Next CC for Matrix to remake - A Bridge too Far please!

[eddy1514]

Hello everyone, and Matrix games staff

The game that got me into the CC series was a Bridge too Far. That game was awesome. I installed it not to long ago and couldnt play (because of my own feelings) due to graphics resolution and tiny little querks that were changed in the newer versions of CC (CC5 and WaR). I think it would be great if the next remake Matrix did would be a Bridge too Far. The maps were awesome, the large selection of units (american side anyways, including british and another country, cant remember), used point system for units, etc etc. I remember playing that game for hours at a time, rushing to the germans to get them from blowing the bridge! Not to mention Operation Market Garden is not a scenario that is touched on a lot with video games.

What does everyone here think? what do the staffers and Matrix games think? Is it doable?

Thanks for reading,
EddyC

[TheTomDude]

I'm pretty sure, if you are patient enough, you will find a Market Garden mod for WaR in a few months. No need for a remake. [:D]

[squadleader_id]

The Op Market Garden mod for CC5 has been on hold for a few years now...Buck Compton is concentrating on finishing Battle of The Scheldt first.
There is Firefox's CC5: ABTF mod...but the CC2 maps turn me off.  How about CCWAR: ABTF with repainted CC2 maps?  Anyone dare take the challenge?  Maybe Firefox?

[Nomada_Firefox]

ORIGINAL: squadleader_id

The Op Market Garden mod for CC5 has been on hold for a few years now...Buck Compton is concentrating on finishing Battle of The Scheldt first.
There is Firefox's CC5: ABTF mod...but the CC2 maps turn me off.  How about CCWAR: ABTF with repainted CC2 maps?  Anyone dare take the challenge?  Maybe Firefox?

I will not make new maps, I only go to make the same from CC5 with some changes. By the moment I do not need more challenge.

[pelle75]

I loved the campaign game in CC2, allocating very limited reinforcements to the three paralell campaigns, then having to use those even more limited resources within each campaign to reinforce several paralell operations within each campaign.

I still keep coming back to that game. I think it also had the best balance of features for the tactical level game, except there was no waypoints for movement orders.

[TheReal_Pak40]

I agree with Pellen. CC2's campaign system, although simplistic from a strategic view, was challenging with respect to using x amount of points to "purchase" units. I would welcome a blend of WaR strategy layer with the point system of CC2 if and when a remake is made of CC2.  There should be a lot more maps made if the game is updated and maybe enlarge some of the existing ones too. 

[pelle75]

One thing that was fun was that with the very limited number of units on each side for most operations you got to know them very well, and the loss of a mortar or two in some operations would mean you had no chance to get a new one perhaps for the rest of the game. There was no fresh battlegroups to use for each new battle, on either side.

[TheReal_Pak40]

Yes, and part of the love of ABTF is just the battle itself. It's very interesting from an operational standpoint, how the battle unfolded, how vulnerable the airborne units were etc... Also, the operation as a whole is very infantry oriented, which is portrayed well in the scale of Close Combat. 5 v 5 tank battles in CC3 and CC4 at the CC scale tends to be a bit out of whack.

[LitFuel]

ABTF was actually the re-make I wanted most. Love this one. Interesting maps with limited resources...lot's of bridges to take and defend. Polish units . Of all the old games this could benefit the most from a fresh coat of paint...hope they get to it.

[crushingleeek_slith]

I disagree. I dislike point systems. Its too akin to gathering resources to pump out units based on how much currency you have.

this is why i like games like CC and suddenstrike/blitzkrieg.

[GS_Schimpf]

I also vote for a ABTF remake! It was the game that brought me in contact with the CC series many years ago, still playing it from time to time.

[TheReal_Pak40]

ORIGINAL: crushingleeek

I disagree. I dislike point systems. Its too akin to gathering resources to pump out units based on how much currency you have.

this is why i like games like CC and suddenstrike/blitzkrieg.

The point system in CC:ABTF, while not exactly realistic, was a good way for a player to customize his force without going overboard. In WaR, a player can go completely overboard and end up with unrealistic forces (i.e. 12 panthers).

[crushingleeek_slith]

In WaR, a player can go completely overboard and end up with unrealistic forces (i.e. 12 panthers).

 
Good point Pak-40. (Control the forces yourself, stick to realism and H2H players who also do too?) I've only played single player so far, and I'd never do 15 tanks.
 
I have to say though, I still dislike a point-system more. Buying infantry and tanks is just so "game-y," for lack of better word. Yuck!
 
I have an idea:
 
1) on the grand strategy map in WaR, you have to commit individual teams to being localized to particular maps.
 
