Matrix Games Forums

Please give surviving tank crews the sense to run away from the enemy, not directly into their gun fire.

With this new engine any plans to finally make a title down the line with Pacific battles? A little island hopping title would be great as it's so long over due in the Close Combat line. Give the Marines some love.

We have discussed doing a Pacific game several times. I'd like to do one, but we don't have one in the pipeline at this time.

Steve

What would be really great is if you, perhaps at the end of a campaign or whenever you see fit, have a list of all the soldiers and those that won the most medals, racked up the most kills, etcetera. If this screen does exist I haven't found it. It just seems pointless for soldiers to earn medals and such if you can't even keep track of them. It would be a nice treat to cap off a long campaign instead of a simple "END OF GAME!" message. because in all honesty the exclamation point doesn't do it for me [:D]

Saturnian,

Maybe we need to make the exclamation point bigger? Point taken, though. The Bloody First campaign design is going to be more focused on core force and you will have more of a chance to review results at the end of the game.

Steve

ORIGINAL: Steve McClaire

We have discussed doing a Pacific game several times. I'd like to do one, but we don't have one in the pipeline at this time.

Steve

Please keep discussing...It would be a nice change of pace and a chance to be really creative with an island hopping campaign and use of banzai charges, tunnels, etc.

Pacific fan here too. I used to have the mods for CC2 and CC5 and played them more than the WF game.

ORIGINAL: LitFuel

ORIGINAL: Steve McClaire

We have discussed doing a Pacific game several times. I'd like to do one, but we don't have one in the pipeline at this time.

Steve

Please keep discussing...It would be a nice change of pace and a chance to be really creative with an island hopping campaign and use of banzai charges, tunnels, etc.

And that would be helpful in getting another market interested in Close Combat! The Japanese/Pacific Market! More sales for Matrix $$$$$$$ [&o][X(][8D]

My wish list is:

_On airstrikes, naval or artillery barrage, small builings (like wood floor) can be totally destroyed (raze at ground level i mean...)
_In Maps not contested, the defender that occupies it, can build trechs and small fortifications where he wants.
_If i capture an airfield my opponent can not lauch airstrikes against me, until he recaptures it. This, will also affect my opponent supplies
_During a battle, the possibility to "lock a target to fire at..." when i order my team to move
_The captured vehicles, tanks and weapons must me available on the force pool of the winner, for the next battles

_On airstrikes, naval or artillery barrage, small builings (like wood floor) can be totally destroyed (raze at ground level i mean...)
_In Maps not contested, the defender that occupies it, can build trechs and small fortifications where he wants.
_If i capture an airfield my opponent can not lauch airstrikes against me, until he recaptures it. This, will also affect my opponent supplies
_During a battle, the possibility to "lock a target to fire at..." when i order my team to move
_The captured vehicles, tanks and weapons must me available on the force pool of the winner, for the next battles

Those are great ideas. I especially like the ability to fortify!

ORIGINAL: Ivan Zaitzev

First let me say that I'm really excited about this game. For what I have seen everyone would be happy if you drop GWTC and concentrate all your efforts in this one. Now, the game is going to be 3D but top down only? I really hope not. If you are going 3D then give us a free camera.

Don't think so. The Commandos series were ruined because of free camera and other issues. They added too many effects which brought too much difficulty in developing the game and lost what they were always good at and totally changed the way of original fun. Pyro was criticized by media and lost lots of fans. I think changes should be taken step by step because the new 3D CC is just a new try.

There is a game called Squad Assault West Front, which presented what you want. There are lots of problems on graphics, like facial expression, trees and terrains . It will also cost a lot of money and time to design 30+ delicate maps with free camera mode.

I guess focusing on AI and game mechanism might be more realistic as core concept, as Steve said.

ORIGINAL: linlishuo

Don't think so. The Commandos series were ruined because of free camera and other issues. They added too many effects which brought too much difficulty in developing the game and lost what they were always good at and totally changed the way of original fun. Pyro was criticized by media and lost lots of fans. I think changes should be taken step by step because the new 3D CC is just a new try.

