If you have concerns over any patches or updates they should be posted at Matrix... no one who can do anything what is posted above about will read them here.
Posted: Fri Jul 31, 2009 3:55 am Post subject: Re: Close Combat 2 Rerelease Thread
They are simply the ones who make the decisions, allocate resources and write the promo material...
if you want data updates you need to lobby the people that allocate resources to do that.... simple.... doesn't mean they will do what you want but it's more likely to get a result than whining on this board where no one from Matrix visits.
They are simply the ones who make the decisions, allocate resources and write the promo material...
if you want data updates you need to lobby the people that allocate resources to do that.... simple.... doesn't mean they will do what you want but it's more likely to get a result than whining on this board where no one from Matrix visits.
Qoute Schrecky: They are simply the ones who make the decisions, allocate resources and write the promo material...
if you want data updates you need to lobby the people that allocate resources to do that.... simple.... doesn't mean they will do what you want but it's more likely to get a result than whining on this board where no one from Matrix visits.
//End oute.
Ahha Schrecky, when we have been talking to you, you was the S3T team leader of CCMT and MATRIX STAFF personnel , so we thought we talked to the right man. So all the talk and all the promises you made was nothing more then??
A promise of a patch for CCMT by the CCMT team leader and Matrix personnel Mr Schrecky:
Sun Jun 15, 2008 12:05 am Post subject (CCMT patch):
A question about where the CCMT patch is answerd by the CCMT team leader and Matrix personnel Mr Schrecky:
Posted: Thu Jan 22, 2009 10:28 pm Post subject (CCMT patch):
Posted: Fri Jul 31, 2009 11:51 am Post subject: Re: Close Combat 2 Rerelease Thread
in addition this week CoI was updated.
last week a new beta patch went public for tLD (which also incorporates many WaR updates)
further work was carried out on a prospective WaR patch
and other undisclosed projects have been advanced.
I'm afraid though guys we have finite resources, how they are allocated is, to a large degree, out of our control.... the points at which those resources are allocated, they are well used.
Also thanks must go to all the volunteer contributors from within the community... with WaR and tLD we have managed to push CC development out far ahead of any previous release.
freeing all the locked exe data with campaign and stratmap txt files
expanding to 64 maps
Finally fixing supply and reinforce (for both sides) bugs
tracking down all (nearly?) crashing bugs
expanding the number of nations and associated files
implementing proper night effects
increasing the available turns per day
fixing muzzle blast/flash
fixing crushed elements
to name a few
It's taken a power of testing and dedication from a relatively small group of people and a lot of good feedback from the community.
Posted: Fri Jul 31, 2009 1:20 pm Post subject: Re: Close Combat 2 Rerelease Thread
Im sorry Schreck, now I understand how S3T / Matrix "support" works, your post here will ofcose make up for the 2 years ppl have had CCMT in its present state, and until the patch that may or may not come actually comes, they can take grate comfort in you caring posts here and hug em..
It seems you and the S3T team play CC as arcade and have made the rereleases to such arcade standards, thus have made the data in arcadish level, and also the so important map code in an arcade level.
This may explain why we just don’t seem to be able to get through to any of you in the team. When we point at things that is not good, we do it from the old Atomic – CC relalism simulator point of view, and when you try fined what we point at, you look from your arcadish point of view and you cant fined anything wrong with your code or data, as its perfect to your arcade standards.
This seem to be the main problem here, there are 2 way of see CC, either as an arcade, or as a realism simulator. You and the team belong to the first grope, and I belong in the second gropes.
Sad, as I wished I belong to the arcade grope thus I would probly have loved yer products, but I would probly have moved on to other more grapixly attractive and effectfull arcades ofcose, but who knows.
I have nothing against ppl play and make arcadish games, but I don’t really like when CC is turned into one.
And nothing of this will ever change if the S3T don’t get a team leader or a quality leader who belong to the second “realism simulator” grope. That will not happen ofcose no matter how much I which for it, Santa don’t listen to ppl over 40.
People in the community do voice this in the complain about the bad data/code, and you and the S3T developer team then call us “haters” and all sorts of other names and insults.
I now see that all the namecalling and insults makes sense to, if one look at it from the two disjoint views we have about CC; as we pointed and pointed and complained, you was unable to fined what we pointed at, due to yer arcadish point of view.
So for you and the team, the only rational way to explain the complains was that the complainers must be “haters”, for in yer eyes yer product was close to perfect.
So all this is a sad misunderstanding and the core problem is just a matter of perception –how to view CC-, -as a arcade or realism simulator-
Maybe you ought to take a step back, and take a look at this survey made in February 2009:
But I guess you gone look at this from the arcadish point of view again, thus make up your own rational little explanation why such a huge part of the CC-population did vote as they did.
Im sorry Schrecky, we have not the same view of what CC is or to be, and nothing can change that, and im sure you make grate arcades mate, but im not in that market.
Damn, all these unrealistic memoirs of platoon leaders/company commanders that don't mention them commanding whole operations on strat layer...
Anyway, I'd like to remind you that it was Atomic Games that started adding arcade and unrealistic mechanics to the series and that it was Atomic Games that put the faulty weapon data into CCM.
So, it's just a continuation of the slide into arcadeness.
Posted: Fri Jul 31, 2009 2:53 pm Post subject: Re: Close Combat 2 Rerelease Thread
Anyway, I'm still wondering how they are going to implement accurate modelling of modern sensor systems, various types of ATGMs and countermeasures employed against them, chobham armour, reactive armour, anti-air defences, etc.
Also, how they are going to implement the use of real life modern tactics by the AI so that it would accurately depict modern tactical warfare and its challenges.
