Welcome to Close Combat Series
  Login or Register Home  ·  Downloads  ·  Forums  ·  Combat Camera  ·  Help  

  Survey
Do incapacitations count as a soldier's kills?

Yes
No



Results
Polls

Votes 447
Comments: 0

  Shout Box!!

Only registered users can shout. Please login or create an account.

  Main Menu
Articles & News  
    Help
    Player`s News
    Site News
    Multiplayer
    Terrain Challenge
    Boot Camp
Community  
    Forums
    Downloads
    Combat Camera
    MOOXE @ Youtube
    Statistics
Members  
    Private Messages
    Your Account
    Logout

  Donations
Anonymous - $25.00
08/15/2022

Anonymous - $25.00
08/15/2022

Anonymous - $25.00
12/18/2021

Anonymous - $100.00
11/08/2021

Anonymous - $15.00
04/09/2021

Anonymous - $100.00
04/05/2021

Anonymous - $20.00
02/20/2021

Anonymous - $10.00
12/29/2020

Anonymous - $1.00
11/06/2020

ZAPPI4 - $20.00
10/10/2020

Find our site useful? Make a small donation to show your support.



Search for at
Close Combat Series Advanced Search


Goto page 1, 2  Next
 Author
Message
 
Troger

Rep: 17.5
votes: 2


PostPosted: Sun Mar 02, 2008 11:18 pm Post subject: Future changes to a Close Combat game Reply with quote

Preface; I made this list of changes a while ago with the intention of posting them on CSO's forums. Never did, I guess I felt people there would oddball suggestions and the like. Anyhow, these were changes I thought were important, I hope one day I see a CC with some of these improvements.


A list of changes I think should be on the top of the agenda in the future CC development, in no special order. Please suggest logical and sensible changes you would like to see (no Panzerschreck-MG42-Med pack totting Ubergrenadiers, you've people got the wrong game).

Most of these suggestions where taken from various threads at CSO, no credit was given to the person(s) who thought of them. Just be proud of yourself! Also some of these features may of been features in certain CC's but are being stated so they are all in ONE game. Some of these are just recycled from previous CC games or upgrades to existing features.

- Both point based and stratmap/BG system in one game (work it out! PEOPLE WANT BOTH!!)
- Ability to make the game windowed. How many times have you waited for your opponent to spend five hours planning out the next world war -- and thought, wow I could be writing that email right now or be looking at picture? Or maybe hide tried to hide CC from the boss?
- Larger screen resolutions (A most for larger map sizes)
- New commands (Assault: Units ASSAULT the target, simple. Hide: Ambush will not suffice, there must be an order which allows YOU the right to control when you give away your position, any others?)
- Ability to blow bridges (cc2)
- Scale of soldiers to vehicles and vehicles to the landscape (houses, etc) (too small)
- Increased multiplayer stability (especially if it will have the option of more than two players)
- Mount/Dismount *
- Tank pathfinding (this should be flawless, without question. If I tell it to go 5 meters to the right, it goes 5 meters to the right.)
- Vehicles that can travel/move in deep water; DD Shermans,etc. (Supposedly can already by done)
- Scenario editor (like that of CC3's for point based games, but most have FREE DEPLOY and a CCREQ integrity and not restrictive)
- Larger map sizes *
- Ability to watch/record games *
- Password protected GCs
- The ability to take over your teammates force in case of disconnection, or voluntary withdrawal. (In more than 1v1 games)
- Viewable forcepools during the strategic phase.
- Keep it 2D (FOREVER, CC7,CC8,CC9.... a 3d CC would be a real time pause-fest nightmare or make it a side project; 2D CC offers enough)
- Mafi's, TJ's, ArmeeGruppeSud's modability suggestions (on a few threads)
- Built in plugin manager *
- Dig In (although it would take awhile and be of little use in game with a low timer)
- Editable timer (like CC3's)
- Ability to tell a squad to exit a map
- Controllable vehicle crews (Once they bail, can already be done but code them so it's like that in the first place)
- Ability to tell vehicles to bail out (to save experienced crew members and use them when they are refitted)
- Ability to zoom in/zoom out (just like CC3, and the ability to zoom farther out without going to the all map view)
- Command teams have more influence on the actions of surrounding teams
- Ability to have more then 15 units (also the ability to allow hosts or scenario creators to determine how many spots your allowed to use for each side)
- Ability to displace and tow artillery and AT guns to alternate locations (must for huge maps)
- Cheat prevention, data match ups and signifying when player has different files from another player
- Refit, Rest, Rearm system of CC3
- A button which, when a unit is selected and that button pushed,allows you to see the whole FOV of that unit. This has been in games like Commandos and a few others. Would help assist in placement.
- Ability to deploy tank obstacles, mines, etc before a map, maybe they can be purchased? *
- Negative elevation or a one point standard of elevation on maps. This would give trenches, shellholes, and other places of depression better cover over there surrounding land. Was this never thought of?

Most importantly:

Show equal attention (if not more) to the H2H experience as it is those in community who have kept this game alive.





Luckily some of these changes have already been instituted in military released versions of CC so a lot of the fixes above are already done. Those that I think are already implemented in military versions of CC have an asterisk, meaning they will be in any FUTURE or PRESENT commercial releases.

