Close Combat Series :: View topic - Is CCS slowly dying?

through

[^/[Print]\]

Close Combat Series -> The Mess

#1: Is CCS slowly dying? Author: ThomasLidstrom,

Posted: Thu Mar 07, 2013 1:20 pm
—
Hello everybody,

I have been a "lurcher" at CCS for a long time.
I have mainly downloaded various mods and patches for different versions of CC, but rarley done anything in the forums

The last year or two I have noticed a really big decline in uploads to CCS.
For me this is a clear sign that this site is dying.

I have no problems uploading myself, but then I do not make any mods.

What can be done to yet again increase the amount of uploads, and hence the number of visitors, and hence the number of members?

#2: Re: Is CCS slowly dying? Author: Stwa,

Posted: Thu Mar 07, 2013 1:47 pm
—
The best way for that would be to give everyone a hundred bucks when they register.

Site doesn't seem dead to me, and nobody wants to mess with anymore uploads. How many mods does everyone need?

Hehe, but I did notice today, that DAK_Legion is putting up some links. Okinawa on TLD, Betio on CC3, Star Wars on LSA, me thinks. ?

#3: Re: Is CCS slowly dying? Author: AT_Stalky,

Posted: Fri Mar 08, 2013 9:45 pm
—
Lindström bring up an important question.

Is CCS and the community slowly…. ?

How do we measure the activity and strength of the community?

By the number of mods made?
By the numbers of users here at CCS?
By the number of online GR people?
By the number…? of …? something else..?
Combination of all--- ?

A reflection, based only on reflection, I dint see any increase in activity after PitF was relised.? I mean, after WaR was on the market I saw numerous old player return, same after TLD, but after that I cant say I seen any revival of the community… Its based on feeling, not hard facts and numbers.. Maybe Mooxe can help here?

Tigercub, Ronson, Mikewarleo, Nikin et al knows more about GR activity, what’s yer reflection on this topic?? I appreciate yer input here.

/S

#4: Re: Is CCS slowly dying? Author: US_Brake, Location: USA

Posted: Fri Mar 08, 2013 10:37 pm
—
Betio on CC3 ??? Very Happy

#5: Re: Is CCS slowly dying? Author: mooxe,

Posted: Sat Mar 09, 2013 12:02 am
—

ThomasLidstrom wrote (View Post):

Hello everybody,

I have been a "lurcher" at CCS for a long time.
I have mainly downloaded various mods and patches for different versions of CC, but rarley done anything in the forums

The last year or two I have noticed a really big decline in uploads to CCS.
For me this is a clear sign that this site is dying.

I have no problems uploading myself, but then I do not make any mods.

What can be done to yet again increase the amount of uploads, and hence the number of visitors, and hence the number of members?

There certainly has been a big decline in mods. The new versions are very slowly spawning mod conversions, not really new material though. I wouldnt say CCS is dieing specifically, I think the CC community is dwindling out as a whole. We've been saying that for years though. The Matrix/Wargamer/Slitherine forums are also very slow. The problems I have been having keeping the site online are not helping either! There are few mods on the very edge of being released, for CC5 and the GJS conversion, we'll just have to wait out on those.

What can be done?

Well theres a few answers. Mods can work. Site content could help as well. I attempt this with Boot Camp articles, Terrain Challenge, and CC Player's News. Basically all the new content on the site is done by very few people, and it comes in randomly and seldomly, this is no fault of anyones-- its a hobby. The Terrain Challenge I actually find fun... some of the challenges that have been solved with very little clues were simply amazing.

I have never been very friendly with the people who have put out the retread versions of Close Combat. Maybe if I was CCS could of been more involved in terms of articles or dev forum participation. I never liked the new versions because of thier quality which is where most of my disagreements came from.. anyways thats all covered in different threads.

#6: Re: Is CCS slowly dying? Author: Ryz, Location: Boston, MA

Posted: Thu May 30, 2013 7:16 pm
—
Mooxe

I am very surprised they did not invite you to participate in the rerelease process.

Sounds like poor PR on their part.

David

#7: Re: Is CCS slowly dying? Author: Sapa,

Posted: Sat Jun 01, 2013 7:24 am
—
There are peoples here that was very involved in the "new games"...the strange thing is that they had no opinion about that all the Mod Tools that was working for CC5 now is out of buisniess...

It was great to use the StratEdit program to make your stratmap for CC5 including other stuff...it is really sad

And the same people that complained about some of the bugs in CC 5 didnt see all the new ones in the "new" games...

YES it is dying! at least for me :-(

Cheers Mats

#8: Re: Is CCS slowly dying? Author: Antony_nz,

Posted: Sun Jun 02, 2013 5:26 am
—
In my view, the most important thing is to answer threads and be helpful.
As long as the community is helping, then its serves its purpose.

#9: Re: Is CCS slowly dying? Author: Slyguy3129, Location: Texas, USA

Posted: Mon Aug 05, 2013 2:51 am
—
The community will stay alive until they release a 3-D non Top Down Close Combat. Then the actual Close Combat fans will leave, leaving only the Call of Duty Close Combat fans who want the game to be 3d and to win a beauty contest. That is when Close Combat and its real community will die, which may be very near in the future. Afterwards there will be a community claiming to be Close Combat, but it won't be, and anyone with half a brain will know it to be true.

#10: Re: Is CCS slowly dying? Author: general_solomon,

Posted: Mon Aug 05, 2013 7:15 am
—
I think to bring new players and older fans back is to start up a youtube channel with multiplayer full battle recordings. as well as let's play video of campaigns and mods.

I love this place. hope it never goes away. I just think the leaders of this forum should use newer technology to attract new members.

Clans should record battles and post them on the ccs youtube channel.

