Another Super Cool Idea!

[GaryChildress]

CCMT is definitely a winner in my book. Congrats to Matrix on another superb title in what is one of the greatest series of wargames ever.

I would really like to see a campaign aspect to CCMT, however. I think CCMT would be PERFECT for a CC IV/V style campaign map. The war is purely fictional so you don't have any historical constraints to the game.

It's the year 2008. You're the commander of a mechanized or armored division or maybe a cavalry division. You're at war with country X. You're given a standard organization for your division from which you break your forces up into companies or platoons or whatever. You're given several starting positions on the overall campaign map, maybe 2 brigades wide, with 1 brigade in reserve. You allocate which units you want to start off in which starting positions, maybe a tank heavy unit here an infantry heavy unit somewhere else. Click on start campaign and then you fight your way over the course of a few dozen battles to some distant objectives. Just like the CC IV-V engine you fight a series of battles each day over several maps spread out on the campaign map. If you don't reach the final objectives by a certain day, you lose. It would be exactly like the campaign system in CC IV-V, except, given a strict divisional TO&E you get to choose the organization of your individual combat teams AND you get to choose which units you want to start in which starting sectors of the campaign map. You could try a pincer movement or just a straight frontal attack with all your units. It would be up to you to decide your division's deployment on the campaign map.

Would that be a fun game or what??? [8D]

[Perturabo]

It would be good for a bigger scale game. In CC you command a platoon or two, not divisions.

[GaryChildress]

ORIGINAL: Perturabo

It would be good for a bigger scale game. In CC you command a platoon or two, not divisions.

My apologies, I don't mean command a whole division in one scenario (if that is what you mean), I mean you command a division but your division is a series of platoons spread out over a campaign map. You still just command one platoon at a time in a single engagement scenario. However, you would have to fight a number of scenarios each day, just like CC IV and V.

[Tactics]

I purchased COI to support the CC cause and CCMT out of curiosity. I really dislike this CCMT. I played it for a few hours. It's dirt. If it werent for games like WitP and COTA I'd be pretty down on Matrix titles. As it is, I'm just really down on the bullcrap that is CCMT.

[Perturabo]

Could you elaborate?

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress

My apologies, I don't mean command a whole division in one scenario (if that is what you mean), I mean you command a division but your division is a series of platoons spread out over a campaign map. You still just command one platoon at a time in a single engagement scenario. However, you would have to fight a number of scenarios each day, just like CC IV and V.

Which is what I'm talking about. The whole concept of being Divine God Emperor. Not only commanding a division. Commanding every single platoon.

It's as realistic as setting up bases and manufacturing units on battlefield.

Notice how CC series tactical gameplay (the heart of Close Combat) stagnated after adding the strategic layer. Basically, it's the same as in CC3. There were only changes in strategic layer.
There are better directions to go with Close Combat.
Making it a better platoon (or two) command game. I mean, the player commands a platoon sized unit + some attachments in battle.
Playing a platoon (or company) commander, not a god. There are things that can be improved - weapons data (like simulating actual damage in different way than just in penetration, a different accuracy formula that would take different things into account, like ballistics and optics), communication - which could be limited to be more realistic, more initiative of troops (like reporting muzzle flashes and firing at them and being able to take sequences of orders and customisable RoEs for units.).
Then there's a question of the player - player character should be the highest rangking officer present on map - most probably a platoon or even company leader. In a realistic campaign, the player would have to follow orders (in opposition to commanding whole division or even several divisions like in CC4-5), command his units and at the same time try to not get killed (i.e. protect the HQ from fire, but at the same time be able to issue orders to troops).

There's a nice little CC-like game called Firefight that has some of those features, namely a soldier called "you" in HQ, communication and units firing at muzzleflashes. Another great thing was a possibility of deciding how much space should take a squad. Sadly, it doesn't have CCs graphics, easy interface and moddability whichs stops me from moving to it.

[GaryChildress]

ORIGINAL: Perturabo

Which is what I'm talking about. The whole concept of being Divine God Emperor. Not only commanding a division. Commanding every single platoon.

It's as realistic as setting up bases and manufacturing units on battlefield.

Notice how CC series tactical gameplay (the heart of Close Combat) stagnated after adding the strategic layer. Basically, it's the same as in CC3. There were only changes in strategic layer.
There are better directions to go with Close Combat.

I disagree. I think the strategic game play that was featured in CC IV and V was a great innovation. The way the game was structured I thought it was very realistic. In fact I would say it was the most realistic way to be both a supreme commander and a platoon commander at the same time. Yes it was time consuming but you still had effective control over everything. I never felt like I was overwhelmed by too much going on at one time. It had nothing to do with setting up bases and manufacturing units on the battlefield. It was effectively being both a supreme commander and a platoon commander. Of course it was more of a single player vs. AI game that way, but you could still have the same multiplayer capacity by playing individual scenarios against opponents. If you want a CCMT then that isn't in conflict with a stretegic level. You can still play individual scenarios if you want. But I've always been a grand strategy fan. CC IV and V I thought had appeal for both the platoon level player and the grand strategy player.

