity? And more realistic? Yup! No contest! Wink

#67: Girlie Soldiers Author: Flamethrower,

Posted: Tue Sep 23, 2008 2:16 pm
—
you definitely have this thing stuck in yer craw

unlike you I like the feature and think it is an improvement - but different strokes......maybe if it could be turned off for H2H it would allow the opponent a better opportunity to punish dumb moves instead of relying on the game to make the compensation, eh?

I sure wouldn't let this issue you prevent you from trying WaR....because then you would be missing something special

#68: Author: mooxe,

Posted: Tue Sep 23, 2008 2:30 pm
—
Well being the army, and in Afghanistan right now, I can tell you for sure we do not stop when we are fired upon. Stopping makes no sense. If fired upon while dismounted we return fire and advance to cover.

#69: Author: Sapa,

Posted: Tue Sep 23, 2008 2:50 pm
—
Been watching this thread and now i have to say something...Squadleader is right on all points!

I must confess Embarassed

i have played one of the betas and noticed from the beginning that stupid change in the game engine!

I cant see any use with it that you have to click 50 times on a unit that has come under fire. Same thing with the vehicles... Crying or Very sad

I suppose the BG;s will be large because you will lose a great number of tanks because if this.

I cant see what this could bring to CC in the positive way because the AI works the same way it always has done, even the stupid vehicle pathing is included..

This is a computer game and not real war if anyone thinks different :bye

I will probably buy this game anyway and sit at home on my own screaming off how in h-ll anyone can change the things mentioned above Wink

Mats

#70: Author: mooxe,

Posted: Tue Sep 23, 2008 3:05 pm
—
The redevelopers change things that already work fine, that havent been complained about very often or at all. Why?

There will never be any serious reviews of this game from experienced players. Just canned reviews by non-CC players who wont notice this as a change. The newbies wont notice the change either.

The silence will be interpreted as them being correct.

The game already handled this nicely, what exactly was the reasoning behind the change?

Last edited by mooxe on Tue Sep 23, 2008 3:17 pm; edited 1 time in total

#71: lips are zipped but.... Author: Flamethrower,

Posted: Tue Sep 23, 2008 3:08 pm
—
as a WaR beta tester I am prevented from saying anything specific, but...

....you are making a mountain out of a molehill

#72: Author: Flamethrower,

Posted: Tue Sep 23, 2008 3:09 pm
—

mooxe wrote:

Well being the army, and in Afghanistan right now, I can tell you for sure we do not stop when we are fired upon. Stopping makes no sense. If fired upon while dismounted we return fire and advance to cover.

@ mooxe - thank you deeply and sincerely for your service over there!

#73: Author: Therion,

Posted: Tue Sep 23, 2008 3:23 pm
—

mooxe wrote:

Could you write something more about it, please?
And more importantly about how does the real thing work in comparison to CCMT?

mooxe wrote:

There will never be any serious reviews of this game from experienced players. Just canned reviews by non-CC players who wont notice this as a change. The newbies wont notice the change either.

Unless some experienced players would write them and post on CC sites. I have a distinct impression that everything else would be nostalgic praise or "ZOMG it dosent hav 3D graphics and dosent requre newest komputer, it suxorz!!!".

#74: Re: lips are zipped but.... Author: Sapa,

Posted: Tue Sep 23, 2008 3:33 pm
—

Flamethrower wrote:

as a WaR beta tester I am prevented from saying anything specific, but...

....you are making a mountain out of a molehill

Thankyou! Now i will know that the stupid thing is removed and could play that we always have done and look forward to a GC with 64 maps and a easily modded game Wink

Mats

#75: Author: Sapa,

Posted: Tue Sep 23, 2008 3:41 pm
—

mooxe wrote:

The redevelopers change things that already work fine, that havent been complained about very often or at all. Why?

There will never be any serious reviews of this game from experienced players. Just canned reviews by non-CC players who wont notice this as a change. The newbies wont notice the change either.

The silence will be interpreted as them being correct.

The game already handled this nicely, what exactly was the reasoning behind the change?

I suppose that CoI and CCM wasnt the most sold games in the world but now when we are getting closer to what all cc modders wants (CC4 and CC5) well :wink2

Mats

#76: Author: Flamethrower,

Posted: Tue Sep 23, 2008 4:23 pm
—

mooxe wrote:

There will never be any serious reviews of this game from experienced players.

never? and why not? you have a great venue for such a review here on the homepage

open minded review by experienced players is just the ticket for feedback that will assist in upgrades & new products...so ready yer word processor and get the damn game, fire it up and see what you really think without yer mind made up in advance...jeeze already

it is constantly ignored that the core group involved in the development of WaR are "experienced players" (and experienced modders...jeeze already again) with a shared goal of making the best possible CC product- the ongoing Bullcrap about eviloverlord game developers is a real bore

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

Posted: Tue Sep 23, 2008 7:33 pm
—

Quote:

we return fire and advance to cover.

Thats what CC squads do

#78: Author: Therion,

Posted: Tue Sep 23, 2008 7:52 pm
—
He didn't say where that cover is Razz

#79: Author: flick,

Posted: Tue Sep 23, 2008 9:41 pm
—
It's up for debate, if this new tactic is realistic.

However, it sounds really really annoying, if we have to constantly re-click on the squad under fire.

Realism is very important, but it shouldn't get in the way of actually enjoying the game.

