Stratmap upgrade

[CSO_Talorgan]

What *should* be our stratmap:

http://www.matrixgames.com/products/405 ... tics:.Gold

... has just been upgraded.

[:D]

[xe5]

Do you mean the LSA strat map should have the Advanced Tactics Gold art style, hex grid, or both?
At first glance the ATG style seems to show more detail but, given its non-specific setting, the art tends toward the generic/repetitive. I wouldnt mind seeing additional detail in LSA's strat art but the style is a traditional type of outline map. Using a hex grid in CC strat would be problematic given the current 1 map movement radius. A hex grid would either require many more maps to cover the same amount of territory, or use a grid spacing that combined close-by, but historically distinct, tactical zones. Im fine with the chosen area map style except for the multiple instances where shared boundaries dont necessarily permit movement.

Or do you mean that the CC strat layer should have more ATG-type 'playable' features? If so I heartily agree that the CC strat layer is still very much a blank slate of design possibilities.

[Andrew Williams]

whereas i think a real time Strat level that would use Close Combat to fight the battles would be more in keeping

http://www.matrixgames.com/products/377 ... .the.Bulge.

[mooxe]

still very much a blank slate of design possibilities.

And so it should be. The strategy that everyone wants, but are so blind to, is which house to take, which road to cover, which team to assault with.

[xe5]

And so it should be. The strategy that everyone wants, but are so blind to, is which house to take, which road to cover, which team to assault with.

Logically, if you say CC's strat layer "should be" a blank design slate, then CC1 had the best strat layer precisely because it's minimal design was also the blankest slate in the series.

Those "which house/road/team" decisions are present in CC's tactical layer, not it's strategic layer. How is everyone "blind" to these and similar facets of CC tactics?

[mooxe]

Well you have to read between the lines to understand I suppose. The blind, are the ones chasing the strategic features, I guess they are not happy with the tactical portion? Will anymore additions to the strategic level really change the fighting? No. You will end up with two games instead of one, strategic and a tactical game. Remember that old chess game where instead of the usual rules applying to who takes who, it decended into a melee? For ex, the queen taking a pawn, that "battle" would decend down to a tactical level where the pawn could fights for its life. That reminds me of the general direction this game is going in.

The strategic side of the game is somewhere between chess and checkers. Thats right where it should be, straight forward, simple, this isnt a game of strategy its a game of tactics. The fun, the game is in the fighting. With all the things that could be present in the tactical side of the game, some could say that is a blank slate.

[Andrew Williams]

The blind, are the ones chasing the strategic features, I guess they are not happy with the tactical portion?

how strange... i would read that as They are happy with the tactical portion but unhappy with the strategic portion... are you sure you are not dislexic?

[xe5]

"Will anymore additions to the strategic level really change the fighting? No."

You surely dont mean the new BG stacking on the LSA strat map didnt change the "which road to cover" tactical decision because the attacker can now have two deploy areas? Or that BG stacking hasnt affected the "which team to assault with" decision because there are two Force Pools to draw teams from and potentially more team slots in the active roster? Similarly, the strat decisions to Move, Attack, Relieve, Rest or Merge all have various effects on the tactical phase.

Only the blind would argue there are no possible additions to the strat level that wouldnt "really change the fighting". How about moving the execution of air/arty/mortar support missions from the tactical to the strat level (inc. eyecandy animations), where, IMO, they more properly belong? The tactical effects could include losses/damage to the targeted BG's force pool &/or active roster, lost cohesion, lower force morale, fewer slots, immobilized vehicles, supply interdiction etc.

"You will end up with two games instead of one, strategic and a tactical game."

As I examine the Command Ops demo I cant help but imagine a continuous-time game that allows the player(s) to seamlessly zoom in on any one of its company-sized units and continue CC-style play while the strat AI manages the rest of the op. Or zoom back out to the operational level and assume control. One game where the player can alternate between scale perspectives.

"The strategic side of the game is somewhere between chess and checkers."

Ive heard the CC strat side called checkers and its tactical side called chess. I believe what Talorgan is proposing is to make CC's 'checkers' more interesting.

"Thats right where it should be, straight forward, simple, this isnt a game of strategy its a game of tactics. The fun, the game is in the fighting."

If "the fun...is [only] in the fighting" then why the overwhelming player preference for ops/camps as opposed to single battles stripped of all that un-fun strat stuff?

"With all the things that could be present in the tactical side of the game, some could say that is a blank slate."

Now who sounds "unhappy with the tactical portion"?

