Close Combat Series :: View topic

through

[^/[Print]\]

Close Combat Series -> Close Combat Last Stand Arnhem

#1: Nice Rant Author: mooxe,

Posted: Sat Jul 17, 2010 5:29 am
—
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2523575

Have to agree with many points. Boils down to this..... version 11+/- of Close Combat without any real gameplay advances = upset customer. But we have new maps and some new strategic functions hacked in, but gameplay is the same.

Heres some quotes from others in same thread..

Quote:

I am actually liking the new infantry behavior of canceling the move and running for cover.

uggghhhhhhhhh.......... I really hope nobody from S3T, Blackhand, Matrix or Destineer... or whomever is responsible doesnt take that line seriously.

Quote:

Sholdn't the flares flicker in reality?

The flare and light effects suck.

Quote:

what I'd really like to know is that do the matrix people actually play this game in Single Player mode at all?

How could they? Single player Close Combat is incredibly borring, single player beta testing out of the question. I suppose when its the same team beta testing for the past few years, they can't form an objective look to the game anymore. All they do is hunt for bugs, they are already resigned to accept Close Combat as it is.

#2: Re: Nice Rant Author: Tejszd, Location: Canada

Posted: Sat Jul 17, 2010 5:59 am
—
Mooxe I'm surprised that you, even with your bias against the the re-releases, would point to that post as something that had a lot of points you agree with....

Not much thought to the post at all.... Especially with the recommendations...

1. Make AI relentlessly move towards victory locations or seek ceasefire.

That would be fun to have charge straight ahead....

2. Make timer not stop when Alt+TABbing out of game.

Already can be done if desired by running the game in windowed mode

3. Give a Retreat/surrender button.

Having the button in CC3 was okay as you could save some men, but if you are just going to surrender might as well charge with them and get them killed to the end battle. They are gone both ways. in

4. Give a "Force Cease-Fire option"

The opposing AI or H2H player you think should determine when they need/want to end the fight. I have had the AI truce. He probably has his men sit in a great defensive spot lets the AI lose some squads and wonder why the supposedly worthless AI just doesn't the rest of the men/squads in front of the guns. But it is alright for him not move his men as they might get killed....

#3: Re: Nice Rant Author: Stwa,

Posted: Sat Jul 17, 2010 6:16 am
—
Hi Mooxe,

After every new game release, there is always the customary bashing of the AI, and the game engine, sometimes accompanied with the usual condescending remarks about the campaign abstractions.

I have statyed out of it for WAR, TLD, and now LSA. But usally the end result is that Single Player gaming becomes the focus of the ridicule, since some of the shortcomings can be elimated or offset through Multiplayer gaming.

My experiences in Single Player for the past several years are all CCMT based, where Single Player mode can be enhanced via the superior game editor and other features as described below. These features were new and different and they collectively DID make the AI better. I make comparisons of CCMT to CC5, the last game I owned prior to CCMT.

Matrix User said "I am actually liking the new infantry behavior of canceling the move and running for cover. "

This is what happens in CCMT as well. This is one of the more realistic changes in soldier behavior since CC5. As one can only imagine, this feature adds real value to the defense, or a defender, particulary an invisible defender. Since the AI, is usually the defender, in my games, it is the primary recipient of this value.

I have also, seen Humvees, do more or less the same thing, by cancelling their move and returning fire, and view this behavior as equally realistic.

I will also argue, that part of the dislike for CCMT, are the lethality of the weapons, and the AI shooting up the Human players squads, when the human player tries to Rambo along.

Matrix User said "what I'd really like to know is that do the matrix people actually play this game in Single Player mode at all? "

My experience, from CC5 days, was that the campaign system may or may not produce tactical battles that create fun for a Single Player, since fun can be defined in many different ways. I found, the Campaign System boring for CC5, Single Player or otherwise, but that is just me.

With an Editor like you have in CCMT, you can create battles, where the AI will WIN EVERY TIME YOU PLAY. Because of the new soldier behaviors, an AI, on the defense, with a similar battlegroup, will generally win the game.

If a player derives enjoyment from the social aspects of Multiplayer, then Single Player mode will never suffice.

#4: Re: Nice Rant Author: vonB,

Posted: Sat Jul 17, 2010 10:40 am
—
A very measured response Stwa, and there is much in what you say.

I will be amazed if anything significant (if anything at all) is ever done with the CC Core as far as AI goes. It is like a domino disaster waiting to happen. It will take a rewrite for anything significant and comprehensive to happen.

I too find the Strategic Games unappealing. It resolves to a method to get from one battle to another where the fun is.

The Community has got to switch off any expectation they may have regarding the Core AI System. Maybe a tweak here or there. Maybe.

Interesting about the run for cover. It is of course perfectly vallid behaviour, and suits a Close Combat environment modelling 'modern' behaviour. However, it does prevent other perfectly vallid behaviours, which is sometime frustrating. An extreme illustrattion of this might be massed Russian charges. Ok, with only 15 Teams it is difficult to get a 'mass' like that, but the point is you would end up having to furiously click away repeatedly to keep the Squads moving.

Unfortunately, I see adding such behaviours as equally difficult to add to the Core (though I accept my ignorance at that level).

At the end of the day, CC is what Kieth Zabaloui said it was, 'soldiers in a sandbox', and still remarkably good considering anything else that is available.

#5: Re: Nice Rant Author: Therion,

Posted: Sat Jul 17, 2010 11:12 am
—

vonB wrote (View Post):

The Community has got to switch off any expectation they may have regarding the Core AI System. Maybe a tweak here or there. Maybe.

Which makes CC worthless as a single player tactical game.

Even on defence, the AI is shit, enemies tend to crawl out of cover and get caught in the open. There's nothing as frustrating as setting up a map with trenches and buildings, with VLs on places with highest cover only to find out that the enemies have crawled out into the open and half of them didn't survive the preparatory fires and then get killed pretty quickly by anything because they lack cover.

Also, there's that retarded moment, when artillery shells fall and I get informed about exact enemy positions because the game shows me dead bodies (I'm talking about CCMT here, I hope it got fixed in new releases).

#6: Re: Nice Rant Author: Stwa,

Posted: Sat Jul 17, 2010 12:09 pm
—
While Therion has routinely arrived at good gaming suggestions in the past, sometimes he seems to make absolutes from purely anecdotal observations of single games.

So, I disagree with him on his points, as I have in the past. The AI, exhibits a range of behaviors, no doubt based on circumstances related to each game. I have seen the AI camp in buildings, and camp in trenches. For modern conflicts, some seperation in the fire teams is desirable, and AI seems to attempt that.

For insterested readers, another related discussion between Stwa and Therion. The subject:

CCMT AI: How Stupid IS IT ?

#7: Re: Nice Rant Author: platoon_michael, Location: Right behind you

Posted: Sat Jul 17, 2010 1:00 pm
—
I've spent the past 2 months playing Company of Hero's daily and have a hard time sometimes a very hard time beating the AI set on normal.
When I read their forums I see people complain that they can beat the AI on Hard but when they go to Expert the games usually kicks there butt.
As with any GAME the only way to get a hard AI is to stack the game to the AI's favor.As is the case with COH.

#8: Re: Nice Rant Author: salhexe,

Posted: Sat Jul 17, 2010 1:12 pm
—

Tejszd wrote (View Post):

2. Make timer not stop when Alt+TABbing out of game.

Already can be done if desired by running the game in windowed mode

I've always been interested having running time out of game, I have resolved using Virtual PC, but not the best.
How it can be run in windowed mode?

#9: Re: Nice Rant Author: vonB,

Posted: Sat Jul 17, 2010 1:23 pm
—

Quote:

As with any GAME the only way to get a hard AI is to stack the game to the AI's favor

As is likely to be the case in any game production. The development of a comprehensive and competent (and I haven't even started on inspirational...) Tactical AI would be prohibitively costly. The best we could hope for is a simple solid AI (even that's a challange!). However, eventaully a player becomes familiar with the behaviour of the AI and the challange diminishes.

I even wonder how appealing a game with a good AI would be to some (if not many) players. To get beaten consistently will soon become tiresome. Ther has to be at least a prospect of winning, as well as some real victories to keep the ongoing enthusiasm. This si human nature.

What is most tiresome is the stupidity of the AI, doing things that even a numpty might not choose to do. Is beating a stupid person worthy of the challange?

So we resolve to playing 'against the odds'. Or H2H.

Quote:

but if you are just going to surrender might as well charge with them and get them killed to the end battle. They are gone both ways

And what would these soldiers do if they thought they were just being used as cannon fodder? Your average grunt would not be impressed. All this illustrates is that CC is a game and is played as such. If your life really depended on it, I am sure you would all review very carefully your options...

#10: Re: Nice Rant Author: squadleader_id, Location: Soerabaja

Posted: Sat Jul 17, 2010 1:39 pm
—

salhexe wrote (View Post):

Tejszd wrote (View Post):

2. Make timer not stop when Alt+TABbing out of game.

Already can be done if desired by running the game in windowed mode

I've always been interested having running time out of game, I have resolved using Virtual PC, but not the best.
How it can be run in windowed mode?

I'm surprised you haven't discovered the windowed mode feature, Salhexe.
Here you go:

#11: Re: Nice Rant Author: platoon_michael, Location: Right behind you

Posted: Sat Jul 17, 2010 1:48 pm
—
I think if I can get either WAR into LSA or even better a patch that puts all the features from LSA into WAR I will be happy.
Once that's done I feel I can possibly work on the A.I. to make it a little better.
TT did it I don't see why I can't.

#12: Re: Nice Rant Author: salhexe,

Posted: Sat Jul 17, 2010 1:54 pm
—
Is a mistake, I spoke of earlier TLD, WAR, CC5 Smile

#13: Re: Nice Rant Author: salhexe,

Posted: Sat Jul 17, 2010 2:27 pm
—

platoon_michael wrote (View Post):

I think if I can get either WAR into LSA or even better a patch that puts all the features from LSA into WAR I will be happy.
Once that's done I feel I can possibly work on the A.I. to make it a little better.
TT did it I don't see why I can't.

I think you love WAR and all about Ardennes in general, have you try this?

http://www.closecombatseries.net/CCS/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&t=8333

You can experience the hardness of the old TT's vetbob

#14: Re: Nice Rant Author: vonB,

Posted: Sat Jul 17, 2010 4:14 pm
—

Quote:

TT did it I don't see why I can't.

Them's fighting words! That's the Spirit.

If TT managed to tweak any of the Core Code, he must have done it with some inside Intel. I am not convinced he did that, but I could be wrong. I think it's an expreme case of stacking all the odds against the Human Player and weighting everything in the AI's favour, but I haven't analysed the changes, so it's just a guess...

#15: Re: Nice Rant Author: Tejszd, Location: Canada

Posted: Sat Jul 17, 2010 4:18 pm
—

salhexe wrote (View Post):

Tejszd wrote (View Post):

2. Make timer not stop when Alt+TABbing out of game.

Already can be done if desired by running the game in windowed mode

I've always been interested having running time out of game, I have resolved using Virtual PC, but not the best.
How it can be run in windowed mode?

WAR (with the latest patch), TLD and now LSA in the Options offer windowed mode. LSA screen shot below;

Windowed Mode.jpg

Description:

Filesize:

74.52 KB

Viewed:

16067 Time(s)

#16: Re: Nice Rant Author: Tejszd, Location: Canada

Posted: Sat Jul 17, 2010 4:19 pm
—
Sorry for the repeat post on windowed mode.

