In ~2002 the CC5 stock game (US vs Germany) was suffering form overplaying, the users declined in rapid phase the game room was very empty. The CC5 stock decline continued up to GJS was released. There was a massive return to the game… And GJS is not US vs Germany...
Conclusion, none or very few played the stock game by then. People played mods and has been since.
Never said that it was THE REASON
CC5 would have sold well in the US because of the whole: The US won WW2 in Normandy bit
You make a good point how CC5 was revived by the mods
It lost interest because it was a crappy game, but the mods revived it.
Yes, the CC5 eastern theatre mods definately helped CC5's popularity
You can thank CC3 for enlightenning the CC players to where most of European WW2 was realy fought
A second observation, the CC5 “game room” has the most players in European time zone, not American. Conclusion…?
OH!
WOW!
HMMM,
AT_Stalky notices CC players playing in European time zone more than AT_Stalky sees people playing in US Time zone
AT_Stalky lives in Sweden
Conclusion = AT_Stalky notices more players in Euro time zone because, being in Europe, AT_Stalky spends most of his online CC time in European time zone because most US players wont come online until AT_Stalky is well asleep as they are 6-9 hours behind Swedish time.
Its no surprise that AT_Stalky does not play US people online often as AT_Stalky would have to either stay up till dawn playing or get up extremely early to play during US evening playtime
But think about it. In real life, a BG that has been overrun how did the soldiers and units react in them situations? They scattered into individuals or small gropes that tried there best to go back behind there own line. They are not easy to stop, there are countless situations like that in WW2, they just walk through other units… scared, shocked and demoralized. Tick tack, time.. What happened when they got back behind there own line? They was guided to reassembly places and reformed. IE: The BG disappears as a big unit into thin air and are scattered into small unseen unusable units until they are reassembled again to a big visible and usable BG. CC5 = mimic that rather good.
Now how often when a BG is forced from a sector would that have actually happenned in REAL LIFE?
Maybe less than 1% of the time.
Most often, say 99% of the time, a unit (BG) would retreat/withdraw into a sector behind their previous position (erxactly as in CC3 & CC1).
Therefore, CC3 depicts REAL LIFE 98% better than CC5
CC3 ROCKS
CHEERS
AGS
AGS, again a very sad type of argumentation.. But, if someone state that there was more CC5 players in the European time zone than in the American time zone, then what does that mean..? A hint mate, you interpretation was wrong.
And example of unit that is overrun, and “disappears”, Well, what directly comes to mind is winter in East 1941… How many battalions and division did that happen to? Finland summer 1944… How about Soviet forces in early Barbarossa?
I don’t argue that the CC5 disband function is perfect, but it does work. A better system would be an orderly retreat under certain circumstances, and a total mess and reform far behind the lines under other circumstances.
Yeh, and how often does a unit disband in a CC5 H2H GC game? Make a percent there.... ..
Posted: Sat Jun 23, 2012 3:31 pm Post subject: Re: CC5 vs CC3
This discussion is starting to look like kids spat over apples and oranges - which are better, does anyone know? Can anyone tell?
AT_Stalky summed it up already: Preferences nothing else.
But AGS if you wanna continue... be my quest and tell me: what's the difference between CC3 and CC4/CC5 from the tactical point of view? To me, none whatsoever. And now, what's the difference from the strategic point of view? Doesn't strat map of CC4/CC5 offer more choices for the players? I think it does. And it's something that CC3 is missing. But doesn't it mean it's better/worse game? To me it's only different - that's all.
But from a personal preference view, one can’t care less what other people favour. My taste, your taste, are subjective.. Lucky we have both CC3 and CC5, (and CCMT for Stwa, and CC4 to Platoon_Michaels)!
Over time I have discovered that players get different things out of CC. They also see and appreciate the game features in different ways, and at least as Single Players, they probably apply methods of play in differing ways as well. This is true, even amongst the few CCMT players I have met along the way.
It is the main reason, I try to stay in my CCMT cage (forum) for the most part. Far beit for me to go into another forum, and post critical remarks about that game. It is best to stay in the forums of the games you like, as a general rule.
That being said, its a no-brainer, when it comes to trying to understand why a lot of people like the historical campaigns that are presented in CC4, CC5, and the corresponding mods and re-releases.
