Close Combat Remakes - Opinions Wanted

[Knavery]

I've been reading on the Close Combat forums that playing with higher widescreen resolutions will cause the gamescren to shrink with black bars on the sides with these remakes. Is that true?

[Erik Rutins]

The Close Combat remakes support high resolutions, including widescreen. Note that the main menu is lower resolution, but the game itself is higher resolution.

[Jeffrey H.]

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

Hi Knavery, et. al.,

Based on your description of your interests, I think the CC game that would interest you most is The Longest Day (or the upcoming Last Stand Arnhem). The Longest Day is a great deal better than the original CCV IMHO and has a much better campaign. These are very different games though due to the scale (tactical for CC vs. operational for BFTB). Both BFTB and the CC games are outstanding simulations of their scale, I don't think you can go wrong with either decision.

Regards,

- Erik

FWIW I enjoyed the campaigns of both CCIV and CCV. I was disappointed over the choice to make CCV into a Western Europe based game, when most people on the Atomic forums back then wanted a Pacific theater based game. I haven't bought any of the modern series of CC simply because they haven't interested me.

I have COTA so I do know something about the style of BFTB and I agree with others that the two games are not really comparable.

As far as play time and hard drive time are concerned, the CC series wins out.

[MajFrankBurns]

You are wrong of course

I am wrong! How dare you call me wrong! [:-][:-][:-][:'(]

[Doggie]

Close Combat is designed to be played against another human opponent. Any fool can win against the computer. The best player wins. Period. Even a gang of paritsans can win against an armored infantry battalion providing it is commanded by a human who knows what he's doing.

It also has a short learning curve. You can be up and playing in ten minutes. There is no three hundred page rule book to memorize. The key to Close Combat is in the nuance, learning what tactics work and when to employ them. Through experience, you learn how to employ effective snipers and anti-tank teams. The little sprites learn. Keep them alive and they get better at their jobs with every new battle. An experienced sprite who has survived several battles will eventually become a phantom killer, almost indetectable and incredibly lethal to green troops.

There is a reason the Close Combat games are still popular after more than a decade.

[Andrew Williams]

It must be the "nuance"

[IronDuke_slith]

ORIGINAL: Doggie

Close Combat is designed to be played against another human opponent. Any fool can win against the computer. The best player wins. Period. Even a gang of paritsans can win against an armored infantry battalion providing it is commanded by a human who knows what he's doing.

It also has a short learning curve. You can be up and playing in ten minutes. There is no three hundred page rule book to memorize. The key to Close Combat is in the nuance, learning what tactics work and when to employ them. Through experience, you learn how to employ effective snipers and anti-tank teams. The little sprites learn. Keep them alive and they get better at their jobs with every new battle. An experienced sprite who has survived several battles will eventually become a phantom killer, almost indetectable and incredibly lethal to green troops.

There is a reason the Close Combat games are still popular after more than a decade.

Nuance?

1. A subtle or slight degree of difference, as in meaning, feeling, or tone; a gradation.
2. Expression or appreciation of subtle shades of meaning, feeling, or tone: a rich artistic performance, full of nuance.

What on earth has happened to you? The Dog I knew didn't do subtle, meaning, feeling, appreciation, tone or £$%$^&* artistic performance.......

Jeez, you'll be calling for wind farms and universal health care next.

[GoodGuy]

ORIGINAL: MajFrankBurns

ORIGINAL: wodin

....You are wrong of course.....

I am wrong! How dare you call me wrong! [:-][:-][:-][:'(]

Maybe because he IS right (and you are wrong) ?[:D]

I own HTTR and COTA.
Actually, the first time I played HTTR (on a friend's computer), I was somewhat puzzled/surprised, as - per first impression - it seemed to be rather like a presentation than a game, because the (player + enemy) AI can handle things brilliantly and with little action of the user. My friend did not get into the game, and I didn't really like it either, especially since the game mechanics were so different from the mechanics of other games.

