I liked it myself

[Les_the_Sarge_9_1]

Ok the game is old, get over it.

Was able to play a game of Close Combat 2 today. Yes I know it is hardly a new game. That's not entirely my fault hehe.
But better late than never eh.

At any rate, I was happy that it installs with zero hassle on an XP machine.
The interface and options set up have a lot to look at, but just fussing about for a few seconds and lot looked easy to fathom.

Played a quick game without looking at any sort of documentation. My preferred method of acid test.
If I can play a game with zero input from the game, then I am already impressed.

I think it is not worth calling RTS though, but I only say that, because it seems every **** game out there with that label is not always created equal. And well the term RTS leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

The pace of the game, and the ability to control the units in the game, as well as the view of the game while it ran was about where I want the experience to be.

I think with this game, I need a new term now.
Hmmm.
I hereby decide to call Close Combat and games of their ilk "Live Tactical" wargames. You don't have to join me in that term, but I intend to use it. Might as well accept it hehe.
This eliminates for me any need to even care what the others are called.

I suppose the top down visual aspect is what I want as well. I tried Combat Mission the other day, but found I was wasting to much effort just to achieve a view angle.
The last thing I want to spend effort on is niggling control settings all the way through the game.

So I suppose I will check out more of the Close Combat line if I can locate them.
If Close Assault is going to be more of the same style of game, I will likely have an interest in it as well. Time will tell.

[brent_2]

I've taken to calling them "continuous time" it is after all just a sim

[Marc von Martial]

Close Combat 2 is whithout any questions the most addicting in the CC series. It had the best combination of a strategical layer, reeinforcment and action. The only thing it was lacking is that soldiers can scavenge, which was introduced in CC3.

I still play CC2 once in a while (even if the graphics are obsolete, now you can have a go at me Les )

If the engine would permit it I would have made an "up to standards" graphic mod long ago.

[Les_the_Sarge_9_1]

Well I liked CC2.

I will naturally like to see Close Assault and see what has been added to the experience.

[Fred98]

Whooo!

Glad you like it Les.

Now you can see why I hate it when people put Close Combat in the category of Sudden Strike.

And CC5 has many many refinements.

[Raindog101]

Originally posted by Joe 98
Whooo!

Glad you like it Les.

Now you can see why I hate it when people put Close Combat in the category of Sudden Strike.

And CC5 has many many refinements.

I have a new CC5 and CC3 still shrinkwrapped in their boxes. I heard from somewhere that CC5 had a game killing bug. Is this true Joe?

[Fred98]

After CC5 was released Atomic died just a few weeks later.

The game has 2 bugs that were not patched.

Neither is a game killer.

There is a reinforcement bug that shows itself when you play a campaign.

There is a supply big, If a BG is caught out of supply it is supposed to take 4 turns for the supply level to drop the 4 levels to NIL – as it did in CC4. Unfortunately it drops in one turn. Again only applies if you are playing a campaign and a unit is caught out of supply.

[Raindog101]

Originally posted by Joe 98
After CC5 was released Atomic died just a few weeks later.

The game has 2 bugs that were not patched.

Neither is a game killer.

There is a reinforcement bug that shows itself when you play a campaign.

There is a supply big, If a BG is caught out of supply it is supposed to take 4 turns for the supply level to drop the 4 levels to NIL – as it did in CC4. Unfortunately it drops in one turn. Again only applies if you are playing a campaign and a unit is caught out of supply.

Thanks Joe. I played CC2 quite a bit, but always hated the fact I couldn't save at anytime. Sigh... i guess I'll try it again.

[Fallschirmjager]

Sarge...Play the Grand campaign as the Allies on Hero diffuculty...I dont know a single human that isnt lying that can say they beat CC2 with those settings....Its impossible IMO.

[Mad Cow]

Originally posted by Les the Sarge 9-1

I suppose the top down visual aspect is what I want as well. I tried Combat Mission the other day, but found I was wasting to much effort just to achieve a view angle.
The last thing I want to spend effort on is niggling control settings all the way through the game.

The controls for Combat Mission are fine once you get the hang of them. I can fluidly move across the battlefield in mid action, changing angles and height without problem...

[Reiryc]

Originally posted by Les the Sarge 9-1
Ok the game is old, get over it.

Was able to play a game of Close Combat 2 today. Yes I know it is hardly a new game. That's not entirely my fault hehe.
But better late than never eh.

