In all the games so far, the player chooses whether the game runs at Slow, Medium or Fast.
All experienced players play at the Fast speed.
When CC6 is released it should be set at the Slow speed by default. The reason, is that reviewers might otherwise be tempted to call the game ‘click fest” as the detractors already do. But if the game is running at the Slow speed he could not do that.
Also, CC6 should have a 4th speed – Pause - and give orders. So the options would be:
Pause
Slow
Medium
Fast
The thing about Pause and give orders is that critics of the game will be silenced. Experienced players would never use Pause and give orders.
I don't think I could except pause at all. Part of the greatness of this game is trying to manage multiple resources in real time. Some of my most favorite battles have been intense close combat where everything is flying about all at once and you have to concentrate the best you can to take your objective or hold your line while everything is falling apart around you.
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.
I have to disagree here. the reason as you said above 'the hard things are very simple and the simple things are very hard'
I can't say for certain exactly how CC does it's vehicle pathing, but a Grid based map system is far easier to deal with in all respects. The problem comes from the fact that a vehicle can be rotated and moved at any arbitrary angle and that a vehicle covers more than one terrain tile at the same time. Infantry pathing by comparison is braindead easy. Only 8 possible angles and only occupies one element in the grid.
For each grid point that vehicle occupies, any one of the 9 or 16 points can prohibit a move, requiiring a new path to be searched. I also suspect that the game has a limit on the number of stops-and-turns a vehicle will make to reach the goal.
Senior_Drill wrote:
It is hard to draw pathing lines that cross into different rows and columns.
This isnt difficult unless there is limit on the number of turns that can be make and or the line is drawn at an arbitrary angle.
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!