Long Time CC Fan

[Derouin]

This post serves no purpose other than for me to talk silly about my thoughts on the CC series!

I have been playing CC since way back in 1997 with CC1. I played that game on my Windows 95 486 computer.

I thought it was fantastic. I could see my favorite soldiers progress throughout campaigns, and the 'survivability' of the units was excellent-- the infantry to me did not seem dispensable units like in other click-fest military style games.

I could outlay my german defenses and let them have at it, and I would be assured that at the end of the battle, if I had them layed out well, most would survive, and I would have a few heroes!

CC2 was a big upgrade in my opinion-- the one thing that ticked me off was the inability to have the right mouse click work to deselect a unit. Ugh.

CC3 was great, but the soldier survivability was not so good. Tanks dominated to such a degree that it was discouraging. I started to not care about my units as much as I did in CC1, and I would often find myself using suspect tactics just to achieve victory locations. The editing functions were fantastic! I discovered CCclone and mucked about with some values and had snipers who could take out tanks. That was fun for a bit. hehe

CC4 was underwhelming to say the least. I felt the maps were ordinary and dull, the vehicle graphics were unusual at times, and it just didnt seem to have any 'zip'.

CC5 I thought was an updated version of CC1-- I loved it! Gamespy was a good thing to have as well with that version. All sorts of mods etc too! GREAT maps for solo or multiplayer. WOW I loved the Branville map with all of the trenches!!!!!!!!!!!! Trench maps are the best for long drawn out battles.


Now this WaR is out I must say I enjoy several aspects that I identify as noticeable improvements:

1. The AI actually for the FIRST time mounts real attacks. REAL attacks. They may not be sophisticated (flanking, suppression etc), but at least the supposed attacking AI does not simply sit and wait, or crawl around aimlessly like in ALL the other versions. The first time I noticed this I was completely shocked-- I had a german machine gun and command team on the crest of a hill, and there was a human wave of GI's. Four total units of riflemen/BARs. They overran my position! That would never occur in CC1-5! Good job.
2. Infantry survivability is much improved from CC2-CC5. Machine gun teams can blast away for a considerable time before one of my men gets killed/incapacitated. This is good. For those who play(ed) alot of CC1, you know what I am talking about.
3. Thank God you guys put back the "Good" or "Great" cover rating for burned out vehicles. The rating was poor with older versions of CC. Great for snipers etc. Good job.
4. Vehicles become disabled at a good rate. I am SICK of getting pounded by invincible tanks who run willy nilly throughout European FORESTS without breaking down. I love it. I mean realistically people-- does anyone think the tank commanders in WW2 would have their crew going through dense forests??? I'm sure they'd take the roads that their infantry had secured. This is a great game balancing decision that has been made that really makes a difference! Good job.

[Andrew Williams]

Nice thoughtful comments

thanks Derouin

[TheReal_Pak40]

1. The AI actually for the FIRST time mounts real attacks. REAL attacks. They may not be sophisticated (flanking, suppression etc), but at least the supposed attacking AI does not simply sit and wait, or crawl around aimlessly like in ALL the other versions. The first time I noticed this I was completely shocked-- I had a german machine gun and command team on the crest of a hill, and there was a human wave of GI's. Four total units of riflemen/BARs. They overran my position! That would never occur in CC1-5! Good job.

While I agree that this is an improvement, it eventually turns into the same old problem: predictability. I've played about 20 or so battles in the Grand Campaign as the Germans so far and have experienced 3 or 4 of these "human wave" attacks. It becomes a slaughter because I know to expect on of these if I take certain objectives on the map. A couple of well placed mg42s or an armored vehicle will complete wipe out an attack of this sort because the AI tends to bunch up the units and completely ignoring cover and LOS making the "human wave" sitting ducks.

The problem is that the "human wave" is a mad dash to recapture an objective. If they were to program the AI to leapfrog it's units using supporting fire and/or to spread them out a little more, then it would be more realistic and more challenging to the human player.

[Derouin]

I agree with what you said Pak40.
 