#11: Re: Is CCS slowly dying? Author: TheImperatorKnight,

Posted: Mon Aug 05, 2013 11:34 am
—

general_solomon wrote (View Post):

I think to bring new players and older fans back is to start up a youtube channel with multiplayer full battle recordings. as well as let's play video of campaigns and mods.

I love this place. hope it never goes away. I just think the leaders of this forum should use newer technology to attract new members.

Clans should record battles and post them on the ccs youtube channel.

As someone who has a CC-orientated channel, with 6 multiplayer battles uploaded, I can honestly say that few people are interested in seeing cc multiplayer battles. People do search for CC videos though, just not multiplayer battles. The idea is good in theory - it's what ZeroEmpires did with Age of Empires - but sadly, CC doesn't allow 4v4 multiplayer or FFA's or 3v1... so multiplayer just isn't interesting to watch. Unlike in AoE, CC battles take too long to get going, so viewers get bored very quickly and don't watch them (they like to watch CC2 and CC3 though because those battles are quicker).

I suggested some multiplayer changes on matrix forums (to allow team games and recorded games like in AoE), so I'm hoping they change multiplayer in the new games they're making. But then, I'm probably one of these "Call of Duty Close Combat fans who want the game to be 3d and to win a beauty contest" so I don't think these suggestions will please everyone here.

(Also, I don't own CCMT, but I guess that game may be better for multiplayer recorded battles. It's just a shame it's not popular.)

#12: Re: Is CCS slowly dying? Author: Silverpen,

Posted: Mon Aug 05, 2013 12:11 pm
—
Hello,
I don't think CCS is dying; it is at a crossroads. The diehards, mod makers and core of player enthusiasts will always be there.What has happened tho
is there has been no truly NEW CC games produced by large game makers like Matrix (if you can call it one). If you notice almost all CC activity has
been either reworking/improving the old base games like CCII,CCIII,CIV and CCV by Matrix OR Mods and submods primarily on CCIII and CCV.

What is required are completely new titles on wars/battles not already covered ( I have mentioned the Italian Campaign) using a NEW better engine
with a smarter AI. Ortona''43 recently published by expert Mod folk is an excellent example of a new subject but still uses an old engine.Actually I
find CC focused on a single battle/operation far more realistic than trying to cover an entire theatre of war.
The 2D versus 3D issue is gimmicky just like the complete 3D bust again in movie theatres.

Silverpen

#13: Re: Is CCS slowly dying? Author: TheImperatorKnight,

Posted: Mon Aug 05, 2013 7:55 pm
—

Silverpen wrote (View Post):

The 2D versus 3D issue is gimmicky just like the complete 3D bust again in movie theatres.

I agree with you for the most part. But not with this.

We're not talking about the same popping-out-of-the-screen-but-you-have-to-wear-stupid-glasses-3D you get in the movie theatres. We're talking about updated graphics and better looks that will bring the series into the 21st millenium.

I mean, by your reasoning, we may as well stick with black-and-white low-def tvs, because we don't need them. It's all about the gameplay - or the tv show - not about colour or screen resolution or 3D graphics.

At the end of the day, why can't we have 3D? What's not to like about 3D? Why stick to 2D if we have the option of moving to 3D? Especially if you consider that moving to 3D will probably attract more players to the series. More players = more revenue, which in turn means more games, and a series that isn't dying.

3D isn't bad for CC.

#14: Re: Is CCS slowly dying? Author: Silverpen,

Posted: Mon Aug 05, 2013 11:42 pm
—
Hi TMK,

Thanks for your come back on my comments on 3D being gimmicky. Okay I got a little carried away. So maybe 3D graphics will add "something"
to ensuring CCS's future.

Frankly I don't watch any movie in HD that isn't well written well acted and tells a great story.So graphics is but a small part of the
story. By the way can you or anyone provide me with an example of a CSS type game pic in 3D? What does it look like?Is it still a top down view?
I have most of the games in the Call of Duty series.To me that is 3D! Close Combat cannot go there..period. Nor should it! It is not that kind of a
game a "first person shooter"!

What I am referring to is improving upon the key elements of CC that has made CC successful over these past twenty years..particularly the AI:
higher res graphics so viewing combat closer in is realistic, playability,new and different battles/conflicts besides WWII. I don't go for being
able to choose battle groups etc..stick to the historical BG's. If you want to reinvent a conflict and play "what if" by changing this then that's
another matter. Yes finally it is really about improving the gameplay not the nice packaging or look. Why because people who enjoy and play CC
are a relatively small special breed of war gaming enthusiasts who have found what they want.

#15: Re: Is CCS slowly dying? Author: Silverpen,

Posted: Mon Aug 05, 2013 11:44 pm
—
Hi TMK,
Thanks for your come back on my comments on 3D being gimmicky. Okay I got a little carried away. So maybe 3D graphics will add "something" to
the CCS's future.

Frankly I don't watch any movie in HD that isn't well written well acted and tells a great story.So graphics is but a small part of the
story. By the way can you or anyone provide me with an example of a CSS type game pic in 3D? What does it look like?Is it still a top down view? I
have nearly all the games in the Call of Duty series.To me that is 3D! Close Combat cannot go there..period. Nor should it! It is not that kind of a
game a "first person shooter"!

What I am referring to is improving upon the key elements of CC..particularly the AI: higher res graphics so viewing combat closer in is realistic,
playability, realism,new and different battles/conflicts besides WWII. I don't go for being able to choose battle groups etc..stick to the historical BG's.
If you want to reinvent a conflict and play "what if" by changing this then that it's another matter. Yes finally it is really about the gameplay not
the nice packaging or look.

