[vonB]

[southern_land]

What does that AI see?   Maybe it see's too much.  I'm assuming it takes into account every element, all  LOS etc.  

Maybe the various elements should be lumped together,

Open area.  feilds etc
hard surfaces. roads pavements airfeilds etc
All building elements (of different floor levels)
Closed areas.  trees, brush, foliage
Movement inhibitors. m mud, steep inclines etc


factor in a % of each mega element per meagtile which could be included as map data and it would streamline the decision making process greatly for any AI

[Hoogley]

shreck', I hope that comment wasn't officially endorsed, 'cause it sounds like a cop out.

Matrix might be the checkout chick, but I thought S3T was a developer.  Dropping remarks like that really do cause me to question their abilities.  CSO_Linebacker's comment suggests they are capable of more than what we've seen.  Is he still a part of the team?  Is the contract with Destineer over?  Nobody's answered that for me yet.

And, besides, what's the engine you're alluding to?  Drop the mystery, seriously.  I was serious about this being a symbiotic relationship.  Dev and community need to start working in harmony instead of at odds.

I went to see a free-jazz band once, and the band had no interest in their audience, so their audience had no interest in them.

[Tejszd]

Creating a list is easy and has been done in many threads over the years. Where things fall apart is that the community does not agree on a priority order or accept that there are limited resources to implement things (the harder/larger a change the less changes/items that will be done).

Many of the items addressed in the re-releases were on the list. Below are some of the main enhancements in my opinion;

WAR - CC4/5 bug fixes, BG enhancements (no movement without fuel for motorized BG's, retreat instead of disband) and mod maker enhancements (support, weather, uniforms, etc. moved out of exe and into text files)
TLD - difficulty level affects support, multiple nationalities in a BG, night fighting, para random entry VL's, playable in a window (run in background), larger strat view and more units types per BG
LSA - BG stacking, bridge blowing and repairing, bridge superstructure, moving under bridges, static troops, point buying system, daily videos and scenario editor improvements (BG arrival by turn and for single battle BG entry VL/points)

Note: the last WAR patch added some TLD features to WAR

I think you can see that for re-releases above that the focus has switched from stability to enhancements and that the amount of changes with each re-release has grown has the code is cleaned up and or the programmer has learned it. Maybe for the next re-release some of the bigger wish list items can be done???

[Hoogley]

Tejszd - I know what you're saying, and you're right.  Many people don't have any inkling into just how programming works, and so can't consider what their suggestions mean in real terms.  Hell, I read one guy say he wants the sprites to light up a cig' when they're without orders, and then flick them when they are ordered out.  God, a cigarette would be less than one pixel; how the hell do you show it, let alone why you would bother programming a trigger for it in the first place!?

But, if S3T want to call themselves developers, then they should have the capabilities of re-designing the engine from scratch.  Otherwise, Peanut is right about them being just a team of very experienced and skilled modders.  They obviously have programming skills because LSA has some major developments to it.  However, shreck' seems to get very defensive about this topic and starts on about what's not achievable.  

What about Spindlock?  CCSS looks f*&#ing brilliant: built from scratch, clear tracer fire, huge number of units, functioning pathing specific to vehicle type, and it has zooming.  He's shown he has ability.  You guys should be clambering to get him onboard if you haven't already.

Personally, I don't want to change the tactical game at all.  This is what makes CC what it is, and if you change any of it then you've ruined the recipe.  Top down view, AI with psychology, a set limit of troops, complex terrain interaction; all of these things must remain the same for the game to be recognisable.  But, there are some things that could be addressed.

* Graphically, the game needs an overhaul.  Sprites need smoother animations, maybe an expanded set of animations.  Even getting the menu screens up to a normal size monitor resolution of 1024x768p would be nice.  Full 3D maps would be great, but I know that this isn't a plausible option at this juncture.  The topography needs to be clearer though, even if just artistically.  It should be much more obvious where the land rises and falls, since LOS is an important factor of the game, and this effects LOS greatly.  Too much unnecessary time is spent right clicking terrain.

