Missions/Battles with no armor?

[sightreader]

Hey guys!

I was wanting to know... is the “First Blood” mission the only one without armor or are there others? We’re playing coop and are still learning the system...

Thanks a ton!

[SteveMcClaire]

The Gelafarello is also infantry only. Most other battles have at least a few vehicles. If by 'armor' you mean no tanks, then Hill 350, Hill 278, and Djebel Berda have some support vehicles but no actual tanks.

You can also use the scenario editor (via the game main screen) to create custom battles without tanks or vehicles.

[Saturnian]

Tanks are very passive in this game, so don't let them intimidate you. Especially if you have Bazookas. Tigers are extremely difficult to knock out, especially at close range, but otherwise most tanks are nearly helpless against infantry. Almost too helpless as it would be nice to see them be more aggressive with their machine guns. But it is a good counter balance to old Close Combats, where tanks were too effective at anti-personnel.

Hopefully in future release there will be a more level balance, but to me it is a dialectic of progress.

Also I'd like to see infantry be more clever against tanks. Since all the possible moves against tanks are not programmed(like climbing on top, opening a hatch, etcetera), it may be good to give a damage bonus to experienced/intelligent soldiers who attack a tank at close range. Maybe there already is a damage bonus, but sometimes when you surround an immobilized tank with 20 infantry and can't do a thing against it (particularly Tigers) it can feel unrealistic as they should be able to do something against it, or the tank should be using its machine guns more. With a close range damage bonus, your imagination can fill in the gaps at what happens to take that tank out.

I'd also like so see soldiers more smart about overrun attacks and move out of the way of a tank if it is about to run them over. It isn't a huge issue, but if they aren't suppressed or stunned or panicking, they should be smart enough to run away.

One other thing I noticed about tanks is that you have to wait for a gun to aim again even when the enemy tank shifts position out of view for a split second. Not a big deal but it would be more realistic if they did not have to re-aim all over again just because the tank left view for a split second. And variation in reload time might make it feel more real as well, because humans aren't always precisely consistent in how long it takes to reload a gun. Same goes for "setting up" and "Aiming" of AT teams.

[sightreader]

Thank you, THANK YOU!! You guys are life-savers...

We are still testing the game to decide if it fits our preferences for entertainment (two buddies going coop against the computer). We found the implementation of tanks - movement, sighting, firing, and so forth - to be somewhat "unfinished", so we thought we'd limit our early assessment efforts to infantry handling to get some idea if Close Combat is worth devoting our limited learning time to mastering wider varieties of units and writing our own scenarios.

Again, thanks a ton!

[WillKnott]

ORIGINAL: Saturnian

Tanks are very passive in this game, so don't let them intimidate you. Especially if you have Bazookas. Tigers are extremely difficult to knock out, especially at close range, but otherwise most tanks are nearly helpless against infantry. Almost too helpless as it would be nice to see them be more aggressive with their machine guns. But it is a good counter balance to old Close Combats, where tanks were too effective at anti-personnel.

Hopefully in future release there will be a more level balance, but to me it is a dialectic of progress.

Also I'd like to see infantry be more clever against tanks. Since all the possible moves against tanks are not programmed(like climbing on top, opening a hatch, etcetera), it may be good to give a damage bonus to experienced/intelligent soldiers who attack a tank at close range. Maybe there already is a damage bonus, but sometimes when you surround an immobilized tank with 20 infantry and can't do a thing against it (particularly Tigers) it can feel unrealistic as they should be able to do something against it, or the tank should be using its machine guns more. With a close range damage bonus, your imagination can fill in the gaps at what happens to take that tank out.

I'd also like so see soldiers more smart about overrun attacks and move out of the way of a tank if it is about to run them over. It isn't a huge issue, but if they aren't suppressed or stunned or panicking, they should be smart enough to run away.

One other thing I noticed about tanks is that you have to wait for a gun to aim again even when the enemy tank shifts position out of view for a split second. Not a big deal but it would be more realistic if they did not have to re-aim all over again just because the tank left view for a split second. And variation in reload time might make it feel more real as well, because humans aren't always precisely consistent in how long it takes to reload a gun. Same goes for "setting up" and "Aiming" of AT teams.

Good points..I agree with much of this too. I love that infantry can deal damage to the occupants of tanks, grenades down haches and shooting through view ports, tracking tanks and messing up motors, jacking up optics. Tank / Vehicle MG's do seem to take too long between shots. I get the bursty fire, but the time between bursts seems abnormally slow, and . Older versions of CC were terrible on infantry right on top of them. One could run their tank right into the crowd and spin taking out everyone at a leisurely pace without worry. Rarely would it get tracked or occupants get hurt.

[sightreader]

Great information guys!

Actually, although enemy tanks were annoying, it was more managing friendly tanks that drove us to look for non-armor scenarios...