Matrix Games Forums

Hmmm this topic is not entirely new yet not entirely done before either I suppose.

Most of us have been gaming for what seems like forever. Not always wargames as well I guess.

I am interested in seeing what people have to say on our gaming hobby in that I am interested in what you think of the common methods used in actual game design.

First one off the list I guess would be "hexes". Some people want to get rid of them, I say why? what's the need? what gain does it give us? why hate them so much?
True computers can do so much, so what. I think hexes are fine. They regulate the map, they give us simple straight forward parameters. They can be hidden in computer games if they are visually annoying.

One beef I have is pointless secondary animations. I don't need little windows with little animations wasting computer resources. I don't need randomly inserted videos or any other computer resource hogging frills.
I just need a good looking map, good looking units, nice sounds and an interface that makes controling the game simple.

AIs, worthless, I could care less if the programmers out there discontinue making them at all.

Anyone else got some feelings on what makes our games look the way they do?

Real Time 'Strategy'

Yuck! About 99% of such games degenerate to clickfests with no strategy value whatsoever.

Voriax

Right on Voriax takes a hit for the Sarge!!!:)

I might have said as much, but surely people are getting bored of me constantly attacking RTS games by now.

Resource gathering. There is something very game-y in gathering something and using it to turn out units immediately. It takes at least eight weeks to make even a poor soldier.

troopie

Zipping and un-zipping turns, it is about as much fun as drying dishes. You would think that in this day and age the computer could handle it all.

RTS=dislike

When done correctly, ala Starcraft and Warcraft, it can be enjoyable but I am waay too slow to be a threat to any human and the AI even gives me a hard time.

Many of the RTS titles try to separate from the pack by adding some unique feature but in the end it just adds more clicking to an already click intensive environment.



TBS=Tommy likey

Those people who poo-poo RTS games, always refer to such titles as:

Warcraft
Starcraft
Red Alert
Command and Conquer

My view is that they are children’s games. And they are not even wargames. Why you bother to attempt to compare these to Advanced Squad Leader or to Steel Panthers is beyond me.

I have a question for all of you. Rather than a Real Time game, how about a Continous Time game. Has anybody here actually played Close Combat H2H against a human opponent?

I suspect that Les has never played Close Combat H2H against a human opponent.

Close Combat 1, was meant to be Advanced Squad Leader for the PC. According to the developers, it was an effort in conjunction with Avalon Hill that morphed into somthing better - a Continuous Time game.

Close Combat 5, is the best of the series. H2H it is the greatest wargaming experience I have ever had. And I am a fan of ASL and Third Reich.

I have tried Steel Panthers. It is like Close Combat except its turn based.

Steel Panthers: I need to move my tank there and a MG team over there but its too far in one turn so I have to save the file and email it to my opponent. Then tomorrow, my opponent might email it back and I can complete the move. Hopefully I can set up for the assault and complete it within a week.

Historically, a small scale tactical assault at platoon or squad level can be arranged in 5 mins – 20 mins , in Steel Panthers it takes a week and in Close Combat 5 mins – 20 mins.

If I were to win the lottery and retire, I would prefer Continuous Time games. But I lead a busy life so I am forced to play turn based games. One turn per day. Generally 2 games running in parallel at a time.

A turn based game cannot be played at the tactical level. If ASL were ever made for a computer I would never bother with it. Its like watching paint dry.

However, turn based games are terrific at the strategic level. For example Uncommon Valour is a good turn based strategic game and the upcoming Korsun Pocket and Battlefields are also strategic games. As turn based games they will work well.

Attached is a screen shot taken from Close Combat. It does resemble a still from Steel Panthers. But it is not a still. Things are of course moving. It is very exciting. A MG team is positioned to provide covering fire whilst a squad moves up to seek out the enemy.

Those people who poo-poo RTS games, always refer to such titles as:

Warcraft
Starcraft
Red Alert
Command and Conquer

My view is that they are children’s games. And they are not even wargames. Why you bother to attempt to compare these to Advanced Squad Leader or to Steel Panthers is beyond me.

I have a question for all of you. Rather than a Real Time game, how a bout a Continous Time game. Has anybody here actually played Close Combat H2H against a human opponent?

I suspect that Les has never played Close Combat H2H against a human opponent.

Close Combat 1, was meant to be Advanced Squad Leader for the PC. According to the developers, it was an effort in conjunction with Avalon Hill that morphed from ASL into a Continuous Time game.