Posted: Sat Jun 23, 2012 5:14 pm Post subject: Re: CC5 vs CC3
Quote:
It is the main reason, I try to stay in my CCMT cage (forum) for the most part. Far beit for me to go into another forum, and post critical remarks about that game. It is best to stay in the forums of the games you like, as a general rule.
I've played all the games extensively with mods and without (except for the re-releases and CC1 which I've only played a little bit) so CC2, CC3, COI, CC4, CC5 and CCMT (only recently) respectively, so feel I am relatively qualified to give a balanced appraisal of the series.
I really tried to like CC4 and CC5, I've completed both grand campaigns playing both sides (more than once in some cases), and I was initially perplexed at how bad CC4 was considering the demo at the time was so good (similar verdict with CC5 later).
That said I'd rather not get into any bickering matches, because with everything in life there will be always the few or the many that prefer one thing to another given a choice and/or have differing opinions regardless of what the concensus considers to be "better".
Another thing that keeps cropping up with people who prefer CC5 is that more often than not they started with Close Combat V and/or IV with out any real proper experience of delving into the older games. Whereas I started with CC2 and worked my way up (and then back down again ) they will have started with IV or V and then later "tried" CC2 or CC3 or one of the crappy re-releases.
CC3/COI has a fast learning curve but a long experience curve, meaning you'll be quite able to play a game of CC3 after a few minutes, but you'll only be able to appreciate its intricacies after spending further time on it. These intracies are all but lost in CC4 and CC5 so if all you focused on was the (shaky) strategic element in CC5 you'd be disappointed by going back to CC3 which is a far more tactically robust and oriented game than CC4 or CC5.
My point and my argument is that strategic gameplay in CC4 and CC5 which imo is poor affects the tactical element of the game negatively, whereas CC3 is linear/operational with a little strategy its really a pure tactical game, which means somebody who was brought up on CC4 and CC5 would expect the strategic element and not appreciate or underappreciate the tactical element CC3 provides.
This argument also carries over to CC2 (which albeit has a weaker tactical game than CC3) where until replaying the campaigns individually recently I finally fully understood how the whole campaign worked, I doubt players from CC4 and CC5 would grasp the strategic element at all until seriously delving into the game and certainly many would quickly become frustrated.
This also gives some explanation of the poor reception of CCMT, which has absolutely 0 strategy in it but possibly the most advanced tactical Close Combat engine seen yet, albeit its still plagued by some of the ridiculous systems carried over from CC4/CC5 (i.e. the morale nonsense) and ghosts from CC2 in the form of poor vehicle path finding amongst others. Probably due to having no strategic, operational/linear gameplay and all the annoyances of the CC4/CC5 engine it fails to attract CC2/CC3 players and due to having no strategic element whatsoever falls on deaf ears with the CC4/CC5 crowd.
I would like to see CC5 players really delve into CC3/COI and at least finish the grand campaign on both sides, I know which way the tide would turn!
Another thing that keeps cropping up with people who prefer CC5 is that more often than not they started with Close Combat V and/or IV with out any real proper experience of delving into the older games. Whereas I started with CC2 and worked my way up (and then back down again ) they will have started with IV or V and then later "tried" CC2 or CC3 or one of the crappy re-releases.
Where did you get that statistics from?
I have only an impression of what most CC5ers started with… and that impression do not fully agree with your observation/statistics.
because with everything in life there will be always the few or the many that prefer one thing to another given a choice and/or have differing opinions regardless of what the concensus considers to be "better".
If a strong majorety would equal consensus, then there would be "consensus" that CC5 would be the best of the games debated here.
But, with qualitative meassures, a strong majoretys opinion dont really matters, that still dont equal that CC5 is the "better" game in general. It only means that more ppl prefers CC5 over CC3, or one may say CC5 is more popular than CC3...
Posted: Sat Jun 23, 2012 7:50 pm Post subject: Re: CC5 vs CC3
Quote:
Where did you get that statistics from?
I have only an impression of what most CC5ers started with… and that impression do not fully agree with your observation/statistics.
Statistics are a bit of a null argument in forum discussions (and no I don't have any to present to you) as you will never have a 100% information statistic and no way of factoring variance of a given sample such as CCS forum players voting to non-CCS forum players not voting etc. (just one flaw example) at best they are indicators in this case, so so far one can only deduce that CC5, CC2 and CC3 are broadly played as much as each other in general from the stats.
