Sorry, long-term fan who's had enough

[Andrew Williams]

If you read the posts a lot of them are requesting features that CC is not.

eg: turn based, PBEm,  Mega sized teams,


You will also note that many/most gameplay issues have been addressed... eg. Path finding.

But there are a few valid points made amongst the dross.

[STIENER]

well it was a damn big post i read the begining 3 pages and the last page.....but i couldnt resist throwing my 2 cents in anyways. some of it has been fixed...thank god. most of it was AI related but still ..in amonst the Dross was some good points as you say.

i want the a/t guns and mortors fixed [:@].....and the tank VS tank issue is still open for debate. we need to play test it for them more LOL

[RD Oddball]

Stiener what part of the explanations that have been offered to you about a/t guns mortars and the tank vs tank issues don't make sense to you? Maybe they can be explained another way so that you may understand our reasoning?

And thank you for helping us to evolve the game we love. It's an ongoing process since CC1 was first released isn't it? Please do continue to offer feedback.

[STIENER]

you and i arne't on the same page here and you know it. your explanations are fine, they just arent playable in the game. some of the explainations given are down right silly....."deploy your a/t gun on the flank behind a building"...the a/t guns dont work and mortors are king. you take a/t guns in a game and ill take mortors. ill win.

yes It's an ongoing process since CC1, but you went backwards with the a/t guns and mortors since then. CC 0??
as for the tank vs tank data, i believe you said you would look at some of it but i dont see any improvements listed in the new patch.

[RD Oddball]

At this stage in the development process it's unimportant what my opinion is. Our goal is to make sure the game is operating as we say it will. We've understood you disagree with how some of the aspects of the game are set-up. There are many customers who like it as it is. How do you decide which customer gets to have it as they'd like when you can't make it all things for all people? We're open to hearing suggestions on how something like that can be resolved that's fair for everyone and is within our abilities, available time and resources.

RE: reaction to your comments: I can't speak for anybody else's responses. The response I've carefully considered and given each time has been to point out the testing we've done on mortars and that the values are falling into the expected ranges and are behaving reasonably and within balance of the game. Despite the rather scientific approach that has been taken to test this on our end we will continue to give anyone the benefit of the doubt and say that if anyone is getting different results than what is expected to please document it so we can see the specific set of circumstances you're using to get that behavior out of the game you're reporting. That's the only reasonable way we can be expected to do anything about potential problems. Without a reliable way to reproduce a possible problem or see what you're seeing we can't fix it if it needs fixing.

Steve said he would look at the tank data and I'd expect would've done something about it if it was behaving differently than what we expect.

Repeat of the mortar testing summary PM'd to you by Steve:

ORIGINAL: Steve McClaire

As we discussed, here's a summary of the test results we did with the latest version of the game:

In testing with 3 x medium mortars firing at an AT gun, on average it takes a total of about 15 mortar rounds to destroy a medium sized gun (6pdr/57mm/5cm) and about 25 rounds to destroy a larger (17pdr / Pak40) gun. There are cases of 1-3 round kills with a mortar, but there are also cases of 70+ total rounds without a kill. Perhaps the outlier cases are happening too often, but this is pretty subjective.

[STIENER]

squeaky wheel gets the grease? [;)]

what your saying is that the people that dont say anything for or against are saying they like it. how messed up is that? i take the time to post to try and make the game better not worse. if they dont want to post then thats there tough luck. some of us do post and say theres an issue here.

the mortors per say may not be the biggest problem with the a/t guns. they are a problem. i have played 30 or 40 battles at least now and i can take out an a/t gun of any size with a mortor of any size, at any range in any where from 5 to 15 rds. done it numerous times. my opponant gets very pissed.
the a/t guns do not hide very good and not just mortors, but mg fire and rifle fire etc, take them out in seconds. thats not playable. not when you compare it to other CC games. come on! its just not playable or enjoyable.

and what do you guys use as a base for what to expect??? i keep hearing that. do you expect the a/t gun crews to be gunned down in seconds because there spotted no matter where they are on the map? do you expect the survivability of an a/t gun in WW2 to be measured in seconds?
there are quotes form german tank crews in the battle of the bulge of being hit 20 plus times by a yank 57 mm a/t that they never did see....they spent a good few minutes taking hits from this gun and they looked damn hard for it and never did figure out where it was shooting from. the 57 mm did little or damage to the panther tank by the way.
in LSA i can see an a/t gun at 5 or 600 m or more and its supposed to be hiding!!! never fired a shot.

thanks for the feed back by the way [:)]

[HintJ]

ORIGINAL: squatter

I have bought every single Close Combat game since CC2, including all the recent remakes.

I realised that the AI was broken and unplayable by CC4 and havent tried to play against the AI since. I buy these games exclusively for multiplayer. Clearly, I understand that it is the best/only tactical real-time simulator out there.