Posted: Fri Jul 31, 2009 8:31 pm Post subject: Re: Close Combat 2 Rerelease Thread
stalk
CCS was set up as a CC5 centre of focus.
You might as well ask at your local church which god you bel;ieve in The one true god or Allah.
Everything else you've written is funny... rubbish, but funny.
Therion
you are correct CCMT is atomics CCM , all the data comes from them and was made as a public release due to public demand.... the only changes were for licensing reasons eg removal of marines and change to army.
Data revisions are in progress though... been slow due to redirection of resources as stated in above posts.
What has been the continued slide in to arcadeness that you and stalky are talking about?
Posted: Fri Jul 31, 2009 9:01 pm Post subject: Re: Close Combat 2 Rerelease Thread
Qoute Schrecky: What has been the continued slide in to arcadeness that you and stalky are talking about?//end quote
This sadly tells me, that things isn’t gona change, explaning what have been pointed to so many times, one more time is just a waste of time, -We point, you look, but you dont see what we point at.
You know Schrecky, sometimes a question say more then a answer, I may even believe this question of yers validates my theory about the different perceptions we have about what CC is, maybe its so simple afterall.
Posted: Fri Jul 31, 2009 9:04 pm Post subject: Re: Close Combat 2 Rerelease Thread
More accurately... CCS was setup to for all versions. The most active version has always been CC5 since atleast 2004, probably was a few years earlier also. So naturally the focus seems to be CC5 since theres not much activity online for other versions but the site remains all encompassing.
Join Discord for technical support and online games.
Posted: Fri Jul 31, 2009 9:10 pm Post subject: Re: Close Combat 2 Rerelease Thread
oh, then why have I had to constantly remind you to update the downloads area for other versions.... and they still fall very short of avaiable downloads.
You don't support the other versions to anywhere near the extent you support CC5
Posted: Fri Jul 31, 2009 10:40 pm Post subject: Re: Close Combat 2 Rerelease Thread
The original question posed by mooxe in this thread was an interesting one due to the difference, capabilities and indeed age in the engines themselves. Very good question in fact.
Some interesting dialogue and thoughts followed and I was considering joining in the conversation as I had some thoughts and quite a few questions myself on the original ABTF game engine and the way the campaign worked.
However, and as usual, this thread among the multitude of others has now been hijacked, turned into a finger pointing and blaming game and the integrity of the original authors question destroyed and the thread lost.
Read backward from this post, you will see where it derails and who did it.
BTW, the fact that my name is in red has no bearing or relevance on my thoughts in this post, or any other, I just wish the thread had stayed on track thats all due to my opening sentence.
Send it all to the trainwreck and hijackers thread. Pity.
oh, then why have I had to constantly remind you to update the downloads area for other versions.... and they still fall very short of avaiable downloads.
You don't support the other versions to anywhere near the extent you support CC5
If by support you mean "adding files" then CC3 probably has the most.
Join Discord for technical support and online games.
Posted: Sun Aug 02, 2009 12:30 pm Post subject: Re: Trainwrecks & The Off Topic Hijackers Graveyard
I don’t see how the WAR game is arcade looking or playing,
(Other than the mortars which I still hate)
I ran CCIV(4.02) yesterday and if you compare the Vehicles from that to WAR,CCIV is much more arcade looking.
No sense in posting a picture but im sure everyone remembers the Pea-Green American tanks.
I would imagine it's almost impossible for any tester to find all the bugs in any game before releasing it, there’s just no way as I see it for them to duplicate what many other people do when playing. But then again some of them were just waayyy to obvious.
But from all the posts I have seen it looks like they have acknowledged them, I found 2 last week for WAR and im sure once the patch gets released they'll be fixed.
I'm afraid though guys we have finite resources, how they are allocated is, to a large degree, out of our control.... the points at which those resources are allocated, they are well used.
That one does bother me, but hopefully the game will still be supported over a great many of years and if so, that will be ok.
The manner in which the patches get released is however questionable.
And what ever happened to getting the Workbook updated? I didnt imagine it would take this long.
you are correct CCMT is atomics CCM , all the data comes from them and was made as a public release due to public demand.... the only changes were for licensing reasons eg removal of marines and change to army.
Data revisions are in progress though... been slow due to redirection of resources as stated in above posts.
Yes, that's what CCMT is. Patched up CCM with an army mod installed. The problem is that Matrix games is selling it as something that it isn't.
They explicitly state that equipment modelling in CCMT is accurate - while it can't be accurate without engine changes, because the engine is designed for modelling WWII equipment, not modern one.
Similarly they explicitly state that the game accurately depicts modern tactical warfare and its challenges. It obviously isn't true. One reason is the AI that doesn't use actual modern tactics. Even if it would be noted that it is true only for playing against a human player that is interested primarily in recreation of real tactics in game, it would still be false as there are still other things that prevent it from accurately depicting modern tactical warfare and its challenges like lack of RoEs, civilians, IEDs, AA defences, etc.
Portrayal of modern warfare in CCMT is not accurate. It's vague at best.
If Matrix Games want to say their games are accurate, maybe they should invest some money into their development first instead of just telling lies to their customers?
False advertising is one of my pet pevees since I went to an advertising school .
What has been the continued slide in to arcadeness that you and stalky are talking about?
Stalky is talking about data/map coding errors, I'm talking about anti-realism in design. Of course, despite all his talk about "realism simulator" he doesn't recognise the latter as unrealistic, because it's teh fun.
I'm talking mainly about adding stuff that detracts from being a platoon leader/company commander (which is where the real Close Combat happens) - strategic minigame and commanding tens of units belonging to different regiments and C&C superweapon-style fire support and lack of development of the tactical combat itself.
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!
) products 2 years ago. 
.
