Disenchanted
Select messages from
# through # Forum FAQ
[/[Print]\]

Close Combat Series -> The Mess

#1: Disenchanted Author: mooxe PostPosted: Tue Feb 22, 2011 3:36 pm
    —
You will notice that in WaR/TLD/LSA the main change was strategy. New strategic maps with new ways to conduct business strategically. This is what I have a problem with. The focus changing from tactics to strategy. I thought the CC5 and the CC3 ways of handling strategy were great, I guess others don't. Two completely different ways, both excellent for their games. They gave you a few things to worry about strategy wise, it was kept simple, main focus was on the actual fighting.

With the new versions, there is a heavy focus on strategy. What happens in this stage has more effects on the tactical phase. So thats a matter of preference if you like that or not. For me though, the strategy was enough back in the day. I was hoping the tactical phase of the game would be updated. To date I think the only real update has been pathing and we had some deletions like isometric views of vehicles and buildings. Theres tons of games out there with more strategy then you can even deal with, HOI and most hex/turn based games. If all the nuances of the strategy seem to be fixing the game for people maybe they are looking for a different game entirely?


Last edited by mooxe on Thu Feb 24, 2011 5:26 pm; edited 2 times in total

#2: Re: Disenchated Author: Stwa PostPosted: Tue Feb 22, 2011 4:03 pm
    —
Well said mooxe.

I suggested once before, that it is only a matter of time before the tactical battles are optional, like in Rome Total War.

Its amazing, not that the game sellers are here, CC5 is now a piece of dung.

Most of the new features are whiz bangs, like night fighting and night para drops.

I looked thru the list of new features, and the only one I was interested in was "running in a window", but after I thought about that one for a while, I don't want it either.

These guys should really try the newly updated Operational Art of War.

#3: Re: Disenchated Author: Stwa PostPosted: Tue Feb 22, 2011 4:10 pm
    —
Here is the text of an old post from the Matrix site, that I posted sometime in 2005. It was meant for WITP, but it will work with most any MULTIPLAYER strategy game.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scenario duration calculator


g = number of game turns as stated in the scenario editor for a given scenario.

t = turn-around time in minutes, or the average time it takes to play 1 complete turn (for all players) and takes into account all posssible delays, except sleep.

s = sleep time in minutes, or the average amount of time any player will sleep each calander day.

d = a calander day expressed as total minutes or normally 1440 minutes.

dm = duration of a game in minutes.

dd = duration of a game in days.

dy = duration of a game in years.



therefore:

dm = ((g * t) / (d - s)) * d

dd = dm / d ...

dy = dd / 365.25


example 1:

Bert and Ernie decide to play WitP scenario 15 by mail. The game lasts the maximum number of turns the scenario will allow.

Each turn took 30 minutes to complete on average. During the game Bert and Ernie sleep about 8 hours a day. How many days elapsed while Bert and Ernie were playing the game?


dm = ((1576 * 30) / (1440 - 480)) * 1440

dm = 70920

dd = 70920 / 1440

dd = 49.25


example 2:

Ralph and Fred decide to play WitP scenario 15 by mail. They agree to do 1 turn per day in the evening after work. Both Ralph and Fred sleep 6 hours a day on average. How many years elapsed while Ralph and Fred were playing the game?

dm = ((1576 * 1080) / (1440 - 360)) * 1440

dm = 2269440

dd = 2269440 / 1440

dd = 1576

dy = 1576 / 365.25

dy = 4.31

#4: Re: Disenchated Author: platoon_michaelLocation: Right behind you PostPosted: Tue Feb 22, 2011 8:48 pm
    —
I am not a fan of the Cohesion/Fatigue thing.
To be perfectly honest it Sucks.

Night Battles are PATHETIC.
When you take in account that Soldiers and Vehicles basically look as if they are glowing in the dark.
I.E. Winter Camo.
Add to that the shock of an all white .OVM when you zoom out on the map.
Pretty much provides the look and feel of people who don't give a fuck.

#5: Re: Disenchated Author: platoon_michaelLocation: Right behind you PostPosted: Tue Feb 22, 2011 10:06 pm
    —
Now that being said.

I do like almost all of the new maps.(Codding,elevation,LOS still sucks)
I do like the expansion of 64 maps.
The extra BG's
The Text Files

#6: Re: Disenchated Author: Stwa PostPosted: Wed Feb 23, 2011 1:21 am
    —
You have always been a beeg Bulge fan, so it doesn't come as a surprise that you would spring for WAR.

I agree, the text files are a huge improvement, and in my case, makes modifying CCMT data a snap.

But, I think you mention in part, the lack of polish issue. Without having these games myself, I am guessing that WAR and TLD were the biggest offenders.

Perhaps new game features, are not thought out before implementation, and are making the strategy game seem juvenile.  

On my system, CC5 still works great.

#7: Re: Disenchated Author: schreckenLocation: Sydney, Australia PostPosted: Wed Feb 23, 2011 5:08 am
    —
Quote:
With the new versions, there is a heavy focus on strategy


Not in CCMT   Razz

but no moreso in the WaR-LSA than CC5... apart from having a bigger strategic area.


Tactical battles have been enhanced timer/night/random para/ and I'd also include retreat as a tactical enhancement.

#8: Re: Disenchated Author: southern_land PostPosted: Wed Feb 23, 2011 5:36 am
    —
mooxe wrote (View Post):
You will notice that in WaR/TLD/LSA the main change was strategy. New strategic maps with new ways to conduct business strategically. This is what I have a problem with. The focus changing from tactics to strategy. I thought the CC5 and the CC3 ways of handling strategy were great, I guess others don't. Two completely different ways, both excellent for their games. They gave you a few things to worry about strategy wise, it was kept simple, main focus was on the actual fighting.

With the new versions, there is a heavy focus on strategy. What happens in this stage has more effects on the tactical phase. So thats a matter of preference if you like that or not. For me though, the strategy was enough back in the day. I was hoping the tactical phase of the game would be updated. To date I think the only real update has been pathing and we had some deletions like isometric views of vehicles and buildings. Theres tons of games out there with more strategy then you can even deal with, HOI and most hex/turn based games. If all the nuances of the strategy seem to be fixing the game for people maybe they are looking for a different game entirely?


basically the "greater" emphasis on strategy gives a somewhat greater diversity to the game.  If you are isolated your choices are restricted in terms of rest, reinforcement and resupply and you have to contend with your failure on another level.  lets face it even in Afghanistan the NATO troops are having to deal with side effects of Pakistani's blowing up or otherwsie impeding fuel supplies here and there.  Would you have a wargame different to war?

PS... I thought maybe disenchated was when you got booted out of MSN messenger   LMAO

#9: Re: Disenchated Author: TejszdLocation: Canada PostPosted: Wed Feb 23, 2011 6:27 am
    —
schrecken wrote (View Post):
Tactical battles have been enhanced timer/night/random para/ and I'd also include retreat as a tactical enhancement.


Here are some more none strat layer in battle enhancements;

All:
- ability to set the max number of units a battlegroup can field
- improved vehicle path finding
- capable of representing multiple nationalities/voices for both sides

LSA:
- new column in elements.txt called "Is Foliage". When set to 1 the element (example leaves) will become the same height as tree it is adjacent to (if multiple trees the tallest tree height is used)
- start from multiple entry VL's (due to being able to have 2 BG's come onto the same map but from different directions)
- troops can run under a bridge and on a bridge (in previous CC's you could only code a bridge to work one way or the other)
- troops can run under a bridge superstructure
- ability to set specific map starting locations for selected units in battle of static battlegroups
- ability to set specific entry VL's for BG's in the scenario editor for a single battle
- assault / river crossings do not allow you to deploy vehicles

Other none strat layer enhancements;

All Remakes:
- ability to specify arrival turn for reinforcements in the scenario editor
- data files are text files
- old hard coded data moved from exe to text files; air support, artillery support, mortar support, supply drops, weather, battlegroup recycling, battlegroup retreat/disband, etc.
- windowed mode to allow the game to run in the background if you switch to another application

Most important strat layer enhancements (in my opinion) just to remind players;

All Remakes:
- larger viewing area for strat map
- press space to see map connection arrows for strat map
- off-map support quantities now tied to difficulty level
- supply drops available for both sides in addition to support (artillery, air and mortar)
- increased number of maps to 64 from 44
- increased number of BG's

LSA:
- multiple battlegroups per map
- static battlegroups


Last edited by Tejszd on Wed Feb 23, 2011 7:24 am; edited 1 time in total

#10: Re: Disenchated Author: schreckenLocation: Sydney, Australia PostPosted: Wed Feb 23, 2011 7:13 am
    —
what have the Roman's ever done for us?

#11: Re: Disenchated Author: Stwa PostPosted: Wed Feb 23, 2011 7:49 am
    —
OK, I will just pencil in what I think did not really apply to the opening post, with a N/A

If I didn't understand, which happens a lot now days, I will just pencil in WTF

And if I don't care about something, I will just put this --->   Razz


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Here are some more none strat layer in battle enhancements;

All:
- ability to set the max number of units a battlegroup can field N/A
- improved vehicle path finding  Razz  Razz  Razz  OH YEA!
- capable of representing multiple nationalities/voices for both sides N/A

LSA:
- new column in elements.txt called "Is Foliage". When set to 1 the element (example leaves) will become the same height as tree it is adjacent to (if multiple trees the tallest tree height is used) WTF
- start from multiple entry VL's (due to being able to have 2 BG's come onto the same map but from different directions) N/A
- troops can run under a bridge and on a bridge (in previous CC's you could only code a bridge to work one way or the other) N/A
- troops can run under a bridge superstructure N/A
- ability to set specific map starting locations for selected units in battle of static battlegroups N/A
- ability to set specific entry VL's for BG's in the scenario editor for a single battle N/A
- assault / river crossings do not allow you to deploy vehicles WTF

Other none strat layer enhancements;

All Remakes:
- ability to specify arrival turn for reinforcements in the scenario editor N/A
- data files are text files N/A
- old hard coded data moved from exe to text files; air support, artillery support, mortar support, supply drops, weather, battlegroup recycling, battlegroup retreat/disband, etc. N/A
- windowed mode to allow the game to run in the background if you switch to another application N/A

Most important strat layer enhancements (in my opinion) just to remind p;ayers;

All Remakes:
- larger viewing area for strat map N/A
- press space to see map connection arrows for strat map N/A
- off-map support quantities now tied to difficulty level N/A
- supply drops available for both sides in addition to support (artillery, air and mortar) N/A
- increased number of maps to 64 from 44 N/A
- increased number of BG's N/A

LSA:
- multiple battlegroups per map N/A
- static battlegroups N/A

#12: Re: Disenchated Author: platoon_michaelLocation: Right behind you PostPosted: Wed Feb 23, 2011 9:38 am
    —
Quote:
new column in elements.txt called "Is Foliage". When set to 1 the element (example leaves) will become the same height as tree it is adjacent to (if multiple trees the tallest tree height is used)


I believe I understand this one but why isn't it available for WAR?
Not having this option is killing a LOT of the maps.

I disagree with the larger viewing of the strat map.
Yes it was made bigger with one of the patch's but doesnt compare to CCIV.

@ STWA:
It's the only one I have bought and yes that is my campaign of choice.
I may get LSA once I ever get back on my feet but am just so sick of the Normandy thing with games that tLD isnt an option.

#13: Re: Disenchated Author: schreckenLocation: Sydney, Australia PostPosted: Wed Feb 23, 2011 9:54 am
    —
Another tactical spinoff from a strategic enhancement

LSA - -Being able to enter a map from two different locations with 2 different BGs

#14: Re: Disenchated Author: Superkala PostPosted: Wed Feb 23, 2011 2:24 pm
    —
So - what prevented all those things listed from being in the game circa 2000 AD? Perhaps some amazing new computing technology has made these advances possible?

Anyone can look around for themselves at advances in games since CC series began....its quite obvious CC has been left in the dust for some time both conceptually and technically.

I wouldnt refer to myself as disenchanted though, as i do not form personal attachments to such things as games or football teams simply due to my proximity. Its a bit mysterious why someone involved in development(isnt that you schrecken??) would muck around arguing in this forum when you could just prove it by making a game that takes it to another level.

#15: Re: Disenchated Author: schreckenLocation: Sydney, Australia PostPosted: Wed Feb 23, 2011 8:58 pm
    —
Quote:
(isnt that you schrecken??)


No, it's not.... so what a waste of a post.

#16: Re: Disenchated Author: pagskier PostPosted: Thu Feb 24, 2011 1:03 am
    —
But guys I'm  actually wondering what you guys are looking for? as for what improvement

Except for some real AI and not crawling defensive AI

I'm thinking what we really need is a brand new engine no?
Then would we go into 3d?

I'm really a huge CC fan (mostly Single pLayer) since I was playing CC1 demo on my mac when there was no game on mac. Now with LSA I see that the game as evolved on both front, the strat map, and on the live battlefield. But the optimisation of the current engine is pretty much at the end. Am I right?

#17: Re: Disenchated Author: TejszdLocation: Canada PostPosted: Thu Feb 24, 2011 2:02 am
    —
Stwa wrote (View Post):
OK, I will just pencil in what I think did not really apply to the opening post, with a N/A


How can you say the items do not really apply to the opening post??? Mooxe posted that the enhancements being made are on strategy/strat layer and tactical/in battle changes are not being made. But many of the items impact the tactical/in battle part of the game while others have nothing to do with the strat layer (scenario editor, game volume, playing in a window, etc.)....

Superkala wrote (View Post):
So - what prevented all those things listed from being in the game circa 2000 AD? Perhaps some amazing new computing technology has made these advances possible?


Nothing except someone to buy/lease/rent the source code from the company (Destineer) that bought all of Atomics assets when it closed its doors back in 2000 and who is/was willing to invest some money for someone to change/edit the game code again.

#18: Re: Disenchated Author: TejszdLocation: Canada PostPosted: Thu Feb 24, 2011 4:30 am
    —
platoon_michael wrote (View Post):
Quote:
new column in elements.txt called "Is Foliage". When set to 1 the element (example leaves) will become the same height as tree it is adjacent to (if multiple trees the tallest tree height is used)


I believe I understand this one but why isn't it available for WAR?
Not having this option is killing a LOT of the maps.


Yes, it would be a good addition to WAR given the amount of forest. Unfortunately it was something thought of when testing LSA as troops in buildings were not really losing LOS through trees because only the trunk was the full height of the tree element not the leaves coded around it.... You never know, maybe down the road it could be added???

I also like your comment/idea on the OVM (zoomed out view) map when fighting a night battle to have it shaded (especially in WAR as you indicate with the white map being jarring / a shock).


Last edited by Tejszd on Thu Feb 24, 2011 4:38 am; edited 1 time in total

#19: Re: Disenchated Author: dj PostPosted: Thu Feb 24, 2011 4:33 am
    —
Mooxe is basically right.  The updates were mostly related to strategy map and other new features.  Don't get me wrong it is good to have those.   Though IMO all the work should have gone to tactical/combat - related updates.

A.I. having random attacks...Dreaded 88 style all-out assaults by the A.I., charge tactics, etc.  Dreaded 88 and a few others really had the A.I. gameplay wired.

Really I think it is all about the $$$.  CC3 was the last top-notch quality release...after that CC4 and CC5 saw a regression in gameplay.  Microsoft had some serious $$$ back when they did CC2 and CC3.

#20: Re: Disenchated Author: Stwa PostPosted: Thu Feb 24, 2011 5:00 am
    —
Tejszd,

You are a nice guy and all, but you are nit picking. Here is the crux of the matter from mooxe's post, and I think you know that. You are just trying to discredit mooxe any way you can.

To date I think the only real update [for the tactical game] has been pathing and we had some deletions like isometric views of vehicles and buildings.

Were not talking about things that could IMPACT the tactical game, but its CORE engine, I think.

I know I could care less about most of the stuff on your list, but whenever these subjects come up, the dev team pops up these lists and then starts comparing their accomplishments to the Roman Empire.  

Its a pretty small list for 5+ years of work, and I will bet most of it was NOT NEEDED to sell the games.

I am guessing, but sometimes I think Matrix must be paying you a nickel everytime a game COPY is sold. If you insist on being this kind of prostitute, I suggest you set your sights a lot higher.

#21: Re: Disenchated Author: TejszdLocation: Canada PostPosted: Thu Feb 24, 2011 6:00 am
    —
I'm not trying to discredit Mooxe, I just disagree with his and some others view that the re-releases haven't added to the game. Mooxe and I have chatted about that before. The unfortunate thing for anyone already not into CC they are being told these game are bad so they will never join the community/play....

I agree with you that path finding is a huge improvement and was a long time coming. The isometric views of vehicles and buildings was nice but for vehicles at least there is not a single mod with them.

The core engine changes have not been huge agreed, though the AI has been tweaked a lot but there are those who argue it was made better and worse.

I'm not a developer but have been a beta tester of the re-releases and argued for changes/features I thought were good, losing and winning some along the way.

Would have loved to see more enhancements myself since 2007 when COI was released but the team is amazingly small and supposedly the code was a mess. No money comes to the testers; we get a chance to influence the game, play it early and get a copy. That is it.

As for my sights for CC, they were much higher back in 2000 when I bought my fifth CC game CC5 but Atomic delivered a very buggy game and then when out of business before releasing a fully tested patch. I still played the game for years and liked it enough to put in tons of time fixing/updating mods that ran on CC5 (Meuse and Bloody Omaha). By 2003/2004 all I wanted was a fixed CC5 for the mods to run on. Fast forward to 2007 and the re-releases started;
COI - a few bug fixes, new campaign and updates for newer Operating Systems
CCMT - a few bug fixes and updates for newer Operating Systems
WAR - fixed CC5 bugs, new game, a few new features and updates for newer Operating Systems
TLD - everything in WAR plus a new game and new features
LSA - everything in TLD plus new game and a lot of new features

Must admit I was like many here who just wanted a patched CC5 and then started to want enhancements too. But unlike some here I still think progress has been made and that my original wish for CC5 did come true. I feel the new versions provide enough benefits that I moved Meuse to TLD/WAR just like Cathartes who is moving GJS to TLD. So not everybody thinks what was added, didn't add to the game.... But if people do not see value then that is okay, I'm happy playing/testing Meuse on TLD anyway....



Meuse On TLD.jpg
 Description:
 Filesize:  322.28 KB
 Viewed:  8025 Time(s)

Meuse On TLD.jpg



#22: Re: Disenchanted Author: TrogerLocation: L4W's place, Australia PostPosted: Fri Feb 25, 2011 3:09 am
    —
Since TLD there has been some worthwhile updates.

