Posted: Sun Sep 28, 2014 7:22 am Post subject: Re: Disenchanted
The walk through walls thing is another subject. It changes from version to version and mod to mod. The AI has the same advantage as I do running through walls, the AI would be even more severely handicapped if it had to run through doors. -mooxe
So you think you are on to something here, or are you just being argumentative for amusement purposes? Either way, I don't mind.
1. The ability to run through walls, etc. is a function of the data contained in the elements.txt file.
2. If the elements file only allows the Human Player to move through doors and windows, must the AI do the same?
3. In the case of your Carentan Video, was the AI a defender/static defender? Were you the attacker?
4. Did the system deploy the AI teams in structures?
5. At what scale speed where your units travelling during the Rambo tactics? 25-30mph?
6. Is it harder for the AI teams to acheive hits on your teams while they are travelling at these speeds?
7. For how long could your teams sustain this speed throughout the battle?
8. How far did your teams have to sprint during the battle? 100 meters? 200 meters?
9. Does the CC5 AI codeline provide AI teams with a RAMBO tactic mode? (It could be used on a beach)
10. Does the CC5 AI codeline provide AI teams with a CRAM tactic mode? (Where they run up to 30-40 soldiers into the same house)
11. Was your game modified so mortar and artillery rounds were less lethal?
12. Was your game modified so soliders could cram into to smaller spaces?
13. What is the capital of Assyria?
Look, I don't care if you like arcady WW2 type squad leader games. Whatever makes you happy.
CCAT had an even more powerful mission editor than CCMT which you can see in action here.
Wow, I had not seen this CCAT version before. That's what I was exactly trying to say. To make the single player challenging and fun, the developers either need to improve the AI or equip the players with such a powerful editor so that they can build their custom scenarios. The game, in that case, could be fun single-player, since you can decide on enemy deployment, scenario triggers, and decide in objectives such as "capture the town hall", "secure the landing zone without any casualty", "search for IED's in the highway" etc. People could put up their own scenarios here on CCS and single-player enthusiasts could just download those and try to complete the objectives.
Just unbelieavable how they did not include such a powerful editor with the re-releases. Typical Matrix approach as usual...
Last edited by Pzt_Crackwise on Sun Sep 28, 2014 10:58 am; edited 1 time in total
Only under sustained fire will the men cancel a movement order. This is opposite in the rereleases to a large extent, they will completely cancel a move order when shot at. Anyways... I think the original point was the devs changing things that didn't need to be changed.
You hit the nail on the head with an AT shell. I have no problem with men hitting the dirt and looking for cover. It's the cancelled command that frustrates. It is too sensitive.
CC5 was too far the other way, orders where never cancelled and the "Crawl of Death" results.
Also the AI needs to be smarter in what it defines as "cover" I have seen troops nearly safe in a house crawl back across the street where they came from when fired upon. This is when you hear the yells of frustration.
But that's just a stat. Is the reason why its only 1% because 99% enjoy single player? There's no data to back up either side. There's many factors involved and its not just the enjoyably or lack of it in single player!
There is definately more immersion in head to head (multiplayer). But what I feel like I have observed over time with many games, not just CC, is that lots of people want to control the amount of immersion they experience when playing, and with CC that can only be accomplished in Single Player.
Further proof resides with mass multiplayer games, where the immersion factor is totally paramount. For many people, the best experience ever, but when it is restricted to head to head (2 multiplayers) in what would appear as a 1 on 1 competition event, many people shirk from that. The head to head nature of multiplayer is not always present in the mass multiplayer format.
I always saw 2 differences if ways of playing CC. Way back, when was playing H2H, the intensity was short term and it was for either ladder play, or nothing more than a sense of bragging rights, or clan play not to mention they were always single battles in almost every single occasion, though did attempt a campaign with 1 clan member once.
With AI play there i the ability to play when you want, less intensity with ability to play campaigns, rather than short term single battles.
It was quite some time after purchasing both CC4/5 before could enjoy an AI campaign in either of those titles because was playing H2H strictly back then.
Posted: Mon Sep 29, 2014 1:58 am Post subject: Re: Disenchanted
I'll list the ones I remember....
1. In multiplayer all allies had the same colour on the minimap, very confusing when troops overlap.
2. In multiplayer, you had a choose a battle before people joined. If you wanted to switch battles everyone had to reconnect.
3. When, in multiplayer, your troops were mixed with your allies troops you could select both (like in the same house). This was confusing because you could select your friends troops as if they were your own, but you couldn't right click to issue orders.
