Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: squatter
I must not be making myself clear enough. What I am arguing for is a strategic level as there exists now, only one where you are moving platoon/company units around rather that divisions/regiments so that when you zoom in for a battle on the tactical map, the forces engaged are exactly those committed on the strategic map, rather than having 3 tanks, a mortar and 30 men in effect representing an entire armoured division.

I have brought this up on a couple occasions myself. I would love to see a 1/1 ratio on the strategic map too. I think it would make for a VERY interesting and neat game. However, I don't mind the abstraction that currently exists in the games. I still think they are a lot of fun.

I love the strategic layer that the games have. I would love to see an easily modded game where you can choose to play as an armored division, infantry division or mechanized division. You choose your division and then you have to work with the TO&E of the division which you choose to play. At the start of the strategic game you would be able to look over all the tactical maps and then deploy your division in your starting sector or whatever according to how you think they would best be deployed. I think it would be an exciting twist to the CC series. I hope Matrix is taking note of this.

All in all, however, I still love the games as we are seeing them now. As a gamer I'm always looking for improvement in what's already out there or something different but I also love the CC series regardless. 10 years from now I'll probably be playing CC 20 or whatever is out by then and loving it too. I have to say "Matrix, I would love to see this in a game" and not "Matrix, your game sucks because I don't see this."

If Squatter's post gets us a better AI or some other improvements next time around, we'll all be patting him on the back.

I have all of them, including Arnhem, and am cool with them as I am a poor player vs the bad AI, and also like to mod around with the files.

But even I will not buy the next one in the series unless we see some serious upgrades.

ORIGINAL: squatter

To reiterate my main points:

1. The AI is intrinsically screwed in the Close Combat series - it needs a full re-write.
2. The game is only worth playing in multiplayer.
3. Last Stand at Arnhem, like Cross of Iron, like Wach Am Rhine, are modded versions of an old game, not a new game. I welcome these new versions, and I have bought all of them. But a price of nearly $60 to download this is far too much. It should be half the price.

I hear nothing to persuade me otherwise. In fact, even those giving me flak seem to basically agree with me (save the price).

Let's keep the discussion to these points, less of the 'hater' and 'rant' crap please.

1 - then do it
2 - although I would always choose to play H2H given that choice that can't always be arranged and so I have spent thousands of hours playing CC against the AI - and since about six months after CC2 was released with the settings as elite to recruit - and if that isn't enough of a challenge elite to recruit with the number of my units reduced - that'll get you some action
3 - aye it is a grande olde game (and it is a marvel it is still around - I wonder why?) and worth many many hours of fun for the price of dinner and a movie

ORIGINAL: Dundradal

ORIGINAL: Adam Parker

One of the best game reviews I've read.

It's not a game review though. It's someone who's angry about a perceived slight to them from Matrix.

Actually it is a critical review of a game. And I don't see the word "Matrix" used once in it.

It's told me what the potential of the game is and what it currently offers in that regard. It's given me information to form caveat emptor. Given that many commercial reviews can only be a couple of hundred words long these days, the aspect focused on by the OP forms a legitimate review of this game fully.

Now if you wrote me 200 words and didn't mention any of these flaws, I'd be mighty pissed at you and your publication. Spin doctors are the reason why there are so few PC games on store shelves these days. Spin doesn't make a game run.

I think the ai being good or bad depends for me whether I am attacking or defending.When defending I can easily beat the ai.It also depends on force size,map etc.In COI GC as Axis I won every battle.In COI non historical GC I couldnt even win first battle.In TLD GC I always won the GC as Allies and Axis.In WaR I always won on defense and almost always lost offense.

If the AI could just be coded to 'defend' from the trenches it's set-up in, and to set-up around the objectives with some kind of field of fire, I'd be happy with that. Surely that's not rocket science?

I accept that the game is 10 years old, but if it can't fixed the publishers should stop releasing 'new' games and just release add-ons at a lower price.

"then do it"

I love your approach to receiving defective products. When you buy a television and it doesnt work, do you try and fix it yourself or take it back to the shop? How about the Axis never attacking issue, should I go fix that too?

Pointing out faults in a game seems to elicit a really strong backlash, kind of like pointing out a shortcoming in an Apple product to an Apple user.

As I said before, I am a fan of this series dating back 10 years, and have bought every game since CC2. Unlike some, however, I am not going to pretend that everything is fine and dandy in a product that I just paid nearly $60 for, which at best is a good mod of a 12-year old game, and at worst is fatally flawed.

A few other observations:

1. I played the Veghel operation head-to-head. In the first battle, where the US airborne are fending off the first German counterattacks, the deployment given for the weak US forces is as the attacker, hemmed in on a corner of the map. Following that, I had a German battlegroup with three panther tanks in it! It was unstoppable. The operation was a walkover for the Germans, not quite as it was in reality.
2. I played the Groesbeek heights h2h - the attacking German forces are pathetically weak making the operation impossible for the German player.
3. I played the Oosterbeck Cauldron scenario as Axis vs AI. This is meant to be a 'seige' of the British airborne. The AI - because presumably the Allied strategic AI is permanently set to 'attack' - left his defensive positions and attacked the surrounding maps. All you want as a player here is for an AI that will sit and defend, both on the strategic and tactical layers - but on both levels it attacks.
4. Not a single operation I have tried - solo or head to head - seems to me to be balanced.