My observations which without trying to brag have been pretty accurate so far, are that most of the flag waving CC5 players (and I assume players who started out with CC4 also) have not had a thorough experience with previous versions of close combat, they may only have tried CC3 before or after the CC4/CC5 experience and quickly returned to CC5.
Quote:
If a strong majorety would equal consensus, then there would be consensus that CC5 would be the best of the games debated here. But, with qualitative meassures, one can hardly say that. It dont matter how many more ppl prefering CC5 over CC3, that still dont equal that CC5 is the better game in general. Though one may say CC5 is more popular than CC3, or more ppl prefer CC5 over CC3..
Preferances.... thats all.
You've just regurgitated what I said and ended it with "preferences", I don't want this to deteriorate into a debate over semantics. Its not just a preference, a majority of people giving an opinion/judgement gives rise to a general concensus "de jure" but due to many of those people not having perfect information what the majority considers as the correct judgement may "de facto" be completely wrong. But I'm not going to jump down peoples throats for having a different opinion that was my point. There are repeated examples of this in history, for example the "de jure" judgement in 1970s that Japanese motorcycles were the most reliable in the world, when "de facto" italian motorcycles were, a little known fact to most motorcyclists, the Japanese had cheap aluminium cast engines and a good marketing scheme.
In this same vein, how many solid CC5 players solidly played CC3 before swapping over? I think you'll find many CC3 detractors all tried CC4 and CC5 thoroughly (like myself) and all have the same thing to say about it, I am saying that I believe de facto CC4/CC5 is pants and that in this case the de jure CC5 supporters are judging without perfect information that is all.
Out of interest, what is your history of playing CC, which one/s did you start off with and how much time did you spend on it/them?
Posted: Sun Jun 24, 2012 2:47 am Post subject: Re: CC5 vs CC3
Being trying to stay out of this but as a CC5/re-release fan....
The biggest complaint I have with CC3 compared to CC5 is the lack of control the player has on the strategic level. You will always win or lose the war based on the side you play and the only control you have is to move right or left between maps on an Operation.
Now not trying to start a CC5 vs re-release debate but an option was added where a BG can retreat on morale break if they hold an exit to a map they can move onto (the BG can not move the following turn). A BG only disbands/dissolves when it can not retreat as that is seen as bigger penalty....
Posted: Sun Jun 24, 2012 12:43 pm Post subject: Re: CC5 vs CC3
Yeah, used to play alot of CC3 since the release.
CC3 rocks as:
1) it is linear and has tiny maps that offer frontal assault tactics most of time!
2) it had so huge success after CC2 that Atomic moved to CC4-5 with stratmap and non linear GC!
3) it has incredible invisible ATGs - so cool!
4) you play same maps again and again as there is no way to move to other maps until you finish those!
5) infantry suppression work really great - soldiers get unsuppressed when enemy team charges them!
6) it has awesome point system - so successful that Atomic moved to FPs in CC4-5!
7) it doesn't represent real units like battalion size BGs in CC4-5!
etc?
But, if someone state that there was more CC5 players in the European time zone than in the American time zone, then what does that mean..?
By your response i must gather that you stay up all night online every night, maybe even 24/7 and carefully count the numbers of CC players online in both European and US timezones, therefore you know all these statistics with indisputable accuraccy
Is that what you mean?
Or is that Europes greater 1st world population = larger number of CC players, that is probable.
be my quest and tell me: what's the difference between CC3 and CC4/CC5 from the tactical point of view?.To me, none whatsoever. And now, what's the difference from the strategic point of view?
There are some tactical level differences, especially relating to exit/entry VLs
CC3 rocks as:
1) it is linear and has tiny maps that offer frontal assault tactics most of time!
2) it had so huge success after CC2 that Atomic moved to CC4-5 with stratmap and non linear GC!
3) it has incredible invisible ATGs - so cool!
4) you play same maps again and again as there is no way to move to other maps until you finish those!
5) infantry suppression work really great - soldiers get unsuppressed when enemy team charges them!
6) it has awesome point system - so successful that Atomic moved to FPs in CC4-5!
7) it doesn't represent real units like battalion size BGs in CC4-5!
etc?
CC3 rox
Is that sarcasm? or do you you call it irony?
CC5 rocks
1) it is ahistorical so wannabes can try to rewrite history with different outcomes
2) it had such a huge success that Atomic died!
3) you play same maps over and over again and again as there is no way to play more than 44 maps in a campaign.
