Better representation of Numerical Superiority.
While I like how different sized formations are treated in PITF, I think this is kind of a cheat to represent numerical superiority. You have a set of 21 teams max that you can control for big formations representing full regiments (please correct me if I'm wrong) and then you treat smaller formations as a function relative to their size so they can only command a fraction of the max slots available. The problem is that we now have these big sized maps and limiting a regiment to just 21 teams and the smaller formations to even less to play (or get lost?) in those maps is just no fun. Exception to this are of course, BG's representing actual companies but then you can't use all of its teams at once because tactically they would be the same size as an in-game regiment.
I want to assault that hill or strong point with all of my force if I want, all of my available companies to overwhelm the enemy. How to do this with out putting a strain on the player for managing over 30+ teams? I think it is time to give AI a chance.
Give the player two options: either all your reinforcements beyond your allotted 21 teams are directed by the AI or they come-in piecemeal after one of your original 21 units is routed or destroyed. This may sound familiar to some because it is the system used in the Total war series.
This could be out of question now because there are not going to be BG's or a strategic part of the game as we know it, but it may warrant some consideration for the future.
wish list
Better representation of numerical superiority
Hard-core Spectre
-
SteveMcClaire
- Posts: 4338
- Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 9:31 pm
RE: Better representation of numerical superiority
We're not going to have 'Battle Group' units moving around on a strategic map, but there are still going to be varied friendly and enemy forces available. I understand what you're saying about having realistic numerical superiority. There are still game play concerns that make it very difficult for a player to control a large number of units in a real-time game, but I think TBF will be somewhat closer to what you're looking for. The scale of the forces involved will be smaller (company level) so there will be a lot less abstraction. You won't be fielding 10% of the teams in you 'Battle Group' as in past CC games, but more like 80%.
-
SteveMcClaire
- Posts: 4338
- Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 9:31 pm
RE: Better representation of numerical superiority
We're not going to have 'Battle Group' units moving around on a strategic map, but there are still going to be varied friendly and enemy forces available. I understand what you're saying about having realistic numerical superiority. There are still game play concerns that make it very difficult for a player to control a large number of units in a real-time game, but I think TBF will be somewhat closer to what you're looking for. The scale of the forces involved will be smaller (company level) so there will be a lot less abstraction. You won't be fielding 10% of the teams in you 'Battle Group' as in past CC games, but more like 80%.
RE: Better representation of numerical superiority
Yes, I guess less abstraction is the goal in the end, going back to the "Close Combat" aspect of the game is very good and the one other direction that I would have liked this game to take, as opposed to the, excuse the borrowed word, embiggen of it to some sort of "Operational Combat" . Thanks for responding Steve.
Hard-core Spectre
RE: Better representation of numerical superiority
Good suggestions guys! Kanov, you're on roll and have a lot of great comments/ideas posted!
RE: wish list
I sure would like to say that I made them up but the ideas I've posted are for the most part things that I like from other games I've played, even from within the CC series itself!
Hard-core Spectre
RE: wish list
Since the strat map will be AWOL in this game and it unknown if/when it will come back can you make the next few releases add ons instead of stand alone games (example V for Victory by Atomic)?
Since there is limited development resources bug fixes and new features could be added over multiple add ons which would give the original game and the previous add ons all the improvements. In addition it should reduce some work for each release as the core interface could remain and just the new countries, units, maps req'd for the add on need be created.
Imagine COI with Western Europe, Africa,Italian and Pacific campaigns following a single battle group/division in each theatre over time so there would be seasons and vehicle/weapon upgrades over time.
Since there is limited development resources bug fixes and new features could be added over multiple add ons which would give the original game and the previous add ons all the improvements. In addition it should reduce some work for each release as the core interface could remain and just the new countries, units, maps req'd for the add on need be created.
Imagine COI with Western Europe, Africa,Italian and Pacific campaigns following a single battle group/division in each theatre over time so there would be seasons and vehicle/weapon upgrades over time.
RE: wish list
ORIGINAL: general_solomon
3. larger maps
NO! Same or smaller, unless you're increasing the number of units available to both sides.
I have a Youtube Channel that features Close Combat and Panzer Corps Let's Plays and videos, as well as historical documentaries.
-
Ivan Zaitzev
- Posts: 4
- Joined: Sat Jun 10, 2006 1:07 am
RE: wish list
First let me say that I'm really excited about this game. For what I have seen everyone would be happy if you drop GWTC and concentrate all your efforts in this one. Now, the game is going to be 3D but top down only? I really hope not. If you are going 3D then give us a free camera.
