No, in this case the scenario designer decided there would BE NO PREPATORY FIRES.
My guess is AI intel figured that out.
In this scenrio, the AI, being very clever, moves from insecure positions on the road network, to much more secure positions in the rocks.
Oh, and the AI takes some objectives along the way.
So, basically, there's an AI that can do it's job only when you assign it to insecure positions and wait for it to redeploy? It's a very limited functionality.
Anyway, what modern tactics does the AI use? Can it perform defence like modern insurgents, US Army and Russian army?
Can it perform attacks like modern insurgents, US Army and Russian army? Does this game feature modern tactics?
If TT managed to tweak any of the Core Code, he must have done it with some inside Intel. I am not convinced he did that, but I could be wrong. I think it's an expreme case of stacking all the odds against the Human Player and weighting everything in the AI's favour, but I haven't analysed the changes, so it's just a guess...
TT was the man...along with Dreaded88 at mastering AI gameplay. Those TT artillery barrages were insane, wreaking havoc every where.
You mean different from Real Time Strategies? How unusual.
You should look among tactical level Real Time Simulations, not among RTS games. From RTSims, Firefight is pretty close to CC, but has AI that can actually attack.
I moved to it some time ago and I prefer playing it over CC.
No, not that unusual at all.
CC has at it's core a real-time tactical simulation game, sure. However, being able to allocate your own troops from a forcepool; turn-based movement of BGs on a strategic map (CC4, CC5, WAR, TLD, LSA); managing resources such as support weapon strikes (CC4, CC5, WAR, TLD, LSA), supply (CC2, CC4, WAR, TLD, LSA), and resource points (CC2, CC3, WAR & LSA)... that's all strategic gameplay.
Semantics? Turn-based Strategy, Turn-based Tactical, Real Time Strategy, Real Time Simulation, Real Time Tactical... they're all titles used to try and lump things into categories for identification. But, the Total War series and a number of CC versions have a turn-based strategic level coupled with a real-time tactical level. Hearts of Iron would qualify as an RTS, because it's in real-time, but is nothing like what most people consider RTS - being the isometric view unit and base building standard set by Dune II. Some games listed as RTTs just look to me like another isometric RTS games without the base building, and not a great stride apart in gameplay.
So, sorry, poor delineation of genre. I'll extend my genre grouping to include everything in the Strategy and Tactics realm. Then I'll choose to cut out everything that isn't set in WW2, resembles a board game, is in isometric view (3D or otherwise), requires "base building" of any sort, doesn't at least try to emulate real soldier behaviour, and doesn't have a "strategic map" layer. I think that just leaves Close Combat.
I had a look at Firefight. It looks similar, is definitely "inspired" by CC (yes, they are air brackets), and may have improvements on the AI modelling. But, and I'll be honest here, it looks like shit. As an artist, aesthetic is still an important element for my gaming experiences. Close Combat may not be a beauty queen, but at least it tries to brush up nice. Aesthetic is where many games in the Strategy/Tactics genre fall down. Firefight looks like the gaudy graphics from CCI or maybe CC2. I've moved on, thanks. Besides, it doesn't seem to have a grand campaign/strategic layer as far as I can tell from Google images. You'll have to tell me if it does, because I'm honestly not going to bother downloading it to find out.
I'd love S3T to emulate a strategic level similar to Hearts of Iron and add that to Close Combat. Or, maybe Paradox could add a squad level tactical layer to Hearts of Iron. Whoever gets there first wins in my opinion.
"I have come here to kick ass and chew bubblegum... and I'm all out of bubblegum." - They Live
I have played tons of games against the AI. I have also listened and learned from others on what it takes to influence AI behavior so you can set up different kinds of battles. Its a TOTAL NO BRAINER to get the AI to attack. Its also a TOTAL NO BRAINER to get the AI to defend.
We still employ the house rule; If the AI requests a truce, the human player can take ONE more objective, then must honor the truce. This is to keep the HUMAN player from sitting back on the Defence and simply trying to ambush the AI.
Most of our games play out on cutdown maps basically 1/2 KM square. They are mostly infantry fights, with vehicles added generally for interest. So, we imagine a money cost per kill to determine if Modern Tactics are being applied. For Instance, if during the course of the game I use $ 680,000 for 10 Hellfire missles (from CAS), to blow up a few Ragheads in a building, then we conclude Modern Tactics have indeed been applied.
And, mooxe, with all respect - because I do - I still get confused by this complaint about the re-makes being "more of the same; no great innovations".
Hoogley, the problem is less of the same (less of the same being that which was done right the first time and didn't need fixing, but now was 'fixed' and has made the game unplayable). It might be hard for many of those (such as yourself, I presume) who did not play the originals to understand were some of us are coming from.
I'm glad to hear someone is enjoying constantly re-issuing orders, and watching your men crawl to death. It's not CC, it's probably not even an accurate representation of WW2 combat (or combat at all), but more importantly: it's not fun.