#80: Author: squadleader_id, Location: Soerabaja

Posted: Tue Sep 23, 2008 10:00 pm
—
I'm highly anticipating playing a lot of WAR (heck, I don't play too many other games 'religiously' outside the CC Series Very Happy

)...but I don't like the 'girlie soldiers' AI enhancement added to the rereleases.
Since CoI and CCMT were released with this enhancement...I'm pretty sure that WAR will feature 'girlie soldiers' as well (I haven't played the leaked beta)...but if not...awesome!

A number of people have asked why this change was implemented in the first place...and Shreck and co keep turning in circles Smile

Quite simply...why fix something that wasn't broken in the first place?
I understand that fixing the lame opponent AI is beyond the scope of the rereleases...but why ruin the game's original soldier/vehicle AI?

The fixed small screen 800x600 resolution (not stretchable) of the interface is lame...but that's only a cosmetic glitch...and most people won't care.
I just hope that WAR doesn't include the "impassable walls" elements coding in the maps (ala CCMT)...infantry pathing in CC is better than vehicles but it isn't perfect...making CC infantry enter buildings only through doors and windows is just madness. But map coding/elements can be easily modded. The 'girlie soldiers' AI on the other hand...that's hard to mod if not impossible Sad

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

Posted: Tue Sep 23, 2008 10:27 pm
—

Quote:

A number of people have asked why this change was implemented in the first place

I wasn't involved with the development of CoI apart from Mod Conversion, so I don't know about any design decisions... But I've been playing CC3 since 1999 as my favourite version of the Series and CoI is just better... I've had to adjust my gameplay a little and that mainly is to do with a more aggressive AI but basically it is the same.

Zero developement went into AI adjustments for CCMT .... it is a straight port of CCM and that is designed the way the Marines want it.

CCMT is a retail release of CCM because the "Fans" demanded it ... and we delivered.

Again, as with CoI I have had to adjust my game style slightly... but that mainly revolves around the new features.

1. Bigger Maps
2. Mounting vehicles.
3. Deadlier weaponry of the modern era
4. Multiple airstrikes and support missions
5. etc.

But still , basically, it is the same.

#82: Author: squadleader_id, Location: Soerabaja

Posted: Tue Sep 23, 2008 10:42 pm
—
^
I like this answer better than your previous ones, Schreckie...thanks!
I guess we'll all have to get used to playing with 'girlie soldiers', eh? Wink

#83: Author: Nomada_Firefox,

Posted: Wed Sep 24, 2008 2:00 am
—
If the new version has all these new things, it will be fantastic, I can not wait more, I have been waiting some as this for years. Razz

I think that this game will be as a very good CC5 on the Ardennes. Of course, taking a a look on info, I´m thinking on a Ardennes mod on this new CC4. I have all the stuff ready for this. Wink

#84: Author: Flamethrower,

Posted: Wed Sep 24, 2008 7:39 pm
—

squadleader_id wrote:

^
I guess we'll all have to get used to playing with 'girlie soldiers', eh? Wink

[img]

[/img]

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

Posted: Wed Sep 24, 2008 11:21 pm
—
[quote]I guess we'll all have to get used to playing with 'girlie soldiers', eh?[code]

#86: Author: squadleader_id, Location: Soerabaja

Posted: Thu Sep 25, 2008 12:52 am
—

#87: Author: Cpt_Rio, Location: Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

Posted: Thu Sep 25, 2008 12:58 am
—
Pls guys, Do we have a chance for a release till this friday?

Im dying here!!!

#88: Author: Nomada_Firefox,

Posted: Fri Sep 26, 2008 8:40 am
—
One question schrecken, have they added the more of 1vs1 on multiplayer? have it the mount on vehicle option?

Of course the changes that I have read here, they are fantastic.

And yes people wants a better IA, I do not play too vs IA but many people yes.

#89: how can i get this version and when its release? Author: sturmjaeger,

Posted: Mon Sep 29, 2008 9:13 am
—
ho Very Happy

w can i get this version and when its release?

#90: Author: sturmjaeger,

Posted: Mon Sep 29, 2008 9:26 am
—
when is release, hope before cristmass!!

#91: Author: Flamethrower,

Posted: Mon Sep 29, 2008 9:05 pm
—
check this out!

http://www.wargamer.com/article/2576/close-combat-wacht-am-rhein-graphics-feature

#92: Author: squadleader_id, Location: Soerabaja

Posted: Mon Sep 29, 2008 10:12 pm
—
Very nice vehicle and plane graphics! Thumbs up to the artists!
A lot better than the original CC4 graphics...more in the vein of the awesome graphics in TT's VetBOB.

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

Posted: Mon Sep 29, 2008 10:24 pm
—

Quote:

more in the vein of the awesome graphics in TT's VetBOB

I'll have to take a look at them one day.

#94: Author: squadleader_id, Location: Soerabaja

Posted: Mon Sep 29, 2008 10:36 pm
—

schrecken wrote:

Quote:

more in the vein of the awesome graphics in TT's VetBOB

I'll have to take a look at them one day.

Really? You haven't played CC4 VeteranBoB 1.13? Strange...
VetBoB is to CC4 probably like RR to CC3.
You should definitely take a look...maybe a long look Smile

The new WAR vehicle graphics are on par with VetBoB...but IMO VetBoB's custom unit/team graphics and customized BG screen is still superior to WAR by far.
The only thing I don't really like about VetBoB is the lethal weapons to make the AI super tougher...making the single player game very-very tough...but somewhat unrealistic.

