Close Combat: Wacht am Rhein

[Peter Fisla]

I'm looking forward to CC:IV, man I still have CC1,2,3, installed on my computer (CC1 is my #1 from the series). I have been testing fro Atomic Games since CC2, this brings a lot of memories I hope that once you guys are done with CC4 you guys will do an update for CC5 but this time please add all the Allied/Axis vehicles so that custom scenarios/operations anywayre in Normandy can be done.

[Perturabo]

ORIGINAL: Jeffrey H.

ORIGINAL: Perturabo

CCMT is still my favourite. CCIV was pretty nice, but the campaing wasn't in my style (I prefer more consistant experience - i.e. if I'm playing a platoon commander, then I'm playing a platoon commander, not a commander of whole operation.) and fighting a battle after battle is a massive timeater (sometimes I hate the only one turn/battle more syndrome).

The only thing I didn't like about CCIV was the snow graphics. Made things seem to much the same from scenario to scenario.

My list is a bit longer (and it's about CC series in general):
1. Retarded AI that is way below standards of commercial games. I have seen much better AI in freeware games. I can't understand how shameless can anyone be to release a game with AI that can't even mount a decent attack and take money for it.
2. Lack of two basic tools necessary for a 2D game with 3D terrain - colour coded heigh-map and ability to check line of sight from various points of map. I can't understand why they didn't implement such simple solutions to field of view problems that are created by a 2D map.
3. Information system that allows too much metagaming and gives the player an unfair advantage over AI. Player receives info about non-spotted enemy vehicles getting damaged. Player sees enemies dying even if his soldiers don't see them. Player can see muzzle blasts from enemy fire and can react to them but the enemy can't. Player has to search for muzzle blasts effects to return fire. It should be solved by making muzzle blasts invisible until friendly soldiers spot them and then they should be marked on map and should be made targetable to AI.
4. 5 parts of the game with only minor improvements to the core of the game - the tactical gameplay and wasting time and resources on reinventing the campaign system.

Anyway, I doubt it will ever change, and I have already found a freeware tactical wargame that solves the first three issues despite being made by only one programmer.

[Jeffrey H.]

ORIGINAL: Marc von Martial

ORIGINAL: Jeffrey H.

ORIGINAL: Perturabo

CCMT is still my favourite. CCIV was pretty nice, but the campaing wasn't in my style (I prefer more consistant experience - i.e. if I'm playing a platoon commander, then I'm playing a platoon commander, not a commander of whole operation.) and fighting a battle after battle is a massive timeater (sometimes I hate the only one turn/battle more syndrome).

The only thing I didn't like about CCIV was the snow graphics. Made things seem to much the same from scenario to scenario.

Well, the Ardennes were a pretty dull and snowy place by that time [;)]

Well, there should be a way to make snow covered landscapes interesting to look at !

[Jeffrey H.]

ORIGINAL: Perturabo

ORIGINAL: Jeffrey H.

ORIGINAL: Perturabo

CCMT is still my favourite. CCIV was pretty nice, but the campaing wasn't in my style (I prefer more consistant experience - i.e. if I'm playing a platoon commander, then I'm playing a platoon commander, not a commander of whole operation.) and fighting a battle after battle is a massive timeater (sometimes I hate the only one turn/battle more syndrome).

The only thing I didn't like about CCIV was the snow graphics. Made things seem to much the same from scenario to scenario.

My list is a bit longer (and it's about CC series in general):
1. Retarded AI that is way below standards of commercial games. I have seen much better AI in freeware games. I can't understand how shameless can anyone be to release a game with AI that can't even mount a decent attack and take money for it.
2. Lack of two basic tools necessary for a 2D game with 3D terrain - colour coded heigh-map and ability to check line of sight from various points of map. I can't understand why they didn't implement such simple solutions to field of view problems that are created by a 2D map.
3. Information system that allows too much metagaming and gives the player an unfair advantage over AI. Player receives info about non-spotted enemy vehicles getting damaged. Player sees enemies dying even if his soldiers don't see them. Player can see muzzle blasts from enemy fire and can react to them but the enemy can't. Player has to search for muzzle blasts effects to return fire. It should be solved by making muzzle blasts invisible until friendly soldiers spot them and then they should be marked on map and should be made targetable to AI.
4. 5 parts of the game with only minor improvements to the core of the game - the tactical gameplay and wasting time and resources on reinventing the campaign system.

Anyway, I doubt it will ever change, and I have already found a freeware tactical wargame that solves the first three issues despite being made by only one programmer.

The AFV AI was pretty bad, now that you mention it. I was reasonably satisfied with the trooper AI. Yes, map aids would be a good addition. The player advantage over the AI additions could have been marketing driven.....

I thought the campaign game was really cool and I enjoyed it along with CCV's campaign game.

What really tweaked my begonias was the theater choice for CCV, I was really looking forward to a USMC v. Japan based expansion with tropical island terrain, etc. Instead we got yet another West front game that really didn't offer enough newness.

[Perturabo]

ORIGINAL: Jeffrey H.

The AFV AI was pretty bad, now that you mention it. I was reasonably satisfied with the trooper AI.

