Welcome to Close Combat Series
  Login or Register Home  ·  Downloads  ·  Forums  ·  Combat Camera  ·  Help  

  Survey
Do incapacitations count as a soldier's kills?

Yes
No



Results
Polls

Votes 520
Comments: 1

  Shout Box!!

Only registered users can shout. Please login or create an account.

  Main Menu
Articles & News  
    Help
    Player`s News
    Site News
    Multiplayer
    Terrain Challenge
    Boot Camp
Community  
    Forums
    Downloads
    Combat Camera
    MOOXE @ Youtube
    Statistics
Members  
    Private Messages
    Your Account
    Logout

  Donations
Anonymous - $25.00
08/15/2022

Anonymous - $25.00
08/15/2022

Anonymous - $25.00
12/18/2021

Anonymous - $100.00
11/08/2021

Anonymous - $15.00
04/09/2021

Anonymous - $100.00
04/05/2021

Anonymous - $20.00
02/20/2021

Anonymous - $10.00
12/29/2020

Anonymous - $1.00
11/06/2020

ZAPPI4 - $20.00
10/10/2020

Find our site useful? Make a small donation to show your support.



Search for at
Close Combat Series Advanced Search


Goto page : 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next
 Author
Message
 
mooxe

Rep: 214.8
votes: 25


PostPosted: Tue Feb 22, 2011 3:36 pm Post subject: Disenchanted Reply with quote

You will notice that in WaR/TLD/LSA the main change was strategy. New strategic maps with new ways to conduct business strategically. This is what I have a problem with. The focus changing from tactics to strategy. I thought the CC5 and the CC3 ways of handling strategy were great, I guess others don't. Two completely different ways, both excellent for their games. They gave you a few things to worry about strategy wise, it was kept simple, main focus was on the actual fighting.

With the new versions, there is a heavy focus on strategy. What happens in this stage has more effects on the tactical phase. So thats a matter of preference if you like that or not. For me though, the strategy was enough back in the day. I was hoping the tactical phase of the game would be updated. To date I think the only real update has been pathing and we had some deletions like isometric views of vehicles and buildings. Theres tons of games out there with more strategy then you can even deal with, HOI and most hex/turn based games. If all the nuances of the strategy seem to be fixing the game for people maybe they are looking for a different game entirely?


Join Discord for technical support and online games.


Last edited by mooxe on Thu Feb 24, 2011 5:26 pm; edited 2 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
 
Stwa

Rep: 308.9
votes: 16


PostPosted: Tue Feb 22, 2011 4:03 pm Post subject: Re: Disenchated Reply with quote

Well said mooxe.

I suggested once before, that it is only a matter of time before the tactical battles are optional, like in Rome Total War.

Its amazing, not that the game sellers are here, CC5 is now a piece of dung.

Most of the new features are whiz bangs, like night fighting and night para drops.

I looked thru the list of new features, and the only one I was interested in was "running in a window", but after I thought about that one for a while, I don't want it either.

These guys should really try the newly updated Operational Art of War.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Stwa

Rep: 308.9
votes: 16


PostPosted: Tue Feb 22, 2011 4:10 pm Post subject: Re: Disenchated Reply with quote

Here is the text of an old post from the Matrix site, that I posted sometime in 2005. It was meant for WITP, but it will work with most any MULTIPLAYER strategy game.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scenario duration calculator


g = number of game turns as stated in the scenario editor for a given scenario.

t = turn-around time in minutes, or the average time it takes to play 1 complete turn (for all players) and takes into account all posssible delays, except sleep.

s = sleep time in minutes, or the average amount of time any player will sleep each calander day.

d = a calander day expressed as total minutes or normally 1440 minutes.

dm = duration of a game in minutes.

dd = duration of a game in days.

dy = duration of a game in years.



therefore:

dm = ((g * t) / (d - s)) * d

dd = dm / d ...

dy = dd / 365.25


example 1:

Bert and Ernie decide to play WitP scenario 15 by mail. The game lasts the maximum number of turns the scenario will allow.

Each turn took 30 minutes to complete on average. During the game Bert and Ernie sleep about 8 hours a day. How many days elapsed while Bert and Ernie were playing the game?


dm = ((1576 * 30) / (1440 - 480)) * 1440

dm = 70920

dd = 70920 / 1440

dd = 49.25


example 2:

Ralph and Fred decide to play WitP scenario 15 by mail. They agree to do 1 turn per day in the evening after work. Both Ralph and Fred sleep 6 hours a day on average. How many years elapsed while Ralph and Fred were playing the game?

dm = ((1576 * 1080) / (1440 - 360)) * 1440

dm = 2269440

dd = 2269440 / 1440

dd = 1576

dy = 1576 / 365.25

dy = 4.31
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
platoon_michael

Rep: 47.6
votes: 25


PostPosted: Tue Feb 22, 2011 8:48 pm Post subject: Re: Disenchated Reply with quote

I am not a fan of the Cohesion/Fatigue thing.
To be perfectly honest it Sucks.