It is more likely that you will play on less than 40 maps and may play one single maps 20 plus time zzzzzzz
4) it has awesome soldier history system - so successful that at end of campaign only mortar teams have any real history
5) it doesn't represent a real command at all, because it is a fantasy world where you are a Fieldmarshall commanding several regiments and you are also several battalion commanders and dozens of company commanders as well. You are not at all in touch with your men because you are sufferring with multiple identity disorder, so realistic
etc etc etc?
CC5 rox
The biggest complaint I have with CC3 compared to CC5 is the lack of control the player has on the strategic level. You will always win or lose the war based on the side you play and the only control you have is to move right or left between maps on an Operation.....
Well we dont need to play with history, we just wanna experience simulated Close Combat at company level command.
Its not right or left, its forward or back, a company commander has little other choice as he has other supporting companies on his left and right.
.
You can win battles in CC3
You can win operations in CC3
You can win Campaigns, based on points in CC3
.
No, you cannot win WW2 as Germans in CC3
But i have some shocking news for you those who use this point to criticise CC3
Even in CC5 you CANNOT WIN WW2 AS THE GERMANS, !
SO GET OVER IT!
So CC5 still has nothing over CC3 except fantasy and multiple personality disorder
OH! WOW! HMMM, AT_Stalky notices CC players playing in European time zone more than AT_Stalky sees people playing in US Time zone AT_Stalky lives in Sweden Conclusion = AT_Stalky notices more players in Euro time zone because, being in Europe, AT_Stalky spends most of his online CC time in European time zone because most US players wont come online until AT_Stalky is well asleep as they are 6-9 hours behind Swedish time. Its no surprise that AT_Stalky does not play US people online often as AT_Stalky would have to either stay up till dawn playing or get up extremely early to play during US evening playtime
Posted: Sun Jun 24, 2012 2:53 pm Post subject: Re: CC5 vs CC3
Quote:
CC5 rocks
1) it is ahistorical so wannabes can try to rewrite history with different outcomes
wannabes try to capture Kremlin in CC3!
CC5 players try their skill to win historical operation as all the historical operations had at least 3 possible outcomes .
Quote:
2) it had such a huge success that Atomic died!
yes! as it had released CC3 2 years before that was a huge success after CC2!
Quote:
3) you play same maps over and over again and again as there is no way to play more than 44 maps in a campaign.
there are 44 maps in 1 operation making it highly detailed - of cause that's much worse than 3-4 maps per operation in CC3!
Quote:
It is more likely that you will play on less than 40 maps and may play one single maps 20 plus time zzzzzzz
lsame as CC3 that offers 3-4 maps for operation!
Quote:
4) it has awesome soldier history system - so successful that at end of campaign only mortar teams have any real history
i see you talk about CC3, why do you say that in CC5 thread? ;)
Quote:
5) it doesn't represent a real command at all, because it is a fantasy world where you are a Fieldmarshall commanding several regiments
of cause CC3 does represent real combat! But wait do we have same 15 units in CC5 but with different composition per BG?
Btw, CC5 BGs are battalion level.
Quote:
and you are also several battalion commanders and dozens of company commanders as well. You are not at all in touch with your men because you are sufferring with multiple identity disorder, so realistic
Posted: Sun Jun 24, 2012 3:21 pm Post subject: Re: CC5 vs CC3
Quote:
2) it had such a huge success that Atomic died!
yes! as it had released CC3 2 years before that was a huge success after CC2!
More proof that staunch CC5 defenders have not been in touch with the previous versions and have no real idea about CC3.
CC3 was a huge success after CC2 and it was made by MICROSOFT
Matrix games has only produced shite.
Quote:
there are 44 maps in 1 operation making it highly detailed - of cause that's much worse than 3-4 maps per operation in CC3!
Yep and all the battles take place over and over again on maybe 10 maps. ZZZZ
Quote:
wannabes try to capture Kremlin in CC3!
CC5 players try their skill to win historical operation as all the historical operations had at least 3 possible outcomes Wink.
Yep and even if you do capture the Kremlin you are pushed off, which I would say is realistic. Many operational commanders had success but if the overall strategic situation is bad a pull back is necessary anyhow.
This is completely ommitted in the bullcrap CC5 system. How can one battalion expect to change the course of history?
Quote:
yeah, it is realistic, don't be jelous Wink.
CC5 is anything but a realistic strategy game, and it ruins the tactical element. Anyone who has played Hearts of Iron 2 will know exactly what a real WW2 strategy game should look like that or CC2.
