Matrix Games Forums

***cough close combat: a bridge too far ** cough. I believe this game has no purpose even being sold to people dumb enough to buy it. I have yet to see a decent screenshot of this game and I can probably already guess that it will be released straight into the garbage or the bargain bin.

Normandy has been done too.

Normandy had lots of Americans so it will be done over and over and over again.

Such is life.

okay great Normandy has been done. What I'm saying is nobody is going to want to play a game that has already been covered. Instead of buying these rip off games their only going to dust off 3 or 4 year old games which are better anyway. Looks like somebody screwed up big time in the planning stages...at least in this case.

You reckon? I own CC1, CC2, CC3, and CC5, enjoyed 2 & 3 but not 1 or 5, and haven't played any of them since getting AA:RDOA.

CC series lacks any kind of chain of command, and portrays a highly abstracted & unrealistic scale of warfare - unless you believe that the fighting at Arnhem never involved more than a company on either side. It is fun though

AA has a working chain of command and friendly AI, portrays a highly accurate and realistic scale of warfare - correct for both level of command (Bn, Regt/Bde, Div, and Korps) and scale of forces (which are actually historically accurate). It's just as much fun if not more

The whole similarity between the two revolves around them dealing with the same operation, and running in continuous time, and modelling morale factors.

Oh, and screenshots?

http://www.matrixgames.com/games/highwa ... nshots.asp

http://www.wargamer.com/hosted/DropZone/aars/aars.html

That should keep you going for a little while at least

Cheers
33

CC2: ABTF is a great game and I still play it about once a year. However, I prefer to play my games at an operational level. With CC, no battle has ever contained more than about 100 men on a 500m x 500m map. Airborne Assault allows me to play the entire 10 day affair on a huge map without those annoying breaks every 15 minutes.

Why play one battle when you can play them all at the same time in continuous time?

If you can't tell the difference between CC and AA, then you screwed up big time... at least in this case.

Thanks, citizen

PS: By your reasoning, no one should have ever played CC:ABTF as that had been covered a dozen times before as well.

Originally posted by Homer
Looks like somebody screwed up big time in the planning stages...at least in this case.

Looks like someone was born without a brain...at least in this case.

Every WW2 battle has more or less been covered. This game would not sell if it was Close Combat but it is not Close Combat 2 but a completely different engine. Read about a game before you post stupid things.

Huh ... weird posts.

Well I just played some CC3 over the weekend and I'll just say I'm really looking forward to AA. It really looks to be so much better than CC (but also a bit different so I guess CC will still find it's niche before CL and CA arrive).

The chain of command is what I'm looking forward to seeing in action. And of course the maps look very good to me. I simply adore the approach.

Think what you want. CC ABTF is more realistic than this game will ever be. Last time I checked soldiers looked more real than a hexagon. These games are outdated by many years. Games like Civil War Generals and CWG2 made their mark in this type of game but they were the only games to really make a difference. The graphics are just crap and all of these other titles are just trying to cash in where other games bigger and better have covered many times before. I hope the makers of this game are hoping to just break even and nothing more.

Ok. Looks like a genuine troll ... Iets just stop feeding it.

Originally posted by Homer
***cough close combat: a bridge too far ** cough. I believe this game has no purpose even being sold to people dumb enough to buy it. I have yet to see a decent screenshot of this game and I can probably already guess that it will be released straight into the garbage or the bargain bin.

It certainly has been done before:D First time I played this battle was way back in the day when all we had was board games. The simulation was developed by SSI (Strategic Simulations Inc.). The game scale was company/platoon level and the board (map encompassed over 35 square feet. Next came Atomic Games V for Victory Series and last but not least there was CC2. All three games portrayed either tactical or grand tactical combat. AA claims to introduce an operational twist to this battle and should be a breath of fresh air. I don't think that three versions of this battle over the past 10 years represents being overdone. However, if you think the CC2 was the "be all" and "end all" representation of this battle then so be it. But I guess that by your estimation I am already dumb x's three and should not be taken seriously:). I expect to add one more dumb to your scale if AA gets decent reviews. But I have to tell you, each game was enjoyable and a challange to play in its own right. Check out the new screen shot's, no more hexes.

Regards

Originally posted by Joe 98
Normandy has been done too.

Normandy had lots of Americans so it will be done over and over and over again.

Such is life.

I seem to recall that Normandy had a few Brits and Canadians also:) Desperate battles with huge historical significance will continue to be simulated over and over again. I wonder how many times Waterloo, Gettysburg, Battle of the Bulge etc etc have been done over the years?