Changes/Addons I think would be interesting topics to discuss:

- Reinforcements (would be worked out before hand and used as a 'reserve' if called on'). But what would be the point of this, besides being able to slightly deceive your enemy? If you want a reserve keep them in the back of the map and don't use them till needed.
- Ability to choose which floor squads go into
- Ability to choose HE/AP ammo
- Ability to select where individual soldiers go (to some degree within 5m's of squad leader)
- Ability to attach BG's to other BG's (in stratmap/bg based games, ie. Heavy tank battalion attachs to infantry regiment, BG now consists of whatever tank/command tanks used by that battalion, this makes sense for Germans cause they did it a lot also for the Allies)


Last edited by Troger on Mon Mar 03, 2008 11:04 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Joe98

Rep: 12.2


PostPosted: Mon Mar 03, 2008 5:52 am Post subject: Re: Future changes to a Close Combat game Reply with quote

Troger wrote:

Those that I think are already implemented in military versions of CC have an asterisk, meaning they would be in any future commercial release.



Already available in Close Combat Modern Tactics (where is Schrecken when you need him?)

Get CCMT and see what is there. Afterwards you can comment on those features.

-
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Troger

Rep: 17.5
votes: 2


PostPosted: Mon Mar 03, 2008 6:03 am Post subject: Re: Future changes to a Close Combat game Reply with quote

Joe98 wrote:

Already available in Close Combat Modern Tactics

Troger wrote:

Those that I think are already implemented in military versions of CC have an asterisk, meaning they would be in any future commercial release.


Note the bold.


Last edited by Troger on Sun Feb 27, 2011 7:03 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
schrecken

Rep: 195
votes: 15


PostPosted: Mon Mar 03, 2008 10:02 am Post subject: Reply with quote

I don't kow how you look at the world Trogs

but
CCMT is neither a military release or a Future commercial release.

It is a current commercial release and you can buy it here:

http://www.matrixgames.com/games/store.asp?gid=350

and get the first mods maps etc here

http://closecombat.matrixgames.com/ccmt/ccmt.html
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website GameRanger Account
 
Senior_Drill

Rep: 9.7
votes: 2


PostPosted: Mon Mar 03, 2008 10:23 am Post subject: Re: Future changes to a Close Combat game Reply with quote

Geez, Troger, feeling a little touchy are we?

This is a good list, Troger. I notice that you do say it is an old one list and not completely updated, so the asterisked ones that are in CCMT are still included. But still worthy of discussion.

Troger wrote:
Preface; I made this list of changes a while ago with the intention of posting them on CSO's forums. Never did, I guess I felt people there would oddball suggestions and the like. Anyhow, these were changes I thought were important, I hope one day I see a CC with some of these improvements.

A list of changes I think should be on the top of the agenda in the future CC development, in no special order. Please suggest logical and sensible changes you would like to see (no Panzerschreck-MG42-Med pack totting Ubergrenadiers, you've people got the wrong game).

Most of these suggestions where taken from various threads at CSO, no credit was given to the person(s) who thought of them. Just be proud of yourself! Also some of these features may of been features in certain CC's but are being stated so they are all in ONE game. Some of these are just recycled from previous CC games or upgrades to existing features.


My comments are (and I am in no way connected to Matrix or Strategy 3 Tactics, I'm just a player now, so these are just my opinions):

Quote:
- Both point based and stratmap/BG system in one game (work it out! PEOPLE WANT BOTH!!)


This one is worthy of an entire thread of it's own where suggestions of how to model it can be knocked around. I've seen a couple ideas on this that seemed workable; hopefully someone can remember the details.

Quote:
- Ability to make the game windowed. How many times have you waited for your opponent to spend five hours planning out the next world war -- and thought, wow I could be writing that email right now or be looking at picture? Or maybe hide tried to hide CC from the boss?


I heartily agree with this one! Heck, it'd even help in modding to be able to write notes during the action.

Quote:
- Larger screen resolutions (A most for larger map sizes)


CCMT supports some large ones, but on my income, it'll be a long time before I ever use them. We need to make a full list of screen resolutions and what might be anticipated in the next few years to ensure that the dev's get it covered.

Quote:
- New commands (Assault: Units ASSAULT the target, simple. Hide: Ambush will not suffice, there must be an order which allows YOU the right to control when you give away your position, any others?)


Agree. Hide - will not move or fire until ordered to or fired on. Ambush - sort of like now, but maybe hold fire until the enemy is 15 to 20 meters away instead of the 30 or so now. Sneak/Move Covert like now, Move like now, Move Fast like now, Assault - a Move Fast where the team does not go to ground when enemy is spotted or they are fired on and Fanatical Assault - a Banzi charge or Berserker charge.

Quote:
- Ability to blow bridges (cc2)


Yes, specific bridges on specific maps, but not every bridge unless the map is coded that way. (Engineers need time to wire a bridge with lots of explosives; more than a squad can carry.) I would like to see the demo charges used against building walls and fences to open a path. This needs an in-game ability to place it, take cover and command detonate it, only part of which is in the latest military sim.

Quote:
- Scale of soldiers to vehicles and vehicles to the landscape (houses, etc) (too small)


A unified scale has been talked about for years. Which way do you mean? Buildings and tanks to the current soldier scale? I've tried the scaled down soldier mod and it loses too much of the detail I like to see.

Quote:
- Increased multiplayer stability (especially if it will have the option of more than two players)


That is getting there with CCMT, but there still are some issues, the biggest one in just getting connected through routers and firewalls and game lobbies. If nothing else, some test that tells all the players who has the lowest capability machine and give a probablility of completing the battle. For connectivity issues, there should be a wizard that tries to connect to a test battle server and can walk a player through any router, port forwarding and firewall problems.

Quote:
- Mount/Dismount *


In CCMT, but could use some fine tuning. Especially with the dismount that clusters the team into one spot. They don't fan out until they get a movement order.

Quote:
- Tank pathfinding (this should be flawless, without question. If I tell it to go 5 meters to the right, it goes 5 meters to the right.)