4. In multiplayer, if a player lost connection the entire game aborted. (like a 2v2 or more)
5. No team chat in multiplayer.
6. When opening up the multiplayer screen, it automatically searches for LAN games.
7. No campaign or operation mode, no carry over of troops...
8. Ability to issue commands in replay mode. Not a bug, more or less an unfinished tool.
9. I am just going to assume the mount/dismount warping bug exists.
With all these multiplayer limitations it gave them feeling that it was just hacked in and left as is.
Posted: Mon Sep 29, 2014 3:05 am Post subject: Re: Disenchanted
OK, my bad, I remember these now. That's the list me thinks you have posted before.
The hacking you mentioned is becuase CCM supported 3 players per side, and CCMT supported 5 players per side? Since some of you guys played CCM (the version at CSO), I am wondering if multiplayer was more stable with that title?
So, item 1-6 is multiplayer. I never use it, so no big deal to me. Item 7 is NO campaign, a feature in my opinion. Item 8 is about replay but no bug as you mention. Replay works great and seems complete on my system. Item 9 does happen in CCMT, but as a user you can make sure it doesn't happen too.
Posted: Mon Sep 29, 2014 7:45 am Post subject: Re: Disenchanted
The game [CCMT], in that case, could be fun single-player, since you can decide on enemy deployment, scenario triggers, and decide in objectives such as "capture the town hall", "secure the landing zone without any casualty", "search for IED's in the highway" etc... Just unbelieavable how they did not include such a powerful editor with the re-releases. Typical Matrix approach as usual... -Pzt_Crackwise
Everything on your list except triggers, can be done with the current CCMT editor. Search zones and objective names can be enumerated with the Text Labels. Acceptable casualties, and additional victory conditions can be described in the mission's OP-ORDERS. So as you imagined, Single Player is fun now. And Matrix did provide the most powerful editor with CCMT. I am not sure if Matrix got approval from USMC to release CCAT?
Mooxe should have titled the thread Seeking Disenchantment
The game [CCMT], in that case, could be fun single-player, since you can decide on enemy deployment, scenario triggers, and decide in objectives such as "capture the town hall", "secure the landing zone without any casualty", "search for IED's in the highway" etc... Just unbelieavable how they did not include such a powerful editor with the re-releases. Typical Matrix approach as usual... -Pzt_Crackwise
Everything on your list except triggers, can be done with the current CCMT editor. Search zones and objective names can be enumerated with the Text Labels. Acceptable casualties, and additional victory conditions can be described in the mission's OP-ORDERS. So as you imagined, Single Player is fun now. And Matrix did provide the most powerful editor with CCMT. I am not sure if Matrix got approval from USMC to release CCAT?
Mooxe should have titled the thread Seeking Disenchantment
Yes, CCMT may be the most suitable CC game for single-player, I am not arguing about that. What we are angry about is why was such a useful editor not refined and included in the other releases such as WaR, TLD, LSA, PitF, GtC?!
Posted: Tue Sep 30, 2014 2:18 am Post subject: Re: Disenchanted
Yes, CCMT may be the most suitable CC game for single-player, I am not arguing about that. What we are angry about is why was such a useful editor not refined and included in the other releases such as WaR, TLD, LSA, PitF, GtC?! -Pzt_Crackwise
Really
OK, I am thinking that peoply really aren't that angry at all, but rather sites and forums like this one allow people to masquerade as angry or disenchanted.
I can list alot of reasons why a CCMT style editor was NOT included in the titles you mentioned. Most of these reasons are good ones.
But to give you some hints, remember that CCMT is a commercial release of CCM. Think of CCM's primary user. At USMC there were people there, where part of their job day to day was to manually create multiplayer scenarios for USMC users.
In the other titles, the system automates the creation of an engagement, and presents it to the user(s).
Posted: Tue Sep 30, 2014 7:44 am Post subject: Re: Disenchanted
CC5 was too far the other way, orders where never cancelled and the "Crawl of Death" results. -pvt_Grunt
Right, but a title like CCMT has plenty of Girly events, and plenty of AI Belly Down Assaults. But Girly events limit the HP Rambo Tactic, and that has ARCADE GAMERS fuming.
ARCADE GAMERS don't want a Belly Down Assault. They want these assualts conducted at 20-30 MPH with soldiers upright. So when the AI persists in an attack on their bellies, ARCADE GAMERS are disenchanted, and if the game cancels a HP Rambo attack, the ARCADE GAMERS are disenchanted.
