Suggestions PLEASE READ DEVS

[CloseCombatRob]

Please for the love of god, look at CC2 for inspiration for your games instead of CC5, most close combat fans still agree CC2 is the best of the series, CC5 is only loved for the mods, but the game itself is average without mods, and the reason CC2 is preferred is due to the smaller maps and better AI, being able to pick your units in a much better fashion, and overall much more intense, this game is called "close combat" after all so massive maps really do not suit this game, and it shows, the AI cannot handle them, and this is only good for multi player maybe but for single player people like myself this is just a boring stalemate. I'd give my left testicle for a re-release of CC2 with this new engine and updates, that would be the perfect game, also what would be nice is cutting down on the games set in the invasion of France, this is way overdone now to the point where people are starting to hate it, another operation market garden game would be amazing, I love how its more urban so tanks don't just dominate the match and infantry have a chance, maybe another eastern front, or something new like the pacific front would be nice too. I just hope I'm not the only one with this opinion, we need smaller maps and urban maps again if you want a brutal CC game, please not another boring stalemate like stock CC5.

[Nomada_Firefox]

I feel how today, after probably years of development from this game, is too late for suggestions.

But I feel how they are not making very big maps and how clearly the IA will be better because at the end, this game will use a new and lot better engine.

At the end, comparations about how the IA was at previous CC games are useless.

[CloseCombatRob]

Guess the best thing we can do then is just hope its not another cc5 styled stalemate game and a proper close combat game for once

[SteveMcClaire]

CloseCombatRob,

Thanks for your suggestions. The current plan for The Bloody First is a campaign system similar to CC2 and 3, rather than the strategic map meta game of CC4+. There will be campaigns for Tunisia, Sicily, and Normandy.

Steve

[Nomada_Firefox]

But at CC2 there was battlegroups and strategic map, the unique difference was how you can not select where your bg could be deployed.

But for the record, CloseCombatRob was speaking from the size of the maps.

[TIK]

I support what CloseCombatRob says.

ORIGINAL: Nomada_Firefox

But at CC2 there was battlegroups and strategic map, the unique difference was how you can not select where your bg could be deployed.

But for the record, CloseCombatRob was speaking from the size of the maps.

True, although I'll argue that the CC5 strategic map system is awful. All battlegroups move one province per turn regardless of type of formation, it forces you to play unimportant/boring provinces (e.g. CC2 maps were focused on the areas of the Market Garden Operation that were important, rather than have numerous unimportant/unnecessary maps like in CCLSA) and the provinces and the turns make it very slow paced and Risk-like.

As for the small maps - small maps make the action more intense. This is "Close Combat" after all. However, that was the old engine. If the new engine can support a LOT more units on the map, then I guess bigger is good too. The only thing is, there has to be a balance between gameplay and realism. There's no point having hundreds of guys on a huge map if it takes 3 hours to play. 20 or 30 minutes is the norm now for battles, and anything longer than that is probably exhausting to your casual gamer. (I'd argue that 10 minutes is more than enough, but that's because I was brought up on CC2 not CC5)

The one thing I really like about CC2 and CC3 is that the maps are (usually) won in one battle. This makes it feel like you're making progress as you race from map to map. In CC4 onwards it became about the Victory Locations and taking one or two of them before the time ran out. It feels like the gameplay has been slowed down because of this, although I've heard that some prefer it this way.

Either way I'm glad the devs are going down the CC2/CC3 route [:)]

[zakblood]

i'll make me mind up in beta if i get in [:D][;)]

[CloseCombatRob]

Just a little minor thing about the CC2/CC3 campaign system, CC3 was very linear and whether you won or lost it didn't effect where you would end up, for example if you kept winning as the Germans, you'd still end up in Berlin at the end, when in reality you should be taking over Russia, where as CC2 got this right, winning did help on where you would end up and changed the outcome of the campaign, so whilst I liked it in cc2, in cc3 it was too linear for my liking, so forget CC3 and look how CC2 did it.