RE: wish list
Here's my two cents:
1) Platoon level multiplayer would really bring the game to the 21st Century. With (at least) three players per side it would be possible to execute good maneuvers with the 21 units we are used to having. Any more units IMO requires more players executing the moves. Its too often now that you have one platoon waiting for commands somewhere, while the only player is engaged somewhere else.
2) If multiplayer is impossible then at least a "Cover and follow command" is needed. This would mean that you assign a unit to cover (give fire support) and follow another unit. The simple way to do this would be that the covering unit gives fire support and when the covered unit stops (goes to Defend mode) the covering unit moves over to where the covered unit is defending.
The complicated version would involve milestones that the unit would execute in steps (i.e. the covered units Defend mode would be the go code for the covering unit). In the complicated mode the units could for example circle a building in turns etc.
3) Tracks (like we now have) and Go Codes (like Raven Shield). This is another way of enabling concerted maneuvers.
4) Variable sized platoons and platoon shortcuts - so that you could have a for example a motorized platoon of 3 units and two bigger infantry units. And then have keyboard shortcuts to call up the different platoons.
In general - customizable and permanent shortcuts. For example I should be able to assign the mortars to keyboard shortcuts that are stored from battle to battle (or could even be assigned in Options).
5) Placement of (AT) mines during battle. This would enhance infantry capacity against vehicles and allow players to better control the opponents routes of attack.
6) Automatic company War Diaries recording casualties and honours by battles. Also room for player notes on different battles should be provided.
7) More effective smoke screen. Currently the smoke always goes up and is "spot-like". This is completely unrealistic - smoke should be much more effective and spread horizontally (depending on wind direction and velocity, giving either wide and thin smokescreen in strong wind, or spot like and thick if there is no wind).
Also smoke should work differently in different conditions, in buildings it should be inpenetrable (making using smoke inside very effective), in forest it should be more effective than open (because smoke stays under foliage) and of course streets should convey smoke too.
8) Division into Supporting and Advancing units on strategic map. Units that haven't moved for one strategic turn would dig in (like now) and also provide indirect fire support to adjacent maps. Naturally a dug-in unit that is being attacked would also be able to provide itself with indirect fire support.
A units ability to provide fire support would depend on the support armament it has (howitzers, mortars), that the units already now have. They would just be given a more strategic value as well. This armament would still be deployable in battles (if you want fire support piecemeal, not barrage) but then it of course wouldn't be available on adjacent maps. This wouldn't mean you have the same mortar fire as now without having the unit on the map. You'd get for example one barrage per unit in reserve or the same as now if the unit is on the map.
Naturally such heavy weaponry would be lost on forced retreat (disband).
This would allow players to really choose where they put the weight in the strategic map and if they are taking an advancing approach (less fire support as all units are advancing) or a defending approach (more fire support all-around).
9) Redesigned fire support altogether. The availability of fire support should be more controllable by the player (see #8) and more clear altogether. This is particularly important in mods, where documentation may be lacking - you need to see what is and will be available on the Strategic Map screen. If artillery and mortars would depend on other units, this would leave naval artillery and close air support. Ship icons and a clear weather forecast would explain what is available (where there is a ship there is naval artillery) and expected not to be available (cloud cover in the forecast, no planes)
Also, there shouldn't be a requirement to allocate fire support to battles before start. After all, the battles are supposed to take place simultaneously, so you would really have the choice to fire here or there. If you could pick the order in which you fight the battles, it would be possible to start with the (ones you expect to be the) tough ones and use whatever fire support you deem necessary, and then use what remains in the easier ones.
This way you wouldn't have the totally frustrating situation of having fire support where you don't need it (because you didn't know that you won't need it) but you might not have it available because you already used it in a tough place. Either way, at least you got to use it when you needed it!
Geographic limitation of availability (only on shoreline, only within range of aircraft) should of course be there, but clearly visible on the StratMap.
1) Platoon level multiplayer would really bring the game to the 21st Century. With (at least) three players per side it would be possible to execute good maneuvers with the 21 units we are used to having. Any more units IMO requires more players executing the moves. Its too often now that you have one platoon waiting for commands somewhere, while the only player is engaged somewhere else.
2) If multiplayer is impossible then at least a "Cover and follow command" is needed. This would mean that you assign a unit to cover (give fire support) and follow another unit. The simple way to do this would be that the covering unit gives fire support and when the covered unit stops (goes to Defend mode) the covering unit moves over to where the covered unit is defending.
