Matrix Games Forums

I been a long time CC fan since the 90's. I have also been a fan of the Pacific warzone to. So I was wondering, has there be discussion of making a CC game in the Pacific warzone. Because to be honest, we cant keep beating up Europe over and over.

Josh

amen

A bit soon for to think in a new release, dlc or other thing.........first the game must be released. Next what you want and for the record......Pacific is in the head from modders. Not me. I have other things in mind.

To be fair first DLC (really expect they move in DLC scheme and avoid the one title per battle like in old CCs something that fragment a lot players) is going to be limited a lot until they introduce multiple level buildings... i dont say this is bad at all because this help made North Africa and Pacific more attractive for devs IF game offer a good performance in the use of defensive works.

I dont see bad talk about future before game release in the moment they can orientate earlier next step.

I have to agree, this series would be best served with DLCs addressing the North African and Pacific theatres before swinging back to the initial releases.

Well, sometimes a limitation could help and not be only a problem... for example to push game to "virgin" areas, for me new CC needs return more to a game model where vehicles are to support and not the main actor... infantry is the queen in battlefield and this increase the value of a single tank, a single AT gun and the use of defensive works because CC for me is small tactics and need focus here.

PD: i read the wargamer article about Armored brigade and i think say is the CC successor is a big WTF in the moment the scale of combat and orienation is totally different... say is a real time Steel Panthers maybe but not a CC style game because are totally oposite only thing in common is the 2D top view+real time but apart these 2 CC is in a different position... compare it with a 2D Steel Division but not with CC.

Just because the scale and theme is different doesn't mean Armored Brigadee can't be a successor to the legacy of 2D Close Combat - "succeeding" something isn't as simple as one thing being exactly like what came before, although perhaps 'spiritual successor' might have been a more apt phrase.

Granted, it's not an obvious comparison, but it's one that struck me as I was playing The Bloody First and Armored Brigade at the same time.

For me no and is not a question of theme, is a question of totally different combat style, CC allways focus more in small actions in limited terrain, something basic in CC was control the soldiers morale status and ammo status and even you need have in mind run over "bodies" to take some extra ammo or "fresh" weapons and tactical victories means take that building for next battle for example.

As i said i see more AB as "Steel Panthers" in real time over a CC sucessor.

AB sure is a good game but for me is not a CC game.

ORIGINAL: Hexagon

For me no and is not a question of theme, is a question of totally different combat style, CC allways focus more in small actions in limited terrain, something basic in CC was control the soldiers morale status and ammo status and even you need have in mind run over "bodies" to take some extra ammo or "fresh" weapons and tactical victories means take that building for next battle for example.

As i said i see more AB as "Steel Panthers" in real time over a CC sucessor.

AB sure is a good game but for me is not a CC game.

I would have to agree, CC mechanics before theme is a must. I just feel, in the War-gaming world computer and tabletop, the Pacific theater is so overlooked, which I feel is unfair to the thousands that died not only in the Pacific war but Pearl Harbor.