Night Battles are PATHETIC.
When you take in account that Soldiers and Vehicles basically look as if they are glowing in the dark.
I.E. Winter Camo.
Add to that the shock of an all white .OVM when you zoom out on the map.
Pretty much provides the look and feel of people who don't give a fuck.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message GameRanger Account
 
platoon_michael

Rep: 47.6
votes: 25


PostPosted: Tue Feb 22, 2011 10:06 pm Post subject: Re: Disenchated Reply with quote

Now that being said.

I do like almost all of the new maps.(Codding,elevation,LOS still sucks)
I do like the expansion of 64 maps.
The extra BG's
The Text Files
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message GameRanger Account
 
Stwa

Rep: 308.9
votes: 16


PostPosted: Wed Feb 23, 2011 1:21 am Post subject: Re: Disenchated Reply with quote

You have always been a beeg Bulge fan, so it doesn't come as a surprise that you would spring for WAR.

I agree, the text files are a huge improvement, and in my case, makes modifying CCMT data a snap.

But, I think you mention in part, the lack of polish issue. Without having these games myself, I am guessing that WAR and TLD were the biggest offenders.

Perhaps new game features, are not thought out before implementation, and are making the strategy game seem juvenile.  

On my system, CC5 still works great.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
schrecken

Rep: 195
votes: 15


PostPosted: Wed Feb 23, 2011 5:08 am Post subject: Re: Disenchated Reply with quote

Quote:
With the new versions, there is a heavy focus on strategy


Not in CCMT   Razz

but no moreso in the WaR-LSA than CC5... apart from having a bigger strategic area.


Tactical battles have been enhanced timer/night/random para/ and I'd also include retreat as a tactical enhancement.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website GameRanger Account
 
southern_land

Rep: 150.9
votes: 14


PostPosted: Wed Feb 23, 2011 5:36 am Post subject: Re: Disenchated Reply with quote

mooxe wrote (View Post):
You will notice that in WaR/TLD/LSA the main change was strategy. New strategic maps with new ways to conduct business strategically. This is what I have a problem with. The focus changing from tactics to strategy. I thought the CC5 and the CC3 ways of handling strategy were great, I guess others don't. Two completely different ways, both excellent for their games. They gave you a few things to worry about strategy wise, it was kept simple, main focus was on the actual fighting.

With the new versions, there is a heavy focus on strategy. What happens in this stage has more effects on the tactical phase. So thats a matter of preference if you like that or not. For me though, the strategy was enough back in the day. I was hoping the tactical phase of the game would be updated. To date I think the only real update has been pathing and we had some deletions like isometric views of vehicles and buildings. Theres tons of games out there with more strategy then you can even deal with, HOI and most hex/turn based games. If all the nuances of the strategy seem to be fixing the game for people maybe they are looking for a different game entirely?


basically the "greater" emphasis on strategy gives a somewhat greater diversity to the game.  If you are isolated your choices are restricted in terms of rest, reinforcement and resupply and you have to contend with your failure on another level.  lets face it even in Afghanistan the NATO troops are having to deal with side effects of Pakistani's blowing up or otherwsie impeding fuel supplies here and there.  Would you have a wargame different to war?

PS... I thought maybe disenchated was when you got booted out of MSN messenger   LMAO
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
 
Tejszd

Rep: 130.8
votes: 19


PostPosted: Wed Feb 23, 2011 6:27 am Post subject: Re: Disenchated Reply with quote

schrecken wrote (View Post):
Tactical battles have been enhanced timer/night/random para/ and I'd also include retreat as a tactical enhancement.


Here are some more none strat layer in battle enhancements;

All:
- ability to set the max number of units a battlegroup can field
- improved vehicle path finding
- capable of representing multiple nationalities/voices for both sides

LSA:
- new column in elements.txt called "Is Foliage". When set to 1 the element (example leaves) will become the same height as tree it is adjacent to (if multiple trees the tallest tree height is used)
- start from multiple entry VL's (due to being able to have 2 BG's come onto the same map but from different directions)
- troops can run under a bridge and on a bridge (in previous CC's you could only code a bridge to work one way or the other)
- troops can run under a bridge superstructure
- ability to set specific map starting locations for selected units in battle of static battlegroups
- ability to set specific entry VL's for BG's in the scenario editor for a single battle
- assault / river crossings do not allow you to deploy vehicles

Other none strat layer enhancements;