Should have continued reading the thread and would have seen squadleader_id response....

#17: Re: Nice Rant Author: Tejszd, Location: Canada

Posted: Sat Jul 17, 2010 4:27 pm
—
TT didn't change any programming code.

He made the AI side have a huge advantage by editing the data in favour of the AI. Example; armour thickness, damage, weapon range, speed, etc.

Not sure if it was TT or someone else 1st but another thing people have done to the make the AI tougher is to set the AI for a squad to guns and vehicles. An MG team coded as gun once deployed barely moves while another team coded as a half track charges around the battle map.... Though there is the down that these infantry set as guns and vehicles will not go inside buildings....

#18: Re: Nice Rant Author: platoon_michael, Location: Right behind you

Posted: Sat Jul 17, 2010 4:37 pm
—

Tejszd wrote (View Post):

TT didn't change any programming code.

He made the AI side have a huge advantage by editing the data in favour of the AI. Example; armour thickness, damage, weapon range, speed, etc.

Not sure if it was TT or someone else 1st but another thing people have done to the make the AI tougher is to set the AI for a squad to guns and vehicles. An MG team coded as gun once deployed barely moves while another team coded as a half track charges around the battle map.... Though there is the down that these infantry set as guns and vehicles will not go inside buildings....

I would imagine that one could have one MG Team codded as gun to stay put then have another team codded normally to be placed in houses.
The only problem I see with that is the amount of BG_Unit Icons the game has.
Only other problem is im sure it's still not enough to make some people happy.

#19: Re: Nice Rant Author: final-drive,

Posted: Sat Jul 17, 2010 4:59 pm
—
Hi Tesjzd,

Tejszd wrote (View Post):

TT didn't change any programming code.

That's true (exept maybe for changing artillery availability).

Tejszd wrote (View Post):

He made the AI side have a huge advantage by editing the data in favour of the AI. Example; armour thickness, damage, weapon range, speed, etc.

AFAIR, he didn't give any advantage to the AI in armour thickness and weapon's performance data. Only the amount of soldiers (and hence weapons) per team was higher for the AI.

Tejszd wrote (View Post):

Not sure if it was TT or someone else 1st but another thing people have done to the make the AI tougher is to set the AI for a squad to guns and vehicles. An MG team coded as gun once deployed barely moves while another team coded as a half track charges around the battle map....

That was indeed the main trick of TT's vetmods.

Tejszd wrote (View Post):

Though there is the down that these infantry set as guns and vehicles will not go inside buildings....

Indeed, but for some reason this was less of a problem in CC4 when compared to CC5.

Cheers

#20: Re: Nice Rant Author: platoon_michael, Location: Right behind you

Posted: Sat Jul 17, 2010 5:04 pm
—
One thing CC has always lacked was a True change in forces depending on what setting you used.
Seems to me if changing the setting to requite for the AI they should have more Panthers/Tigers/larger teams etc etc.
But if I play as the Germans and set it to Veteran I should have no Tigers,smaller teams,very few Panthers.but yet give me Stugs AFV's

#21: Re: Nice Rant Author: Spinlock,

Posted: Sat Jul 17, 2010 7:25 pm
—
Who honestly expected the AI to be any better??

All the re-releases so far have basically just been a mod of a previous version. If there were any significant improvements that could be made to the gameplay, it would have already happened.
I don't have LSA, but If i do get it, i'm going in eyes wide open that its more or less cc5 with the cc2 mod.
Kudos to Matrix for still generating revenue from an old (and seemingly intractable) pile of sourcecode.

#22: Re: Nice Rant Author: vonB,

Posted: Sat Jul 17, 2010 8:49 pm
—

Quote:

If there were any significant improvements that could be made to the gameplay, it would have already happened.

Yes, you bet...

When liasing with the programmer during my time with CoI, we looked pretty hard at the pros and cons. The cons won hands down I regret to say. Not to say that it would be impossible to do. Of course it's not impossible, but for a load of reasons, it's impractical. I suppose if the Source Code was ever released into the Public Domain (dream on by the way....), then somebody might be bothered to hack it until something worked, but commercially, it's a non starter.

I too will get LSA sometime. I am sure it will be what I expect, but the new Campaign with all the new maps and other bits will make it worthwhile for me, and it's another release from the stable.

#23: Re: Nice Rant Author: southern_land,

Posted: Sat Jul 17, 2010 9:05 pm
—

mooxe wrote (View Post):

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2523575

Have to agree with many points. Boils down to this..... version 11+/- of Close Combat without any real gameplay advances = upset customer. But we have new maps and some new strategic functions hacked in, but gameplay is the same.

How could they? Single player Close Combat is incredibly borring, single player beta testing out of the question. I suppose when its the same team beta testing for the past few years, they can't form an objective look to the game anymore. All they do is hunt for bugs, they are already resigned to accept Close Combat as it is.

So you agree do you mooxe? Does that mean you have bought the game? Torrented the game already? or are Canada's version of men who stare at goats? And talking about objective opinions take a look in the mirror. Even the terminology you use in your latest vitirolic spiel indicates the one eyed way you look at the new releases "some new strategic functions hacked in", they were programmed in, they work well and are a serious advance. If you can't visulize the value of double stacking units on the strat map, or setting entry locations for single map battles then you sir, are the hack

Now that was a nice rant!

#24: Re: Nice Rant Author: Spinlock,

Posted: Sat Jul 17, 2010 10:02 pm
—

southern_land wrote (View Post):

If you can't visulize the value of double stacking units on the strat map .... you sir, are the hack
Now that was a nice rant!

You can stack 2 units on the strat map. So that means you get 15 * 2 Units in the next battle?
That's the point of stacking.

#25: Re: Nice Rant Author: schrecken, Location: Sydney, Australia

Posted: Sat Jul 17, 2010 10:21 pm
—
No, in LSA it means you can

1. pass through without having to disband or retreat a BG

2. You can have BG supported by the second BG... thus being able to use some of it's teams.

3. Your small BG may become a larger BG by increasing the number of teams available to a maximum of 15

4. You may be able to attack a map from differnt directions at the same time.

#26: Re: Nice Rant Author: schrecken, Location: Sydney, Australia

Posted: Sat Jul 17, 2010 10:23 pm
—
as to point #3

if before you stacked you had 6 teams v 6 teams for the opposing BG's... you may be now able to outnumber your opposition as you say... that is the point of stacking and is available in LSA.

#27: Re: Nice Rant Author: squadleader_id, Location: Soerabaja

Posted: Sat Jul 17, 2010 10:53 pm
—

final-drive wrote (View Post):

Tejszd wrote (View Post):

He made the AI side have a huge advantage by editing the data in favour of the AI. Example; armour thickness, damage, weapon range, speed, etc.

AFAIR, he didn't give any advantage to the AI in armour thickness and weapon's performance data. Only the amount of soldiers (and hence weapons) per team was higher for the AI.

TT did change the weapons data...many weapons of the AI side were modded to be more deadly and accurate.
Personally I don't like it...give the AI more soldiers, more weapons, more experienced troops and commanders...but tweaking the AI weapons is overkill! :)

final-drive wrote (View Post):

Tejszd wrote (View Post):

Though there is the down that these infantry set as guns and vehicles will not go inside buildings....

Indeed, but for some reason this was less of a problem in CC4 when compared to CC5.

Cheers

AFAIK infantry coded as guns and vehicles works well in stock CC5. As long as most of the maps are mostly rural areas (with small buildings) the VetMods should work fine.
They don't work that well in urban maps of course...in PJ's SDK and SOC...he only coded sellect infantry units as vehicles so that some infantry units can enter the huge Stalingrad factories/buildings.
Salhexe's VetMod for Battle of Berlin works well eventhough there are maps with huge buildings on the mod.

#28: Re: Nice Rant Author: Dundradal,

Posted: Sat Jul 17, 2010 10:56 pm
—
Dund's counter-rant

That's from another thread on Matrix. The post is actually inspired by a discussion Mooxe and I had the night before.

As I state there, I think the guys at Matrix are doing a good job, however they know their limitations, but I think need more pushing to let go of the modded CC5 engine. Yes they've added some interesting features, but the problem is the engine is not streamlined for all the weight that has been added to each different version.

I'd like to start over. What needs to be in CC and what can go away forever....build an engine with that in mind (which might cost a bit up front could then be used for another decade and be much better at achieving great game play). If anything with the economy being so bad, it might actually be easier to pick up programmers at a lesser rate than normal. But then again I don't know a thing about professional gaming development.

Just hoping for the best.

#29: Re: Nice Rant Author: Therion,

Posted: Sun Jul 18, 2010 12:45 am
—

Stwa wrote (View Post):

While Therion has routinely arrived at good gaming suggestions in the past, sometimes he seems to make absolutes from purely anecdotal observations of single games.

Quote:

Even on defence, the AI is shit, enemies tend to crawl out of cover and get caught in the open. There's nothing as frustrating as setting up a map with trenches and buildings, with VLs on places with highest cover only to find out that the enemies have crawled out into the open and half of them didn't survive the preparatory fires and then get killed pretty quickly by anything because they lack cover.

It's not an absolute. I write "tends to" because sometimes they manage to actually be in buildings.
Also, it's not purely anecdotal observations of single games. I have reproduced the problem tens of times, both in different missions and it reliably repeats itself when I try to play these missions multiple times.

Stwa wrote (View Post):

So, I disagree with him on his points, as I have in the past. The AI, exhibits a range of behaviors, no doubt based on circumstances related to each game. I have seen the AI camp in buildings, and camp in trenches. For modern conflicts, some seperation in the fire teams is desirable, and AI seems to attempt that.

The AI has deployment phase in which it can reach all the separation that it wants.

vonB wrote (View Post):

Quote:

As with any GAME the only way to get a hard AI is to stack the game to the AI's favor

From my experience, I would say that a really good AI would need 3 components:
1. "Animal Instincts" - basically awareness and reacting to stuff - squads moving in leaps and bounds, firing at sources of enemy fire, ambushing, covering from fire, etc. etc. etc.
One of the reasons why Firefight has a challenging AI is that when player unit starts firing, it attracts suppressive fire from enemy units and vice versa.
2. Organization - units function as units. Games need to simulate unit organization.
3. "Human Intelligence" that would be simulated by scripting. I think that good scenarios require extensive scripting by people with knowledge of real military tactics and military history.
One thing that I thought about would be that scenario could have literally tens of plans that would be activated randomly, marked good positions for units for attacking from different directions, all taking unit organization into account.
For example, scenario makers could mark optimal positions for every unit in platoon attack, routes of approach, etc.

I wonder if it would be possible to make AI use battle drills...

Then there's also a question of not giving the player unfair advantages - for example being able to see dead bodies is an unfair advantage. Being able to see muzzle flashes while the AI isn't, is an unfair advantage.

#30: Re: Nice Rant Author: pvt_Grunt, Location: Melbourne, Australia

Posted: Sun Jul 18, 2010 1:10 am
—
My 2 loonies worth

I like LSA because of the improvements, the main one being a MISSION. In TLD etc the only mission is to kill all enemy and capture the map. It gets repetitive. In COI I saw the first map where the timer was set to 3? minutes and you had no VL's so you had to get off your butt and take a VL or else you lost the map. LSA continues this by making the bridges a priority, NOT the troops.