Close Combat 5, is the best of the series. H2H it is the greatest wargaming experience I have ever had. And I am a fan of ASL and Third Reich.

I have tried Steel Panthers. It is like Close Combat except its turn based.

Steel Panthers: I need to move my tank there and a MG team over there but its too far in one turn so I have to save the file and email it to my opponent. Then tomorrow, my opponent might email it back and I can complete the move. Hopefully I can set up for the assault within a week.

Historically a small scale tactical assault at platoon or squad level can be arranged in 5 mins – 20 mins , in Steel Panthers it takes a week and in Close Combat 5 mins – 20 mins.

If I were to win the lottery and retire, I would prefer Continuous Time games. But I lead a busy life so I am forced to play turn based games. One turn per day. Generally 2 games running in parallel at a time.

A turn based game cannot be played at the tactical level. If ASL were ever made for a computer I would never bother with it. Its like watching paint dry.

However, turn based games are terrific strategic level. For example Uncommon Valour is a good turn based strategic game and the upcoming Korsun Pocket and Battlefields are also strategic games. As turn based games they will work well.

Attached is a screen shot taken from Close Combat. It does resemble a still from Steel Panthers. But it is not a still. Things are of course moving. It is very exciting. A MG team is positioned to provide covering fire whilst a squad to up to seek out the enemy.


http://www.users.bigpond.com/joeme/Coveringfire.jpg

I have never actually seen Close Combat, so I have to be fair and say I am not sure either way how I would feel about it.

My question is this, what exactly makes "continuous" different from "real time"?

When you say Close Comabt H2H is the "H2H" implying this game is played head to head, or is the H2H just a game label?

I am not sure that H2H is any different than referring to it as an online game though.
I myself would not mind playing almost any decent wargame online in actual time RTS or turn based for that matter).

What is the current retail scene for Close Combat? I ask here so I can get a quick run down without needing to ferret it out elsewhere on my own.
Most specifically where can it be found, can it be still found for that matter.
A game regardless of how cool, is of course a game not worthy of comment to those unable to get it naturally.

When speaking of the kid game RTS games Warcraft etc, of course they are all the same to me, just different images.
I am of course unwilling to give a game any credit as being meritorious enough to wear the label wargame, merely de to the images conforming to actual military hardware (as opposed to whimsical scifi fantasy images).

What can you say about the game environment, that allows Close Combat to not be yet another not turn based game (so I have more to judge by).

I did like the screen shot. I liked the view in Sudden Strike II as well.
That the units seem to run around like children when the slightest obstacle is thrown there way, is always interesting of course (but I see that in all RTS games).

I saw some nice screen shots of Panzer Claws recently. As with Panzer Elite though, some will gush over the view and forget the game has to work first.
I have no idea yet if Panzer Claws will be worth it, but Panzer Elite seems to be a total wash out as far as reliable software goes.

I must admit, I am one of the individuals that enjoys playing ASL, drinking pop eating pizza, and not minding that the board looks a lot less exciting than some cutting edge software.
Heck I looooooove pushing those counters myself hehe.

Ok, Les, I know you dislike RTS games, so you can avoid my Age of Mythology thread. Apart from the Age of Empires/Kings/Mythology series and Close Combat, I don't care for RTS games, but these are the pick of the litter, IMO. I also know that pretty graphics are not neccessary to a good hardcore wargame, BUT I like them, and games like AoM give me enough eye candy to make me think I need an extra shot of insulin (I'm a diabetic, so that joke was truly an inside one). As far as graphics go, I'll still pick the Battleground series and The Ardennes Offensive 2 as having the best-looking game maps I've seen (for turn-based PC wargames). I'll also pick these two as having the most intuitive game systems I've played. Nothing irks me more than having to wade thru a 100-page manual to understand how to play a game. If you can get the basics and jump into a game within 15-30 minutes, then that makes me happy. However, if I'm still playing it a year later, then that makes me regard it as a favorite. The most complex game I have on my HD is SPWaW. Grasping the basics, at least for a student of military history, is pretty straightforward, but the complexities of unit interaction and the sheer amount of detail is enough to keep one busy for years. Most of you guys know what I'm talking about, so I won't belabor the point.

