Close Combat Series :: View topic

Disenchanted

through

Forum FAQ

[^/[Print]\]
Goto page : Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 Next :| |:
Close Combat Series -> The Mess

#141: Re: Disenchanted Author: Stwa,

Posted: 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

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.

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

#142: Re: Disenchanted Author: Stwa,

Posted: 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

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.

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

#143: Re: Disenchanted Author: Troger, Location: L4W's place, Australia

Posted: 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_Crackwise, Location: Switzerland

Posted: 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: DoktorPaj, Location: Norrköping

Posted: 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: johnsilver, Location: Florida

Posted: 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,

Posted: 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

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,

Posted: 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.

Noobs Need Not Apply

#149: Re: Disenchanted Author: mooxe,

Posted: 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,

Posted: 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,

Posted: 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: Tejszd, Location: Canada

Posted: 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,

Posted: 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,

Posted: 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,

Posted: 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,

Posted: 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,

Posted: 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,

Posted: 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.

Noobs Need Not Apply

#159: Re: Disenchanted Author: Stwa,

Posted: 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,

Posted: 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

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.

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

Close Combat Series -> The Mess

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

Goto page : Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 Next :| |: Page 8 of 10