I know from earlier discussions that the square "hex" system that CC uses is largely at fault for pathing problems and all the programming "fixes" in the world can't solve it entirely. Hopefully the new engine being done for CC6 will use a true hexoginal grid that is smaller than 2 meters per hex.

Quote:
- Vehicles that can travel/move in deep water; DD Shermans,etc. (Supposedly can already by done)


It can be done in CC2 and CC3, not to mention CC4, CC5 and CCMT. It's just a matter of the Elements.txt/.adb coding and limiting one of the vehicle move types to just the amphibious ones (Trucks, for example). What is needed is a sixth vehicle move type - Amphibious.

Quote:
- Scenario editor (like that of CC3's for point based games, but most have FREE DEPLOY and a CCREQ integrity and not restrictive)


Yeap, CC3 style adding an EXACT option to bypass the the three or so different BG adjustments the game makes, putting Rarity and Upgrade back in, PLUS being able to edit the Force Pool (lots of these, none of those, a few of these). Also retains a "historical levels" option.

Quote:
- Larger map sizes *


In CCMT. What is needed is an Any Size (within some reason) that does not need black "out of bounds" borders for small maps and could be at least 2000 meters square or "taller" than it is wide, like 3500 meters X 1200 meters.

Quote:
- Ability to watch/record games *


Improved past CCMT with a fast forward or advance to time XX:00 ability. Also the replay file can be saved by all players, not just the host (who then has to send the replay files to the rest of the players). The replay files need to be just one file, not a set of four or five different files.

Quote:
- Password protected GCs


Uhh, maybe. So long as it is like most games where the PW is always at the same offset, so I can hex edit the PW out to use the GC as an editing base of my own. Modding vs. cheating. What is the issue with password protecting the GC/

Quote:
- The ability to take over your teammates force in case of disconnection, or voluntary withdrawal. (In more than 1v1 games)


Yes, or at the very least, have the AI take them over and actually do something with them.

Quote:
- Viewable forcepools during the strategic phase.


Yes. It is sometimes hard to remember which BG needs to be withdrawn and which are still good to fight after coming back to a GC after a few days or weeks.

Quote:
- Keep it 2D (FOREVER, CC7,CC8,CC9.... a 3d CC would be a real time pause-fest nightmare or make it a side project; 2D CC offers enough)


Amen, Brother!

Quote:
- Mafi's, TJ's, ArmeeGruppeSud's modability suggestions (on a few threads)


Plus putting most text strings used in game messages, briefings and debriefings into editable text files. Make it easier to change all "The German forces, the Germans will, the Germans are" to "the bumfookistani" or name that has more or few characters without having to worry about messing up the .exe or .dll offsets. Or being impossible to do at all, as is currently the case.

Quote:
- Built in plugin manager *


But with the functionality of the CoI version, not the older, limited file handling of the CCMT version, and with enough open architecture to add new games or now stand alone modded games to it.

Quote:
- Dig In (although it would take awhile and be of little use in game with a low timer)


In CCMT and somewhat useful. I'd like to see it taken one step further and allow me to decide which teams start the battle already dug in (emplaceable trenches - a feature in the latest military sim).

Quote:
- Editable timer (like CC3's)


Like CCMT's? I still like Mick (xe<5)'s concept of the count up timer with a varible end time. A thirty minute game could randomly end at the 27:25 minute mark or run to 33:00. It would make the "VL rush" tactic a much greater gamble. I'd also like to see an END BATTLE NOW option. This is different than the TRUCE button: it ends the battle with a Win/Loss. Has to be selected by all human players. Very useful in games where everyone has run out of effective units (or time to play) or against the AI when it has been shot up into nothing but the VL camping MG team.

Quote:
- Ability to tell a squad to exit a map


Yes, to a point. Yes to get that mangled squad or damaged tank out of the battle so it can be reconstituted or fixed for the next one, but not the entire BG without the old "Flee" button penalties just to get off a map you are probably going to lose.

Quote:
- Controllable vehicle crews (Once they bail, can already be done but code them so it's like that in the first place)


In CCMT. Proximity of Leader teams helps get them to recover morale faster so that they can be moved to safety or used as a rear guard.

Quote:
- Ability to tell vehicles to bail out (to save experienced crew members and use them when they are refitted)


Yep. This should have been around since CC4.

Quote:
- Ability to zoom in/zoom out (just like CC3, and the ability to zoom farther out without going to the all map view)


I'm not convinced there is any value in the zoom in done like in CC3. The tanks look nice, but the map becomes pixelated. It also requires a lot more work out of modders to match it. But like the partial zoom out suggestion, if it could be done with a screen resolution change (only the game map, not the monitors and status bars), then do it.

Quote:
- Command teams have more influence on the actions of surrounding teams


I need more specifics on what the influence would be to form an opinion one this one.

Quote:
- Ability to have more then 15 units (also the ability to allow hosts or scenario creators to determine how many spots your allowed to use for each side)


This one deserves some serious thought and discussion. One of the main issues of this suggestion is how many more? Is 20 enough? Should it be 25 or 30? Does really CC need to go from the Co/Plt level it is at to a full battalion and would it still be CC? There are GUI issues as well, because there is only so much screen real estate available to display usable and informative team icons and team data. In game, the more teams, the larger the soldier monitors and the less battle map. Losing the monitor is not an option, either, IMHO. I do like the idea of reducing the number of slots available in open force pool battles.

Quote:
- Ability to displace and tow artillery and AT guns to alternate locations (must for huge maps)


I'd like to see this, but only if the AI can handle it in an automated way. I don't want to have to back the dang prime mover up just so in order to make the hookup. Vehicle pathing is one thing, but having to get within a meter of the gun's trail hook is another animal altoghter. Also at issue is whether the prime mover is a seperate team taking up a slot or considered a part of the gun and crew. And what happens if the gun or the tow vehicle is hit before a hookup or when towing? There's some more thought needed for this one to be able to present a valid idea. Others thoughts on this?