But the release of CoI started things off on the wrong foot. The developers (Simtek/S3T/Black Hand/Matrix?) were honest about what was to be expected and released just what they said they would. The only problem was the price and the predicament it put those of us who had CC3 already. Why would one who already owned CC3 buy CoI when all it really was was CC3 plus existing mods? The excuse for a lack of new, original content was that Matrix, the publisher, had a timeline! To top it off, people who had legitimate criticism were getting ridiculed by the developers and groupies.


Last edited by Troger on Sun Feb 27, 2011 8:23 am; edited 1 time in total

#23: Re: Disenchanted Author: Stwa PostPosted: Fri Feb 25, 2011 5:13 am
    —
OK Tejszd,

Now I am losing my patience a little, and I don't want to, because as I said before, you are a nice guy and all.

But if your screenie, is supposed to show some of this added value to "the games" then it missed the mark by a mile.

First off, on my 32" LCD if you look at that screenie at the wrong angle, it looks like an OUTER SPACE GAME.

And what is that, 2 instances of TLD running in seperate windows? I DON'T GET IT. Is that really what it does? If so, HOW MUCH VALUE DOES THAT ADD? Tell me, this was just Photoshopped.

You were supposed to be testing the games, but instead you were lobbying for new features, like that spotlight view. Was that your IDEA?

While you were ADDING VALUE to the games, YOU NEGLECTED to finish debugging CCMT. Thanks a lot.  Exclamation

#24: Re: Disenchanted Author: schreckenLocation: Sydney, Australia PostPosted: Fri Feb 25, 2011 8:36 am
    —
Quote:
Simtek had their very insular agenda


And that shows you have not the slightest idea of what you are talking about... and so can continue to be ignored.

#25: Re: Disenchanted Author: schreckenLocation: Sydney, Australia PostPosted: Fri Feb 25, 2011 8:41 am
    —
I don't think Tejszd spent any time at all on CCMT.

Correct me if I'm wrong.


The pic above is called a montage.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/montage

Note: Definition supplied for troger and stwa

#26: Re: Disenchanted Author: Stwa PostPosted: Fri Feb 25, 2011 9:17 am
    —
Nor did anyone else, apparently.

But he said he was a "tester" for the re-releases.  Question

I asked if he photoshopped it. [DUH]  Exclamation

Note: Definition supplied for Schrecken

#27: Re: Disenchanted Author: Stwa PostPosted: Fri Feb 25, 2011 9:55 am
    —
HERE are the CCMT Testers  Exclamation

Its CREEPY, but Schrecken keeps popping up.  Arrow

#28: Re: Disenchanted Author: platoon_michaelLocation: Right behind you PostPosted: Fri Feb 25, 2011 11:32 am
    —
I have to agree with Troger on the amount of patch's
You wouldn't believe how many errors I still find in WAR.

It's almost comical when I find them because you then know no one is Beta testing them.
The last one I sent schrecken was the Wheels of the German Half-track show up on the Allied Sherman on the Command Screen after selecting your continued Op or GC.
In my current GC against the AI, I've used the Save Game Editor to move the German BG's as they just don't seem to advance even when they have no opposition.
I play 1 Battle os the Germans then go back to playing as Allies only to discover that the AI assign's support to Allied BG's that in some cases wont even need it,wont even see Battle that turn.

Compound that with the fact that this was the first release just makes one wonder how can there still be so many bugs?


Last edited by platoon_michael on Fri Feb 25, 2011 12:01 pm; edited 1 time in total


UO0019.jpg
 Description:
 Filesize:  127.7 KB
 Viewed:  7963 Time(s)

UO0019.jpg



#29: Re: Disenchanted Author: Stwa PostPosted: Fri Feb 25, 2011 11:58 am
    —
Ya, these clowns haven't caught on to the fact that fixing the bugs BEFORE THE GAME IS RELEASED is  Arrow

ADDED VALUE  Exclamation

I have noticed gadget misalignments in the Debrief Screen for CCMT that were present in CCM, and NEVER fixed.

These guys don't think that kind of stuff is important.

This is how Tejszd described the COI and CCMT projects, after the fact.

COI - a few bug fixes, new campaign and updates for newer Operating Systems
CCMT - a few bug fixes and updates for newer Operating Systems


Ya see, he is trying to say, the object was to just fix a FEW bugs. That was the goal. NEVER MIND the REMAINING BUGS.   Exclamation

#30: Re: Disenchanted Author: LostTemple PostPosted: Fri Feb 25, 2011 7:36 pm
    —
everyone knows LSA and TLD are crap.

#31: Re: Disenchanted Author: TrogerLocation: L4W's place, Australia PostPosted: Sat Feb 26, 2011 8:18 am
    —
schrecken wrote (View Post):
trogs... you just need to learn how to play.

I assault all day and all night... ask my battered opponents.


I ask this here because I do not want to clutter Cathartes' GJS for TLD thread.

Was assaulting not an issue in stock CoI? Is it not an issue in stock LSA? I ask stock because I have not tried the patches for either.

It actually doesn't seem to be an issue in TLD with the latest patch. But in stock LSA it's as bad as stock CoI, far too many 'enemy spotted's' followed by an order rejection ("redeploying stopped by attack") then a about face and crawling the other way. More then enough people have commented that they don't like this. Instead of ridiculing people, why not promote a change and reversion back to what it was like?

Many, myself included, brought up this criticism with CoI when it first came out. Upon voicing our concerns we were met negatively and disregarded by those associated with the project. I think that sort of set the tone for these remakes. I didn't like the fact that something that was never really broken in the original was getting toyed with all of a sudden.

LSA and TLD have definitely made some changes for the better.


Last edited by Troger on Sun Feb 27, 2011 8:39 am; edited 4 times in total

#32: Re: Disenchanted Author: dj PostPosted: Sat Feb 26, 2011 7:15 pm
    —
I don't know the financials or the books for the re-release efforts...however I am willing to wager that the budget was 1% of the typical big gaming company projects.  It's not like we can "blame" Simtek or the people that worked on the production.  Because they did the best they could considering how few resources were available.

The overall production budgets for CC2 and CC3 when Microsoft was involved probably was 100x more than CC4 / CC5...and maybe 1000x more than the re-releases.  Volunteers had to do testing and it was done on a shoe-string budget.

IT projects are like this on a routine basis...unless there is a firm commitment to SPEND $$$ by the corporate bigshots...do not be surprised when the final product
fails to meet expectations.

#33: Re: Disenchanted Author: Stwa PostPosted: Sun Feb 27, 2011 3:05 am
    —
WOW   Rolling Eyes  Exclamation

In December of 2010, there were over 24,000 people logged on to Matrix on one day, a new all time record. Most of them probably shopping for products.

Matrix regards the fierce demand for these games, with so much confidence , it is boderline arrogance. Old unemployed males will help build and sell the games for free, and will pay for them in advance, before they are finished.

Over the past few years, The European Union Member nations have passed laws, in an attempt, to protect consumers from unscrupulous software producers who are knowingly selling (licensing) softare that is not complete, or not functioning as adverstised.

The States will do the same, once a sufficient body of complaints arrive at the Attorney General's office. The main issue or allegation is FRAUD.

Small software compainies are simply willing participants in said FRAUD, and will not be exempt from future consumer protection laws.

#34: Re: Disenchanted Author: platoon_michaelLocation: Right behind you PostPosted: Sun Feb 27, 2011 3:45 am
    —
I blame them for working on multiple games at the same time instead of focusing on one game.
Thus leaving me with a game that STILL needs a patch.
And my support for this is what?
This October will be 3 years since WAR came out.
And like a DUMB-ASS I bought the freaking thing when it came out for $50(I considered it supporting CC at the time)

Look at the WAR forums at Matrix,
No one posts there because no one is playing it.
If they were playing it there would be many posts of the current bugs.
No posts on bugs means NO ONE is playing WAR.


I want LSA but I wont be paying $50 for it.
It will either be used years from now for $5-$10 or obtained by some other means.


And I blame Mooxe for bringing this topic up every few months.

#35: Re: Disenchanted Author: TrogerLocation: L4W's place, Australia PostPosted: Sun Feb 27, 2011 3:56 am
    —
Stwa wrote (View Post):
Small software compainies are simply willing participants in said FRAUD, and will not be exempt from future consumer protection laws.


I think we are dealing with developers that have been learning to navigate and mend the code while working on the remakes.

While they have learned how to navigate it, those of us who have been here since the originals are left behind the eight ball - it's hard to justify paying the money they ask each remake when we already have workable originals (w/ quality mods).

#36: Re: Disenchanted Author: TrogerLocation: L4W's place, Australia PostPosted: Sun Feb 27, 2011 3:57 am
    —
platoon_michael wrote (View Post):
I blame them for working on multiple games at the same time instead of focusing on one game.
Thus leaving me with a game that STILL needs a patch.
And my support for this is what?
This October will be 3 years since WAR came out.
And like a DUMB-ASS I bought the freaking thing when it came out for $50(I considered it supporting CC at the time)

Look at the WAR forums at Matrix,
No one posts there because no one is playing it.
If they were playing it there would be many posts of the current bugs.
No posts on bugs means NO ONE is playing WAR.


What are the problems with WAR? I am curious as I have never truly spent time with it.

#37: Re: Disenchanted Author: platoon_michaelLocation: Right behind you PostPosted: Sun Feb 27, 2011 4:23 am
    —
Hmmmmmm  Evil or Very Mad

#38: Re: Disenchanted Author: TejszdLocation: Canada PostPosted: Sun Feb 27, 2011 4:47 am
    —
platoon_michael,

WAR does still have some kinks, which it really shouldn't after almost 3 years, but at least they are mainly cosmetic. As you have already pointed out with the halftrack wheels being wrongly left on screen over the Sherman tank tracks on command screen.

But at almost 3 years after WAR was released what support have you rec'd;

- a patch to make WAR  compatible with TLD mods. Do CC5 mods work on CC4?
- a patch adding the LSA path finding enhancement that came out after LSA was released (LSA is 2 releases after WAR). Did Atomic add CC5 features to CC3 (two releases back)?

If you go here http://closecombat.matrixgames.com/ you will see Bloody Omaha and Ground Tactics available on both WAR and TLD web pages.


Last edited by Tejszd on Sun Feb 27, 2011 7:39 am; edited 1 time in total

#39: Re: Disenchanted Author: Stwa PostPosted: Sun Feb 27, 2011 5:42 am
    —
Again, Tejszd lowers the standard by re-iterating one of the lamest arguments in the industry.

Translation: Matrix will take care of platoon_michael, after a three year wait,  Arrow

but NEVERMIND the customers of the day.

The vast majority of sales for these titles and others come from IMPULSE BUYING. Some are dedicated as Christams gifts, and most games are used for a period of a few months at best by most consumers for entertainment purposes. These people will NEVER SEE patches or mods three years down the road.

The game producers, and guys like Tejszd KNOW THIS, and use it to their advantage. Once a title gets to an operational (but not debugged) status, they shove off for the the next title or REVENUE STREAM.

#40: Re: Disenchanted Author: TejszdLocation: Canada PostPosted: Sun Feb 27, 2011 6:03 am
    —
Can't argue with you Stwa that the quality of software (console, computer, etc.) seems to be less than the past. But then again it is selectively forgotten on CCS how buggy CC5 is and it was released in 2000. Why are Atomic's CC5 bugs over looked?

CCS being around 7 years after CC5 was released and before the re-releases proves though that a lot of people do play and patch CC for years after the release date. I think those added features to WAR almost 3 years after going on sale do add value. You didn't answer/comment if you can play CC5 mods on CC4? Or if CC5 features were added to CC3 after CC5 was released? Matrix/S3T have back ported features to older re-releases but they are evil and do not support their products Confused

#41: Re: Disenchanted Author: Stwa PostPosted: Sun Feb 27, 2011 6:38 am
    —
YOU KEEP saying that CC5 is BUGGY. I have CC5 on my system, and I have used it as much as anyone, and I would not describe it as BUGGY. Less Buggy that CCMT, thats for sure.

You are simply being a prostitute. In exchange for your free games, you tell everyone CC5 is buggy. YOU have a vested interest in people NOT USING CC5.

The promise of BACK PORTING features into a game at SOME POINT IN THE FUTURE, is a marketing gimmick that has been tried by a LOT OF PRODUCERS, most notably AGEOD in recent times. Sometimes a producer delivers, BUT MOST DO NOT.

My children will be off to COLLEGE and no where near these titles, WHEN THE STUPID BACK PORTING begins. Why not solve the path finding on the FIRST TRY.

Explain, where is the support for CCMT? If a user were to buy that game, and use its one patch, WHAT WOULD THEY GET.

CCS DOES NOT TELL the whole story of CC Sales and Demographics. YOU ARE IN A DREAM WORLD.

I WANT THE GAMES READY TO ROCK BEFORE THEY ARE RELEASED. Not 3 YEARS DOWN THE ROAD. Comprende?

#42: Re: Disenchanted Author: schreckenLocation: Sydney, Australia PostPosted: Sun Feb 27, 2011 7:06 am
    —
Quote:
WHAT WOULD THEY GET.


They would get the same years of enjoyment you have gotten , proof being all the CCMT posts you have made praising it.

Quote:
WHEN THE STUPID BACK PORTING begins.


The backporting is already happening/happened  you don't have to wait... although you yourself do because you don't have the games.


Quote:
I WANT THE GAMES READY TO ROCK BEFORE THEY ARE RELEASED. Not 3 YEARS DOWN THE ROAD. Comprende?



Me too, but Windows = fail, Linux = fail.

So I enjoy what I have and realise that is an impossible dream.


Please post a list of software that is perfect at release.

Now post a list of Toyota's that are perfect.

And Chryslers

and , oh, you name it.


we'll keep it quiet, but, you really are stupid, aren't you?

#43: Re: Disenchanted Author: TejszdLocation: Canada PostPosted: Sun Feb 27, 2011 7:12 am
    —
CC5 has bugs, search the forum. How many H2H campaigns were corrupted because the auto save eventually corrupts the game???

As for back porting being a promise or in the future as you claim, it has already been done, Bloody Omaha and Ground Tactics run on both WAR and TLD. Path finding from LSA is in WAR and TLD.

I have no vested interest in the re-releases as I said before I do not get any payment. I want the best CC possible. I wish there were even more new features in the re-releases then there is but any new features is better than what the community rec'd between 2000 and 2007 which was nothing as Atomic was out of business. Yes, path finding could have been done earlier, but then why didn't Atomic make it perfect with all the dollars Microsoft invested from CC1 to 3?

For CCMT I'm not sure what are you looking for, but this is listed as included in the patch;

2007.12.12.1 January 3, 2008
• COMMAND SCREEN now says '10 Player Game' for the number of players instead of '6 Player Game'.
• Vehicle gunners will use their secondary weapons, if available.
• Crushed elements are visible on the client machine in multi-player games.
• Enemy soldiers no longer appear on top of roofs.
• The BRIEFING screen now comes before the BATTLEGROUP screen.
• The selected engagement is not reset if you VIEW MAP from the COMMAND SCREEN.
• Players now have the option to make victory locations visible/invisible , check box in options screen. (ctrl-L during game)
• Army side no longer gets Opfor type aircraft for their close air support.
• Fixed terrain sprites that did not repaint properly when vehicle shadows were present and no other sprites were being painted.
• Fixed vehicles stalling at a waypoint during a multi-waypoint move.
• US Marine Corp infantry and vehicles have been added to the forcepool.
• UK Army infantry and vehicles have been added to the forcepool.
• Various teams data has been reviewed.
• The barely produced Ka-52 Alligator has been replaced by the Ka-50 Hokum on the opfor side.
• Mi-24 Hind has been added to the available Close Air Support assets for the opfor side.
• British Tornado, Eurofighter Typhoon and Eurocopter Tiger have been added to the available CAS assets for the Army side.
• Fixed shadow problems that were present on some vehicles.
• Some coding issues causing problems with vehicle movement on some maps has been fixed.
• Issues with vehicle movement rates have been addressed in the elements file.
• The armor values of specific vehicles have been changed to more accurate values with considerations of gameplay taken into account.
• CC5 color and style of UI elements has been changed to the CCMT theme.
• Monitor and Status text images now have a larger and bolder font for ease of viewing.
• RAF rondelle no longer appears at victory locations on them mini-map and overview map.
• The overlap seen with some of the UI image elements has been corrected.

Also, if you do not already know the mod maker for CCMT CC2Redux was given an updated exe that is newer than the version in the 1st patch. Not sure why it was never publicized/released officially but there are some fixes in it...

At this point I have to put much effort into this debate. If you don't think the re-releases add any value then don't buy them, that is your choice/decision. I do think they add value so I'll keep testing/playing Meuse on TLD, probably will move to LSA at some point to, and hope/wait for other mods in addition to Bloody Omaha and Ground Tactics to come out. Can't wait to see GJS for TLD/WAR....

#44: Re: Disenchanted Author: Stwa PostPosted: Sun Feb 27, 2011 7:32 am
    —
I said the promise of BACK PORTING is a MARKETING GIMMICK to INCREASE REVENUE TODAY. And it was used in hopes WAR sales would be higher. So the back porting was paid for 3 YEARS IN ADVANCE.

The list of CCMT changes you mention, are simply the items that were NOT READY for the INITIAL RELEASE. It was not really a patch, but a second release, within the first month of the original release.

As for my stupidity, I still work in the industry, and I do get paid more than FREE GAMES.

CCMT only works for me, because I dedicated a lot of free time re-doing what I could. I will bet thousands of buyers, threw this title into the trash a long time ago.

I have the new CCMT (never released by Matrix, perhaps contraband) exe. It still has plenty of bugs.

MY CHILDREN purchased LSA, SO NO BACKPORTING FOR THEM. I told them maybe in 3 years.  Wink

#45: Re: Disenchanted Author: TejszdLocation: Canada PostPosted: Sun Feb 27, 2011 7:52 am
    —
Just as an FYI here is a quick list of CC5 bugs people have posted about in the CCS forums (could be more, but spent enough time);
- New DirectX / OS compatibility (some people work fine while others do not)
- Vehicle pathing
- H2H the host being the only one to see; tracer fire, back blast from Zook/shreck, crushed fences/hedges, holes in house walls, etc.
- Exploding fence/hedge
- 0:00 timer crash
- Truce crash
- Corrupt campaign data when using auto-save file
- Cut off BG not losing 75% of the active units
- Supply bug, cut-off BGs full supply to none instead of gradually dropping
- Morale data (ex. Make 5exp and 0 morale and u'll get Vets/Excellent morale)
- Reinforcement button being available more than once for a BG
- Reinforcement sometimes possible as the germans
- Support on maps not allowed support (mod only? move bg from supported map to original GC supported map)
- Surrounded bg unit attrition
- Battle Group screen allows the player to click the top right corner in order to view his opponents force pool.
- H2H don't move to the next screen until the other player is rdy too
- Invisible wreck on single battles
- Newly dug trenches are seen at the start of the battle regardless of an enemy team having LOS to it.