After a few weeks, I picked up the game again and - after some 2 or 3 hrs - I figured quite some of the possibilities the game offered, and I wondered if this game would be THE operational warfare simulation (where I used to think that noone had created it yet).

I bought my own copy, figured it was THE op-war sim, and turned into a real fan of the series, bought COTA when it was released, and I also turned into a pretty good player, I'd say ... especially in h2h-play.
I play wargames since around 1989, so I think I am able to evaluate the capabilities of such engine, because I've seen/played most of the wargames that came out ever since (well maybe except for TOAW, WitP and the CM-series).

I have yet to see another game with an AI as capable as the AI say in COTA (I do not own BFTB, but the AI in there underwent a lot of additional AI refinements and tweaks, so it will be even better, no doubt), this goes for player AI and enemy AI.
The possibility that you can pause and issue your orders (and sit back and watch) doesn't mean that you have to play the game that way. Actually, it also takes a lot of thinking (like creating a master plan, then have the AI subordinates carry it out), as the game enables you to take the seat of a divisional general. (You can take command of single companies and micromanage whenever you want, though).

So, instead of moving around stacks of platoon or Coy/Div counters from one hex-field to another (like in so many other games), you get to deal with command and control of (moving) units in a continuous time evironment - on the operational level. Continuous-time isn't a show-element here, it actually adds realism: Movement of equipment is being rendered realistically, and you can't undo say an issued move order (like moving a counter back to its original hex).
If you figure, after unit "X" has covered a distance of 20 miles to the East, that this unit would be of better use 40 miles to the West, then you can't just move it back on the "next turn". You have to order a new move order and watch the unit walk/drive there, actually, no matter how painful that may be. This environment actually succeeds in creating a shyteload of immersion, and even if the stuff on the screen may be just like a self-running demo (or "movie") for you, there are many other people who actually see and love the level of realism and beauty of the engine.

Some people don't get it (sure there's also ppl's personal taste), others do. There is a chance that (once you have put in a few hours of play-time and once you have read one or another section of the manual) you figure the depth this game offers, eventually.

Btw, for the record, I've got CC:Wacht am Rhein, and while there were still AI pathfinding-quirks and graphical limitations (due to hardcoded limitations implemented by Atomic), it's an entertaining game that offers lots of improvements (CC:TLD offers more additions - keyword: flares, etc.) and which can be run on say Vista or Win7, so I found it to be well worth getting it. I also go with PoE there:

ORIGINAL: Prince of Eckmühl

...What the new-releases of the old games succeed at is allowing them to be played in the environment of an up-to-date operating system.

[Knavery]

Hey guys,
Thanks for all of the input. Last question... Does the AI stink or something? I don't think I'd be playing much multiplayer.

[Andrew Williams]

The AI will probably give you a good thrashing going on some of the reports on the forums.

[Doggie]

ORIGINAL: IronDuke


[

What on earth has happened to you? The Dog I knew didn't do subtle, meaning, feeling, appreciation, tone or £$%$^&* artistic performance.......

Jeez, you'll be calling for wind farms and universal health care next.

Some days I just want to feel pretty.

[MajFrankBurns]

ORIGINAL: GoodGuy

ORIGINAL: MajFrankBurns

ORIGINAL: wodin

....You are wrong of course.....

I am wrong! How dare you call me wrong! [:-][:-][:-][:'(]

Maybe because he IS right (and you are wrong) ?[:D]

I own HTTR and COTA.
Actually, the first time I played HTTR (on a friend's computer), I was somewhat puzzled/surprised, as - per first impression - it seemed to be rather like a presentation than a game, because the (player + enemy) AI can handle things brilliantly and with little action of the user. My friend did not get into the game, and I didn't really like it either, especially since the game mechanics were so different from the mechanics of other games.

After a few weeks, I picked up the game again and - after some 2 or 3 hrs - I figured quite some of the possibilities the game offered, and I wondered if this game would be THE operational warfare simulation (where I used to think that noone had created it yet).

