Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: Daviald

3. Ignore "4. Blunt the arty -- way too powerful for good gameplay (realism arguments notwithstanding)" and improve its accuracy. [:)]  (Sorry.  Fan of Arty and realism.)

You just like hammering my soldiers to bits at Battle HQ, Daviald


Add this to the list: AI ability to requisition units when presented with empty slots in a scenario.

ORIGINAL: KWP

Add a column or change an unused column in the teams.txt files that allows one to specify if the passengers are riding internally (protected from fire) or externally (exposed to fire).

Nice!

The artillery is too powerful, plain and simple. Artillery can win this game alone without any combat. Realism has to be sacrificed for game play. If you want artillery to be real, then I can say that artillery dropped on men in a field will kill them all. If you want people to die quicker, your games will end quicker right? Were talking about a kill radius of 30-50m, and the danger for injury quite larger than that. That in itself tells you how much it would add to gameplay.

Simple fix, use the requisition system to make arty extremely expensive to acquire.  It makes sense from both a game play stance and a real world stance.  I am sure that if every fireteam in the military could have two dedicated 120mm mortar teams they would appreciate the added support, but not if it meant that that they were the only squad on the field of battle in a direct combat role.  The 120mm should have been kept at the battalion support level. 

The idea that you can field an entire company worth in Army Armor, but cannot match that amount in Army infantry is ludicrous.  You can barely pull enough army men on the field to make a reinforced platoon.  Does something not seem wrong here?  Which is worth more?  Which is more difficult to acquire?  This game could easily be relabeled Tank Tactics in close quarter combat.  Not modern tactics, as company level tank operations are not a common thing these days with anything less than a full battalion of infantry support.

As a commander though, I will not neglect to use any weapon system that will improve my chances of winning.  If the game is set up to use these various weapons systems, I'll continue to use them, as I think the natural progression of the gameplay and warfare in general will always follow the extremes.

If realism is going to be sacrificed, then I think it would be misleading to promote this game as an honest attempt at combat simulation.  Might as well have orcs and elves running around or star wars characters.  If I wanted a fair balanced game, I would have bought a fantasy title instead.  The truth is that the real world sucks.  We as humans have to use our heads to adapt to the hardships of a conflict, adapt and overcome the enemy strengths, and exploit his weaknesses.  That is the real game and the real interest of this series for me.

That might be going to far, but certainly do not call the weapon system the Stryker or 120mm mortar.  Find another make-believe name for it.  I'd hate to think that some ROTC guy is out there using this game and some really dumb ideas are getting embedded into his brain about modern tactics.

Besides, There, is a counter to a player using too damn much Arty.  You just have to close the range from you to the target to within 200 meters, and all of those equipment slots he wasted are useless.  Simple fix, when arty starts pouring down on you, you'll need to push up under the fan.  Of course it would mean more if instead of simply losing one slot by filling it with a mortar unit, he is wasting 4-5 slots.

BTW, on that note, I really would like to have some molotov cocktails.  That is one simple weapon system, used the world over, and is EXTREMELY effective. If used properly at leveling the playing field in urban combat.

ORIGINAL: mooxe

The artillery is too powerful, plain and simple. Artillery can win this game alone without any combat. Realism has to be sacrificed for game play. If you want artillery to be real, then I can say that artillery dropped on men in a field will kill them all. If you want people to die quicker, your games will end quicker right? Were talking about a kill radius of 30-50m, and the danger for injury quite larger than that. That in itself tells you how much it would add to gameplay.

Isn't fire support, like, assigned in engagement editor? If someone doesn't want death raining on the battlefield, it's obvious, that he shouldn't use Arty at all and use on-board mortars and AGLs instead. Because that's what Arty would be like if it would less powerful.

ORIGINAL: Perturabo
Isn't fire support, like, assigned in engagement editor? If someone doesn't want death raining on the battlefield, it's obvious, that he shouldn't use Arty at all and use on-board mortars and AGLs instead. Because that's what Arty would be like if it would less powerful.

Actually, he is referring to the onboard mortars and AGL's. Think about someone using 5-6 mortar teams and 2-3 AGL's. In a 30 minutes game it means that he can maintain a constant mortar barrage on a position for the entire length, OR a 4 minute barrage on all of your positions.

How many mortars[X(]???!!!
What kind of person would use 5-6 mortar teams or 2-3 AGL's?

(Certainly not someone I would like to play again)

Campaign.

ORIGINAL: Daviald
Simple fix, use the requisition system to make arty extremely expensive to acquire. It makes sense from both a game play stance and a real world stance. I am sure that if every fireteam in the military could have two dedicated 120mm mortar teams they would appreciate the added support, but not if it meant that that they were the only squad on the field of battle in a direct combat role. The 120mm should have been kept at the battalion support level.

One problem, this is game is based on CC5 so it follows the force pool model (no unit costs are modeled) . This solution would have worked for CC3 engine.

ORIGINAL: jomni

ORIGINAL: Daviald
Simple fix, use the requisition system to make arty extremely expensive to acquire. It makes sense from both a game play stance and a real world stance. I am sure that if every fireteam in the military could have two dedicated 120mm mortar teams they would appreciate the added support, but not if it meant that that they were the only squad on the field of battle in a direct combat role. The 120mm should have been kept at the battalion support level.

One problem, this is game is based on CC5 so it follows the force pool model (no unit costs are modeled) . This solution would have worked for CC3 engine.

Actually, no. CCM was based on the CC3 engine and had it's guts ripped out, then some CC5 code hacked back in. As it is, there is no usable code for operations and campaigns.

So you cant even add a GC using the simple battle data array that MMCC3 ran off???