Mooxe, is this an accurate CC5 bug list as I do not want to be accused of making things up?

#46: Re: Disenchanted Author: LostTemple PostPosted: Sun Feb 27, 2011 7:59 am
    —

#47: Re: Disenchanted Author: Stwa PostPosted: Sun Feb 27, 2011 8:17 am
    —
OK,

I will simply pencil in N/A for items that do not apply to me, since I never do Multiplayer.

I will pencil in WTF for items I have never experienced an issue, or I don't understand it, so maybe you are making this up, maybe you are not.

And for stuff I could care less about I will simpy put this --->  Razz



So, from what I can tell, your list implies to me, that CC5 is pretty damn good  Exclamation

AND NO BACK PORTING either. Thank god.  Laughing

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
- New DirectX / OS compatibility (some people work fine while others do not) WTF
- Vehicle pathing
- H2H the host being the only one to see; tracer fire, back blast from Zook/shreck, crushed fences/hedges, holes in house walls, etc. N/A
- Exploding fence/hedge  Razz
- 0:00 timer crash WTF
- Truce crash WTF
- Corrupt campaign data when using auto-save file WTF
- Cut off BG not losing 75% of the active units  Razz  
- Supply bug, cut-off BGs full supply to none instead of gradually dropping  Razz
- Morale data (ex. Make 5exp and 0 morale and u'll get Vets/Excellent morale) N/A
- Reinforcement button being available more than once for a BG N/A
- Reinforcement sometimes possible as the germans  Razz
- Support on maps not allowed support (mod only? move bg from supported map to original GC supported map) WTF
- Surrounded bg unit attrition WTF
- Battle Group screen allows the player to click the top right corner in order to view his opponents force pool.  N/A
- H2H don't move to the next screen until the other player is rdy too N/A
- Invisible wreck on single battles  WTF   Razz  
- Newly dug trenches are seen at the start of the battle regardless of an enemy team having LOS to it.  Razz

#48: Re: Disenchanted Author: Stwa PostPosted: Sun Feb 27, 2011 8:53 am
    —
And,

I just wanted to re-iterate that my children purchased LSA, so they will be getting their back ports about the time they are getting married and starting a family.  Laughing

They also, PAID CASH, and that is the easiest way for them to avoid the kind of PROSTITUTION that our poor friend, TEJSZD has fallen into.  Idea  

Tejszd, I hope is was worth all those FREE GAMES.

#49: Re: Disenchanted Author: papa_whisky PostPosted: Sun Feb 27, 2011 10:28 am
    —
This thread is ridiculous I fail to see the point of mudslinging at the team who tried very hard to do there best at upgrading CC within some very tight constraints. The very same team that brought you, Stwa, CCMT that you love so much. Can people show a little respect.

#50: Re: Disenchanted Author: AT_Stalky PostPosted: Sun Feb 27, 2011 12:19 pm
    —
papa_whisky wrote (View Post):
This thread is ridiculous I fail to see the point of mudslinging at the team who tried very hard to do there best at upgrading CC within some very tight constraints. The very same team that brought you, Stwa, CCMT that you love so much. Can people show a little respect.


You my friend takes the sides of a corporation that make fraud a part of there business model.

This corporation (Matrix Blackhand CSO/Simtec S3T et al) has a long record in systematic frauding and abusing consumers.
I can post 100th of links here where you fined Schrecken, TJ, Flamer, Southernland et al, doing just that.
There is a clear red line in this, if someone is not pleased with the product and is outspoken about that, the consumer is systematically trolled and aggressively handled.  

Consumers are aggressively dealt with, and if the consumer still don’t give up, Matrix simply say, “don’t buy or product then”….  That’s ok, but Matrix don’t refund the complaining consumer. So its fraud…
 
You ask ppl here: “Can people show a little respect.”
It seems to me that Matrix through mud at the consumers. Mud products, half baked and poorly made. 3 years down the road and WAR is still in its miserable state. In my book this is not showing respect to the consumer. We get a lot of promises of the promised land, its behind the next hill, or patch… Yet we never get it. Is this respect for the consumer?


I see consumers coming here to CCS asking if the new product is good. The consumer ask here at CCS because they expect that another consumer shall answer, and that he will be given an unbiased recommendation.
The developer team have made a habit in answering the potential consumer and recommend buying of there own products. The developer posses as another consumer and do not reviel that they are infact stakeholders. This is immoral and unethical, but never mind that. In EU-law, its illegal for a corporation to posing as a consumer. If sentenced they can be fined up to 10% of a year turnover. IE: there bussiness model is illegal. Is this showing respect for the consumers?

You say that the team have tried v hard to upgrade the old games.
Doesn’t it worry you that they have all the time in the world posting garbage here at CCS? They prioritize argue with the consumer instead of using that time to develop CC. The CC developer team rather spend there time here arguing with the consumers than to use that time to FIX the bugs in the games WE HAVE BOUGHT for OUR MONEY. What respect is that for the consumer?

What respect does Matrix show the consumers?
Do you defend there business methods?


Last edited by AT_Stalky on Sat Mar 26, 2011 9:09 pm; edited 3 times in total

#51: Re: Disenchanted Author: buufaceLocation: Thailand PostPosted: Sun Feb 27, 2011 12:23 pm
    —
All the CC5 bugs which Tejszd listed are legitimate and persistent in CC5. And to my knowledge ALL of them are fixed in the re-releases

Stwa, putting N/A or WTF next to the bugs which don't apply to you because you don't play MP, doesnt make them not exist.  Rolling Eyes

They apply to pretty much everyone else, and many of them are game-breakers which have caused a lot of people to stop playing CC5 all together.

#52: Re: Disenchanted Author: Dundradal PostPosted: Sun Feb 27, 2011 1:48 pm
    —
Stwa wrote (View Post):

I will simply pencil in N/A for items that do not apply to me, since I never do Multiplayer.


This makes me laugh so much. You are criticizing people and products that you do not have a full knowledge of. Hell you are fighting over a list of bugs that hundreds of others talk about all the time, but because it doesn't happen to you everything is ok? (Mostly because you don't play the H2H where these bugs are often found)

If there's a whore here it's you for being so dumb. People are presenting valid information back to you and instead you just try to repeat the same sad and lame insults over and over. "Mahhhh that doesn't apply to me because I'm XYZ..." Awesome. It applies to others.

I have to say I find it hilarious that every few months the owner of this website brings up a topic that is sure to divided and angry people. Instead of doing anything remotely positive it's a constant rehashing of old arguments that will have no winner and loser. You've dug your feet in the sand and will hold them there no matter what you say to each other. So why the hell keep fighting the same damn fight when no one is going to change their mind?

All I can say is that most likely you will post some scathing reply about how I'm a prostitute and this and that. Which is fine. I just come here to check out CC-related stuff. After a year here I can see why many ignore the forums. It's just a constant fight that is stirred up over and over that only divides people. What a waste of seemingly good talent and energy....

#53: Re: Disenchanted Author: Stwa PostPosted: Sun Feb 27, 2011 2:20 pm
    —
buuface wrote (View Post):
All the CC5 bugs which Tejszd listed are legitimate and persistent in CC5. And to my knowledge ALL of them are fixed in the re-releases

Stwa, putting N/A or WTF next to the bugs which don't apply to you because you don't play MP, doesnt make them not exist.  Rolling Eyes

They apply to pretty much everyone else, and many of them are game-breakers which have caused a lot of people to stop playing CC5 all together.


WRONG!

You are simply ignoring the VAST majority of consumers, who purchase CC5 and NEVER even give ONE THOUGHT to Multiplayer.

The regulars who have frequented this forum or CSO in the past represent a TINY FRACTION of the total number or consumers who have purchased this game.

As much as Tejszd would like to hijack this thread into a discussion on the merits of CC5, HERE GOES.  Arrow


ATTENTION NEW CC GAMERS THAT WOULD LIKE TO PLAY CC5  

As long as you play in SINGLE PLAYER MODE, CC5 will be a very enjoyable game.

It has been on my system for over a DECADE, and I have logged as much time on it as anyone here at this forum.

So, take it from me, someone who DOES NOT HAVE A FINANCIAL STAKE in the new CC re-releases.

CC5 IS A GREAT GAME
  Exclamation


BEFORE YOU DROP $50 on a new Matrix Game, consider obtaining and older game for a much reduced price.

If you are worried about CC5, try CC4, or CC3.

Play the tactical battles first, and after a time, if you find you don't like them, CC games are probably not for you.  
  Idea

#54: Re: Disenchanted Author: AT_Stalky PostPosted: Sun Feb 27, 2011 3:05 pm
    —
How many has come back and bought the new CC, and who also stopped play the new CC for the SAME reason mentioned by Buuface, (that is for the bugs and patches and poor data and poor code)..

Imagine, just bought a new CC game. Start it up and realize it’s a pale copy of the 15 year old Atomic games. How does that feel? I been there and done that, three times…..  
The new games poor attention to details, the poor map coding that sucks the realism out of the game (in the new maps), never mind the mortar settings, and the AT guns etc..

And when the lucky few who can play it as is, then have started a GC. They run into the bugs and patch it. Just to fined out that they now need restart the campaign. And so it goes on and on. How many have stopped play the new CC due to this? Is critique to the developer valid considering the GC’s importance in the CC games and time invested into the GC?  

I open up Game Ranger and fined 6(six) CC5 players, and non playing the 4 new games.
That’s sort of funny, or tragic, considering that CC5 is 11 years old.
Tell me is this a sign of the developer teams success, and that the developer have delivered what the consumer ask for?

I don’t argue against TJs list of bugs in CC5. I hade some 0000 crashes over the years. Annoying, but it has not made me or any of my friends stop playing CC5 for that reason.
I seen many friends stopped playing CC5 though, but not for reasons on that list.
Non of the friends have moved on to the new CC games. Isn’t that a bad sign, considering we bough the new CC game(s).

But it’s sort of pathetic to use some bugs in CC5 as an excuse for the new poor CC products. And to tell us that they fixed most if not all them CC5 bugs (but fail to mention all the new bugs and poor data introduced into the new CC-games).

Pathetic, especially as ppl who owns the new CC games, still play CC5 almost religiosity….

Dundradal, old mate, your opinion are not even worth considering. And I don’t even read your post. No offence mate.
And you know the reason why, you have stated that we should be happy for getting anything new in CC, and that’s better than nothing. Such low standards may make you pleased with the new product, but never forget that your standard are not universal.
So Dundradale ole mate, this thread is not for you, you would not understand what we are talking about.

#55: Re: Disenchanted Author: Dundradal PostPosted: Sun Feb 27, 2011 3:26 pm
    —
My post isn't worth considering so no offense? You know that's not how it works right?

I never said I was pleased with the new games. I said you should be glad you are getting something yes but you are confusing the two concepts. Do you think I enjoy products that are full of bugs? Of course not...don't assume my standards and then confuse it with a statement of sentiment. I think the new releases are positive steps.  

I'm more saying you all have your heads so far up your own asses that you are going to fight the same fight every 3 months and do nothing by grow more disgusted with one another.

How do I not know what you are talking about? I understand it perfectly well. You are all bitching about the new releases because they have issues. Understandable. Then you are fighting over the merits of CC5 vs the new games for the 10,000th time. Have I lost you yet?

It makes perfect sense why so many people throw their hands up in disgust and leave here. Instead of being open to discussion you just want to be dicks to each other. It's like a 4th grade sandbox here.

#56: Re: Disenchanted Author: ManoiLocation: Brussels PostPosted: Sun Feb 27, 2011 3:37 pm
    —
sad...  Sad

#57: Re: Disenchanted Author: mooxe PostPosted: Sun Feb 27, 2011 4:03 pm
    —
Its hard to consider making TLD mods work on WAR any feature at all. Both games are still in their beta stages, and modding is essentially over. Aside from work being done to port mods, there really isnt anything going on, nor will there ever be. Theres no guarantee that feature will keep working as more and more patches come out.

The bug list is CC5 is mostly accurate. Most effect MP, and some I believe do not affect vanilla CC5, only mods. Been so long since I played vanilla that I cannot remember which ones but there are some. Tracer fire is viewable by both sides, maybe you meant muzzle flashes? Support bug, only in mods I believe.

The most tactical changes we ever seen were for CCM/CCMT and the other non commercial versions of the same. Setting timers with actions on a map (ie; reinforcements coming after X minutes, mines, IEDs, automatic support dropped when an enemy hits a certain spot), mount/dismount, setup timer... Theres more. Its too bad CCMT was the most poorly executed release of CC ever. The multiplayer aspect was totally hacked and slashed into it and made it 99% unplayable. I doubt a 10 player game has even been played. Single player its fine if you do not like operations or campaigns. This is probably the poorest CC to date, even worse than Road to Baghdad. RtB doesnt set you up for disaster in MP.

Cross of Iron was probably the best rerelease. Quick, bugs fixed, most mods ported over and MMCC3 added. All for nothing though, most people I guess were not interested anymore in that theatre or interface... one reason or another.

The rest of them, well like I said in the original post. The focus changed and in doing so created a poor product. Shortcuts like deleting isometric views and using map symbols on strat/tactical map instead of game art. Broken new features, features added nobody ever wanted (disorganized teams that you cant swap out, seriously?), constant patching and some good features... features not added from CCMT. There is no clear vision or path that I can see, no method to the madness. Years after the first zombie rerelease were still being told of patches to come and each game is still in beta...

What would you say if CC5 was patched and mods ported three years ago? Could the mods have been ported as easily as they were for COI? Even if it was a bit more complicated, where would we be now? If it was done like that, considering all the CC5 players still out there, they would of easily been converted to Matrix customers... and we could of avoided WaR, TLD, LSA and maybe had a new theatre. I can assure you there are still hordes of CC5 players simply due to the amount of traffic CC5 mods generate each month and the amount of CC5 releated searches that land people to this website.

#58: Re: Disenchanted Author: TrogerLocation: L4W's place, Australia PostPosted: Sun Feb 27, 2011 7:11 pm
    —
Dundradal wrote (View Post):
It makes perfect sense why so many people throw their hands up in disgust and leave here. Instead of being open to discussion you just want to be dicks to each other. It's like a 4th grade sandbox here.


I think there are quite a few examples in the past were developers and those associated with them were berating/attacking/ridiculing those who criticized the game (granted some of us who ranted didn't approach it the right way). This was especially the case after CoI. I know that set the tone for me and I'm some others, as well.

Another problem people had with the remakes is that put many who owned the originals is a bad position. CoI, being the first, did not instill a lot of confidence in the future of remakes. The PR mismanagement by those in charge and connected with the project added fuel to the fire. Many were left wondering why CoI was released as a version of CC3 plus bunch of existing mods added (this at the cost of a full game) - what did that do for those of us who already owned CC3 and had access to the mods they applied? The reason apparently was that they were making it available, but who was looking for it? Why even waste peoples time with it and risk splintering an already decimated CC3 online community? If someone was at least honest and came out and said 'We needed the quick cash to fund the work future CCs", then okay, but that wasn't the answer given.

But we have received some worthwhile updates in TLD and LSA, even if they aren't as radical as what was seen in CCM/CCMT. And, at this moment, I think many would rather play WAR over CC4. TLD with it's latest patch is now headed in the right direction and given the possibly that a mod like GJS get's ported, it too would be worth it. But stock LSA is back to square one for me, and I hope the recent patch makes it more like patched TLD.

In many respects those working on these remakes have made some improvements but MOOXE does make a good point, why does a older version CCM/CCMT have loads of new features while the remakes do not include any of them? Many of them do not require any real implementation plan, such as dismounting/mounting. I honestly don't expect much from these games, I'm not looking for 3d or soldiers who have a direct link with my desires. It just needs to play right.

#59: Re: Disenchanted Author: TejszdLocation: Canada PostPosted: Sun Feb 27, 2011 7:16 pm
    —
Good posts Troger/Mooxe! Talking strategy might at least be productive.

Recap of the strategy in my opinion:
COI
- Scope; a few bug fixes, new campaign and updates for newer Operating Systems
- Plan; seemed to have a big picture plan as most mods were converted, though on the downside compatibility with CC3 was lost (Direct X / OS changes might have forced this).
- Recap; made a very hard to find game available again
CCMT
- Scope; a few bug fixes and updates for newer Operating Systems
- Plan; remove marine property and new sides/units
- Recap; really just brought CCM to the public. Sounded exciting digging in, mount/dismount, 10 vs 10, etc. but really didn't do well without a CC3/COI or CC3/4/5 strategy game
WAR
- Scope; fixed CC5 bugs, new game, a few new features and updates for newer Operating Systems
- Plan; get a stable CC5 and add CC4 features plus a few new ones in. Try to make mod making easier by moving things to text files. Being a foundation allowed it to be made compatible with TLD so that WAR owners are not left behind when TLD mods come.
- Recap; a foundation for more re-releases
TLD
- Scope; everything in WAR plus a new game and new features
- Plan; add more new features as the foundation had been improved in WAR
- Recap: executed the plan, new features caused some bugs/stability issues
LSA
- Scope; everything in TLD plus new game and a lot of new features
- Plan; add CC2 features to the game along with new ones as their was a solid foundation. Tackle some long time engine issues; element inconsistency, path finding, etc.
- Recap; a big jump forward over previous re-releases but a lot of bugs/stability issues and less compatibility with WAR/TLD

I'm not sure how much effort they are still going to put into the re-releases but what would you propose be done with the remaining effort?

I would propose;
- they make the beta patches official for all the re-releases.
- provide another LSA patch as I think there are still some bugs in the current beta

Other example ideas;
- create some mod tools?
- help port CC5 mods to WAR/TLD?
- move CCMT features (ex. digging in, mount/dismount, unlimited support, the editor, etc.) to other versions? * doubtful due to effort and how CCMT sold as the features didn't make it sell *
- new features?

#60: Re: Disenchanted Author: platoon_michaelLocation: Right behind you PostPosted: Mon Feb 28, 2011 3:47 am
    —
CCM features didnt sell?
I think it was the game itself.
I remember many people wanting 5X5 H2H ,digging in and troop transport.
Almost begging for it if you will.