* Tactical actions could be expanded a little, particularly if you want to allow guerilla tactics.  Laying booby traps/mines, adding mount/dismount vehicles (outside of CCMT)... well, that's my imagination out of steam, but you get the idea.  I understand and agree with shrecken's arguments for no retreat button, but again this would allow for guerilla style hit and run tactics, instead of only retreating when your combat group has been annihilated.  Then you could release a Vietnam CC.  :D

* Increase the tactical unit limit from platoon to company size.  bastardise the multi-tab for multiplayer map setup from CCMT to do it.  The modern CC maps can easily handle it.  If the engine can't... well, see above.

* The strategic layer needs a major overhaul.  LSA is definitely a step in the right direction, but I'd like to see a bit more development put into this aspect.  
  The strat map needs to be larger, for a start.  Or, at least, the potential for more size.  I'd like to be able to play the whole of Operation Overlord, from the beaches to the final breakout.
  The time-line needs to be increased accordingly to match the bigger strat map.
  Unit movement should be adjusted so that mobile/motorised units can move a number of maps instead of just one.  Strategically, you know it makes sense.  If possible, an overall terrain element should be added for each map zone.  Motorised/armoured BGs shouldn't be able to pass mountains or rivers without bridges, and should move less distance through difficult terrain.  Infantry would move only one map per turn, but could move through difficult terrain with more ease than motorised/armoured units.  Hell, if you wanted to show modern warfare, then airborne units should be able to be choppered just about anywhere on the damned map.
  Certain maps should possess strategic targets that can aid your goals.  If a map has an airstrip, then that would give you more access to air support, for example.  Capture a port for more supply access.  Things like that.  I won't go into all the possibilities for this, but you get the idea.  And, this is historically and strategically correct.
   I think the "trucked supplies" element from CC2 should be introduced instead of automatic supply to try and emulate true logistics (Red Ball Express, anyone?).  This means, of course, an overhaul of the current strategic point of supply system.
  Also - and this is S3Ts fault for making me want it - I think the way BGs are represented on the strategic map needs re-working.  I initially started trying to figure out how you could set up a system for merging and splitting BGs freely, but quickly came to realise that from a data and icon point of view, this was unmanageable.  But, there is a way to do something similar.  Basically, if you increase the BG limit exponentially, then you can have each BG at Battalion size.  This works well, as the desired tactical unit size would be, as I said earlier, company sized.  You then have to graphically rework the stacking system that S3T has already introduced so that, say, clicking on it opens up a box-out with all of the Battalions listed, or fans the icons out so you can see them all... something like that.  This allows BGs to freely move through occupied maps (you could still place a limit on maximum Battalions on any one map if you wanted to increase the strategic element).  Also, you can add a combined (or seperate if you wanted) "Divisional HQ" and "Divisional Support" BG.  The support element could work like this: if you have a battle on that map, or an adjacent one, then you get to use artillery or mortar barrages.  Otherwise, you don't.  The HQ unit would improve the morale and maybe other stats of your units on the same map area, and again maybe all adjacent maps.  Something like that.

I know this all still represents a lot of work, but I think that if S3T are serious about continuing and moving CC forward, these are the things they need to be looking towards.

Like I said, there are no more remakes to make.  Time for something new.  I hope the comment about remaking CCMT is erroneous, since CCMT is a remake of CCM.  Jesus, are we going to start getting remakes of remakes...?  Seriously?

Anyway, that's my gauntlet thrown.  See what you can do with it my friends.

[Hoogley]

Addendum: In my above comments, I got my tactical unit sizes wrong.  Of course, the current size is already Company.  I would want to increase it to Battalion size by adding the three tabs from CCMT multiplayer map creation.

Sorry for the confusion.