2)Each team will still be associated with a regiment and division.
 
3)You still have to place your regimental HQ in a specific map too.
 
4)Units that are on a different map from their regimental HQ will suffer a performance penalty similar to not being within the circle of a good platoon leader.
 
5)Units (individual teams or teams grouped together as platoons) move from map to map much like regiments on the current WaR map move.
 
This will increase realism, as battalion reserves were often in towns different from the rest of their regiment.
 
Also, it will probably discourage players from placing 12 tanks on the same map. Hence, it'd be unlikely to have 12 panthers on a map like you may have now. (Although when the Germans crossed the River Our, these columns were common!)
 
Campaign makers can also restrict players from placing, say, armor from CCR/9th armored up on the front lines.
 
 
 
 

[Neil N]

The Battlegroup point total was left on the battlegroup screen, so that when playing H2H you and your opponent can agree on a point limit.  My opponents and I always use it, and it seems to help balance out the battles.
 
Leek, those all sound like good points to add to the CC6 wants/wish list.

[TheReal_Pak40]

ORIGINAL: crushingleeek

I have to say though, I still dislike a point-system more. Buying infantry and tanks is just so "game-y," for lack of better word. Yuck!

I like the point system better. Part of the challenge (and part of the fun) is picking a balanced and appropriate force for the upcoming battle. It's like the battalion commander is ordering me to capture that town; and I respond by saying "OK, I'm going to need 5 tanks, 3 81mm mortars, and a company of infantry". The Battalion CO says "I can only give you 2 tanks and a platoon of men with 1 81mm, I need the rest to fight other battles".

So, as a player I don't see it as a currency to buy units, I see it as a Company CO being told by a Battalion CO that I have to make do with what's available.

[crushingleeek_slith]

Part of the challenge (and part of the fun) is picking a balanced and appropriate force for the upcoming battle.

 
I see it slightly differently, because i don't always need balanced fights to have fun. Sometimes I find it pretty exciting to fight a delaying battle...see if i can just hang on to that one last victory location before i need to pull back the forces. Can my ill equipped engineers hold on against an armored platoon/company? If its too balanced everytime, to me, it gets monotonous. I'm talking about single player, campaign though...H2H may be different.
 
 

"OK, I'm going to need 5 tanks, 3 81mm mortars, and a company of infantry". The Battalion CO says "I can only give you 2 tanks and a platoon of men with 1 81mm, I need the rest to fight other battles".

 
 
I think my 5-point suggestion above addresses this portioning-out of forces concept. If your forces are stretched thin, which they will be, the only immediate help you could get is from units on adjacent maps.
 

1) on the grand strategy map in WaR, you have to commit individual teams to being localized to particular maps.

2)Each team will still be associated with a regiment and division.

3)You still have to place your regimental HQ in a specific map too.

4)Units that are on a different map from their regimental HQ will suffer a performance penalty similar to not being within the circle of a good platoon leader.

5)Units (individual teams or teams grouped together as platoons) move from map to map much like regiments on the current WaR map move.

 
How you amass forces would be up to you; ie you also play the role of colonel in ordering out regimental forces.
 
Aside: In the way way way future: This opens up the possibility of extra-multi-player campaigns. One player on each side could play HQ. And moving around forces on the map, and order artillery fire missions - (see other thread.) The other player on each team is the company CO, and actually fights the battles. If it got really grand, there could be one player for each regiment, each battalion, or each company!
 
 

[goldenlion]

Sounds like a very interesting idea, Crushing. I hope to see something like that come to fruition.

[Tejszd]

They have re-released CC3 as COI and CC4 as WAR which leaves CC1, 2 and 5. CC1 was already redone by Atomic games by CC5 going back to Normandy so that really only leaves CC2 and CC5 to go. Might as well post ideas/suggestions here for either one....

[Neil N]

Aside: In the way way way future: This opens up the possibility of extra-multi-player campaigns. One player on each side could play HQ. And moving around forces on the map, and order artillery fire missions - (see other thread.) The other player on each team is the company CO, and actually fights the battles. If it got really grand, there could be one player for each regiment, each battalion, or each company!

 
Something similar is being used in the latest military training version CM v 6...and I can personally say that testing it out was a blast...especially once we learned what we were doing. Having a separate person on the network, requesting support, feeding him information and then adjusting fires.  Of course at first we had no instructions, so when something actually worked, it was a feeling of...well, go get the idea.

[berndn]

I would love a rerelease of CCII ! But this has some time as the great campaign in CC WaR played as allied and then as axis will take some time for me [:)]