Next - as with ALL versions, if you are playing the AI, you MUST choose the attacking team. DO NOT play LSA as Germans and expect a good chalenge. (Exemption - CC4 Vet BoB)

Speaking of the famous Vet BoB. There were data changes, look at the Shreks in the US vet sub mod against stock CC4, the damage and range are cranked WAY up.

#31: Re: Nice Rant Author: mooxe,

Posted: Sun Jul 18, 2010 1:33 am
—

southern_land wrote (View Post):

mooxe wrote (View Post):

I suppose if it was 2002, those would be serious advances. Btw, nice use of red font, the addition of the red font was a serious advance in forum software. Now please work on not using the same paint tiles for concrete, I am tired of seeing the same cracks in the cement every 40m. mmmk?

#32: Re: Nice Rant Author: Therion,

Posted: Sun Jul 18, 2010 11:12 am
—

mooxe wrote (View Post):

I suppose if it was 1999, those would be serious advances.

Fixed.

#33: Re: Nice Rant Author: final-drive,

Posted: Sun Jul 18, 2010 11:50 am
—

squadleader_id wrote (View Post):

Tejszd,
Squadleader,
Grunt,

I stand corrected. Made a quick comparison between CC4 Vetbob Panzerschreck data for US and Axis play, and they're indeed different: more deadly for the German AI.

On the thread's main topic: in WaR and Tld, to me it seemed the AI had improved. Without suddenly becoming some formidable opponent (it never will), it could do things it didn't do in CC4 or CC5 (better use of smoke, less crawl of death, some smarter moves,...). Now in Lsa for some reason it seems less apparent, a bit like a step back, but that might also be caused by map and VL lay-out, along with the team number limits. A pitty; hopefully something can still be fixed.
But the way some people get completely emotional in their reactions nowadays, I don't get it. To do so either they must be complete newbies having a hard time understanding CC, or must be old-time grunts with some account to settle for who knows what reason. Yet, the new versions have come with some nice new features and the developers deserve support for that.

Cheers

#34: Re: Nice Rant Author: salhexe,

Posted: Sun Jul 18, 2010 12:23 pm
—

Tejszd wrote (View Post):

2. Make timer not stop when Alt+TABbing out of game.

Already can be done if desired by running the game in windowed mode

WAR (with the latest patch), TLD and now LSA in the Options offer windowed mode. LSA screen shot below;[/quote]

is true Thanks, I guess can not do it on CC5 Sad

#35: Re: Nice Rant Author: flick,

Posted: Sun Jul 18, 2010 5:04 pm
—
I'm not asking for the AI to be Rommel, I just want the enemy units NOT to act like those UK soldiers spiked on LSD.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n-rWnQphPdQ

#36: Re: Nice Rant Author: vonB,

Posted: Sun Jul 18, 2010 5:28 pm
—
That would be my first desire. Not to make the AI 'cleverer', just not so stupid. This in itself would make it a tougher opponent...

#37: Re: Nice Rant Author: flick,

Posted: Sun Jul 18, 2010 5:48 pm
—
Panzer general manages to throw troops in the right direction, that's from 1995 or so?

#38: Re: Nice Rant Author: Stwa,

Posted: Sun Jul 18, 2010 11:18 pm
—
Here is a mission that if you put on a 20 or 30 minute limit, the AI WINS EVERY TIME NO MATTER WHAT.

The AI HAS LESS STUFF in this mission.

ARMY has some Strykers, Predator Teams, and basic Fire Teams.

AI has insurgent infantry and machine guns ONLY.

AI WINS EVERY TIME.

The AI did not crawl out of any secure positions, it only moved to take the objectives, then camped in cover waiting for ARMY.

#39: Re: Nice Rant Author: mooxe,

Posted: Mon Jul 19, 2010 12:58 am
—
Post mission, I'll see if I can beat it.

#40: Re: Nice Rant Author: Stwa,

Posted: Mon Jul 19, 2010 1:10 am
—
Nice try ... you wont,

You don't play CCMT. The visibiliy rules will drive you crazy. The AI guys SEE YOU, but you dont SEE THEM.

Thats the main problem.

Plus, its Single Player, so your Network Connection cannot help you.

You gave up on CCMT in disgust, because of the weapons lethality.

You have already been there and already done that, and you did not like it.

#41: Re: Nice Rant Author: Stwa,

Posted: Mon Jul 19, 2010 1:21 am
—
Just thought I would mention...

The map above is very similar to a snow map that comes with CCMT.

So you can just set up something similar and try that and see what you can do.

#42: Re: Nice Rant Author: schrecken, Location: Sydney, Australia

Posted: Mon Jul 19, 2010 2:50 am
—
LOL

#43: Re: Nice Rant Author: mooxe,

Posted: Mon Jul 19, 2010 3:06 am
—
I just beat it.

#44: Re: Nice Rant Author: Pzt_Kanov, Location: México

Posted: Mon Jul 19, 2010 4:36 am
—

Stwa wrote (View Post):

AI WINS EVERY TIME.

back-in-the-days-trolling-meant-something.jpg

Description:

Filesize:

53.29 KB

Viewed:

8215 Time(s)

#45: Re: Nice Rant Author: Hoogley, Location: Brisbane

Posted: Mon Jul 19, 2010 4:55 am
—
This is my wishlist for a remade engine, as posted elsewhere:

Now, S3T (or somebody) just need to fulfill my life's wishes and make a new breed of CC game with the following:

* Overhead locked 3D view with wide field zoom in/out, from meters to miles.

* Sprawling campaign map that covers an entire operational zone in vast detail.

* Campaign map moves in real time with "time-freeze" to play out engagements as they occur.

* Seamless zooming from campaign map down to battle map (the biggest pipe dream on this list!)

* integrated 3D map making & campaign modding tools. The ability to add huge lists of soldiers, teams, weapons, BGs, etc.

* Ability to merge/attach/detach BGs based on unit tiering from Company level all the way up to Divisional, with no BG quantity limit. Ability to attach particular unit types to combat BGs as support (like tanks, AT gun units, AA units, and so on).

* Divisional support proximity determines support availability (like off map artillery, etc).

* Pre-battle strategies including aerial recon, bombing runs, artillery barrages, attacking strategic targets (like supply routes, airfields, ports, etc), and the like.

* Ability to organise defensive setup of units outside of battles (like digging trenches, building sandbag emplacements, etc).

* Support management including supply route (truck and aerial) management and troop replacement management.

* tweaks of all of the features from CC to date.

Simple request, n'est pas?

But that would take a professionally funded development team. God, it would be a beautiful thing; I can even see the game in my mind's eye. (drool).

#46: Re: Nice Rant Author: Stwa,

Posted: Mon Jul 19, 2010 5:20 am
—

Pzt_Kanov wrote (View Post):

Stwa wrote (View Post):

AI WINS EVERY TIME.

Was there some point here or is this just your way of pulling on your own DICK Question

#47: Re: Nice Rant Author: Stwa,

Posted: Mon Jul 19, 2010 5:22 am
—

mooxe wrote (View Post):

I just beat it.

Well,

Good for you, I played twice at 20 minutes and lost both times.

My son played once at 30 minutes and also lost, and I consider him a better player than myself.

#48: Re: Nice Rant Author: ANZAC_Tack, Location: Australia

Posted: Mon Jul 19, 2010 5:43 am
—
i have been away playing FPS for close to 2 years,

i bought TLD and liked some new features, but wow it lacked SOOO many features i saw while testing RAF/Marine its not funny!

seriously....1v1 still?
no 3d?no zoom, nothing...OMG
small low quality maps from 1990's that make my screen resolution from from 1920*1200 to 1024*768 stretehed...this shit is lame...
no enbussing/debussing vehicles???why leave that out???? i used it, saw it, loved it...
no mines, no ied's, germans where experts at that shit...

i will buy the new cc2, cause on the strat level its far superiour, but im with mooxe, gameplay, its the same old dribble from 1996

my rant complete...

#49: Re: Nice Rant Author: Bungarra, Location: Murchison region, West Australia

Posted: Mon Jul 19, 2010 9:05 am
—
Thanks for the fish Laughing

#50: Re: Nice Rant Author: vonB,

Posted: Mon Jul 19, 2010 9:51 am
—

Hoogley wrote (View Post):

This is my wishlist for a remade engine, as posted elsewhere:

Now, S3T (or somebody) just need to fulfill my life's wishes and make a new breed of CC game with the following:

* Overhead locked 3D view with wide field zoom in/out, from meters to miles.

* Sprawling campaign map that covers an entire operational zone in vast detail.

* Campaign map moves in real time with "time-freeze" to play out engagements as they occur.

* Seamless zooming from campaign map down to battle map (the biggest pipe dream on this list!)

* integrated 3D map making & campaign modding tools. The ability to add huge lists of soldiers, teams, weapons, BGs, etc.

* Ability to merge/attach/detach BGs based on unit tiering from Company level all the way up to Divisional, with no BG quantity limit. Ability to attach particular unit types to combat BGs as support (like tanks, AT gun units, AA units, and so on).

* Divisional support proximity determines support availability (like off map artillery, etc).

* Pre-battle strategies including aerial recon, bombing runs, artillery barrages, attacking strategic targets (like supply routes, airfields, ports, etc), and the like.

* Ability to organise defensive setup of units outside of battles (like digging trenches, building sandbag emplacements, etc).

* Support management including supply route (truck and aerial) management and troop replacement management.

* tweaks of all of the features from CC to date.

Simple request, n'est pas?

But that would take a professionally funded development team. God, it would be a beautiful thing; I can even see the game in my mind's eye. (drool).

And that's just for starters... Wink

I'm with you....

#51: Re: Nice Rant Author: Lt_2nd,

Posted: Mon Jul 19, 2010 2:53 pm
—
I bought LSA and have been a little frustrated with some of the issues, like the vehicle pathing which IMO is just as bad as it was in CC2, and dont understand why since the vehicle pathing was much improved in TLD and WaR. The AI does seem worse in this game, even though I try and play mostly MP, I do understand other peoples frustrations that play mostly single player.

The game definitely has some bugs that need to be addressed like crashes during the GC, also some items need to be tweaked IMO as far as merging BGs and the resulting points to be used, as well as Frontline/Reserve Bgs moving onto maps.

However that being said, my glass is half full right now as far as my opinion about the game. The game has some improved features and once Matrix/Strat 3 fixes the bugs and if they addresses the other issues, IMO it will be one of the better CC releases. Reasons why, It appears that the developers put some thought into the strategic map,the GC and reinforcement arrival of BGs, and the varying size BG's to historically simulate as best possible Operation Market Garden. I havent played it all the way through yet, but in the inital play and in looking at the GC, each player will be faced with same/similiar decisions that the commanders were historically faced with. Eg, The allied player will be forced to make decisions with the 82nd to wait to secure the LZ's before pushing to Nijmegen bridge, or splitting their forces. The same decision will need be made regarding the British 1st AB, should I try to secure the Road Bridge in force, hold the LZ in force, or gamble and do a comibination of the two. Frost's battalion may be strong enough to take the bridge, but with thier BG size and point allocation they will have a difficult time in holding it for very long with the reinforcements the Germans get coming in around Arnhem, especially if they get cut out of supply and are fighting continuosly with no rest. There are other critical decisions that need to be made which can significantly impact the course the GC will take.