On another silly Fan note:
I often hear people complain about the poor graphics of the CC series, but my opinion is that I do not play the game for 3D graphics and eye candy. I play soley for the tactical excitement and CONTROL over the engagement and battlefield.
To go a bit further, in my opinion I find that my experience of control is diminished when the graphics are 3 dimensional. For instance, when GI Combat and Combat Mission came out, I was very excited. BUT I found that it was a bit overwhelming for me to control and to understand what was going on. And by this I don't particularly mean the heat of battle was causing this-- the general presentation of the game made this somewhat confusing.
 
Perhaps future CC games could be similar to Myth. Myth was a great game that had 3D models but the feeling was an isometric layout. Everything was quickly observable and i felt that I was in control of everything.

[berndn]

I think that a real 3D engine would solve a lot of problems with LOS and height. But I do not understand why it should change the way it is now ?
I can fix the angle/height of the view so nothing changes. I can only allow one step zoom out as well as one zoom in as a programmer. I'm for a 3D engine behind and I know that the current maps would then be useless.

[Perturabo]

ORIGINAL: Derouin

To go a bit further, in my opinion I find that my experience of control is diminished when the graphics are 3 dimensional. For instance, when GI Combat and Combat Mission came out, I was very excited. BUT I found that it was a bit overwhelming for me to control and to understand what was going on. And by this I don't particularly mean the heat of battle was causing this-- the general presentation of the game made this somewhat confusing.

Same here. Also, I like CC map graphics as long as they are well done - they could use more colours, though. I've seen ground in 3D games and it usually has ugly blurred textures.

ORIGINAL: berndn

I think that a real 3D engine would solve a lot of problems with LOS and height. But I do not understand why it should change the way it is now ?
I can fix the angle/height of the view so nothing changes. I can only allow one step zoom out as well as one zoom in as a programmer. I'm for a 3D engine behind and I know that the current maps would then be useless.

The height and los problems can be solved by adding a colour-coded heigh-map.

[mooxe]

Speaking about 3D.... Check out John Deere American Farmer by Destineer games. Pay close attention to the screenshots, IMO a very good 1st start to a CC engine.

[Nomada_Firefox]

ORIGINAL: mooxe

Speaking about 3D.... Check out John Deere American Farmer by Destineer games. Pay close attention to the screenshots, IMO a very good 1st start to a CC engine.

John Deere American Farmer by Destineer games

Yes, if this game engine can make mountains. Probably people tell that texture are poor but the color of texture is the color that you add on it, if you make better texture, it will have better texture. The unique problem that I see with 3D is the tactical control as we saw on Squad Assault, on this game tactical control was a big shit. I think that if somebody goes to make one 3D CC, they should buy a game engine but it can be too expensive. If they try to make one new engine, probably they will make one disaster as Squad Assault or GICombat. Bad games from the begining.

[berndn]

I think the ground texture stuff is related to how the texture is applied. I would assume that with the current CC engine(s) the ground as well as the buildings are more or less painted on a 2D map. So you are free to do what you wnat and layers with trees which can be switched off. There must be a layer which is needed for objects like houses where some numbers decide if it's solid or not.
So while in CC you can do fantastic paint like maps it would be more work to texture a 3D world. The tactical control if changed would be silly.
My reason for 3D world for the engine itself would be that physics (bullets) would be travel like they should in real. Now I assume that the program makes the calculations but I can see it only flat.
The current engine gives me little to no feeling of height. The best method is to use my mouse and test it while I can see that with a 3D engine sense of height might be better.

But enough OT. I like CC WaR and my stuff about is only related to a new CC title and not to this title or a further re release of a CC title

[Derouin]

I agree with everyone's thoughts on 3D and the improvement for physics and the obvious evaluation of elevation that would be open to the player. Like other's my only concern is the playability.
 
I really envision playing CC as if I am some sort of God-like commander in a blimp high above the action giving directions to my soldiers, or perhaps as a God like movie director directing the battle scene.
 
Maybe I'm just not into hyper fast-twitch action, but I like the slower pace of CC over the "I have to do everything and check on everything at once oh my God what is happening" action of Combat Mission or Gi Combat etc, and I think the 3D engine is what makes it unnaturally hectic.