[GaryChildress]

ORIGINAL: Tactics

I purchased COI to support the CC cause and CCMT out of curiosity. I really dislike this CCMT. I played it for a few hours. It's dirt. If it werent for games like WitP and COTA I'd be pretty down on Matrix titles. As it is, I'm just really down on the bullcrap that is CCMT.

The only thing I find wrong with CCMT is lack of a campaign. Preferably one like the campaign in CC IV or V. Other than that I think it is a fun little game. What do you dislike about it?

[Perturabo]

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress

In fact I would say it was the most realistic way to be both a supreme commander and a platoon commander at the same time.

It's a contradiction.

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress

If you want a CCMT then that isn't in conflict with a stretegic level. You can still play individual scenarios if you want.

But not a campaign, yes? Campaign from the point of view of a platoon leader is something very different than campaign from the point of view of some impossible godlike being.

[GaryChildress]

ORIGINAL: Perturabo

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress

In fact I would say it was the most realistic way to be both a supreme commander and a platoon commander at the same time.

It's a contradiction.

What's the contradiction? One minute you're the supreme commander, next you are a platoon commander. And it seems realistic enough in both instances.

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress

If you want a CCMT then that isn't in conflict with a stretegic level. You can still play individual scenarios if you want.

But not a campaign, yes? Campaign from the point of view of a platoon leader is something very different than campaign from the point of view of some impossible godlike being.

A platoon leader doesn't see everything his teams or men see either. Your platoon leader is an "impossible godlike being" as well.

My vote is for another CC IV/V only with the innovations of CCMT. Sorry.

[Andrew Williams]

The beauty of the strategic layer is that it gives you a reason to fight each battle.

[Perturabo]

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress

What's the contradiction? One minute you're the supreme commander, next you are a platoon commander. And it seems realistic enough in both instances.

Except that's not a realistic depiction of combat situation. Supreme commanders don't command every single platoon on battlefield and platoon commanders don't command entire campaign.

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress

A platoon leader doesn't see everything his teams or men see either.

Which is a flaw of underdeveloped main part of the game. If anyone bothered to create an AI that doesn't do everything to make MG/RPG gunners go away from the doors/windows, teams could be made invisible to player that doesn't see them with their last seen/reported location marked on map.

ORIGINAL: Andrew Williams

The beauty of the strategic layer is that it gives you a reason to fight each battle.

Orders of my commanders give me a reason for fighting each battle.

[GaryChildress]

CC is, after all is said and done...a game. If a flying saucer came down and fired a laser in the middle of combat I would say the game is wildly far fetched and not worth playing. As far as being both a platoon and divisional commander, I can live with that. In fact I yearn for it.

They are different styles of play. If you like one and not the other, that is fine. We all may have different tastes. I prefer grand strategy mixed in with mine. I like WITP as well and there is an enormous amount of micro-managment involved in it even though you are the commander of the entire PTO. I still call it a "simulation". EDIT: I must add that WITP is also possibly the most popular game in the Matrix catalog despite this!

Few if any games are going to be a perfect simulation of reality. To varying degrees there will be aspects that are unrealistic. It comes with the territory. If a game were perfectly realistic it would be in the first person mode only and we wouldn't even see half of what goes on around us.

There is a threshold for me. I can stand a certain amount of unreality, but like I say if a flying saucer were introduced to the game I would say that is definitely pushing it. [:)]

[Perturabo]

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress

If a game were perfectly realistic it would be in the first person mode only and we wouldn't even see half of what goes on around us.

I'm talking about showing a realistic war, not about changing the game convention.
A FPP command game wouldn't be really practical. Even commanding a single squad in Operation Flashpoint is much more difficult than in reality due to limitations of FPP games.

On the other hand, it could be much more realistic and interesting in CC's topdown view, but isn't due to the stagnation of tactical gameplay which was ignored in favour of adding the grand strategy layer.

[GaryChildress]

ORIGINAL: Perturabo

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress

If a game were perfectly realistic it would be in the first person mode only and we wouldn't even see half of what goes on around us.

I'm talking about showing a realistic war, not about changing the game convention.
A FPP command game wouldn't be really practical. Even commanding a single squad in Operation Flashpoint is much more difficult than in reality due to limitations of FPP games.

On the other hand, it could be much more realistic and interesting in CC's topdown view, but isn't due to the stagnation of tactical gameplay which was ignored in favour of adding the grand strategy layer.