This edition is no different: the AI is practically non-existent. In fact, on the strategic level it is completely Kaput.(see earlier threads)

On defence, the AI places rifle teams in the middle of roads when there are buildings on either side. Its units get up and run around rather than defending. On attack, it moves blindly towards any given victory location, hardly stopping to engage the defender. I think its about time you stopped claiming this game has a viable AI. It does not. Anyone who doubts this - try playing a few battles with 'always see enemy' selected, and watch what the AI does.

All the other problems that have bedevilled this game are present - vehicle pathing, unit deployent zones on top of each other, only 15 teams per side max, etc. Essentially, you, the developers are tweaking the data for each release, but are unbable to change the hard code beneath. You are releasing mods - very good mods, I'll give you - as full price games.

I understand the need to support developers in niche markets, but it's getting ridiculous to rely on the same old customers like me to shell out full price to download massively flawed tweakings of 12-year old software.
I just paid nearly £40 to download this, like I paid to download The Longest Day, Wacht Am Rein, and Cross of Iron before it. Each is utterly unplayable as a single player game, only valid as a multiplayer game with significant house rules and scenario modification.

My point is, I am feeling a little exploited right now, like my loyalty has been tested to the end. You shouldnt be offering discounts on previous games to people who havent bought a CC game before as you are, but discounts on the new editions for those that have invested 100s of dollars already on the previous releases, each one as flawed as the last!!

And my secondary point, trying to salvage as much multiplayer value as possible, can we have more information on how purchase points are assigned to battlegroups in battlemaker? And how, exactly, does stacking affect how many teams can be selected from each battle group? Is it better to have a larger unit as the frontline supported by a smaller one? Or vice versa? The manual says that having stacked battlegroups 'MAY' mean you get extra team slots. What are the parameters affecting 'MAY' in this case?

Third point: why continue with the absurd divisional level strategic map, and squad level tactical map, as if the fate of divisions is decided by a skirmish between two platoons?

Surely the sensible way to take the game is to simulate something like a battalion vs battalion battle on the strategic map, with companies or platoons as units of maneuvre. Then the tactical battles are actually fought between the units represented on the strategic map, rather than absurd, minute abstractions of themselves.

Perhaps when playing the A.I. you should introduce self-imposed restrictions. For example, use the team info icons to dispay command, and for the different colors:

Black: Don't even click on these units.
Red: Only give defend/ambush orders.
Yellow: Defend/ambush and move orders allowed.
Green: Any order including targeting.

This could force you to adjust your playing style on where and how you deploy and use leaders.

Or perhaps use a 3rd-party scripting tool like Autohotkey or Glovepie to only allow you to issue no more than 1 order per 30 seconds, or whatever.

CC's strong point for me has always been the psychological modeling. As long as I have that, I wouldn't mind playing w/one arm tied behind my back, so to speak.

It takes maybe a week to learn how to stomp the A.I. with a roughly equal force. If someone spent two years improving the A.I., then it might take a week and a half.

Edit--I actually agree w/you for the most part. I'm just thinking that CC isn't going to ever get substantially better w/out a complete re-write from the bottom up, instead of this this over and over re-issue approach.

[RD Oddball]

Thanks for the feedback HintJ. Some good points that have been seriously considered.

ORIGINAL: Stiener

...and what do you guys use as a base for what to expect?

That's why I included the quote of Steve explaining the testing summary.

do you expect the a/t gun crews to be gunned down in seconds because there spotted no matter where they are on the map? do you expect the survivability of an a/t gun in WW2 to be measured in seconds?

No. That's why we need specific examples so we can reproduce this. This is no where close to what we're seeing in testing. The testing summary that Steve sent you is exactly what we're seeing.

[STIENER]

Oddball
what about spotting guns? are you lads finding that you cant spot them? even when and when they dont fire?

i find there spotted very easily...unless in a building. the fact that they dont deploy in hedges and woods dont seem to give them cover or hide them is not helping imo.

[RD Oddball]

I have not. As a matter of fact I've had too difficult a time spotting them for my tastes.

The example that comes to mind is is Best. I've never been able to spot the German 88's until at least one of my teams has a clear LOS to it. Even then it's not until the AT gun fires upon one of my teams.

In the case of armor on other maps even after they fire they are not always spotted if a tank is the only friendly unit with a clear LOS to the AT gun or so it seems anecdotally. That's the only explanation I can think to explain what I'm seeing that is consistent with what I'm seeing. That makes sense too since tanks should have lower visibility. Again an anecdotal thing, I'd have to ask if that is part of the game design and I've not done testing on that specific thing since it seems to operate perfectly in my estimation. An example of this that comes to mind are the PaK40's(?) on Valkenswaard. I've had to play through that map a billion times it seems to get to other parts of the GC. They always seem to get at least one of my tanks if not two before I spot them. It seems dependent upon whether or not I have teams in LOS of the gun and the placement of the gun itself. If the AI places a gun in that first hedge row they're even tougher to spot and have had situations where I've almost had to be directly upon them to spot them.