Posted: Sat Jul 31, 2010 12:26 pm Post subject: Re: Nice Rant
Trogers wrote:
It might be hard for many of those (such as yourself, I presume) who did not play the originals to understand were some of us are coming from.
That is a very big presumption for you to make. And, quite incorrect, as it so happens.
I started playing Close Combat from A Bridge Too Far, back around '98-99, when my roommate at the time introduced me to it. I've been hooked ever since. I own CC1, CC2, CC3, CC5, CCMT, CCTLD, and CCLSA.
If you'd read any of my posts, you'd have some idea, but I'm not really expecting you to be that interested in me personally. However, you should get some background before making wild assumptions. Research, my friend, is important.
Other than the vehicle pathing, which I recently came to heads with, I've had no issue with the remade games. Quite the opposite in fact; I'm quite enjoying LSA. The only place I had issues with the move order cancellations was on the beaches of Normandy. However, it seems an authentic experience to be screaming orders at your men over and over again whilst they become confused and scared and try to run away from the barrages of machine-gun fire.
Actually, I wouldn't know; I wasn't there.
Honestly, I have to ask, did you ever play the original games? Are you sure? You're memory may be a little hazy, because if you go back and re-live the glory I think you'll find the original games a little less perfect than your glossed over senses are telling you. They weren't perfect. They're still not perfect. But they were, and are still, plenty of fun.
"Are we playing the same games?"
"I have come here to kick ass and chew bubblegum... and I'm all out of bubblegum." - They Live
Posted: Sat Jul 31, 2010 2:28 pm Post subject: Re: Nice Rant
I find the debate on 'order cancellations', 'cowering teams', ar whatever you want to call it, interesting. At first, I did find it a bit frustrating because it seems more pronounced than in previous versions, but I got to thinking, maybe it's just trying to issue unreasonable orders?
Few human beings will happily run full belt openly into the face of incoming fires, and I would think this is more so the smaller the number of troops involved in the assault. Where there are large numbers (such as beach assault, Russian infantry hordes, etc..) the effect will be moderated, i.e. it is more likely that troops will continue to press forward even though all hell is beaking loose around them.
While I do agree that it is sometimes too extreme, particularly when orders are cancelled and the troops crawl their way back, particulalry with experienced troops. The order shouldn't be 'cancelled'. It is still the order, and unless the troops are ''broken', they should still try and find a way to execute those orders. They may be forced to a standstill (take cover), but unless they are broken, or the order given to retreat/disengage, then they should stay put (more or less). I think for the purposes of the game/sim, there has to be a level of simplification. We could argue the psychological niceties until the cows come home...
So, it seems to me that the 'Commander' (you), need to put more consideration into your options. You need to find other ways to achieve your objective. Just because you could do it before does not make it right or wrong in itself.
So my initial frustration with this manifestation is not as 'anti' as it was to start with. It is still somewhat defective in some situations (particulalry the cancelling of orders, and the crawling back of teams who are in reasonable shape), but it has made me start looking at the game again from the point of view of tactical manouevering and engagement. Perhaps no bad thing?
The argument that you could do it before and you can't do it now, is not in itself compelling, but needs explanation in the particulars. My criticism is that it is not quite right in certain particulars, but it is based on perfectly valid premises.
Posted: Sat Jul 31, 2010 6:17 pm Post subject: Re: Nice Rant
My thought exactly vonB.
CC games have been greatly improved since even CC5 days. Everytime I play a game with CCMT I am reminded of that.
For once, going prone, ENHANCES, your ablility to survive most situations. This seems realistic to me.
You can still RAMBO the proners, but not in most other situations. And when doing the Rambo thing, a single Machine gun can ruin your day. The end result for me means more realism, more laughs, and MORE FUN.
Of course, we can still try to assault a position on our bellies, and the AI tries this from time to time, because I see it can work. Sometimes you can't even vis the enemy at 5 meters.
Posted: Sat Jul 31, 2010 6:40 pm Post subject: Re: Nice Rant
wild assumptions
Sorry, I've never seen you before the re-releases, went for a reach and made that wild, fantastical assumption. Ownership is one thing but did you actually ever bother to play them?
Lots of people who were active in the CC5 mp community don't seem to be enjoying these re-releases (can't speak for the cc3/cc2 community, cause it's dead). Those of you who lurked in the darkness, apparently playing the AI until now seem to be having no problems with them. Then again, I should expect as much, the fact that you somehow had fun playing the AI already tells me quite a bit about yourself.
I'll leave the re-releases for you philosophers. I'm glad you enjoy it.
I'll leave the re-releases for you philosophers. I'm glad you enjoy it.
See there a happy ending
You can have fun playing CC4 and I can have fun playing CCMT. Everyone wins.
Most people have played MP at one point or another, and its fun too. Kinda. The main thing is choice of opponent. In the old days, I would generally play against my kids. The thought was I could beat them. But the kids grew up and moved away. Damn! I have one left, but now days you can't pry him away from Call of Duty. Wonder Why?
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!
