[nikin]

[Bungarra]

Not quite sure what you are trying to say Nikin...

But I can assure you that I and every one here at CCS have the utmost respect for all modders here...

That the game itself is released with flaws is unfortunate.

But the dedicated crew of modders has only made our experience better.

They can only work with what they have & I dips my lid to them...

Long may they continue to do so..

[nikin]

2Bungarra

If you want to see a direct connection then I'll show you.

Mod CC3 Real Red - terrible data (see here http://www.closecombatseries.net/CCS/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&t=9047). And that  data using Matrix for CC COI.

Same Matrix take big map sizes from GJS for TLD and other releases... and further increases the limit on size of maps. And now Cathartes making a map for the mod with the new maximum size (4800x4800 pixels). The circle is closed.

Now began games with soldiers size and more.

Contribution modders to downgrade Close Combat is difficult to overestimate. IMHO.

[AT_Stalky]

This thread feels like 8 other threads made in-between the re-releases…

Kanov & Mooxe much expressed my thoughts. The series have not developed into a version that is superior. Has it progressed at all?

3D, hm, I don’t know…

Somehow the devs seemed that more maps was superior and an improvement, 64 maps… Well, 44 was  too many for most players, who can honestly say that they finished a GC in CC4-5. We are exhausted when we come to the 20 th round, (apx 200 games played). How many half finished or started GC's do you have in yer save folder? Now PITF has 35 maps, that’s better… But, a well made well thought out GC is way more important than the number of maps.

My thoughts today, is that the dev either should accept that the game is a multiplayer game, and try to adjust the product to that. That includes a simple to use multiplayer lobby, with no need to open ports etc.. It may also require that the GC idea may be radically changed from the CC3 linear, and CC5 style GC to something new. Perhaps, several parallel smaller operations with much fewer games in each operation are the way to go? Maybe like 5 – 10 games per operation. That makes it much easier for a player to fine a H2H opponent that can actually commit to a manageable number of games within a reasonable timeframe. Somthing like that may draw ppl to the lobby. Though... What’s probley needed is an analysis why H2H has declined and died, and make adjustments to workaround the reasons and focus development to that.  

Or, if the H2H game is thought to be history and impossible to revive then the developers should focus on improve the AI, so it meats the wishes of the gamers. But I believe that the dev needs to decide where to go with the product, instead of this half in between – non satisfied situation we are in now where AI players are not satisfied and H2H just don’t work with current lobby and GC styles…  

Again, the new CC in 3D, with the new “unity engine”… With one programmer… I strongly doubt that the programmer and that engine will be an “improvement” or a successor of the CCs engine that mimics the soldiers moral, panic, skills and almost human like behaviour.  I seriously doubt that… Maybe a successor of Red Alert…..
Or the programmer need to gut the old CC-games soldier behaviour- code and include it in the new 3D-CC, but then, it will the same ole CC with added optical chewing gum.

[jockthesock]

Should do a series on the battles on the German frontier. Riechwald forest, Heurgen forest etc.

[Cathartes]

[Stwa]

Same Matrix take big map sizes from GJS for TLD and other releases... and further increases the limit on size of maps. And now Cathartes making a map for the mod with the new maximum size (4800x4800 pixels). The circle is closed. -nikin

Perhaps, but the scale HAS changed since PitF and 4800x4800 pixel map equals 600 meter battlefield. In the older scale you needed 3000x3000 pixel map for that. Which was still huge for infantry battles. So I am guessing, they (Cathartes et al) want vehicle battles, but 600 meter map is still too small for that. So infantry battles get screwed and vehicle battles remain screwed.  

It is not the Carter Family, but I like this version.


Link

[Stwa]

What they should have done in the first place is release WaR and then any subsequent iteration as an add-on campaign module for WaR improving the core game with every new addition. It saves work for the programmer too because he can focus on one game instead of five or six, it makes the price more affordable for us since we would have the base game already, better price means more consumers and more profit for the developers, they could even release small add-ons for vehicles, sounds etc at fair prices. -Kanov

Exactly my thought down through the years and I have said so many times.

However, there was a small problem with that. And that problem was Atomic and Destineer. And maybe Matrix too. Matrix didn't just call over to Destineer one day and say "Hey, how about we re-release your CC game titles." They had to work the contract out over a long period of time, so maybe someone was being obstinate. There were no CC WW2 releases from Destineer or Atomic from 2000-2005.

So, someone in the equation wanted each game brought up to current OS DX standards and released one at a time. LSA was optional if sales were good, and then after LSA, Matrix could do whatever they wanted, hence PitF.

[nikin]

[pvt_Grunt]

[Sapa]

If there will be rain in Operation Epsom, please give me the option to turn it of it because i dont want the running Girls to get Dirty..

/Mats

[AT_Stalky]

[AT_Stalky]

Nikin, the bad map codes in the matrix versions…

What’s funny is perhaps not that they have taken maps from the GJS -mod without fixing less than perfect codes… The codes in GJS -mod are actually really good, especially compared to the new maps made for the “new” matrix CC. Look at some of the new maps made for (as an example) TLD, they must have used Picasso as a subcontractor to make the swiping-clutch like code…. CC Realism = very good map codes, and a very good elements file.

The implications of the errors in the WaR - TLD – LSA – PITF elements file and map codes tells a story. How can such errors be made by a competent developer, again and again and...… Why dint the testers pick that up. Why havnt the developer been able to translate the complains about LOS to the error in the elements file and the code and the elevations of the maps?

Lets face it. As long as the developer don’t have a competent quality leader, we will not get a good game from them. Consider what Nikin point at, and my example above, can such a developer make an “improved” version of CC…?  




Me, I doubt it.

[Stwa]

OK,

Good observation Stalky ... but  

IS ANYONE ELSE DETECTING THIS VIRUS WHEN THEY CONNECT TO THE CCS SERVER.    

I am wondering because it was funny at first, but now its no longer funny. It has been going on all day.  

[nikin]

[Mana]

As the Dutch say "the best steersmen are ashore" fits perfectly in this thread  

[AT_Stalky]

[Pete]

Mana, I wish I hadn't read your Dunglish. You may want to look up the correct translation.

[Pzt_Kanov]

[Mana]

There are probably several translations for this saying, please forgive me for choosing the one you didn't like pete.


What I ment to point out was that there is allot of confusion in this thread that is largely based on assumptions. Both cathartes and I have nothing to do with Blackhand nor Matrixgames. The fact is, is that they are publishing our work officially. Luckily we have the rights to adapt the engine slightly and have Steve McLair on our side.

Every close combat release has had it's ups and downs, my guess is that it is a matter of what people would like and choose to see.
Currently we're doing everything within our capabilties to make this release better than it's predecessor. And I'm sure some people will like it and some won't.

So I'm very happy to do my share within this community!