If you had bothered to read or look at some screen shots you would know that there are no hexes nor hex based counters and that units shift and reform into various formations based on the orders given to the unit.

The biggest absolute best feature of this game is command AI above and beyond anything I have seen in my 20+ years of gaming. Dave should be out there selling lessons to the other guys on how to write AI that will teach you humility if you slip up at all.

Perhaps you might like to download the free demo and play with it so you at least can make some educated comments on how it plays (the old version) before making everyone here just laugh at you.

I own every CC and frankly, they are childish toys compared to the AI in AA:RDOA which according to Dave has been completely surpassed in the new AA:HTTR. Any CC version has the suicide dash where you can just sit back and wait for the Computer AI to start throwing it's troops away because it has no idea what to do.

Anyone who expects to see individual grunts running around when commanding 10,000 odd men really needs to get their head examined.

As far as you being a CC2 fan, that kinda figures, it had the most completely unrealistic soldier modelling of the entire series, with individual grunts performing as if they were encased in bulletproof armor. Once they finally make soldiers perform realistically in the later games and they lost their immortality, the game quickly fell off the shelves.

Sorry, but this is not Doom or Quake, people die in these battles in large numbers, just as they did historically.

Amen Mr Frag, amen.

Just you wait till you get your hands on the new baby, it's without equal. But then I'm biased.

/coralsaw

Well that certainly stirred things up a bit did it not. Personally, I think it was a 'cheap shot' but I think that Homer has a point. The 1944/5 era battles in Western Europe have been 'done to death' in wargaming and I do wonder how long it's going to be before the market reaches saturation point. I know that the next game using the AA engine is probably going to be a 'Bulge' game and I am concerned as to whether this could be 'A game too far' (pun intended:) ). I'd buy it but then I'm a relative newcomer to computer wargames (thanks to AA:RDOA) and so only have a small, but steadily growing, collection of wargames (I have many other games but thats a different issue). I'd like to see the game engine applied to other theatres of WW2 or even other wars - hopefully a thriving mod community will supply this if Panther can't or won't (not a criticism btw).

Oh and as regards graphics (or the lack of them) - whatever happened to 'imagination'? - pushing pieces of cardboard around a map or listening to a 'dungeonmaster' describing your situation in a D&D quest didn't make those old games any less involving. I love 'Unreal 2' with its 'cutting edge' graphics and I can't wait for 'Half-Life 2' which looks awesome but neither can I wait for AA:HTTR. A good game is a good game - whatever it looks like.

Originally posted by Homer
***cough close combat: a bridge too far ** cough. I believe this game has no purpose even being sold to people dumb enough to buy it. I have yet to see a decent screenshot of this game and I can probably already guess that it will be released straight into the garbage or the bargain bin.

Yes...first time was Sept of 1944 as I recall

Well, as far as Homer goes, I'm sure this isn't the only forum He's dropped into today to troll. I do agree with whats been previously said though on the battles that always seem to be featured. I'd rather see a great game like this avoid the bulge, normandy etc. And instead go the eastern front or, heck, North africa. In fact it begs the question, Why did Panther do AA over again? While a great theatre, Since they seemed to finally have a great publisher why not have focused on a different battle?

Originally posted by Mac
Ok. Looks like a genuine troll ... Iets just stop feeding it.

DING!DING!DING!DING!DING!

We have a winner!!!

3 consecutive flames and just registered. Clearly a troll, but what breed?

Clearly a troll, but what breed?

I think he's the breed who spent his college fund on shares of Atomic Games.

What else could explain his actions? It's not like HTTR is going to outsell CC2, so he's not going to lose playing partners. Panther would be happy with 10% of CC2's sales.

citizen

The complaint that a battle has already been done holds no water for me. If a game were only about the scenario being offered, we would all have been finished with wargaming years ago.

What's being designed and offered is not just Market-Garden, but a new (or, in this case, improved) way of simulating Market-Garden. Having played RDOA, I already know that HTTR is a great way of doing this particular battle: real-time with an especially innovative way of doing fog of war and orders delays. The tension is high and the level of detail is impressive, but the interface makes both of them manageable. Isn't that what we usually want in a wargame?

The HTTR system probably wouldn't so well at modeling Kursk or Normandy (where extreme unit densities and slow attrition rule the day), but it seems perfect to me for smaller-scale, fast-moving operations. Maybe someone should use the editing tools to do Crete.