#16: Re: Is CCS slowly dying? Author: TheImperatorKnight,

Posted: Tue Aug 06, 2013 12:37 am
—
Silverpen, I completely agree. What we need is an improved game. Lots of people say the AI needs improving, and that's been an issue for years now. I keep going on about an improved/dynamic strategic map, and many people talk about 3D and things like that.

Unfortunately, we won't get that all in one go because the developers are small. They can't pump millions into a game to make it great. They can only improve one or two things at a time. And they have to make a profit at the same time. So, unless Matrix pull a miracle, or a huge company buys the rights to CC and sets a huge team of programmers to it, I doubt we'll get what we want.

As far as the 3D's concerned, have you not seen Panther's in the Fog? That's the latest CC game, and the only one with sorta "3D" graphics. (Not sure how to post pics here, sorry) However, Matrix are meant to be creating a truly 3D game - but there's no details on how that will look yet.

-

Anyway, back on topic. I think that CCS is doing ok, considering the circumstances. But if you want to make it more popular, we simply need to get more people playing CC. That's the issue here.

#17: Re: Is CCS slowly dying? Author: CCMMORTS,

Posted: Tue Aug 06, 2013 2:46 am
—
Well Achtung Panzer Kharkov 43 is exactly a close combat in 3D!
I dont understand why people are talking about call of duty in here, it's not even an RTS.

I also took some time to make a comment in the poll Can CC go 3D? which I think is worth reposting here since there is talks concerning 3D in this thread.

We have to ask what going 3D would accomplish? Would going 3D improve the gameplay? The only thing I see concerning gameplay is that it would remove the thought process the player has to make to turn a 2D map with elevations in 3D in his head to position his troops. Going 3D can also break the gameplay if it's poorly implemented. For instance I dislike the camera controls in Combat Mission or Achtung Panzer. The player has to devote a big part of his energy to controlling the camera instead of actually playing the game. I'd say the 3D control in Company of Heroes or Men of War doesn't really get in the way of playing and would be the way to go.

Would it increase the appeal, sales and the player base? Sure the era of 2D is somewhat over, although some games like Terraria pull it off by compensating graphics with the ability to be creative and a sense of freedom. The bottom line is what's selling the game is not its graphics, it's the ideas, the possibility to recreate a fun experience everytime you play. CC has been going for 20 years, without being a 3D game, because the ideas and concepts in this game are timeless. In this era of social media and of being constantly in touch with people over the Internet, Close combat has to embrace multiplayer to survive. That's how Company of Heroes maintained its longevity for 6 years or so. An amazing multiplayer. I am appalled to see developpers choosing to invest resources in the form, the visuals of the game before adressing the multiplayer.

More so, one big appealing factor of Close Combat has been its warmaps AND the element of persistence you get from getting battlegroups all the way through campaigns with medals and statistics. So i say, instead of going 3D, KEEP IT 2D BUT CREATE A LIVE EVERCHANGING WARMAP FOR ALL PLAYERS TO FIGHT ON AND COMPARE UNIT AND BATTLEGROUP ACHIEVEMENTS. THAT WOULD DRAW PLAYERS IN!!!

Finally I would also add that CC appeals to a very niche market of gamers. The type that would play Panzer General, Unity of Command, Advanced Squad Leader. These games again are timeless. They are not about the graphics. I don't think there is any substantial gain to make in the player base just by going 3D. You will only draw people who like WW2 era and history, war, battlefields, commanding etc. in any case. Even with very nice graphics, Company of Heroes had a player base at its peak of popularity of maybe 12 000 players. The idea is not to get more than that but to retain them. The solution to that is multiplay and building a community through forum discussions on the metagame, and the metahistory of the game if it's a live warmap and that is all.

Last edited by CCMMORTS on Tue Aug 06, 2013 5:59 am; edited 4 times in total

#18: Re: Is CCS slowly dying? Author: general_solomon,

Posted: Tue Aug 06, 2013 3:51 am
—
Multi-player is way to go when they develop the 3d game along with a solid cover system. i have been watching videos of team play with the arma 2 and 3 games. The game as a singlerplayer get really boring after you play a couple of times.

then comes the multiplayer section of the game and this is where it shines. there are clan or groups from 4 - 100 plus players.

What sets this game from other fps games the multiplayer, you can not run and gun. you have to use realistic military tactics to survive, let alone win.

now imaging if you will a cc game with a larger map that allows squads to be controlled by a person. also there is a communications available in-game. also, you could either play again other players or against the IA with your friends.

unfortunately matrix folks are not into this type a game. perhaps it will cost too much.

#19: Re: Is CCS slowly dying? Author: CCMMORTS,

Posted: Tue Aug 06, 2013 5:22 am
—
Well general solomon we agree that the multiplayer is the way to go.
and yes it is cost prohibitive considering the need for server infrastructures, maintenance and development.
and that is why development resources must not be wasted on 3D IMO.
That would require an engine overhaul, new models and animations. Too much waste.
The cover system is already there. What must be improved is being able to choose house stories for squads and also be able to better position your squads in cover (ie : not having that guy stick out of the trench). Improve pathfinding.
But yeah...wouldn't it be awesome to have that constant warfront you can log into and choose where you deploy your platoons etc.

On a sidenote, I still don't get the comparison with call of duty, arma, or even red orchestra/darkest hour. I mean I enjoy those games but they have nothing to do in the discussion.

#20: Re: Is CCS slowly dying? Author: general_solomon,

Posted: Tue Aug 06, 2013 5:42 am
—
ccmortis: the arma reference was made for its robust command structure in multiplayer. you have an overall commander, platoon leads as well as squad leads.

image having this type of opportunity here with cc. you join a clan or team. start out as leading a small squad. if you do great, get promoted to higher position.

of course with a game like this you would need to enhance the IA to be able attack, flank, defend and counter attack.

