Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: Krasny

CC used to be a cutting edge game, I remember be so thrilled when it came out.

It used to. Then there was CC2, CC3, CC4 and CC5 with only minor changes to tactical gameplay (and these were mainly interface changes) and tons of changes to campaign.

ORIGINAL: Krasny

Now it seems fans of the game have developed a bunker mentality, and are seemingly oblivious to the arguments of reason.

That's because CC is no longer a mere tactical wargame. It's an operational wargame where tactical combat isn't really important. It's the strategic layer that is most important and deserves most improvements because it adds depth to the series. I'm pretty sure, that everyone agrees that it's better to dedicate limited resources to improving the strategic combat instead of adding a new tool to something that is just an equivalent of a dice roll on strategic map.

ORIGINAL: Platoon_Michael

I'm curious as to when I drop enough smoke in/on and around a tank that it still has the ability to shoot my troops?
Seems like it nevers hinder there sight.

AI and players can fire through smoke and will kill troops. The odds of hitting are/should be reduced as an individual soldier/vehicle can not be targeted but just an area to fire into.

ORIGINAL: Krasny

It could be über conservative from your point of view. But it can be also a very pragmatic point of view. The battlefield is very limited Off board artillery is so massive on a larger scale. Some questions may come up like : is there any smoke shells available ? How is the weather today ? What about the wind ? Artillery accuracy ? Smoke time length ? How are you going to manage your teams through a large smoke cloud ? And even more questions and arguing.... quote:[deep south accent]"Naw me an' Skeeter dun hold wi them noo fangled hexagons."[/deep south accent] And please do not forget that people may not be living in the usa; sometimes a wordplay could be difficult to get

First up, I think, since nobody has contraticted me, I can conclude that the total absence of OB smoke is unrealistic.

It probably is a realistic change and would be a good enhancement to the game. Though because of the other smoke options available I would prefer the developers add other things before this (AA units that can protect the battlefield during a battle, air interdiction on the strat map, vehicles carrying troops, etc.), but everyone will have their own preferred order for enhancements. Given that the attacker in CC usually doesn’t have a numerical advantage as was previously mentioned maybe it should be higher up my wishlist….

People seem to prefer work arounds and fudging. Fair enough.

Had I known WAR was a game designed by the Amish for the Amish, I would not have bought it.

Making lame excuses why OB smoke isn't in the game is, well, lame. The same concerns would be applied to on board smoke.

CC used to be a cutting edge game, I remember be so thrilled when it came out. Now it seems fans of the game have developed a bunker mentality, and are seemingly oblivious to the arguments of reason. But as Martin Luther said, "Reason is Satan's whore."

Lastly, American culture is so widely disseminated, even Aboriginal tribes people would get it.

You are free to have your own opinion but I do not share it. All strategy and wargames have to pick and choose what to implement and how best to implement stuff. So I do not think there are any perfect ones out there. I'm surprised that this one thing wrecks the game for you. Keep asking and lobbying others, if enough people want this over other things it could be added in patch or a follow up game….

As for CC the last totally new retail version was CC5 (and it didn’t change tons of things from CC4) and that was back in 2000. So CC has fallen behind some of today’s newer releases in some areas. On some of the other CC sites, and maybe in the other CC forums here at Matrix, the developers have said the plan was to do the re-release to raise capital to put into a new version down the road. With WAR being the 3rd re-release there is only 2 more to go….

This game delivered what was advertised. They said it was a re-release of CC4 that worked on modern computers with some updated graphics and campaign. I'm happy with that.

If you expected more than what they promised, that's on you. And if they don't deliver what they hype, that's on them. But I think Matrix did everything pretty damned fairly and honestly with this release.

ORIGINAL: Tejszd

ORIGINAL: Platoon_Michael

I'm curious as to when I drop enough smoke in/on and around a tank that it still has the ability to shoot my troops?
Seems like it nevers hinder there sight.

AI and players can fire through smoke and will kill troops. The odds of hitting are/should be reduced as an individual soldier/vehicle can not be targeted but just an area to fire into.

Like Platoon_Michael I too was suprised how little smoke can cover my moving troops against the AI. They seem to laser guide their shoots through smoke even when using to mortars firing short before a tank. It would be great if this could be well a bit better especially when using mortars to fire smoke grenades.

Without this I can't see a great desire to have OB smoke as an option because the main reason, giving cover, would not be archived.

IMO

ORIGINAL: Krasny
CC used to be a cutting edge game, I remember be so thrilled when it came out.