#52: Re: Nice Rant Author: Therion,

Posted: Mon Jul 19, 2010 4:04 pm
—

Stwa wrote (View Post):

The AI did not crawl out of any secure positions, it only moved to take the objectives, then camped in cover waiting for ARMY.

You say that it didn't crawl out of any secure positions but it moved to take the objectives and then camped in cover.
It means that there was a period after deployment was over when it was moving towards the objectives, yes?

#53: Re: Nice Rant Author: Stwa,

Posted: Mon Jul 19, 2010 4:10 pm
—
The AI deployed on the road network...because that is where the scenario designer had them deploy. Now days I don't deploy the AI on top of an objective. It is an experiment of mine.

The AI decided to use the roads to take some of the objectives.

Then in moved into the rocks for cover.

Nice move on the AI's part.

#54: Re: Nice Rant Author: Therion,

Posted: Mon Jul 19, 2010 4:13 pm
—
It's not the same as deploying in cover and staying there.

#55: Re: Nice Rant Author: Therion,

Posted: Mon Jul 19, 2010 4:14 pm
—
Deploying in cover and staying in it is important for surviving the preparing artillery fires.

#56: Re: Nice Rant Author: Stwa,

Posted: Mon Jul 19, 2010 5:01 pm
—
No, in this case the scenario designer decided there would BE NO PREPATORY FIRES.

My guess is AI intel figured that out.

In this scenrio, the AI, being very clever, moves from insecure positions on the road network, to much more secure positions in the rocks.

Oh, and the AI takes some objectives along the way.

#57: Re: Nice Rant Author: Hoogley, Location: Brisbane

Posted: Tue Jul 20, 2010 1:56 am
—
I was initially a bit annoyed with the new AI feature "Don't Shoot Me!" where the order cancels at pretty much the first shot fired at your team. Then again, the Crawl of Death used to make me yell at the screen, "Get up you morons! Shoot! Run! Do SOMETHING!" whilst furtively re-issuing orders over and over again in auto-fire succession.

It seems to be fairly clear that one issue people have is that your men often don't do exactly as you want or asked. For me, there are two things that make CC different to the standard strategic/tactical fare:

1. There's no retarded base building and resource collecting.

2. Your men have minds of their own.

These two reasons are why I'm still paying money for an outdated, tentatively surviving franchise. There is still no other game like it. COH comes kind of close, but it still falls waaaaay short of the mark. CC is the only franchise of it's kind that I am aware of. If there's others, make me aware. ;)

Ok, so sometime (or often, depending on your view) the AI acts buggy and you get men running around on the spot, tanks refusing to take move orders, and a rich variety of "Stupidly Programmed Algorithmic Brain Syndrome". I get the shits with it when it happens, and you can tell it's a bug and not "realistic AI in effect". However, a number of other apparently illogical behaviours can be accredited to poor leadership. And I know, because I'll be the first to claim guilt. I've been playing this game for, what, fifteen years or so, and I still suck at making brilliant choices in regard to orders and tactical plans - often. Hell, it's only because of the new Don't Shoot Me! AI that I've finally learned how to issue assault moves effectively. Before that my men just got shot up and Crawl of Death'd their way to an early digital grave.

But, putting the bugs aside for a moment, one claimed issue of the game from SkyStrike's original rant really comes down to there being two kinds of RTS/RTT mentalities: those who can deal with the unpredictability of an army with (in all fairness, limited) autonomous thought, and those who desire an mob of automatons who will blindly follow orders without self-consideration, just like the units in all those bread-and-butter RTS clones out there and through gaming history. And, in the end, the second is quite clearly what SkyStrike is after, which from an AI perspective amounts to "smart enough to path to my designated waypoint without tripping out and utilising available cover along the way", which is not exactly what I would call an advancement in realistic humanised AI simulation.

And, mooxe, with all respect - because I do - I still get confused by this complaint about the re-makes being "more of the same; no great innovations". I mean, isn't that what you'd expect when S3T are doing nothing more than re-working/tinkering with the original game code? Just what kind of expectation did everyone have?

If the issue is about paying money for that, then I can see the issue and ask each of us to choose for themselves whether they agree with this or not. You can choose to see it as a scantily-clad rip-off, or a homage to a keeping alive one of the greatest (and overlooked) gaming franchises of our time; either is an acceptable viewpoint, I think. I've been happy to buy TLD and LSA, because these are remakes of the games I love with extra features I want. I've not bought WAR or COI because I don't need remakes of these games.

I am absolutely loving LSA so far, because it's done what I expect from a game in the CC franchise - it stands out as an innovation and contains progressive advancements to the previous games, which are in themselves just progressive advancements of the original CC game. Truly, this is what I think. I also think LSA is the first of the remakes to actually achieve this. The previous remakes were just remakes. This game is something else.

And SkyStrike's rant is what it is.

#58: Re: Nice Rant Author: Stwa,

Posted: Tue Jul 20, 2010 6:12 am
—

Hoogley wrote (View Post):

... However, a number of other apparently illogical behaviours can be accredited to poor leadership. And I know, because I'll be the first to claim guilt. I've been playing this game for, what, fifteen years or so, and I still suck at making brilliant choices in regard to orders and tactical plans - often. Hell, it's only because of the new Don't Shoot Me! AI that I've finally learned how to issue assault moves effectively. Before that my men just got shot up and Crawl of Death'd their way to an early digital grave.

Very well said Hoogley...

I too, am much more diligent about planning my movements, then ever before. I am more involved in each game, and I enjoy the games much more today than I did, say 10 years ago.

#59: Re: Nice Rant Author: Troger, Location: L4W's place, Australia

Posted: Thu Jul 29, 2010 7:47 am
—
Two problems that break the game for me:

SkyStrike and others here have some very legitimate points that should not be ignored, problem is no one seems to be listening to begin with.

Last edited by Troger on Sun Feb 27, 2011 6:31 pm; edited 2 times in total

#60: Re: Nice Rant Author: Therion,

Posted: Thu Jul 29, 2010 8:17 pm
—

Hoogley wrote (View Post):

It seems to be fairly clear that one issue people have is that your men often don't do exactly as you want or asked. For me, there are two things that make CC different to the standard strategic/tactical fare:

1. There's no retarded base building and resource collecting.

2. Your men have minds of their own.

These two reasons are why I'm still paying money for an outdated, tentatively surviving franchise. There is still no other game like it. COH comes kind of close, but it still falls waaaaay short of the mark. CC is the only franchise of it's kind that I am aware of. If there's others, make me aware. Wink

You mean different from Real Time Strategies? How unusual.

You should look among tactical level Real Time Simulations, not among RTS games. From RTSims, Firefight is pretty close to CC, but has AI that can actually attack.
I moved to it some time ago and I prefer playing it over CC.

#61: Re: Nice Rant Author: Therion,

Posted: Thu Jul 29, 2010 8:43 pm
—

Stwa wrote (View Post):

No, in this case the scenario designer decided there would BE NO PREPATORY FIRES.

My guess is AI intel figured that out.

In this scenrio, the AI, being very clever, moves from insecure positions on the road network, to much more secure positions in the rocks.

Oh, and the AI takes some objectives along the way.

So, basically, there's an AI that can do it's job only when you assign it to insecure positions and wait for it to redeploy? It's a very limited functionality.

Anyway, what modern tactics does the AI use? Can it perform defence like modern insurgents, US Army and Russian army?
Can it perform attacks like modern insurgents, US Army and Russian army? Does this game feature modern tactics?

#62: Re: Nice Rant Author: schrecken, Location: Sydney, Australia

Posted: Thu Jul 29, 2010 8:54 pm
—
The British and US armed forces believe so

#63: Re: Nice Rant Author: mooxe,

Posted: Thu Jul 29, 2010 10:01 pm
—

schrecken wrote (View Post):

The British and US armed forces believe so

What exactly do they believe?

#64: Re: Nice Rant Author: schrecken, Location: Sydney, Australia

Posted: Thu Jul 29, 2010 10:18 pm
—
That could be a long list....

#65: Re: Nice Rant Author: mooxe,

Posted: Fri Jul 30, 2010 12:33 am
—
Lets move away from the, "If the Marines and the RAF Regt bought it, it must be good" line of thinking.

#66: Re: Nice Rant Author: schrecken, Location: Sydney, Australia

Posted: Fri Jul 30, 2010 12:58 am
—
Let's not

#67: Re: Nice Rant Author: squadleader_id, Location: Soerabaja

Posted: Fri Jul 30, 2010 2:41 am
—
Do the Marines and RAF use their military versions for tactical combat training playing vs the AI? Rolling Eyes

#68: Re: Nice Rant Author: schrecken, Location: Sydney, Australia

Posted: Fri Jul 30, 2010 3:16 am
—
Looking at the results in Afghanistan... I'd say yes.

#69: Re: Nice Rant Author: Priapus,

Posted: Fri Jul 30, 2010 3:36 am
—

schrecken wrote (View Post):

Looking at the results in Afghanistan... I'd say yes.

haha!

#70: Re: Nice Rant Author: dj,

Posted: Fri Jul 30, 2010 5:16 am
—

vonB wrote (View Post):

Quote:

TT did it I don't see why I can't.

TT was the man...along with Dreaded88 at mastering AI gameplay. Those TT artillery barrages were insane, wreaking havoc every where.

#71: Re: Nice Rant Author: Hoogley, Location: Brisbane

Posted: Fri Jul 30, 2010 8:07 am
—

Therion wrote (View Post):

No, not that unusual at all.

CC has at it's core a real-time tactical simulation game, sure. However, being able to allocate your own troops from a forcepool; turn-based movement of BGs on a strategic map (CC4, CC5, WAR, TLD, LSA); managing resources such as support weapon strikes (CC4, CC5, WAR, TLD, LSA), supply (CC2, CC4, WAR, TLD, LSA), and resource points (CC2, CC3, WAR & LSA)... that's all strategic gameplay.

Semantics? Turn-based Strategy, Turn-based Tactical, Real Time Strategy, Real Time Simulation, Real Time Tactical... they're all titles used to try and lump things into categories for identification. But, the Total War series and a number of CC versions have a turn-based strategic level coupled with a real-time tactical level. Hearts of Iron would qualify as an RTS, because it's in real-time, but is nothing like what most people consider RTS - being the isometric view unit and base building standard set by Dune II. Some games listed as RTTs just look to me like another isometric RTS games without the base building, and not a great stride apart in gameplay.

So, sorry, poor delineation of genre. I'll extend my genre grouping to include everything in the Strategy and Tactics realm. Then I'll choose to cut out everything that isn't set in WW2, resembles a board game, is in isometric view (3D or otherwise), requires "base building" of any sort, doesn't at least try to emulate real soldier behaviour, and doesn't have a "strategic map" layer. I think that just leaves Close Combat.

I had a look at Firefight. It looks similar, is definitely "inspired" by CC (yes, they are air brackets), and may have improvements on the AI modelling. But, and I'll be honest here, it looks like shit. As an artist, aesthetic is still an important element for my gaming experiences. Close Combat may not be a beauty queen, but at least it tries to brush up nice. Aesthetic is where many games in the Strategy/Tactics genre fall down. Firefight looks like the gaudy graphics from CCI or maybe CC2. I've moved on, thanks. Besides, it doesn't seem to have a grand campaign/strategic layer as far as I can tell from Google images. You'll have to tell me if it does, because I'm honestly not going to bother downloading it to find out.