...is a good submarine sim. My PC is not high-end enough to handle a top-notch flight simulator, but I do have Jane's 688I Hunter-Killer. This is really a sub-genre (sorry) of the wargame world, but I'm fascinated by it, and the game manuals and strategy guides are worth delving into. After reading Red Storm Rising, and playing the C64 game of the same name, I was hooked. These types of games are in the RTS category, so I can't agree that ALL RTS games are unsuited to hardcore wargamers. Strictly speaking, flight & sub simulators fall into their own category, but they CAN be regarded as wargames.

I don't like RTS too... But my son is a fan of that.

I dont like real time. The reason is simple.... you will never be as fast at clicking as a computer is at following written code and you dont tend to use strategy to win, more like who builds what unit the fastest to roll over the opponent.

A game that has a good idea for real time for me ( though it is lacking in some things) is Medieval:Total War. It has turn based strategy for moving units from province to province, production and such. But if you have a battle, it is real time, with the option to fight it out or let the computer handle it.

That real time I can handle. You position your forces and once the battle starts you control your army. No more click fest to see who can mass produce the cheapest best unit to roll over the opponent.

I dont like shooters much either. I dont have the eye hand control for them. I dont like controlling several ships or tanks or units at once as you do in some games ( blah, they are real time for the most part) since you cant actually command 5 ships at the exact same time, but the computer can.

Twotribes said that that a computer can click a mouse faster than a human and therefore he does not like Real Time.

I am talking about playing H2H – Human v Human. – thereby eliminating that argument.

Twotribes, you must try it against a human.

Les, Close Combat 1 was released about August 1996 and Close Combat 5 – Invasion Normandy, was released in November 2000. From time to time you might still find it in the stores.

The software was written by Atomic – www.atomic.com but in December 2000 they closed their business. Their web site is still up with a few screen shots.

It was also Atomic who made the World at War series of PC games together with Avalon Hill.

As for Close Combat, the first 3 editions were published by Microsoft and the final 2 were published by SSI.

SSI was taken over by some other company who thought wargaming was too small a market so there was no push to continue the series.

Playing CC1 and CC2, every time one of my men got hit, I felt it. It was very emotional. Sometimes, playing H2H, as the game starts I am shaking with nerves. Only after 6 years of play have I become a hardened commander – I no longer feel the pain of my computer sprites.

There is a difference between Real Time and Continuous Time. A game must be fun and playable. So, if Real Time were 3 hours, then for game purposes, it could be condensed into 2 hours.

My favourite activities are as follows:
Playing Close Combat H2H
Surfing
Hiking
Cycling
Skiing

And then on the second tier of favourites:
Playing turn based wargames PBEM

The third tier:
Playing turn based wargames against the AI

I do enjoy turn based games PBEM and I have had some very tense, exciting games but they are towards the bottom of my list. Mostly because it takes 24 hours to play each turn.

I kind of thought Close Combat sounded like a game with a few years on it, but I wasn't sure.

Maybe I will get a crack at it some time.

I'm with most on this. I liked 688 Attack sub and I like Patrician II, but mostly RTS is of little interest. I think I mentioned once before that it was like Pac Man or Asteroids with better graphics. He who has the fastest mouse wins the game. That holds true versus the computer or against another human. I consider 688 an RTT (Real Time Tactical) and feel the same way about Medieval: Total War (and the Shogun version) as KG Erwin does.

Patrician is a trading game. You get to take your ships up against pirates, but it is essentially a game where you build a production and trading empire and rise to the top of the Hansiatic Trading Legue of 1300 - 1400 Europe. It's a good RTS because it isn't a race to see who can build the best army before anyone else.

I've played Age of Empires, and have seen the rest in the series. Aside from pretty moving pictures, there isn't much to distinguish it from any other RTS game. It resembles an ant hill with totally centralized control. After you tell all the ants what to do, you have to keep tellling them. If they run out of what they're doing, they stop until you tell them to do something else. That is not the emperor's job. There are no real strategic decisions if you have to tell everyone what to do next -- micro management is terrible in this environment. In Patrician, you build a shop or farm and people go to work there if you do the things needed to attract a work force.

@Joe 98 By your definition there are very few real-time games out there. Most of the games classed as RTS condense time -- not all, mind you, some really are RT and pass time at the same pace as the real world. Age of Empires would be unplayable in actual time; you would need a dynastic arrangement with the next 10 generations of your family to play an empire out in actual time. RTS, as a gaming definition, is a game where action does not stop and wait for you to make decisions.

Simultaneous Movement

Real Time Computer Games