Close Combat Series :: View topic - No 3D soldier houses vehices etc.

through

[^/[Print]\]

Close Combat Series -> Close Combat Wacht am Rhein

#1: No 3D soldier houses vehices etc. Author: Nomada_Firefox,

Posted: Fri Nov 14, 2008 12:51 pm
—
Admin (stalky) info: I have splited thease post that are very intresting and is all about CC in 3D, I here split em into a this own thread. Orginaly they came from here: http://www.closecombatseries.net/CCS/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&t=5546

zcharles wrote:

As always i bought War for 30$. But this is not a new game, only a nice mod.
What we really need is:
-3D tanks with a true illumination and true shadows; it whould help to understand the map h meters; it whould be very very eaasy for a developer to build 3D vehicles!!!!!!!!! But they don't have time for this, apparently.

What do you know about 3D models? nothing as I see. I have been working on things as these the past months. And it is not easy or fast.

People see 3D games and they think that you can make them easy. If it is easier, why do not we see a 3D game from another company as Close Combat? I have played many others and their style of game are different.
I remember very well GICombat and Squad Assault, they were games with good 3D models but they were not fun playing. I play sometimes Theater of War and it is less funny than a Close Combat. Why do you think that people want a 3D Close Combat game? I´m sure that most of the people want play a 2D Close Combat where all can mod it without problems and it runs on a old computer.
About the other things. I believe that you have not played WAR or you have played it without a open mind from the first moment because it is very different to other CC games and it correct all the bad things from CC5 by example.
And if it is a mod, why not I made it many time ago?

#2: Author: Kojusoki,

Posted: Fri Nov 14, 2008 1:50 pm
—
DO NOT even try to make CC in 3D!!!! In my opinion, a good Close Combat is a 2D Close Combat. I have no difficulties in reading the map - (rmb and you see the the current height) Hiding over a table? Come on... maybe hiding under the bad with a sniper rifle;)

CC is good as it is now. If it is moved to 3d, it will beacome a more... how to say it... avaible for masses. And being avaible for masses will change the game the way I am very afraid of.

Lets take Civilization - they made it into 3d and it is more or less OK, but trully I prefered an old 2d graphics. This kind of games, I belive, doesnt have to be extra super beautifull with 3d animations ala Crysis. They must be Close Combat...

Lets take Dominions 3 - this game has...an even ugly graphics. But this game has a soul. To be honest, in such games graphics is just a nice addon. What keep me playing this games is the concept, and the "soul" of the game.

Of course it would be perfect to have a perfect game with perfect concept, fully preapared, without bugs (yes matrix, without bugs...), with low sys reqirments etc. But lets be realistic

They made WaR and in this 2d it even doesnt work properly on my graphic card:) So dont even touch a new thing:)

#3: Author: drGreen,

Posted: Fri Nov 14, 2008 2:07 pm
—
If you like 3d try Theatre of War

#4: Re: WaR?? Only the usual poor game Author: Therion,

Posted: Fri Nov 14, 2008 2:15 pm
—

Nomada_Firefox wrote:

I have played many others and their style of game are different.
I remember very well GICombat and Squad Assault, they were games with good 3D models but they were not fun playing.

Same here. Actually, it adds things like camera management. I tried playing squad assault and CM3 and I had too much problems with FoV and perspective to enjoy it.

On the other hand CC could use some new 2D things like destroyable building walls, collapsing buildings (these were done in 2D X-Com series long time ago), etc.

#5: Author: Nomada_Firefox,

Posted: Fri Nov 14, 2008 3:19 pm
—

Quote:

(these were done in 2D X-Com series long time ago)

Do you think that X-Com Apocalipsis graphics are better than CC WAR graphics?

I see on my obligation as CC player remember you that on CC WAR when you destroy a building on a battle from a operation or campaign, when you play again this same map, you see this building destroyed. I think that people forget it and they do not think that there are not too games making this. Graphics on CC are dynamic.