#95: Author: squadleader_id, Location: Soerabaja

Posted: Mon Sep 29, 2008 11:04 pm
—
New WAR tank/vehicle graphics from the wargamer preview:

http://www.closecombatseries.net/CCS/modules.php?name=coppermine&file=displayimagepopup&pid=3997&fullsize=1

CC4 VeteranBoB 1.13 tank/vehicle graphics:

http://www.closecombatseries.net/CCS/modules.php?name=coppermine&file=displayimagepopup&pid=3998&fullsize=1

#96: Author: squadleader_id, Location: Soerabaja

Posted: Mon Sep 29, 2008 11:23 pm
—
Here's the original CC4 tanks/vehicle graphics for comparison...plain generic looking paint jobs and toy-like models...but notice the animation effects for vehicle tilting (and bobbing when moving) according to terrain and elevation changes...these animation sequence are missing in mods (and looks like they're also missing in WAR...CMIIW) when tanks.azp graphics are rebuilt using modding tools.

http://www.closecombatseries.net/CCS/modules.php?name=coppermine&file=displayimagepopup&pid=3999&fullsize=1

#97: Author: Pzt_Serk,

Posted: Mon Sep 29, 2008 11:34 pm
—
And looking at the mini-map, it appears maps are much larger than original CCIV.

Lets hope there will be no more "Baugnez's 100 meters duels with 10 tanks" Smile

Schrecken, can you confirm that even the original CCIV map have been enlarged?

Thanks

Last edited by Pzt_Serk on Mon Sep 29, 2008 11:37 pm; edited 3 times in total

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

Posted: Mon Sep 29, 2008 11:34 pm
—
Started playing vetbob... it had soldiers that wouldn't go in buildings... I put it away.

Quote:

the lethal weapons to make the AI super tougher

and that.

and that the teams walked over the top of the misty maps

Last edited by schrecken on Mon Sep 29, 2008 11:42 pm; edited 1 time in total

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

Posted: Mon Sep 29, 2008 11:40 pm
—
The largest map is 2880 x 2880

The smallest is 1680 x 1440

And 62 maps in between, so should cater for all tastes and styles

#100: Author: squadleader_id, Location: Soerabaja

Posted: Tue Sep 30, 2008 12:00 am
—

schrecken wrote:

Started playing vetbob... it had soldiers that wouldn't go in buildings... I put it away.

You prolly got the wrong Vetmod installed (ie: playing as Americans with the German Vetmod adbs). Sure, enemy infantry are coded as vehicles...standard procedure to make them more aggressive in Vetmods.

Infantry coded as vehicles only become a problem in urban maps with large buildings...for Normandy and Ardennes villages and towns...not a problem.

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

Posted: Tue Sep 30, 2008 12:39 am
—
and in CC4 you can't pick your teams... gave it away pretty quick.

Too many -ve's when there were so many good ones available.

#102: Author: squadleader_id, Location: Soerabaja

Posted: Tue Sep 30, 2008 3:45 am
—

schrecken wrote:

and in CC4 you can't pick your teams... gave it away pretty quick.

Too many -ve's when there were so many good ones available.

I thought there's an option for "locked BGs" in WAR...to cater for CC4 purists.

CC4 needs a huge update...but TT's VetBoB already gave CC4 a huge graphic makeover (great looking vehicles, detailed soldier uniform colors, awesome customized team graphics etc). Gameplay-wise...VetBoB's beefed up AI teams and weapons are bordering on overkill...

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

Posted: Tue Sep 30, 2008 4:13 am
—
There's something special for the purists.

When I say what I like, that's all it is my personal preference.

Strategy3tactics aren't making a game for me but for everyone (within reason), so the features incorporated will reflect the wide appeal of the game.

#104: Author: mooxe,

Posted: Tue Sep 30, 2008 5:36 am
—
Its a shame the vehicles wont have the proper graphics, and many of the buildings wont either. They are very important features when determining how and when to shoot.

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

Posted: Tue Sep 30, 2008 5:50 am
—
I don't think the dinky rock and rolling will be missed by most people.

I actually found it annoying that it didn't correspond to the type of terrain the vehicle was driving over.

So for me, it's a good thing.

Others won't care.

Some will be mildly annoyed.

Others will rant and rave.

#106: Author: squadleader_id, Location: Soerabaja

Posted: Tue Sep 30, 2008 7:20 am
—
Well...if the original animations were incorrect...fix them Wink

Simpler to just remove them right?
Or maybe lack of tools to reproduce the animation sequence? Very Happy

The tilting and bobbing animation effects add depth to the game (2D top down view maps)...just like shadows.

#107: Author: mooxe,

Posted: Tue Sep 30, 2008 7:43 am
—
Its simplest to dimiss criticism and do whats easiest. I know the job is difficult and Matrix or S3T does not want or cant put the extra time and money into it.

I don't mind that the mods don't have this feature either, but mods are generally done by a very small number of people who work for nothing. Youd think that this rerelease, being done by an actual games company would feature everything thats good from previous versions, plus all the new features from CCM and CCMT.