I see little justification for the notion that one style is somehow objectively more "realistic" than the other. If you just want a "realistic war" then that can be achieved on several levels simultaneously, tactical and strategic.

It seems to me to be a matter of taste. I prefer a strategic aspect along with the tactical and you prefer strictly tactical. If you want to inject "anti-realism" in terms of "godlike" omniscience, as appears to be your original thrust, then you are going to have to change the game convention. Unless you want your platoon commander in an observation plane above the field of battle then, CC is, at its very core, "unrealistic" according to this criteria.

[Andrew Williams]

If you want realism, join the army and get shot at.


This is a game and can only model certain abstract aspects of going into battle.

[GaryChildress]

ORIGINAL: Andrew Williams

If you want realism, join the army and get shot at.


This is a game and can only model certain abstract aspects of going into battle.

Well stated!! Now if I could only find those advanced smileys with the beer toast! [:)]

[Perturabo]

ORIGINAL: Andrew Williams

If you want realism, join the army and get shot at.

If you want strategic game, go play a strategic game instead of bastardising Close Combat.

ORIGINAL: Andrew Williams

This is a game and can only model certain abstract aspects of going into battle.

With one programmer, yes.
Yet, somehow Atomic Games had 6 programers and appearently they were too busy adding your precious strategic game, to add any improvement to the core of Close Combat. Heck, they were even to busy to fix units getting stuck in close combat (pun not intended).

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress

I see little justification for the notion that one style is somehow objectively more "realistic" than the other. If you just want a "realistic war" then that can be achieved on several levels simultaneously, tactical and strategic.

Good point. Let's add tactical FPP, political and economical games to the mix. Yeah and a Sims-like layer game for those who want to be quartermasters. Then it would be a great Close Combat game.

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress

It seems to me to be a matter of taste. I prefer a strategic aspect along with the tactical and you prefer strictly tactical. If you want to inject "anti-realism" in terms of "godlike" omniscience, as appears to be your original thrust, then you are going to have to change the game convention. Unless you want your platoon commander in an observation plane above the field of battle then, CC is, at its very core, "unrealistic" according to this criteria.

Which has nothing to do with what I'm talking about.

CC used to have semi-realistic operations that almost made sense in CC3. The only problem was the point buy system that didn't really make sense and a possibility of getting stuck in campaign because the player couldn't afford reinforcements (like an assault on strongly defended enemy position with one or two infantry squads and a mortar).
It would make more sense if player would get a TO&E unit (and reinforcements when available) for free and would use points to get attachments.

[GaryChildress]

ORIGINAL: Perturabo

ORIGINAL: Andrew Williams

If you want realism, join the army and get shot at.

If you want strategic game, go play a strategic game instead of bastardising Close Combat.

ORIGINAL: Andrew Williams

This is a game and can only model certain abstract aspects of going into battle.

With one programmer, yes.
Yet, somehow Atomic Games had 6 programers and appearently they were too busy adding your precious strategic game, to add any improvement to the core of Close Combat. Heck, they were even to busy to fix units getting stuck in close combat (pun not intended).

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress

I see little justification for the notion that one style is somehow objectively more "realistic" than the other. If you just want a "realistic war" then that can be achieved on several levels simultaneously, tactical and strategic.

Good point. Let's add tactical FPP, political and economical games to the mix. Yeah and a Sims-like layer game for those who want to be quartermasters. Then it would be a great Close Combat game.

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress

It seems to me to be a matter of taste. I prefer a strategic aspect along with the tactical and you prefer strictly tactical. If you want to inject "anti-realism" in terms of "godlike" omniscience, as appears to be your original thrust, then you are going to have to change the game convention. Unless you want your platoon commander in an observation plane above the field of battle then, CC is, at its very core, "unrealistic" according to this criteria.

Which has nothing to do with what I'm talking about.

CC used to have semi-realistic operations that almost made sense in CC3. The only problem was the point buy system that didn't really make sense and a possibility of getting stuck in campaign because the player couldn't afford reinforcements (like an assault on strongly defended enemy position with one or two infantry squads and a mortar).
It would make more sense if player would get a TO&E unit (and reinforcements when available) for free and would use points to get attachments.

Once again I see only differences of taste. It's pointless to argue over taste. "De gustibus non est disputandum." as the Latins said. I enjoy CC IV and V and think it is very realistic in gaming terms. I don't see it as a "bastardisation" but rather as an improvement upon the system. Certainly if the next CC were in a form pleasurable to yourself I would enjoy it as well. I'm not going to pretend that my preference for CC is objectively better than yours and I still don't see it the other way around either. Why don't we just leave the argument there.

[Andrew Williams]

Salute!!