#21: Re: Is CCS slowly dying? Author: CCMMORTS,

Posted: Tue Aug 06, 2013 5:47 am
—
I see
well there you have it. If you make CC into a full multiplayer game you don't even need to program AI for tactical decisions since those would all be made by the players. You only need AI for the psychology system (cower, surrender etc.) and the pathfinding.
But yeah, I can also understand the appeal for 3D. I mean if achtung panzer 43 was multiplayer that would be awesome. I mean the scenes I've seen in that game are pretty realistic.

#22: Re: Is CCS slowly dying? Author: general_solomon,

Posted: Tue Aug 06, 2013 6:16 am
—
why dont we make our own cc style mulitiplayer game via a kickstarter? I am willing to fork out a couple grand to get it started. I personally do not like the arma style of games. first person has never appealed to me but i love the arma multiplayer fuctions.

#23: Re: Is CCS slowly dying? Author: CCMMORTS,

Posted: Tue Aug 06, 2013 6:32 am
—
If only I had the programming skills Rolling Eyes

#24: Re: Is CCS slowly dying? Author: Stwa,

Posted: Tue Aug 06, 2013 8:50 am
—
Unfortunately, we won't get that all in one go because the developers are small. They can't pump millions into a game to make it great. They can only improve one or two things at a time. And they have to make a profit at the same time. So, unless Matrix pull a miracle, or a huge company buys the rights to CC and sets a huge team of programmers to it, I doubt we'll get what we want. -TMK

Very funny, the poor pitty pie Matrix argument again. While Matrix may not be one of the giant entertainment companies around, they can still pull over 20,000 customers on-line at a time. I don't know if anyone has noticed the incredible number of titles that have been released by Matrix. They just don't seem like they are suffering to me. The POOR leetle developers at Matrix. And POOR Matrix, they just dont' make that much profit. Exclamation

There is plenty of venture capital out there for anyone that has a good idea, and a good development team. It is just that compared to similar but more modernized genres, the CC "engine" has been determined to suck, and therefore relegated to the niche of slower headed, ageing gamers.

They CAN improve more than a few things at a time. They have elected by their OWN choice, NOT to do so. First the contract with Atomic and Destineer, required them to re-release certain titles. The Matrix business model that was in effect prior to the re-releases called for a minimal approach to make each game operational with the newest OS and DirectX. Exclamation

#25: Re: Is CCS slowly dying? Author: Stwa,

Posted: Tue Aug 06, 2013 9:36 am
—
What we need is an improved game. Lots of people say the AI needs improving, and that's been an issue for years now. I keep going on about an improved/dynamic strategic map, and many people talk about 3D and things like that. -TMK

Oh really, an ISSUE to whom Question

Close Combat was envisioned and developed with MULTIPLAYER in mind. Single player was there mostly to tide you over or let you practice between multiplayer games.

It just so happened that comparatively speaking the CC AI turned out to be pretty good, all things considered. I can point you to even map and counter games with AIs that suck so bad, it makes CCs AI look brilliant in comparison. And the AI, is NO different than the rest of CC. It has not seen significant enhancements for well over a decade.

It wasn't until the total demise of multiplayer gaming (for CC), that the real whining about the AI commenced in earnest. Mass multiplayer games (many military and FPS) are just WAY more popular. No one want's to watch jerky tanks moving on a 2d map where you have to strain your eyesight to discover the elevations in the terrain.

#26: Re: Is CCS slowly dying? Author: Stwa,

Posted: Tue Aug 06, 2013 10:26 am
—
Also, I don't own CCMT, but I guess that game may be better for multiplayer recorded battles. It's just a shame it's not popular. -TMK

Hi Again,

CCMT is not popular with gamers because CCMT is not a game. Idea

[slaps forehead]

Once upon a time over at CSO, they asked everyone if they would like 3x3 multiplayer like it's done at the USMC using CC. Everyone said yes. They lied. Laughing

No one wants to play 1x1 multiplayer, much less multiplayer that involves more people. Laughing

With these facts in mind, you gotta consider that the replay feature from CCMT is generally used to record Single Player battles. Observing these battles is fun, or can be if the battle is not a dud.

Most players, have no idea what the AI even does during a battle, since the only time they know anything about the AI, is when the AI's teams are visible to the Human Player. With replay you can monitor both sides.

#27: Re: Is CCS slowly dying? Author: TheImperatorKnight,

Posted: Tue Aug 06, 2013 11:22 am
—
Stwa

How many people bought PitF? 1,000? 10,000? I doubt it was more than that. They're not going to pump a lot of money into a game that's not selling too well. They'll pump it into games that are - like Panzer Corps - but not into poor old CC.

Quote:

They CAN improve more than a few things at a time. They have elected by their OWN choice, NOT to do so. First the contract with Atomic and Destineer, required them to re-release certain titles. The Matrix business model that was in effect prior to the re-releases called for a minimal approach to make each game operational with the newest OS and DirectX.

In PitF they had a free shot at it. They changed about 5 things. Almost everyone complained about most of them. And instead of this being the "last of the traditional Close Combat games" that they promised at release, they're now bringing out another traditional Close Combat game before they improve things. Why? Because it didn't sell well. Why? Because people don't like change (among other things like bad AI, huge maps, small force pools, multiplayer server etc).

Quote:

What we need is an improved game. Lots of people say the AI needs improving, and that's been an issue for years now. I keep going on about an improved/dynamic strategic map, and many people talk about 3D and things like that. -TMK

Oh really, an ISSUE to whom Close Combat was envisioned and developed with MULTIPLAYER in mind. Single player was there mostly to tide you over or let you practice between multiplayer games.

It just so happened that comparatively speaking the CC AI turned out to be pretty good, all things considered. I can point you to even map and counter games with AIs that suck so bad, it makes CCs AI look brilliant in comparison. And the AI, is NO different than the rest of CC. It has not seen significant enhancements for well over a decade.