The complicated version would involve milestones that the unit would execute in steps (i.e. the covered units Defend mode would be the go code for the covering unit). In the complicated mode the units could for example circle a building in turns etc.
3) Tracks (like we now have) and Go Codes (like Raven Shield). This is another way of enabling concerted maneuvers.
4) Variable sized platoons and platoon shortcuts - so that you could have a for example a motorized platoon of 3 units and two bigger infantry units. And then have keyboard shortcuts to call up the different platoons.
In general - customizable and permanent shortcuts. For example I should be able to assign the mortars to keyboard shortcuts that are stored from battle to battle (or could even be assigned in Options).
5) Placement of (AT) mines during battle. This would enhance infantry capacity against vehicles and allow players to better control the opponents routes of attack.
6) Automatic company War Diaries recording casualties and honours by battles. Also room for player notes on different battles should be provided.
7) More effective smoke screen. Currently the smoke always goes up and is "spot-like". This is completely unrealistic - smoke should be much more effective and spread horizontally (depending on wind direction and velocity, giving either wide and thin smokescreen in strong wind, or spot like and thick if there is no wind).
Also smoke should work differently in different conditions, in buildings it should be inpenetrable (making using smoke inside very effective), in forest it should be more effective than open (because smoke stays under foliage) and of course streets should convey smoke too.
8) Division into Supporting and Advancing units on strategic map. Units that haven't moved for one strategic turn would dig in (like now) and also provide indirect fire support to adjacent maps. Naturally a dug-in unit that is being attacked would also be able to provide itself with indirect fire support.
A units ability to provide fire support would depend on the support armament it has (howitzers, mortars), that the units already now have. They would just be given a more strategic value as well. This armament would still be deployable in battles (if you want fire support piecemeal, not barrage) but then it of course wouldn't be available on adjacent maps. This wouldn't mean you have the same mortar fire as now without having the unit on the map. You'd get for example one barrage per unit in reserve or the same as now if the unit is on the map.
Naturally such heavy weaponry would be lost on forced retreat (disband).
This would allow players to really choose where they put the weight in the strategic map and if they are taking an advancing approach (less fire support as all units are advancing) or a defending approach (more fire support all-around).
9) Redesigned fire support altogether. The availability of fire support should be more controllable by the player (see #8) and more clear altogether. This is particularly important in mods, where documentation may be lacking - you need to see what is and will be available on the Strategic Map screen. If artillery and mortars would depend on other units, this would leave naval artillery and close air support. Ship icons and a clear weather forecast would explain what is available (where there is a ship there is naval artillery) and expected not to be available (cloud cover in the forecast, no planes)
Also, there shouldn't be a requirement to allocate fire support to battles before start. After all, the battles are supposed to take place simultaneously, so you would really have the choice to fire here or there. If you could pick the order in which you fight the battles, it would be possible to start with the (ones you expect to be the) tough ones and use whatever fire support you deem necessary, and then use what remains in the easier ones.
This way you wouldn't have the totally frustrating situation of having fire support where you don't need it (because you didn't know that you won't need it) but you might not have it available because you already used it in a tough place. Either way, at least you got to use it when you needed it!
Geographic limitation of availability (only on shoreline, only within range of aircraft) should of course be there, but clearly visible on the StratMap.
RE: wish list
@Mueller
- Attachments
-
- shutupan..mymoney.jpg (106.91 KiB) Viewed 243 times
Hard-core Spectre
RE: wish list
ORIGINAL: Ivan Zaitzev
For what I have seen everyone would be happy if you drop GWTC and concentrate all your efforts in this one.
+1
I have a Youtube Channel that features Close Combat and Panzer Corps Let's Plays and videos, as well as historical documentaries.
RE: wish list
Perhaps some of these recommendations have been mentioned, but here are some ideas I have:
1. I always liked CC3 because you really get to know the soldiers over the course of time, but one thing I noticed is that they seem to max out at a certain point and their rank just seems symbolic but otherwise they don't have much impact on the battlefield. Perhaps soldiers should become more heroic if led by a particularly experienced veteran who is highly decorated? It seems the most decorated soldiers don't have much impact, but if there was a highly decorated soldier in the real battlefield it surely must have an effect on soldiers, right? Kind of like a celebrity. So perhaps soldiers can become more heroic in the presence of a highly decorated soldier? Maybe there is a bit of that in the programming but I haven't much noticed.