I forgot about the AFV AI XD . Trooper AI was pretty good as long as it didn't involve manoeuvring through buildings with solid walls.
I was talking mostly about the enemy AI - there's nothing as disappointing as creating an engagement and then watching enemy tanks spinning and going in circles instead of attacking and enemy infantry just lying down or wandering aimlessly.

ORIGINAL: Jeffrey H.

The player advantage over the AI additions could have been marketing driven.....

It's more like developers placing visual and aural effects because they are cool, but not thinking about how they influence the gameplay. Also, taking the state of the AI into account, the player doesn't need additional advantages. Also, they appear in multiplayer game too.

ORIGINAL: Jeffrey H.

I thought the campaign game was really cool and I enjoyed it along with CCV's campaign game.

My main problem with campaign is that they should have finished the tactical gameplay first.
Another thing that I don't like is that it doesn't really give the sense of being a low level commander whose unit is thrown around by tides of war which I find more immersive than jumping from platoon to platoon and then commanding whole operation. I would prefer if the combat would be resolved automatically like in real strategic games with player commanding on tactical map only if he joins one unit and commands personally or the whole game being played between two AIs with player being a commander of a platoon/company within a single chosen battlegroup.

ORIGINAL: Jeffrey H.

What really tweaked my begonias was the theater choice for CCV, I was really looking forward to a USMC v. Japan based expansion with tropical island terrain, etc. Instead we got yet another West front game that really didn't offer enough newness.

I agree, the Normandy thing is so overused...
Personally, I'd prefer either Korean War or one of the Arab-Israeli wars as they are under-represented in computer games and pretty weird. Though, the USMC v. Japan thing could be could be refreshing too.

[Lützow]

ORIGINAL: Perturabo
Personally, I'd prefer either Korean War or one of the Arab-Israeli wars as they are under-represented in computer games and pretty weird.

No way! Wargames without Axis involvement are sorta boring. [:-]

[Doggie]

Close Combat was intended to be played by two human players.  Anyone can beat the AI every time, on every map.  With a human in command, even the most out matched oppenent can defeat superior armor and elite infantry by using the appropriate tactics.  A platoon of crappy ostruppen can hold a map for several turns aqainst the Third Herd if the defending player knows what he's doing.

[Perturabo]

I'm not talking about that AI should be able to match human adaptability and tactics. There are plenty of games with extremely stupid AI that somehow can avoid running its tanks in circles for half an hour and can move the troops from one map edge to another. Also I really don't mind massacring attacking troops as long as they attack and are able to do basic things that I can do, like firing on spotted source of fire.
It's not like I don't have situations when my attack against the defending AI turns into a bloody massacre.

[Doggie]

ORIGINAL: Marc von Martial

Speaking of that, we just did a little Market-Garden battlefield tour on the weekend, most on the group were checking out how the real thing was compared to the CC2 maps , especially at Son Bridge ...

I drove up the same route while they were making A Bridge Too Far. I wondered why all those Dutch troops were wearing American uniforms. As there was no such thing as the internet back then, I had no idea where most of the battles took place, other than generic place names. The bridge at Remagan was pretty easy to spot, given that the towers were still there. At the time I visited Hammelburg, I had never heard that the Kasserne there was a former PW camp, I'm still wondering what happened on the hill at Wildflecken where we found tons of discarded military equipment.

And then there was the underground airfield at Fliegerhorst Kasserne in Langendiebach. I personally saw the welded shut doors behind which we were told was an entire squadron of night fighters, guarded by booby traps.

[GaryChildress]

ORIGINAL: Doggie

Close Combat was intended to be played by two human players.  Anyone can beat the AI every time, on every map.  With a human in command, even the most out matched oppenent can defeat superior armor and elite infantry by using the appropriate tactics.  A platoon of crappy ostruppen can hold a map for several turns aqainst the Third Herd if the defending player knows what he's doing.

Unfortunately you are correct. I have never played a multiplayer CC game. I tried a while back to get a multiplayer game of CC: Modern Tactics going but my firewall settings were messed up or something. so I never could get multiplayer to work. [:(]

[Perturabo]

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress

ORIGINAL: Doggie

Close Combat was intended to be played by two human players. Anyone can beat the AI every time, on every map. With a human in command, even the most out matched oppenent can defeat superior armor and elite infantry by using the appropriate tactics. A platoon of crappy ostruppen can hold a map for several turns aqainst the Third Herd if the defending player knows what he's doing.

Unfortunately you are correct. I have never played a multiplayer CC game. I tried a while back to get a multiplayer game of CC: Modern Tactics going but my firewall settings were messed up or something. so I never could get multiplayer to work. [:(]

Yeah, me too - I only played in multiplayer once before I got a router. And frankly, I have a lot of things to do and I rarely have time to play with other people.

Also, I have CCMT and CCV boxes before me and it doesn't write on them that the game is only for playing in multiplayer and that they have a barely functional enemy AI.

Speaking of the advertising:

• Accurate and realistic modern equipment modeling
• Accurately depicting modern tactical warfare and it’s challenges

LOL

[Doggie]

There are sub mods which give improve the AI.  Visit your favorite Close Combat website and download them.  The Gold Juno Sword mod for CC5 which includes solo campaigns is far more challenging, especially for the novice player.
 