It wasn't until the total demise of multiplayer gaming (for CC), that the real whining about the AI commenced in earnest. Mass multiplayer games (many military and FPS) are just WAY more popular. No one want's to watch jerky tanks moving on a 2d map where you have to strain your eyesight to discover the elevations in the terrain.

The AI is great in CC2. And is ok in CC3. Beyond that, it starts to become a joke. This has to do with map sizes more than anything, but it's no wonder people didn't complain too much back in the 90's. The issue only became an issue recently. And whether or not this series was meant to be multiplayer or not, it isn't multiplayer. People are playing singleplayer more than multiplayer. So whether you like that or not, the AI needs improving. AI and full 3D are the two things I hear most players suggest for improvements.

Quote:

CCMT is not popular with gamers because CCMT is not a game.

Well that is an issue. Sometimes you have to sacrifice realism for gameplay.

Quote:

No one wants to play 1x1 multiplayer, much less multiplayer that involves more people.

Or probably because people don't like Modern Warfare as much as WW2? I'd love to play 3x3 CC multiplayer. Would make things a lot more interesting to watch and play. Would love to spectate on battles too, and learn from the pros.

#28: Re: Is CCS slowly dying? Author: johnsilver, Location: Florida

Posted: Wed Aug 07, 2013 5:20 am
—

Quote:

Achtung Panzer Kharkov 43 is exactly a close combat in 3D!

Sorry, but just have to add this about a game remember many on the old MS network abandoned CC over because it was "only 2d" when this "hot new 3d looking" game was coming out... Sudden Strike...

What a failure.. Probably some here that gave it a try even, I did also, even bought the thing, but was it shallow.

#29: Re: Is CCS slowly dying? Author: Stwa,

Posted: Wed Aug 07, 2013 5:44 am
—
The issue [Single Player] only became an issue recently. And whether or not this series was meant to be multiplayer or not, it isn't multiplayer. People are playing singleplayer more than multiplayer. So whether you like that or not, the AI needs improving. AI and full 3D are the two things I hear most players suggest for improvements. -TMK

Me thinks you are just NOT paying attention. Laughing

And, like a lot of forumites, you enjoy detaching yourself from the facts. Idea

And those facts are as follows.

1. The legacy CC titles (CC2, CC3, CC4, and CC5), where all developed with the idea that CC would be most enjoyed in Multiplayer mode.

2. CCM was developed for USMC, and USMC through their RFP specified a mulitplayer simulation.

3. The re-releases (COI, CCMT, WAR, and TLD) were not intended to seriously enhance the products but rather to make them operational in the new environments. CC games were re-released with the idea that CC would be most enjoyed in Multiplayer mode.

4. CCM through TLD were developed and marketed under contract with various third parties. The contracts may have specified what could or could not be done with the games, beyond making them operational in the new environments.

5. LSA was an optional portion of the orignal contract with Atomic and Destineer. Even without the contract in hand, I doubt anyone specified (in said contract), "LSA should be primarily a single player game". Laughing

So, no matter how much I have advocated over the years for enhances to Single Player, and no matter how much BS YOU spew in this thread. The facts are clear. No one that has been involved with CC over the years (its development or production) has considered the games to be primarily single player. In fact, everyone kept relying upon a resurgance of interest in Multiplayer, right up to PITF. Exclamation

And one last fact perhaps, Gateway to Caen notwithstanding. THE SERIES HAS RUN ITS COURSE. Its over. Its ALREADY in the BOOKS.

And in all that time, perhaps 15 years and numerous titles. NO-ONE that mattered in the production and marketing of CC, ever considered CC to be primarly a single player game. PERIOD Exclamation

So, if what you are saying is YOU want 3D and YOU want better Single Player. Question

DOOD, now days that is like advocating for PEACE ON EARTH or NIP FOR ALL BABIES. Razz

And, BTW, Me thinks they have ALREADY ANNOUNCED the 3D game. Exclamation

[slaps forehead]

#30: Re: Is CCS slowly dying? Author: Stwa,

Posted: Wed Aug 07, 2013 6:41 am
—
The issue [Single Player] only became an issue recently. And whether or not this series was meant to be multiplayer or not, it isn't multiplayer. People are playing singleplayer more than multiplayer. So whether you like that or not, the AI needs improving. AI and full 3D are the two things I hear most players suggest for improvements. -TMK

I hate to bring this up, and I do hope you understand, that I do not mean anything in any personal way, but ...

YOU ARE COMPLETELY CLUELESS Shocked

Searching just for the phrase "AI" using the CCS internal search toy, reveals 239 matches. So, here is a thread by wallach79 Posted: Sun Apr 03, 2005 6:28 am Post subject: AI behaviour.

Here you will see complaints regarding the AI, single player gaming, suggestions for its improvement, and the usual response, which has always been, and will always remain.

User Complains About AI, Suggests Improvements

#31: Re: Is CCS slowly dying? Author: Stwa,

Posted: Wed Aug 07, 2013 8:00 am
—
Sorry, but just have to add this about a game remember many on the old MS network abandoned CC over because it was "only 2d" when this "hot new 3d looking" game was coming out... Sudden Strike... What a failure.. Probably some here that gave it a try even, I did also, even bought the thing, but was it shallow. -johnsilver

Hi johnsilver Exclamation

I hope you are doing well.

Good point. Just being 3D doesn't necessarily solve anything important. But in the case of CC the stated reason for employment of a 3D engine was to provide MUCH better calculations of LOS and LOF. I think the Marketing Director (Slitherene?) mentioned this last year when he was posting about 3D possiblilities for CC.