2. There are times in history where there are great charges of infantry. But never in the close combat games have there been screaming heroic charges. When mass amounts of men charge on an enemy position they should, provided the right circumstances, make some noise. This happens in real life. Perhaps this can be worked on? It seems that there is something lacking in that area, where the soldiers in close combat lack "spirit" and heroic moments are few and far between and though occasionally you'll have a few soldiers go berserk or heroic, it just doesn't add up to much. how about if you order a charge when a soldier is heroic and the soldiers can all rush the enemy screaming and drop the enemies morale, if the circumstances are right? Close Combat had it right in psychologically modeling soldiers, but it just sort of left it at the most basic level and hasn't evolved much. It say's "Schultz is heroic" but then the guy just goes "yaaah!" and stands there. what's the fun in that? Typically to be heroic you have to actually do something other than yell "cover me". The soldiers never use their enhanced states to any purpose.
3. Ammo dumps. Shouldn't a defending army have ammo stores? Why would a team be limited to such little ammunition if they are stationary and in a defensive mode? Like in invasion normandy; the Germans are in bunkers but only have something like 1000 rounds. they should be better equipped than the attacking army. Also, we have these trucks in PITF but why not put ammunition on them so they can go around and resupply troops? granted that may draw-out battles but I rarely if ever use the trucks and they seem almost pointless otherwise.
4. Corpses should stay in no-man's land. If a battle is going on and on it would be interesting if the dead could stay there, to give the battlefield a more authentic feel.
5. You should be able to construct your own teams out of your best men, especially if the campaign stretches over a long period of time. In CC2 I recall there would be an automatic merging of units when losses were severe. for example I would have Bren teams with 2 Brens and I always thought this was awesome. They're your soldiers and you should be able to do whatever you want with them. Obviously there are MG, recon and rifle teams for a REASON so giving us the option to mix and match shouldn't be an issue if we need to to suit our purposes. Maybe even the ability to equip with anti-tank weapons like panzerfausts because often this is luck of the draw and you never really know who has such weapons.
6. The ability to divide teams. The ability to give orders to individual soldiers so that the machine gunner in a machine gun team, for example, doesn't stand inside a building while the rifleman stands at the window in perfect view of the enemy.
7. Bring back the ability to put YOURSELF on the battlefield. I always loved that touch in CC1 and CC3.
8. More smoke should linger in the air.
9. "ACT ON OWN" order
That's all I can think of for now but if I think of anything else I will be sure to post! [8D][8D][8D]
1. I always liked CC3 because you really get to know the soldiers over the course of time, but one thing I noticed is that they seem to max out at a certain point and their rank just seems symbolic but otherwise they don't have much impact on the battlefield. Perhaps soldiers should become more heroic if led by a particularly experienced veteran who is highly decorated? It seems the most decorated soldiers don't have much impact, but if there was a highly decorated soldier in the real battlefield it surely must have an effect on soldiers, right? Kind of like a celebrity. So perhaps soldiers can become more heroic in the presence of a highly decorated soldier? Maybe there is a bit of that in the programming but I haven't much noticed.
2. There are times in history where there are great charges of infantry. But never in the close combat games have there been screaming heroic charges. When mass amounts of men charge on an enemy position they should, provided the right circumstances, make some noise. This happens in real life. Perhaps this can be worked on? It seems that there is something lacking in that area, where the soldiers in close combat lack "spirit" and heroic moments are few and far between and though occasionally you'll have a few soldiers go berserk or heroic, it just doesn't add up to much. how about if you order a charge when a soldier is heroic and the soldiers can all rush the enemy screaming and drop the enemies morale, if the circumstances are right? Close Combat had it right in psychologically modeling soldiers, but it just sort of left it at the most basic level and hasn't evolved much. It say's "Schultz is heroic" but then the guy just goes "yaaah!" and stands there. what's the fun in that? Typically to be heroic you have to actually do something other than yell "cover me". The soldiers never use their enhanced states to any purpose.
3. Ammo dumps. Shouldn't a defending army have ammo stores? Why would a team be limited to such little ammunition if they are stationary and in a defensive mode? Like in invasion normandy; the Germans are in bunkers but only have something like 1000 rounds. they should be better equipped than the attacking army. Also, we have these trucks in PITF but why not put ammunition on them so they can go around and resupply troops? granted that may draw-out battles but I rarely if ever use the trucks and they seem almost pointless otherwise.