I'd love S3T to emulate a strategic level similar to Hearts of Iron and add that to Close Combat. Or, maybe Paradox could add a squad level tactical layer to Hearts of Iron. Whoever gets there first wins in my opinion. Wink

#72: Re: Nice Rant Author: Stwa,

Posted: Fri Jul 30, 2010 11:53 pm
—
I have played tons of games against the AI. I have also listened and learned from others on what it takes to influence AI behavior so you can set up different kinds of battles. Its a TOTAL NO BRAINER to get the AI to attack. Its also a TOTAL NO BRAINER to get the AI to defend.

We still employ the house rule; If the AI requests a truce, the human player can take ONE more objective, then must honor the truce. This is to keep the HUMAN player from sitting back on the Defence and simply trying to ambush the AI.

Most of our games play out on cutdown maps basically 1/2 KM square. They are mostly infantry fights, with vehicles added generally for interest. So, we imagine a money cost per kill to determine if Modern Tactics are being applied. For Instance, if during the course of the game I use $ 680,000 for 10 Hellfire missles (from CAS), to blow up a few Ragheads in a building, then we conclude Modern Tactics have indeed been applied.

#73: Re: Nice Rant Author: Troger, Location: L4W's place, Australia

Posted: Sat Jul 31, 2010 5:20 am
—

Hoogley wrote (View Post):

And, mooxe, with all respect - because I do - I still get confused by this complaint about the re-makes being "more of the same; no great innovations".

Hoogley, the problem is less of the same (less of the same being that which was done right the first time and didn't need fixing, but now was 'fixed' and has made the game unplayable). It might be hard for many of those (such as yourself, I presume) who did not play the originals to understand were some of us are coming from.

I'm glad to hear someone is enjoying constantly re-issuing orders, and watching your men crawl to death. It's not CC, it's probably not even an accurate representation of WW2 combat (or combat at all), but more importantly: it's not fun.

#74: Re: Nice Rant Author: schrecken, Location: Sydney, Australia

Posted: Sat Jul 31, 2010 7:58 am
—

Quote:

it's not fun.

Yes it is

#75: Re: Nice Rant Author: vonB,

Posted: Sat Jul 31, 2010 8:30 am
—

Quote:

made the game unplayable

Are we playing the same games?

#76: Re: Nice Rant Author: Hoogley, Location: Brisbane

Posted: Sat Jul 31, 2010 12:26 pm
—

Trogers wrote:

It might be hard for many of those (such as yourself, I presume) who did not play the originals to understand were some of us are coming from.

That is a very big presumption for you to make. And, quite incorrect, as it so happens.

I started playing Close Combat from A Bridge Too Far, back around '98-99, when my roommate at the time introduced me to it. I've been hooked ever since. I own CC1, CC2, CC3, CC5, CCMT, CCTLD, and CCLSA.

If you'd read any of my posts, you'd have some idea, but I'm not really expecting you to be that interested in me personally. However, you should get some background before making wild assumptions. Research, my friend, is important.

Other than the vehicle pathing, which I recently came to heads with, I've had no issue with the remade games. Quite the opposite in fact; I'm quite enjoying LSA. The only place I had issues with the move order cancellations was on the beaches of Normandy. However, it seems an authentic experience to be screaming orders at your men over and over again whilst they become confused and scared and try to run away from the barrages of machine-gun fire.

Actually, I wouldn't know; I wasn't there.

Honestly, I have to ask, did you ever play the original games? Are you sure? You're memory may be a little hazy, because if you go back and re-live the glory I think you'll find the original games a little less perfect than your glossed over senses are telling you. They weren't perfect. They're still not perfect. But they were, and are still, plenty of fun.

"Are we playing the same games?"

#77: Re: Nice Rant Author: vonB,

Posted: Sat Jul 31, 2010 2:28 pm
—
I find the debate on 'order cancellations', 'cowering teams', ar whatever you want to call it, interesting. At first, I did find it a bit frustrating because it seems more pronounced than in previous versions, but I got to thinking, maybe it's just trying to issue unreasonable orders?

Few human beings will happily run full belt openly into the face of incoming fires, and I would think this is more so the smaller the number of troops involved in the assault. Where there are large numbers (such as beach assault, Russian infantry hordes, etc..) the effect will be moderated, i.e. it is more likely that troops will continue to press forward even though all hell is beaking loose around them.

While I do agree that it is sometimes too extreme, particularly when orders are cancelled and the troops crawl their way back, particulalry with experienced troops. The order shouldn't be 'cancelled'. It is still the order, and unless the troops are ''broken', they should still try and find a way to execute those orders. They may be forced to a standstill (take cover), but unless they are broken, or the order given to retreat/disengage, then they should stay put (more or less). I think for the purposes of the game/sim, there has to be a level of simplification. We could argue the psychological niceties until the cows come home...

So, it seems to me that the 'Commander' (you), need to put more consideration into your options. You need to find other ways to achieve your objective. Just because you could do it before does not make it right or wrong in itself.

So my initial frustration with this manifestation is not as 'anti' as it was to start with. It is still somewhat defective in some situations (particulalry the cancelling of orders, and the crawling back of teams who are in reasonable shape), but it has made me start looking at the game again from the point of view of tactical manouevering and engagement. Perhaps no bad thing?

The argument that you could do it before and you can't do it now, is not in itself compelling, but needs explanation in the particulars. My criticism is that it is not quite right in certain particulars, but it is based on perfectly valid premises.

#78: Re: Nice Rant Author: Stwa,

Posted: Sat Jul 31, 2010 6:17 pm
—
My thought exactly vonB.

CC games have been greatly improved since even CC5 days. Everytime I play a game with CCMT I am reminded of that.

For once, going prone, ENHANCES, your ablility to survive most situations. This seems realistic to me.

You can still RAMBO the proners, but not in most other situations. And when doing the Rambo thing, a single Machine gun can ruin your day. The end result for me means more realism, more laughs, and MORE FUN.

Of course, we can still try to assault a position on our bellies, and the AI tries this from time to time, because I see it can work. Sometimes you can't even vis the enemy at 5 meters.

#79: Re: Nice Rant Author: Troger, Location: L4W's place, Australia

Posted: Sat Jul 31, 2010 6:40 pm
—
wild assumptions

Sorry, I've never seen you before the re-releases, went for a reach and made that wild, fantastical assumption. Rolling Eyes

Ownership is one thing but did you actually ever bother to play them?

Lots of people who were active in the CC5 mp community don't seem to be enjoying these re-releases (can't speak for the cc3/cc2 community, cause it's dead). Those of you who lurked in the darkness, apparently playing the AI until now seem to be having no problems with them. Then again, I should expect as much, the fact that you somehow had fun playing the AI already tells me quite a bit about yourself. Laughing

I'll leave the re-releases for you philosophers. I'm glad you enjoy it.

#80: Re: Nice Rant Author: Stwa,

Posted: Sat Jul 31, 2010 7:08 pm
—

Troger wrote (View Post):

I'll leave the re-releases for you philosophers. I'm glad you enjoy it.

See there a happy ending Exclamation

You can have fun playing CC4 and I can have fun playing CCMT. Everyone wins. Idea

Most people have played MP at one point or another, and its fun too. Kinda. The main thing is choice of opponent. In the old days, I would generally play against my kids. The thought was I could beat them. But the kids grew up and moved away. Damn! I have one left, but now days you can't pry him away from Call of Duty. Wonder Why?

#81: Re: Nice Rant Author: Dundradal,

Posted: Sat Jul 31, 2010 7:20 pm
—
I love the re-releases. I've been playing tons of COI and WAR with Dampsquib. Gravy and I have been doing LSA.

I also play CC5 every now and then as well (love those mods).

I fully support the new games. While they may not be perfect, I'd rather have something than complain about having nothing and then just disappear.

#82: Re: Nice Rant Author: vonB,

Posted: Sat Jul 31, 2010 9:39 pm
—
Well, if playing H2H makes you feel 'grown up', then I am happy for you. Personally, I see nothing wrong with Single Player. Just remember that if it wasn't for Single Player, you wouldn't have CC.

Were you around before Club SSI when Ryan's was the place to be for CC2 because CC3 hadn't even been released? If so, you are still around and following the Game. That says something. This was my moniker back then.

What makes CC special IS the Single Player because there is nothing like it. Just my opinion. Of course it's good H2H, but there's any number of games that can give you good H2H. It's a pity CCMT and MMCC3 wasn't around during the time of the MS Game Zone during the hey day of the CC Clans. Would have been a stonker! I agree that Single Player is somewhat stilted, but the drive to try and keep on improving the Single Player Game is one of the remarkable things about CC, and I hope that it continues to do so.

I gave up playing H2H after the MS Game Zone. Mostly because I fit CC around my life, not my life around CC, though it didn't seem to feel like that sometimes when running CSO... sorry, co-running CSO. During my H2H gaming I have met true gentlemen and complete arse holes, and I may yet take up H2H gaming again. However, for the time being, I am very pre-occupied with trying to add more to the Game, for both Single Player and H2H, and will be for quite some time to come.

So I have no quarrel with those that hate CC. Naturally I tend to disagree with many of their opinions, but they are entitled to them, even if they are wrong Wink

I do wonder why they bother to air their negativity. Why not just occupy themselves with something they do enjoy?

Oh, and my own illusions of being superior were shattered when my son first beat me at chess... when he was 11... Shocked

#83: Re: Nice Rant Author: Hoogley, Location: Brisbane

Posted: Sat Jul 31, 2010 11:26 pm
—

Troger wrote (View Post):

wild assumptions

Sorry, I've never seen you before the re-releases, went for a reach and made that wild, fantastical assumption. Rolling Eyes

I'll leave the re-releases for you philosophers. I'm glad you enjoy it.

Playing a game series and posting on forums are two different things. You don't have to be part of the community to play the games. One is not synonymous with the other.

I'm active on these forums at the moment because I'm choosing to be a constructive, contributing member of this community by working on mods and mod tools, and being involved in adult, considered discussions about the good and bad in Close Combat - old and new.

Oh, and without philosophers there would have been very little development in human thought and innovation over the last six thousand years, so thanks for the compliment. Wink

#84: Re: Nice Rant Author: Stwa,

Posted: Sun Aug 01, 2010 1:33 am
—
Also, I would like to mention ...

That many of us have done wargames with a variety of sysetms (automated or otherwise) down through the years. Over time I came to the conclusion; Troops left to themselves would basically do nothing. So systems that supported this notion were generally the ones I enjoyed the most.

While I imagine modern infantry combat with modern weapons, I can certainly imagine cowering teams, and an overwhelming urge to seek cover. Repeated orders to advance, seem very realsitic to me, since in most situations, chaos reigns.

Human wave tactics for assaults seem easy enough to model. In the case of many, the fear of being shot in the back by your superiors would compel you forward. This physiclogical factor did not make its initial appearance in WW2, but dates back to earlier times.

But for platoon level action with 21st century combat ala CCMT, it does not seem necessary.

That being said, I long for a day, when you can have new teams spawn in for the AI based on an event (like a KIA team). ZULU or Chinese style human waves providing plenty of laughs until the ammo runs out.

#85: Re: Nice Rant Author: mooxe,

Posted: Sun Aug 01, 2010 2:59 am
—
The rereleases have all been dissapointing and frustrating for me.