When he was here, I mentioned Rome TW alot (he probably wan't impressed Laughing

). But, someone (probably an Aussie) reminded me that CAs AI (for even RTW) sucked. I thought about that for a while, and you know, he was right, it does suck. Shocked

So being 3D may or may not be useful in correcting single player deficiencies. And I do assume that we would ALL agree that Creative Assembly is one of those Indie developers that IS well funded, and their single player AI sucks. Razz

And I would implore people to check out this thread. While I believe the Single Player experience can be improved, it will not (in our lifetimes) overcome the basic issue that these posters describe in 5 simple posts.

User Complains About AI, Suggests Improvements

#32: Re: Is CCS slowly dying? Author: TheImperatorKnight,

Posted: Wed Aug 07, 2013 5:17 pm
—

Stwa wrote (View Post):

YOU ARE COMPLETELY CLUELESS Shocked

Maybe

Ok, my opinions aside for a minute - what changes do you think will help the series? Because right now, all you seem to be doing is saying "change is bad even if the series dies".

Also, how old are you, out of curiosity?

At the end of the day, all I'm saying is in order to get more people to play CC, the singleplayer has to be improved. That's all I'm saying. Which is why I welcome the change in campaign style proposed with the next CC games. If it is a Panzer Corps styled campaign, the singleplayer will be improved, even if the AI isn't.

And I believe that multiplayer should be a big part of it too. But there's no point improving multiplayer if there's only a handful of people out there playing CC multiplayer. We need more players, and to get that (I think) we need a better singleplayer experience and good graphics, sounds etc.

#33: Re: Is CCS slowly dying? Author: Silverpen,

Posted: Wed Aug 07, 2013 7:14 pm
—
STWA,

Hi there.Hey who made you the "expert" about CCS? CC is and has always been about multi player????? Are you jesting? Opinions are one
thing.Where are your facts? Look if a computer program can beat world renowned players at chess or at bridge we can certainly improve the
CS's AI .

Yah kids like multi players shoot em up more like they do the walking dead. CC is about conflict between men and armaments and the
strategy/tactics required to win.Most CC players (see survey) are likely older and yes play alone and want a better AI..naturally.

PITF yes has better 32 bit graphics and other special effects but is not 3D.So what!.

CCS has always attracted and been enjoyed by a cadre of players (likely many military buffs) numbering thousands not hundred of thousands.
Thanks to Avalon Hill,Atomic, Microsoft, Matrix and the others, especially all those imaginative hard working enthusiasts who provide us with
great mods.

QED

#34: Re: Is CCS slowly dying? Author: Stwa,

Posted: Thu Aug 08, 2013 1:15 am
—
Because right now, all you seem to be doing is saying "change is bad even if the series dies". Also, how old are you, out of curiosity? -TIK

Dood, the neat thing about the Forum is you can excise quotes from the other posts. SO PLEASE find the quote where I SAY

"change is bad even if the series dies"

Regarding the age question,

Same to ya. Exclamation

Up to now I was under the belief that the 2D series would come to an end with PitF. So, I suppose they did another title while they are waiting on the 3D version. So, if the 2D series, is in fact over, it is pointless to make recommendations to them (the developers) now. It is in the books!

I have NO recommendations to any of the developers regarding the 3D series. I have no idea what they are contemplating, but I also DO NOT feel that THE BLOOD, or the others involved with this title, to be ignorant people.

It is also my belief that the Single Player AI sucks even in RTW, where the developers probably threw a lot of money at it. But despite all that, I still enjoy single player battles in RTW a great deal.

BTW, since 2004, I can count the number of multiplayer battles, in which I have participated, on one hand.

Last edited by Stwa on Thu Aug 08, 2013 1:29 am; edited 1 time in total

#35: Re: Is CCS slowly dying? Author: Pzt_Kanov, Location: México

Posted: Thu Aug 08, 2013 1:27 am
—
The sad thing or maybe the great thing, depending how you look at it, about the AI in close combat is that we as consumers can modify it to become a ruthless attacker or a tenacious defender. And that is just by modifying some lines in the data files!

Thanks to TT for showing the way!

#36: Re: Is CCS slowly dying? Author: Ivan_Zaitzev,

Posted: Thu Aug 08, 2013 1:27 am
—
I wouldn't mind something similar to Men of War for the 3D Close Combat: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U_PVP8_45_g

Also, I have heard that for RTW, the Darthmod does some pretty awesome things for the AI. I was about to download the one for Napoleon but never got around to doing it at the end.

#37: Re: Is CCS slowly dying? Author: general_solomon,

Posted: Thu Aug 08, 2013 2:52 am
—
Close combat is like the old car that you do not want get rid of even thought its taking up space and everyone and their grand mother as saying to trash it.

I wiill never give my cc game. ever. even though I rarely play them now.

If close combat went 3d I would love it to have a full spectrum warrior feel. where you as the squad leader or commander direct your squad and they are smart enough to comply with your orders.

#38: Re: Is CCS slowly dying? Author: Tejszd, Location: Canada

Posted: Thu Aug 08, 2013 4:53 am
—
To me one of the biggest issues with CC is that while each version tends to add/build on the previous release it also tends to lose something too.

#39: Re: Is CCS slowly dying? Author: schrecken, Location: Sydney, Australia

Posted: Thu Aug 08, 2013 7:53 am
—
There was a plan once at Matrix to add all new features to each game... just not use them if they were not required in a certain release... but that was long ago.

#40: Re: Is CCS slowly dying? Author: pvt_Grunt, Location: Melbourne, Australia

Posted: Thu Aug 08, 2013 7:59 am
—

schrecken wrote (View Post):

There was a plan once at Matrix to add all new features to each game... just not use them if they were not required in a certain release... but that was long ago.