4. Corpses should stay in no-man's land. If a battle is going on and on it would be interesting if the dead could stay there, to give the battlefield a more authentic feel.
5. You should be able to construct your own teams out of your best men, especially if the campaign stretches over a long period of time. In CC2 I recall there would be an automatic merging of units when losses were severe. for example I would have Bren teams with 2 Brens and I always thought this was awesome. They're your soldiers and you should be able to do whatever you want with them. Obviously there are MG, recon and rifle teams for a REASON so giving us the option to mix and match shouldn't be an issue if we need to to suit our purposes. Maybe even the ability to equip with anti-tank weapons like panzerfausts because often this is luck of the draw and you never really know who has such weapons.
6. The ability to divide teams. The ability to give orders to individual soldiers so that the machine gunner in a machine gun team, for example, doesn't stand inside a building while the rifleman stands at the window in perfect view of the enemy.
7. Bring back the ability to put YOURSELF on the battlefield. I always loved that touch in CC1 and CC3.
8. More smoke should linger in the air.
9. "ACT ON OWN" order
That's all I can think of for now but if I think of anything else I will be sure to post! [8D][8D][8D]
RE: wish list
@Steve McClaire
Hi,
I'm looking forward to this. One thing I feel is critical is the multiplayer connection. In PITF it was changed to a lobby system through Matrix as opposed to the previous iterations, direct connection etc. The simple reason I bring this up, is that if at some point in the future(hopefully not)if Matrix Games went bust, then we're all up the Swanee without a paddle. By all means keep the same lobby set up as PITF, but also give people the alternate option.
Less importantly, personally I'd prefer to see the game set up a la CC5 rather than CC3 - great game that it was - what really ticked me off about it though was that you couldn't actually alter things, you ended back in Berlin no matter what. In CC5 and its follow ons/remakes etc, you were dealing with a time frame of weeks at the most, the decisions made were much more relevant to the campaign. With CC3 it was all abstracted with the 4 year timeline.
My two cents worth [;)]
Kilovski
Hi,
I'm looking forward to this. One thing I feel is critical is the multiplayer connection. In PITF it was changed to a lobby system through Matrix as opposed to the previous iterations, direct connection etc. The simple reason I bring this up, is that if at some point in the future(hopefully not)if Matrix Games went bust, then we're all up the Swanee without a paddle. By all means keep the same lobby set up as PITF, but also give people the alternate option.
Less importantly, personally I'd prefer to see the game set up a la CC5 rather than CC3 - great game that it was - what really ticked me off about it though was that you couldn't actually alter things, you ended back in Berlin no matter what. In CC5 and its follow ons/remakes etc, you were dealing with a time frame of weeks at the most, the decisions made were much more relevant to the campaign. With CC3 it was all abstracted with the 4 year timeline.
My two cents worth [;)]
Kilovski
RE: wish list
+1 Kilovski on the direct connection
-
SteveMcClaire
- Posts: 4338
- Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 9:31 pm
RE: wish list
Thanks for your feedback on a direct connection option. I will be sure to pass that along.
Steve
Steve
RE: wish list
here is an additional request: please do not make the surviving gun and tank crews run off the maps. Put them back in command of the player, like in cc3. especially if they are a command crew or are an experienced crew. There is no reason for them to be armed if they absolutely never use their weapons. do they ever use their weapons when they bailout? I haven't seen it happen. It almost seems glitchy to allow the player to issue orders if there is no chance they'll follow them. And sometimes things get so desperate the weapons crews are all you have.
Also maybe you can make gun crews temporarily abandon their guns upon the player's orders? If players can mount and dismount vehicles, a gun crew should be able to man and unman a gun.
Also maybe you can make gun crews temporarily abandon their guns upon the player's orders? If players can mount and dismount vehicles, a gun crew should be able to man and unman a gun.
RE: wish list
I think gun crews maybe in a desperate situation be used as frontline Inf if their gun is destroyed..however I think Tank crews who bailed should move off map, seems far more realistic for them to bail and move off behind the lines if possible.
Really give some chrome to the moral systems..giving soldiers lots of actions through moral and stance.. maybe if your squad is in the third line ambush a soldier could be "cleaning rifle"..or "reading letter"...etc etc. Then have alot of things like "knocked off feet".."dropped rifle".."crying".."berserk and cursing"..."Shouting at Squad\moral recovery" Lots of things like this..gives alot of immersion and player attachment to your soldiers and shows you exactly whats happening to each soldier. Certain things like a Tough experienced sergeant can have a "Shouting motivating bullcrap at Squad" info which gives the sqd a moral boost or improves moral recovery etc...or "Confused"..which if an Officer could drop moral of sqd or make them hesitate before carrying out your orders etc.
