Close Combat Series :: View topic

through

[^/[Print]\]
Goto page : Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 :| |:
Close Combat Series -> Close Combat Last Stand Arnhem

#161: Re: Nice Rant Author: Cpl_Punishment, Location: Brisbane

Posted: Fri Aug 06, 2010 6:34 am
—
Could be I'm just a bit tetchy from having one and a half wisdom teeth taken out yesterday in a botched dental procedure, with surgery to look forward to for the other one and a half.

It's probably the pain killers talking. Ignore me.

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

Posted: Fri Aug 06, 2010 6:37 am
—

Cpl_Punishment wrote (View Post):

Could be I'm just a bit tetchy from having one and a half wisdom teeth taken out yesterday in a botched dental procedure, with surgery to look forward to for the other one and a half.

It's probably the pain killers talking. Ignore me.

Ooops. Was having trouble with posting. Old login.

#163: Re: Nice Rant Author: Stwa,

Posted: Fri Aug 06, 2010 7:07 am
—
My guess is LSA sales will outrun some of the previous releases. Will it be enough to continue the series?

So it got me thinking, OK, what if the series continues on at this point. More WW2 mods for releases? CCMT (since the first one was basically trash), or what? Pacific Theater? More expansion or cultivation of the strategic game? Everyone buying a new CC release every year?

While I have found CC5 and CCMT nice games, and I have dedicated some time to them over the years. I am not really sure if I will go forward with the series from this point. I might pick something up if the price drops under 20 bucks. (Its not really a money thing, its a macho thing).

CC at least for me, never really compared to other titles that created a more drug-like reaction in my brain cells. Like DF Extreme where I would re-install the game, play for 72 hours straight, and then un-install before the withdrawls kicked in. I finaly had to sell it to restore sanity. Or CFS 2 and 3, where once the predictable AI movment patterns were learned, caused me to play even more often.

This game system might march on for another 5 years maybe. But from this point forward, no matter what is or IS NOT achieved by the developers or caretakers, it will still be the same ole stuff. Again, I re-iterate, HOW many ways can you front end the basic tactical game?

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

Posted: Fri Aug 06, 2010 7:13 am
—

Quote:

Again, I re-iterate, HOW many ways can you front end the basic tactical game?

What's the mod count up to now?

#165: Re: Nice Rant Author: Stwa,

Posted: Fri Aug 06, 2010 7:31 am
—
Me thinks you don't fully understand what I mean.

I mean the system in front of the tactical system. At some point as the campaign systems evolves, perhaps there will be players that will advocate eliminating the tactical system all-together. Maybe so the time consuming tactical battles can be simply adjudicated by the AI. A feature that is present in most of the CA games.

Extra theaters for a specific system, like all the CC5 mods, who knows. I know some people that play them all. I know others, like myself that dont play any of them. I tried a few, but the interest wasn't there. Apres CCMT, I downloaded CC3/CC5 mods to rip maps.

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

Posted: Fri Aug 06, 2010 7:31 am
—
I just did a quick search around and I haven't found any WW2 game which is working like the CC series. Some much to big, some round based and some just RTS. I have found not one yesterday which seems so 'easy' to use and still offers so much suprise for me after years.

There's some I would like different if historic correct. I have watched the A bridge too far movie and I would like to have a more straight street connection to Arnheim. While playing as Allies I could take other ways with the tanks to get in time to Arnheim despite the blown bridges. So as Allied I felt not so much pressure for my tanks like it has been in real. Felt more like plenty of time.

And I would welcome it if some 'official' word could be made which shows what's in development.

#167: Re: Nice Rant Author: Mafi, Location: Germany

Posted: Fri Aug 06, 2010 4:08 pm
—

schrecken wrote (View Post):

...surprise is that no one has done this easy programming earlier than this...

Hi Hogley et al,

it is not so easy as you may think.

When you are asking for next-CC, with drastical enhancements, and perhaps a new look-and-feel, please remember, that there are many other games out there, featuring the same genre. I give you two examples:

- Blitzkrieg 2 (can be played also in top-down-birdview),
- Desert Rats vs. Afrika Korps (can be played in modified birdview).

Both have a scripted time-line, animated and static 3D objects (destroyable), limited units per battles, ... but no or less fan community. Once upon a time I was interest to modify some datas of DRvsAK. It has it's own data/battle editor. Which one of them was a real commercial success and has still an active community until today?