There is a game called Squad Assault West Front, which presented what you want. There are lots of problems on graphics, like facial expression, trees and terrains . It will also cost a lot of money and time to design 30+ delicate maps with free camera mode.

I guess focusing on AI and game mechanism might be more realistic as core concept, as Steve said.

There's plenty of games that have freedom of camera movement which aren't ruined by that factor. Look at Total War, Combat Mission or Achtung Panzer.

Don't get me wrong, AI and gameplay is more important, but the ability to see the battlefield from every angle is important to.

andos series were ruined because of free camera and other issues. They added too many effects which brought too much difficulty in developing the game and lost what they were always good at and totally changed the way of original fun. Pyro was criticized by media and lost lots of fans. I think changes should be taken step by step because the new 3D CC is just a new try.

what I am worried about is some choppy, glitchy, generic and cruddy 3d engine graphics totally lacking in the detail and character of Close Combat. Something is telling me that might be what we get, though. [:@]

soldiers standing in place, spinning around with dumb looks on their faces, walls disappearing people running through each-other at 50kph and defying laws of physics etc etc etc.

Close Combat can be improved yet kept in 2D or quasi 3d. But this idea of a 3d engine... I dunno.

I would much rather see an improved/overhauled 2D engine with more advanced, photo-realistic graphics(satellite/aerial photos, actual photographs of people and weapons instead of animations) used to render soldiers and "layered" buildings so one can simply toggle through the different floors/elevations of the structures. Maybe a very limited 3d view changing is alright. Original Close Combats were like works of art but I am yet to have EVER seen a 3d map engine in any game that really impressed me.

But maybe this will be different.

ORIGINAL: TIK

ORIGINAL: linlishuo


There is a game called Squad Assault West Front, which presented what you want. There are lots of problems on graphics, like facial expression, trees and terrains . It will also cost a lot of money and time to design 30+ delicate maps with free camera mode.

I guess focusing on AI and game mechanism might be more realistic as core concept, as Steve said.

There's plenty of games that have freedom of camera movement which aren't ruined by that factor. Look at Total War, Combat Mission or Achtung Panzer.

Don't get me wrong, AI and gameplay is more important, but the ability to see the battlefield from every angle is important to.

I really know what you mean since we've played games like Total War series, Company of Heroes, RUSE, etc. But
1. These companies are experienced in making 3D games.
2. These companies have large teams of development and fund strength.
3. The mechanism of games didn't change much in all versions.

I think CC is quite different from those popular games, but more like WITP (War in the Pacific) or TOAW (The Operational Art of War). It focus mainly on real experience of war.

As for CM and AP, I think
1. If a team don't have fund or time for graphic design. The final effect won't be so satisfied, comparing with those big companies. I think you may be not happy with the graphic of CM and AP, right? The effect is even worse than 2D graphics. Sometime I even think the the best Holmes game is made by EA games (The Case of the Rose Tattoo), not the 3D version made by Frogwares Studio. (Personal understanding)
2. I think fancy, dynamic, realistic graphics and shades, as well as fun, real, and fluent game experience are what makes the game popular in the future. A game made within one year is a great challenge.

I really want to post some pictures of what Unity3D can do and I've finished writting but I still don't have the permission to post images. I will post one once I can.
In fact my desire is same as yours. I really want to see a free camera Close Combat someday in the future, and we can dream bigger - A game in which you can not only control the whole troops in battlefield, but also you can control one unit. But I don't think it can be realized in recent times.

Hey TIK, I really like your 25 suggestion thread posted in PITF forum.

Can't wait to see work in progress screenshots. [:D]

ORIGINAL: Saturnian

andos series were ruined because of free camera and other issues. They added too many effects which brought too much difficulty in developing the game and lost what they were always good at and totally changed the way of original fun. Pyro was criticized by media and lost lots of fans. I think changes should be taken step by step because the new 3D CC is just a new try.

what I am worried about is some choppy, glitchy, generic and cruddy 3d engine graphics totally lacking in the detail and character of Close Combat. Something is telling me that might be what we get, though. [:@]

soldiers standing in place, spinning around with dumb looks on their faces, walls disappearing people running through each-other at 50kph and defying laws of physics etc etc etc.