I bought my own copy, figured it was THE op-war sim, and turned into a real fan of the series, bought COTA when it was released, and I also turned into a pretty good player, I'd say ... especially in h2h-play.
I play wargames since around 1989, so I think I am able to evaluate the capabilities of such engine, because I've seen/played most of the wargames that came out ever since (well maybe except for TOAW, WitP and the CM-series).

I have yet to see another game with an AI as capable as the AI say in COTA (I do not own BFTB, but the AI in there underwent a lot of additional AI refinements and tweaks, so it will be even better, no doubt), this goes for player AI and enemy AI.
The possibility that you can pause and issue your orders (and sit back and watch) doesn't mean that you have to play the game that way. Actually, it also takes a lot of thinking (like creating a master plan, then have the AI subordinates carry it out), as the game enables you to take the seat of a divisional general. (You can take command of single companies and micromanage whenever you want, though).

So, instead of moving around stacks of platoon or Coy/Div counters from one hex-field to another (like in so many other games), you get to deal with command and control of (moving) units in a continuous time evironment - on the operational level. Continuous-time isn't a show-element here, it actually adds realism: Movement of equipment is being rendered realistically, and you can't undo say an issued move order (like moving a counter back to its original hex).
If you figure, after unit "X" has covered a distance of 20 miles to the East, that this unit would be of better use 40 miles to the West, then you can't just move it back on the "next turn". You have to order a new move order and watch the unit walk/drive there, actually, no matter how painful that may be. This environment actually succeeds in creating a shyteload of immersion, and even if the stuff on the screen may be just like a self-running demo (or "movie") for you, there are many other people who actually see and love the level of realism and beauty of the engine.

Some people don't get it (sure there's also ppl's personal taste), others do. There is a chance that (once you have put in a few hours of play-time and once you have read one or another section of the manual) you figure the depth this game offers, eventually.

Btw, for the record, I've got CC:Wacht am Rhein, and while there were still AI pathfinding-quirks and graphical limitations (due to hardcoded limitations implemented by Atomic), it's an entertaining game that offers lots of improvements (CC:TLD offers more additions - keyword: flares, etc.) and which can be run on say Vista or Win7, so I found it to be well worth getting it. I also go with PoE there:

ORIGINAL: Prince of Eckmühl

...What the new-releases of the old games succeed at is allowing them to be played in the environment of an up-to-date operating system.

You just proved my point you even said it in your post. You CAN issue orders and just sit back and watch the ai play itself and it looks just like a presentation and/or simulation. That's my point. You can do it in Mad Minutes Bull Run & 2nd Manassas as well. You don't have to do anything after giving initial orders but just scroll around and watch the ai play itself.

[Tejszd]

ORIGINAL: Hertston

My opinion (based on Cross of Iron and 'Modern' only - I'd had enough after that) is ... get BftB. If you liked CC enough to tip the balance that way, you would already own all of them. The facelifts can't hide the fact CC is at heart wargaming state-of-the-art 1997. BftB is wargaming state-of-the-art 2010.

Unfortunately out of the re-releases those two are the weaker ones in my opinion....

COI had a few bug fixes but mainly just made it compatible with newer operating systems.

WAR added features and TLD added even more. Seems with each release they are able to do more so maybe the CC2 remake being last is a good thing....

MT had a few bug fixes (compared to CCM which is based on) but mainly just made it compatible with newer operating systems. Though if you did not have CCM it was good for multiplayer but really lacks a single player game.

[Perturabo]

ORIGINAL: MajFrankBurns

You just proved my point you even said it in your post. You CAN issue orders and just sit back and watch the ai play itself and it looks just like a presentation and/or simulation. That's my point. You can do it in Mad Minutes Bull Run & 2nd Manassas as well. You don't have to do anything after giving initial orders but just scroll around and watch the ai play itself.