Yeah theres alot of great new campaign features that you have to edit via the text file but cant change via the games GUI. (not user friendly btw)

Is this just CC4 with a bunch of hacked in unpolished features with some new interface graphics or what?

#108: Author: squadleader_id, Location: Soerabaja

Posted: Tue Sep 30, 2008 8:12 am
—
Shrieckie's already fed up with my 'questioning' posts at CSO...so I guess he'll be here posting the same thing soon Very Happy

Keep up the great work, S3T! /*sarcasm mode on*/

Note: just because I'm nitpicking WAR and S3T's work...now I'm considered rude Wink

Okay, here's a recap of my nitpicks (so far):
- Girlie Soldiers AI (TM)
- Interface Screens locked to small box 800x600
- New Vehicle graphics missing tilt animation, the models and paintjobs are great...but comparable to TT's VetBoB smaller tanks graphics.
- Unit/Team Graphics in the interface screens using the old toy soldiers look...not upgraded to VetBoB standards...or CCMT standards for that matter.

#109: Author: flick,

Posted: Tue Sep 30, 2008 10:20 am
—
Very nice camo schemes.

Having PJ post here reminds me (since he's improved the AI on his mods)

if we can we expect the same on WAR? I know we talked about it before, but the game was still being tested.

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

Posted: Tue Sep 30, 2008 10:24 am
—
"they have this, almost perfect, against all odds feeling... can't really put my finger on it"

How does PJ's mods play as the Russians?

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

Posted: Tue Sep 30, 2008 10:28 am
—

Quote:

and many of the buildings wont either

Heh??

#112: Author: squadman45,

Posted: Tue Sep 30, 2008 11:23 am
—
Well, girl soldiers isnt realistic, think if you lauch a squad to the assault of a building and a ambush enemy unit in the building fire at... 30-40 meters and your troops stop.... well, they are DEAD MEN, i think if they have a good sarge they go to CLOSE COMBAT ummmm Close Combat the name sound me....

I think that girl soldiers are a way to no update AI because if they dont need you to know what they need to do they are forced to think, i see infantry and tanks are more "stupid" than in original series because they wait orders ALLWAYS and never take the iniciative.

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

Posted: Tue Sep 30, 2008 12:09 pm
—

Quote:

they wait orders ALLWAYS and never take the iniciative.

No they don't

#114: Author: flick,

Posted: Tue Sep 30, 2008 12:45 pm
—
I've not played PJ's new SDK mod yet, I can't wait mind.

#115: Author: squadman45,

Posted: Tue Sep 30, 2008 1:09 pm
—
eeeee if troops falls in a ambuscade what type of countermeasures take they??? crazy minute? close combat? retreat? or search cover? as i can read units with waypoints STOPS when find enemy and i prefer loss 1 soldier but taking a tactical position.

More cliks for the same action isnt made the game more difficult, is made a stupid game.

#116: Author: Flamethrower,

Posted: Tue Sep 30, 2008 5:37 pm
—

squadman45 wrote:

More cliks for the same action isnt made the game more difficult, is made a stupid game.

stupid is as stupid does.....

apparently there are some who would prefer units to be automatons

in hundreds of hours of testing & playing COI (and testing WaR) I have never been frustrated by reactivity of units to enemy fire, and rarely, if ever, has it prevented me from achieving an objective...it adds realism and challenge to the game

I better try some genuine bonehead moves and see if that is what this stream of bullcrap is about

#117: Author: squadman45,

Posted: Tue Sep 30, 2008 6:26 pm
—
Well, automatize microgestion isn´t a bad thing, for example if i give to a MG team the order DEFEND i want it shoot to ALL infantry units changing objetive (supression role) no do hundreds of cliks and focusing my attetion in one unit (is one of the things that made IMPOSIBLE more than the 15 units in CC) if the game have an AI is for take decisions and minimize the human factor in microgestion, CC is a tactical game where i can give orders to squads and i want to see soldiers working as soldiers with suboficials working as suboficials, whe are in 2008 not in 1998 and we want some AI and if soldiers need me because tanks advance with the rear to the enemy....

I like microgestion but NO in a RTS i have my wargames with their turns and hexagons.

#118: Author: Flamethrower,

Posted: Tue Sep 30, 2008 7:57 pm
—
microgestion?

do you mean.......

microstation
macrocystis
micro saint
microcentrum
microcentury
microcosmic
microcoustic
microglia
microsecond
microseism
microseismic
microslop
microsthene
macrocephalon
macrocosmic
macroglia
macroglossia
macrognathic
micracoustic
micraster
micro chip
micro-cook
micro-geology
microcephaly
microchip
microcline
micrococci
microcosm
microcosmical
microcrith
microcyte
microgauss
microgram
microgramma
micrograph
micrographic
micrography
microkernel
microscope
microscopial
microscopic
microscopist
microscopium
microscopy
microseme
microserf
microsoft
microsoft iis
microsomal
microsome
microsorium
microspore
microsporic
microsthenic
microstomus
microstrobos
micros~1
microzoa
misreckon
misrecollection
macro sap
macrocephaly
macrocheira
macrocosm
macrocyte
macrograph
macrography
macroscopic
macrospore
macrosporic
macrozamia
microcephalic
microcephalous
microcephalus
microcircuit
micrococcal
micrococcus
microcode
microcopy
microcoulomb
microcytosis
microgliacyte
micrognuemacs
microscopal
microscopical
microseismology
microsoft word
microsporidian
microsporum
microsurgery
microzoospore
microzyme
mischristen
misreceive
misrecite
misworship

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

Posted: Tue Sep 30, 2008 8:00 pm
—

Quote:

MG team the order DEFEND i want it shoot to ALL infantry units changing objetive (supression role)

That is exactly what it does

Quote:

if troops falls in a ambuscade what type of countermeasures take they??? crazy minute? close combat? retreat? or search cover?