Quote:
- Cheat prevention, data match ups and signifying when player has different files from another player


Yes, and to block the cheaters is only the least of it. This is around in the latest mil sim, so will undoubtedly make CC6. The check is done in the multiplayer screen as the player joins and has really helped in testing to ensure everyone had the same versions of the .exe. It needs to be expanded to include the a check on the data files and graphics as well.

Quote:
- Refit, Rest, Rearm system of CC3


Covered above in the first point, but has to have a BG/strat map capability as well. You are on a Depot, you can get more, you are X many map away from a Depot, you get fewer, you are cut off, you get much less.

Quote:
- A button which, when a unit is selected and that button pushed,allows you to see the whole FOV of that unit. This has been in games like Commandos and a few others. Would help assist in placement.


Greatly dependent on the type of game engine and how the maps are made. If this can't be done, then on the overview map, give a top down LOS and effective weapons range fan. Select the unit, press the button and everything it can see is shaded one color, and the kill area of it's weapons in another (or crossed hatched or some other texture).

Quote:
- Ability to deploy tank obstacles, mines, etc before a map, maybe they can be purchased? *


In the latest military sim and is set up in the scenerio editor. The player gets to select from those made available in the BG screen and then places them in the deploy phase. I'm not sure how this should be done in a req point stat map system. But it should reflect time and energy, not just a point value. If you have just moved onto the map and are attacking, all you get available is wire obstacles. New map, but defending, some tank obstacles, wire and mines, but your men start the battle closer to fatigue than would be normal. This is the third battle you are defending on this map, you get more mines and stronger tank obstacles.

I don't like the idea of having to spend points to buy the obstacles, especially if I need them to refit, upgrade or add teams. I'd like to see a system that puts the cost directly on the battle. The more I place obstacles, the more tired my troops are during the battle and the more of them that will need to be put on Rest the next battle.

Quote:
- Negative elevation or a one point standard of elevation on maps. This would give trenches, shellholes, and other places of depression better cover over there surrounding land. Was this never thought of?


Yes, a long time ago and is a thing controlled by the way the map is coded. A map with a base elevation of 1 doesn't allow much for the engine to work with, as it will not use negative values, whereas a base elevation of 10 or 15 allows for lower places. There was a coding example of ruined cellars and basements done a few years ago, I don't recall by who, but the cellar floor was 3 meters lower than the surrounding terrain. You had to get right up to the edge to see (or shoot) the soldiers in the cellar.

Quote:
Most importantly:

Show equal attention (if not more) to the H2H experience as it is those in community who have kept this game alive.


Luckily some of these changes have already been instituted in military released versions of CC so a lot of the fixes above are already done. Those that I think are already implemented in military versions of CC have an asterisk, meaning they would be in any future commercial release.

Changes/Addons I think would be interesting topics to discuss:

-Reinforcements (would be worked out before hand and used as a 'reserve' if called on'). But what would be the point of this, besides being able to slightly deceive your enemy? If you want a reserve keep them in the back of the map and don't use them till needed.


Partially working in the latest mil sim, so we can expect it to go forward in CC6. Last I saw of it, reinforcements spawned on a map edge at a preset time and location and came in atrucking, not just standing there. These, like the off board artillery and airstrikes could only be controlled by the commanders of each side and were over and above his 15 slots. Changes made to CCMT in the patch suggest that this may no longer be the case.

Quote:
- Ability to choose which floor squads go into


Been told time and again that the current engine just can't do it because an element is an element is an element. Hopefully the new engine can do layered elements.

Quote:
- Ability to choose HE/AP ammo


Yes. Too many times I've had a tank use up it's HE potshotting infantry and not be ready when the other tank showed up, or use an HE round on a single man when a hole from an AP round would have done nicely and save the HE for something that really needs blowing up.

Quote:
- Ability to select where individual soldiers go (to some degree within 5m's of squad leader)


I totally agree. "Take that sub-machine gun soldier out of the only window and put the BAR there instead, you dummies:"

Quote:
- Ability to attach BG's to other BG's (in stratmap/bg based games, ie. Heavy tank battalion attachs to infantry regiment, BG now consists of whatever tank/command tanks used by that battalion, this makes sense for Germans cause they did it a lot also for the Allies)


This has more or less been there since CC4, where 2 and 3 regiments and kampgruppes sharing the same force pool. Even up to Divisions, IIRC. What can't be done in CC4 is move part of different force pool to another. Is this what you are refering to? I don't have a problem with that, but who decides what to move? Does it automatically take it's full BG allotment, or do you get to say, "take half of the MkIV's, but leave the StgIII's?

I'd add:

- Howitzers and Self Propelled Howitzers that can use the brown indirect fire LOS line, targeting recticule and order dot like mortars when given an indirect fire order and the green direct LOS line, recticule and order dot when given a direct fire order. (You'll all see why in a couple of months.)

- Ability to start the battle with troops already mounted in vehicles. Give this ability back to the AI, but make it a bit wiser on when to dismount. (The AI had this in CCM, but once loaded, the teams were loath to dismount even when it would be tactially brilliant, and especially when it was tactically expedient. It was turned off for a later mil sim and remained off for CCMT.)

- Change dismounting to an order dot. Let the player decide to dismount to the rear, left, or right (and dismount in a normal "extended" order in best cover, not clustered on one hex).