CC1 in 1996 and CC4 in late 1999.

And in all that time neither you nor anyone else discussed nor asked for OB smoke.



-

ORIGINAL: Joe 98

ORIGINAL: Krasny
CC used to be a cutting edge game, I remember be so thrilled when it came out.

CC1 in 1996 and CC4 in late 1999.

And in all that time neither you nor anyone else discussed nor asked for OB smoke.



-

Good point! [;)]

ORIGINAL: Tejszd

ORIGINAL: Krasny

It could be über conservative from your point of view. But it can be also a very pragmatic point of view. The battlefield is very limited Off board artillery is so massive on a larger scale. Some questions may come up like : is there any smoke shells available ? How is the weather today ? What about the wind ? Artillery accuracy ? Smoke time length ? How are you going to manage your teams through a large smoke cloud ? And even more questions and arguing.... quote:[deep south accent]"Naw me an' Skeeter dun hold wi them noo fangled hexagons."[/deep south accent] And please do not forget that people may not be living in the usa; sometimes a wordplay could be difficult to get

First up, I think, since nobody has contraticted me, I can conclude that the total absence of OB smoke is unrealistic.

It probably is a realistic change and would be a good enhancement to the game. Though because of the other smoke options available I would prefer the developers add other things before this (AA units that can protect the battlefield during a battle, air interdiction on the strat map, vehicles carrying troops, etc.), but everyone will have their own preferred order for enhancements. Given that the attacker in CC usually doesn’t have a numerical advantage as was previously mentioned maybe it should be higher up my wishlist….

That's funny. I'm playing a freeware RTW game made by a single programmer that has AA units and a support system in which one can choose number of tubes, number of salvoes, type of ammo and area size for artillery missions and where fire support has a decent delay and a heigh map and a tool that allows to check line of sight and a lot more.

But I guess, for some reason such things are impossible to implement in CCMT or other CC games.

Perturabo, what is the game? Might have to check it out, it is definitely priced good....

AI and players can fire through smoke and will kill troops. The odds of hitting are/should be reduced as an individual soldier/vehicle can not be targeted but just an area to fire into.

I have seen how they do still shot,but in CCIV when mousing over said item it would have said "Cant See"
I'm not quite sure about the accuracy going down as the tank still hit it's mark quite a few times.

I can't see a great desire to have OB smoke as an option because the main reason, giving cover, would not be archived.

I second that one.

That's because CC is no longer a mere tactical wargame. It's an operational wargame where tactical combat isn't really important. It's the strategic layer that is most important and deserves most improvements because it adds depth to the series. I'm pretty sure, that everyone agrees that it's better to dedicate limited resources to improving the strategic combat instead of adding a new tool to something that is just an equivalent of a dice roll on strategic map.

I know, that's the reason why I bought WAR. It's the only reason to buy / play WAR. It's WAR's unique selling point. If Battlefront had brought out a strategy layer for Combat Mission, I would be playing that. WAR's tactical game is an embaressment. Even Firefight (http://www.computer-game.us/strategy_war/firefight.htm has OB smoke.

For some reason the developers of the CC series chose to let the tactical game whither on the vine. However that debate is for another thread.

Without this I can't see a great desire to have OB smoke as an option because the main reason, giving cover, would not be archived.

If smoke is broken it should be corrected. However broken smoke is not a cogent argument to not implement OB smoke. I don't know whether smoke is broken or not. Answers in another thread.

This game delivered what was advertised. They said it was a re-release of CC4 that worked on modern computers with some updated graphics and campaign. I'm happy with that.

If you expected more than what they promised, that's on you. And if they don't deliver what they hype, that's on them. But I think Matrix did everything pretty damned fairly and honestly with this release.

Yep caveat emptor. Latin for 'screw you', I believe.

I'm not arguing for a refund here, although given woefully inadiquate nature of the tactical game, I wouldn't refuse one.

I'm arguing that the developers / fanboys ("Close Combat right or wrong"), should stop acting like Douglas Haig and start acting like George Patton. Just because something hasn't been in the game for 14 billion years, doesn't mean that it shouldn't be in the game.

CC1 in 1996 and CC4 in late 1999.

And in all that time neither you nor anyone else discussed nor asked for OB smoke.

So what. Big fat hairy deal. Defence stipulates that he has neven posted on a CC forum before this thread. Just becuase the Emperor has had no clothes for some time, doesn't mean the little boy can't cry out "The Emperor is stark bollock naked!"