"If the AI could just be coded to 'defend' from the trenches it's set-up in, and to set-up around the objectives with some kind of field of fire, I'd be happy with that. Surely that's not rocket science?"

That is exactly all that is needed. Accepting that coding an effective offensive AI is nigh-on impossible - as in any game - at least you can create a solid defensive AI that simply deploys in positions of cover around key objectives, and stays there. This would be a quantum leap forward for this game.

ORIGINAL: redmarkus4

Take a look at CM Shock Force which is reasonably challenging against an AI that does very little except hide behind cover, as well as being a much more graphically appealing game.

CMSF's AI is scripted per battle. At best it can do defense by just not doing anything buy it is lousy in the attack unless the scenario designer did a good job in the scripting.

ORIGINAL: squatter


A few other observations:

4. Not a single operation I have tried - solo or head to head - seems to me to be balanced.

Have you tried the GC? I am now 3 battles into the GC and so far the Germans have been deployed pretty well in all of them.

1st Battle Valkensvaard (sp?): I've played this one about 4 times now in different attempts. Most of the time the enemy Stug is at the edge of the top most village with an enormous commanding field of fire. I can't sneak up on it and I can't engage it on equal terms with any of my Shermans, even the Firefly in the battle group.

2nd Battle the Bridge at Best: This I've played twice. The first time I got slaughtered by the 88s trying to rush the bridge before it is blown. The second time I played more conservative, however, the bridge was blown way before I could get to it.

3rd Battle the Bridge at Son: Yes, this battle was pretty easy for me. I packed my BG with 60mm mortars to take out the 88s. Had I not done that the 88 emplacement by the bridge would have chewed my troops up and spit them out. [EDIT: AND the bridge was still blown before I could get to it.]

Granted I haven't gotten very far into the campaign yet but I can say I have played some decent battles with the Germans reasonably well deployed.

As far as being "balanced", in reality things are seldom "balanced" on the battlefield. Both sides don't call a truce and then hand pick their forces to match each other before commencing battle. In reality no one gets to say, "no fair, your group has more tanks than mine." So if sometimes things are WAY too in favor of the Allies and other times WAY too in favor of the Germans that probably better reflects reality than the alternative.

[EDIT: I agree that the series needs improvement. All games can pretty much benefit for improvements. But I don't think the game is completely broken or kaput, at least not what I've played so far. If your complaints get us a better game then kudos to you.]

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress


[EDIT: I agree that the series needs improvement. All games can pretty much benefit for improvements. But I don't think the game is completely broken or kaput, at least not what I've played so far. If your complaints get us a better game then kudos to you.]

I agree. There are areas that need improvement, but to say it is broken is wrong.

"The squeaky wheel gets the grease" goes the saying....it worked for me for the MMCC3 servers. Just need to make sure we aren't jerks about it. Don't act entitled. Be proactive and help!

Well put Dundradal. With limited resources we don't always get to things as quickly as we'd like to but we DO get to them and as soon as we humanly can. So the patience is definitely appreciated when problems are encountered.

ORIGINAL: jomni

CMSF's AI is scripted per battle. At best it can do defense by just not doing anything buy it is lousy in the attack unless the scenario designer did a good job in the scripting.

This'll rule out dynamic campaigning, will it not?

I will be buying nothing more this year

The addict has spoken and I offer you my full support..... [:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D]

ORIGINAL: Andrew Williams

maybe a support group needs forming

1. judgeDredd
2. Knavery
3. ????

[:D]

but srly compare the AI with ie BFTB with this title[8|]
well atleast I have found an good opponent.

ORIGINAL: Andrew Williams

maybe a support group needs forming

1. judgeDredd
2. Knavery
3. ????

then count me in.

I play the CC series since CC1. And like some others, I do not always win, or do not win easily.
It is not a flawless game, but I had so far a lot of fun with it and with the mods. I owned all of the series (except the "marines" one) but I like CC2/CC3 and their remakes the most. And I play 99% single player.

And for Matrix: They have never let me down when I bought something from them - never! It might take a bit of time for them to fix problems, but - so far - they always did it. (That is more then you can say from a lot of other companies!!!!

ORIGINAL: Andrew Williams

maybe a support group needs forming

1. judgeDredd
2. Knavery
3. ????

Hey that's an idea. I feel like crying every time I get whooped by the pesky AI.

I wasreally thinking about getting this as I loved the original CC2, but by the sound of it it's just a reissue of a 10 year old game. I haven't seen anything to convince me otherwise.
 
 

Foolio,

Have you also read the Product Info and the Developer's Notes? A LOT has improved since the original. Forum posts should be taken with a grain of salt as well, they represent opinions rather than objective reviews. With that said, we are reading all the opinions posted here and as with prior releases are working to address any issues.

Regards,

- Erik

ORIGINAL: koontz

ORIGINAL: Andrew Williams

maybe a support group needs forming

1. judgeDredd
2. Knavery
3. ????

[:D]

but srly compare the AI with ie BFTB with this title[8|]
well atleast I have found an good opponent.

I say the ai in BftB is much better.But its a different engine and a different type of game.