All Remakes:
- ability to specify arrival turn for reinforcements in the scenario editor
- data files are text files
- old hard coded data moved from exe to text files; air support, artillery support, mortar support, supply drops, weather, battlegroup recycling, battlegroup retreat/disband, etc.
- windowed mode to allow the game to run in the background if you switch to another application

Most important strat layer enhancements (in my opinion) just to remind players;

All Remakes:
- larger viewing area for strat map
- press space to see map connection arrows for strat map
- off-map support quantities now tied to difficulty level
- supply drops available for both sides in addition to support (artillery, air and mortar)
- increased number of maps to 64 from 44
- increased number of BG's

LSA:
- multiple battlegroups per map
- static battlegroups


Last edited by Tejszd on Wed Feb 23, 2011 7:24 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
schrecken

Rep: 195
votes: 15


PostPosted: Wed Feb 23, 2011 7:13 am Post subject: Re: Disenchated Reply with quote

what have the Roman's ever done for us?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website GameRanger Account
 
Stwa

Rep: 308.9
votes: 16


PostPosted: Wed Feb 23, 2011 7:49 am Post subject: Re: Disenchated Reply with quote

OK, I will just pencil in what I think did not really apply to the opening post, with a N/A

If I didn't understand, which happens a lot now days, I will just pencil in WTF

And if I don't care about something, I will just put this --->   Razz


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Here are some more none strat layer in battle enhancements;

All:
- ability to set the max number of units a battlegroup can field N/A
- improved vehicle path finding  Razz  Razz  Razz  OH YEA!
- capable of representing multiple nationalities/voices for both sides N/A

LSA:
- new column in elements.txt called "Is Foliage". When set to 1 the element (example leaves) will become the same height as tree it is adjacent to (if multiple trees the tallest tree height is used) WTF
- start from multiple entry VL's (due to being able to have 2 BG's come onto the same map but from different directions) N/A
- troops can run under a bridge and on a bridge (in previous CC's you could only code a bridge to work one way or the other) N/A
- troops can run under a bridge superstructure N/A
- ability to set specific map starting locations for selected units in battle of static battlegroups N/A
- ability to set specific entry VL's for BG's in the scenario editor for a single battle N/A
- assault / river crossings do not allow you to deploy vehicles WTF

Other none strat layer enhancements;

All Remakes:
- ability to specify arrival turn for reinforcements in the scenario editor N/A
- data files are text files N/A
- old hard coded data moved from exe to text files; air support, artillery support, mortar support, supply drops, weather, battlegroup recycling, battlegroup retreat/disband, etc. N/A
- windowed mode to allow the game to run in the background if you switch to another application N/A

Most important strat layer enhancements (in my opinion) just to remind p;ayers;

All Remakes:
- larger viewing area for strat map N/A
- press space to see map connection arrows for strat map N/A
- off-map support quantities now tied to difficulty level N/A
- supply drops available for both sides in addition to support (artillery, air and mortar) N/A
- increased number of maps to 64 from 44 N/A
- increased number of BG's N/A

LSA:
- multiple battlegroups per map N/A
- static battlegroups N/A
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
platoon_michael

Rep: 47.6
votes: 25


PostPosted: Wed Feb 23, 2011 9:38 am Post subject: Re: Disenchated Reply with quote

Quote:
new column in elements.txt called "Is Foliage". When set to 1 the element (example leaves) will become the same height as tree it is adjacent to (if multiple trees the tallest tree height is used)


I believe I understand this one but why isn't it available for WAR?
Not having this option is killing a LOT of the maps.

I disagree with the larger viewing of the strat map.
Yes it was made bigger with one of the patch's but doesnt compare to CCIV.

@ STWA:
It's the only one I have bought and yes that is my campaign of choice.
I may get LSA once I ever get back on my feet but am just so sick of the Normandy thing with games that tLD isnt an option.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message GameRanger Account
 
schrecken

Rep: 195
votes: 15


PostPosted: Wed Feb 23, 2011 9:54 am Post subject: Re: Disenchated Reply with quote

Another tactical spinoff from a strategic enhancement

LSA - -Being able to enter a map from two different locations with 2 different BGs
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website GameRanger Account
 
Superkala

Rep: 5.1
votes: 2


PostPosted: Wed Feb 23, 2011 2:24 pm Post subject: Re: Disenchated Reply with quote

So - what prevented all those things listed from being in the game circa 2000 AD? Perhaps some amazing new computing technology has made these advances possible?

Anyone can look around for themselves at advances in games since CC series began....its quite obvious CC has been left in the dust for some time both conceptually and technically.