BUT,we were told NO Can Do.

How hard could it really be to import those features into the re-releases?
If you guys would have done those 3 key features for the re-releases AND built in an EASY way to play online I bet the bugs would have been pushed aside and patiently waited on.

#61: Re: Disenchanted Author: platoon_michaelLocation: Right behind you PostPosted: Wed Mar 02, 2011 10:09 pm
    —
Tejszd wrote (View Post):
platoon_michael,

WAR does still have some kinks, which it really shouldn't after almost 3 years, but at least they are mainly cosmetic. As you have already pointed out with the halftrack wheels being wrongly left on screen over the Sherman tank tracks on command screen.

But at almost 3 years after WAR was released what support have you rec'd;

- a patch to make WAR  compatible with TLD mods. Do CC5 mods work on CC4?
- a patch adding the LSA path finding enhancement that came out after LSA was released (LSA is 2 releases after WAR). Did Atomic add CC5 features to CC3 (two releases back)?

If you go here http://closecombat.matrixgames.com/ you will see Bloody Omaha and Ground Tactics available on both WAR and TLD web pages.


I noticed you skipped over on commenting on how the AI assigns support to BG's that wont/don't need it.
Or how the AI doesn't advance on the strat map.
I'm sure after a few 1000 Battles with the Fatigue/Cohesion I can find more errors with it's use.
And as for me not finding anything other than graphic glitches I should probably be happy I don't know the inner workings of CC,know what I mean? Laughing

#62: Re: Disenchanted Author: TejszdLocation: Canada PostPosted: Thu Mar 03, 2011 12:33 am
    —
Hey platoon_michael,

Thanks for pointing out the AI assigning support to BG's won't/don't need it. I created a bug/enhancement ticket based on your feedback for the developer. I think it is a bug if a BG can not get into a combat situation....

For the AI not advancing is that still happening to you with the latest patch? My understanding from looking at the bug tracker was that issue occurred in a specific build and was fixed.

Probably right on the inner workings; there could be more things that we do not know or see that aren't working....

#63: Re: Disenchanted Author: platoon_michaelLocation: Right behind you PostPosted: Thu Mar 03, 2011 9:09 am
    —
I haven't played much in the past few months but yes it was with the latest patch.
My day off today so hopefully I'll get a strat turn in today.

Added a long standing bug to the Matrix forums,lets see what the response is.
How you guys missed it or didn't try to correct it is beyond me.
Starts at Page3,Post 76

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2499513&mpage=3

#64: Re: Disenchanted Author: TejszdLocation: Canada PostPosted: Fri Mar 04, 2011 2:26 am
    —
I created an enhancement request in the bug tracker for it.

In stock CC5 and all the re-releases I do not think any team is greater than 7 men thus the problem was not seen in testing. Having said that, now that you have mentioned it, I do remember a couple mods that did/do use larger teams. It would be a nice enhancement to update all the screens to handle 10 men;

- Battlegroup Screen can only support 9 men teams
- Soldier Screen can only support 7 men teams
- Strategic Map can only support 7 men teams

While I personally think this would be a good change I don't know if the powers that be will approve work on more enhancements for WAR to allow VetBob to properly show all soldiers....

#65: Re: Disenchanted Author: Stwa PostPosted: Fri Mar 04, 2011 4:56 am
    —
What about the in-game screens.

In CCMT these support 8 man teams. Not sure for WAR.

Even when using mount/dismount when you have put a few teams in a vehicle, the soldier monitor looks ok, because it is vertical, but the horizontal team monitor, can have its heads/men display overflowed.

So I assume a 10 man team (never mind mount/dismount) would overflow as well.

#66: Re: Disenchanted Author: platoon_michaelLocation: Right behind you PostPosted: Fri Mar 04, 2011 12:20 pm
    —
Tejszd wrote (View Post):
I created an enhancement request in the bug tracker for it.

In stock CC5 and all the re-releases I do not think any team is greater than 7 men thus the problem was not seen in testing. Having said that, now that you have mentioned it, I do remember a couple mods that did/do use larger teams. It would be a nice enhancement to update all the screens to handle 10 men;

- Battlegroup Screen can only support 9 men teams
- Soldier Screen can only support 7 men teams
- Strategic Map can only support 7 men teams

While I personally think this would be a good change I don't know if the powers that be will approve work on more enhancements for WAR to allow VetBob to properly show all soldiers....



I don't expect it to be done.
But I am surprised that with all the updates no one gave this any consideration.
That and NO upgrade to the sound file. I.E. more slots for Weapons or Ambient sounds.

Whats the point of being able to add more weapons when you can't add new sounds?

#67: Re: Disenchanted Author: schreckenLocation: Sydney, Australia PostPosted: Fri Mar 04, 2011 7:14 pm
    —
This from the code meister, for LSA... should be the same for WaR and tLD


Quote:
You can add new weapon sounds but they must be at the end of the sound file, not in the middle, so that the indexes of the existing sounds don't change.  That is why the 'new' weapon sounds (20mm flak, aircraft strafing) are numbered 105-107.  So if you add a new sound to the end of the file and set the weapon sound to 108 you should be fine.

#68: Re: Disenchanted Author: platoon_michaelLocation: Right behind you PostPosted: Sat Mar 05, 2011 3:46 am
    —
Tejszd wrote (View Post):
I created an enhancement request in the bug tracker for it.

In stock CC5 and all the re-releases I do not think any team is greater than 7 men thus the problem was not seen in testing. Having said that, now that you have mentioned it, I do remember a couple mods that did/do use larger teams. It would be a nice enhancement to update all the screens to handle 10 men;

- Battlegroup Screen can only support 9 men teams
- Soldier Screen can only support 7 men teams
- Strategic Map can only support 7 men teams

While I personally think this would be a good change I don't know if the powers that be will approve work on more enhancements for WAR to allow VetBob to properly show all soldiers....



There's more too,Geuss I could post it next week.

#69: Re: Disenchanted Author: platoon_michaelLocation: Right behind you PostPosted: Sat Mar 05, 2011 3:47 am
    —
schrecken wrote (View Post):
This from the code meister, for LSA... should be the same for WaR and tLD


Quote:
You can add new weapon sounds but they must be at the end of the sound file, not in the middle, so that the indexes of the existing sounds don't change.  That is why the 'new' weapon sounds (20mm flak, aircraft strafing) are numbered 105-107.  So if you add a new sound to the end of the file and set the weapon sound to 108 you should be fine.



Thank-You
Any Idea how many extra sounds WAR can support?
Any idea if more Ambient sounds can be added?

#70: Re: Disenchanted Author: schreckenLocation: Sydney, Australia PostPosted: Sat Mar 05, 2011 4:11 am
    —
Probably until you run out of memory... so depends on your system.... Just like the ovm's.

#71: Re: Disenchanted Author: platoon_michaelLocation: Right behind you PostPosted: Sat Mar 05, 2011 10:57 am
    —
Laughing
Good one

I want to fix the .ovm's
But every time I update WAR and you guys change my .ovm's on a few maps they are just way to blurry for me.
Guess my VETBoB conversion is gonna be for just the chosen few who have a lot of memory.


You missed the Ambiance sounds question.

#72: Re: Disenchanted Author: dj PostPosted: Sat Mar 05, 2011 6:03 pm
    —
Tejszd wrote (View Post):
Hey platoon_michael,

Thanks for pointing out the AI assigning support to BG's won't/don't need it. I created a bug/enhancement ticket based on your feedback for the developer. I think it is a bug if a BG can not get into a combat situation....

For the AI not advancing is that still happening to you with the latest patch? My understanding from looking at the bug tracker was that issue occurred in a specific build and was fixed.

Probably right on the inner workings; there could be more things that we do not know or see that aren't working....


I've seen this with LSA and especially with TLD...where the AI still seems to not want to advance in tactical maps.   The biggest problem is the AI refuses to move in the strategic map.  To the point, where I have to disband my units.

#73: Re: Disenchanted Author: Stwa PostPosted: Sat Mar 05, 2011 10:08 pm
    —
Not sure of the strategic consequences, but by NOT advancing on a tactical map, 9 times out of ten, that would be a good move on the part of the AI.

It is a game of ambush, especially in CCMT, where if you are VIS, you are DEAD.  Exclamation

Once you hit BEGIN, there are NO Attackers and Defenders. That little display refers to the outcome of the strategic movement. NOT what is going down on the tactical map.

If the AI shot up several of your teams RIGHT AWAY. Would you go on the defensive, or would you continue your attack.

#74: Re: Disenchanted Author: schreckenLocation: Sydney, Australia PostPosted: Sat Mar 05, 2011 10:40 pm
    —
Have you tried the latest tLD patch

it was a kjnown case in next but last patch that german would not move

#75: Re: Disenchanted Author: Stwa PostPosted: Sat Mar 05, 2011 11:04 pm
    —
I dont have TLD. The Bug refers to Strategic Movement, which is (I think), is what most people are complaining about.  And as you have mentioned, has already been fixed.

#76: Re: Disenchanted Author: schreckenLocation: Sydney, Australia PostPosted: Sat Mar 05, 2011 11:30 pm
    —
I'll rephrase

Have you, dj,  tried the latest tLD patch

it was a kjnown case in next but last patch that german would not move

#77: Re: Disenchanted Author: mooxe PostPosted: Sun Mar 06, 2011 5:42 am
    —
The latest WaR and TLD patches just drive the point of this thread home even more. New feature - updated launch menu ... who the hell cares about a launch menu! The launch menu is only there to advertise Matrix games not to make anything easier. Why push out another patch just for these updates? Theres too many patches already. Are they released under the guise of "we are supporting the game?" "We are looking to make it official soon" is a tagline on EVERY patch so far!

#78: Re: Disenchanted Author: pvt_GruntLocation: Melbourne, Australia PostPosted: Sun Mar 06, 2011 6:19 am
    —
My CC is like Krusty the Clown when he tried to give up smoking.... He was covered in patches everywhere except his ass!

#79: Re: Disenchanted Author: schreckenLocation: Sydney, Australia PostPosted: Sun Mar 06, 2011 7:37 am
    —
The next patch features a new intro video... a lot of time has been spent on it.

#80: Re: Disenchanted Author: Stwa PostPosted: Sun Mar 06, 2011 8:10 am
    —
YES  Exclamation  [HIGH FIVE]  Laughing

#81: Re: Disenchanted Author: LostTemple PostPosted: Sun Mar 06, 2011 8:14 am
    —
schrecken wrote (View Post):
The next patch features a new intro video... a lot of time has been spent on it.


You're a joke, and the company you work for, Matrix Games, is also a joke.

oh, and CC5 Invasion of Normandy rules!

#82: Re: Disenchanted Author: schreckenLocation: Sydney, Australia PostPosted: Sun Mar 06, 2011 8:50 am
    —
and you are nothing... and I have all the money from new release sales...nyuk nyuk


kerrrching.

#83: Re: Disenchanted Author: panssarijaakari PostPosted: Sun Mar 06, 2011 10:21 am
    —
schrecken wrote (View Post):
The next patch features a new intro video... a lot of time has been spent on it.


With all due respect, schrecken, I believe such updates aren't really necessary. Please fix gameplay issues such as the MG's max range of just 500 meters and not being able being able to get commanders with a rank of 1st Lieutenant or higher.

#84: Re: Disenchanted Author: schreckenLocation: Sydney, Australia PostPosted: Sun Mar 06, 2011 6:18 pm
    —
why are you asking me to fix anything???

#85: Re: Disenchanted Author: panssarijaakari PostPosted: Sun Mar 06, 2011 6:35 pm
    —
Am I mistaken in believing that you have been working with the latest CC releases? If so, my apologies.

#86: Re: Disenchanted Author: schreckenLocation: Sydney, Australia PostPosted: Sun Mar 06, 2011 6:49 pm
    —
I believe I'm still listed on the team.

But I don't do anything that management is interested in.... and that has been the case for more than two years now.

#87: Re: Disenchanted Author: platoon_michaelLocation: Right behind you PostPosted: Fri Mar 11, 2011 3:26 am
    —
schrecken wrote (View Post):
I believe I'm still listed on the team.

But I don't do anything.



Just needed to correct that post due to typo.  Laughing

#88: Re: Disenchanted Author: schreckenLocation: Sydney, Australia PostPosted: Fri Mar 11, 2011 5:12 am
    —
how droll

#89: Re: Disenchanted Author: DAK_Legion PostPosted: Fri Mar 11, 2011 2:08 pm
    —
How Droll.........CCMT-WAR

Disenchanted with You

#90: Re: Disenchanted Author: LostTemple PostPosted: Wed Mar 16, 2011 7:47 am
    —
panssarijaakari wrote (View Post):
schrecken wrote (View Post):
The next patch features a new intro video... a lot of time has been spent on it.


With all due respect, schrecken, I believe such updates aren't really necessary. Please fix gameplay issues such as the MG's max range of just 500 meters and not being able being able to get commanders with a rank of 1st Lieutenant or higher.


Matrix Games: Hey guys, our last two rereleases are total junk.  Should we patch and fix them?
Matrix Dev team: Nah...but why don't we make a new intro instead?
Matrix Games: Sounds good.  You can proceed.  

This gaming moment of idiocy and fraud was brought to you by the thieving people at Matrix Games.


.

#91: Re: Disenchanted Author: schreckenLocation: Sydney, Australia PostPosted: Wed Mar 16, 2011 8:57 am
    —
It also has a new splash screen.

#92: Re: Disenchanted Author: TrogerLocation: L4W's place, Australia PostPosted: Sun Aug 28, 2011 10:40 pm
    —
Tejszd wrote (View Post):
Good posts Troger/Mooxe! Talking strategy might at least be productive.

I'm not sure how much effort they are still going to put into the re-releases but what would you propose be done with the remaining effort?

I would propose;
- they make the beta patches official for all the re-releases.
- provide another LSA patch as I think there are still some bugs in the current beta

Other example ideas;
- create some mod tools?
- help port CC5 mods to WAR/TLD?
- move CCMT features (ex. digging in, mount/dismount, unlimited support, the editor, etc.) to other versions? * doubtful due to effort and how CCMT sold as the features didn't make it sell *
- new features?


I agree that talk concerning these games could be a little more productive. Although, it doesn't seem like those that are pulling the strings are really listening.. I like the idea of adding some of those CCMT features, however, I think the real issue is how to get the gameplay back to what it was like in the originals.

I'll let two pictures do the talking for me, both were taken in two separate battles using the latest build of LSA. While the screenshots may present a situation of mad rushing, I was simply trying to move a couple units around (responsibly).




I'm sorry, but that "enemy spotted" and subsequent aborting of movements have to go. It has really made the game just downright unbearable to play at times. CC was built on the 'thrill of combat, and the power of command", it needs to get back to that!

#93: Re: Disenchanted Author: Stwa PostPosted: Mon Aug 29, 2011 10:09 am
    —
Those little screenies are perfectly welcome in a CCMT game.

First off, if you can see the enemy, there is a percentage chance they can see YOU.

Second off, if the enemy can see you, YOU are probably gonna die.  Exclamation

And last but not least, if you are being attacked, re-deployment notwithstanding, it means the enemy can see YOU ...

and if the enemy can see you, YOU are probably gonna die.   Exclamation

Wink

#94: Re: Disenchanted Author: TrogerLocation: L4W's place, Australia PostPosted: Thu Sep 01, 2011 5:14 am
    —
Ah, looks like the best thing to do would be to sit and not order them to do anything, lest anyone die or be attacked on a battlefield. I get it now!

At the end of the day, I prefer a game that gives me the control.

#95: Re: Disenchanted Author: Stwa PostPosted: Thu Sep 01, 2011 8:53 am
    —
Ah, looks like the best thing to do would be to sit and not order them to do anything, lest anyone die or be attacked on a battlefield. I get it now!

Are you sure?

You can do anything you want just try not to go vis, or you are probably gonna die.

The concept mainly came into wide acceptance in the latter part of the 19th century. It occurred to everyone, that maybe the best course of action is to remain concealled while you fight. Even if your weapons are making a lot of noise.  Idea

This kinda was about the same time everyone lost the colorful uniforms, trading them in for more "earthy" tones. Except the French, of course.

The AI likes to do this, and at least for me the game is hunting out the AI's teams, without having your own teams go vis. It works better that way.

And ya, one more thing, don't get any friendlies killed, or YOU get to do the press conference.

#96: Re: Disenchanted Author: mooxe PostPosted: Wed Sep 24, 2014 5:30 pm
    —
Pipfromslitherine starting to get annoying. Its 2014 people, who really needs to be told why GtC multiplayer functions are crap, with PITF and GtC they really took a step back in time from the rest of the games with multiplayer. You just have to load up any FPS or smartphone game to see how easy it is for them to connect online. If they could only just admit it.........

#97: Re: Disenchanted Author: Pzt_CrackwiseLocation: Switzerland PostPosted: Wed Sep 24, 2014 6:41 pm
    —
Well, it seems these guys have a nice business model. They have the name rights of a famous series. They recycle those games with minimal developer team size and budget, but with an end-product having maximum price!  They make money, so they continue this model.

Ideally, they should just ask us people here at CCS, take our feedback and develop something accordingly. There is no proper community consulting with these guys from Matrix. In contrast, look at all the new games being made with Kickstarter:

As an example, the Jagged Alliance Flashback developers work very closely with the original Jagged Alliance 2 community. Those games have proper dedicated forums, not like the clusterfuck of a forum Matrix Games has. Modders as well as casual players give feedback at a beta stage with Steam early access. We are not in the 1990s anymore, the game development scene of the new decade requires working together *with* the community, instead of seeing them only as cows to milk.

Some other new games of famous series developed in combination with Kickstarter and Steam Early Access: Divinity: Original Sin,   Wasteland 2

#98: Re: Disenchanted Author: platoon_michaelLocation: Right behind you PostPosted: Wed Sep 24, 2014 11:16 pm
    —
The excuses that anyone from and or associated within developing or working on CC is just beyond comprehensible to me anymore.

If this same product was a car,furniture,restaurant or any other daily purchase within ones life would never get a second chance in my daily life.


And yet this one gets a second chance time and time again.


I'm single now and I thought for sure my activity would pick up with that but you know what?
I haven't touched it since.
This game is on a very very short leash.


At this point I've pretty much come to the conclusion that they will Milk you to death with new games and new versions and NEVER make a game worth buying.
And that's no psychic prediction.
The proof is right there in front of you.