- Enable the game engine to recognize and use any and all voice files. If a side is coded as Italians, it should use the IITVox.sfx and EITVox.sfx. And use the ITRanks icons added to the gadget files. CCMT has three nationalities in the RedTeams file, but can only use two rank and medal sets added in the patch and one of those is broken.

- Change the way the code looks for gadgets in the gadgets files. It should find a gadget by name, not position in the file. This would allow the addition of more unit icons, map lables and commanders.

- Expand the number of Rubble To and Crush To graphics in the Terrain file to allow a wider and more varied battle damage look to the maps. Allow this to be moddable.


C'est magnifique, mais ce n'est pas la guerre.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Senior_Drill

Rep: 9.7
votes: 2


PostPosted: Mon Mar 03, 2008 11:24 am Post subject: Re: Future changes to a Close Combat game Reply with quote

BTW, Troger, though it may be only his second post here, Joe98 has been around CC and all the other CC forums for a lot longer than you have. And he has always been very civil, something that you don't appear to be able to do. It's the unnecessary, rude and hostile responses like yours that have been a less than appealing trademark of this forum.

Troger wrote:
Joe98 wrote:
Troger wrote:

Those that I think are already implemented in military versions of CC have an asterisk, meaning they would be in any future commercial release.



Already available in Close Combat Modern Tactics (where is Schrecken when you need him?)

Get CCMT and see what is there. Afterwards you can comment on those features.

-


Yea, I know, are you stupid? I suppose this is why I never posted this text. Because of obnoxious comments like yours 'Joe98'.

The point of this point is to shed some light of features that people should be incorporated with a future CC release (that isn't a worthless re-release).

Joe98 wrote:

Already available in Close Combat Modern Tactics

Troger wrote:

Those that I think are already implemented in military versions of CC have an asterisk, meaning they would be in any future commercial release.


Note the bold. You just repeated what I said, so what's your point Joe? Just interested in repeating things I said? Great second post Joe.


C'est magnifique, mais ce n'est pas la guerre.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Pzt_Kevin_dtn

Rep: 10.9


PostPosted: Mon Mar 03, 2008 2:16 pm Post subject: Re: Future changes to a Close Combat game Reply with quote

Senior_Drill wrote:


Quote:
- Both point based and stratmap/BG system in one game (work it out! PEOPLE WANT BOTH!!)


This one is worthy of an entire thread of it's own where suggestions of how to model it can be knocked around. I've seen a couple ideas on this that seemed workable; hopefully someone can remember the details.

Quote:
- Increased multiplayer stability (especially if it will have the option of more than two players)


That is getting there with CCMT, but there still are some issues, the biggest one in just getting connected through routers and firewalls and game lobbies. If nothing else, some test that tells all the players who has the lowest capability machine and give a probablility of completing the battle. For connectivity issues, there should be a wizard that tries to connect to a test battle server and can walk a player through any router, port forwarding and firewall problems.

Quote:
- Larger map sizes *


In CCMT. What is needed is an Any Size (within some reason) that does not need black "out of bounds" borders for small maps and could be at least 2000 meters square or "taller" than it is wide, like 3500 meters X 1200 meters.


Quote:
- Cheat prevention, data match ups and signifying when player has different files from another player


Yes, and to block the cheaters is only the least of it. This is around in the latest mil sim, so will undoubtedly make CC6. The check is done in the multiplayer screen as the player joins and has really helped in testing to ensure everyone had the same versions of the .exe. It needs to be expanded to include the a check on the data files and graphics as well.



I appreciate the list that has been created here and think that there a a lot of ideas that I agree with but I have chosen to comment on only those listed

Special Notes
- I play h2h games very heavily and rarely play single player so much of my perspective comes from the mulitplayer viewpoint.
- I am NOT a modder and I have no technical expertise, I am strictly a heavy h2h player.

1. Point Base System - I don't really care for this system but I consider myself as open minded and would love to better understand the strategic mentality around this system. I much prefer the CCV strat system. So my core question is WHY do people like/want a point based system?

2. Multiplayer stability - I agree completley. I think our multiplayer environment is greatly limited because of the complexity involved in setting up firewalls, routers etc. Why is it that I can play a number of other mulitplayer games online h2h and I don't have to do a single thing to setup the capability?

3. Larger map sizes - I would not make them too large. OR I would suggest that the available slots be tied to the size of a map. My concern is that a 1v1 game with 15 slots per side creates a game of sneaking around and limited contact. A smaller make forces Close Combat, hence the name of the game. Now if we have a larger map then make 30 slots vs 30 slots available of something. I want to fight and not just try to sneak beind the lines for position.

4. Cheat Prevention
WHAT?!? - This is the first open comment that I have ever read on this topic. I have fought 100's if not over a 1000 h2h battles and have often wondered about this. I consider myself a decent h2h player who is capable of handling an assault or staging a good defense. But I have fought a few battles in my CC career where I had a good BG with capable forces and I got walked over. My forces couldn't hit the broad side of a barn and my opponent killed everything in his path. So after such battles I often wondered if a "knowledgable" person is able to tweak the code to give themselves an advantage. I always assumed that if someone attempted this that the game would crash because of conflicting files. Now I do NOT know whether such games were the result of file manipulation or not; it could be that my opponent just got the better of me in those few choice battles. But it did give cause to reflect.

