Time for a next generation CC..maybe

[Nomada_Firefox]

Yes I agree, a game named Close Combat should not have only large maps. I like WAR because it has some medium/large maps and many small, I see it good for all our opinions. CC5 had only large maps and it was a bad idea with only 15 teams.

[Andrew Williams]

A mixture of map sizes is my preference.

it makes you deal with  a wider range of tactical situations.

[Nomada_Firefox]

Yes I agree, it is the best for maps.

[Moss Orleni]

I disagree... to me it's like playing football and only using 5 square meters of the field. Sure, you can focus on dribbling action, but there's much more scope in the game than that [:)]

Larger maps to me are effectively the linked smaller maps that many people want to see. No more need for entry VLs. You can always play with the size and location of the deployment zones (the Combat Mission series uses a similar system). But at least you have a continuous and logically connected battlefield.

That means of course that you should also be able to play with more than 15 teams. Personally, I don't see much difference in handling 15, 25 or whatever number of teams. I play exclusively H2H, and I really don't see people perform better if they have 5 units instead of 15. Even now, with 15 teams, you focus on one piece of the battle at a time...
The current team order system (defend, ambush, etc) is already well suited to handle more teams. Athough you might make a case for introducing definable arcs of Infantry/AT defense, in order to introduce more flexibility in the standing orders; again see Combat mission (no I don't own stock of Battlefront [:)], but I think that CM introduced some very good ideas that can be applied to CC as well).

And if the AI is not capable of performing on a bigger map, well, then IMO the issue is with the AI, not with the map size. But to me, getting a competitive AI is something like the Holy Grail of gaming: many tried to find it, nobody has really succeeded (that is, without cheating or sacrificing realism).

Cheers,
Moss

[berndn]

A next generation CC. With the given things which are missing I would prefer to have all kinds of maps. Small to big. It all depends o the original battle ground. As well have correct heights implemented. If a hill was 30 meters and the ground was 5 meters so be it. We have the problem that this will be not be visuell due to the fact that we only have a 2D view from above.
To help it would be nice to have a small graph showing the relief. So still everthing 2D.
But the next generation CC should have an AI which don't need the silly recruit vs veteran setting which will adjust the available forcepools and use instead historic correct forcepools.
It would be great to have adjusted team numbers. Depending on the map size. If it's a big map maybe bigger ones.

Just some ideas

[Stwa]

ORIGINAL: Andrew Williams

What about playing a 5 day operation on that one big map?

A huge (relatively) operational area without artificial constraints such as map edges etc.


You pla it with phase lines...
1. take the river crossing
2. take Hill 116
3. clear the village

etc etc

All the time watching your flanks and rear.


There is a mod cor CoI/CCIII that let's you play the big maps.

Yes, this sounds good. It would be like a campaign, right?

[pelle75]

An operation/campaign on one big map, it seems to me for realism you would spend a lot more time walking and/or resting, and very little time actually fighting battles. Many hours would be wasted just staring at soldiers sleeping and patroling waiting for the next battle to start. You would also need new features to handle reinforcements and transporting infantry in vehicles and resupply during battles.

[Andrew Williams]

Sounds like war doesn't it?

[pelle75]

Sounds like war (I guess, not that I've been close to one for real), but I'm just not sure it sounds like fun.

[Stwa]

ORIGINAL: pellen

An operation/campaign on one big map, it seems to me for realism you would spend a lot more time walking and/or resting, and very little time actually fighting battles. Many hours would be wasted just staring at soldiers sleeping and patroling waiting for the next battle to start. You would also need new features to handle reinforcements and transporting infantry in vehicles and resupply during battles.

Most people that get involved with these games enjoy the shooting and explosions the most. So if there is no shooting or explosions during the game, then the game can become boring. Also, most people like the action condensed down into a few minutes. They really don't want it protracted out over time, especially if there is no shooting or explosions.

Also, me thinks, most people wouldn't even play H2H if only the AI could produce a good rousing game. As I mentioned, the goal is shooting and explosions, and sometimes the AI does not cooperate in condensing this down into an acceptable timeframe for the human. If it did, then H2H play would become obsolete.

[Andrew Williams]

It would be entirely up to the game/scenario designer.

If he designed it so that the battles were fought over phase lines and fall back positions the game would/could be a continuous battle.

Large maps give options not dead time.

I've played with 10 players h2h on the CCMT sized maps... absolutely brilliant.

[dodger bullet]

On a squad level -- i hope there's a level of upgrades.

The more experience/survibality gained -- the more the user should be rewarded. i.e.

for soldiers. new animations for these vets; faster, quicker to dodge bullets, hit the ground, return fire; accuracy rate higher, nades thrown are cooked; morale-ring (that green one when you press space) larger.

the panzers/vehicles. less prone to blowing off a track; able to recognize threats and appropriate whether to retreat or fight (unless the user deems it otherwise); able to turn off engine faster; able to reload faster; angle their armors to deflect more effeciently; use the closest MG without wheeling to neutralize threats; pop smoke effectively; button in and out for better POV, etc.

----

on an engine basis. i'd love to have more control on my squad. position them without loosing cohesion. For instance -- i take a squad of rifleman to hide in a ruble.

normaly, i would just point that move-circle cursor in that rubble and the game mechanics would figure out where best to hide the men.

but wouldn't it be nice to have more control on each of those individual soldier in my squad.

Maybe have when you hold SHIFT+Right clicking on an soldier in that squad -- you can independently control his action, sans the whole squad.