#6: Author: lemon42,

Posted: Fri Nov 14, 2008 3:36 pm
—
I do believe that true 3D would help a lot. Don't be mislead by stupid 3D sims/games.

A true world still could use a view angle similiar to the known one. But buildings etc would have the real properties and would make it easier for collision detection as well as LOS.

But to say it's easy is a total understatement because all would have to be done new. It starts with the maps itself because now they are 2D and made into semi 3D by a greyscale layer (if I'm right here).
Trees, bushes, hedgerows etc must be constructed.
Soldier and equipment must be constructed in 3D and to make it worse animation must be done too.
Next the whole physics for the bullets, mortars and guns must be calculated in 3D instead of the semi 3D of the CC series.
Damage must be created.
And further the AI which isn't great must be able to navigate in 3D.

It's popssible to do all of this and to maintain a classic CC feeling because if done right the major difference would only be seen by zooming in and out and maybe be able to have different views/angles.

But it's a total new engine which would be not compatible to any existing mod or map. I hope for CC 6 but I don't believe that for such a small amount of people the work will be done.

I have bought and played Panzer Command: Kharkov but compared to the CC graphics and motion I don't like it.

But who knows what they are developing Wink

#7: Author: squadleader_id, Location: Soerabaja

Posted: Fri Nov 14, 2008 4:41 pm
—
Nice thread...

Leave the maps in 2D...absolutely!! Or 3D but with the patented CC 2D top down view intact.
3D with all the cam angles for a tactical (war)game is just too confusing...and in most modern RTS games the zoom out level is too limited...so you have to see the action up close (to show off the cool 3D models Very Happy

).
Upgrade the effects (the current CC effects are dated) and maybe add realtime weather effects like snow, rain, night (night battles, yeah!). Add effects like vehicles/tanks leaving tracks.

Vehicles/Tanks should be 3D though (or based on 3D models)...so you can have realistic effects for vehicle movement and vehicle position (crested on a hill, tilting on it's side etc). If the tanks are 3D models...blown up vehicles can be animated and dramatic (turrets blowing off, tracks blowing off)...not just Boom->Explosion_Graphics->Smoking_Tank effects we have now Wink

As for soldiers...I don't think we need 3D soldiers...just make the animations smoother and richer...more 'poses' for our beloved soldier sprites if you will Smile

Destroyable building walls and collapsing buildings sound good.
Sure CC has this already...but move on from using simple sprites for damages.

Even with a 2D top down map...you can add modern effects to make the game presentation better and not look dated. And maybe combine them with 3D vehicles and collapsing buildings.

One thing though...a 3D view of the battle should be cool for playing battle replays.

#8: Author: Therion,

Posted: Fri Nov 14, 2008 6:32 pm
—

squadleader wrote:

Vehicles/Tanks should be 3D though (or based on 3D models)...so you can have realistic effects for vehicle movement and vehicle position (crested on a hill, tilting on it's side etc). If the tanks are 3D models...blown up vehicles can be animated and dramatic (turrets blowing off, tracks blowing off)...not just Boom->Explosion_Graphics->Smoking_Tank effects we have now Wink

Tanks don't need to be 3D for turrets blowing off - Armored Brigade has turrets blowing off without 3D models.

As for 3D tanks themselves - maybe voxels would be good for that? They are much easier to mod than polygons and 2D.
Also, lets remember that tanks in CC are small.

squadleader wrote:

Destroyable building walls and collapsing buildings sound good.
Sure CC has this already...but move on from using simple sprites for damages.

CC doesn't have this.
The building damage is very primitive - it just places one debris element in the hit tile. So for example a 1000 lb bomb hitting a building does the same damage as one HE autocannon shell.
Worse, you can't make holes in building walls - you could fire tank shells, RPGs, etc. on building walls, but despite that the debris element was created, it would still count as a wall.

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

Posted: Fri Nov 14, 2008 7:51 pm
—

Quote:

Worse, you can't make holes in building walls - you could fire tank shells, RPGs, etc. on building walls, but despite that the debris element was created, it would still count as a wall.

