Matrix Games Forums

CC2 and CC5 where the best, and there is no better selling wargame than CC2.

CC1 was OK
CC3 sucked gas
CC4 was way to rushed and buggy

Just the designers opinion.

E

You have to compare CM to Close Combat 4 or 5 maps to make your point valid

And why do I HAVE to compare?? Those two are still in their shrinked wrapped boxes. I read they weren't much good and after CC A Bridge Too Far I would agree without even looking at them. I DON"T LIKE CC peroid. Not that they are bad games. Has nothing to do with being good or bad. I just don't like the way they play.

I've got HTTR now, and as far as I've gotten is starting to read the manual. Haven't even installed it yet, but, somehow I'm pretty certain I'm not going to like this real time command control stuff. I'm too much handson for the most part and I don't like my orders not being obeyed for the most part. I even have problems with Combat Mission for that reason. If I tell a unit to go here and fire at that, I expect it to go there and fire at that just like in a board game. You ever play a board game where your counters didn't do what you told them to do? Well pushed them to do? heh

CC3 sucked gas

This is what I find strange. On ebay the III CC sells for extremely high prices, upwards of $70 in some auctions. Though $30 is about the norm. So, if CC3 is sooo suked gas bad, why are people paying these rediculous prices for it??

Same with Axis & Allies remake, forget the name, but, it sells for extremely high prices as well. It's the one that supposedly added a new version of the board game mechanics to the game Iron Blitz or something like that just can't recall the name right now.

Yes. CC3 was/is the best CC game along with CC5. Maybe the campaign is to linear. One the other hand at least you get to play almost all maps in CC3 because of that. In CC4&5 as the defending side you play the same map over and over again because the AI is horrible.

Also, online play works great in CC3. Can't even play CC5 online without it hanging or playing along awful slowly with lag.

So, what is so bad with CC3 [&:]

ORIGINAL: old man of the sea

CC2 and CC5 where the best, and there is no better selling wargame than CC2.

CC1 was OK
CC3 sucked gas
CC4 was way to rushed and buggy

Just the designers opinion.

E

Yeah, out of the box, CC3 was a disappointment....still fun, just nowhere near as fun as CC2....

But I'd reckon it's gotta be the most heavily modded wargame ever.

By the way, somebody posted a few months ago that the CSO group was working on CC6....I checked their site and saw nothing about it...

Know anything about any of that???

ORIGINAL: ravinhood

You have to compare CM to Close Combat 4 or 5 maps to make your point valid

And why do I HAVE to compare?? Those two are still in their shrinked wrapped boxes. I read they weren't much good and after CC A Bridge Too Far I would agree without even looking at them. I DON"T LIKE CC peroid. Not that they are bad games. Has nothing to do with being good or bad. I just don't like the way they play.

Because you can´t compare graphics of a completly different time period (in game development terms). you were comparing apples and oranges. I don´t care if you like CC or not.

ORIGINAL: ravinhood

CC3 sucked gas

This is what I find strange. On ebay the III CC sells for extremely high prices, upwards of $70 in some auctions. Though $30 is about the norm. So, if CC3 is sooo suked gas bad, why are people paying these rediculous prices for it??

Same with Axis & Allies remake, forget the name, but, it sells for extremely high prices as well. It's the one that supposedly added a new version of the board game mechanics to the game Iron Blitz or something like that just can't recall the name right now.

Because it's pretty hard to find if you want it complete. It is excellent for h2h play, that made it so long living.

Do I hear the people crying out for a CC Matrix Edition? Improved AI? Improved pathing? Improved campaigns?

CC3 was the worst due to the requistion system........everything boiled down to tank battles very quickly.

@ben.....that would be difficult since Atomic sold CC to Destineer here awhile back and is making CC:RP currently.

CC3 was the worst due to the requistion system........everything boiled down to tank battles very quickly.

And *that* is why it was the most loved CC ever [:D]

Lol well even on the CC series I see you guys can't agree on nothing. lol III is good, III is bad and what is CC:RP?

Uh huh....only REAL CCers know CC3 sucks......even the designer/developer says so! [;)]

Close Combat: Red Phoenix

http://www.closecombat.com/future/future.html

CC3 sucks [;)]

The only reason III gets any attention is due to the theater the title covers, otherwise its a bug riddeled mess.

CC2 and 5 are titles that no wargamers should be with out,yes I said it "WARGAMER".

right on Sarge!

E

Eric what does V.I.C.E. stand for?

ORIGINAL: benpark

Do I hear the people crying out for a CC Matrix Edition? Improved AI? Improved pathing? Improved campaigns?

Hah!

That's what brought quite a few cc folks here in the first place. They were going to make a cc clone but then it divided into 2 games, squad assault and combat leader.

cc3 was poo out of the box. Infantry combat was horrible as they died entirely too easy.

cc3 is popular because it spawned so many mods because the game out of the box was poo. Real Red being an attempt to beef up the infantry survivability and adjust some of the armored down a notch.

I put cc1 as the best with 5 and 4 and 2 coming in a close second.

The only reason III gets any attention is due to the theater the title covers, otherwise its a bug riddeled mess.

Hahaha, CC3 was the only one with maps that were actually large enough that penetration on armor actually mattered! [:D]

Every other CC had all armor at PB ranges so it was a function of who's tank *twitched* first due to the pathfinding problems that always made them turn just as the other guys tank showed up.

If the maps were larger sized, i'd agree that CC2 was the most fun with the fanatical infantry

The AI seemed to go downhill after CC2. CC2 was passable in the AI department because the maps were smaller, and the objectives fewer. Bigger maps may be fine for MP, but in single player it could be torture waiting to even see the AI when you play defense.

The tank heavy battles never interested me as much-the game seemed to be designed as an infantry heavy simulation, with a small amount of AFV/HT support.

CC2 and 5 are titles that no wargamers should be with out,yes I said it "WARGAMER".

Owning them counts right? One doesn't have to actually play them correct?