-----

Have more variation to attack, ambush.

right now we have a pretty broad way of doing things. simple orders. sometimes situations call for a more varied way to handle things.

AMBUSH. take for instance ambush. if i see a patrol moving my way. it'd be nice to have a TAKE-AIM option. where yer men can individually aim different targets (with the help of the SHIFT+RMB proposed aforementioned) -- and fire at a certain DISTANCE given by the user. Or have an ambush-zone circle like found in that one game... i forgot it's name.

TANKS. i'd be nice to order which guns to use to a target. right now we pretty much have an archaic-straight way to kill things. it's simple but not necessarily smart when you're down to 1 AT shells and want to conserve them to a higher threat. only to have a Half track drive by, and yer gunner decides to use his main gun instead of MG to eliminate it. it'll be great to choose my turret MG for that target, and my main gun on that target, etc. again this could be achieved with that invidual order SHIFT+rmb concept.

---------

a.i.

of course it neededn't be said this needs improvements. but what i'd like to focus is the way they surrender.

the peeve of mine is the a.i. foes that RUN towards you -- only to surrender. hope you folks get rid of that in the future. id imagine a soldier on the verge of quits would either just stay prone, which does happen. or run towards the otherside only when there's a lull in the firefight, and with hands raised.

i believe this is what the engine is trying to do, but the animation doesn't depict it right?
---

map

and i already agreed to what's been stated regarding being outflanked map-wise. we've been asking for this since the days of CM. hope it can be incorporated here at last.

environments on the map. I hope other than exploding barrells -- there will be more dynamic, immediate effect against our units. For instance AIRBURSTS on trees when a shell hits it could kill/maim soldiers. I don't know what engines you folks will be using, but i hope there's a way to depict HEIGHTS indoors better. etc.


-------

sound.

it'd be nice to hear tank sounds this time. adds immersion.

thud of bulelts/shells hitting ground, not just the initial gunfire going off. but the impact as well.

-------

graphics. for things strictly cosmetic.

see little puffs or explosion of smoke/spark as a bullet carooms against a dirt, wall, water.

have an option of opting for real depiction of tracer rounds. instead of the laser bullets we're so used to, i'd like to see this be put in. coupled with bullet-impact -- seeing your aim wouldn't be too hard then.

have the option of putting SUPPRESSION indication back from CC2 days. I loved that, when i realize what it was and not a monitor glitch that is. i'm sure you folks will find a way to depict it better with current technology.

-----

input.

I'd love to have DETAILED accounts on what's happening down there to my little soldier. Like found in CC2. As the series goes on, the less we are told what's happening in the battlefield in that little text box. I hope to see this expanded. i.e. if a squad is selected -- more TEXT descriptions on what they're doing would be shown: Moe is showing signs of fatigue; Kelly is under fire, wants better position; Harold just shot a Gerry in the legs and is aiming again to kill; Sanford is now breathing easy with a CO near the vicinity, etc. cool things like that.

of course one could argue we wouldn't have time to read that while the game is going on. while i agree, there is some element of immersion and aid knowing what is going on play by play instead of just sprites going at it. at guns missed, etc.



anyways here's to the future.

[Stwa]

ORIGINAL: Andrew Williams

It would be entirely up to the game/scenario designer.

If he designed it so that the battles were fought over phase lines and fall back positions the game would/could be a continuous battle.

Large maps give options not dead time.

I've played with 10 players h2h on the CCMT sized maps... absolutely brilliant.

Yes, no doubt a 10 player game would be a lot of fun, because on a stock CCMT map the force to space ratio goes up, making for more shooting and explosions, which is what players want. 20 players would be better than 10.

[sapper_astro]

New graphics have never worked with this game. Every attempt to fully update it has been a travesty.

[LitFuel]

If and when it's ever made I wouldn't buy it if not a top down view...it's already been proven over and over that anything else doesn't work(you can still update graphics and be top down). I mean maybe have the option to tilt it a bit but top down be the main focus. It just gets too crazy to keep track of eveything otherwise and gives the feeling of any other RTS game. There are certain aspects that make Close Combat what it is or you might as well call it something else. Top down, psych-morale system, soldier names, etc....there will have to be some restraint on what features get added or it will turn into a nightmare of a game to control. I like the pace as is now.

[CSO_Talorgan]

ORIGINAL: Andrew Williams

You pla it with phase lines...

Like "Firefight"?

[Neil N]

ORIGINAL: Stwa

Yes, no doubt a 10 player game would be a lot of fun, because on a stock CCMT map the force to space ratio goes up, making for more shooting and explosions, which is what players want. 20 players would be better than 10.

The most fun that I ever had on CC was with 5 per side on the Ghazwah map. 4 players each side with nothing but infantry, and 1 player each side was armor and transport...so there were literally around 400-500 soldiers running around that city map. Besides the fun and coordinating movements with the rest of your side, was the laughter of watching what was happening on our beloved game.

[bartholimew]

ORIGINAL: sapper_astro

New graphics have never worked with this game. Every attempt to fully update it has been a travesty.

If the new graphics you are referring to consists only of Photoshopping hi BPP textures, then I agree that is not the answer. But that is hardly a serious attempt. A new overlay of 2D art would require integrated rendering, essentially a whole new map making program to import graphics without stretching while mainitaining a physical ground underlay with typical elevation changes. Imagine trenches and ditches that spites actually drop into, not just painted representations. Dynamic ray tracing etc. 2D graphics have come a long way too.