This completely ticks me off if people are actually manipulating code to their advantage AND are still able to engage in a stable fight. This puts a bitter taste in my mouth thinking about this and it sullies the integrity of the game. I guess I have been naive all this time. This reminds me of one of my very first h2h battles against a complete stranger. He setup a SINGLE battle with me attacking into a map as the Allies. When the game started I was facing 10 Tiger tanks... needless to say it was over in about 2 min. Shame on anyone who feels that their skills aren't adequate enough and need to resort to cheating via file manipulation to get a win.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Senior_Drill

Rep: 9.7
votes: 2


PostPosted: Mon Mar 03, 2008 6:44 pm Post subject: Re: Future changes to a Close Combat game Reply with quote

Pzt_Kevin_dtn wrote:


1. Point Base System - I don't really care for this system but I consider myself as open minded and would love to better understand the strategic mentality around this system. I much prefer the CCV strat system. So my core question is WHY do people like/want a point based system?


In the CC3 grand campaign system, a player starts out with a low officer rank few points, so in the first few battles may only have 3 to 6 units. He has to accumulate victory points to gain promotions to be able to have all 15 of the slots available to him, let alone be able to afford to fill them. Then there is the challange of deciding what units to keep, which to repair/refit, which to upgrade later in the war and what types to add for the coming battle or battles. in your one battle group. It is easier to also make single battles and operations where the entire list of units, or only historicaly available unit are available.

The CC4 and CC5 system is not as flexible in this regard. One can't create custom or "what if" battle in the Battle maker without doing some file editing beforehand. However, many people like the strategic map movement options better than the linear progression of battles that CC3 is limited to for the ability to control one's destiny by choosing where and when to fight with several different battle groups.

A blending of the two would allow the player to grow and develop his battle groups while also having the stratigic movement capabilities. There would also need to be a historical campaign option to recreate actual battles.

The blending, along with a more robust Battle Maker, would satisfy both camps by retaining the best parts of the two different systems.

Quote:
2. Multiplayer stability - I agree completley. I think our multiplayer environment is greatly limited because of the complexity involved in setting up firewalls, routers etc. Why is it that I can play a number of other mulitplayer games online h2h and I don't have to do a single thing to setup the capability?


The first three games, CC, CC2 and CC3, were published by Microsoft and were heavily encoded to use MS's gaming zone. The two other publishers for CC4 and CC5 did not, or could not change this, so the games stayed keyed to MS with a 1997 gaming architecture code base. It was not necessary to change this for the military sims and was economically impractical for the re-release of CC3 and for CCMT, because it is so deeply woven into what is basically an outdated code.

That's why the dev's are working on a new game engine for CC6, which will hopefully make all the connectivity issues moot.

Quote:
3. Larger map sizes - I would not make them too large. OR I would suggest that the available slots be tied to the size of a map. My concern is that a 1v1 game with 15 slots per side creates a game of sneaking around and limited contact. A smaller make forces Close Combat, hence the name of the game. Now if we have a larger map then make 30 slots vs 30 slots available of something. I want to fight and not just try to sneak beind the lines for position.


I'd like to see the large maps for multiple player games, but you are right, they are too big for single or three and four player games. So, like you suggest, a large map that is for the five on five and the ability to cut out slices of that map for progressivly smaller player combinations.

Quote:
4. Cheat Prevention
WHAT?!? - This is the first open comment that I have ever read on this topic. I have fought 100's if not over a 1000 h2h battles and have often wondered about this. I consider myself a decent h2h player who is capable of handling an assault or staging a good defense. But I have fought a few battles in my CC career where I had a good BG with capable forces and I got walked over. My forces couldn't hit the broad side of a barn and my opponent killed everything in his path. So after such battles I often wondered if a "knowledgable" person is able to tweak the code to give themselves an advantage. I always assumed that if someone attempted this that the game would crash because of conflicting files. This completely ticks me off if you are telling me that people can manipulate the code to their advantage AND still engage in a stable fight. This puts a bitter taste in my mouth thinking about this and it sullies the integrity of the game. I guess I have been naive all this time. This reminds me of one of my very first h2h battles against a complete stranger. He setup a SINGLE battle with me attacking into a map as the Allies. When the game started I was facing 10 Tiger tanks... needless to say it was over in about 2 min. Shame on anyone who feels that their skills aren't adequate enough and need to resort to cheating via file manipulation to get a win.


The only type of cheating that I'm aware of is the type you discribe. Pet battles and maps weighted to the host player. However, a file check system would also help when players might have different versions of a mod. Catching the mis-match before the game starts (and probably crashes) saves everybody time and frustration.


C'est magnifique, mais ce n'est pas la guerre.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Pzt_Kevin_dtn

Rep: 10.9


PostPosted: Mon Mar 03, 2008 8:20 pm Post subject: Re: Future changes to a Close Combat game Reply with quote

[quote="Senior_Drill"]
Pzt_Kevin_dtn wrote:




Quote:
4. Cheat Prevention
WHAT?!? - This is the first open comment that I have ever read on this topic. I have fought 100's if not over a 1000 h2h battles and have often wondered about this. I consider myself a decent h2h player who is capable of handling an assault or staging a good defense. But I have fought a few battles in my CC career where I had a good BG with capable forces and I got walked over. My forces couldn't hit the broad side of a barn and my opponent killed everything in his path. So after such battles I often wondered if a "knowledgable" person is able to tweak the code to give themselves an advantage. I always assumed that if someone attempted this that the game would crash because of conflicting files. This completely ticks me off if you are telling me that people can manipulate the code to their advantage AND still engage in a stable fight. This puts a bitter taste in my mouth thinking about this and it sullies the integrity of the game. I guess I have been naive all this time. This reminds me of one of my very first h2h battles against a complete stranger. He setup a SINGLE battle with me attacking into a map as the Allies. When the game started I was facing 10 Tiger tanks... needless to say it was over in about 2 min. Shame on anyone who feels that their skills aren't adequate enough and need to resort to cheating via file manipulation to get a win.


