Close Combat February Update

[Daniele]

Hi all,

Close Combat: The Bloody First product page is up and live! Check it out here

Also, we created a Facebook page to post all the latest updates and information about the franchise. Leave a like and stay tuned!

[Nomada_Firefox]

One question, in the game page, we can read about the game features "Real-Time Pausable". Can we make pause now?

[Benedict151]

Sorry Nomada
I don't quite understand the query (probably me, not you)

[Benedict151]

The Polygon article raises an interesting question - is it Steve McClare or McClure?

Neither I fear but rather Steve McClaire

[SchnelleMeyer]

-The game is looking good graphics wise, one thing that struck me though was the 3 smoke stacks on a house located in Africa. - I mean how cold does it get there if they need 3 stoves? [:D]

I understand the theme is the 1.US ID and the stock campaign follows that unit, but I would really like to play a German campaign as well.

Any comments in that regard on the modding possibilities of the game? Can I make my own German campaign as a modder?

And one more Q: I remember a couple of years ago a map editor was mentioned. - Now I cant see a map editor listed as a game feature. Is there a map editor in existence and will it be released with the game or later? - Thanks.

[mickxe5]

ORIGINAL: Benedict151

The Polygon article raises an interesting question - is it Steve McClare or McClure?

Neither I fear but rather Steve McClaire

Sssh...dont tell Danielle

[Hexagon]

The images showed a game much better that want i expected.

I like the new screen to buy units and the aperently ability to play in old cenital view.

I feel infantry units need more soldiers, 7-8 at least because are MG units with 5 soldiers... "cannon fodder" need more meat [:D], more serious now... i think that change engine to retain the half squad model is change all to mantein the same old problem... i dont ask for 12 soldiers per squad but at least be closer as is possible to 9-10 specially if game has luck, move to other fronts and we can manage nations like Japan.

I expect game could be closer to FOG2 concept and avoid the old CC style... i refer 1 game installation with DLCs over it to expand content to use as players want in same game, over a lot of diferent games installed with no ability to use material if is not via modding.

Lets see now if units use better terrain and can find the cover to hide when bullets fly.

PD: never underestimated who cold be desert... even is possible die drowned and not in your own sweat [8|]

[Destraex]

Very good. Would love to be their in Alpha.
Can I ask whether tank ranges are now realistic? I seem to remember them being artificially restricted in the originals... but that was a looong time ago. So my memory may be wrong.
We are going ultra realistic here right?
Graphically the terrain flat textures are looking very scourge of war, i.e. large pixels that contrast with the units nice high resolution textures?
The wolverine in the top of the shot that is about to move, it looks like it is floating at 0 degrees while the terrain slopes at 20 degrees or so??

[Destraex]

Any idea when in 2018 this will release? Late I assume?

[Rosseau]

Have to admit that polygon link got me a bit dizzy [;)]

Looks like there's a long way to go. FWIW - probably nothing - the reason I bought all those games at full price one after the other was the ease of text modding the game. Hopefully, that won't change much.

[Destraex]

I am just not a fan of games that skimp on terrain thinking that saving frames on terrain is an acceptable way to gain frames.

[Nomada_Firefox]

ORIGINAL: Benedict151

Sorry Nomada
I don't quite understand the query (probably me, not you)

Sorry Nomada
I don't quite understand the query (probably me, not you)

Check this image.

[Hexagon]

In the video uploaded in facebook looks like terrain is not only decorative... maybe we can see the creation of attack routes using explosives over terrain???

https://www.facebook.com/49986745374754 ... 830373177/

Apart this soldiers move very close and try offer less target for enemy... good, but i ask if with that movement introduce bigger squads is possible... 7-9 is a more adecuate size for a pure infantry squad with no support weapons and leave that kind of squads smaller between 5-6.

More i see game more i like it but i want see it leaving the ton of diferent installations model from old CCs, i want see DLCs that add a new pair of formations to use in same campaign... for example you can add Fallschirmjager company+UK infantry company in a Montecassino campaign, or a USMC VS Japanese infantry units in Guadalcanal campaign.

[Nomada_Firefox]

More i see game more i like it but i want see it leaving the ton of diferent installations model from old CCs, i want see DLCs that add a new pair of formations to use in same campaign... for example you can add Fallschirmjager company+UK infantry company in a Montecassino campaign, or a USMC VS Japanese infantry units in Guadalcanal campaign.

All them look perfect for a mod.

[mickxe5]

ORIGINAL: Hexagon
... but i ask if with that movement introduce bigger squads is possible... 7-9 is a more adecuate size for a pure infantry squad with no support weapons and leave that kind of squads smaller between 5-6.

The CC infantry teams represent half squads. A standard US squad had 12 soldiers, a standard German squad had 10 (9 late in the war). The 7 teams that make a platoon or zug in PITF/GTC are 6 half squads (= 3 squads) + 1 command group.

