ORIGINAL: STIENER
macroparasite makes some good points.
I do not agree with any of them. He should think better what is he saying.
By these reasons.
Matrix should have done some very serious ‘re-assessing’ when Gateway to Caen came out and was found wanting: tank speeds half what they should be, troops pointlessly re-positioning etc. Faults that were there from the outset of CC1 and never addressed. There was always a problem with AI but as computers became more powerful, when errors could finally be ironed out and the game improved immeasurably, what was the big solution? 3D!
Exactly 3D. The 99,9% from the engines at these days are 3D. 2D engines are old and poor. The engine from GTC is the same engine from CC1 with some edits. By these reasons the amount of errors after many edits probably was higher. In fact, it was not thought for to run at modern computers, it is one thing from the previus century.
Gateway should have literally been the Gateway. Matrix had an award winning game; one that saw the reality of human fallibility in battle conditions. One that played in real time, not turn or hex based. One that was getting better looking by the year. One that had a devoted following of map makers and modders (I, under various names, was one).
GTC is exactly FOG with few changes. When it was released, there were not too modders or people making new maps. I do not know who you are.........perhaps because you hide your name with different names. But clearly you are dreaming. How many mods from FOG or GTC can we find?
If Gateway had been reassessed and the next game born from it had a new engine, AI sorted etc then we would have no need for the ugly, turn/hex based Battle Academy (I hated it so much still not got past bootcamp!) and its ilk. The money pumped into that pointless nightmare would have turned CC round years ago. Those types of games should be history. Turn based? Why
Very probably Steve will agree with me at this, you are dreaming. A game born from GTC? impossible. Imagine a program which you were improving with new features each day for more of 20 years and each year, you added 5 hidden holes at it. Now you have 100 hidden holes in the program and nobody can find them. A complete mess. Work with the old engine had not sense.
Close Combat does not need 3D it simply needs to work. How much reassessment does that simple want/need require?
Continue dreaming in the paradise where everything is too easy..........[:-]
At the end, the old engine had a very poor AI and a lot of problems playing multiplayer games. The code was a big headache. Start with a new engine was the best and easier option. If you can not see it, it is not my problem. [8|]
Now, I am sure how they could code Archon as a 2D game but if they could make a 3D, was it a bad idea? for me it was great. I do not see it as a problem.[8D]
to be pleasantly refined, all things considered. Given the more open, tank-friendly terrain in GTC, IMO the tweak was toward caution. Units deploy in better terrain, AI infantry follows covered approaches where it can, its tanks rarely get exposed in front of the dismounts, and it sites & sits still better on defense. On offense the GTC AI generally wont overwhelm with aggression but also will less wantonly impale itself on the player's better deployed sword. On defense the AI is noticeably harder to defeat simply because it is more cautious, and moderately better deployed.
