Close Combat Series :: View topic

through

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

#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:

8142 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.

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 Next :| |: Page 3 of 9