Except that you have to give these initial orders and you have to give good initial orders and you have to intervene if situation on your command level changes or something goes wrong.
The AI just does the menial work for you. To me it's a good thing, because I'm playing wargames to command, not to do menial work.

ORIGINAL: Knavery

Hey guys,
Thanks for all of the input. Last question... Does the AI stink or something? I don't think I'd be playing much multiplayer.

Well, the CC series AI is broken. It can't use even the most basic tactics from the tutorial and AI controlled units can't fire on muzzle flashes to suppress enemy infantry like players do because it can't see them.

[Andrew Williams]

So, now that you are an academic you don't like getting your hands dirty?

[Perturabo]

Nah, it's just like not wanting to have to give orders to each individual soldier in Close Combat.

[Knavery]

Ok I pulled the trigger on CCTLD. However, when I play in my native resolution (1680x1050), there is a large black stripe on the right on some of the maps. Is that supposed to happen? Thanks!

P.S. I think the graphics still hold up pretty good. They look slick under high resolutions. I'm not sure why most of the reviewers complained about them to be honest. I guess a lot of us are used to hexes and counters.

[Perturabo]

Close Combat Series graphics still look great and will continue to look great for long when well done - mainly because they are independent from capabilities of computer and dependent on capabilities of the artists that make them.

[GoodGuy]

ORIGINAL: MajFrankBurns

You just proved my point you even said it in your post. You CAN issue orders and just sit back and watch the ai play itself and it looks just like a presentation and/or simulation. That's my point. You can do it in Mad Minutes Bull Run & 2nd Manassas as well. You don't have to do anything after giving initial orders but just scroll around and watch the ai play itself.

Actually, your reply proves that 1) you haven't read my post thoroughly, and 2) that you don't understand what the game is about.

1) I said you CAN issue orders and then sit back, which may indeed lead to the impression that the game is rather like a presentation than a fully fledged game, AT FIRST GLANCE.
This is not the case, though.
I should have added another sentence there (I typed so much, I simply forgot it): You actually have to intervene, readjust plans, cater for unexpected events, etc., IF you want to WIN (and make a difference), despite having an excellent player AI, because the enemy AI is superb, too.

2) Understand the game (and its depth) first, before emitting assumptions in forums:
Just like a real general, you're pretty much supposed to be a crisis manager, where you don't bark just one order, where then everyone has to stick to this golden rule, but where you have to make sure (by assigning/detaching the proper contingents) that the subordinated officers have the troops/resources they need (for the task ahead), and where you have to develop an operational plan in your head. Still, say you've started a scenario and you have given all vital orders, if you then just sit back without intervening, you will get average results, if at all. Major victories take quite some effort, a good strategy, and proper execution, and, last but not least, some babysitting for weaker/less experienced units, most likely.

So, your last sentence shows everyone (who's familiar with the series), that you either have not played the game at all, or that you did not play it for more than say 2-3 hrs. Basically: you don't know what you're talking about.
If one tries to win with one set of initial orders only, like you suggest, then the enemy AI will kick the player's a$$, as the enemy AI is reassessing the situation continuously, making it absolutely unpredictable. Sure, both sides have their objectives, but everything else (this involves plan execution, shifting plans, reacting to most recent events, force allocation, etc.) will be different each time you play a scenario.
With a set of initial orders the player AI may strike at abandoned locations/villages, with the enemy having moved behind the player's positions to cut him off, or with the enemy AI either trying a three-prongued attack or even a pincer movement. The AI is that smart.

Sorry, but you have no clue.

[GaryChildress]

So far I've only purchased one CC remake, CCtLD. I'm still thinking of getting CCWaR, though and will probably get CCLSA. I don't mind the remakes so long as they have plenty of new features with them. However, I still would really like to see some brand new titles out there for CC. I wouldn't mind seeing CC expand to other wars like WWI, Korea, or Vietnam. Also a CC for the PTO for WWII would be nice. But I've said all this many times and will continue to repeat it in the future I'm sure.