As for CCIV, a solo campaign can only be played as Germans.  The AI simply cannot locate all the Bridges involved and tries to cross impassable rivers.  Solo CC games should only be played as the attacker, as the AI cannot conceive of an aggressive strategy.  The AI simply goes to the nearest Victory location.  It has no conception of flanking or manouver.

[GaryChildress]

ORIGINAL: Doggie

There are sub mods which give improve the AI.  Visit your favorite Close Combat website and download them.  The Gold Juno Sword mod for CC5 which includes solo campaigns is far more challenging, especially for the novice player.

As for CCIV, a solo campaign can only be played as Germans.  The AI simply cannot locate all the Bridges involved and tries to cross impassable rivers.  Solo CC games should only be played as the attacker, as the AI cannot conceive of an aggressive strategy.  The AI simply goes to the nearest Victory location.  It has no conception of flanking or manouver.

Definitely agree there. As defender I usually just sit back and wait for the AI to come stomping straight into my machine gun positions. God what I wouldn't give for some real AI in computers. Unfortunately I don't know of a game in existence with half decent AI other than some of the Chess games out on the market right now. [:(]

[Perturabo]

Shouldn't attacks be done with at least 3:1 superiority in numbers?

[killroyishere]

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress

ORIGINAL: Doggie

There are sub mods which give improve the AI.  Visit your favorite Close Combat website and download them.  The Gold Juno Sword mod for CC5 which includes solo campaigns is far more challenging, especially for the novice player.

As for CCIV, a solo campaign can only be played as Germans.  The AI simply cannot locate all the Bridges involved and tries to cross impassable rivers.  Solo CC games should only be played as the attacker, as the AI cannot conceive of an aggressive strategy.  The AI simply goes to the nearest Victory location.  It has no conception of flanking or manouver.

Definitely agree there. As defender I usually just sit back and wait for the AI to come stomping straight into my machine gun positions. God what I wouldn't give for some real AI in computers. Unfortunately I don't know of a game in existence with half decent AI other than some of the Chess games out on the market right now. [:(]

Actually there are several games out there with good AI's that can and will beat you more often than you beat them. War of the Lance is one I remember from the 80's. I lost more times than I ever won to that ai and on normal difficulty. Tin Soldiers Caesar has a really good challenging ai. I do beat it but at the cost of most of my hair. Koios Kharkov has a really good ai. I think most of it due though to the massive slaughter the program does to infantry. Whole squads are too easily eliminated in it, but, that is also why the challenge level is so high. Advanced Tactics has a good ai. Even old Empire Deluxe has some good quality ai to challenge you and beat you provided you play on a small map with full ai opponents. Also the old Battles of Napoleon has a pretty decent ai and a random scenario editor that's out of this world. A game way before its time really and I'd enjoy seeing an exact remake of it today only to work on XP and/or Vista and maybe some improved graphics with units intead of the old rectangles it uses.
But, for the most part most games don't have a good ai they have difficulty levels that give the ai more to play with against you or reduce what you have to play against it to make it challenging aka Combat Mission or Steel Panthers series. The ai before CMAK was pretty pathetic, but, with the advantages one can give it it's not a bad play if you play defender or meeting engagement and give it +3 handicap with +20% to +30% more troups. Steel Panthers is about the same you just have to give the ai more than you have to get a challenge out of the game.

[2ndACR]

I would love to see a remake of Battles of Napolean. I could even do with the blocks as units. Just make it run under XP or Vista.

[ANZAC_Tack]

gary: ccmt multiplay, do ur self a massive favour, go to either matrix FAQ forum or CloseCombatSeries FAQ, we will help ya,ill try if u take screeners of problems,list ur operating system/virus set ups.
 
its friggin awsome H2H.
 
 

[GaryChildress]

ORIGINAL: ANZAC_Tack

gary: ccmt multiplay, do ur self a massive favour, go to either matrix FAQ forum or CloseCombatSeries FAQ, we will help ya,ill try if u take screeners of problems,list ur operating system/virus set ups.

its friggin awsome H2H.

Many thanks ANZAC_Tack! I'll give it a try (probably tomorrow though, it's after 1:00AM here now [:D]). H2H defininitely sounds like the way to go. [:)]

[FeurerKrieg]

Used to play CC5 H2H way back when - some of the most pulse pounding intense action I've ever experienced in a computer game.

If I had the time I'd definitely be playing some of these updated CC games.

Played Hold Juno Sword as well, and it was a great mod.

[Marc von Martial]

ORIGINAL: Doggie
At the time I visited Hammelburg, I had never heard that the Kasserne there was a former PW camp, I'm still wondering what happened on the hill at Wildflecken where we found tons of discarded military equipment.

And then there was the underground airfield at Fliegerhorst Kasserne in Langendiebach. I personally saw the welded shut doors behind which we were told was an entire squadron of night fighters, guarded by booby traps.

Wildflecken history:
http://www.rhoener-reservisten.de/wta/

At Langendiebach they tested various Prototypes in gliding tryouts. Among them the Horton 3.