The teams decide whether to keep running or drop and return fire and seek cover, it depends on the circumstances.

There is no micromanagement

There can be instances of a lot of clicking if you insist on running your men into suicidal positions and want to keep commanding them to run headlong into a machine gun. They will try and save their lives despite you trying to kill them.

#120: Author: squadleader_id, Location: Soerabaja

Posted: Tue Sep 30, 2008 9:28 pm
—

schrecken wrote:

There is no micromanagement

Yes there is...a lot more than the original series Smile

Quote:

There can be instances of a lot of clicking if you insist on running your men into suicidal positions and want to keep commanding them to run headlong into a machine gun. They will try and save their lives despite you trying to kill them.

Girlie Soldiers (TM) also stop moving when ordered to sneak away to the back of the building (or into cover) to avoid enemy fire. By the 4th or 5th clicks...they're prolly all blown up anyway...then even if you keep clicking they won't budge anymore...cause the girls are KIA Very Happy

#121: Author: squadleader_id, Location: Soerabaja

Posted: Tue Sep 30, 2008 9:35 pm
—

squadman45 wrote:

I like microgestion but NO in a RTS i have my wargames with their turns and hexagons.

Exactly!
Since CC is an RTS (with no pause while issuing order feature like Blitzkrieg or Theatre of War)...adding micromanagement is not a good choice.
And since the old system without Girlie Soldiers (TM) works almost flawlessly...
Rolling Eyes

#122: Author: squadman45,

Posted: Wed Oct 01, 2008 8:52 am
—
microgestion = micromanegement, sorry for my bad english.

schrecken, when i see a MG team doing supression fire on their own i believe it and about Rambo soldiers... well, i dont say i send soldiers to the death and want they made a banzai charge, i only say that if units ALLWAYS try to save their lives game could be a little :zzz and we cant see medals in table of results, sometimes try to save your life is like suicide (you search cover outside a house when you are shooted from 2nd floor??? i play DoD and can say is better do an assault than wait behind a cover.).

Well, micromanegement in CC could be frustrating because CC isnt a Combat Mission where you can give orders taking your time, if you think micromanegement is good why dont put more than 15 units on the battlefield??? think if is hard command 15 units now if you increase the number of clicks per action......... Rolling Eyes

i want give orders to 2-3 squads and at least leave alone 1 minute and dont find it dead when i returns or see they where i dont want.

#123: Author: ANZAC_Tack, Location: Australia

Posted: Wed Oct 01, 2008 8:52 am
—
I played CoI again for a few hours last night, and CCMT, and yes its a bit infuriating reissuing orders, but at least they live longer.

example.
cc3 original, if u sent 12 inf teams running deep into enemy territory, if ambushed, u would loose 1/2 if u didnt cancell orders. CoI it just dosent happen. they live, yes for 'ladder' matches it sucks, objectives not reached because of 1 sniper or morter round, but they live.

ill post a few dozen 'girly soldiers' in another post...just for fun.

#124: Author: squadman45,

Posted: Wed Oct 01, 2008 8:59 am
—
Anzac, increase unit ability to survive dont means they allways abort your orders, for me is made more important command soldiers, a good sarge kick some assholes because EY they are soldiers and have orders (if soldiers allways abort i want a option called "Patton´s Fury" to punish bad soldiers hehehe) but sarge loves their little bastards and if fire is to heavy he take other actions.

#125: Author: YetAnotherAccount,

Posted: Wed Oct 01, 2008 8:15 pm
—
Does anyone know if they fixed the bug that when a BG is out of supply and loses squads in a fight, they aren't ever actually lost? (sorry if this has been covered I couldn't find any reference).

That bug was a real PITA on CC5, a BG in a strong defensive position, cut off and surrounded, with low ammo, could still last for ages as long as it wasn't routed in a fight, because it never actually lost any squads/vehicles (so a heavy tank BG could hold on for a long time, or a decent inf in a castle). It meant we had to do our own manual force pools for any BG that had taken losses while out of supply.

Also a BG that suffered a forced disband didn't lose any of its force pool, which it should have according to the manual.

What about the buildings bug where some buildings had spots where soldiers could never be killed?

The bugs are coming back to me now... at the end of a tense fight with both sides having low morale, the game would often crash, losing the battle result. Is that resolved?

There was another bug where sometimes BGs moving into a new map would for some reason take half of the map... and sometimes on the wrong side of the Front...!

Anyway this new version sounds great, I am very happy that someone has updated Close Combat, I have not played it for years now but it is still the best WW2 combat wargame... it makes modern attempts seem like arcade games IMO (eg sudden strike, band of brothers, etc etc).

#126: Author: Nomada_Firefox,

Posted: Thu Oct 02, 2008 7:36 am
—

YetAnotherAccount wrote:

Does anyone know if they fixed the bug that when a BG is out of supply and loses squads in a fight, they aren't ever actually lost? (sorry if this has been covered I couldn't find any reference).

