Just floating some thoughts... take a deep breath beofer you start reading....
While we all I am sure have opinions on how CC could or should move forwards, one of the Topics which has reasonable scope for Community development would be the Strategic perspective. Yes, CCIV and V have a Strategic Layer, but I do not find it very compelling. To me, a compelling Layer would be able to provide a satisfying Game in it's own right, even without any Tactical Battle Interface.
The current presentations are Turn Based. Nothing woring with that. For a variety of reasons this is likley to be the direction taken. For myself, I am more excited by a prospect of a Real Time Strategic Environment, but that has some very awkward issues to address, and I would have to admit the potential problems with such an approach. For another debate maybe.
However, Real Time or Turn Based, there is one issue that I see as a major challange in integrating the current CC Tactical Layer into any kind of seamless Strategic approach, and that is the limitations of the CC Map. Having finite borders and a time intensive (manual) development process, this presents a major challange. Let me say that I do not consider this to be a show stopper as such, and that it does not in itself prevent a compelling integration with a Strategic Layer. However, if we are to try to produce a continuous and seamless Strategic area on which to play out an Operation or Campaign, we are limited to set and finite limits with any single Map.
If we take this forwards logically, we find ourselves presented with an awesome prospect. perhaps I can illustrate like this: let us say we have a Strategic area 100kmx100km. To make this a seamless area, we would have to have a CC Map 100kmx100km. I suspect this is not even possible due to PC resource limitations, and we could look at it as 10,000 1kmx1km Maps. I know Shane can churn our Maps at a prodigeous rate, but I think the prospect of producing 10,000 Maps would be just a bit too daunting...
So what we tend to end up with in practice is a large Strategic area, which is translated into individual Battles on specific Maps, where the Map edges do not connect with each other. Nothing 'wrong' with that either, but it is hardly seamless.
There has been some effort put into looking at how CC Maps could be produced using other techniques,or using other resources such as visual imagery (aerial photographs/Satellite images/etc), and digital elevation data. These sources are available. From this we *could* generate a visual Battle Map with Elevations, but that is far from sufficient to produce a working CC Map. For it to work, it needs to be coded, and that is not something that I can see (can anyone else) being done in any way other than manually. If it could, we might be a lot further on towards the prospect of 'generating' a CC Map, which is the only way I can see of producing seamless integrated CC Maps at both the Strategic and Tactical Levels.
It is arguable that a seamless approach is not possible or practicable. If a battle should flow off the edge of a Map, how to you handle that? It could only work if the Map can automatically extend it's borders in real time to accomodate such movement, and that is just not possible with the current CC system. It is therefore arguable whether there is any prospect of such an approach using CC as we currently have it, as it would mean a significant change to the Core, and for a variety of reasons, I cannot see that happening.
So have I just argued myself out of a Seamless Strategic Scenario? Very possibly, but I am hoping that there are good prospects for Strategic Game Play which can stand up in it's own right, and still be integrated with the CC Tactical Game. It is this issue that I am inviting comments, or even suggestions on how this can be achieved, either as a theory, or practically.
I would draw your attention to MMCCIII. This is a Strategic Layer developed independantly of CC, and yet integrates CC into the Game Play. While I do like MMCCIII, it does have severe limitations (but then so do CCIV and V in my opinion), but it does go to show that such things *can* be done.
If there was such an intitiative to produce a Strategic Game that both stands up on it's own AND integrates with CC, then I would try and find time to help progress it. But one thing at a time. I am just curious to hear what others have to say about it, and if anyone is interested in doing anything about it.
Its simler to CC but in 3D. Battles are played out on 9km sq battlefields taken directly from the operational map - just imagine putting CC's squad AI & psycological modle into this & I think you may start to get somthing like the concept you have written about.
Posted: Sat May 01, 2010 1:45 pm Post subject: Re: Seamless Strategic Scenarios...
Yes Schreck. I am putting up some sets of doodles along those lines on my Web Site shortly, and inviting comments. The biggest drawback is of course the crrent CC Core System, but I believe there is sill much scope for integrating the CC tactical layer with a Strategic Layer using the Saved game File as it can be written independantly and then picked up by CC (just as MMCCIII does).
JamesL, thanks for the tip. I will certainly take a look at tit.
Yes Schreck. I am putting up some sets of doodles along those lines on my Web Site shortly, and inviting comments. The biggest drawback is of course the crrent CC Core System, but I believe there is sill much scope for integrating the CC tactical layer with a Strategic Layer using the Saved game File as it can be written independantly and then picked up by CC (just as MMCCIII does).
JamesL, thanks for the tip. I will certainly take a look at tit.
i wonder what ever happened to curtain 67? He was making the mmccIII style strat layer to go with cc3, last thing I heard he was on version 2
Posted: Sat May 01, 2010 10:08 pm Post subject: A small virtual walk through...
To put some flesh on the bones...
Preparing for the Operation. The Campaign map is far right (long thin map), with 4 Operational areas. The selected Operation is shown in the middle map, and the Combat arena on the left where the action takes place.
Paratroop drops are committed:
The resulting deployment resulting from the drops. Polish and British Paras in this case:
Paras are mobilised and manouvre to engage or secure objectives:
Units engage. The tinted boxes specify the Battle areas where a Tactical Battle can be fought (i.e. in CC), or the combat can be resolved at the Strategic Layer. User choice. Either/or or both.