No, that is not correct.

If a wall rubbles to brick rubble you can shoot through it.

In CCMT your troops could then run through the hole created

(I use CCMT because wall were impassable)

#10: Author: Therion,

Posted: Fri Nov 14, 2008 8:47 pm
—
It never happened while I played. It always ended up unpassable and blocking LoS.

Returning to the destruction of buildings - it would be nice if blast rating could damage the terrain too.

#11: Author: philjat,

Posted: Sat Nov 15, 2008 12:54 pm
—
"Returning to the destruction of buildings - it would be nice if blast rating could damage the terrain too"

+1

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

Posted: Sat Nov 15, 2008 1:38 pm
—
Hi Firefox,
I don't think the image you provided gives any support to the conversation about having 3D graphics for CC.
To be more specific the picture looks like crap.

#13: Author: Therion,

Posted: Sat Nov 15, 2008 1:51 pm
—

platoon_michael wrote:

To be more specific the picture looks like crap.

#14: Author: AT_Stalky,

Posted: Sat Nov 15, 2008 2:41 pm
—
Can some here who play other games but CC, with 3D vehicles provide some screen shots of them from inside game?
Has panzer general 3D?
Plz

Edit Spelling

Last edited by AT_Stalky on Sat Nov 15, 2008 5:08 pm; edited 1 time in total

#15: Author: zcharles, Location: Italy-Forum Iulii

Posted: Sat Nov 15, 2008 4:44 pm
—
Mmm. Hi there! I started this! But someone seems not to have well understood what i mean; i don't want 3D maps, i'd like to have a NEW cc, not another CC4 mod or (soon) cc5 mod.
Isn't it much better for ex the sound of many mods? It makes a better atmosphere making the game more "realistic" to the player. It would be the same with the graphics.
Do you remember the graphic upgrade cc3->cc4? We moved from a cartoon graphic to a film graphic. Cc4->cc5 made just some light work with the shooting guns, nothing else.
Nomanda you are one of the best modders for shure, but don't you think that with the right budget you could create a team that could make things like vehicles with the right angle of light, moving wather (possible in 2D), trees moving with explosions and wind (in 2D!), soldiers 30 times more animated (call some artist and pay him 2 days of work!!! all in 2D!!!) with correct weapons ecc... and maybe night fighting (in 2D!!). You know i'm a very little modder, but i'm a modder; i don't know how to program in 3d because i don't have time for it, but i kow something about informatics (not as much as you know, shure!) and i made small mods of other games too. For this reason i know that all this is possible, the problem is that CC has the monopoly over ours minds, the people of this site, that will alwais be CC fans! And they develop cc6 with low budget, because they know that we well for shure but it! And infact, it's so.
As i wrote, i repeat; cc is the best game of this planet, but i'm wery unhappy because i feel taken for a ride by the developers. Thanks.

#16: Author: Nomada_Firefox,

Posted: Sat Nov 15, 2008 4:54 pm
—

platoon_michael wrote:

Hi Firefox,
To be more specific the picture looks like crap.

Can you make some better? probably not.

Quote:

Nomanda you are one of the best modders for shure, but don't you think that with the right budget you could create a team that could make things like vehicles with the right angle of light, moving wather (possible in 2D), trees moving with explosions and wind (in 2D!), soldiers 30 times more animated (call some artist and pay him 2 days of work!!! all in 2D!!!) with correct weapons ecc... and maybe night fighting (in 2D!!).

Probably but it take time and it cost money. Do you know how many cost the program for to make this soldiers? 3Dmax 3000$.

I would not like a 3D CC and I think that the CCWAR is very good, it is fun and we can mod it easily without expensive programs. I have many of them but other people can not access to them.

#17: Author: Therion,

Posted: Sat Nov 15, 2008 5:06 pm
—

Nomada_Firefox wrote:

platoon_michael wrote:

Hi Firefox,
To be more specific the picture looks like crap.

Can you make some better? probably not.