[Nomada_Firefox]

I think the ground texture stuff is related to how the texture is applied. I would assume that with the current CC engine(s) the ground as well as the buildings are more or less painted on a 2D map. So you are free to do what you wnat and layers with trees which can be switched off. There must be a layer which is needed for objects like houses where some numbers decide if it's solid or not.

Probably I do not understand very well but I think that you do not know how CC maps are. Maps are like a 2D image without layers. Only the inside of the buildings and the top of the trees is loaded on other files. But the maps are big 2D images that you can make better of worse with your hands painting them on photoshop by example. Next you make all the elements with a program like 3c or 5cc.
And yes on the past we have seen maps with more detail as TT CC4 VetBoB maps.

it would be more work to texture a 3D world

On a 3D game engine, a house is a model, one tree is a model, all is loaded model to model, a map can need thousands of models with their texture. It is very different to the big targa image from CC with all the things that you want see on a map, and with exception from soldiers, weapons and vehicles, there are not models.
I told it more times, if there are one good engine for a CC, it should be the blitzkrieg 2 game engine, it has a good tactical image from battlefield and it remember many to CC. Of course if we can see one remake from CC on a 3D game, I recomend you to play Theather of War, I see it like a Clone. Yes creators probably tell you that they took the idea from Combat Mission but if you study both games, you will see that they are like Close Combat on many things and CC games were made first than Combat Mission or Theater of War.

PD: Sorry berndn if I have not understand your answer but I´m not english and many times I read strange things.

[berndn]

Nomada, it's ok. I think I must apologize for my bad english

The problem with most 3D engine based games is that the speed is to fast compared to the CC series. And that it offers to much freedom which can be very confusing. No need for this.

The main problem with D3D engines are trees/hedges in my view. Much more then human created stuff like houses. Most 3D engines have problems with this kind of nature.

By the way the way one think which I found odd some times is that when you first load a map and you are the defender. After the battle starts you see some trenches from soldiers and guns. Interesting most time you play the map a 2nd time you can't place the guns in the trenches where a gun was last turn. Can someone enlighten me why this happens ?

[TheReal_Pak40]

ORIGINAL: berndn

Nomada, it's ok. I think I must apologize for my bad english

The problem with most 3D engine based games is that the speed is to fast compared to the CC series. And that it offers to much freedom which can be very confusing. No need for this.

The main problem with D3D engines are trees/hedges in my view. Much more then human created stuff like houses. Most 3D engines have problems with this kind of nature.

Combat Mission series is a perfect balance of control over your units and it limits your "freedom" with order delays and the we-go turn based engine. And, you have ability to turn off trees. I think CC and other 3-D games such as Squad Assault have this ability too.

By the way the way one think which I found odd some times is that when you first load a map and you are the defender. After the battle starts you see some trenches from soldiers and guns. Interesting most time you play the map a 2nd time you can't place the guns in the trenches where a gun was last turn. Can someone enlighten me why this happens ?

This happened to me when I tried to place an 88 anti-aircraft gun into a gun pit. It wouldn't fit. I eventually realized that the gun's legs were way too wide to fit in the pit. However, I rarely place guns in trenches because it is a lousy place to put them. The AI always spots a gun in a trench very easily. Trees or shrubs are much better for camouflage.

[Nomada_Firefox]

Combat Mission series is a perfect balance of control over your units and it limits your "freedom" with order delays and the we-go turn based engine.

This is a very bad comparation because CM is a turn game and it is very different.

[TheReal_Pak40]

ORIGINAL: Nomada_Firefox

Combat Mission series is a perfect balance of control over your units and it limits your "freedom" with order delays and the we-go turn based engine.

This is a very bad comparation because CM is a turn game and it is very different.

I'm not comparing. He is talking about 3D engine based games, which Combat Mission is. I'm simply offering an alternative game based on the criteria that he is complaining about (fast speed and trees that obstruct views).
But, if I was comparing; the fact that it's turn based doesn't make it a bad comparison. Both CC and CM are WWII tactical combat simulators. The action unfolds in real time in both games. The only major differences are the 3D and we-go turn based system, which is superior to real time in terms of unit ordering, especially for a large number of units.