Speaking of placement if a gun is in the middle of a grass field or even a high grass field, I'd expect to be able to spot them without the slightest problem even if they were dug in. "Gee what's that huge mound out in the middle of that open field doing there?" [;)]

As always, document what you're seeing so we can try to repro it. It's possible a very specific set of circumstances you're using are causing something to happen that's outside of what we expect or want to see happen. What you're describing is not something we want to see happen. We're just not seeing it.

[Andrew Williams]

In my H2H campaign

This Pak40 took out 2 of my armored vehicles before I could spot it and only when i had reached the dirt road just south of it.

[STIENER]

try turning your tree's off andrew there easier to see then.

[Andrew Williams]

Just in case someone thinks you are serious - It's a joke

ctrl-t turns the graphics for the trees off but does not effect LOS.

btw I always play with Trees on as having them off is cheating.

[STIENER]

[:D]

[Q.M]

ORIGINAL: Andrew Williams

btw I always play with Trees on as having them off is cheating.

Concur

[RD Oddball]

ORIGINAL: Q.M

ORIGINAL: Andrew Williams

btw I always play with Trees on as having them off is cheating.

Concur

Me three.

[STIENER]

we should start a poll.......what say you all? [;)]

me four

[xe5]

[&o] re: HintJ's "self-imposed restrictions vs AI"...

IMO, using Deploy, the mini/overview maps and the Fire order is also cheating [:-]

[blazej]

CC's strong point for me has always been the psychological modeling. As long as I have that, I wouldn't mind playing w/one arm tied behind my back, so to speak.

I completely agree with this!

Yes, CC is not a perfect game system, and some things *are* annoying. For instance, the AI's tendency to set up in the middle of the street instead of in buildings, and AI's general weakness when attacking (not using cover and so on).

But...

CC is still probably the best game out there in its class. Every now and then I buy another WWII RTS game, usually one with gorgeous graphics (such as Men of War, Theatre of War, Company of Heroes). But after the initial excitement wears off, these games turn out *WAY* worse to play because of the lack of psychological modelling. So, yes, explosions in these games are hyper-realistic, pathfinding tends to be very decent, but I can't stand soldiers walking blindly into certain death. Some of these games are also built on a victory model that is unrealistic - CoH in particular, but also the scripted "scenarios" in MoW with highly scripted AI that won't do anything outside of the script.

In these areas, CC rocks.

I hope that CC games will get improved with every release, and so far it's been happening, even if not at a pace that we would like to see happen. But it's a brutal world out there, and making deeper changes to the engine is expensive.

Also, my perspective may be a little skewed... If I had been a fan since CC1, I'd probably get bored a while ago. But I only started playing fairly recently, and so far I like the game!

BTW, for the person who would like to see a turn-based version of CC: try the Panzer Command series. Its 3D graphics are rather annoying, but the turn-based gameplay is very interesting.

Best,
Michał

[Boarspear]

Perhaps when playing the A.I. you should introduce self-imposed restrictions. For example, use the team info icons to dispay command, and for the different colors:

...
This could force you to adjust your playing style on where and how you deploy and use leaders.
...
CC's strong point for me has always been the psychological modeling. As long as I have that, I wouldn't mind playing w/one arm tied behind my back, so to speak.

It takes maybe a week to learn how to stomp the A.I. with a roughly equal force. If someone spent two years improving the A.I., then it might take a week and a half.

Edit--I actually agree w/you for the most part. I'm just thinking that CC isn't going to ever get substantially better w/out a complete re-write from the bottom up, instead of this this over and over re-issue approach.

You know, I'm an old-time wargamer from board game days who did the same thing playing against the "AI" (my evil self), when I had to impose strict limitations against my own god-like foreknowledge of stuff like reinforcements, and moving the enemy, and etc. Let's face it -- playing solo you can beat the computer every time unless the game "games" it so that you can't. Also I've had the nasty experience of thinking, "Hey, I'm pretty good at this game playing solo and all" only to meet up with a real, live opponent who turns all my pansy tactics into hash on a live battlefield. So ... since I never get to play a live opponent these days, I pretty much handicap myself if I want to make a legit game of it, or just don't worry and enjoy the pretty explosions. I also find these remakes, or even glorified mods, to be far superior to the originals with the exception of ABTF, which had a unique and apparently un-reproducible structure. The problem is playing the "original" Bridge Too Far now is like watching paint dry ... for some reason in the "old days" I didn't mind hearing flies buzzing and cows mooing for 30 minutes in order to finish the current battle. I think Matrix is doing just fine and if they can come up with something new and different it would be chocolate frosted icing on the cake.

I can't believe this discussion is still going on in 2010. Now that it's 2011 what will we see next? A return to another year of arguments from, say, 1991? Help -- I'm stuck in the Way-back Time Machine!

PBEM? Turn-based? WHY??? This takes me back to Combat Mission vs. Close Combat. There are just other games to go to for some stuff. Things like this just make me want to go Napalm and shout "PANTS!"