For over the past decade we debated over and over on how the games should advance.

Now they advance, and we get the same four theatres again, plus CCMT.

New features scattered throughout each game illustrating S3T's learning curve.

No game combined all the must haves from the decade old debates, or all the best features of CCMT and the rereleases.

Instead, time is turned back ten years and we are starting over.

People set their standards so low to say atleast they are still releasing versions, its drawing attention to the game which cant be bad. You sound like beggars.

Since mostly everyone on the S3T has been playing this game for over 10 years or close to it, should I expect my machine gun to take up a spot by the window? Yes. Should my tank be able to drive straight on a road for 20m? Yes. Should my firewall prevent me from playing online? No. Should the AI deploy an ATG behind a house, or tanks behind massive hedgerows? No.

#86: Re: Nice Rant Author: Stwa,

Posted: Sun Aug 01, 2010 8:12 am
—
Yes, if we are shift the conversation away from the tactical game, I agree with you.

If we are not going to have another CC. Then indeed, we have been basically punted back to the same situation that existed in 2000.

CC has been a disappointing adventure in how may ways can you FRONT END the basic tactical game.

CC development projects since CC4 have never been about pride, but rather money, instead.

#87: Re: Nice Rant Author: schrecken, Location: Sydney, Australia

Posted: Sun Aug 01, 2010 9:57 am
—
CC:WaR's first and major goal was bug eradication... I believe that was successfully achieved throughout 2009.

Following on from that was the expansion of the number of maps to 64... thus giving greater operational options.

#88: Re: Nice Rant Author: vonB,

Posted: Sun Aug 01, 2010 10:36 am
—

Quote:

CC development projects since CC4 have never been about pride, but rather money, instead.

A rather simplistic comment, though the essence is correct I think. It is more about the lack of funding that the Game has not progressed more than it has, and in a commercial environment, lack of sales means lack of funding. The potential sales cannot support a team of dedicated programmers, graphic artists, designers, researchers, etc, etc, and pay them a living or industry standard wage.

However, what it does not take into account are the efforts and enterprise of those who are dedicated to the Game, trying to move it forward in such a financially barren environment, and the efforts still continue. Some credit should be given for that.

CCM was the only significant step forwards in the Series since CC3, and that was mostly due to it being taken up as a Military Trainer, not a commercial game, though having no Operational Game, it is in some ways a step backwards as a game.

Pride doesn't pay the bills, and as there is no benefactor or philanthropic patron, the commercial realities dicatate a lot of what is possible or not.

I think there could be strategies to move things forward significantly, but I don't think the odds are good for a variety of reasons.

Let us hope that we continue to chip away continually. If you chip away long enough, the sculpture will appear. Whether you like the look of it might be moot...

#89: Re: Nice Rant Author: BerndN, Location: Outer space

Posted: Sun Aug 01, 2010 11:58 am
—
I don't believe that it's only for money. There's not much money in it or do anyone believe that the re-releases have sold massively?

What I see and wonder about is the graphics engine could be recoded with less problems. This would give a modern 2D engine which can load all 2D maps currently available.

What's still outstanding is that the game engine is able to group a couple of small AIs and let them act and react to the terrain file. This is not easy to program.
And this is the main reason we have a path finding problem. No idea how much of the original source code is available but path finding has a long history in CC. So I assume that the movement and AI is a problem.

I only hope that with the re-releases some small money has been received which makes it possible to pay for some improvements in the core of the engine.

Compared to the original CC55 engine LSA has made some good progress in my opinion. Not so much that I personally had hoped for but I see a lot of feedback from the devs which seems to indicate that they try to do the best to iron out what is possible.

Just my 2 cents Smile

#90: Re: Nice Rant Author: vonB,

Posted: Sun Aug 01, 2010 3:49 pm
—
Pathing is not seperate from the Tactical AI, it is part of it. That is one reason why it is not a simplistic process of 'tweaking' the pathing. To do so also impacts on the Tactical AI. Change the pathing alogrithms and you change the tactical AI.

Believe me, if any of these things were simple, they would have been done long long ago!

#91: Re: Nice Rant Author: mooxe,

Posted: Sun Aug 01, 2010 3:54 pm
—

vonB wrote (View Post):

Pathing is not seperate from the Tactical AI, it is part of it. That is one reason why it is not a simplistic process of 'tweaking' the pathing. To do so also impacts on the Tactical AI. Change the pathing alogrithms and you change the tactical AI.

Believe me, if any of these things were simple, they would have been done long long ago!

I keep reading about how hard it is to change it. How many years does it take? Matrix has had the opportunity for around four years now. When do we stop making excuses and start demanding a change?

#92: Re: Nice Rant Author: schrecken, Location: Sydney, Australia

Posted: Sun Aug 01, 2010 11:46 pm
—
There are calls in othereads for more funtionality to be coded into the strat layer.

It is always a consideration to balance community requests.

#93: Re: Nice Rant Author: Hoogley, Location: Brisbane

Posted: Mon Aug 02, 2010 12:02 am
—

mooxe wrote (View Post):

The rereleases have all been dissapointing and frustrating for me.

For over the past decade we debated over and over on how the games should advance.

Now they advance, and we get the same four theatres again, plus CCMT.

New features scattered throughout each game illustrating S3T's learning curve.

No game combined all the must haves from the decade old debates, or all the best features of CCMT and the rereleases.

Instead, time is turned back ten years and we are starting over.

People set their standards so low to say atleast they are still releasing versions, its drawing attention to the game which cant be bad. You sound like beggars.

Since mostly everyone on the S3T has been playing this game for over 10 years or close to it, should I expect my machine gun to take up a spot by the window? Yes. Should my tank be able to drive straight on a road for 20m? Yes. Should my firewall prevent me from playing online? No. Should the AI deploy an ATG behind a house, or tanks behind massive hedgerows? No.

Ahhh... now, that's more like it. mooxe, you're absolutely right on all points. Though, I take offense to the beggar comment. Shocked

Yes, my expectations and desires are higher than the products being released. I want all of the things you mention and more. But, unfortunately, Stwa and vonB have also hit the counter issue squarely on the head. Without somebody willing to back up and dump a truck load of money into development for... well, developing the CC concept, this slow, incremental evolution is all we will see.

But, beggar or not, I'm happy about S3Ts efforts. Yeah, sure, they're in it for the money just as much as for the love, but that's the capitalist model, I thought. Most floundered IPs don't even get this much loving; they just fall by the wayside and become wiki entries; free downloadables; old, moth-eaten threads in the tapestry of gaming history.

Unfortunately, I don't think the CC community is big enough to draw big dollar industry attention to our little proceedings. The best we could hope for is an eccentric benefactor. Or, the community could raise the money. It's probably impossible, I've got little to contribute personally, and we'd never see a return since we'd be buying our own product, but I'd try my best to chip in if I thought this would actually work. I guess the only real way is if there's somebody in the community who is loaded and has nothing better to do with their money. Wish I could say, "Surprise! That's me!" - for a number of reasons, actually Wink

- but it's not.

#94: Re: Nice Rant Author: 7A_Woulf, Location: Sweden

Posted: Mon Aug 02, 2010 10:15 am
—
Can't we get Bill Gates interested in CC Question

-He has a fist full of dollars and a interest in charitywork and helping they less fortunate (us, in the CC community...) Cool

#95: Re: Nice Rant Author: Hoogley, Location: Brisbane

Posted: Mon Aug 02, 2010 11:23 am
—
Yeah, but Microsoft dumped CC after iteration number one, didn't they? Mad

Imagine what could have been...

#96: Re: Nice Rant Author: vonB,

Posted: Mon Aug 02, 2010 1:20 pm
—
Microsoft pulled out of CC after CCIII. I think there is as much chance of Microsoft taking on CC again as gnats farts replacing oil for energy.

I do not think CC on its own will ever command the kind of revenues needed to overhaul it, well, not just overhaul, it needs to be rebuilt. It is possible some other development may succeed and become the successor, but so far I have not seen anything that is capable of doing that. All the focus developmentally is on presentation, and that's not what makes CC what it is, though I would dearly love to see it get a face lift.

To me, the best prospect CC has is to benefit from a spin off, or piggy back on, the results of another development. That's still a big ask in a commercial world. Is there any prospect of an Open Source approach? My jury is out on that, but I am far from convinced it could work. The kind of focused effort it requires would make an Open Source approach very problematical, and that includes the mind sets of those who would be interested in doing it. The game industry is full of ego's and air heads, and I suspect there would just be a fight between those who want different things, or just want to be in control.

On the other hand, who knows what technologies are going to become available, and therefore what potential there may be. Then again, there may yet be a dedicated team of people who are determined to make something work, just because they want to. I admire spinlocks efforts with his 'Screen Saver'. It shows what can be done with the tools, the expertise, and the determination. It certainly looks attractive enough. Can that be turned into a game/sim on the level of CC or better? I am sceptical, but will keep an open mind. I think the challange is far greater than most would realise. Even Firefight is a capable production, but with respect, hardly of the same class as CC yet, even though in some particulars, it is arguably better.

So keep pushing. Keep chipping away. Persistence over time can produce remarkable results. Banging your head against a brick wall will only make it bleed, and the wall doesn't give a damn...

#97: Re: Nice Rant Author: 7A_Woulf, Location: Sweden

Posted: Mon Aug 02, 2010 3:00 pm
—
Wasn't really serious, don't think MS would even glance at CC again...

But my idea about a filthy rich troll that would like to pay for a total new CC is probably the only way we can see what we talking about; -Don't thing there's enough $$$ in the CC market for a company to invest money in it. Crying or Very sad

#98: Re: Nice Rant Author: BerndN, Location: Outer space

Posted: Mon Aug 02, 2010 6:42 pm
—
What would be needed is, what level of source code is available for the current re-releases and what can be done with it. Interesting stuff can be found here: http://www-cs-students.stanford.edu/~amitp/gameprog.html#paths

Some interesting reads on some basics and especially how many people have done work on the main theme: path finding and 'strategy'. Also some good information about 2D and elevations as this is critical to path finding too.

I remember that there was indeed an open source try of a program but can't find any links. But I have found it: http://sourceforge.net/projects/adv-warfare/
Why has it been abandond? There are so much talented guys here which could help boost such a project.

This is not meant to sound like I don't like current re-releases.

But I would love to have some better AI on a map level as well as on strategic level. And to somehow give more info about the 2D terrain. Another thing is to keep stats in the game so that I can see my heroes.
Another one like laying smoke, deploying mines. Some small stuff Smile

#99: Re: Nice Rant Author: Spinlock,

Posted: Mon Aug 02, 2010 7:54 pm
—
Tactical pathfinding in an rts is not rocket science, but it is very expensive computationally. The size of CC maps are at and beyond the upper limit of sane performance.
I don't know why the S3t devs can't improve the pathfinding. I don't doubt they have the skills to do it. Rather I imagine the way the game was designed/written creates an intractable situation.

In CCSS I have no problem pathfinding 800+ soldiers in realtime. Vehicle pathfinding is a non issue as well. A tank can travel back and forth across a map of any complexity all day long. [See my blog for an example].
I have the blessing/curse of starting from scratch, something the s3t guys don't (appear to) have. They're dealing with a codebase that was written back when 133mz processor was state of the art and most computers only had 32 megs of ram.