In practice both sides very often fielded smaller squads due to attrition and replacement shortages.

[Nomada_Firefox]

Another question. Can be the black arrow showing the path from a team disabled? it does not look bad but some people will not like it.

[Hexagon]

ORIGINAL: mickxe5

ORIGINAL: Hexagon
... but i ask if with that movement introduce bigger squads is possible... 7-9 is a more adecuate size for a pure infantry squad with no support weapons and leave that kind of squads smaller between 5-6.

The CC infantry teams represent half squads. A standard US squad had 12 soldiers, a standard German squad had 10 (9 late in the war). The 7 teams that make a platoon or zug in PITF/GTC are 6 half squads (= 3 squads) + 1 command group.

In practice both sides very often fielded smaller squads due to attrition and replacement shortages.

Yes but if we start with half squads if you in campaign lack reinforcements maybe is possible finish with infantry units of 3-4 guys... instead a reduced squad of 5-6 VS a full squad of 8-9

Apart introduce bigger squads could made more diferent then between diferent nations, even inside in same nations (you can have pure rifle units bigger than units based around a MG or bigger infantry units in infantry formations VS armored formations).

Half squads work IF infantry can survive fire duels, if not, if is to easy lose soldiers in the moment you score 2 or 3 hits unit is out while a bigger unit with 2-3 casualties enter in the half squad area.

Imagine with nations using bigger squads... japanse used 13 men squad if i dont remember bad... and well, in "Winter war" mod soviets with 10 soldier units offer a diferent aproximation VS play as Finland units.

In the momevement arrows... maybe use more visible colours... and use the old CC movement colour code to know what order are they using.

[mickxe5]

The problem with increasing the size of teams so that 1 squad/gruppe = 1 team is that you lose the ability to use a squad realistically. If the entire squad is just one team then everybody shoots or everybody moves. IRL a squad/gruppe acted as two or even three teams - the BAR/MG team provided a base of fire and the rifle/schutze team acted as the manuever element. The third team function in a US squad were the scouts. Often it was more tactically sound to send 1-2 soldiers forward to reconnoiter rather than risk 5-6 soldiers to do the same. Unfortunately CC doesnt allow you to detach 1-2 soldiers from a team to scout ahead.

I'd like to see more emphasis on identifying and maintaining squad and platoon integrity. Platoon/Squad designations could be added to the team name. Instead of having multiple teams named BAR and Rifle you'd have BAR 1/1 or Rifle 3/2 for teams from 1st Plt/1st Sqd and 3rd Plt/2nd Sqd. PITF/GTC did so on the Battle Group screen (although it wasnt explicit that each squad was composed of two teams) but ff you didnt rename your teams then you just had an amorphous collection of seemingly unrelated teams in battle.

[Hexagon]

Well, in the moment they cant use full squads for me next option is play with weapons+number of soldiers.

A rifle based half-squad needs 2 soldiers more over a half squad based in a support weapon.

For example for USA we can have 8 soldiers in rifle units (sargent with SMG) and 6 soldiers in units with BAR (even is possible add a 2nd BAR in certain half squads to have a more static unit VS a more mobile 1 BAR unit).

For germans same, 7 soldiers armed with rifles (sargent with SMG) BUT the MG unit could be smaller... 3 soldiers to have a mobile MG team BUT not powerfull enough to enter in close combat and if you want a fast small support team is possible use a recon unit based in 4 soldiers (for me recon teams with 3 soldiers are excesive small and not very versatile because they need move more compared with a MG team).

In later war germans could receive the 6 men half squads BUT have 3-4 STGs with bolt rifles working in sniping role... here i am curious if tactical AI now can made soldiers use their weapons based in the effectivity range, i refer avoid squads with a a few medium-long range weapon use all weapons at this range instead base use in individual weapon distance... and in general how AI work with the use of weapons, the frustration to mantein a full control over your units to prevent run out of ammo because they waste ammo in bad shot situations, i think in SMGs and how run out of ammo fast in rifle units (USA units are other history with Garands... sometimes was more important control ammo use than move them).

Anyway the problem i see with small squads is based in how useless they are after suffer a pair of casualties because they are tiny and with moral in bad status, not same lose 2 in 8 than 2 in 6.

Other point is i want see certain nations-units based in bigger infantry component with more cannon fodder.

Lets see if we can see in game infantry dealing with fire and how well protected they are VS it... using terrain and the weapons lethality, maybe this help solve a part of the problem with small units and open room to introduce bigger infantry units... part of the problem with old CCs was how easy die the 2-3 guys over 7 men squads.

[mickxe5]

One problem with larger team sizes is that the tactical AI needs to be that much more robust. Recall the 10 man CC3 Russian LMG teams losing stragglers on the factory maps.

While I can appreciate the desire to get as command soldiers as possible I dont find small teams to be useless. Led well, this squad can hold its own in a battle against an opposing AI company(-).