So, are the ARCADE GAMERS disenchanted when the game cancels an AI Rambo attack.
Here is a link to a nice thread about very determined AI attacks.
At this point, me thinks it is a good time to remind all that I have nothing against ARCADE GAMES or ARCADE GAMERS.
As I mentioned before, Rome Total War, which is a very popular title has an ARCADE mode, and all modes seem like ARCADE combat because of the speeds at which the units (infantry, cavalry, etc.) move on the tactical battlefield.
There are many additional ARCADE aspects of RTW combat besides speed, but through modding you can slow units down, and to some players this makes the game less fun.
How can you leave out Sudden Strike STWA? Remember when it was THE hot topic at the MSN Zone and everyone was chomping at the bit for it's release.. Just waiting for it so they could abandon CC.. Only to find out it was an arcade game?? :oops:
I do find it fascinating that some multiplayers insinuate disenchantment with the status of multiplayer CC, but put the blame on Matrix or others, when perhaps the responsible individuals can be located with a simple glance into a mirror.
This was an old pet map of mine I used to play on the Tournament House Ladder. It was almost an unbeatable strategy. You just overwhelm the enemy with about 13 teams on assault and 2 teams on defense, just for flank security. -mooxe (from Carentan video)
Mooxe spoke these words at the beginning of the video. And makes it clear he is demonstrating an "unbeatable" strategy that he has devised and used on HUMAN PLAYERS on the Tournament House ladder.
But after I mentioned that the game seemed like an ARCADE GAME, mooxe said the following.
In my Carentan video, the rambo tactic could of easily been smashed if the AI deployed better. You'll notice some of my men running fast across open areas never came under fire. I shouldn't have free will to run across roads like that. -mooxe
So, according to mooxe this strategy was unbeatable against HUMAN PLAYERS, but could easily be smashed by the AI.
So, like lots of war game sites and forums, this is the kind of BS you can expect from multiplayers. And they wonder why H2H is on the decline.
Yes I did say the Rambo tactic could be smashed by the AI. Which means I'd have to resort to something else to win. When I played this map online, only the very greenest players would let me get away with something similar as what you see in the video, but they would always react much better than the AI. In fights against regular players I would have to win suppression first before my men moved in, or have a portion crawling under fire. The tactic is "unbeatable" not because of the speed the men move, but the concentrated firepower they provide. I say unbeatable in quotes so you don't take it out of context again (remember I said almost unbeatable in the video).
If you want to take your example of my video as the reason why H2H is in decline, then take this one as my counter point.
So according to Stwa the reason why multiplayer is in decline is because of the people who play multiplayer (?).. What kind of a logic is this? Accusing people who want multiplayer arena to actually prosper with more actvity is the stupidest thing I have heard in this regard. But perhaps I miss your main point, Stwa, due to the vividly colorful, a clusterf*ck of posting style you have.
For all others, you can see why multiplayer has become a chore clearly at the link Mooxe has provided (Matrix Games GtC forums), where I and few others have posted the current broken multiplayer isssues GtC has. I will briefly summarize the current situation here: As far as I was able to observe, Matrix Games servers have had problems at least on 3 different days this week, rendering multiplayer gaming of GtC impossible. This indicates how correct Mooxe and many other fellow CCS members were, when they had criticised Matrix of removing the manual TCP/IP option from PitF onwards. There is at the moment no alternative way to connect and play GtC when the shitty Matrix servers are down.
As you can see, again Matrix has butchered the multiplayer aspect of the game with their arbitrary decisions. Noone had asked them to come up with a half-ass multiplayer lobby at the first place. We just expected them to fix the inherent bugs. The multiplayer bugs are still there unfixed (won't mention them here again, check previous posts), the TCP/IP manual connection option is out, an unreliable half-way complete lobby is there instead. Good job Matrix people, continue like that!..
Your Amazon screenie is histerical. Did you notice the price of $ 650.59.
Here it is running on my system. Germans are moving on road. Max res is 1024x768.
Not so arcady so far.
Too Funny STWA.. I should have known you would have had it up-n-running on ur PC...
Yes.. I saw some Youtube links when went searching for SuddenStrike, then a Wikapedia link, but can't link those, then saw that outrageous priced game and thought it humorous, so decided to link it. Who would pay nearly 7 Big-uns for a 15 year old flop of a game? It was even being sold by the developer as remember STWA.
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!
Did CCMT not satisfy your need for ARCADE combat. 
