Close Combat TBF review

[Nomada_Firefox]

I have published my own review about the TBF.
https://firefoxccmods.com/wp/2019/10/04 ... -review-i/

[Krupinski]

Hi,

thanks for the review.

Some (i hope) constructive criticism:

In a review i expect the pros and cons. I can`t see any cons so its not like an (helpfull) review for me (should i buy or not?).
It would have been nice to talk about the AI, the evolution of the interface, the depth and so on.
These are the main points for my decision to buy.

Thanks also for the video. But i missed your voice.

Cheers
Hafer

[Nomada_Firefox]

I do not add voice in my videos. I added pros and cons, they are inside the video and in the review description. Just read it.

[CGGrognard]

Good review Nomada. Thanks for sharing.

[Krupinski]

Just read it.

I hoped you wouldnt get personal. My fault.
I read it 2 times - couldnt find just one cons. Sorry about that.

[Nomada_Firefox]

Do not worried, it is the first part from the review.

[Krupinski]

Ok, thanks. Looking forward for the second one.

Cheers
Hafer

[Boozername]

Did you use an online translator?

[FroBodine]

There are many problems with the game, that you don't mention at all. Read this review . . . lots of screenshots and descriptions of poor A.I., strange behavior, and downright bugs.

https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2019/1 ... ody-first/

[Boozername]

ORIGINAL: FroBodine

There are many problems with the game, that you don't mention at all. Read this review . . . lots of screenshots and descriptions of poor A.I., strange behavior, and downright bugs.

OUCH....Le Bocage aux Folles

[Nomada_Firefox]

Can you see a poor IA in my video?

[SteveMcClaire]

Thanks for linking that review. I posted a response in some depth on the Steam forums so I'll go ahead and re-post it here:

I think some of the points made in that review are fair while others are mistaken or exaggerated.

On the ‘brief pause that may occur during battle’ -- this is over-enthusiastic CPU usage caused by the AI doing an extensive search for the best place to move a unit so it can fire at one of your units that it wants to destroy. A fix for this pause is in the works.

There are some issues with vehicle targeting at close range. There is an update up (or very soon to be up) on Steam that includes a tweak to vehicle accuracy to reduce streaks of missed shots at close range. Each ‘shot’ in TBF is aimed by creating a sort of mathematical aiming ‘cone’ in which the exact direction of the shot is distributed randomly. For many weapons the size of this cone narrows as the gunner corrects for previous misses. This is similar to how the targeting reticle shrinks and blooms in some first person shooters. There is a maximum accuracy a soldier can have based on their experience and stress, however, and this maximum needed to be allowed to narrow further for tank/AT gunners or the random distribution was still allowing streaks of misses to occur at improbably close range.

The “Steep Angle” issue when vehicles are at extremely close range is a different problem but also something I plan to address. This has to do with the gunner failing to differentiate between the parts of the enemy vehicle's 3D model he can see versus those parts he can actually depress the gun low enough to hit. The gunner is aiming for a point on the hull front that is a good target at normal ranges -- it provides the most wiggle room to still hit the target even with aiming errors and shot-to-shot variation from the weapon. But this spot can become problematic when they are muzzle to muzzle because the game engine puts real-world constraints on how far each vehicle can elevate and depress its gun. When they’re that close the target can end up too low to point the gun at and the code needs to account for this special case.

Vehicle path finding through very tight spaces is a bit of a double edged sword. The path finder works on a 1x1m grid (twice as detailed as the old CC engine) and vehicle models vary quite a bit in size. Currently vehicles are allowed to pass within a certain minimum distance to impassable terrain even if the 3D models for larger vehicles may clip into the impassable terrain a little. This is a trade-off to reduce the frustration of 'Can't go there' order failures with vehicles in tight terrain. The alternative would introduce opposite cases where smaller vehicles would refuse to take paths they should be able to. That said, tanks should not end up inside buildings and that is an issue I'll look into.