1) Visible VL's
2) Campaigns like COI

Any ETA of implementation of some of these improvements and bugs that have been found?

Matrix Games - thanks for re-issuing this game. I was/ am a fan of the old MS CC series and I am glad to see I am not the only sick old hawk out there. I am enjoying the game. Having said that, there have been many changes between this version and the last release of the classic CC. remarkably the classic seems to run smoother with fewer anomalies, like armor being able to follow a simple road / path (for the life of me I don't understand this problem, I never had a PFC not be able to follow a road). armor pointing and shooting in the same direction, armor shooting on command, armor hull forward / gun forward when defending or ambushing in the same direction, soldiers moving or running smoothly (current version is very stop action). Where is the throw grenades command? wasn’t there a throw grenade command? Rookie / veteran switch is missed as the AI is still not much of a great challenge to basic "fire and move" unless turned all the way up. Also I liked the "follow orders" switch, which allowed me to establish the degree of obedience the soldiers had. I personally think your AI algorithm is way off. Marines do what they are told while on patrol, unless under the most withering direct fire, and even then you have someone who will get up and move if you scream at them. I am amazed there are no operations or campaigns in single player mode, why not? Iraq war, Afgan operations, Iran? Lots of interesting scenarios to choose from. (I guess i could be social and get my tail waxed on line by some kid with too much time on his hands). Also, why not identify my victory locations? Reality is, unless you’re on the defensive, military leadership always tells you the objective - rarely is it to kill /destroy everything in sight (unless your on defense). The armor is way too thin-skinned by the way - on both sides of the ball. RPGs / LAW's don't take out most modern day armor. Blow a track, blind a gunner or driver or disable a motor - but not taking it out. The Stryker is way too fragile in the game play.

Well anyway I am enjoying the game. thanks again.

ORIGINAL: mudrock
The Stryker is way too fragile in the game play.

The Stryker is way to fragile in real life.[;)] That has always been the primary complaint while in development, and almost got the project killed off. The Strykers armor is only designed to protect up to 14.5mm rounds....so an rpg, 40mm grenade, mortar rounds, can all make hamburger out of a stryker.

The opfor rpgs and nato man-portable AT weapons are not like the old ones. RPG7 and RPG16 can take out just about anything on the battlefield except MBTs...of course they can track it or damage the gun. RPG 27 and RPG 29, each having a tandem warhead, are proving very lethal on today's battlefields. Ask the Israeli's...who lost nearly 50 Merkavas to RPG27/29s in their war with Hamas last year...and the British who lost a Challenger II to an RPG29 in Iraq...it defeated the ERA and penetrated the frontal armor. The Javelin employed by US forces is capable of knocking out just about any enemy vehicle that it encounters on the battlefield.

Many of the other things you mentioned that you liked about some of the older games...experience slider, always follow orders option...were not part of CCMT, because it was developed from CCM which is used by the USMC as a training tool.

Visible victory locations, as well as some other things are going to be addressed in a patch in the near future.

Glad you're having fun...we're having many a good MP battles with it too.

ORIGINAL: mudrock

remarkably the classic seems to run smoother with fewer anomalies, like armor being able to follow a simple road / path (for the life of me I don't understand this problem, I never had a PFC not be able to follow a road). armor pointing and shooting in the same direction, armor shooting on command, armor hull forward / gun forward when defending or ambushing in the same direction, soldiers moving or running smoothly (current version is very stop action). Where is the throw grenades command? wasn’t there a throw grenade command? Rookie / veteran switch is missed as the AI is still not much of a great challenge to basic "fire and move" unless turned all the way up. Also I liked the "follow orders" switch, which allowed me to establish the degree of obedience the soldiers had. I personally think your AI algorithm is way off. Marines do what they are told while on patrol, unless under the most withering direct fire, and even then you have someone who will get up and move if you scream at them. I am amazed there are no operations or campaigns in single player mode, why not? Iraq war, Afgan operations, Iran? Lots of interesting scenarios to choose from. (I guess i could be social and get my tail waxed on line by some kid with too much time on his hands). Also, why not identify my victory locations? Reality is, unless you’re on the defensive, military leadership always tells you the objective - rarely is it to kill /destroy everything in sight (unless your on defense). The armor is way too thin-skinned by the way - on both sides of the ball. RPGs / LAW's don't take out most modern day armor. Blow a track, blind a gunner or driver or disable a motor - but not taking it out. The Stryker is way too fragile in the game play.

I'm glad i read this...thanks![&o] I was willing to look beyond the GC issue and figured i'd enjoy some good 'ol CC. No GC. no German Armor...ok...no experience/orders input on top of the AI issues just killed it for me[:(]. That and the fact that this era/theater will only have a couple tanks unlike WW2...i have removed it once again from my cart.

Question - were the "fanatic", "heroic" and "berserk" moral markers taken out?

Just bought the game last night and played it today. Did some h2h with a friend. The only thing that we really noticed that was annoying was the fact that you couldnt ban certain troops from a game and that there was not a set number of points per troop and a pool of points to buy troops with before a match. I know you can remove the mission troops and get new ones but nothing stops you from loading up on the best of the best troops.

It would be nice to be able to set a troop point limit and let each side pick their own custom troops within that set of points. (unless this feature is already in the game and I just missed it?)

Before the game establish some rules.

eg

2 tanks
3 other armoured vehicles
rest infantry

It's easy to set ground rules before a battle.

ORIGINAL: Yute

Question - were the "fanatic", "heroic" and "berserk" moral markers taken out?

No. They aren't easy to encounter in game though, because they are characteristic for troops with very low morale.