That bug was a real PITA on CC5, a BG in a strong defensive position, cut off and surrounded, with low ammo, could still last for ages as long as it wasn't routed in a fight, because it never actually lost any squads/vehicles (so a heavy tank BG could hold on for a long time, or a decent inf in a castle). It meant we had to do our own manual force pools for any BG that had taken losses while out of supply.

Also a BG that suffered a forced disband didn't lose any of its force pool, which it should have according to the manual.

What about the buildings bug where some buildings had spots where soldiers could never be killed?

The bugs are coming back to me now... at the end of a tense fight with both sides having low morale, the game would often crash, losing the battle result. Is that resolved?

There was another bug where sometimes BGs moving into a new map would for some reason take half of the map... and sometimes on the wrong side of the Front...!

Anyway this new version sounds great, I am very happy that someone has updated Close Combat, I have not played it for years now but it is still the best WW2 combat wargame... it makes modern attempts seem like arcade games IMO (eg sudden strike, band of brothers, etc etc).

This line from wargamer preview answer to many of this.

Quote:

Battlegroups can now be recycled if disbanded or never come back to game play.
A "retreat" function has been added to the strategic system so that instead of simply disbanding 100% of the time a unit might retreat to a friendly unoccupied map, depending on the outcome of the battle.

#127: Author: flick,

Posted: Wed Oct 08, 2008 8:47 pm
—

schrecken wrote:

"they have this, almost perfect, against all odds feeling... can't really put my finger on it"

How does PJ's mods play as the Russians?

Sorry, forgot to answer this properly..since PJ has improved the AI (dunno how much by)in his mods, is it safe to say that the AI is improved for WAR?

Sorry to keep harping on, but if PJ can do it, surely the official creators can?

Thanks x

#128: Author: CSO_Linebacker,

Posted: Wed Oct 08, 2008 11:39 pm
—

flick wrote:

schrecken wrote:

"they have this, almost perfect, against all odds feeling... can't really put my finger on it"

How does PJ's mods play as the Russians?

Any of the viewed improvements in the AI of any mods are simply a manipulation of data that can have/and does ramifications on other units and in other parts of the engine. The only legitimate way to truly improve the AI across the scope of all units, is to make changes within the exe. You can bet they've done what they can

#129: Author: RISadler, Location: Mosselbaai, Suid-Afrika

Posted: Fri Oct 24, 2008 11:10 am
—
About these "Girlie Soldiers" - Is this not linked to the experience of the troops? Let me explain: An inexperienced soldier will act different than a veteran, and will go to ground very fast whenever there is fire in his direction, until such time as he learns (experience) to differentiate between sporadic fire and aimed shots.

I am busy playing the Meuse Crossing mod and, not to be disrespectedful, but those French soldiers are a bunch of sissies. I had a Beobachter team pinned with rifle and mortar; they were panicking; I ordered a Tromblon team to rush... they never made it, because they went to ground each time the enemy was sighted.

#130: Author: Nomada_Firefox,

Posted: Fri Oct 24, 2008 12:36 pm
—

Quote:

About these "Girlie Soldiers"

All this story from girl soldiers is only a bad comment from people who have not played WAR.

#131: Author: AT_Stalky,

Posted: Fri Oct 24, 2008 12:41 pm
—
Na, its in CCMT to, and we talked to them who played the leaked beta.
And MOST importent of all, Schrecky has fiersly defended the girly soldier in public after it been critisised (saying the "girly soldier" enhancement is good, and its realistic and will not be removed), so ITS in that way ALSO CONFERMED FROM THE TEAM LEADER OF THE WaR production, that this atleast WAS in the War before.. So, NO its not just a "Story"... Its genuine consernes...

Seeing what Linebacker NOW have said, one may belive the developer has turned down the girly thing, if so its v good. And I aplaud it.

#132: Author: squadleader_id, Location: Soerabaja

Posted: Fri Oct 24, 2008 1:26 pm
—

Nomada_Firefox wrote:

Quote:

About these "Girlie Soldiers"

All this story from girl soldiers is only a bad comment from people who have not played WAR.

Have you played CoI and CCMT?? Firefox, I know you even started to make a WW2 mod for CCMT...but did you actually play some CCMT (more than a few quick test battles)? The girlie soldiers AI are there...I dunno how you could have missed "the girls" considering you're a veteran CC fan Wink

I think AT_Stalky summed it up well in the post above Smile

#133: Author: CSO_Linebacker,

Posted: Fri Oct 24, 2008 2:00 pm
—

AT_Stalky wrote:

Na, its in CCMT to, and we talked to them who played the leaked beta.
And MOST importent of all, Schrecky has fiersly defended the girly soldier in public after it been critisised (saying the "girly soldier" enhancement is good, and its realistic and will not be removed), so ITS in that way ALSO CONFERMED FROM THE TEAM LEADER OF THE WaR production, that this atleast WAS in the War before.. So, NO its not just a "Story"... Its genuine consernes...

I think that you have misinterpreted schecks comments. While your so-called "girly soldier" action may in fact be more realistic, nowhere has there been an outright code change, or enhancement as you call it, to make the AI act this way. You mention COI and CCMT having this...because they are built on the same engine...CC3. You seem to be missing my message, that if you liked soldier modeling in CC5...which you say was the best (although most people in these forums will disagree with you), then WAR should be at least that good, because the CC5 engine was the starting point, and nothing was done to the code to make the AI less aggressive.