#99: Re: Disenchanted Author: Stwa PostPosted: Thu Sep 25, 2014 1:22 am
    —
platoon_michael wrote (View Post):
The excuses that anyone from and or associated within developing or working on CC is just beyond comprehensible to me anymore. If this same product was a car,furniture,restaurant or any other daily purchase within ones life would never get a second chance in my daily life.


I have always been under the assumption that the CC series may be one of the few franchises you have messed with over time.

So, I can understand your insistence on perfection. And I feel like you and guys like mooxe and tejszd have supported Matrix to the extent that you can.

Looking back on some of my posts in this old thread, I must confess I am embarassed by many of my own posts.

Matrix has produced a gazillion wargames. I purchased a few along the way.

I have had an enormous amount of fun with CCMT, CC2 Redux, and WAR (Classic CC4).

My mistake has been bitching and moaning about CC on this site. It's pointless. It has left me with the opinion that some game producers are the REAL pirates.

#100: Re: Disenchanted Author: platoon_michaelLocation: Right behind you PostPosted: Thu Sep 25, 2014 2:09 am
    —
I'm not looking for Perfection

I understand that there is no way shape or form ANY game can be made for everyone.


It would however be nice to see common sense.


The game is being sold and advertised with the moral,conditions,support of troops being the strong point of the game.
Yet there is NONE of that from those who create or play it.

#101: Re: Disenchanted Author: platoon_michaelLocation: Right behind you PostPosted: Thu Sep 25, 2014 2:19 am
    —
Fact is if Close Combat  was a restaurant in your home town with this type of service................you would NEVER go back again

#102: Re: Disenchanted Author: platoon_michaelLocation: Right behind you PostPosted: Thu Sep 25, 2014 2:25 am
    —
And what really pisses me off is that NOBODY FUCKING gets that.

#103: Re: Disenchanted Author: platoon_michaelLocation: Right behind you PostPosted: Thu Sep 25, 2014 2:38 am
    —
My post over at Steam with the errors in GWTC was removed for being repetitive and yet their is numerous threads about game play and the price.

And after THREE months they have no answer for the errors in the game I posted.


I will tell you whats going to happen.

They will NOT FIX them
THEY HAVE NO IDEA ON HOW TO FIX THEM.



THEY will move on to the next game


And you people who are stupid enough to buy it will be posting the same thing WE have done for years since WAR

#104: Re: Disenchanted Author: TrogerLocation: L4W's place, Australia PostPosted: Thu Sep 25, 2014 2:49 am
    —
Look at the posts that were made almost four years ago in just this thread alone.  It says a lot.  

It's groundhog's day every release with these type of people.  I say these type of people because it's technically been three different "developers" (CSO, Strategy 3 Tactics, Slitherine).  And yet all three groups seem to treat those of us in the community the same way.  It's like they are trained to be that way.  Instead of actually putting work into the game to make it what it can be, they go out of their way to deflect ALL criticism and constructive comments.  All the while, they haven't actually improved this game.

The worst part of it is, these "development" teams (CSO, Strategy 3 Tactics, Slitherine) are former CC modders/mapmakers--which is also the reason that they are unable to actually develop a proper game.  

Many of us argued that those re-releases would hurt the game, and what has happened since the release of Cross of Iron?  The community has slowly died, and it's on it's last legs. Remember when the CSO "developers" and affiliated cronies were flaming and belittling those of us voicing our legitimate concerns before and after the Cross of Iron release?  Look where all those weasels are now, no where to be seen.  

These guys we have now have already went out of there way to point out that The Bloody First will basically be a shell of a game, without features some of us consider core to the game.  I can see their recipe already, add one stupid feature every game (for instance maybe the groundbreaking, brand new idea of an integrated matchmaking forum), make seemingly random change to a fundamental feature people like, charge $50, and then rinse and repeat!

#105: Re: Disenchanted Author: TrogerLocation: L4W's place, Australia PostPosted: Thu Sep 25, 2014 3:17 am
    —
LostTemple wrote (View Post):

Matrix Games: Hey guys, our last two rereleases are total junk.  Should we patch and fix them?
Matrix Dev team: Nah...but why don't we make a new intro instead?
Matrix Games: Sounds good.  You can proceed.  

This gaming moment of idiocy and fraud was brought to you by the thieving people at Matrix Games.



LOL, that's pretty funny shit. Where is LostTemple? Didn't he make that hilarious mock Close Combat advertisement?

#106: Re: Disenchanted Author: TrogerLocation: L4W's place, Australia PostPosted: Thu Sep 25, 2014 3:31 am
    —
Lol, LostTemple made this.  The laughs I'm getting from it help deal with the pain and frustration.


ke66pv.jpg
 Description:
 Filesize:  51.39 KB
 Viewed:  309 Time(s)

ke66pv.jpg



#107: Re: Disenchanted Author: dj PostPosted: Thu Sep 25, 2014 5:01 am
    —
Spot on.  The kicker is that ironically all of the re-releases regresssed from the original games.  LSA in particular was way worse than CC2 produced many years beforehand.  The only improvement is with graphics marginally, that's not saying much since the re-leases were produced many years after the originals and technology has advanced since that time.  IMO everything started going downhill with CC5 then re-releases after that.

#108: Re: Disenchanted Author: johnsilverLocation: Florida PostPosted: Thu Sep 25, 2014 5:19 am
    —
dj wrote (View Post):
Spot on.  The kicker is that ironically all of the re-releases regresssed from the original games.  LSA in particular was way worse than CC2 produced many years beforehand.  The only improvement is with graphics marginally, that's not saying much since the re-leases were produced many years after the originals and technology has advanced since that time.  IMO everything started going downhill with CC5 then re-releases after that.


Agree on LSA. The strat map in particular is awful and difficult to read. Some of the finer aspects/improvements, such as 2 units per map were not perfected until PITF and in LSA are a hindrance in LSA. It's the weakest of the CC titles.

Remember also that when both CC4, then CC5 came out? old die hard CC players were saying the same negative things with regards to how CC4 and CC5 being weak also and having numerous faults. How the F/pool system was weak in CC5 and many were using nothing but the maps from both CC4/5. Time changed much, perhaps it will again on the outlook of the newer CC's also again.

#109: Re: Disenchanted Author: Stwa PostPosted: Thu Sep 25, 2014 8:33 am
    —
Right, but when I got WAR, I knew I would be able to use it for Classic CC4 and CC5.

Way back when COI was being determined, I know many argued for just patching the games, so they could operate with XP. I suppose that also meant fixing obvious and identified bugs.

But, they [Matrix] went way beyond, like including more maps.

Just a few weeks ago, I kicked up a Classic CC4 campaign. A very rare occurrence for moi.

CC4 maps that were modified (usually enlarged) in WAR, I also use with WW2 Tactics (CC2 Redux mod).

The rest of WAR, I really don't use at all.

In all probability my CC journey is over, except the stuff I have accumulated (CCMT, WAR) still work on my system.

#110: Re: Disenchanted Author: Pzt_CrackwiseLocation: Switzerland PostPosted: Thu Sep 25, 2014 9:45 am
    —
I am also very irritated about the general approach of Matrix games, especially their standard behavior of not considering the veteran community's suggestions. I have criticised their arbitrary list of changes (improvements AND dis-improvements (!)) both here, on the Matrix forums as well as on Steam. I think pointing out our concerns additionally on the Steam GtC forums is good, since it also draws other people's attention and they may as well come up with their own criticisms, in addition to building pressure on the developers to fix the issues. After all, Matrix keeps on saying us "you are not the majority, the majority is happy with the game as it is". (Yeah, great argumentation!) So the more people voice out their unhappiness, the better I guess.

Other than those, Gateway to Caen does not deserve its 40$ price tag as all the other re-releases. However, it is probably the best of the re-releases so far. Apart from the somewhat annoying "girly soldiers" thing (which, is not THAT bad imo) and the pronounced inaccuracy of the guns, it is quite nice. I am not sure if the multiplayer crashes have been fixed with the latest patch, but other than that all it needs is a fine mod. Here, hopefully the historical realism mod of Dima will appear soon!

#111: Re: Disenchanted Author: schreckenLocation: Sydney, Australia PostPosted: Thu Sep 25, 2014 11:15 am
    —
kerrching, still racking up the $$ with each sale here, so no need to fix anything.

I think hype is slowly building for an all new wizz bang 3D release that should see my bank account swell again.

oh, hasn't everything been fixed yet... there was a good solid three page list to work on last time I looked..

Is Dima going to charge for his mod like Gateway to Caen?

#112: Re: Disenchanted Author: johnsilverLocation: Florida PostPosted: Thu Sep 25, 2014 11:26 am
    —
I liked the F/Pool system pretty much from the outset of CC5 over the style CC3 had and thought it was a vast improvement, getting rid of the forced resting of individual troops that both CC3/COI have, along with restrictive purchase points. CC4 was getting that way and the maps were sweet also.

Quote:
In all probability my CC journey is over, except the stuff I have accumulated (CCMT, WAR) still work on my system.


Can see that coming also. 3d? Why left CC years ago and went to Combat Mission. If wanted to play a 3d game again?? I'd head back, but I don't.. Matrix, to me is making a mistake.



Quote:
kerrching, still racking up the $$ with each sale here, so no need to fix anything.


Climb out of your foxhole for a bit and take a shot?  Surprised

#113: Re: Disenchanted Author: mooxe PostPosted: Thu Sep 25, 2014 1:57 pm
    —
Sometime I really feel like just pressing the delete key on CCS because of my disappointment. I think that having CCS around gives them a reason to make new rereleases, and new people see this community and it may positively influence them to buy a copy. I can't recommend that last two versions to anyone, I honestly can't see why people would play them and part of me feels like this site shouldn't promote them. These rereleases have not brought life to the community, they have only just sustained it on life support.

#114: Re: Disenchanted Author: Stwa PostPosted: Thu Sep 25, 2014 4:05 pm
    —
Well, I can assure you that CCS was a positive influence in everyone's CC experience.

But, sometimes the discussions here would just bring out the worst in everyone.

Over the years, I know I posted about the public testing, and Matrix running off to the next revenue stream before anything was actually finished. My posts made no difference. There was always someone around to say I was full of it.

But the best thing now, is I really don't care anymore. It's just a game.

#115: Re: Disenchanted Author: pvt_GruntLocation: Melbourne, Australia PostPosted: Thu Sep 25, 2014 11:10 pm
    —
Like most people here, I think we expected each new release to add to and improve upon the previous one. Instead we got changes that werent asked for and no fixes for the faults that were asked for.

I understand the business decisions to make "sellable" changes, but some of these changes have created unintended negatives in the game which Matrix will not pay to undo or repair.

Examples are the crawiling soldiers. They were changed to fix the crawl of death, but then created "girly soldiers" (actually a poor term - men will crawl for cover when shot at as well!) "Solved" by tweaking the code.

Also the scale problems creates by PitF. When the vehicles are made larger, the bridges bacame too small for the pathing algorithm. The solution would be to redraw and re-code all the maps, but no - too expensive. Again "Solved" by tweaking the code.

I am dissapointed because I want CC5 fixed and added to with ALL the features available. Turn them off in the background if they are not needed in the version. (LSA bridges blowing) There is no technical reason I can see to remove the feature from the code.

All these are common to any project. I work with engineers every day who really want to set a good framework for their projects, but this takes a lot of time and prep. There are always managers who want to start building before the prep work is done. This ALWAYS causes problems later. Projects have an inertia to them which is difficult to fight, deadlines, budgets etc get in the way. Sometimes "good" ideas dont work out and people wont admit the're wrong and just scrap them. All normal stuff in a project. I can see how it happens, and sympathise with the dev's but it's still not right.

Matrix wont properly plan and run CC projects, and I think this is a deliberate decision by their managers.

#116: Re: Disenchanted Author: mooxe PostPosted: Fri Sep 26, 2014 12:14 am
    —
Troger wrote (View Post):
Lol, LostTemple made this.  The laughs I'm getting from it help deal with the pain and frustration.



The granddaddy of them all from igotmilk, he made this one either in 2006 or prior,,,,


#117: Re: Disenchanted Author: schreckenLocation: Sydney, Australia PostPosted: Fri Sep 26, 2014 12:39 am
    —
mooxe wrote (View Post):
Sometime I really feel like just pressing the delete key on CCS because of my disappointment. I think that having CCS around gives them a reason to make new rereleases, and new people see this community and it may positively influence them to buy a copy. I can't recommend that last two versions to anyone, I honestly can't see why people would play them and part of me feels like this site shouldn't promote them. These rereleases have not brought life to the community, they have only just sustained it on life support.


I haven't played the last two releases so can't comment.. was disillusioned long ago.

Matrix asked if we wanted to create a MOD for release and everyone at the time said no thanks... looks like Cathartes took up the offer though it should have been a freeby

#118: Re: Disenchanted Author: schreckenLocation: Sydney, Australia PostPosted: Fri Sep 26, 2014 12:49 am
    —
pvt_Grunt wrote (View Post):

I am dissapointed because I want CC5 fixed and added to with ALL the features available. Turn them off in the background if they are not needed in the version. (LSA bridges blowing) There is no technical reason I can see to remove the feature from the code.

Matrix wont properly plan and run CC projects, and I think this is a deliberate decision by their managers.


That was indeed the plan and why in WaR the features had switches... what happened after i became sidelined is anybody's guess.

Also planned was for new releases to become all part of one game.. you just chose which scenario wou wanted to play, War, tLD,ABTF etc... this was the genesis of thew /D switch.

Theoretically if you had purchased an update you could then tweak your own game by turning various features on and off.. eg adding night turns and bridge blowing to WaR, parachute drops to tLD etc ... following this path any bugs would be eventually eradicated with each new release as it was a development of the one set ogf code.

Unfortunately this did not happen

#119: Re: Disenchanted Author: TejszdLocation: Canada PostPosted: Fri Sep 26, 2014 12:56 am
    —
Good to see you still checking in Shrecken!

I will not be doing any further testing of new releases as I'm too frustrated with some of the decisions and with the lack of finish/quality.
- why are features removed? Or if unused but present not tested leaving mod makers frustrated
- why are known bugs left not fixed?

Example for TLD: Tanks can not drive over the Pegasus bridge in TLD since the path finding update in 2011 http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2931150

Edit: list outstanding TLD bugs http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3387394

#120: Re: Disenchanted Author: schreckenLocation: Sydney, Australia PostPosted: Fri Sep 26, 2014 1:02 am
    —
Tejszd wrote (View Post):

Example for TLD: Tanks can not drive over the Pegasus bridge in TLD since the path finding update in 2011 http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2931150



uuugh!

Bridge crossing was high on the agenda when I was last part of the team and quite a lot of work and testing was being put in to a fix.

Is Jim still on the team? ... he was against any fixes

#121: Re: Disenchanted Author: Stwa PostPosted: Fri Sep 26, 2014 3:07 am
    —
Tejszd wrote (View Post):
Tanks can not drive over the Pegasus bridge in TLD since the path finding update in 2011


Hey, the last time you mentioned this, I checked out the map, and it is definately the coding that prevents vehicles crossing. I was using the map in CCMT.

Anyway, the fix took less that 5 minutes with 5CC.

#122: Re: Disenchanted Author: TejszdLocation: Canada PostPosted: Fri Sep 26, 2014 3:11 am
    —
I agree Stwa that it is not a hard a fix. What pisses me off is that Matrix seems to expect everyone who paid for the game to fix it themselves.... Those of us who can do but new players who do not mod will think what a stupid game and just stop playing. It is that attitude that is preventing the re-releases from growing the community more than just a handful....

#123: Re: Disenchanted Author: Stwa PostPosted: Fri Sep 26, 2014 3:52 am
    —
Good Point.

#124: Re: Disenchanted Author: TrogerLocation: L4W's place, Australia PostPosted: Fri Sep 26, 2014 4:41 am
    —
mooxe wrote (View Post):
Troger wrote (View Post):
Lol, LostTemple made this.  The laughs I'm getting from it help deal with the pain and frustration.



The granddaddy of them all from igotmilk, he made this one either in 2006 or prior,,,,



Lol, oh man.  I was conflating this one and LostTemple's.  I think a part of this was aimed at the random people who were making incredibly bizarre requests for things (medics, uber-soldats) that were definitely outside the scope of this game.

#125: Re: Disenchanted Author: TrogerLocation: L4W's place, Australia PostPosted: Fri Sep 26, 2014 5:30 am
    —
schrecken wrote (View Post):
Is Jim still on the team? ... he was against any fixes


What a bastard.  How is it that someone like him gets the say of what can/cannot happen?

Now it's Iain at Slitherine who is calling the shots, and I don't trust his judgement at all--he's goes on how about Close Combat is a "realistic combat simulator", and calls those of us posting online and active in mutliplayer 1% of the CC-playing population.

Schrecken, I know guys like you put  a lot of work into things, but I don't understand your trolling of those of us who posted against the releases and calling them out for what there were.  I remember you defending the only noticeable addition to Cross of Iron, the now famous and STILL present girly soldiers ('enemy spotted', 'redeployment adorted' ad-fucking-nausem).  How could you defend that crap?  It's ruined every release since.  Whose idea was that anyways?

johnsilver wrote (View Post):
I liked the F/Pool system pretty much from the outset of CC5 over the style CC3 had and thought it was a vast improvement, getting rid of the forced resting of individual troops that both CC3/COI have, along with restrictive purchase points. CC4 was getting that way and the maps were sweet also.


I like CC5's BG-based system more too, but CC3's point-based had its merits. I liked the point-based aspect itself, the ability to refit troops, didn't love resting them but it's not technically forced and I suppose there is some realism in that.

You can't argue for one or the other, you really can't, or at least you shouldn't.  They are both great and I think they both deserve a place in this game.  I really wish both would be present.

schrecken wrote (View Post):
pvt_Grunt wrote (View Post):

I am dissapointed because I want CC5 fixed and added to with ALL the features available. Turn them off in the background if they are not needed in the version. Matrix wont properly plan and run CC projects, and I think this is a deliberate decision by their managers.


That was indeed the plan and why in WaR the features had switches... what happened after i became sidelined is anybody's guess.

Also planned was for new releases to become all part of one game.. you just chose which scenario wou wanted to play, War, tLD,ABTF etc... this was the genesis of thew /D switch.

Theoretically if you had purchased an update you could then tweak your own game by turning various features on and off.. eg adding night turns and bridge blowing to WaR, parachute drops to tLD etc ... following this path any bugs would be eventually eradicated with each new release as it was a development of the one set ogf code.

Unfortunately this did not happen


Interesting.