[schrecken]

[Hoogley]

No, I haven't played CCSS.  I'm basing that comment on Spindlock's claims and on video footage of CCSS.  I know that's not a particularly solid platform to be standing on.  I may have been a little over eager in wanting to make my point.  However, the basis of the argument stands: we are talking about code from over a decade ago, when dev' teams were smaller and what you could achieve with coding was a shadow of what's achievable today.  Spindlock claims that the basic coding for the tactical game engine is not overly difficult (for a programmer) to do.  He claims that he's replicated it at least closely with CCSS.  He also claims that working from the original code instead of from scratch is probably more difficult.

My programming skills are limited to HTML, CSS, and Excel, but his claims seem rational  to me.  If he's already done the work, and it proves to actually work, then he would be an asset to S3T.  No, he hasn't paid me to say that.  

[schrecken]

I'm eagerly awaiting the release of CCSS, surprise is that no one has done this easy programming earlier than this... The successor to Close Combat is just around the corner, I'm sure.

[Hoogley]

Uh, yeah, ok.  Take your disbelief up with Spindlock then, I guess.

So, well, what is coming next then?  Jesus, shreck, don't know if you've noticed, but I've mostly defended S3T to date.  I want to see the match up of customer's desires to developer's goals become a little more open and organic, and you're fighting me every step of the way.

Why?

[schrecken]

I'm not fighting... just sceptical about CCSS


Just about all your suggestions above plus a lot more are on the table at S3t.

[Hoogley]

Well, we'll both have to wait and see if he's blowing smoke or not.  

It's good to know these things are being tabled.  Exactly that - good to know.  It'd be nice to know more.  Some details, for example.  I gather that S3T has been betrayed in the past, but you can still keep us in the loop with what's in the works without giving us the code.  Sure, some will poo poo whatever you do, but knowledge is just going to keep me interested.

And, they should really take my strat ideas onboard. You go tell them that schreck'. ;)

So, go on, tell us; what's next for S3T?

[Spinlock]

[schrecken]

[Hoogley]

Jesus, what kind of spokesperson are you?  An insanely sarcastic one, obviously.  I mean, are you avidly seeking to alienate customers?

We might be irritating, but we are paying customers.  Well, a lot of us.  Well, I definitely am.  Well, was up 'til now.  Now I'm confused...

I came back into the community because of the release of TLD.  Most of my gaming experiences with S3T product has been positive.  I've bought TLD, LSA, and MT.  I've defended S3T quite a lot in the last couple of months.

But I feel like I've just had all enthusiasm beaten out of me after this conversation.

I fanboy the Creative Assembly guys every time they walk into my work.  It may annoy them, but they're at least nice about it.  They've even talked a little about upcoming games on occasion.  And, these aren't media representatives of the company; they're just the sound designers.  It's not their job mandate to be friendly.  Maybe it's because they have a lot more funding (or any, I guess) so they're not so defensive or something.

I've learnt in this one thread that, apparently, S3T don't like suggestions, criticism, and they'd rather I keep my damned nose out of their business, because it's none of mine.  Awesome.

I mean, you are the official spokesperson, right?  That's not just some ironic title given to you by somebody from the CCS forums, right?

[schrecken]

I'm the official nothing.

This is a fan site and my name is schrecken.

I am passing on information though , as it becomes available.

So far there is no word on any further projects regarding s3t or Close Combat.... in fact if you asked me I'd say S3t have more than enough work ahead of them dealing with the bug reports from all the CC games so far released.

There is a little public information regarding the sneezeupon engine that is said to have  been in development for about five years.

Stay tuned, i'm sure your cravings for future developments will eventually be met.

[schrecken]

EDIT

Stay tuned, i'm sure your cravings for information regarding future developments will eventually be met.

[QM]

[southern_land]

[southern_land]

I'll probably catch hell for speaking out but....meh, it's friday and the cold Real beer is calling, In 25 hours the All Black intend on caning the Wallabies for a second time and all's right in the universe.