It's not about your skills. It's about how 3D graphics look worse than CCMT. Especially the ground which looks like green puke.

#18: Author: Nomada_Firefox,

Posted: Sat Nov 15, 2008 5:31 pm
—

Therion wrote:

Nomada_Firefox wrote:

platoon_michael wrote:

Hi Firefox,
To be more specific the picture looks like crap.

Can you make some better? probably not.

It's not about your skills. It's about how 3D graphics look worse than CCMT. Especially the ground which looks like green puke.

First time than somebody speak about CCMT on this thread.

Yes bad terrain. Rolling Eyes

Take a look from this same perspective on CCMT and next tell me about it.

#19: Author: Therion,

Posted: Sat Nov 15, 2008 5:43 pm
—
The ground texture looks like a green slime.

#20: Author: Nomada_Firefox,

Posted: Sat Nov 15, 2008 6:52 pm
—

Therion wrote:

The ground texture looks like a green slime.

Now, you should to think how you would see the ground from a CC from the same 3D perspective. It would not be better.

#21: Author: Therion,

Posted: Sat Nov 15, 2008 7:04 pm
—
That's why I'm not a fan of "3D perspective" and I don't want to see it in CC.

#22: Author: squadleader_id, Location: Soerabaja

Posted: Sat Nov 15, 2008 11:41 pm
—

AT_Stalky wrote:

Can some here who play other games but CC, with 3D vehicles provide some screen shots of them from inside game?
Has panzer general 3D?
Plz

Edit Spelling

Mats, you can google most of these screenshots...

Blitzkrieg 2:

Company of Heroes:

Faces of War:

#23: Author: Nomada_Firefox,

Posted: Sun Nov 16, 2008 12:44 am
—
On my opinion only Blitzkrieg 2 has a good tactica 3D engine, all the others are equal or worse than Squad Assault, they have powerfull graphics but no more, on them you can not have a full image of the battlefield. It is the bad than I see on many 3D games.

#24: Author: squadleader_id, Location: Soerabaja

Posted: Sun Nov 16, 2008 1:58 am
—

Nomada_Firefox wrote:

On my opinion only Blitzkrieg 2 has a good tactica 3D engine, all the others are equal or worse than Squad Assault, they have powerfull graphics but no more, on them you can not have a full image of the battlefield. It is the bad than I see on many 3D games.

Agreed...
Even in Blitzkrieg 2 the zoom out level is still too limited for my liking.
The CC system is still the best IMO...but enhancing the system with some of the graphic blitz and dazzle seen on new WW2 RTS titles won't hurt.

#25: Author: Nomada_Firefox,

Posted: Sun Nov 16, 2008 2:35 am
—
Yes but for many years we did not see a new Close Combat, I think that we must live with the stuff that now we have. If all WW2 RTS were as Close Combat games, we would can to press more to Strategy 3 about to make one game with better graphics but the true is that there are not more games as Close Combat on the world, we can see many of command and conquer games but I never have seen other company making one game as Close Combat. By it I think that to speak of one game with better graphics is a bad ilusion by the moment. We can speak about other things that we saw on other CC games as mount infantry on vehicles, one better scenary editor as on CC3 and a multiplayer with 3 vs 3 human players or more. Better graphics? yes but we can live with this old graphics many time more.

Quote:

.but enhancing the system with some of the graphic blitz and dazzle seen on new WW2 RTS titles won't hurt.

And I do not know if I have told it but I do not see it too easy because it were possible, other games would be as Close Combat, no?

#26: Author: squadleader_id, Location: Soerabaja

Posted: Sun Nov 16, 2008 3:28 am
—

Nomada_Firefox wrote:

Yes but for many years we did not see a new Close Combat, I think that we must live with the stuff that now we have. If all WW2 RTS were as Close Combat games, we would can to press more to Strategy 3 about to make one game with better graphics but the true is that there are not more games as Close Combat on the world, we can see many of command and conquer games but I never have seen other company making one game as Close Combat. By it I think that to speak of one game with better graphics is a bad ilusion by the moment. We can speak about other things that we saw on other CC games as mount infantry on vehicles, one better scenary editor as on CC3 and a multiplayer with 3 vs 3 human players or more. Better graphics? yes but we can live with this old graphics many time more.