Still waiting to hear a coherent argument for why CC5 is better than CC3, and would also like posters to describe their experiences with both games (AT_Stalky for example) have you just tried CC3 or played it for a month at least?
yes! as it had released CC3 2 years before that was a huge success after CC2!
I don’t believe that. There are sales figures some ware and as I remember CC2 was the top seller of the series by far. Anyone know where those figures are?
Well, Matrix has not produced any Close Combat game… Matrix is the DISTRIBUTOR.
SCO-Simtec developed COI, Blackhand developed LSA, and now PITF, and Strategy 3 Tacics developed WAR & TLD. CCMT was developed by S3T? if I don’t remember wrong.
CC5 is anything but a realistic strategy game, and it ruins the tactical element. Anyone who has played Hearts of Iron 2 will know exactly what a real WW2 strategy game should look like that or CC2.
I believe that people can judge that by them self. And I believe ppl regard CC as a tactical game, with a strategic element. (Not the other way around)
and would also like posters to describe their experiences with both games (AT_Stalky for example) have you just tried CC3 or played it for a month at least?
Started with CC1 the first day it was sold. Stayed with Atomics CC since, and liked all versions.. CC1 was a favourite. CC2 wasn’t that cool to me, CC3 was a huge favourite, had some issues with the point system and the way one buy units that were totally unrealistic. Liked CC4 with its BGs, but saw weakness with the locked force pool, went back to CC3, and played both for some time. Locked BGs was fixed in CC5. Tried COI, but was like CC3 to me. Tried CCMT, but lacking continuous battles, though saw potential in the APC and some more things… Tried WaR but it was not finished. Tried LSA, but still w8ing for the final patch… Have not bothered with LSA.. Have some hopes for PITF, but I cant give a rational answer why I still hope it will be good.
Posted: Sun Jun 24, 2012 4:54 pm Post subject: Re: CC5 vs CC3
Quote:
Well, Matrix has not produced any Close Combat game… Matrix is the DISTRIBUTOR.
SCO-Simtec developed COI, Blackhand developed LSA, and now PITF, and Strategy 3 Tacics developed WAR & TLD. CCMT was developed by S3T? if I don’t remember wrong.
I had thought Microsoft collabed in the making of the game and basically took the CC2 game and microsofted it into CC3, that the atomic team were not the same peeps after CC3, and that Matrix created the re-releases, SSI distributed and collabed with CC4 and CC5. I'm pretty sure this is right correct me if I'm wrong.
Many good video game producers go down for one reason and another its not always to do with how good the games they make, Bullfrog for example or Looking glass studios (who made the classic system shock 2)
In any case it is certain CC4 and CC5 had something to do with killing Atomic.
The annoying thing for me is that with the simple addition or improvement and removal of ridiculous rules in CC5 would make it a better game than CC3 for me personally. But the battle group nonsense in CC5 just kills it for me.
Posted: Sun Jun 24, 2012 5:25 pm Post subject: Re: CC5 vs CC3
I have no idea how the team composition changed in Atomic. It seem to be a natural thing in any business that ppl come and go. Atomic-MS collabed, resources. Later Atomic-SSI.
CSO-sim was owned by some CC fans, not Matrix. The S3T team is not the exact same as the Blackhand team, composition has changed.
Quote:
In any case it is certain CC4 and CC5 had something to do with killing Atomic.
We know that It keep the series going for ~2,5-3 more years.
We don’t know how competition in the genre affected the sales. CC is grapixly shit.
Posted: Sun Jun 24, 2012 6:03 pm Post subject: Re: CC5 vs CC3
Quote:
More proof that staunch CC5 defenders have not been in touch with the previous versions and have no real idea about CC3.
haha, acebar, i used to play all the versions since 1996.
used to win Pz_Clan Tournament in CC3 back in 2002 (or 3?). Show me your stats ;)
Quote:
CC3 was a huge success after CC2 and it was made by MICROSOFT
haha, Microsoft was destributer like SSI after.
Quote:
Matrix games has only produced shite
Matrix came in charge like 8 years after last Atomic game...
Quote:
Yep and all the battles take place over and over again on maybe 10 maps. ZZZZ
definetly you talk about CC3 as you play 3-4 maps per operation forth and back.
anything to say about CC5?