Seriously you guys are acting like I'm a heretic. Put away your torches and pitch forks, and come and join the enlightenment.

ORIGINAL: Krasny

If Battlefront had brought out a strategy layer for Combat Mission, I would be playing that. WAR's tactical game is an embaressment.

Which is because of strategic game parasiting on CC series. I'm pretty sure that Atomic Games could improve the tactical gameplay a lot if they weren't too busy adding and improving a strategic minigame.

Which is because of strategic game parasiting on CC series. I'm pretty sure that Atomic Games could improve the tactical gameplay a lot if they weren't too busy adding and improving a strategic minigame.

Actually the strategic game is probably less risk and less work to change than the tactical battle part of the game. So taking the effort put into the strategic changes would get you less changes in the tatical battles.

Also, you didn't reply with the name of that freeware game that can give CC a run for its money???

Sorry, I didn't notice your post. It's Armored Brigade. I wouldn't say that it can give CC a run for its money because it's in different scale than CC, but it has a lot of features that I always wished CC would have.
Sadly, there are no unarmed civilians to kill[:(].

The CC4 game engine, the first of the series to have off map air and artillery support, was produced in 1999.

The idea of off map arty to fire smoke is a good idea.

I have not seen the idea discussed over the last 9 years. Perhaps it might be incorporated in Close Combat 6

To summarise this thread:

ORIGINAL: Krasny
How do I get OB mortars / arty to fire smoke?

ORIGINAL: Andrew Williams
That is not an option.

That was a clear and accurate answer.

ORIGINAL: Krasny
Why in heavens name not?

Because the feature is not in the game.

ORIGINAL: Krasny
But WHY is it not an option.

Because nobody thought of it before.

ORIGINAL: Krasny
Is it going to be an option in future patches? If not why not?

No.

Those who produced the game engine back in 1999 never thought of it so it cannot be added in a patch.

The producer, Atomic Games, no longer exists
-

The idea of off map arty to fire smoke is a good idea.

Thank you. A sane honest answer after days of mendacity, corperate obfuscation, and fanboy wuckfittery.

It's not a good idea however. It's a bleedin' obvious idea.

Not sure what manner of drooling retards neglected to exclude such an obvious feature to the battle game.

I'm sure it could be added as a patch. It's not rocket science.

I think we could all go on and on about how the offboard artillery system is unrealistic. I personally think that the presence of it negatively alters the game play. It is way too powerful for such a small force pool. I try to limit my use of it against the AI because I'm already kicking the AI's butt anyway. Using artillery seems unfair, especially since the AI tends to group its infantry into nice and juicy target areas. All I have to do is find out where they are and then wham - I can call in an accurate mortar or artillery strike within seconds (not minutes, like it should be) and virtually wipe out the AI's unarmored forces.

I feel they system should either be eliminated or made so that it works in realistic manner which would make it less powerfull.

I agree with what you say, TheReal_Pak40. Support in CC4-5-MT almost like some kind of superweapon from Command & Conquer, not something I'd expect from a realistic wargame.

ORIGINAL: Krasny

Thank you. A sane honest answer after days of mendacity, corperate obfuscation, and fanboy wuckfittery.

It's not a good idea however. It's a bleedin' obvious idea.

Not sure what manner of drooling retards neglected to exclude such an obvious feature to the battle game.

Oh my, what a display of bad manners.

Really, there's no reason to throw insults at people.

Please point out where I have been untruthful and I will apologise.

EDIT: The drooling retards is a bit out of order. I retract drooling retards and substitute underachieving dullards.

The whole point of CC is the tactical game, the operational game is a lovely addition, but at the end of the day, CC stands or falls on it's tactical game, which has been well and truly eclipsed, but nobody else seems to care.

ORIGINAL: Tejszd

Which is because of strategic game parasiting on CC series. I'm pretty sure that Atomic Games could improve the tactical gameplay a lot if they weren't too busy adding and improving a strategic minigame.

Actually the strategic game is probably less risk and less work to change than the tactical battle part of the game. So taking the effort put into the strategic changes would get you less changes in the tatical battles.

Also, you didn't reply with the name of that freeware game that can give CC a run for its money???

Don't think I agree at all with this. The strategic layer as incepted long ago, created a ton of new graphics, screens, and program code. Just all the additional graphics made creating a CC game much more costly in time and money, and for CC5 modders, much more costly in time. Had this simply been eliminated as a concept, the producers could have put all that money and time into other features, like a generic interface, or supporting more than too nations at a time, or SMOKE, or perhaps the tactical game as well.