[mooxe]

My opinion is based on history of the rereleases. I can see where Close Combat is heading. The focus to the date of this post has been to modify the strategic side of the game. Where as little focus has been given to the tactical side. We heard a few years of whining about how messy the code was, in those years we had strategy bells and whistles added. Just recently does pathing get overhauled --this a problem for 12 years gets fixed AFTER we get stuff like disorganized teams that we cant swap out in forcepool selection, among other do-dads.

What I have been harping on over these years is the focus of the rereleases has not been focused on the Close Combat. I am assuming theres no guided path at all. Its all just, hey look what I did, look what I added, hey do you think this whistle is cool? Yeah yeah yeah lets keep it all! The strategy is enough, for now. Strategy seems to be easy to change, add a whole bunch of tweaks because its easy, comfortable, stay away from adding stuff like primary weapons within teams move to the area with greatest LOS, adding the tactical and editor changes from CCM to any rerelease, not even attempting to create isometric views.....AI?..... Whats next, auto resolve a battle on the strategic screen?

Theres thousands of games that do strategy better than Close Combat. Close Combat does tactics better than all of them. Why do the powers that be think it needs to be both? Xe5, you won't convince me more strategy is something Close Combat needs, and I wont convince you of my opinion either. I am sure we can both agree though that this game was popular at one point in time because of the tactics.

[berndn]

What I don't like is to big strat maps. There's so much around here @ matrix. If I see the screenshots of Gary Grigsby’s titles or Pacific 'something' I'm at a lost. And I can see why those games don't do what the CC series can do resolving the fights.
I think I tried the Command Ops demo too but I don't like the 'real' time movements which are happening on the strat level. To much to look for and check

A nice way to change would be to include some campaigns which are showing different aeras at different times and which are tight like a chain. So if you loose to much in the east you will get less in the west. So in the end a CC with more then one strat map.

Maybe an option to create a fuel depot or a message saying you can't move your tank battle group due to no fuel instead of moving and have tanks which can't move.

Or maybe change plane availability by securing an airfield. Lot's of stuff.

And to maybe use 3D viewport to enable better usage of current GPU and later add more 3D as it would be possible. While I hate CoH the view can look great. But it's to hectic.

If asked I'm sure there ould be some nice ideas.

[kojusoki1]

ORIGINAL: mooxe
[...]

I must say, you said something I fully agree.
I do enjoy the new features in strategic layer but...you are right...

Money money money....

[berndn]

ORIGINAL: kojusoki1

ORIGINAL: mooxe
[...]

I must say, you said something I fully agree.
I do enjoy the new features in strategic layer but...you are right...

Money money money....

Don't want to appear picky but "Money, money, money..." turns the world around. And I have done some stuff for free. But for free only for those who use it. For me it was not free. I had to pay for a digital certificate. I had to pay for RAM to allow me to use Windows XP in my Windows 7 system and I try to make my living with IT services.
So I don't see that a program, maybe sold in 1000-10000 copies, is only for money. Don't know what those living in europe or the USA, which bought some of the re-releases, earn but I can only assume that those trying to make CC better don't have much.

For sure, if those which have the opportunity to work on CC and would have a job which would allow them to work on it during worktime, they might think about doing it for free.

But this is not the case I assume. If there was ever money from the forces I do believe that the money income from the re-releases, don't cover the many hours which had been spent for the bug fixes.

Hope you guys don't get me wrong but I'm happy that the guys behind still try to make it better. More support then SSI did with CC5 or the older titles.

Just my 2 cents

[xe5]

The focus of the rereleases up to LSA has, by your own definition ("which road/house/team decisions"), been almost entirely tactical. CoI's linear strategic level functionality is unchanged from CC3. Some new maps were added but more about new (and old) maps later. CCMT, the rerelease of CCM, doesnt have a strat layer. So for CoI & CCMT the development focus was tactical. The significant new strat features in WaR & TLD were few - BG retreat and night turns - both of which had as much, or more, tactical impact than strategic. BG retreat affects the "which road" (VL) decision. Night turns affect LOS and flare support adds a new tactical decision. The preponderance of development on WaR & TLD - vehicle graphics, revamped data, numerous code enhancements - pertained to tactical play. It wasnt until LSA that a significant number of strat features were added. And, as previously discussed, all of LSA's new strat features directly affect the tactical "which road/house/team decisions".

Now, about the maps. Do not cite the revised strat maps in WaR, TLD and LSA as 'proof" that the dev focus has been on the strategic. What those revisions have changed most isnt the new strat maps, its the tactical maps. One new strat map now means 64 new/old tac maps. What all this "focus" on new strategic bells/whistles/tweaks really involves is a treasure trove of new tactical maps. And all these new tac maps, and old tac maps with different VLs, mean is a gazillion and one new "which road/house" tactical decisions.