WaR is the only re-release I don't have, I didn't know there were more toggable options.  The direction of going to more toggable on/off options (night battles, etc.) is great, and the only way any new feature shoulds have been implemented.  Give the players the control.  

Anyways, good posts by Michael, dj, Johnsilver, Grunt, Mooxe, Crackwise, Tejszd.  As crackwise said, make your voices heard on GTC's Steam page and Matrix, you never know.

#126: Re: Disenchanted Author: schreckenLocation: Sydney, Australia PostPosted: Fri Sep 26, 2014 6:34 am
    —
Troger wrote (View Post):
schrecken wrote (View Post):
Is Jim still on the team? ... he was against any fixes



Schrecken, I know guys like you put  a lot of work into things, but I don't understand your trolling of those of us who posted against the releases and calling them out for what there were.  I remember you defending the only noticeable addition to Cross of Iron, the now famous and STILL present girly soldiers ('enemy spotted', 'redeployment adorted' ad-fucking-nausem).  How could you defend that crap?  It's ruined every release since.  Whose idea was that anyways?



The Blood implemented that without consultaion or notification as far as I know.. so well picked up by the community.

I believe the effects were reduced/toned down at least twice while i was involved but it is hard coded.

I am a conservative player and did not play Rambo style so it's effects went little noticed by me in general game play... only when testing specifically was it noticeable.... but it is a control that would favor Rambo style players.

#127: Re: Disenchanted Author: Stwa PostPosted: Fri Sep 26, 2014 10:51 am
    —
he's [Ian] goes on how about Close Combat is a "realistic combat simulator", and calls those of us posting online and active in mutliplayer 1% of the CC-playing population. -Troger

I remember you [Schrecken] defending the only noticeable addition to Cross of Iron, the now famous and STILL present girly soldiers ('enemy spotted', 'redeployment adorted' ad-fucking-nausem).  How could you defend that crap?  It's ruined every release since.  Whose idea was that anyways? -Troger


Ian might be wildly overstating online posters that are active in multiplayer. Eliminating multiplayer from the code-line would help to streamline the exe file, and make it easier to maintain over time.

IMHO Girly soldiers is one of the most realistic enhancements to CCMT. It certainly helps to create parity with the AI. It forces the human player to be very attentive when trying any kind of Rambo movement. And it even can make withdrawing from a position more difficult.

The fact that so many players cannot really form a true consensus regarding strategic and tactical game features, makes life more difficult for the developers of CC.

#128: Re: Disenchanted Author: Stwa PostPosted: Fri Sep 26, 2014 11:14 am
    —
The fact that so many players cannot really form a true consensus regarding strategic and tactical game features, makes life more difficult for the developers of CC. -Stwa

Late in my CC gaming experience, I eventually formed the opinion that the developers NEED NOT take into consideration the ideas of a very small, finite group of on-line posters, that promoted multiplayer gaming.

The countless threads at this site alone reveal this utter lack of consensus as to what features constitutes a valid Close Combat game. It would be better for developers to follow their own ideas regarding the development of additional CC releases.

#129: Re: Disenchanted Author: johnsilverLocation: Florida PostPosted: Fri Sep 26, 2014 12:10 pm
    —
Quote:
The countless threads at this site alone reveal this utter lack of consensus as to what features constitutes a valid Close Combat game. It would be better for developers to follow their own ideas regarding the development of additional CC releases.


That is why CC spread out into CCMT, RTB, the new ideas went into LSA and were further refined in PITF and GTC.

So many of us are for different agendas. Many (most IMO) are for sticking to the older, more tried 2d format, but Matrix sees that market as not profitable enough and are going to work on the 3d model towards the younger market, where the money and market potentially is.

#130: Re: Disenchanted Author: mooxe PostPosted: Fri Sep 26, 2014 2:06 pm
    —
schrecken wrote (View Post):

The Blood implemented that without consultaion or notification as far as I know.. so well picked up by the community.

I believe the effects were reduced/toned down at least twice while i was involved but it is hard coded.

I am a conservative player and did not play Rambo style so it's effects went little noticed by me in general game play... only when testing specifically was it noticeable.... but it is a control that would favor Rambo style players.


I think this "feature" went overboard. In the originals movement would not be aborted unless the fire was too heavy. The troops would go to a crawl but still head in the right direction. Now they just outright cancel their movement and head backwards, not always towards cover. When your opponent is fighting out of the deploy box, all you have to do is create some indirect fire to cancel the movement of many teams at once. This can be extremely annoying if your teams are all heading in different directions/house/hedges. This feature is not that much different than "never act on initiative" which we all turn off online.


Stwa wrote (View Post):

The fact that so many players cannot really form a true consensus regarding strategic and tactical game features, makes life more difficult for the developers of CC. -Stwa

Late in my CC gaming experience, I eventually formed the opinion that the developers NEED NOT take into consideration the ideas of a very small, finite group of on-line posters, that promoted multiplayer gaming.

The countless threads at this site alone reveal this utter lack of consensus as to what features constitutes a valid Close Combat game. It would be better for developers to follow their own ideas regarding the development of additional CC releases.


You're right there is no consensus. Most of us probably could agree that the game is sub par now, lacking online players and a less than decent AI. So theres something wrong from our point of view, maybe not from the devs as they know exactly what they are doing... push the game out and do better than break even, success. I would say that the devs did follow their own ideas regarding the development, and here we are, are we better off?

#131: Re: Disenchanted Author: Stwa PostPosted: Fri Sep 26, 2014 4:20 pm
    —
I think this "feature" went overboard. In the originals movement would not be aborted unless the fire was too heavy. The troops would go to a crawl but still head in the right direction. Now they just outright cancel their movement and head backwards, not always towards cover. When your opponent is fighting out of the deploy box, all you have to do is create some indirect fire to cancel the movement of many teams at once. -mooxe

IMHO your statement supports my point. Your experience with this feature is very different than mine, so therefore no consensus on the feature's usefulness. I never play MP, so their is no human opponent. And if you were really worried about the AI using indirect fire to mess with your guys in the deploy box, then don't give the AI anything to create indirect fire with. In CCMT you can get very creative with the deployment zones as well.

I have always been able to pull off human wave (Rambo) tactics despite this feauture. Banzii charges in Okinawa is an example. You just need to charge with more than one team.

I tried to explain along the way, that map sizes and the campaign games themselves actively work against the usefulness of the AI. In the end the tactical game using a modfied CCMT/CC2 Redux was outstanding.

I bought CCMT in 2009, then WAR in 2013. I use WAR for CC4. No regrets really. We tried to tell people to not buy the games until they have been out for a few years, but people don't listen and buy CC games seconds after they have been released by Matirx.

#132: Re: Disenchanted Author: Stwa PostPosted: Fri Sep 26, 2014 5:12 pm
    —
You're right there is no consensus. Most of us probably could agree that the game is sub par now, lacking online players and a less than decent AI. So theres something wrong from our point of view, maybe not from the devs as they know exactly what they are doing... push the game out and do better than break even, success. I would say that the devs did follow their own ideas regarding the development, and here we are, are we better off? - mooxe

Fortunately or unfortunately, because the game can offer a differrent experience to different players, your experience was very different than my own. I remember some time ago, when I started a thread to fix up CC4 Classic from WAR, so I could show forumites how to set this up and how to add a WAR mod using Yuma's modified maps. So altogether WAR would then support 150 maps for WAR, CC4 Classic, and CC4 Classic Woodsie (Yuma's maps). These additions to WAR took just a few days to complete. It was hardly sub par, and I remember playing 3 battles, where the AI kicked my ass in each battle.

Matrix management mainly determines the development cycle, and therefore the recommendation has been to wait several years before purchasing a released CC title.

So to answer your final question. Yes my CC experience has been better than the experience I got when playing Reg CC4 and CC5. So scan through this thread, read my older posts, where I advocated that newbies might want to get CC5. In the end, I ditched this suggestion. Precisely what Tejszd was advocating when this thread was started way back when.

#133: Re: Disenchanted Author: TrogerLocation: L4W's place, Australia PostPosted: Sat Sep 27, 2014 3:23 am
    —
Stwa wrote (View Post):

The countless threads at this site alone reveal this utter lack of consensus as to what features constitutes a valid Close Combat game. It would be better for developers to follow their own ideas regarding the development of additional CC releases.


These guys doing whatever they want to do?  We're already getting that and look how far that's gotten us.

So, uh, yeah, I think YOU are in the minority with your opinions, especially this one.  Great games weren't created by a couple "big thinkers" alone, they are developed through feedback, and lots of it from a community of players.  The only reason they have the code is because of this community.  

As for the girly soldiers.  A majority of players do not like it.  All this talk about it countering "ramboing" is utter nonsense.  That was never problem in Close Combat. Like has already been said, since there are "all" those people that love the girly soldiers, the amazing "night" feature, restrictive BGs, watching paint dry, etc., make it an OPTION to play with it or without it.

#134: Re: Disenchanted Author: Stwa PostPosted: Sat Sep 27, 2014 8:37 am
    —
These guys doing whatever they want to do?  We're already getting that and look how far that's gotten us. -Troger

In my experience it got me CCMT and WAR, a significant improvement.

The only reason they [Matrix] have the code is because of this community.  -Troger

Actually, didn't Matrix make a contract with Atomic Games and Destineer?

As for the girly soldiers.  A majority of players do not like it.  All this talk about it countering "ramboing" is utter nonsense.  That was never problem in Close Combat. -Troger

Here is a video where swarms of troops could race across the entire map. No wonder mooxe thinks the AI sucks. This particular battle is silly and does little to make me believe that CC is a simulator, but rather an arcade game.

The attackers can Rambo through the walls of a building in a matter of seconds. They can swarm like a flock of locust shoulder to shoulder,  and indirect fire doesn't seem to hurt them. They can cram an entire platoon into a town house. Even when they become fatiqued, there doesn't appear to be any real consequence.  And despite enemy fire and explosions going off all around these guys, they never seem to pause, except to cram a house to avoid some mortar rounds (as directed by the human player).


Link


Last edited by Stwa on Sat Sep 27, 2014 9:07 am; edited 1 time in total

#135: Re: Disenchanted Author: Pzt_CrackwiseLocation: Switzerland PostPosted: Sat Sep 27, 2014 9:06 am
    —
@Stwa:  I somewhat agree that the Rambo tactics in CC5, even though they were fun, were probably not very realistic. Since the troops can just pass through the building walls, it was possible to charge into melee a lot of times.

The current girly soldier situation makes these type of tactics much harder. However, it is annoying because as said by others here, the units just stop whatever they are doing and lie on their bellies out in the open when they are under fire. And you need to keep them ordering so that they move forward (or retreat). This also makes it harder to do heroic deeds such as assaulting tanks.

Summarizing, even if it may result in slightly more realistic gameplay, girly soliders as it is, is detrimental for gameplay and makes it much harder to advance let alone assult on a map as the attacker. It would be fine, if this thing was optional or at least troops with low experience and morale got affected by it.

Again, as Troger pointed out, when you add new features just don't remove the old ones, keep them and make them optional. If these optionalities are not included in-game, at least keep them accessible from data sheets/excel files etc. so that the modders can tweak them. This is the major mistake Matrix guys have been doing in all these years! And we have told them this countless times...

#136: Re: Disenchanted Author: Stwa PostPosted: Sat Sep 27, 2014 10:02 am
    —
Quote:
The current girly soldier situation makes these type of tactics much harder. However, it is annoying because as said by others here, the units just stop whatever they are doing and lie on their bellies out in the open when they are under fire. -Pzt_Crackwise


My God man, don't move teams out in the open. If your team goes vis, its probably gonna die.  Exclamation

Quote:
Summarizing, even if it may result in slightly more realistic gameplay, girly soliders as it is, is detrimental for gameplay and makes it much harder to advance let alone assult on a map as the attacker. -Pzt_Crackwise


This creates parity with the AI. I thought you guys all wanted a better AI? But, multiplayers are generally just GAMERS. They care less about realism and more about ARCADE and COMPETITION like at Tournament House.

Over time the forumites at CCS have tried to get the developers at Matrix to design CC into a multiplayer arcade game. This has been going on for years, despite the fact that guys like Ian have reminded us that multiplayers are a tiny fraction of the total.

#137: Re: Disenchanted Author: Pzt_CrackwiseLocation: Switzerland PostPosted: Sat Sep 27, 2014 11:00 am
    —
Yeah Stwa, good luck honing your skills on that *ultra-über-mega* smart and competent AI!  Even the noobest human in the world would put up a better fight than the CC AI. I realize you (and similar single-player lovers) have fun carrying out search and destroy missions on static AI soldiers deployed as stupidly as possible, lol. No proper attack/defense objectives, no tactical withdrawal, no smoke screen usage... idiotic deployment...  However, this is not a thread to discuss the merits of multiplayer vs singleplayer. We have talked about these a lot before.

You know, many people on this forum would not criticise these Matrix guys as much if they kept the multiplayer like shit as it is, BUT instead improved the single-player so much that playing against the AI is actually fun and realistic! This is not the case, so I don't understand how you can support Matrix behavior in this context.

And CC was never a hardcore simulator, anyway. It is a mixture of arcade and simulation elements. And a game needs to find a good balance between realism and historical accuracy to be playable and enjoyable at the first place, whether simulation or arcade. As an example to illustrate my point, consider the following concept: In reality it is said mortars and artillery were the Nr.1 cause of infantry casualties in WW2. It means if implemented like that, the in-game HE support would be yet even more devastating, rendering the game much less fun (due to the unrealistic small deployment areas). There are already many abstractions and plenty of things toned down in this game, which makes it far from a simulation.

#138: Re: Disenchanted Author: Stwa PostPosted: Sat Sep 27, 2014 12:00 pm
    —
Yeah Stwa, good luck honing your skills on that *ultra-über-mega* smart and competent AI!  Even the noobest human in the world would put up a better fight than the CC AI. I realize you (and similar single-player lovers) have fun carrying out search and destroy missions on static AI soldiers deployed as stupidly as possible, lol. No proper attack/defense objectives, no tactical withdrawal, no smoke screen usage... idiotic deployment... -Pzt_Crackwise

Your just rambling and spewing inaccurate BS because its the best you can do when you are in attack mode. Over time, I have been attacked by the BEST just because I like CCMT.

No proper attack/defense objectives, no tactical withdrawal, no smoke screen usage... idiotic deployment... -Pzt_Crackwise

You have become incoherent. Maybe you should clean your bong. But hey, pay no attention to moi, you can always go back to bitching about Matrix. I just don't want to do that anymore. My bad.  Laughing

#139: Re: Disenchanted Author: mooxe PostPosted: Sat Sep 27, 2014 12:30 pm
    —
Crippling the human player to give the AI a chance is the wrong way to go about it.

In my Carentan video, the rambo tactic could of easily been smashed if the AI deployed better. You'll notice some of my men running fast across open areas never came under fire. I shouldn't have free will to run across roads like that.

#140: Re: Disenchanted Author: Stwa PostPosted: Sat Sep 27, 2014 1:03 pm
    —
mooxe wrote (View Post):
Crippling the human player to give the AI a chance is the wrong way to go about it. In my Carentan video, the rambo tactic could of easily been smashed if the AI deployed better.


!@#$%^&*()_+  Question  Laughing

On my system, troops may hit the dirt when they take a substantial amount of fire, or even if they vis enemy troops. It would appear this happens to human player teams and AI teams.  

The AI deployment has NO EFFECT on your ability to dash through the walls of a structure. In CCMT your teams would take much longer to enter the structure and therefore might be noticed and shot up by the AI.

#141: Re: Disenchanted Author: Stwa PostPosted: Sat Sep 27, 2014 1:50 pm
    —
mooxe wrote (View Post):
In my Carentan video, the rambo tactic could of easily been smashed if the AI deployed better.


!@#$%^&*()_+  Question  Laughing

Well maybe. You can still do the RAMBO thing even in CCMT. It just works better when there are alot of teams involved and over open terrain. Note the Americans (AI) are deployed mainly on the runway at Yomitan Airfied, but for some reason (maybe their experience and training) they fail and are overrun.  Arrow  


Last edited by Stwa on Sat Sep 27, 2014 3:13 pm; edited 1 time in total

#142: Re: Disenchanted Author: Stwa PostPosted: Sat Sep 27, 2014 2:27 pm
    —
Here is a thread demonstrating the Human Player Rambo Tactic using WW2 Tactics.

Sometimes it works, sometimes is doesn't.  Multiplayers should check out the post for CC4 Bastogne South.

If combined with a "Run Through Walls" element file, multiplayers will maximize their ability to snatch choice locations within the village, long before their opponents can respond  Laughing   Arrow

The HP Rambo Tactic

One last thing I would like to mention on Girly soldiers is some research conducted by squadleader_id on CC5. It seems by changing CC5's AI Level switch, Girly Soldiers could appear in that title too. IT WAS OPTIONAL! I not sure from looking at the thread if the Girly Soldiers were implemented for the Human Player and the AI. But here is the thread.  Arrow

Interesting find (registry, AI level, Girlie-Soldiers[TM])!

#143: Re: Disenchanted Author: TrogerLocation: L4W's place, Australia PostPosted: Sat Sep 27, 2014 6:22 pm
    —
Pzt_Crackwise wrote (View Post):
Yeah Stwa, good luck honing your skills on that *ultra-über-mega* smart and competent AI!  Even the noobest human in the world would put up a better fight than the CC AI. I realize you (and similar single-player lovers) have fun carrying out search and destroy missions on static AI soldiers deployed as stupidly as possible, lol. No proper attack/defense objectives, no tactical withdrawal, no smoke screen usage... idiotic deployment...  However, this is not a thread to discuss the merits of multiplayer vs singleplayer. We have talked about these a lot before.

You know, many people on this forum would not criticise these Matrix guys as much if they kept the multiplayer like shit as it is, BUT instead improved the single-player so much that playing against the AI is actually fun and realistic! This is not the case, so I don't understand how you can support Matrix behavior in this context.

And CC was never a hardcore simulator, anyway. It is a mixture of arcade and simulation elements. And a game needs to find a good balance between realism and historical accuracy to be playable and enjoyable at the first place, whether simulation or arcade. As an example to illustrate my point, consider the following concept: In reality it is said mortars and artillery were the Nr.1 cause of infantry casualties in WW2. It means if implemented like that, the in-game HE support would be yet even more devastating, rendering the game much less fun (due to the unrealistic small deployment areas). There are already many abstractions and plenty of things toned down in this game, which makes it far from a simulation.


Precisely.