At any rate, I was happy that it installs with zero hassle on an XP machine.
The interface and options set up have a lot to look at, but just fussing about for a few seconds and lot looked easy to fathom.

Played a quick game without looking at any sort of documentation. My preferred method of acid test.
If I can play a game with zero input from the game, then I am already impressed.

I think it is not worth calling RTS though, but I only say that, because it seems every **** game out there with that label is not always created equal. And well the term RTS leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

The pace of the game, and the ability to control the units in the game, as well as the view of the game while it ran was about where I want the experience to be.

I think with this game, I need a new term now.
Hmmm.
I hereby decide to call Close Combat and games of their ilk "Live Tactical" wargames. You don't have to join me in that term, but I intend to use it. Might as well accept it hehe.
This eliminates for me any need to even care what the others are called.

I suppose the top down visual aspect is what I want as well. I tried Combat Mission the other day, but found I was wasting to much effort just to achieve a view angle.
The last thing I want to spend effort on is niggling control settings all the way through the game.

So I suppose I will check out more of the Close Combat line if I can locate them.
If Close Assault is going to be more of the same style of game, I will likely have an interest in it as well. Time will tell.

I think pig's just flew....

So you like an RTS eh? Well a few tips for you...

Less is more. The more you try to over control your men, the worse you'll do(usually).

Sneak and hide are your 2 best friends. Use them often.

Close combat 1 is the best out of the bunch, but the graphics may be even too base for even you.

Glad to see you come over to the dark side, even if you have to rename the genre of the game to feel ok about it

Reiryc

[Karnaaj]

I tend to term Close Combat as "real-time tactical" - none of that bloody resource-hunting/development/allocation yivshish. Just grab units, bitch/whine/moan because you can't get the good stuff (tanks, AT guns, extra MG teams) because of points/availability, and deploy... hmmm, kinda like SP:WAW, rh? <EG> CC3 (The Russian Front) taught me proper respect of crossfiring MGs and line-of-sight. (WHAM! "$#!+, there went my flamethrower tank. Guess he *could* see me there...")

[Les_the_Sarge_9_1]

Don't fret to much Reiryc, it just proves that any game mode can eventually appeal to everyone.

But just to keep an old fire burning, only a nut has anything nice to say about HoI, whether it runs is immaterial, RTS at the grand strategy level is a fool's game idea.

[Reiryc]

Don't fret to much Reiryc, it just proves that any game mode can eventually appeal to everyone.

No fretting...just knew I was right.

But just to keep an old fire burning, only a nut has anything nice to say about HoI, whether it runs is immaterial, RTS at the grand strategy level is a fool's game idea.

Yawn.... Considering how many people tend to not agree with you on much of anything, we'll just let that comment lie.

Reiryc

[The Shadow]

But just to keep an old fire burning, only a nut has anything nice to say about HoI, whether it runs is immaterial, RTS at the grand strategy level is a fool's game idea.

Well Les, everyone is of course entitled to his or her own opinion. I’m one of the “Nuts” who bought HoI. I was not expecting a “Real WW2 World Simulator”, but more or less a Monopoly game with WW2 counters. I wasn’t disappointed, as that was exactly what I got.

The game is fun, in a way that science fiction is fun. Some people enjoy this, some don’t. BUT! In my opinion the one’s that do enjoy it, are not stupid or nutty.

Taste is a funny thing, as everyone’s is different.

[Cap Mandrake]

CC2 was a blast. What was that infernal map with the elevated roadway and swamp on both sides restricting the use of armour? That was a bear as allies.

[Fallschirmjager]

CC2 was a blast. What was that infernal map with the elevated roadway and swamp on both sides restricting the use of armour? That was a bear as allies.

Hells highway...


I had to use platoon after platoon to root out those damned AT guns.



One of the best gaming experiences Ive ever had was where you had to land the 82nd to capture the north end on nejimhegan (sp?) bridge. You only get the forces you begin with and dont get a chance to replace your losses....

I took the last map with 5 men with no ammo figthing a mortar team hand to hand...intense.

[Fred98]

My view is that if a game is at the tactical level, it needs to be “Continous tactical” ( I love that phrase)

But for a strategic game it needs to be turn based – but it must be WEGO and not UGO-IGO

I hope one day for a PC version of Advanced Third Reich and its companion Rising SUN. I just don’t have the time to play the table-top versions.