All of the above and/or just a glance at the change logs for the rerelease patchs should suffice to satisfy any question that the dev focus has been primarily on the tactical side. If you care to contest the issue further I'd request that you refrain from vague generalities ("bells/whistles/tweaks/stuff") and speak instead to specifics.

re: vehicle pathing ... it was a problem for 15 years - ever since development started on CC2. Atomic worked the code for 9 of those years, during which time there were many more programmers and resources available than now. The CC rereleases (and AT/JTAC) are the product of ONE underpaid, overqualified coder - aka The BLOOD!. AFAIK, the majority of the dev team is largely volunteer. So asking for isometric perspective tac maps from a shoestring operation like CC has become is just as much a pleasant pipe dream as expecting a strat layer that looks like Command Ops. Greed?!? To paraphrase berndn - gimme a bleedin' break. Where CC is most likely heading at this point is the scrapheap of video game history. But, just as CC3 took the crown from CC2, and CC5 pried it away from reluctant Russian Front afficionados, in due time LSA will be rightfully recognized as the pinnacle of the CC series.

"Theres thousands of games that do strategy better than Close Combat. Close Combat does tactics better than all of them."

When you say its "better than all of them" you subvert the argument that CC's tac level needs more dev focus.

"Whats next, auto resolve a battle on the strategic screen?""

That already happens when contesting BGs rest on the same strat turn

[mooxe]

You don't understand my point of view.

Generally, the battles happen pretty identically to previous classic versions. You are right some new strategic changes do change tactics. They change which objective you get. You fight for that objective just like in any previous version though.

CCM afaik was the only game to implement new tactical features.

[xe5]

Difficult to understand a point of view while reading between lines and contemplating what "stuff" might mean.
Arguing that, except for CCM, tactical play really hasnt changed is different than saying the development focus hasnt been on the tactical.
I'll grant you the crux of that argument, withholding only the caveat that The Blood's re-coded tactical enhancements, while numerous, have been more subtle than obvious.

The upgunned CCM scenario editor resulted in a game platform too unstable to be commercially acceptable.
Using the trigger system to spawn new units in the middle of battle or play a snippet of war movie dialog is scads of fun tho

[Andrew Williams]

is scads of fun tho

LOL

[berndn]

Sorry if I sounded angry. But with (re-)releases around estimated a couple of thousands maybe, talking about money a team might get makes me react like this. Sorry ...

I once made a picture which showed that even with the current 2D at least I could see a shape of the heights. Or add a mouse zoom via the mouse wheel. I know it would look pixel rated but I'm okay with this.

Generally I can think about a lot of things which could be done with the current engine and I believe that they still are thinking about what they can add/alter/remove to make it even better. No idea if they have current plans for another theater.

[CSO_Talorgan]

Seem to have kicked a hornet's nest here:

ORIGINAL: xe5

Do you mean the LSA strat map should have the Advanced Tactics Gold art style, hex grid, or both?
...
Or do you mean that the CC strat layer should have more ATG-type 'playable' features?

The hex grid and the extra features. I hear what you say too about hex grids being problematic but why restrict Close Combat battlegroups to one map move per strat turn?

ORIGINAL: mooxe

Will anymore additions to the strategic level really change the fighting? No.

Yes! The strat layer sets the context for the tactical layer.

ORIGINAL: mooxe

You will end up with two games instead of one, strategic and a tactical game.

Good!

ORIGINAL: mooxe

With all the things that could be present in the tactical side of the game, some could say that is a blank slate.

We have two blank slates!

[kojusoki1]

ORIGINAL: berndn

Sorry if I sounded angry. But with (re-)releases around estimated a couple of thousands maybe, talking about money a team might get makes me react like this. Sorry ...

I once made a picture which showed that even with the current 2D at least I could see a shape of the heights. Or add a mouse zoom via the mouse wheel. I know it would look pixel rated but I'm okay with this.

Generally I can think about a lot of things which could be done with the current engine and I believe that they still are thinking about what they can add/alter/remove to make it even better. No idea if they have current plans for another theater.

Dont get me wrong - I also work for an IT company so I do understand that the team has to be paid for their job. I do agree! What even more - I am VERY GLAD to pay money for something I enjoy. I just wish they add some more things to these games. Compare War, TLD and Arnhem... Theese are not different games but are sold as such...

I dont complain I paid for LSA as I find it as the most advanced game from all CC series. I just complain that the changes are basically not very sophisticated...
Im not saying about graphics - but some new features like improved morale system, maybe a better designed scenario editor are more then welcomed.




If we are focused ONLY on money then its not

[Pvt_Grunt]

The CC rereleases are the product of ONE underpaid, overqualified coder - aka The BLOOD!.

ALL HAIL THE BLOOD [&o]

May your PIAT's never miss!