Of course, that all being said...if you want to have a more arcade game-like experience and always have your soldiers do what you want, just click "Always Obey Orders"

#134: Author: Therion,

Posted: Fri Oct 24, 2008 3:24 pm
—
It would be nice if there was a more customisable AI in CC with different mentalities for different units, ranging from WWI-style marching into MG fire "like all Real Men do" to seeking cover after first shot.

Personally, I've read/heard of some creepy stuff like Chinese soldiers in KW marching into quad HMG fire and about British commandos in WWII (IIRC it was after capturing the Pegasus bridge) casually marching through a bridge under sniper fire and without helmets just to show their contempt for death.
It would be cool if such attitudes could be shown in CC.

#135: Author: AT_Stalky,

Posted: Fri Oct 24, 2008 4:16 pm
—

CSO_Linebacker wrote:

So lets see, you are arguing that the new "girly thing" is more realistic, but at the same time you say nothing has been shanged? okay....

CSO_Linebacker wrote:

You mention COI and CCMT having this...

Noware have I said COI... I dont play COI...

CSO_Linebacker wrote:

and nothing was done to the code to make the AI less aggressive.

Hmmm? Noware have I said that the AI is less agressive, I have said the soldiers go to ground to easy, and vehicles stop move order as they are shot at... Its not the same thing......

CSO_Linebacker wrote:

Of course, that all being said...if you want to have a more arcade game-like experience and always have your soldiers do what you want, just click "Always Obey Orders"

Hm...
No, I just say that whats MADE the CC SERIES so good and made it last for so many years is JUST the soldier behaviour, that is the single most important thing for this game that make it so much better then all other games. So why change it for the worse?

So I don’t want the “girly soldier” enhancement, witch is more realistic you argues, though nothing has been changed..? So if I don’t like it, you tell me I can use “always Obay orders” in WaR, but I just simply say I want the old soldier behaviour setting from CC5 in WaR?

I just hoped you listend to feedback, but nevermind.

(edit: fixed a written thing)

Last edited by AT_Stalky on Fri Oct 24, 2008 4:56 pm; edited 2 times in total

#136: Author: squadleader_id, Location: Soerabaja

Posted: Fri Oct 24, 2008 4:19 pm
—

CSO_Linebacker wrote:

Shreck's comments were pretty specific.
What he described was "girlie soldiers" AI just like CoI and CCMT.
Shreck's post about the soldier AI was very different to what you posted...Shreck even questioned our playing/fighting tactics Wink

CCMT was built from CC3? I always thought it was CC5 based but stripped of campaigns features.

And AFAIK you can never achieve arcade-like game experience from CC...even if you click "Always Obey Orders"...they still won't 'march into fire' like C&C (or fill blanks with most mainstream RTS title) soldiers.

#137: Author: AT_Stalky,

Posted: Fri Oct 24, 2008 4:23 pm
—

squadleader_id wrote:

So true ID,
and Linebacker, if you whant to, I can post qoutes from all shreckes "colourefull" expression and agrues in this regard.

#138: Author: Therion,

Posted: Fri Oct 24, 2008 4:37 pm
—
I wonder about one thing - is it better to be a mobile target or immobile target when there's no cover available?

#139: Author: squadleader_id, Location: Soerabaja

Posted: Fri Oct 24, 2008 4:40 pm
—
Okay...one more time (because every time I brought this up, no response Very Happy

)

- Old CC AI:
Soldiers abort movement (and go to ground, sometimes crawling back to cover, sometimes performing the famous crawl of death), Vehicles abort movement (and stop in their tracks) only under certain conditions (and most people would agree that they're quite realistic AI behavior): leader KIA/WIA, multiple soldier/crew casualties, heavy enemy fire, pinned down.

- New CC AI AKA "Girlie Soldiers":
Soldiers abort movement (and go to ground, sometimes crawling back to cover), Vehicles abort movement (and stop in their tracks) when fired upon or when they see the enemy.
Featured in CoI and CCMT.

Edit: It's pretty obvious which AI is more realistic...not to mention that the new girlie AI introduces uneeded micromanagent in the form of repeated clicking to reissue orders over and over. Also...when vehicles stop...their waypoints (needed to compensate for poor vehicle pathing) are gone also.

I'm hoping that WAR is using the old CC AI (at least from Linebacker's post about AB men rushing 200m across open ground under fire).
But based on Shreck's posts...definitely girlie soldier AI was used Wink

#140: Author: AT_Stalky,

Posted: Fri Oct 24, 2008 4:49 pm
—
@ Theiron,
Movement is protection, moving object is v hart to hit, speed is important as speed/time-exposed is a major factor give advantage/disadvantage to either you/enemy. If you use speed right, your in an advantage, and can reach enemy before he can regroup or call up ppl, if you give the enemy the time, he will use that to call up his force and regroup his force and pick you of one by one.
That’s why Atomics CC series soldier modelling has been so successful. Isnt it the whole base of the CC success?, or is it CCs grapix we like so much?
Why change the soldier modeling? ?

#141: Author: squadleader_id, Location: Soerabaja

Posted: Fri Oct 24, 2008 4:57 pm
—

AT_Stalky wrote:

...or is it CCs grapix we like so much?