It seems the Slitherine business plan changed that, and made their multiplayer lobby the only way to connect. Surely it would have been easier to leave the old direct connect code and add to it.

#41: Re: Is CCS slowly dying? Author: johnsilver, Location: Florida

Posted: Fri Aug 09, 2013 6:38 am
—

Quote:

No one that has been involved with CC over the years (its development or production) has considered the games to be primarily single player.

Truer words were never spoken my friend. Some (many) of us no longer play H2H now days, yet realize there really is no way to EVER fix that issue and that Matrix/Atomic, blah,blah never did put any type of priority on that issue.

Quote:

the AI in close combat is that we as consumers can modify it to become a ruthless attacker or a tenacious defender. And that is just by modifying some lines in the data files!

Only within certain boundaries Pzt_Kanev. TT's mods, tools etc did many exciting things with his work and some still carry the torch (too many names to list) but memorizing the same old stale maps... equipment characteristics.. It gets kind of old after awhile you know?

Missed seeing you here STWA, must have been checking in on the "wrong" topics when was looking in Smile

#42: Re: Is CCS slowly dying? Author: TheImperatorKnight,

Posted: Fri Aug 09, 2013 2:45 pm
—

Stwa wrote (View Post):

Regarding the age question,

Same to ya. Exclamation

26.

Stwa wrote:

BTW, since 2004, I can count the number of multiplayer battles, in which I have participated, on one hand.

Wow, even I'm beating you.

I'm beginning to wonder if a multiplayer tornament would help to revive the series/this site or not. There's no point trying it if people very rarely play multiplayer.

I'm also wondering if we could issue challenges/achievements to try make a competition - that might spark some interest too.

#43: Re: Is CCS slowly dying? Author: Pzt_Kanov, Location: México

Posted: Fri Aug 09, 2013 3:46 pm
—
I posed a challenge over at the CC5 forum.

I don't know if that's how you guys used to play using CCReq, but I was used to just choose between a bunch of single maps the host provided. Now I'm suggesting that you can make your own custom FP (can be mixed force of SS, heer,FJ) based on a point limit given by CCReq, export it and send it to me to make the OP and we can slug it out!

I think it is more fun if you actually choose the troops you're going to use.

#44: Re: Is CCS slowly dying? Author: CCMMORTS,

Posted: Fri Aug 09, 2013 5:22 pm
—
Here's an idea for a challenge
What about playing a WAR grand campaign
Every player in the tournament plays a BG from start to end of campaign
So at the end of each battle the players involved upload a new saved game of the campaign
I think it could accommodate a lot of players too!
PS : SHOTGUN PEIPER Razz

#45: Re: Is CCS slowly dying? Author: Pzt_Kanov, Location: México

Posted: Fri Aug 09, 2013 5:30 pm
—
We tried it in the Nomada clan, it sets itself for trouble when the player that is next up is not available. It needs dedication and commitment from all the players!

I think small ops are better since they can be actually finished though.

#46: Re: Is CCS slowly dying? Author: CCMMORTS,

Posted: Fri Aug 09, 2013 5:36 pm
—
True

#47: Re: Is CCS slowly dying? Author: TheImperatorKnight,

Posted: Fri Aug 09, 2013 6:40 pm
—

Pzt_Kanov wrote (View Post):

I think small ops are better since they can be actually finished though.

I think individual battles would be better, but agreed that small ops are superior to campaigns.

I'd prefer something we could measure, like time/speed runs and no/minimum casualties.

E.g. CC2 - Start the Nijmegen Operation, and take Nijmegen City map as the Americans taking the fewest/no casualties on at least Veteran Diff.

#48: Re: Is CCS slowly dying? Author: Stwa,

Posted: Sat Aug 10, 2013 1:22 pm
—
Hi Again Gents (you too TIK Wink

),

There are a lot of things we could try to help resurrect MP, but more specifically CC gameplay in general. But, the forumites here over the years have proven to be very strong minded if you know what I mean. It is hard to get consensus on anything much less outright agreement.

The very fact that Matrix has been popping out a 2D title almost every year since 2006, in some ways has presented a challenge even to multiplayer gaming. If sales were divided equally among all these titles, then the available MP oponents for a single customer of a single CC title has been divided by the number of realeased titles. Not good.

And then what about leadership here at CCS. What has been happening during this purgatory phase (all these flaming titles). Apart from myself, I haven't heard anyone else even mention that all these titles (one every year), is a problem. So, since I don't hear it from others (like the uppers at CCS), I just keep it to myself. I have heard one upper here at CCS recommend that a NOOB should just buy them all, and the upper even listed the order in which they should be puchased. Not good? I dunno?

When the picture gallery was still around, it was easy to understand what had happened around 2000. SSI went out of bis, Atomic didn't quite finish CC5, and soon thereafter there was Destineer, and you just got the sense that there were not really going to be anymore CC titles. Not good 2D titles anyway. That stableized CC for the most part on a single title - CC5, and modders could do their thing, knowing there would never be another update or another title, unless it was a mod.

And then there are the MP lobbies. At least everyone here wandered through the lobby wilderness, I suppose beginning with BHQ, then Himachi, and then to Game Ranger. Even though I dont do MP, I got the impression that we were Feature Shopping, but after some research on that maybe this wasn't all about Feature Shopping.

So, if all the multiplayers were spread around equally on the available lobbies and if everyone purchased a single CC title your potential oponents are very reduced. So 5 titles (including PitF), 4 lobbies (including Slitherene), then out of 1000 people that purchased a CC title the maximum available opponents would be 1000 * .20 * .25, which equals 50.

Then you gotta figure perhaps 50% of those just don't want to mess with MP and 50% of whats left aren't in your time zone or don't speak your language, so that leaves only a potential of 12.5 per 1000 gamers that purchased a title from Matrix.