[berndn]

I'm not complaining about CCWaR. It is what was stated before and as such I love it much.

There are a couple of minor/major UI things which could have maybe made better (like the strategic map which is hard to navigate) but no showstopper.

However for a real new release of CC I would love if the engine itself would be 3D. Even if we as the customer would only see marginal enhancements like better zoom in and out and maybe a default top down view like now and a 2nd which is showing the whole a bit more from a side angle.

I have bought Panzer Command: Kharkov which is 3D but turn based and I don't like the turn based stuff. And to be honest I don't like the 3D world view from Panzer Command: Kharkov.

If those who maybe already started to program a real new CC title would say that it would take longer to have a new 3D engine, I would give them the time as long as it's basically the CC view and speed of units. Maybe such a thing would help boosting the AI too (pathfinding etc).

[TheReal_Pak40]

ORIGINAL: berndn

I'm not complaining about CCWaR. It is what was stated before and as such I love it much.

Yes, I know. You were complaining 3D games being too fast etc..

Combat Mission is a great alternative to the "fast" click fests that many real time games suffer from. But alas, you say you don't like the we-go turn based games.

Theater of War is an OK game which is real time that allows pausing so you can give orders. It's a little too scripted for me but maybe it's what you're looking for.

[Nomada_Firefox]

The action unfolds in real time in both games.

Sorry but CM has not action on real time, you make your movements and next you see one film from the effect of the movements, it is a turn time. On CC you make your movements at same time that you see the action, it is very different.

The only major differences are the 3D and we-go turn based system, which is superior to real time in terms of unit ordering, especially for a large number of units.

Only because game and you have all the time from the world for to make orders. Personally turn games are not realistic and they can not be named combat simulators. I do not remember see one flight simulator with a turns engine.

But both games are fun.

If those who maybe already started to program a real new CC title would say that it would take longer to have a new 3D engine, I would give them the time as long as it's basically the CC view and speed of units. Maybe such a thing would help boosting the AI too (pathfinding etc).

We gave this time some years ago with GICombat and Squad Assault and we saw the worst games on the world. I like more one CC as we see on WAR, one game that we know and we like it because it is funny. But I would like not to see one new CC on 3D because they can make one shit again. And to make one new 3D engine can take years, about 4 years or more. If they want to make one CC game on 3D, they should buy one engine from another company and it can be expensive but it would be the best option.

[oliver.h]

I like Close Combat mostly because of its realistic scale of war. I mean the number of units is well proportional to the size of map.

As far as I can see, most battles in World War II happens at the scale of companies or regiments -- this is right the scale of a the comabat in a single map in Close Combat. Also, the proportion of tanks to infantries is realistic.

Other reality-pursing World War II games, like Sudden Strike and Blitzkrieg, have too many units squeezed in a single map and too many tanks rushing all the way. In these games, the battle looks like a fire show, which in reality, will consume the armor very quickly. In a word, the scale of them is wrong, despite their reality in the individual units (such as a unit's appearence, armor penetration model and etc).

Therefore, Close Combat is a well scaled game:)

[TheReal_Pak40]

Nomada,

I see that you're from Spain and maybe you do not understand my english. The action in Combat Mission does, in fact, unfold in real time. I never suggested that the player could give orders in real time - I was only saying that the ACTION unfolds in real time. Understand?

And, you keep saying that Combat Mission is turn based as if one person gives orders/moves units then the other person gives orders and moves. Combat Mission is actually "we-go" based. Both players give orders simultaneously then the action unfolds in real time. This completely eliminates the problems inherent in traditional turn based games. Also, the new CMx2 game engine is completely real time, just like Close Combat. Hopefully their next game with the CMx2 engine will be somehere in WWII.

Combat Mission is much more of a combat simulator than Close Combat. This, I'm sure, is pretty commonly thought across the war gaming community. In fact, back on the Battlefront forum there are serious war gamers who think that CC is a little too unrealistic and simplistic.

In my opinion, they are both great games. Both have strengths and weaknesses but I think Combat Mission edges out Close Combat as a simulator.