GameSpot Breaks the News... Close Combat Series Comes to Matrix

[David Heath]

Hi Guys

It was going to be released on Monday but since it up I figured I post a link.

http://www.gamespot.com/news/6160284.ht ... ws;title;1

[Poolmick]

cool, got CC 1-5, cant wait. Sounds good.

[Peter Fisla]

WOOOW, for me the greatest wargames of my life (especially CC1 and CC2) are reborn again, sign me up He he I just finished Close Combat 1 St. Lo campaign today, what I coincidence. I'm probably the only CC1 die hard fan on this planet...anyways...congratulations David! Hmmm still have source code all of my CC1 editors, let's see what I can add or improve. Jezus I'm in heaven...

[Hertston]

Hmmm... good news that these will be available for a new generation. The improvements look very promising, too, although I'll have to wait on pricing to see if these are worth re-acquiring. Pity '5' isn't included, for licensing reasons presumably. They had just about put right what was wrong with '3' and '4' by then.

[Bradley62]

Great news. CC was like no other, before or since. Cannot wait to see the upgrades game play and graphics wise.

[Zakhal]

My main problem with CC was the lack of AI opponent. Throughout the series it was almost impossible to loose any campaign. The last game of the series I won on the first try. It was like a walk on the park on a sunny day. Absolutely no challenge at all. As far as i see it they should have advertised the game as "Close Combat multiplayer game" or somthing like that because the singleplayer part was non-existing.

Taking matrix record on creating AI opponents in games I have doubts whether they will be able to fix it. The original devs were unable to fix it during the whole series and matrix games doesnt have any special experience in creating challenging AI opponents (like i.e stardock).

If the game doesnt have a long lasting and challening single player and is mostly meant to play as multiplayer then imho it should advertised as a multiplayer game.

[Hertston]

ORIGINAL: Zakhal

If the game doesnt have a long lasting and challening single player and is mostly meant to play as multiplayer then imho it should advertised as a multiplayer game.

Depends on the audience. They are probably challenging enough for most 'casual' players, and virtually everybody else will be buying for the new MP anyway.

[Les_the_Sarge_9_1]

Hmmm looks like I was not far off with my Borg quip

Les loathes Real Time (boy like that is a revelation eh ).

But I own all the Close Combat games (even Marines).

Thing is, they are cantankerous things, my CC3 installs "if it feels like it". I've had some days, when I get defeated and just have to try another time.

They're reasonably small programs though, I would sure like a single installer option, all the games on a single dvd. I'd buy that.

[Oleg Mastruko]

ORIGINAL: David Heath

It was going to be released on Monday but since it up I figured I post a link.

http://www.gamespot.com/news/6160284.ht ... ws;title;1

Great news, I loved CC series, and am especially excited to see this:

"There will be permanent servers online with campaigns that players can log into and play the game as part of an overall operation with their friends. This will be online and available 24/7."

Even though I might be cnsidered Matrix fanboi, I must say NO Matrix game has solid MP (multiplayer) implementation. PBEM, in games like WITP or TOAW or WaW, is implemented adequately, but it's no big deal anyway (easy to implement from dev's standpoint). Even so, PBEM interfaces in Matrix games are usuasly clunky, at best, as if the whole thing is added as an afterthought, not a main feature.

True multiplayer games are even worse. In today's world, and with a game like CC, good MP implementation can mean the difference between market success and dismal failure.

For examples of very good MP implementation, see recently released DEFCON - a joy to play in multiplayer over Internet.

Then there are true MP shooters like Battlefield series or Red Orchestra. Those games sold tens of thousands (or in case of BF, probably milions) of copies by catering *exclusively* to MP crowd.

For examples of BAD MP implementation, as one of main reasons why game sold BADLY, even though basic design *cries* for strong MP component - see Dangerous Waters.

If we talk about 24/7 servers, I guess Matrix will have to establish some sort of match-making + stats server(s)? That will be company's first, and I will watch you guys sweat trying to make it all work (hell even mega corporation like EA has HUGE problems with BF servers). MP gaming is the trend of the future so IMO any effort in this direction will pay of in the future.

Oleg

[z1812]

Hi All,

Is the A.I. going to be revamped? It was not very challenging in the originals.

regards John

[Peter Fisla]

ORIGINAL: z1812

Hi All,

Is the A.I. going to be revamped? It was not very challenging in the originals.

regards John

I think in Close Combat 1 & 2 the AI was quite competent though in the later installments yeah the AI went kind of down hill but still not bad compared to other wargames out there for the time.

[Huskalator]

Please, oh please, please, re-do Close Combat 2.  This was by far the most challenging and fun Close Combat game.  The way it simulated the drive to Arnhem and the desperation to get to the Red Devils in time created a lot of suspense and upped the importance of each battle and unit, especially AT units. 
 
I'm really happy this series is being remade though and a remake of the other CC games isn't a bad thing.
 
You guys should do a poll to find out what the gamers want.

[Reiryc]

Finally!

A remake of close combat was what brought me to matrix in the the first place many years ago.  I only wish they'd also work with close combat 1 as that is far and above my favorite in the series.  Anyways, glad to hear of this development.  Don't change too much with the game, it works well as is.  Just make 'em work with XP and toughen up those infantry in cc3.

[Fred98]

ORIGINAL: Reiryc
....close combat 1 as that is far and above my favorite in the series. 

Me too! But currently am focusing on a certain other series of fab wargames [:D]

And Brubaker continues to beat me [&:]

[Hertston]

ORIGINAL: Reiryc

Don't change too much with the game, it works well as is.  Just make 'em work with XP and toughen up those infantry in cc3.

I've never had any trouble running 2-5 under XP (I don't have the first one).

They'll have to do a lot more than that with CC3 to persuade me to part with $40 just for the downloadable version of a game that I do, after all, own already. That said, maybe I'll some some spare cash from the loan I'll need to take out to get World in Flames. $80 download only, $90 boxed!! [X(] Ouch..

[Llyranor]

Well, since they're remakes, I hope they're sold as bargain prices or bundled.

[Hertston]

ORIGINAL: Llyranor

Well, since they're remakes, I hope they're sold as bargain prices or bundled.

According to the lastest catalogue (included with SS: Gathering Storm), Close Combat: Cross of Iron (i.e the remake of CC3) is $49.99 boxed, $39.99 download only. No mention of the other two.

[Llyranor]

Hmm, that seems to be a tad much. 40$ x 4 = ouch. It'll depend on how much is added, I guess, especially since NWS seems to sell some of them for 10$.

[Hertston]

ORIGINAL: Llyranor

Hmm, that seems to be a tad much. 40$ x 4 = ouch. It'll depend on how much is added, I guess, especially since NWS seems to sell some of them for 10$.

3, not 4. No CC1 or CC5.

[Llyranor]

Actually, 5 is there. Not mentioning it in the press release was an error.

http://www.closecombat.org/forums/showt ... hp?t=11650

"Hi Guys,

The deal does include CC5, it was an error

Sulla"