Also a poor officer will or may choose poor path to your final waypoint..where as an experienced officer will choose a good path and a heroic Stiener like leader a superb path. Accuracy of fire increases with experience. Though no silly bonuses like longer range or more lethal rounds etc.
This would make the game stand out from other tactical realtime games and really give your soldiers personality and get you attached to them. Of course doing this please make them to the level of CC2 survivability and not cannon fodder they are now.
Really give some chrome to the moral systems..giving soldiers lots of actions through moral and stance.. maybe if your squad is in the third line ambush a soldier could be "cleaning rifle"..or "reading letter"...etc etc. Then have alot of things like "knocked off feet".."dropped rifle".."crying".."berserk and cursing"..."Shouting at Squad\moral recovery" Lots of things like this..gives alot of immersion and player attachment to your soldiers and shows you exactly whats happening to each soldier. Certain things like a Tough experienced sergeant can have a "Shouting motivating bullcrap at Squad" info which gives the sqd a moral boost or improves moral recovery etc...or "Confused"..which if an Officer could drop moral of sqd or make them hesitate before carrying out your orders etc.
Also a poor officer will or may choose poor path to your final waypoint..where as an experienced officer will choose a good path and a heroic Stiener like leader a superb path. Accuracy of fire increases with experience. Though no silly bonuses like longer range or more lethal rounds etc.
This would make the game stand out from other tactical realtime games and really give your soldiers personality and get you attached to them. Of course doing this please make them to the level of CC2 survivability and not cannon fodder they are now.
RE: wish list
ORIGINAL: wodin
I think gun crews maybe in a desperate situation be used as frontline Inf if their gun is destroyed..however I think Tank crews who bailed should move off map, seems far more realistic for them to bail and move off behind the lines if possible.
Really give some chrome to the moral systems..giving soldiers lots of actions through moral and stance.. maybe if your squad is in the third line ambush a soldier could be "cleaning rifle"..or "reading letter"...etc etc. Then have alot of things like "knocked off feet".."dropped rifle".."crying".."berserk and cursing"..."Shouting at Squad\moral recovery" Lots of things like this..gives alot of immersion and player attachment to your soldiers and shows you exactly whats happening to each soldier. Certain things like a Tough experienced sergeant can have a "Shouting motivating bullcrap at Squad" info which gives the sqd a moral boost or improves moral recovery etc...or "Confused"..which if an Officer could drop moral of sqd or make them hesitate before carrying out your orders etc.
Also a poor officer will or may choose poor path to your final waypoint..where as an experienced officer will choose a good path and a heroic Stiener like leader a superb path. Accuracy of fire increases with experience. Though no silly bonuses like longer range or more lethal rounds etc.
This would make the game stand out from other tactical realtime games and really give your soldiers personality and get you attached to them. Of course doing this please make them to the level of CC2 survivability and not cannon fodder they are now.
I really like those ideas. It would be much more immersing that way! And that isn't exactly difficult to do.
I think that the programmers have gradually lost track of the roots of Close Combat which were that it was about your soldiers with their individual personalities. In that sense no information is redundant.
There really could be so many sounds added as well. It isn't the 1990s anymore and the number of sounds that could be used are essentially limitless. Personally I am quite tired of the same old sounds. It was understandable for there to be 4 or 5 voices but considering how long the series has been out there is really no reason for so few sounds.
Close Combat is supposed to be highly realistic and especially so at the level of the individual soldier. But somewhere along the way that got lost. Now I can't even keep track of my soldiers and you can't pick and choose which soldiers are fighting and which aren't because you generally choose at the company or platoon level. As I said before CC3 seemed to be the one which created the strongest connection with the soldiers over time. Then that info just got less and less important to the programmers, as though we weren't supposed to care anymore but that is the most fun part of the game!
As for the tank and gun crews, I think that perhaps there should be an initial shock where they run off to safety and then 'cool down' so you can use them in combat if you so choose to. Otherwise they go off to safety It just really irks me that they are issued weapons that they don't even EVER use. If that were realistic then they would never have been issued weapons in the first place [X(]. But in real life crews would surely fight for their lives and would follow orders given to them.