It is clear that when you are going to make a game depending on
- basic terrain textures mixed together at runtime (tile stacking / overlaying / shading / opacity effects),
- static 3D objects (destroyable) based on more than 5 textures (side) per object,
- moving animated objects (complete 3D modelling, even for humans),
- real 3D effect animations (again complete 3D modelling),
- runtime terra-forming via explosions,
- real wheather effects (rain, cloud shadows),
- real moving ships / sinking ships, real waves,
- really flying airplanes, helis, rockets, grenades, shells, bullets ...

you will be at least going to create a flight simulator engine with incredible mini-details combined with a strategic timeline and completely rendered area (okay, already was on the market: Falcon4 for example).

And you can wish what you want, there will be some months later again the request for more thrilling add-ons. For sure.

Now go back to CC. From my humble point of view these are the basic facts which are making a game a CloseCombat-game:
- bird view!
- ASCII based terrain data definition in high resolution (and I think 10x10 pixels is high),
- background graphics painted "en detail",
- usage of the old Atomic files Soldier/SoldierB,
- AI with the CC-typical rebuilding of human behaviour on the battlefield (refusing to obey orders),
- replaying a scenario historical correctly.

So I feel that CC1 is not a "real" CC game, but a predeccessor. And a successor without much luck if CC-FTF. The problem in CC-FTF is that bird view is missing, the battlefield is not a field but a walk-through through some "rooms", not easy to mod. So it has no or less fans.

I think that a "new CC" might divide the existing community much more than any other step in the past it did (e.g.: the great CC-divorce between father and mother B.). Some will be disappointed that there are not enough drastical improvements, and the other half will argue that the old tools will not work due to some needed file format changes.

All this can be compensated, when the publisher put much much more money into the project. In this case the first step can be to
- define new data formats,
- create new tools (also for community usage, like Bungie did for Myth-II),
- and then select an interesting genre / historical scenario which will find acceptance,
- and have an eye on potential military usage as a TDS.

Until then it is required to work on the existing source code (first of all to support the files Soldier/SoldierB), and I dont see any need to create a new engine from scratch until it is proven that the graphical result will justify such an investment.

On the other hand: perhaps you have enough money to buy the source code from the Hungarian team which developed DRvsAK (Monte Cristo games).

I can understand that people are not satisfied with the current LSA engine. But this does not justify to ask for a new game which will lead to much more bugs, much more troubles, much more development time, much greater team, much more sources, much more money to be put in ... and much more troubles afterwards.

JM2C
Mafi

#168: Re: Nice Rant Author: Mafi, Location: Germany

Posted: Fri Aug 06, 2010 7:13 pm
—
Hoogly, perhaps you need this: http://www.bisimulations.com/media/videos

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

Posted: Fri Aug 06, 2010 11:48 pm
—
Mafi, I think you've misunderstood me a little. Firstly, no, I don't think that converting the engine to 3D is easy. I have in fact stated that I realise 3D is not feasible at this stage; quite clearly. All of the 3D effects/construction you mention are insanely expensive and time consuming to implement. S3T are not capable of achieving this.

I mean, 3D would be great. But, that's just a dream. I could tell you my dream... eh, I think I'll keep it to myself. Anyway, only a big, well funded developer is going to achieve something of that scale.
What I was talking about was developing the game, not the graphics. Graphics are not the game, in contradiction to what many large developers think these days.

I am talking about development of the core game play concept. The core tactical game has not evolved a single protein in the whole time of the franchise, since CC1. It has received "add-on" mechanics, but it hasn't actually changed. Seriously, think about it hard before you shoot me down. Stwa is spot on about "front ending" the tactical game. But, I'm not saying S3T are at fault. The game has never evolved.

I am just saying that it could be more. But, anyway, it doesn't matter what I think. I'll just keep plugging along with my mod work. Smile

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

Posted: Sat Aug 07, 2010 5:50 am
—
Let's see

multiplayer
dig in
mount/dismount
night battles

have all been added to the tactical battle, the response has been like warm at best.

Why would any consideration be given to further enhancements.

#171: Re: Nice Rant Author: Stwa,

Posted: Sat Aug 07, 2010 6:09 am
—
You guys ever notice that it always takes Schreck 2 or 3 tries to figure out what everyone is talking about.

Just thought I would mention it.

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

Posted: Sat Aug 07, 2010 6:34 am
—
I only typed it once

#173: Re: Nice Rant Author: Stwa,

Posted: Sat Aug 07, 2010 7:22 am
—
Define "it"

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

Posted: Sat Aug 07, 2010 11:16 am
—
schrecken, don't take offence. I'm not having a go at S3T. Seriously. S3T have done an exemplary job of continuing the lifespark of the franchise; I can't say that enough. They have added a lot to the game. I bought three of their products for a reason. I think LSA is a great game.

But Stwa is right, you're missing the point.

schrecken wrote:

the response has been like warm at best.

Man, you really are jaded.

Close Combat Series -> Close Combat Last Stand Arnhem

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

Goto page : Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 :| |: Page 9 of 9