I wouldnt refer to myself as disenchanted though, as i do not form personal attachments to such things as games or football teams simply due to my proximity. Its a bit mysterious why someone involved in development(isnt that you schrecken??) would muck around arguing in this forum when you could just prove it by making a game that takes it to another level.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
schrecken

Rep: 195
votes: 15


PostPosted: Wed Feb 23, 2011 8:58 pm Post subject: Re: Disenchated Reply with quote

Quote:
(isnt that you schrecken??)


No, it's not.... so what a waste of a post.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website GameRanger Account
 
pagskier

Rep: 25


PostPosted: Thu Feb 24, 2011 1:03 am Post subject: Re: Disenchated Reply with quote

But guys I'm  actually wondering what you guys are looking for? as for what improvement

Except for some real AI and not crawling defensive AI

I'm thinking what we really need is a brand new engine no?
Then would we go into 3d?

I'm really a huge CC fan (mostly Single pLayer) since I was playing CC1 demo on my mac when there was no game on mac. Now with LSA I see that the game as evolved on both front, the strat map, and on the live battlefield. But the optimisation of the current engine is pretty much at the end. Am I right?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Tejszd

Rep: 130.8
votes: 19


PostPosted: Thu Feb 24, 2011 2:02 am Post subject: Re: Disenchated Reply with quote

Stwa wrote (View Post):
OK, I will just pencil in what I think did not really apply to the opening post, with a N/A


How can you say the items do not really apply to the opening post??? Mooxe posted that the enhancements being made are on strategy/strat layer and tactical/in battle changes are not being made. But many of the items impact the tactical/in battle part of the game while others have nothing to do with the strat layer (scenario editor, game volume, playing in a window, etc.)....

Superkala wrote (View Post):
So - what prevented all those things listed from being in the game circa 2000 AD? Perhaps some amazing new computing technology has made these advances possible?


Nothing except someone to buy/lease/rent the source code from the company (Destineer) that bought all of Atomics assets when it closed its doors back in 2000 and who is/was willing to invest some money for someone to change/edit the game code again.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Tejszd

Rep: 130.8
votes: 19


PostPosted: Thu Feb 24, 2011 4:30 am Post subject: Re: Disenchated Reply with quote

platoon_michael wrote (View Post):
Quote:
new column in elements.txt called "Is Foliage". When set to 1 the element (example leaves) will become the same height as tree it is adjacent to (if multiple trees the tallest tree height is used)


I believe I understand this one but why isn't it available for WAR?
Not having this option is killing a LOT of the maps.


Yes, it would be a good addition to WAR given the amount of forest. Unfortunately it was something thought of when testing LSA as troops in buildings were not really losing LOS through trees because only the trunk was the full height of the tree element not the leaves coded around it.... You never know, maybe down the road it could be added???

I also like your comment/idea on the OVM (zoomed out view) map when fighting a night battle to have it shaded (especially in WAR as you indicate with the white map being jarring / a shock).


Last edited by Tejszd on Thu Feb 24, 2011 4:38 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
dj

Rep: 149
votes: 9


PostPosted: Thu Feb 24, 2011 4:33 am Post subject: Re: Disenchated Reply with quote

Mooxe is basically right.  The updates were mostly related to strategy map and other new features.  Don't get me wrong it is good to have those.   Though IMO all the work should have gone to tactical/combat - related updates.

A.I. having random attacks...Dreaded 88 style all-out assaults by the A.I., charge tactics, etc.  Dreaded 88 and a few others really had the A.I. gameplay wired.

Really I think it is all about the $$$.  CC3 was the last top-notch quality release...after that CC4 and CC5 saw a regression in gameplay.  Microsoft had some serious $$$ back when they did CC2 and CC3.


What will the Revolution Change? - Youth Brigade
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Stwa

Rep: 308.9
votes: 16


PostPosted: Thu Feb 24, 2011 5:00 am Post subject: Re: Disenchated Reply with quote

Tejszd,

You are a nice guy and all, but you are nit picking. Here is the crux of the matter from mooxe's post, and I think you know that. You are just trying to discredit mooxe any way you can.

To date I think the only real update [for the tactical game] has been pathing and we had some deletions like isometric views of vehicles and buildings.

Were not talking about things that could IMPACT the tactical game, but its CORE engine, I think.

I know I could care less about most of the stuff on your list, but whenever these subjects come up, the dev team pops up these lists and then starts comparing their accomplishments to the Roman Empire.  

Its a pretty small list for 5+ years of work, and I will bet most of it was NOT NEEDED to sell the games.

I am guessing, but sometimes I think Matrix must be paying you a nickel everytime a game COPY is sold. If you insist on being this kind of prostitute, I suggest you set your sights a lot higher.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
 
Post new topicReply to topic printer-friendly view Close Combat Series Forum Index -> The Mess
Goto page : 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next


 
   
 


Jump to:  
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




Forums ©





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!