Spotting is based on a formula where range is a factor, but so is the action of each man in the unit, how many men have LOS to the unit, and how much obscuring foliage or smoke is in the way. There may be cases where the formula can be improved but there is no hard coded 200m detection bubble. Vehicles in the open are spotted well beyond 200m.

The AI does not know exactly what units you have or where they are. It does know the rough odds between the forces on the field – 3:1, 1:1, 1:2, etc. It uses this rough measure to make decisions about when to attack or defend. This information is available to the player via the force balance bar on the pre-battle briefing screen and you can gauge how much it has changed during a battle via observed losses and the force cohesion shown at the top of the screen. The AI will never take less units than it can so this ratio will never be far wrong from the player’s point of view. Yes, the player can deliberately take less units into a battle – there’s no reason to do this, but you can. In this case the AI will know its force is stronger than yours. This is an edge case that causes the AI to have info the player wouldn’t, but it can’t actually occur the other way around because the AI won’t ever take less units. The alternative would be to have the AI fail to react when a player takes an action that tells the game ‘I am deliberately putting myself at a disadvantage.’ From the player’s point of view the AI would look pretty foolish if the player took a single rifle unit into a battle against an entire enemy company and the AI just sat back and waited for the player to attack.

So in summary, I think this review levels some fair criticism but also jumps to some unwarranted conclusions. Ultimately whether you find the game to be fun or not is up to you.

[budd]

I'm enjoying the game so far and expect things will improve. I was wondering why no skyboxes or ambient sounds? curious omissions. I've only played a few battles but i hope there are some bigger maps in the game. Seem to just about always start in contact or very close, not much room for maneuver. Are the map sizes limited to help the AI out?

Are there patch notes for that patch just released? When i installed looks like the version number didn't change and i also saw a version number 0.9.0 on the options screen and 1.0 when the game starts up.

[headcount_slith]

Thanks for the detailed response, Steve.

"Vehicles in the open are spotted well beyond 200m."

All my scenario editor tests and in-game experience (24 hrs with the release code) contradict this. When I place two forces 350 metres apart on Omaha Beach, the non-played force is invisible until I push a unit very close to it. I tried a similar test on a suitable Tunisian map and got exactly the same results. No sightings until a friendly was roughly 200m from the enemy. Can you point me towards a scenario in which I can see long-range spotting in action?

[SteveMcClaire]

Sure. Attached is a test scenario with some vehicles on both sides of Omaha Beach.

EDIT: Forgot to explain - place the "LOS Test.txt" file in your Windows Documents folder under \My Games\CloseCombatTheBloodyFirst\Scenarios\ and then click the 2nd tab from the bottom on the left of the Command Screen to load 'LOS Test'.

Steve

[budd]

Had to test for myself. Well the shots aren't to clear but one is 479 meters and the other is 283

[headcount_slith]

Steve's test scenario does seem to prove that tanks can be spotted by infantry beyond 250m (I've no idea why my results were different). But take *only* tanks into that battle (deselect all infantry) and see what happens!

[SteveMcClaire]

As noted, there is no hard-coded 200m 'bubble' limiting spotting. I will take a look at the case where the player chooses not to take any infantry at all.

[headcount_slith]

Steve, while I accept that my claim that AFVs can't be spotted at ranges above 200m may have been erroneous (my review will be amended shortly), I stand by the general thrust of my detection criticism. The game does feature de-facto bubble spotting and 200m does seem to be the magic number for most units on a map.

I've yet to see a CCTBF infantry unit detect for itself (i.e. not borg spot) an enemy infantry unit at a range above 200m, even when the enemy was advancing towards them across open ground. This situation is, of course, nonsensical from a realism point-of-view.

A simple edit of your LOS test scenario (Remove AFVs, change from 'meeting engagement' to 'Axis attack') followed by a play test as Allies, shows de-facto 200m bubble spotting in action, very clearly.




(The German unit in the image was spotted a split-second before the pic was taken)

[headcount_slith]

And, coincidentally, how close to a German HT does an advancing Sherman have to get, before it spots said HT? A quick edit of the LOS test suggests 200m.