Even the greeniest of human players would have put up a defense that would have stopped or inflicted heavy causalities on Mooxe's charge in his video demonstration.  In case you missed it, Mooxe's video demostration was to show how worthless the "AI" is.  If you're playing the AI, you're probably close to being on your death bed or of a lower mental capacity (or you're new to the game, in which case it's OK).  Very Happy

And as Mooxe pointed out, crippling the human player so the single-player playing dolts can have "fun" against the AI is NOT the way of going about fixing any sort of perceived issue.  I hate even acknowledging these incoherent junk posts but anyone who claims that the mutliplaying population is 1% is just an ass.

#144: Re: Disenchanted Author: Pzt_CrackwiseLocation: Switzerland PostPosted: Sat Sep 27, 2014 7:22 pm
    —
Troger wrote (View Post):
If you're playing the AI, you're probably close to being on your death bed or of a lower mental capacity (or you're new to the game, in which case it's OK).  Very Happy


Lol, I was going to write something similar, but didn't want to hurt people's feelings. Very Happy

#145: Re: Disenchanted Author: DoktorPajLocation: Norrköping PostPosted: Sat Sep 27, 2014 8:00 pm
    —
The Registry editing thread was very interesting, I tried messing with it with varying results. Why hasn't there been more experimenting with the registry? It seems important enough to change some of the basic AI behavior, which is what a lot of the players have wanted.

So far I've noticed that the AI is more aggressive and makes repeated attempts at attacking if the difflevel is 5 or higher, but that close combat assaults are much harder. It seems that you can either choose between having a moving AI and hard close combat, or a more static AI and tougher close combat.
I want to know what the other things do, gonna do some more experiments for this.

#146: Re: Disenchanted Author: johnsilverLocation: Florida PostPosted: Sat Sep 27, 2014 8:30 pm
    —
Pzt_Crackwise wrote (View Post):
Troger wrote (View Post):
If you're playing the AI, you're probably close to being on your death bed or of a lower mental capacity (or you're new to the game, in which case it's OK).  Very Happy


Lol, I was going to write something similar, but didn't want to hurt people's feelings. Very Happy


Not hurting anyone's feelings, but probably others, beside me that were playing H2H when CC2 1st came out and did for years, but don't any longer and see no need for useless taunting like that.

#147: Re: Disenchanted Author: mooxe PostPosted: Sat Sep 27, 2014 9:52 pm
    —
Stwa wrote (View Post):
mooxe wrote (View Post):
Crippling the human player to give the AI a chance is the wrong way to go about it. In my Carentan video, the rambo tactic could of easily been smashed if the AI deployed better.


!@#$%^&*()_+  Question  Laughing

On my system, troops may hit the dirt when they take a substantial amount of fire, or even if they vis enemy troops. It would appear this happens to human player teams and AI teams.  

The AI deployment has NO EFFECT on your ability to dash through the walls of a structure. In CCMT your teams would take much longer to enter the structure and therefore might be noticed and shot up by the AI.


The walk through walls thing is another subject. It changes from version to version and mod to mod. The AI has the same advantage as I do running through walls, the AI would be even more severely handicapped if it had to run through doors.

If you pay real close attention to the video you will notice my men taking cover when the 12cm mortars hit at the beginning. They go prone, and get up soon afterwards to continue their movement orders, even inside buildings. Other times they will keep running regardless. The AI is doing the same.  I was able to advance almost half way across the map before any real resistance.

Only under sustained fire will the men cancel a movement order. This is opposite in the rereleases to a large extent, they will completely cancel a move order when shot at. Anyways... I think the original point was the devs changing things that didn't need to be changed.

#148: Re: Disenchanted Author: Stwa PostPosted: Sun Sep 28, 2014 1:50 am
    —
Even the greeniest of human players would have put up a defense that would have stopped or inflicted heavy causalities on Mooxe's charge in his video demonstration.  In case you missed it, Mooxe's video demostration was to show how worthless the "AI" is.  If you're playing the AI, you're probably close to being on your death bed or of a lower mental capacity (or you're new to the game, in which case it's OK).  -Troger

Here is a neat thread from a few years ago that addresses in detail why multiplayer CC has died out. I suggest you guys check it out. The thread also describes many ways to construct single player games which can be alot of fun.

In some ways, multiplayers killed off Multiplayer CC gaming just by shooting their mouths off.  Arrow

Noobs Need Not Apply

#149: Re: Disenchanted Author: mooxe PostPosted: Sun Sep 28, 2014 2:09 am
    —
To be honest I never could read that thread. Couldn't tell if it was tongue in cheek or just sarcasm or what.... and it was too long and colourful with multiple font sizes.

CCMT has the best scenario editor and releases afterwards kept the original, just another example of not moving this game forward. CCAT had an even more powerful mission editor than CCMT which you can see in action here.

CCMT had to many other faults to ever be successful. One step forward, two steps back.

#150: Re: Disenchanted Author: Stwa PostPosted: Sun Sep 28, 2014 2:13 am
    —
mooxe wrote (View Post):
To be honest I never could read that thread. Couldn't tell if it was tongue in cheek or just sarcasm or what.... and it was too long and colourful with multiple font sizes.


You just need to try harder mooxe. I know you can do it. Exclamation

#151: Re: Disenchanted Author: Stwa PostPosted: Sun Sep 28, 2014 2:20 am
    —
he's [Ian] goes on how about Close Combat is a "realistic combat simulator", and calls those of us posting online and active in mutliplayer 1% of the CC-playing population. -Troger

anyone who claims that the mutliplaying population is 1% is just an ass. - Troger


Well, I would bet that Ian is a pretty smart guy. Maybe his remark is based on data Slitherine collected when they were sponsoring the dedicated multiplayer server for Pitf.

#152: Re: Disenchanted Author: TejszdLocation: Canada PostPosted: Sun Sep 28, 2014 2:26 am
    —
mooxe wrote (View Post):
Sometime I really feel like just pressing the delete key on CCS because of my disappointment. I think that having CCS around gives them a reason to make new rereleases, and new people see this community and it may positively influence them to buy a copy. I can't recommend that last two versions to anyone, I honestly can't see why people would play them and part of me feels like this site shouldn't promote them. These rereleases have not brought life to the community, they have only just sustained it on life support.


MOOXE - this website has allowed free uncensored discussion about CC (and many other topics) which could not happen on the Matrix website. In addition the site supports storing/downloading mods which Matrix again does not. Thus do not hit the delete key on CCS!

I agree the last 2 Matrix releases are disappointing with the features missing from LSA. Having said that I believe WAR/TLD/LSA are a step up from CC5. If a few more classic CC5 mods were converted I wouldn't have it installed....

#153: Re: Disenchanted Author: Stwa PostPosted: Sun Sep 28, 2014 2:33 am
    —
CCMT had to many other faults to ever be successful. One step forward, two steps back. -mooxe

I always thought that was mainly due to NO historical maps. IMHO, the editor is the best and the combat is the best.  Exclamation

#154: Re: Disenchanted Author: mooxe PostPosted: Sun Sep 28, 2014 2:34 am
    —
I've also said its only 1%.

But that's just a stat. Is the reason why its only 1% because 99% enjoy single player? There's no data to back up either side. There's many factors involved and its not just the enjoyably or lack of it in single player!

I think his remarks may be based off the old comments made here and forums elsewhere. On my part it was an educated guess based off of CCS statistics and my own experience in the community.

#155: Re: Disenchanted Author: Stwa PostPosted: Sun Sep 28, 2014 2:38 am
    —
Tejszd wrote (View Post):
I agree the last 2 Matrix releases are disappointing with the features missing from LSA. Having said that I believe WAR/TLD/LSA are a step up from CC5.


I don't have LSA or the last 2 releases, so I won't comment on those. But I concur regarding WAR and TLD, and I obatined WAR myself.

#156: Re: Disenchanted Author: Stwa PostPosted: Sun Sep 28, 2014 3:42 am
    —
mooxe wrote (View Post):
But that's just a stat. Is the reason why its only 1% because 99% enjoy single player? There's no data to back up either side. There's many factors involved and its not just the enjoyably or lack of it in single player!


The thread Noobs Need Not Apply attempts to cover this.

There is definately more immersion in head to head (multiplayer). But what I feel like I have observed over time with many games, not just CC, is that lots of people want to control the amount of immersion they experience when playing, and with CC that can only be accomplished in Single Player.

Further proof resides with mass multiplayer games, where the immersion factor is totally paramount. For many people, the best experience ever, but when it is restircted to head to head (2 multiplayers) in what would appear as a 1 on 1 competition event, many people shirk from that. The head to head nature of multiplayer is not always present in the mass multiplayer format.

#157: Re: Disenchanted Author: Stwa PostPosted: Sun Sep 28, 2014 4:39 am
    —
Futhermore,

In mass multiplayer (generally on-line) games a player can sometimes control the amount of immersion they receive while playing.

For instance, in Delta Force Xtreme, many times I would select a sniper rifle, and after I would spawn in, I would beat feat far away from all the chaos of the main area on the battlefield where all the close quarters fighting would occur.

After I got 600 meters or more away, I would start sniping enemies where the close combat was occuring. That almost seemed like Single Player, but it was occuring within a mass multiplayer game. After I would waste someone, they would generally not try to seek me out, because they would have to traverse 600 meters or more of terrain just to locate me.

#158: Re: Disenchanted Author: Stwa PostPosted: Sun Sep 28, 2014 5:20 am
    —
If you're playing the AI, you're probably close to being on your death bed or of a lower mental capacity (or you're new to the game, in which case it's OK).  -Troger

One thing that happend along the way with head to head multiplayer, on-line venues that sponsored this kind of competition eventually had to institute scads of social conduct rules to govern players in the chat rooms.

It's a case in human behavior. As you can see, Troger cannot locate many of his recent H2H opponents on-line here at CCS, so he must seek even people that he doesn't even play, so he can boast about his CC acumen, and deride others he thinks have less skill than himself.

Scientific research in this area has revealed that a gene has been flipped on a strand of DNA, and it causes the individual to over assess their abilities not just in gaming but in many human activities. But this is also covered in the article.  Arrow  

Noobs Need Not Apply

#159: Re: Disenchanted Author: Stwa PostPosted: Sun Sep 28, 2014 6:05 am
    —
DoktorPaj wrote (View Post):
The Registry editing thread was very interesting, I tried messing with it with varying results. Why hasn't there been more experimenting with the registry? It seems important enough to change some of the basic AI behavior, which is what a lot of the players have wanted.

So far I've noticed that the AI is more aggressive and makes repeated attempts at attacking if the difflevel is 5 or higher, but that close combat assaults are much harder. It seems that you can either choose between having a moving AI and hard close combat, or a more static AI and tougher close combat.
I want to know what the other things do, gonna do some more experiments for this.


If you enjoy this kind of experimentation, then I would suggest that you go for it. One of the main things, and sometimes one of the most difficult things to find out, is if a rule or restriction applies to the AI and the Human Player during the same game.

#160: Re: Disenchanted Author: Stwa PostPosted: Sun Sep 28, 2014 6:22 am
    —
Only under sustained fire will the men cancel a movement order. This is opposite in the rereleases to a large extent, they will completely cancel a move order when shot at. Anyways... I think the original point was the devs changing things that didn't need to be changed - mooxe

On my system , a movement order can sometimes (its variable) be recended if the unit/team  Arrow

Receives a substantial amount of fire.
Is determined by the System to be under attack.
Spots an up to now unobserved enemy unit.

Whether or not the order is actually recended may be partially determined by the movement type (fast, normal, sneak).

But here we disagree.  Arrow  I wan't the devs to make determinations on what should be changed, not you, no offense.

#161: Re: Disenchanted Author: Stwa PostPosted: Sun Sep 28, 2014 7:22 am
    —
The walk through walls thing is another subject. It changes from version to version and mod to mod. The AI has the same advantage as I do running through walls, the AI would be even more severely handicapped if it had to run through doors. -mooxe

So you think you are on to something here, or are you just being argumentative for amusement purposes? Either way, I don't mind.

1. The ability to run through walls, etc. is a function of the data contained in the elements.txt file.

2. If the elements file only allows the Human Player to move through doors and windows, must the AI do the same?

3. In the case of your Carentan Video, was the AI a defender/static defender? Were you the attacker?

4. Did the system deploy the AI teams in structures?

5. At what scale speed where your units travelling during the Rambo tactics? 25-30mph?

6. Is it harder for the AI teams to acheive hits on your teams while they are travelling at these speeds?

7. For how long could your teams sustain this speed throughout the battle?

8. How far did your teams have to sprint during the battle? 100 meters? 200 meters?

9. Does the CC5 AI codeline provide AI teams with a RAMBO tactic mode? (It could be used on a beach)

10. Does the CC5 AI codeline provide AI teams with a CRAM tactic mode? (Where they run up to 30-40 soldiers into the same house)

11. Was your game modified so mortar and artillery rounds were less lethal?

12. Was your game modified so soliders could cram into to smaller spaces?

13. What is the capital of Assyria?

Look, I don't care if you like arcady WW2 type squad leader games. Whatever makes you happy. Idea

#162: Re: Disenchanted Author: Pzt_CrackwiseLocation: Switzerland PostPosted: Sun Sep 28, 2014 9:16 am
    —
mooxe wrote (View Post):
CCAT had an even more powerful mission editor than CCMT which you can see in action here.


Wow, I had not seen this CCAT version before. That's what I was exactly trying to say. To make the single player challenging and fun, the developers either need to improve the AI or equip the players with such a powerful editor so that they can build their custom scenarios. The game, in that case, could be fun single-player, since you can decide on enemy deployment, scenario triggers, and decide in objectives such as "capture the town hall", "secure the landing zone without any casualty", "search for IED's in the highway" etc.  People could put up their own scenarios here on CCS and single-player enthusiasts could just download those and try to complete the objectives.

Just unbelieavable how they did not include such a powerful editor with the re-releases. Typical Matrix approach as usual...


Last edited by Pzt_Crackwise on Sun Sep 28, 2014 10:58 am; edited 1 time in total

#163: Re: Disenchanted Author: pvt_GruntLocation: Melbourne, Australia PostPosted: Sun Sep 28, 2014 10:17 am
    —
mooxe wrote (View Post):
Only under sustained fire will the men cancel a movement order. This is opposite in the rereleases to a large extent, they will completely cancel a move order when shot at. Anyways... I think the original point was the devs changing things that didn't need to be changed.


You hit the nail on the head with an AT shell. I have no problem with men hitting the dirt and looking for cover. It's the cancelled command that frustrates. It is too sensitive.

CC5 was too far the other way, orders where never cancelled and the "Crawl of Death" results.

Also the AI needs to be smarter in what it defines as "cover" I have seen troops nearly safe in a house crawl back across the street where they came from when fired upon. This is when you hear the yells of frustration.

#164: Re: Disenchanted Author: johnsilverLocation: Florida PostPosted: Sun Sep 28, 2014 5:07 pm
    —
Stwa wrote (View Post):
mooxe wrote (View Post):
But that's just a stat. Is the reason why its only 1% because 99% enjoy single player? There's no data to back up either side. There's many factors involved and its not just the enjoyably or lack of it in single player!


The thread Noobs Need Not Apply attempts to cover this.

There is definately more immersion in head to head (multiplayer). But what I feel like I have observed over time with many games, not just CC, is that lots of people want to control the amount of immersion they experience when playing, and with CC that can only be accomplished in Single Player.

Further proof resides with mass multiplayer games, where the immersion factor is totally paramount. For many people, the best experience ever, but when it is restricted to head to head (2 multiplayers) in what would appear as a 1 on 1 competition event, many people shirk from that. The head to head nature of multiplayer is not always present in the mass multiplayer format.


I always saw 2 differences if ways of playing CC. Way back, when was playing H2H, the intensity was short term and it was for either ladder play, or nothing more than a sense of bragging rights, or clan play not to mention they were always single battles in almost every single occasion, though did attempt a campaign with 1 clan member once.

With AI play there i the ability to play when you want, less intensity with ability to play campaigns, rather than short term single battles.

It was quite some time after purchasing both CC4/5 before could enjoy an AI campaign in either of those titles because was playing H2H strictly back then.

#165: Re: Disenchanted Author: Stwa PostPosted: Mon Sep 29, 2014 1:45 am
    —
mooxe wrote (View Post):
CCMT had to many other faults to ever be successful. One step forward, two steps back.


So, do you mind enumerating these faults.  Question  Did CCMT not satisfy your need for ARCADE combat.  Question

Seriously, lots of people like ARCADE combat. There is even a switch in Rome Total War were you can enable ARCADE combat.

#166: Re: Disenchanted Author: mooxe PostPosted: Mon Sep 29, 2014 1:58 am
    —
I'll list the ones I remember....

1. In multiplayer all allies had the same colour on the minimap, very confusing when troops overlap.
2. In multiplayer, you had a choose a battle before people joined. If you wanted to switch battles everyone had to reconnect.
3. When, in multiplayer, your troops were mixed with your allies troops you could select both (like in the same house). This was confusing because you could select your friends troops as if they were your own, but you couldn't right click to issue orders.
4. In multiplayer, if a player lost connection the entire game aborted. (like a 2v2 or more)
5. No team chat in multiplayer.
6. When opening up the multiplayer screen, it automatically searches for LAN games.
7. No campaign or operation mode, no carry over of troops...
8. Ability to issue commands in replay mode. Not a bug, more or less an unfinished tool.
9. I am just going to assume the mount/dismount warping bug exists.

With all these multiplayer limitations it gave them feeling that it was just hacked in and left as is.

#167: Re: Disenchanted Author: Stwa PostPosted: Mon Sep 29, 2014 3:05 am
    —
OK, my bad, I remember these now. That's the list me thinks you have posted before.

The hacking you mentioned is becuase CCM supported 3 players per side, and CCMT supported 5 players per side? Since some of you guys played CCM (the version at CSO), I am wondering if multiplayer was more stable with that title?

So, item 1-6 is multiplayer. I never use it, so no big deal to me. Item 7 is NO campaign, a feature in my opinion. Item 8 is about replay but no bug as you mention. Replay works great and seems complete on my system. Item 9 does happen in CCMT, but as a user you can make sure it doesn't happen too.

#168: Re: Disenchanted Author: Stwa PostPosted: Mon Sep 29, 2014 7:45 am
    —
The game [CCMT], in that case, could be fun single-player, since you can decide on enemy deployment, scenario triggers, and decide in objectives such as "capture the town hall", "secure the landing zone without any casualty", "search for IED's in the highway" etc... Just unbelieavable how they did not include such a powerful editor with the re-releases. Typical Matrix approach as usual... -Pzt_Crackwise

Everything on your list except triggers, can be done with the current CCMT editor. Search zones and objective names can be enumerated with the Text Labels. Acceptable casualties, and additional victory conditions can be described in the mission's OP-ORDERS. So as you imagined, Single Player is fun now. And Matrix did provide the most powerful editor with CCMT. I am not sure if Matrix got approval from USMC to release CCAT?