The only way CC will enter the 21st century is with a project like CCSS or similar effort. (I never did like the design of 'Open Combat' )

In regards to MS or other major publisher: When has a bigtime publisher like activision or thq ever recently released a great tactical combat game?
They're more likely to turn it into something like 'First to fight' The guys at Matrix are the ones that try to publish wargames with a bit of purity.

S3t/ Matrix should create a patch to all the new versions of CC that implements and external programming interface (dll, or scripting) giving the users the option of using a secondary pathfinder. In that case I would consider porting some of my code to it.

#100: Re: Nice Rant Author: vonB,

Posted: Mon Aug 02, 2010 10:13 pm
—
Well spoken spinlock. There is much sense in what you say.

#101: Re: Nice Rant Author: vonB,

Posted: Mon Aug 02, 2010 10:16 pm
—
Well Hoogley, if we both win the Lottery, I'll match whatever you put in Wink

#102: Re: Nice Rant Author: Hoogley, Location: Brisbane

Posted: Tue Aug 03, 2010 12:17 am
—
Laughing

I'll start entering the lottery, then.

I think that Spinlock is correct. The only way to get an iteration of CC that is up to modern expectations is to start from scratch but model the new game on the old ones in order to keep it "true". Start with a clean slate, and that way you get rid of the trash, plus you have more freedom for development.

Apple learnt that with OSX. Microsoft (sort of) learnt that with Windows 7.

Again, the problem (the thing that causes most problems in the world) is basically one of money. If anyone does ever gets development funding, I'll sign up for design management, UI design, and/or general graphical/artistic duties. Wink

#103: Re: Nice Rant Author: JaguarWolf,

Posted: Tue Aug 03, 2010 12:34 am
—
It always amuses how utterly stupid the CC community is. The last couple of releases by Matrix(TLD, LSA etc) are such scams. So they make a few cosmetic changes here and there, and then hail it as the next best thing.

The truth they haven't done jack at all. It's the SAME game with the title changed. But so many people here get their panties in a bunch and feel they need to buy it.

So Matrix fills their pockets with your idiotic dollars and what real substantive gameplay changes do we get? NONE.

The truth is CC5 is and always will be the best game. Until an entirely new CC game is made, from the ground up, that incorporates all the damn changes we've been clamoring for, there will no other substitute. CC5 IS THE BEST.

#104: Re: Nice Rant Author: schrecken, Location: Sydney, Australia

Posted: Tue Aug 03, 2010 1:13 am
—
No it's not

#105: Re: Nice Rant Author: 7A_Woulf, Location: Sweden

Posted: Tue Aug 03, 2010 1:16 am
—
Without making any personal attacks; -There is always reactionists that claims 'their' version of to be 'the best'... Razz

Compared to CC3 I think CC5 game sucks big-times, and despite some flaws that may be corrected I think LSA will break it too. -Why?

*At my first attempt with CC5, when it was released, I played a few turns on GC's before I got tired of the bloody engineers appearing at Cherbourg and uninstalled it... (Oh! -Did even CC5 need a patch?)
*The AI have never given me the same (or any...) challenge as I found in CC3, and now in the patched LSA
*CC5 have the 'magic-self-cleaning-maps'; -The engineers does an incredible job of repairing battle-damaged houses and removing/re-positioning wrecks... This feature might be in CC3 and/or LSA as well, but I've never reacted on it as much as in CC5.

But I still plays CC3, CC4 (Kreta), modded CC5 and now LSA, and I'm enjoying all of them! I gladly pays my 50 "idiotic dollars" and gets hours of fun and action; -That price is a piss in the ocean compared to the drawer I've got filled with games that I'll never install again... (as 'vanilla' CC4 and 'vanilla' TLD; -Maybe not in that drawer physically, but two games that I'd never play again.)

Guess I'm a noob and an idiot in some peoples eyes, but I'm still a better man than many other judgemental reactionists that imagines that they are so much better since they been playing CC since the "good-ol'-days" of CC1 and CC2. (ohps! -So have I! But I guess I'm not as good as some other since I haven't been active online and a member of other forums Question

)

*End of outburst* Rolling Eyes

#106: Re: Nice Rant Author: papa_whisky,

Posted: Tue Aug 03, 2010 1:36 am
—
I am glad people have a favourite, but I am always left scratching my head as to why a small subset of people so aggressively slag off the re-releases and the developer. It is as if they feel threatened by the re-releases. There was hope that the re-releases may fund an overhaul of the engine. I doubt that has become a reality, on the other hand without the re-releases the community would probably overtime fade away and die. It is interesting to note that the most dynamic contributors to the CC community that are willing to experiment and try new ideas are basically supporters of the re-releases. It is very sad that Mooxe who has dedicated a lot of his time and effort to maintaining this site is so very negative.

Yes the re-releases have flaws, yes the patches are slow in coming out, and the reason why is that the developer needs to keep getting products out to pay for the incremental improvements. Not a particularly good business model, but without capital investment that is about the only thing they can do. Are the re-releases over priced or good value for money? Probably both depending on who you are. If you have played the game for a long time and get a few improvements then yes they are probably over-priced for what you get (compared to a really good mod with loads of new maps at no cost), if you have never owned a copy then probably no and represent good value for money.

If those that love the game could try to be more positive then it would make the whole CC experience (which the forums are an important part of) so much more attractive. Pointing out flaws is good. Sometimes its not just what you say, but the way it is said that in the end makes criticism constructive. If I was part of the development team that invest a lot of time and effort I would find the language used a big disincentive to continue for the little or no returns.

For me personally I will be buying LSA and look forward to enjoying it.

#107: Re: Nice Rant Author: mooxe,

Posted: Tue Aug 03, 2010 2:12 am
—

papa_whisky wrote (View Post):

It is very sad that Mooxe who has dedicated a lot of his time and effort to maintaining this site is so very negative.

Its hard to change my mind. When I see half cocked deatures like night battles and disorganized teams I cant help but get frustrated. Yay night battles, nobody knows exactly how sighting enemy soldiers work to begin with, so lets add night effects to make it even more confusing. And for added confusion lets add light when bombs explode, and flares. Ok tell me who has found flares effective? Whats next.. padres and medics? Many of these features are barely even documented. I look at the LSA forum at Matrix and to me, for 50$ I too can join the beta testing team!

Theres no money... its all volunteer work.... nobody will invest... every game has bugs... patches come out quick... yeah yeah yeah.

The tactical portion of this game... wait let me rephrase... the close combat of Close Combat is still identical! Why after 13 years are we still debating on how effective mortars have to be? Its a game not a simulation. Mortars are for supression, not for dropping right on soldiers helmuts or down the barrel of an ATG. We knew that eons ago. Pathfinding... oh no energy left for that one. Didn't GJS have the best arguement for why the machine guns were in three and four man teams and not in the infantry section? Because they wouldnt go to the windows! That was nine years ago. You could fix that ofcourse two ways. Make smaller teams or program it so the main weapon took up aim outside the building. You can go on and on.

Matrix/CSO Simtek/S3t has released five, count em FIVE versions of Close Combat. Atleast two or three private versions for military contracts. So lets say eight versions... now check how many bug reports are on the LSA forum.

#108: Re: Nice Rant Author: JaguarWolf,

Posted: Tue Aug 03, 2010 4:25 am
—
I agree. The people at Matrix are nothing but scam artists. And their customers are the gullible CC community members that buy up their latest close combat clones expecting a revised and improved experience when the only thing they receive is a rehashed product.

There's nothing negative about Mooxe or anyone else that points out how dishonest and shameful Matrix is.

But why oh why do people continue to support the cheats at Matrix??? It's been years and years and they continue to deliver pathetic products. They have a pattern of behavior that shows only greed and duplicitous actions. They haven't done a damn thing good with CC and they never will.

As for me, I'm not supporting or feeding the pigs at Matrix anymore. They're fat enough as it is. SDK, Battle of the Scheldt or GJS are 10 times better than their crummy CC clones. I'll take CC5 and its mods any day over their "new" crapware.

#109: Re: Nice Rant Author: schrecken, Location: Sydney, Australia

Posted: Tue Aug 03, 2010 4:40 am
—
JaguarWolf, wasn't it you that said...

oh bugger my CC5 just had a 00:00 crash

oh damn... why doesn't supply work properly

Oh crap... only 44 piddling maps.

darn it... i can't mutitask

hey didn't anyone ever fight at night?

why can't I see my opponents muzzle flash?

Why can't i see those crushed hedges?

why do all my nationalities speak the same language?

Why don't tankers have their own uniforms?

Why can't I go over and under a bridge?

Why can't I destroy bridges?

Why do my paratroops always land in exactly the same place?

Why can't i stack my battle Groups?

Why can't a BG move through another BG?

i just uninstalled a mod ... now my files are corrupted and I can't uninstall... what are those registry settings?

winger!

#110: Re: Nice Rant Author: Hoogley, Location: Brisbane

Posted: Tue Aug 03, 2010 5:45 am
—
No offense to S3T, but my hope is that one day a well funded developer will recognise the uniqueness of this franchise, pump cash into it, and either re-develop it as Close Combat or rip it off if and call it something else if they don't want to pay the royalties. Razz

Maybe call it Advanced Squad Leader? :D

I really am amazed that it hasn't happened. I would have thought that Close Combat had proved it's longevity by the fact that we are all still here playing it and talking about it right now. I think it's possible that other have tried to reinvent CC instead of sticking to the format, so I probably didn't notice that they were even copying the game.

Maybe it's a convoluted issue: Destineer/Matrix/S3T can't fund a decently updated release; are asking too much for the IP rights for anyone else to purchase them; and no-one is sure if a clone will sell without the Close Combat name attached, so they're not confident enough to try it.

Who knows, but I just wish somebody would bring CC into the 21st century.

For the meantime, I'm enjoying S3T's re-imaginings.

#111: Re: Nice Rant Author: squadleader_id, Location: Soerabaja

Posted: Tue Aug 03, 2010 5:49 am
—
Nice points, Schreck ;)

schrecken wrote (View Post):

Why don't tankers have their own uniforms?

Nice new feature...too bad the research effort was quite poor on the uniforms.
Rank graphics for Panzer and Assault Gun crews are wrong in WAR and TLD...and still wrong in LSA.
But nobody really notice these tiny minor cosmetic thingies anyway ;)

BTW, S3T got the US AB uniforms for LSA historically correct this time (unlike WAR Rolling Eyes

)...soldier sprites uniforms needs tweaking though...why S3T loves those horrid stock green uniforms from Atomic is a mystery.

#112: Re: Nice Rant Author: schrecken, Location: Sydney, Australia

Posted: Tue Aug 03, 2010 5:57 am
—
The uniforms for AB in WaR was a considered decision based on research... some wore those uniforms to the end of the war and/or had their new uniform altered to resemble the old.

#113: Re: Nice Rant Author: squadleader_id, Location: Soerabaja

Posted: Tue Aug 03, 2010 6:28 am
—

schrecken wrote (View Post):

The uniforms for AB in WaR was a considered decision based on research... some wore those uniforms to the end of the war and/or had their new uniform altered to resemble the old.

Haha...you're not giving up on this are you Smile

Some Paratroops did not turn in their M42 uniforms after Normandy...but they don't wear them in combat anymore.
Probably the last organizational wear of M42 jumpsuits in combat in WW2 was by the 504th PIR, 82nd Airborne during Market Garden (I'm already thinking of a small mod so that the 504th can wear M42 jumpsuits in LSA).
True the paratroops did alter their M43, adding pockets to resemble M42 jumpsuits...but the uniforms are still olive green, not brown/cream. The BG unit icons and soldier sprite uniforms in WAR clearly shows US AB wearing brown M42 uniforms from the Normandy era.