The only type of cheating that I'm aware of is the type you discribe. Pet battles and maps weighted to the host player. However, a file check system would also help when players might have different versions of a mod. Catching the mis-match before the game starts (and probably crashes) saves everybody time and frustration.


I want to get clarification on this issue because I may have misunderstood your meaning. I interpretted earlier comments to mean that an individual with enough knowledge of writing code could manipulate the code to give themselves an unfair advantage in h2h matches. In other words their bullets have a higher hit ratio or their soldeirs are less likely to get hit or something like that. This is what I thought you were saying.

I had always assumed that if anyone manipulated the code and attempted an h2h game, it would crash because of conflicting versions. And such a crash would serve as sufficient protection against such dishonesty.

But your latest comment leads me to believe that I misunderstood you and that you were only refering to cheaters as those who "stack" a battle or operation highly in their favor like when I faced 10 Tiger tanks.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Troger

Rep: 17.5
votes: 2


PostPosted: Mon Mar 03, 2008 10:54 pm Post subject: Re: Future changes to a Close Combat game Reply with quote

Senior_Drill wrote:
Geez, Troger, feeling a little touchy are we?


schrecken wrote:
I don't kow how you look at the world Trogs

but
CCMT is neither a military release or a Future commercial release.

It is a current commercial release and you can buy it here:

http://www.matrixgames.com/games/store.asp?gid=350

and get the first mods maps etc here

http://closecombat.matrixgames.com/ccmt/ccmt.html


When I have more time I'll look at your comments Drill, seems you articulated things better. At the time I made this CSO had a existing CC6 wish list thread that was filled with people adding very 'RTS-like' ideas, hence the 'no ubergrenadier' additions comment.

Senior_Drill wrote:
BTW, Troger, though it may be only his second post here, Joe98 has been around CC and all the other CC forums for a lot longer than you have.  And he has always been very civil, something that you don't appear to be able to do.  It's the unnecessary, rude and hostile responses like yours that have been a less than appealing trademark of this forum.


I apologize for my initial reaction.

Just seems like some of the 'old guard' act above others, CSO was the example of this. The CSO longtimers ran out many newbies and 'dissidents' from the routine public lynchings, and if memory serves me correctly, you were a part of a few of them.


Last edited by Troger on Sun Feb 27, 2011 7:08 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
CSO_Linebacker

Rep: 5.9
votes: 1


PostPosted: Tue Mar 04, 2008 5:04 am Post subject: Reply with quote

I saw on the thread something about file checking. If you are playing multiplayer, CC already tells you if your data files do not match your opponents....at least since CC3


'If it does not have a gun, it cannot be fun'
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
schrecken

Rep: 195
votes: 15


PostPosted: Tue Mar 04, 2008 6:07 am Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
I'm a rarity in this world, I call things how I see them. I have no alliances to anyone here, I have been just as shrill towards Mooxe.


Then the world is a safer place.

Quote:
You know, I find stupid comments horridly obnoxious.


I don't, that's why I read your posts


It is a nice list though, have you done anything about it?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website GameRanger Account
 
Troger

Rep: 17.5
votes: 2


PostPosted: Tue Mar 04, 2008 6:48 am Post subject: Reply with quote

CSO_Linebacker wrote:
I saw on the thread something about file checking. If you are playing multiplayer, CC already tells you if your data files do not match your opponents....at least since CC3


I believe that was added when I saw some anecdotal stories about people playing opponents who they suspected at manipulated the saved file somehow. Wasn't sure if this precaution was already present.


Last edited by Troger on Sun Feb 27, 2011 7:10 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Troger

Rep: 17.5
votes: 2


PostPosted: Tue Mar 04, 2008 6:56 am Post subject: Re: Future changes to a Close Combat game Reply with quote

Pzt_Kevin_dtn wrote:

1. Point Base System - I don't really care for this system but I consider myself as open minded and would love to better understand the strategic mentality around this system. I much prefer the CCV strat system. So my core question is WHY do people like/want a point based system?


I'm more partial to the forcepool system too, but point-based has it's merits. Especially when it comes to single battles. There has to be a way to implement both and let the user choose. You alienate one group, it's very 50/50.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Pzt_Kevin_dtn

Rep: 10.9


PostPosted: Tue Mar 04, 2008 1:55 pm Post subject: Re: Future changes to a Close Combat game Reply with quote

Troger wrote:
Pzt_Kevin_dtn wrote:

1. Point Base System - I don't really care for this system but I consider myself as open minded and would love to better understand the strategic mentality around this system. I much prefer the CCV strat system. So my core question is WHY do people like/want a point based system?


I'm more partial to the forcepool system too, but point-based has it's merits. Especially when it comes to single battles. There has to be a way to implement both and let the user choose. You alienate one group, it's very 50/50.


Well I'm also thinking in terms of Clan wars. When comparing the linear model of CC3 to the Strat Map model of CCIV and CCV, I much prefer the latter. I can't imagine trying to carry on a war with a point based system. But as I said before, I'm not too keen on CC3. I own it but haven't played it in ages.

Thanks for making/assembling this list Troger, there is a lot of good content there to think over and discuss.

One thing that I hope does not happen, is that they make it TOO complex for fluid game play. Don't get me wrong, I like a lot of the suggestions, but if we bog the game down with too much complexity it may hamper the game play.

Here's hoping we seeing something good in the next year or two. If the rerelease of CCV is pending then let's get it out so that they can begin concentrating solely on CC6.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Senior_Drill

Rep: 9.7
votes: 2


PostPosted: Tue Mar 04, 2008 6:24 pm Post subject: Reply with quote

It's also good to keep in mind that all these suggestions and opinions might not have any effect on CC6. It is my understanding that the programming of the new engine is already underway and has been for a while and much of this may or may not fit in or mesh with how it is being built.

