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]\]
Goto page : Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 Next :| |:
Close Combat Series -> Close Combat Wacht am Rhein

#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 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

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:

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.

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

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, 5, 6, 7, 8 Next :| |: Page 4 of 8