Hey! I love the CC Graphics...especially the maps...and top down view vehicles...and the little soldiers Very Happy

Those 3D stuff just look too rendered and fake Wink

#142: Author: CSO_Linebacker,

Posted: Fri Oct 24, 2008 5:01 pm
—

Therion wrote:

I wonder about one thing - is it better to be a mobile target or immobile target when there's no cover available?

I must be speaking martian-talk so I give up....you may see it in the game...although I may have to start questioning the way you play, because I do not have trouble with my soldiers going to ground when they see the eenemy or have a spitwad shot at them.

Yes, it is in fact more true to life for a soldier to go to ground when fired on. I've already said it 2 or more times in here...which is why I think that I must be speaking martian-talk...one thing that former infantry leaders seem to agree on, is that it is very hard to teach a soldier to keep moving forward when under fire. Their natural instinct is to hit the dirt. Yes, it may not be the better, or smarter thing to do, but it is what happens.

Yes RISadler, troop experience, morale, fatigue, command radius all have a factor in the behavior of your soldiers.

Get it through your head, there was no 'girlie soldier enhancement' as you say...I went through over 1000 emails, and a years worth of development forums, and the only mention of soldier activity...over the base CC5 engine behavior...was asking if there was a way to make them more aggressive and address a complaint about going to ground to easy...nothing about making a change to make them go to ground even easier.

And yes, I have to say 'your girlie thing' may be more true to life, but I don't have this problem when I play...and yes, I am saying that any perceived change on your part is not because of any specific code changes to make them act that way.

The fact that the community still thinks that CCM and CCMT were built from CC5, shows that there is just too much misinformation going around.

So I officially give up trying to explain anything...at least until I learn english

#143: Author: squadleader_id, Location: Soerabaja

Posted: Fri Oct 24, 2008 5:20 pm
—

CSO_Linebacker wrote:

So I officially give up trying to explain anything...at least until I learn english

I think I also have to give up bringing up how the old AI system handles "abort movement" situations compared to the CoI/CCMT AI.

But if WAR is using the base CC5 engine behavior...then we don't have to argue about "girlie soldiers" Wink

#144: Author: Pzt_Serk,

Posted: Fri Oct 24, 2008 7:48 pm
—

squadleader_id wrote:

CSO_Linebacker wrote:

So I officially give up trying to explain anything...at least until I learn english

I think I also have to give up bringing up how the old AI system handles "abort movement" situations compared to the CoI/CCMT AI.

Great, so from now on, maybe we will start talking about something else. Your point has been made and I'm sure many people working on WaR's success considered it and decided to take the decison that has been taken. There are goods points for your position as there are good points for the other.

I did play COI for a while and did not find that soldier Ai to be a bugger. Maybe because our tactics are differents.

Grow up, move on and adapt as they say...

I'm glad that this discussion is over Smile

#145: Author: RISadler, Location: Mosselbaai, Suid-Afrika

Posted: Fri Oct 24, 2008 8:14 pm
—
CSO_Linebacker, thanks for the clarification. Like I said, at the moment I'm playing the CC5 Meuse Crossing mod as the French and found you really have to molly-coddle your troops in the beginning. When they have a bit more experience they become more aggressive, but given the amount of time and effort spent to get them there, I don't feel like wasting them on mad rushes and starting over.

The fact that the "girliness" is linked to experience, morale, etc. is as it should be and soldiers going to ground and aborting movement when under fire is very realistic. How this translates to the game I'll comment on when WAR is released. (I never liked CC3, so didn't buy COI.)

I don't think that by making the soldiers more brave will make the AI more aggressive or more difficult to beat. The AI loses because of its poor tactical strategy and not the performance of its soldiers.

#146: Author: Therion,

Posted: Fri Oct 24, 2008 9:23 pm
—
What about movement of vehicles? While I didn't have much problems with soldiers aborting their movement under fire (except for fanatical troops, like in examples I mentioned before and maybe short dashes towards cover.), I found vehicles doing that extremely annoying, especially, when it resulted in them being hit and destroyed.

Speaking of aborting movement - I often get soldiers stuck in close combat, both in CC4 and CCMT. They run into enemy squad and abort movement and instead of starting "firing" their bayonets they just get stuck and any attempt to move them results in abort the movement because of attack thing despite that they aren't attacked - they can get stuck for minutes - it's very frustrating because I sometimes lose whole squads due to this bug, or they simply get stuck and get eliminated from combat despite that all the soldiers are alive. Also, squads can get *pinned down* by bayonet attacks, which sounds like they are treated just like firearms.
The whole close combat in CC series is a mess and it looks like nobody ever cared to fix it.

#147: Author: squadleader_id, Location: Soerabaja

Posted: Fri Oct 24, 2008 11:22 pm
—
^^^
Aww no, Therion...here we go again Wink

#148: Author: squadleader_id, Location: Soerabaja

Posted: Fri Oct 24, 2008 11:33 pm
—

Pzt_Serk wrote:

I did play COI for a while and did not find that soldier Ai to be a bugger. Maybe because our tactics are differents.

Grow up, move on and adapt as they say...

Did you play CC3 too?
Just grow up, move on and adapt...be a good boy and don't ask questions Wink

Quote:

I'm glad that this discussion is over Smile

Oops...I forgot that the discussion is over...forget about it then Very Happy

Close Combat Series -> Close Combat Wacht am Rhein

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

Page 1 of 1