Quote:

.but enhancing the system with some of the graphic blitz and dazzle seen on new WW2 RTS titles won't hurt.

And I do not know if I have told it but I do not see it too easy because it were possible, other games would be as Close Combat, no?

It's been over 10 years...you want the next CC (CC6, CC7) to be just like CC5/WAR graphically?
I personally don't mind the dated CC graphics...but I think it's time to move on. My non CC-fan gamer friends on the other hand..they're not too thrilled with by CC's 'primitive graphics'.
I don't think it's so impossible or that hard to implement the classic CC game system into a new modern (more complex and graphically appealing) graphics engine.

#27: Author: Therion,

Posted: Sun Nov 16, 2008 1:02 pm
—

squadleader wrote:

The CC system is still the best IMO...but enhancing the system with some of the graphic blitz and dazzle seen on new WW2 RTS titles won't hurt.

It will. I want to be able to play next CC game.

#28: Author: Nomada_Firefox,

Posted: Sun Nov 16, 2008 3:26 pm
—

Quote:

It's been over 10 years...you want the next CC (CC6, CC7) to be just like CC5/WAR graphically?

Why not? I like it, people play it. I can mod it without problems. If they make it on 3D, I´m sure that we would not see many mods more, probably only a few and not made on 7 days.

#29: Author: squadleader_id, Location: Soerabaja

Posted: Sun Nov 16, 2008 4:29 pm
—

Nomada_Firefox wrote:

Quote:

It's been over 10 years...you want the next CC (CC6, CC7) to be just like CC5/WAR graphically?

Why not? I like it, people play it. I can mod it without problems. If they make it on 3D, I´m sure that we would not see many mods more, probably only a few and not made on 7 days.

Well...if the tools are available...modders will mod away.
Maybe include modding tools for the 3D objects...just like scenario editors in say...Faces of War or Blitzkrieg 2.

BTW, what do you mean a mod in 7 days? Did you mean your CCWAR VetBoB...technically what you accomplished in 7 days was a mod conversion...you converted your CC5: VetBoB into CCWAR format...and it was surprisingly fast...but still very very different from creating a full new mod from the ground up...that usually takes 1 year at least...usually even longer.
You should know from your experience with Star Wars and Ebro...

#30: Author: Nomada_Firefox,

Posted: Sun Nov 16, 2008 5:06 pm
—

Quote:

Well...if the tools are available...modders will mod away.
Maybe include modding tools for the 3D objects...just like scenario editors in say...Faces of War or Blitzkrieg 2.

Can be. But I was thinking on to add new units and for it you need new 3D models, a 3D model can take you many time. And tools.......they are too expensive. Of course if they make one game with all the WW2 units by example.

Quote:

BTW, what do you mean a mod in 7 days? Did you mean your CCWAR VetBoB...technically what you accomplished in 7 days was a mod conversion...you converted your CC5: VetBoB into CCWAR format...and it was surprisingly fast..

I was thinking that on WAR we can import all from Close Combat 4 and 5, on one 3D game, probably we would can not to make it.

Quote:

.but still very very different from creating a full new mod from the ground up...that usually takes 1 year at least...usually even longer.
You should know from your experience with Star Wars and Ebro...

SW Mod was made on one year probably or more, Battle of Ebro on 2 or 3 years and I was not working on it alone. Without Zikat maps we would not end it. And the CCWAR VetBoB probably was ended very fast because I made only a 25% from the original CC5 Ardennes Offensive, when I made the first version, I was working on it months and when I say months, they are from monday to sunday, not only a few hours per day. The same for CCWAR VetBoB, 7 days are a ilusion, 200 hours would be more realistic. All take time.[/quote]

Close Combat Series -> Close Combat Wacht am Rhein

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

Page 1 of 1