Was the decision to simply just paint the old German infantry ranks black to represent Panzer crew ranks also based on thorough research? Wink

#114: Re: Nice Rant Author: schrecken, Location: Sydney, Australia

Posted: Tue Aug 03, 2010 7:06 am
—
It was all that was available at release as the artist had gone walkabout.... but you can see from the reults of the LSA release (20 months later) that this fine effort is continuing.

#115: Re: Nice Rant Author: schrecken, Location: Sydney, Australia

Posted: Tue Aug 03, 2010 7:14 am
—
pic

#116: Re: Nice Rant Author: schrecken, Location: Sydney, Australia

Posted: Tue Aug 03, 2010 7:19 am
—

Quote:

Probably the last organizational wear of M42 jumpsuits in combat in WW2 was by the 504th PIR, 82nd Airborne during Market Garden (I'm already thinking of a small mod so that the 504th can wear M42 jumpsuits in LSA).

that was well understood... it was done as a nod to the feelings and preference of many AB troops.

#117: Re: Nice Rant Author: Stwa,

Posted: Tue Aug 03, 2010 7:26 am
—

papa_whisky wrote (View Post):

I am glad people have a favourite, but I am always left scratching my head as to why a small subset of people so aggressively slag off the re-releases and the developer. It is as if they feel threatened by the re-releases. There was hope that the re-releases may fund an overhaul of the engine. I doubt that has become a reality, on the other hand without the re-releases the community would probably overtime fade away and die. It is interesting to note that the most dynamic contributors to the CC community that are willing to experiment and try new ideas are basically supporters of the re-releases. It is very sad that Mooxe who has dedicated a lot of his time and effort to maintaining this site is so very negative.

Yes the re-releases have flaws, yes the patches are slow in coming out, and the reason why is that the developer needs to keep getting products out to pay for the incremental improvements. Not a particularly good business model, but without capital investment that is about the only thing they can do. Are the re-releases over priced or good value for money? Probably both depending on who you are. If you have played the game for a long time and get a few improvements then yes they are probably over-priced for what you get (compared to a really good mod with loads of new maps at no cost), if you have never owned a copy then probably no and represent good value for money.

If those that love the game could try to be more positive then it would make the whole CC experience (which the forums are an important part of) so much more attractive. Pointing out flaws is good. Sometimes its not just what you say, but the way it is said that in the end makes criticism constructive. If I was part of the development team that invest a lot of time and effort I would find the language used a big disincentive to continue for the little or no returns.

For me personally I will be buying LSA and look forward to enjoying it.

Excellent commentary!

I play CCMT, I suppose it is a re-release, kinda. But I am not going back to CC5. That's crazy. If I go for WAR, TLD, or LSA, its to RIP some maps.

I have so many ideas for CCMT mods I will never implement them all. The game could keep me busy for years.

There are a few bugs left, I wish Simtek/S3T hadn't lost the source code though. It would be nice to get a final patch.

#118: Re: Nice Rant Author: Hoogley, Location: Brisbane

Posted: Tue Aug 03, 2010 7:57 am
—

CSO_Linebacker wrote (View Post):

... so that small team of volunteers continues to give their time and talents for free in an effort to complete the contract between the old Simtek and Destineer, in the hopes that they will get out from underneath the license agreement with enough resources to build something completely new from the ground up. Why? For all of you guys...the same people that ridicule and attack them for things they have no control over. The fact is, the game can't move forward until the contract is complete, plain and simple.

Hmmmm.... this is interesting, and relates to my previous musings. I wonder if this statement is an unvarnished truth...

I would like to think so. Does anyone know if LSA is the completion of this contract?

#119: Re: Nice Rant Author: BerndN, Location: Outer space

Posted: Tue Aug 03, 2010 8:19 am
—
Spinlock,
CCSS seems nice. Great idea and nice to see so much progress.

But path finding. Some here said that path finding in CC3/CC2 was better. Thinking about and reading about the path finding methods in the links I gave I see a fundamental difference between last linear CC3 and CC4-CC LSA. Suddenly path finding has to deal with more indirect goals for an AI. Since CC4 there's the short term goals as well as values given from the exit VL's. Maybe the AI has problems adjusting to the different 'goals'. This only describes major path finding of AI units regardless of soldier AI or vehicle AI.

The specific vehicle pathing issues seems to be directed to the wide of the objects and maybe 'cover'? I have seen tanks which drives on one side of the road which shows cover great instead of simply driving on the road. From my point of view vehicles should not orientate by the cover qotiente of the ground. Sorry for writing such stuff in the rant thread but I believe it's interesting for any future development whether it's a CC re-release or a brand new engine :)

And I repeat, great work on CCSS, Spinlock! Smile

#120: Re: Nice Rant Author: ANZAC_Tack, Location: Australia

Posted: Tue Aug 03, 2010 9:21 am
—
just bought the game.
got the beta update after registering.
did not play unpatched.
played the grand campaign regular settings.

could not allocate artillery, said it was supply drop, but had a big icon of 155mm gun 3rd down, parachoot below it!

first map, it took some 30 movements to get a tank from one end of map to other, kept going into trees, rivers, fields, backwards in fences, worth pathing i have ever seen! its like original stock ccv when it came out, WTF!

the map was stretched, i went to matrix to fix, but my nvidia latest patch 257.20 with GTX260 card, windows 7 64 bit pro,1920*1200 60 hz 24"LCD HDMI cable, dosent have the steps to fix it like in the help sections!. so i have stretched maps....argggggggg!!

#121: Re: Nice Rant Author: southern_land,

Posted: Tue Aug 03, 2010 9:41 am
—
adjust your settings through options within the game 1440x900 (windowed) does me and i have a similar setup to you Tack

#122: Re: Nice Rant Author: vonB,

Posted: Tue Aug 03, 2010 11:54 am
—
If you have a wide screen geometry, you have to set a resolution that fits that geometry. I have a 19" wide screen display. If I set the resolution to a standard geometry display (i.e. 1024x768, 1152x864 etc), then it gets stretched. Howeverm if I use 1440x900 (like Southern land) it displays just fine.

#123: Re: Nice Rant Author: ANZAC_Tack, Location: Australia

Posted: Tue Aug 03, 2010 12:31 pm
—
yeah ill try it,

lastly, the options screen is cut off right side, i cant turn sound up past 40% lol

#124: Re: Nice Rant Author: squadleader_id, Location: Soerabaja

Posted: Tue Aug 03, 2010 1:39 pm
—
Maybe this little discussion about uniforms should be moved elsewhere? But I guess it's still in line with this "nice rant" topic...this time dealing with poor research and strange design decisions in the graphics department :)

schrecken wrote (View Post):

pic

Bravo, you guys got the uniform colors right! Rolling Eyes

Too bad you didn't notice that the panzerwrap (black) and assault-gun wrap (gray) looks a bit different from the standard M43 tunic worn by German infantry.
I guess not much research was done on the different collar patch insignia for panzer crews also Wink

Great job on the well painted pink waffenfarbe though! :D

My post about panzer crew rank graphics from last year:
http://www.closecombatseries.net/CCS/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&t=7162

schrecken wrote (View Post):

Quote:

that was well understood... it was done as a nod to the feelings and preference of many AB troops.

Really? I guess S3T have now forsaken "the feelings and preference of these AB troops"...since in LSA the AB are now forced by the devs to wear their historical uniforms Wink

#125: Re: Nice Rant Author: squadleader_id, Location: Soerabaja

Posted: Tue Aug 03, 2010 1:49 pm
—
As for the map stretching probs...enable "keep aspect ratio" on your graphics card driver.
Check out this thread at matrix: http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2524755

#126: Re: Nice Rant Author: Peanut,

Posted: Tue Aug 03, 2010 4:13 pm
—

Hoogley wrote (View Post):

And, mooxe, with all respect - because I do - I still get confused by this complaint about the re-makes being "more of the same; no great innovations". I mean, isn't that what you'd expect when S3T are doing nothing more than re-working/tinkering with the original game code? Just what kind of expectation did everyone have? .

We have been promised better things for years and years. Yes, literal years and years. And its just been glorified mod after glorified mod with what at best can be said is only minor bells and whsitles like a modestly lareger strat map and ooooh wow... a night vision viewing limit... ooohh.. ahhhh...

Consider the price you pay for these piss poor rereleases and comapre it to most new PC or console games, its a rip. If it was a 30$ game it woudl be a much easier loud of horsehit to swallow.

3ST is a bunch of elite old fart CC modders who want to make sure they make money off what they did a far better job at for free when thier heads actually fit through the door.

#127: Re: Nice Rant Author: Peanut,

Posted: Tue Aug 03, 2010 4:19 pm
—

Stwa wrote (View Post):

I play CCMT, I suppose it is a re-release, kinda. But I am not going back to CC5. That's crazy. If I go for WAR, TLD, or LSA, its to RIP some maps.

I have so many ideas for CCMT mods I will never implement them all. The game could keep me busy for years.

There are a few bugs left, I wish Simtek/S3T hadn't lost the source code though. It would be nice to get a final patch.

Many of us have been where you are, positive and supporting these clowns and hoping our favorite game would get its due modern facelift. It wont happen, and after your the wallflower all night and nobody asks you on the CC dance floor, youll understand how most of the rest of us feel in being gyped by these developpers.

They lost the source code?? The LOST it? You mena they lost rights to work with it? Or did they actually in the 21st century msislaced the floppy disk they dept it on? Rolling Eyes

#128: Re: Nice Rant Author: schrecken, Location: Sydney, Australia

Posted: Tue Aug 03, 2010 8:21 pm
—
I'm sure Randy had it... but he's not answering his emails.

#129: Re: Nice Rant Author: Stwa,

Posted: Tue Aug 03, 2010 8:49 pm
—
Lost has a lot of different meanings. But I wouldn't be surprised if its kinda like what Schreck just mentioned.

Besides, its all water under the bridge at this point. Men will be men.

#130: Re: Nice Rant Author: schrecken, Location: Sydney, Australia

Posted: Wed Aug 04, 2010 5:58 am
—

Quote:

when thier heads actually fit through the door.

Already removed my ears, so no worries.

#131: Re: Nice Rant Author: southern_land,

Posted: Wed Aug 04, 2010 8:33 am
—
Peanut?

Welcome back Sbuf forgotten your login? or just misspelt it? hahahahahahahahahaahahahahaa

Two posts and they're just to hate, yet you speak like you've been around the community for years. What a fucking troll. At least have the balls to sign in under your own name loser

#132: Re: Nice Rant Author: Dundradal,

Posted: Wed Aug 04, 2010 1:40 pm
—
I found it odd (as a new member myself) that someone would just show up to bash things thing disappear.

I support the re-releases and Matrix. They are doing the best they can. I'd rather have something than nothing or say how all the new ones suck then hold up a game that is also full of its own issues. You can't have it both ways.

If you don't like don't follow it and don't bother us. I don't climb into your troll lair and shit on your couch do I?

#133: Re: Nice Rant Author: AT_Stalky,

Posted: Wed Aug 04, 2010 2:59 pm
—