This illustrates where the current limitations of the CC Maps make it difficult to integrate seamlessly with this kind of Strategic level. The Operation is carried out on a fluid area (i.e. not segmented into boxes/hexes/whatever) just as in a CC Battle Map. Therefore, an engageent can happen at any time at any place, and the area of tactical engagement will vary. To make this work ideally, the Battle Map would have to be drawn as a result of what happens on the Operational/Campaign Map, and that is clearly not possible at the moment
I have a more extensive walk through based on the Operation Beachhead mock up which gives a better idea of how it might be possible to create a compelling game carried out at the strategic level only, but always with the option to fight any tactical battle if chosen. More of that anon.
I believe there is sill much scope for integrating the CC tactical layer with a Strategic Layer using the Saved game File as it can be written independantly and then picked up by CC (just as MMCCIII does).
I tend to agree.
Does anybody know if it is possible to exchange data between the saved game files of Close Combat and that of Advanced Tactics? Advanced Tactics is quite flexible and can be "brought down" to a scale very like the CC IV and V strat layers. A data exchange between the two games would solve a lot of problems.
Posted: Tue May 11, 2010 3:45 pm Post subject: Re: Seamless Strategic Scenarios...
Quote:
Surely the biggest drawback is our own lack of coding skills
Fair point, but then you would need access to the Source Code and Development files, and my C++ skills are woefully inadequate. One thing that became quite clear when I was working on CoI as a result of talking with the programmer, was that trying to re-engineer the existing system would not be productive in terms of trying to make it go where we want it to go. It would need a substantial re-write. Much of the Core logic could be used such as the Psychological Model, but would still need substantial adaptation to fit into a new Core.
Quote:
Does anybody know if it is possible to exchange data between the saved game files of Close Combat and that of Advanced Tactics?
At the moment I am working on a 'handler' for the CC3/CoI Saved Game File. I have no idea what Advanced Tactics is. I would be happy to hear from anyone who has an interest and some skills in this or any other 'Strategic' initiative, and see what prospects there might be? If so, please PM me.
Posted: Tue May 11, 2010 10:59 pm Post subject: Re: Seamless Strategic Scenarios...
FOr anyone that might be interested, I have published a small 'CC Fantasy' on my Web Site, based on 'Operation Beach Head' (a virtual scenario). You can find it here:
It still begs many questions and in my own vision, all views are zoomable. The basis is the standardised Coordinate System, which basically means that regardless of the perspective (Tactical or Strategic), everything relates to the same coordinates. So for example, on the Operation Map, this could be zoomed in or out on demand, all the way from individual units to as far as the system will go. The whole planet? Well, as much as is sensible anyway
Until such time as we have dynamic Map generation, we will just have to work with what we have got. C'est la vie...
Posted: Wed May 12, 2010 11:39 pm Post subject: Re: Seamless Strategic Scenarios...
Quote:
but then it would be micro-battle
The 'boxes' in the visualisations denote where engagements take place. Ideally, these would be fought on a battle Map just as we do with CC now. Alternatively, it could be resolved at the Strategic level. What makes it impossible to do this now is the way Maps have to be made. There could be a compromise in which the Strategic play would be 'forced' into predefined areas where Maps have already been prepared, but to me that would compromise the potential fluidity of the game play. On the other hand, it is something I am looking at (the compromise that is...).
In such a short Operation, it would be more appealing to fight the battles on the tactical Map, but for large Campagins covering thousands of square kilometres, it could be nice to have the options to have Strategic resolution as well. I like choice!
Posted: Thu May 13, 2010 6:13 am Post subject: Re: Seamless Strategic Scenarios...
Like Rome: Total War for example. The map seems all one single entity and I don't know if they are just a bunch of tiny maps or if the game draws every tactical map according to location and geographic marks because for example most bridge battles look the same, but then when you build a watchtower in the strategic map and you have a battle near it, you can see such edification while fighting the battle in real time. Battles can be fought in a 3D tactical map or be auto-resolved in the strategic map, Movement is by turn but battles are real time.
Posted: Thu May 13, 2010 8:03 am Post subject: Re: Seamless Strategic Scenarios...
Yes, I agree. Rome Total War is a good example of a Strategic Layer that provides quite compelling gameplay in it's own right, with the ability to slug it out face to face on the battlefield if you want. The choice is yours. I don't know whether I would like to see something identical but it does illustrate the possible...
Posted: Fri May 14, 2010 11:47 am Post subject: Re: Seamless Strategic Scenarios...
Quote:
I may even suppress my better nature and get it to see what it's like
But then again I might not...
No question the compulsion/addiction with CC is the visceral real time game play of the battle, and no Strategic Layer will ever replace that IMO. But, I have been longing to see a good compelling Strat Layer to complement the Tactical. Programmatically, BFTB is a no brainer compared with the challange of a tactical battle.
Map development seems to me to be the main obstacle to making real progress towards this, particularly at the Community level. Apiotrow did a wonderful job with MMCC3, which just demonstrates the sort of thing that can be done, and also gives me encouragement to pursue such an initiative, but at the end of the day, Map Making is going to be the kicker.
I would love some input from Mafi and Southern Land, and anyone else with in depth knowledge and skills. I can't see any shortcuts to the issue of Coding, but maybe better heads than mine can. I think there are fair prospects for rendering Maps and Elevations from external digital data, even if it needs post processing, but it's still got to be coded for CC at the end of the day. I am not a Map Maker so I can't speak definitively. I might have to get some experience doing it so that I have a better understanding in detail, but I think I understand the challanges well enough to have a realistic handle on the issues.
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!