Mooxe should have titled the thread  Arrow Seeking Disenchantment  Laughing

#169: Re: Disenchanted Author: Stwa PostPosted: Mon Sep 29, 2014 9:54 am
    —
Threads like this one, just create alot of noise that just isn't that useful. But, all this talk about CC made me re-install CCMT.  Arrow

#170: Re: Disenchanted Author: Pzt_CrackwiseLocation: Switzerland PostPosted: Mon Sep 29, 2014 4:04 pm
    —
Stwa wrote (View Post):
The game [CCMT], in that case, could be fun single-player, since you can decide on enemy deployment, scenario triggers, and decide in objectives such as "capture the town hall", "secure the landing zone without any casualty", "search for IED's in the highway" etc... Just unbelieavable how they did not include such a powerful editor with the re-releases. Typical Matrix approach as usual... -Pzt_Crackwise

Everything on your list except triggers, can be done with the current CCMT editor. Search zones and objective names can be enumerated with the Text Labels. Acceptable casualties, and additional victory conditions can be described in the mission's OP-ORDERS. So as you imagined, Single Player is fun now. And Matrix did provide the most powerful editor with CCMT. I am not sure if Matrix got approval from USMC to release CCAT?

Mooxe should have titled the thread  Arrow Seeking Disenchantment  Laughing


Yes, CCMT may be the most suitable CC game for single-player, I am not arguing about that. What we are angry about is why was such a useful editor not refined and included in the other releases such as WaR, TLD, LSA, PitF, GtC?!

#171: Re: Disenchanted Author: Stwa PostPosted: Tue Sep 30, 2014 2:18 am
    —
Yes, CCMT may be the most suitable CC game for single-player, I am not arguing about that. What we are angry about is why was such a useful editor not refined and included in the other releases such as WaR, TLD, LSA, PitF, GtC?!  -Pzt_Crackwise

Really  Laughing  Confused

OK, I am thinking that peoply really aren't that angry at all, but rather sites and forums like this one allow people to masquerade as angry or disenchanted.

I can list alot of reasons why a CCMT style editor was NOT included in the titles you mentioned. Most of these reasons are good ones.

But to give you some hints, remember that CCMT is a commercial release of CCM. Think of CCM's primary user. At USMC there were people there, where part of their job day to day was to manually create multiplayer scenarios for USMC users.

In the other titles, the system automates the creation of an engagement, and presents it to the user(s).

#172: Re: Disenchanted Author: Stwa PostPosted: Tue Sep 30, 2014 7:44 am
    —
CC5 was too far the other way, orders where never cancelled and the "Crawl of Death" results. -pvt_Grunt

Right, but a title like CCMT has plenty of Girly events, and plenty of AI Belly Down Assaults. But Girly events limit the HP Rambo Tactic, and that has ARCADE GAMERS fuming.

ARCADE GAMERS don't want a Belly Down Assault. They want these assualts conducted at 20-30 MPH with soldiers upright. So when the AI persists in an attack on their bellies, ARCADE GAMERS are disenchanted, and if the game cancels a HP Rambo attack, the ARCADE GAMERS are disenchanted.

So, are the ARCADE GAMERS disenchanted when the game cancels an AI Rambo attack. Question  Laughing

Here is a link to a nice thread about very determined AI attacks.  Arrow

The AI Belly Down Assault

#173: Re: Disenchanted Author: Stwa PostPosted: Tue Sep 30, 2014 12:04 pm
    —
At this point, me thinks it is a good time to remind all that I have nothing against ARCADE GAMES or ARCADE GAMERS.  Idea

As I mentioned before, Rome Total War, which is a very popular title has an ARCADE mode, and all modes seem like ARCADE combat because of the speeds at which the units (infantry, cavalry, etc.) move on the tactical battlefield.

There are many additional ARCADE aspects of RTW combat besides speed, but through modding you can slow units down, and to some players this makes the game less fun.

#174: Re: Disenchanted Author: johnsilverLocation: Florida PostPosted: Tue Sep 30, 2014 12:40 pm
    —
How can you leave out Sudden Strike STWA? Remember when it was THE hot topic at the MSN Zone and everyone was chomping at the bit for it's release.. Just waiting for it so they could abandon CC.. Only to find out it was an arcade game?? :oops:

sudden strike

#175: Re: Disenchanted Author: Stwa PostPosted: Tue Sep 30, 2014 1:00 pm
    —
Hey johnsilver,

Your Amazon screenie is histerical. Did you notice the price of $ 650.59.  Laughing

Here it is running on my system. Germans are moving on road. Max res is 1024x768.

Not so arcady so far.  Exclamation  Arrow


Last edited by Stwa on Tue Sep 30, 2014 3:40 pm; edited 1 time in total

#176: Re: Disenchanted Author: Stwa PostPosted: Tue Sep 30, 2014 1:32 pm
    —
I do find it fascinating that some multiplayers insinuate disenchantment with the status of multiplayer CC, but put the blame on Matrix or others, when perhaps the responsible individuals can be located with a simple glance into a mirror.

This was an old pet map of mine I used to play on the Tournament House Ladder. It was almost an unbeatable strategy. You just overwhelm the enemy with about 13 teams on assault and 2 teams on defense, just for flank security. -mooxe (from Carentan video)

Mooxe spoke these words at the beginning of the video. And makes it clear he is demonstrating an "unbeatable" strategy that he has devised and used on HUMAN PLAYERS on the Tournament House ladder.  Laughing

But after I mentioned that the game seemed like an ARCADE GAME, mooxe said the following.  Arrow

In my Carentan video, the rambo tactic could of easily been smashed if the AI deployed better. You'll notice some of my men running fast across open areas never came under fire. I shouldn't have free will to run across roads like that. -mooxe

So, according to mooxe this strategy was unbeatable against HUMAN PLAYERS, but could easily be smashed by the AI.  Laughing  Shocked

So, like lots of war game sites and forums, this is the kind of BS you can expect from multiplayers. And they wonder why H2H is on the decline.

#177: Re: Disenchanted Author: mooxe PostPosted: Tue Sep 30, 2014 5:29 pm
    —
Yes I did say the Rambo tactic could be smashed by the AI. Which means I'd have to resort to something else to win. When I played this map online, only the very greenest players would let me get away with something similar as what you see in the video, but they would always react much better than the AI. In fights against regular players I would have to win suppression first before my men moved in, or have a portion crawling under fire. The tactic is "unbeatable" not because of the speed the men move, but the concentrated firepower they provide. I say unbeatable in quotes so you don't take it out of context again (remember I said almost unbeatable in the video).

If you want to take your example of my video as the reason why H2H is in decline, then take this one as my counter point.

#178: Re: Disenchanted Author: Pzt_CrackwiseLocation: Switzerland PostPosted: Tue Sep 30, 2014 6:03 pm
    —
So according to Stwa the reason why multiplayer is in decline is because of the people who play multiplayer (?).. What kind of a logic is this? Accusing people who want multiplayer arena to actually prosper with more actvity is the stupidest thing I have heard in this regard. But perhaps I miss your main point, Stwa, due to the vividly colorful, a clusterf*ck of posting style you have.

For all others, you can see why multiplayer has become a chore clearly at the link  Mooxe has provided (Matrix Games GtC forums), where I and few others have posted the current broken multiplayer isssues GtC has. I will briefly summarize the current situation here: As far as I was able to observe, Matrix Games servers have had problems at least on 3 different days this week, rendering multiplayer gaming of GtC impossible. This indicates how correct Mooxe and many other fellow CCS members were, when they had criticised Matrix of removing the manual TCP/IP option from PitF onwards. There is at the moment no alternative way to connect and play GtC when the shitty Matrix servers are down.

As you can see, again Matrix has butchered the multiplayer aspect of the game with their arbitrary decisions. Noone had asked them to come up with a half-ass multiplayer lobby at the first place. We just expected them to fix the inherent bugs. The multiplayer bugs are still there unfixed (won't mention them here again, check previous posts), the TCP/IP manual connection option is out, an unreliable half-way complete lobby is there instead. Good job Matrix people, continue like that!..

#179: Re: Disenchanted Author: Stwa PostPosted: Tue Sep 30, 2014 8:35 pm
    —
So, you guys cant read the colored text fonts, and you guys are having trouble playing GTC multiplayer? Both of you guys?  Confused

Here, lets see if you guys can stream a video.  Arrow


Link

#180: Re: Disenchanted Author: johnsilverLocation: Florida PostPosted: Tue Sep 30, 2014 10:53 pm
    —
Stwa wrote (View Post):
Hey johnsilver,

Your Amazon screenie is histerical. Did you notice the price of $ 650.59.  Laughing

Here it is running on my system. Germans are moving on road. Max res is 1024x768.

Not so arcady so far.  Exclamation  Arrow


Too Funny STWA.. I should have known you would have had it up-n-running on ur PC... Very Happy

Yes.. I saw some Youtube links when went searching for SuddenStrike, then a Wikapedia link, but can't link those, then saw that outrageous priced game and thought it humorous, so decided to link it. Who would pay nearly 7 Big-uns for a 15 year old flop of a game? It was even being sold by the developer as remember STWA.

#181: Re: Disenchanted Author: Stwa PostPosted: Wed Oct 01, 2014 12:44 pm
    —
mooxe wrote (View Post):
Yes I did say the Rambo tactic could be smashed by the AI. Which means I'd have to resort to something else to win. When I played this map online, only the very greenest players would let me get away with something similar as what you see in the video, but they would always react much better than the AI. In fights against regular players I would have to win suppression first before my men moved in, or have a portion crawling under fire. The tactic is "unbeatable" not because of the speed the men move, but the concentrated firepower they provide. I say unbeatable in quotes so you don't take it out of context again (remember I said almost unbeatable in the video).


Wow mooxe, you are such a clever tactician. Using a (modified?) game and hosting noobs to a gamey ARCADE fest. I'll bet after you posted the results of each match at Tournament House, you had a real sense of accomplishment. Your voice on the vid, and your explanation above, tells me you are to this day, beaming with pride.

Watching your teams blow through walls, and shoot through walls, and run at ridiculous speeds, and YES the CONCENTRATION of force. You are such a master. Who would have ever known that concentrating force against a weaker opponent is a viable approach. Damn! You took the concentration to an ALL NEW LEVEL.

Surely, you can supply vids for some of the other maps where the latest generation of aspiring multiplayers can learn as you present your almost unbeatable strategies that you developed down through the years.

#182: Re: Disenchanted Author: Stwa PostPosted: Wed Oct 01, 2014 1:19 pm
    —
Hey johnsilver,

I hate for you to go without.  Arrow

Sudden Strike 2

#183: Re: Disenchanted Author: mooxe PostPosted: Wed Oct 01, 2014 1:52 pm
    —
Stwa wrote (View Post):
mooxe wrote (View Post):
Yes I did say the Rambo tactic could be smashed by the AI. Which means I'd have to resort to something else to win. When I played this map online, only the very greenest players would let me get away with something similar as what you see in the video, but they would always react much better than the AI. In fights against regular players I would have to win suppression first before my men moved in, or have a portion crawling under fire. The tactic is "unbeatable" not because of the speed the men move, but the concentrated firepower they provide. I say unbeatable in quotes so you don't take it out of context again (remember I said almost unbeatable in the video).


Wow mooxe, you are such a clever tactician. Using a (modified?) game and hosting noobs to a gamey ARCADE fest. I'll bet after you posted the results of each match at Tournament House, you had a real sense of accomplishment. Your voice on the vid, and your explanation above, tells me you are to this day, beaming with pride.

Watching your teams blow through walls, and shoot through walls, and run at ridiculous speeds, and YES the CONCENTRATION of force. You are such a master. Who would have ever known that concentrating force against a weaker opponent is a viable approach. Damn! You took the concentration to an ALL NEW LEVEL.

Surely, you can supply vids for some of the other maps where the latest generation of aspiring multiplayers can learn as you present your almost unbeatable strategies that you developed down through the years.


If you have a point to make other than being insulting, baiting and off-topic, please make it.

#184: Re: Disenchanted Author: johnsilverLocation: Florida PostPosted: Wed Oct 01, 2014 2:35 pm
    —
Stwa wrote (View Post):
Hey johnsilver,

I hate for you to go without.  Arrow

Sudden Strike 2


HA  Laughing Brings a tear to me eye STWA.. Fortunately? I and think most of the people from CC who gave SS a whirl never gave the developers another red cent.. 'Twern't worth it.

#185: Re: Disenchanted Author: Stwa PostPosted: Wed Oct 01, 2014 3:17 pm
    —
johnsilver wrote (View Post):
HA  Laughing Brings a tear to me eye STWA.. Fortunately? I and think most of the people from CC who gave SS a whirl never gave the developers another red cent.. 'Twern't worth it.


Well, you're a good person. Do you ever get the feelling that CC is going to last longer than us? Because of this thread I re-installed some of my stuff.

#186: Re: Disenchanted Author: johnsilverLocation: Florida PostPosted: Wed Oct 01, 2014 4:26 pm
    —
Stwa wrote (View Post):
johnsilver wrote (View Post):
HA  Laughing Brings a tear to me eye STWA.. Fortunately? I and think most of the people from CC who gave SS a whirl never gave the developers another red cent.. 'Twern't worth it.


Well, you're a good person. Do you ever get the feelling that CC is going to last longer than us? Because of this thread I re-installed some of my stuff.


Get the feeling several of them will live long and prosper. On the other hand and without wishing to offend Matrix, fans of the titles, or anyone else.. Have a feeling several of them will be going the way of RTB and end up as giveaways on sites such as Sudden Site you just linked to, or easily found found by that infamous hacker "Skidrow" and passed about   Crying or Very sad

#187: Re: Disenchanted Author: Stwa PostPosted: Thu Oct 02, 2014 7:49 am
    —
Well, in the end my collection at its peak was CC4, CC5, RTB, (which were all boxed editions), then CCMT and WAR (which were digital downloads).

I am done. I know I am. No 2D game past or present is going to be better than what I have now with CCMT. I had a certain amount of buyers remorse with WAR, but I thought I might be able to work with the new maps. I tried hard, but most of em were what I define as sub-standard. But WAR lets me do CC4 and CC5 Classic games.

Who is Skidrow?

#188: Re: Disenchanted Author: Stwa PostPosted: Thu Oct 02, 2014 7:52 am
    —
Flash - The first Ebola case in the US has appeared in Presbyterian Hospital in Dallas, Texas. My son, was born at that hospital in 1995.

johnsilver,

If you note the CC titles that I did acquire, one could easily see how I have been anything but disenchanted. I just got lucky. But, there were times when I succumbed to the sub-culture here at CCS that would complain about anything.

Another thing I forgot to mention, WAR provided a handful of expanded CC4 maps. These were very nice, and I just love CC4 maps. Here is Wardin.  Arrow

#189: Re: Disenchanted Author: johnsilverLocation: Florida PostPosted: Thu Oct 02, 2014 12:33 pm
    —
Quote:
Well, in the end my collection at its peak was CC4, CC5, RTB, (which were all boxed editions), then CCMT and WAR (which were digital downloads).


Pretty much those here. CC2, 3, 4, 5 and then left CC for Combat Mission, got sick after that for several years, came back and started out with Boxed WAR, them got both TLD and LSA off of Ebay (discs in box) PiTF in Box, then GTC digital.

Don't see any future titles, unless Matrix reverts back to the old engine somehow.

Quote:
Who is Skidrow?


Darth Vader of the internet STWA. Better leave it at that, or we may get swatted aside here.

#190: Re: Disenchanted Author: Antony_nz PostPosted: Fri Oct 03, 2014 9:01 am
    —
I sorta agree.
TBF, being 3D, will either spell the end of Close Combat. Or start a small revitalization.
I have said this before but a 3D CC is a cop out. A cop out by definition!

If the last 4 Close Combat re releases were amazing leaps forward with heeps of new kick ass features. THEN i would reluctantly accept a 3D CC.

Im just praying that the new Close Combat is a top down view. And the picture they have released is an example of the maximum rotation available.

#191: Re: Disenchanted Author: Stwa PostPosted: Fri Oct 03, 2014 11:32 am
    —
Antony_nz wrote (View Post):
I sorta agree. TBF, being 3D, will either spell the end of Close Combat. Or start a small revitalization.
I have said this before but a 3D CC is a cop out. A cop out by definition! If the last 4 Close Combat re releases were amazing leaps forward with heeps of new kick ass features. THEN i would reluctantly accept a 3D CC. Im just praying that the new Close Combat is a top down view. And the picture they have released is an example of the maximum rotation available.


I can relate to what you are saying. In the day, sometimes a game series would produce a new iteration that would render every previous version of the game as obsolete.

For a while, I told myself, TBF might do that. Kanov already posted some screenies, and they do in fact look top down. But wouldn't you know some of the guys were already disenchanted about the appearance of some of the tanks.  Laughing

I know very little about TBF, but the 3D engine was going to provide accurate mathmetics for firing, visiblity, and cover calculations. I also thought there would be no multiplayer in TBF?

#192: Re: Disenchanted Author: johnsilverLocation: Florida PostPosted: Fri Oct 03, 2014 2:55 pm
    —
Antony_nz wrote (View Post):
I sorta agree.
TBF, being 3D, will either spell the end of Close Combat. Or start a small revitalization.
I have said this before but a 3D CC is a cop out. A cop out by definition!

If the last 4 Close Combat re releases were amazing leaps forward with heeps of new kick ass features. THEN i would reluctantly accept a 3D CC.

Im just praying that the new Close Combat is a top down view. And the picture they have released is an example of the maximum rotation available.


My problem with Matrix and CC going 3d is that CM went that route well over 10y ago and is leaps and bounds ahead in getting a base ahead fan wise wise, then has the ability to pan around the screen, up, down and even though I had only purchased the only 3 titles back then? Exactly how further advanced are they now, than is Matrix who will be putting out title #1 in a near identical game and attempting to getting into a niche market that CM has been into for 10+ years and released multiple games at and had several title to hone their craft/product on? It was pretty advanced on the Italian/ front as recall on title Product #2 and that was 10y ago. How does Matrix compete with that and didn't CM just release a newer title around a year ago?



Close Combat Series -> The Mess


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

Page 1 of 1