Since this includes Africa and Sicily, will the enemy have Italian units and weaponry or will it be just Germans? Also how come we are forced to play as Americans? Is that because of how the campaign is? I mean i have nothing against Americans personally but we've already seen way too many games focusing on them, and this could potentially lower the replay value, If we can't play as axis, then why not include British forces in the first couple of campaigns at least as they historically took part? Now I can forgive all this if the game play is a huge improvement over the previous games, you're selling this for nearly £40 so anyone is right to expect perfection

I agree with what the imperator knight said about CC4 onwards with how the way you win a battle changed, for the worse in my opinion, the battles got spread out a lot longer and became a boring stalemate, and this is really annoying for people who want to play single player, in cases your just stuck waiting with no chance of winning, but the ai doesn't bother to attack and you have no option to flee like in the older games, so you just sit there waiting hoping they'll finally get "exhausted" or cease fire, it wasn't too much a problem in cc4/5 as it was in most of the games by matrix, but it was still there, I really recommend going back to cc2/3 sized maps if the ai is having any problems, whilst big maps might be cool for multi player, for single player guys like me its just a case of either slaughtering the AI very easily or getting completely obliterated by them because there much stronger than you and they just sit at the back so you can't ambush them, which resorts in a stalemate, also what happened to urban maps? in urban maps if you were all infantry and you were facing tanks, you still had a chance, on an open map its nearly impossible unless you get really lucky, and GWTC literally had none, I just hope the bloody first isn't just a graphical update of GWTC and fixes all these issues, because the close combat series to me feels like its becoming a stalemate right now, and I'd hate to see it die out because I know there's still lots of potential in this series, now every game has its flaws and no game can be perfect for everyone, but if that's the case, go with what the bigger majority wants.

Thanks for taking your time to read this.

[Nomada_Firefox]

At the end, everybody will be able to make new maps with the map editor. If we think how they are too big, we can make others smaller.

About the IA, it was bad at previous CC games because all them shared the same bad old engine. Here there is a new engine and we should wait some different.

[CloseCombatRob]

If it was just down to the "same old engine", then how come the ai is alot more functional in the older games, mostly cc1-3, the ai actually did what it was supposed to there

[Nomada_Firefox]

Never I have seen how the IA was more functional in the first CC games. Really the IA was equal, the unique differences were the amount of different chances for the IA. By example, CC2, there was a strategic map but the IA was moved around it always in the same direction. The maps were a lot smaller and the IA does not need resolve a lot of problems, just move forward and not too much. After these games, they increased the size from the maps and they added a big strategic map, at the end, the increased the amount of questions what the IA should resolve and it started to be a very bad IA.

But the point from increase the size of the maps was from the community, many people requested bigger maps. Not me. Never I liked them. But I remember how many other people wanted these big maps without study too big about what could happen.

Now with Unity3D, I´m sure how they can add better and different triggers for a good attack from the IA. We have read many times how in the old games, it could not be made because the code was a mess.

[CGGrognard]

I would like to see the soldier display position changed. Right now, the display rests in the lower right hand corner (it can be moved) but I think it would make better sense to show up as the mouse is rolled over the unit.

[CloseCombatRob]

Personally I think they should go for the CC1 and CC2 ingame UI style because it was all in one place, it didn't get in the way of the corners of the map, and not cluttered around the screen. Maybe make it look a little more modern though.

[Nomada_Firefox]

Probably the tactical UI concept is similar but very probably, they have made some new. The new engine gives a lot of possibilities.

[Destraex]

I liked the cc4/cc5 campaign map but I also liked choosing units in cc3.
CC2 I have less experience with unfortunately. But I certainly do not want something linear
That seems like a cop out?

[CGGrognard]

Every now and then in PitF or GtC I will accidently click the solder display and drag it into the field of battle. I would like to keep it "off" but until there's a way to hot key units, especially mortars, I keep it on to get to those units fast. As for the soldier display, I use it to check the units' ammo level during battle. If it would pop up next to the unit when I scroll or click on it, that would be more useful.
As for campaign maps, I think they got it right with GtC. But I understand that the TBF maps will be different as in ala CC3 style.

[SteveMcClaire]

There is a way to hot key units in Gateway to Caen, and all the previous versions of CC. Select a group of units and hit Ctrl+1 through 9 to define the group. Then just hit 1-9 to select that group. This is described in the manual section about selecting and creating units by groups, as I recall.

There will be something similar in Bloody First.

Steve

[CGGrognard]

Thanks Steve! I recall that being the case in earlier CC titles, but I never thought it carried over. Glad it did though, for now I can keep the unit display off.

[AudioKingCC2]

I agree with CloseCombatRob. Especially about keeping the battlefields small and having the same CC2 unit requisition system - was extremely conducive to competitive multiplayer.

I wish I knew what his CC2 Cases Ladder name was.

[loyalcitizen]

I would prefer a mix of map sizes. Small urban is good. Large, open fields for tank battles is good, too. I hate when tank have no maneuver room.