But they may! So it is still a good thing to keep in the fore front.

I wouldn't worry too much about game play, as most of the suggestions add only a couple more buttons or menus. I did see the two newest military sims before I left that add several "features" with new buttons and menus in game play and they didn't slow things down after quickly learning them.

The real focus of a lot of the suggestions are to the modding side of the game, where a lot more options and menus would be included. One of the aims was (and probably still is) to make the game "modder" friendly, something that Atomic worked hard against in CC3 to CC5.

@ CSO_Linebacker and Troger: Troger is right, Linebacker, which GJS and Meuse mod players can attest to during the update periods for those mods.

There doesn't seem to be any data file check anymore and there wasn't one in the testing of the mil sims other than the .exe version up through last summer, which I even caused confusion with by having newer files than the rest. The check made in the Multiplayer screen should be expanded to be looking at the .exe, the data files and possibly the graphics files as well.


C'est magnifique, mais ce n'est pas la guerre.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Troger

Rep: 17.5
votes: 2


PostPosted: Tue Mar 04, 2008 8:11 pm Post subject: Reply with quote

Senior_Drill wrote:
It's also good to keep in mind that all these suggestions and opinions might not have any effect on CC6. It is my understanding that the programming of the new engine is already underway and has been for a while and much of this may or may not fit in or mesh with how it is being built.

But they may! So it is still a good thing to keep in the fore front.

I wouldn't worry too much about game play, as most of the suggestions add only a couple more buttons or menus. I did see the two newest military sims before I left that add several "features" with new buttons and menus in game play and they didn't slow things down after quickly learning them.

The real focus of a lot of the suggestions are to the modding side of the game, where a lot more options and menus would be included. One of the aims was (and probably still is) to make the game "modder" friendly, something that Atomic worked hard against in CC3 to CC5.


A good number of these improvements were indeed made to existing versions. I'm a fan of seeing the simple stuff, a la 'alt-tabbing' included in the game. That, and Assault/Hide commands, excellent pathfinding and I'd be overjoyed, those things, to me, are very simple things that would really improve the overall continuity for me!

Your statement about Atomic's resistance to modder friendly interface is certainly something that needs to be stamped out. Glad to here there is a more modder-friendly atmosphere. KZ was such a schmuck.


Senior_Drill wrote:

@ CSO_Linebacker and Troger: Troger is right, Linebacker, which GJS and Meuse mod players can attest to during the update periods for those mods.


Well hopefully something could be included that checks timestamps, precise file size, etc. Seems 'easy' enough to put in. Precise file size would be hard to manipulate. You change a gun value and that might change it a kb or so.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Senior_Drill

Rep: 9.7
votes: 2


PostPosted: Tue Mar 04, 2008 9:34 pm Post subject: Reply with quote

The data files don't change size if there is only a change to existing data. It only goes up or down when new line items are added or old ones deleted, so a time/date stamp is the only existing weighted value.

That should be good enough, as the player with the odd file cannot join a game in the multiplayer screen with the check that was being being used in the mil sim testing. I don't know how CC6 will work, but up through CCMT, the game uses the Host's files for all players. If a cheater who has hex edited the time/date stamp insists on always hosting and seems to always win, he'll be found out and flayed in forums fairly quickly.

I see this as a feature that helps honest players ensure that they all have the same game and mod version installed before moving along so as not to waste everyones time after starting a game that crashes when a team or vehcile that is different gets selected.


C'est magnifique, mais ce n'est pas la guerre.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Senior_Drill

Rep: 9.7
votes: 2


PostPosted: Tue Mar 04, 2008 10:07 pm Post subject: Reply with quote

Troger wrote:
...., excellent pathfinding and I'd be overjoyed, those things, to me, are very simple things ....


One of the axioms from Murphy's Laws of Combat is the sometimes the hard things are very simple and the simple things are very hard.

Pathing is one of those hard things is due to the square grid "hex" system that underlies the map graphics for element and elevation coding in all the existing CC game engines. It is hard to draw pathing lines that cross into different rows and columns.

If CC6 goes with a real hexagonal grid and those hexes are done at the 1 hex = 1 meter scale instead of the CC 1 "hex" (really a square) = 2 meters, it would go a long way towards getting good vehicle movement.

Also, having the tank size as a rectangle instead of a square would help things as well. What we see on the map as a pretty, retangular tank is actually seen by the game engine as a square set of data that most often is wider than the graphic, or longer than the graphic. This leads to problems when the too wide square tries to go down the too narrow set of elements. It keeps bumping into things it can't enter. Make the tank's "square" too small to match the graphic width, and you get funny stuff like the long tank trying to hump the one in front of it.

So fixing pathing in CC has been some better game engine logic, some better element coding of the map graphic and some better vehicle data files, but it can only go so far before running into square peg in a rectangular hole problems. You can't fix something that it was never designed to do in the first place.

I'm keeping my fingers crossed that the new CC6 game engine takes an entriely different approach, quite literally from the ground up.


C'est magnifique, mais ce n'est pas la guerre.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Joe98

Rep: 12.2


PostPosted: Wed Mar 05, 2008 12:37 am Post subject: Reply with quote

-
Pathing needs to be treated the same as in a turn based hex based game.

There are 3 movement types:

Foot
Tracked
Wheeled

Each hex is given a value for each type of movement. If the movement value is too high the unit could never enter the hex.

If the ‘hexes” were approx the width of a road vehicle pathing would be much improved.

-
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
 
Post new topicReply to topic printer-friendly view Close Combat Series Forum Index -> The Mess
Goto page 1, 2  Next


 
   
 


Jump to:  
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




Forums ©





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!