Close Combat can be improved yet kept in 2D or quasi 3d. But this idea of a 3d engine... I dunno.

I would much rather see an improved/overhauled 2D engine with more advanced, photo-realistic graphics(satellite/aerial photos, actual photographs of people and weapons instead of animations) used to render soldiers and "layered" buildings so one can simply toggle through the different floors/elevations of the structures. Maybe a very limited 3d view changing is alright. Original Close Combats were like works of art but I am yet to have EVER seen a 3d map engine in any game that really impressed me.

But maybe this will be different.

Need to hire the artist from Ultimate General: Gettysburg

http://11fc9vasy8fou131.zippykid.netdna ... n_2013.jpg

Hi, I am a CC fan from Day 1 and helped test Panthers in the Fog.

Besides Graviteam Tactics, which I think is too hardware intensive and has many imperfections I want to give feedback in two strands, first what things must be kept to make the ideal CC game from previous versions, and second what things need to be added.

What to build on:

1) The Campaign in Bridge too Far and Last Stand Arnhem was incredible, this type of ongoing campaign keeps me coming back and back again like no other game in the genre. No one has reproduced this, and if there was any chance to take this to multiplayer (anyone can log in an play against you concept for instance?) this could bring down all of the competition.

2) The UI, CC has a better UI than any of the competition. A clean button-based intuitive UI like only the Decisive Campaigns series has, and Battlefront does not match CC in.

3) The AI, although the competition competes here (Battlefront for instance) so this needs constant innovation.

4) the freedom of action that CC games have over competition, you can choose your forces rather easily and you watch them develop... CC is still the only game where I learn my soldier's names

5) Panthers in the Fog took a good turn with real time multiplayer, keep it, but put up a better UI for the service so that users can find opponents easier.

6) The coverage... CC games used to cover more ground, now they cover less than the competition. Why has no one attempted to take this model to the Pacific yet? (Close Combat in itself would need to be improved)

7) The overall design elements: The Sound (quality of sound effects), the morale, the screams, the weapon sounds, the little details that made CC one of my (and many others) favourites.

8) Keep weapon jams, random events, and unpredictable battlefield variants.

New elements:

1) If you go 3D, make sure you put as much work into the campaign (Wacht Am Rhein and Last Stand although the latter was best) were the best. None of the competitors have made as good of a campaign. With a campaign comes a personal story to the player, it makes you think about Scenarios in a completely different way, as you have to watch losses and gauge your resources.

2) More complex command and control... men react differently to different officers, but if their squad leader the most.

3) Vary the squads weapons loadout... late war German Units for instance had very diverse squad composition.

4) Some element of complex resource allocation, and quartermaster decisions.

5) VASTLY improve hand-to-hand and close-quarters combat, this has been the weakest element of the game thus far, and is a weak element of other games. Use stock animations like the Total War Series, or anything, but its time.

6) ADD more unpredictable battlefield variants, as in late reinforcements, disease (soldiers could get the flu during a campaign reducing effectiveness and morale for instance), breakdowns and unexploded ordonance (duds that could go off later).

7) ADD more units to the battle map, its time, and this is where CC really is getting left behind, with the sheer number of units in game. Use sprites in 3D to keep the graphics from overheating.

8) ADD a real-time campaign feature, so that commanders could choose times of re-engagement, including dawn, dusk or night. Combined with the increased variants and resource (quartermaster) management feature this should really allow for making another classic.

Are we keeping the ability to rename units?

Please say yes [:)]

Yes, you will be able to rename your units.

Steve

while the devil is in the detail, the one critical success factor for me is the linked campaign

I've played other tactical games where the battles are great, but ultimately the one-off nature of them detracts from the overall experience as wins and losses count for nothing when you move on to the next battle