#49: Re: Is CCS slowly dying? Author: Stwa,

Posted: Sat Aug 10, 2013 2:19 pm
—
Well, obviously I am just guessing at some of the multipliers I used in the equation from the prior post. But you guys get the idea. And me thinks Matrix/Slitherene gets the idea as well. So much so, they decided to cut down on the available lobbies when they released PitF. It (the number of lobbies) is not the whole reason, but it is part of the reason. Other factors, were probably promotional, since while you are at the Slitherene lobby you will notice other featured games, etc.

But they did more than just cut down on the available lobbies. PitF departs signigicantly from the other games. The map scale changes just the best example. However, Matrix realized quickly that perhaps mods should be transported to PitF lest it be the odd game of the bunch, and proffered a method for upscaling your maps without having to re-do the dreaded map codes.

Mooxe said in another thread, that perhaps new mods would help to re-juvenate this site. But why on earth would anyone do that, when Matrix continues to pop out another game every year. What would the point of modding be when the average mod team can produce a complete mod every two years at best.

And it was established very early on in at least CC5 modding, that a mod really meant an ENTIRELY NEW GAME from top to bottom. You know, the kind of mod that might take forever to finish. In the time it took me to make my lowly CCMT mods, Matrix realeased 3 new WW2 titles.

The only people contemplating the classic full mod, are people that are submitting a prototype to Matrix for the next possible Matrix title. So, you have one upper at CCS suggesting the community produce some new mods, while other uppers are building mods to present to Matrix as potential production candidates.

But like all problems, there could be solutions, but the problems need to be identified first, and there must be common ground which can be agreed upon. Otherwise, we will just see the same pattern over and over again.

#50: Re: Is CCS slowly dying? Author: CSO_Sbufkle, Location: Canada

Posted: Fri Aug 30, 2013 11:06 pm
—
Im happy to see the CCS around still.. and man.. the cries of "is CC dying" goes back over a decade. As long as you guys post in here and have online get togethers it will survive.

2 years ago I joined an Xbox Clan of older guys, somehow CC came up and the next thing you know a bunch f the guys had played it and i am sending them mods and maps! (GREAT WAR MOD!!

Mooxe should have been allowed to be part of the rereleased for the very least being the hub of the communities with the CCS. If not even more..

But Matrix had its own forums and decided to go that way. which I can understand, but were talking hindsight, and that being so, a partnership with CCS as the acknowleged hub might have been a better fit. THe community was divided with rereleases. Those who made them honestly wanted to help the community strong, from what I believe, even when I briefly was a part of it. But hey... thats why you leave major release games manufacturing to the professionals.. modders in cc take those basic releases and make them better. The dynamics changed.

Personally, console gaming is the thing.. HD 1080p viewing, stereo turtle beach headsets, gaming conventions and modern games lobbies. I would have loved that for CC... but it just didnt happen.

A big thank you to Mooxe and what hes done to keep community alive.. and I really hope it stays there.. because it always has!

#51: Re: Is CCS slowly dying? Author: Ivan_Zaitzev,

Posted: Fri Aug 30, 2013 11:23 pm
—
Matrix has declared the fan forums of Steel Panthers as the official Steel Panthers Forum, so there's a chance they will do the same with Close Combat.
Nice to see you around Sbufkle!

#52: Re: Is CCS slowly dying? Author: platoon_michael, Location: Right behind you

Posted: Sat Aug 31, 2013 2:55 am
—
wow,
CSO_Sbufkle

Where's SR_Drill?
I have his last login at Matrix to be 3 years ago

#53: Re: Is CCS slowly dying? Author: CSO_Sbufkle, Location: Canada

Posted: Sat Aug 31, 2013 11:11 am
—

platoon_michael wrote (View Post):

wow,
CSO_Sbufkle

Where's SR_Drill?
I have his last login at Matrix to be 3 years ago

Platoon Michael! The CCIV man!

#54: Re: Is CCS slowly dying? Author: Stwa,

Posted: Sat Aug 31, 2013 1:31 pm
—

Ivan_Zaitzev wrote (View Post):

Matrix has declared the fan forums of Steel Panthers as the official Steel Panthers Forum, so there's a chance they will do the same with Close Combat.
Nice to see you around Sbufkle!

Me thinks they may have done something similar when they brought Ageod on-board.

Hi Sbufkle. I only spoke to you a few times, but you just seem to project the "good old days".

#55: Re: Is CCS slowly dying? Author: DAK_Legion,

Posted: Sun Sep 01, 2013 7:33 am
—
Wow Sbuf!

glad to see you!

always...GHAZWAH the best map for CC!

#56: Re: Is CCS slowly dying? Author: Tejszd, Location: Canada

Posted: Sun Sep 01, 2013 4:04 pm
—
Hey glad to see your still hanging around Sbufkle!

#57: Re: Is CCS slowly dying? Author: Gun_Pierson,

Posted: Tue Nov 19, 2013 10:08 pm
—
The problem is that there's no next gen version of close combat yet. So Players move over to other games. I mean I still love cc, but last years I've also been playing Men of War. Even though not strictly CC, it has great graphics and is fun to play once in a while. Not on the level of fun I have as with CC, but as less mods come out for CC and the graphics get worse over time as technology evolves, the game loses players. Not to mention the AI. These days it's funny that a tank shows it's back so it becomes annoying. When a good successor eventually will arise, the forums will flourish with activity again.

#58: Re: Is CCS slowly dying? Author: johnsilver, Location: Florida

Posted: Tue Nov 19, 2013 11:02 pm
—
I vaguely remember you also from the glory years also online Sbufle. The leader of your group was.. Sully?, or Sullivan the full name?

Close Combat Series -> The Mess

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

Page 1 of 1