Quote:
Anyone who has played Hearts of Iron 2 will know exactly what a real WW2 strategy game should look like that or CC2
you are funny, CC5 is the evolution of CC2 - CC3 was just an dead-end appendix .
Quote:
Yep and even if you do capture the Kremlin you are pushed off, which I would say is realistic.
thank you confirming how CC3 is linear and that player doesn't affect the campaign unlike CC5 GC where player's skill can be the difference between loss and victory. Like it was in reality.
the germans weren't at Kremlin walls in reality btw - totally unrealistic .
Quote:
Many operational commanders had success but if the overall strategic situation is bad a pull back is necessary anyhow.
totally agree - like example CC3 doesn't give you chance to win as the germans unlike CC5 btw ;)
Quote:
This is completely ommitted in the bullcrap CC5 system. How can one battalion expect to change the course of history
1 battalion - sure you've tried CC5?
Quote:
CC5 is anything but a realistic strategy game, and it ruins the tactical element.
wow i second that but what can we do against so many? ;)
Quote:
Still waiting to hear a coherent argument for why CC5 is better than CC3, and would also like posters to describe their experiences with both games (AT_Stalky for example) have you just tried CC3 or played it for a month at least?
mate, as i mentioned above, i used to play CC3 alot, and only vs human so yes, i can judge. Can you?
Posted: Sun Jun 24, 2012 7:36 pm Post subject: Re: CC5 vs CC3
Quote:
This is completely ommitted in the bullcrap CC5 system. How can one battalion expect to change the course of history
1 battalion - sure you've tried CC5?
Dima can you read english or just laugh all the time? One battalian cannot change the course of history in CC3, it retreats and moves forward with the overall movement of the frontline.
The bullshit system in CC5 doesn't even allow battalions to retreat they just vanish into thin air.
Posted: Sun Jun 24, 2012 8:07 pm Post subject: Re: CC5 vs CC3
Quote:
Dima can you read english or just laugh all the time?
Acebars, yes you are right, i really laugh at your arguments.
Anyway, when you start reading Russian i will accept this argument.
Quote:
One battalian cannot change the course of history in CC3, it retreats and moves forward with the overall movement of the frontline.
why did you enter my argument with AGS if you are not ready for that?
but well, iam good today, so i will repeat: CC5 has capability to recreate single operation in high details and in such scale where even 1 battalion can change history if it is in right place right time.
of cause CC3 is better having 3-4 maps per operation (instead of 44 for CC5) and one fights forth and back.
And ye, there are at least 27 battalions in CC5 .
Quote:
The bullshit system in CC5 doesn't even allow battalions to retreat they just vanish into thin air
of cause awesome system of CC3 does allow your teams to retreat, but some teams that were close to enemy do vanich in thin air, don;t they?
now picture whole batallion was close to the enemy .
Quote:
I only have been able to play multi since gameranger, never done stats in my life, happy to meet online I want actual battle proof of your CC3 claims
mate, i don't need to proove anything to you - there are enough players in community who know me.
Can you say the same?
Quote:
I'm looking for my copy of CCV, maybe you can show me what I missed? I played it extensively before putting it away for good, and I was disappointed.
lol i will not as i don't play with noobs, sorry mate.
Posted: Sun Jun 24, 2012 8:38 pm Post subject: Re: CC5 vs CC3
Dima wrote:
mate, i don't need to proove anything to you - there are enough players in community who know me.
Can you say the same? llol i will not as i don't play with noobs, sorry mate.
For starters, I'm not your "mate". You've pretty much showed your true colours then, a load of bullshit you can't back up, maybe your internet friends can give you a medal?
Quote:
of cause awesome system of CC3 does allow your teams to retreat, but some teams that were close to enemy do vanich in thin air, don;t they?
Yep thats because they have to surrender not vanish only to reappear 50km behind lines. Your arguments are incoherent and fanciful.
If you can't back it up on a battlefield then stop talking shit and run along and play with your internet friends.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You can download files in this forum
In August of 2004, Zappi, Homba, Bambam887, RedScorpion and MOOXE all pitched
in to create this Close Combat site. I would to thank all the people who have visited
and found this site to thier liking. I hope you had time to check out some
of the great Close Combat mods and our forums. I'd also like to thank
all the members of our volunteer staff that have helped over
the years, and all our users that contributed to this site!
) they will have started with IV or V and then later "tried" CC2 or CC3 or one of the crappy re-releases.
