Game pack figuring Close Combats

Les_the_Sarge_9_1 · Post by **Les_the_Sarge_9_1** » Fri Jan 24, 2003 8:47 pm

Played GI Combat, didn't think it was good enough to worry about. Might be good enough with 1.04 patch, but it's like after you have 3 pairs of shoes, do you really need another pair?

As for "the other" comment, that was not indicative of any one game, it was indicative of any game other than GI Combat.

So basically, if you have a choice on the market of games A B C and D, and only one of them is available to you ie you actually saw it on the shelf and none others, does it matter.

I have seen demos for numerous games. And in most cases, you have to jump through more than a few hoops to actually locate the retail copy of any them on a store shelf.

And sadly, the world is still in a lot of cases, retail outlet preferring ie I am an impulse buyer, I want to have it the second I want it not several days from now by mail.
That, and sometimes seeing is believing, and holding the item in my hands is more important than seeing it online.

I guess in that respect it might just be my age showing (I am not overly fond of online shopping yet).

Marc von Martial · Post by **Marc von Martial** » Fri Jan 24, 2003 8:58 pm

Played GI Combat, didn't think it was good enough to worry about. Might be good enough with 1.04 patch, but it's like after you have 3 pairs of shoes, do you really need another pair?

So what are the other pair of shoes that are like GIC? I know of no game out there that is comparable to GIC.

As for wargames on the shelves, you´ll rarely find some. GIC is available on the shelves. Close Combat was, well still is if you look hard enough.

Wallenstein · Post by **Wallenstein** » Fri Jan 24, 2003 10:02 pm

Well, part one and two are available at Home of the underdogs, but the download of CC2 took me three nights - 128MB with an average speed of 2.5k/sec.
As I find large downloads to be very boring, I would surely buy such a compilation!

The_Falcon · Post by **The_Falcon** » Sat Jan 25, 2003 1:15 am

Originally posted by Les the Sarge 9-1
Well it might not be so much what is wrong with a game sometimes, as much as what is right with others.

The market is a few table scraps worth of "good" computer games, and oodles of designs people eagerly tell each other are great, when they are really both A. not unique, and B. not really genuinely special.

I have seen a lot of computer games, and to be fair, a lot of them are turn based also, and even shockingly enough, some board games as well, that while "adequate" were not meriting a lot of faunig over.

I have seen more games in the past, that had the look, but could not deliver the goods when it came to play them, than I have seen that both had the look of a good game, and were in fact great when it came time to play them.

Assuming GI Combat does actually work after it is patched up finally (some say 1.04 fixes a few things), will it be worth the effort to care?

GI Combat for what it's worth, is just someone's copy of the same environment yet again. It is not unique enough.
It will only appeal to someone that can't get a copy of "the other game".

A while back I was searching for a tank sim. Tried Panzer Elite. It has a horrible reputation for being buggy as hell in it's original release. But so far it has been the nicest looking of the designs I have seen.
Doesn't really matter a hill of beans though eh. Odds are I won't be finding a copy of it any time soon.
I have a copy of Panzer Commander. Was in a store (an EB in Toronto area) and had remarked to a sales person that it sucked how there was no titles on the shelf for my sort of wargamer. None save a copy of Panzer Elite Special. And I remarked that it was a game with a bad reputation as far as software went. So I was hesitant to invest my paltry few dollars at that time.
The girl reached down into a closet behind the counter and plopped a retail copy of Panzer Commander into the bag with my son's modest playstation game purchase.
I was taken aback till she made it clear enough she was dumping it on me free (I guess it was a return that was going no where).
The game runs fun (even runs on XP in spite of being a tad dated now). Visually it is a decent game. Not quite Panzer Elite.

But the point is, I now have a respectable WW2 tank sim game.
I can't imagine anyone selling me another tank sim game now, unless the software in truely extraordinary. And odds are the level of improvement I would require would exceed my machine's capacity to run it.

There was a time during the 70's when everyone and their aunt was releasing board games. It didn't last. Eventually the bubble burst and companies dropped away like flies.

I think if computer wargame designers don't start trying to seriously do something more interesting than make WW2 RTS games, eventually they will all find themselves in the same spot.

As it stands, I think WW2 RTS as a notion is as done as dinner. Adding fancier graphics won't always be enough.
I think the turn based market for WW2 might be at saturation level as well.
I think the FPS experience has absolutely gone the full route as well.

Some how, some way, I want to see something other than more turn based, RTS, tank sims or FPS games done in the same old WW2 settings now.

Hello all, the thing I didn’t like about Panzer Commander is there was no infantry or air support. I loved the editor in the game, was very easy to use, and an excellent manual.

Les, you got PC for free? I paid 10.00$ for the game and a really nice strategy guide.

A friend of mine gave me a manual for M1 Tank Platoon II that is the size of a phone book. The game appears to have infantry and air support. Have you ever played that? Or Steel Beasts?

The Close Combat games were great in there day, I was looking forward to playing the 3-D version of the CC games, GIC, but it is horrible. Not one thing about the game is intuitive everything is an effort.

Most looking forward to Combat Leader. It’s time for me to move on to the modern age.
Dam, but Korsun Pocket looks cool too.

Right now I play Uncommon Valor(or try to) SPWAW, East Front II, and Combat Mission I and II.

And to answer the thread question, No I already have all the CC games, hehe

Les_the_Sarge_9_1 · Post by **Les_the_Sarge_9_1** » Sat Jan 25, 2003 1:48 am

To answer Marc (sorry would have answered sooner, but suddenly got an urge to inventory every piece of wargaming software regardless of it being original retail copy or a patch or whatever).
Not a very long list though, but long enough.

I could add a dozen or more demos to it if collecting demos was all I wanted to do though.

Anyway.

GI Combat is a game where the image is of a scale that is a good deal larger than the image in say Steel Panthers.

I generally divide games into two camps, games where the image is SP size, and games where the image is tank sim or Combat Mission size.

The fact that some are turn based while others are sims or RTS games, is to me immaterial.

Some games are top down looking images while others are full 3d rendered.

But again, it's like comparing footwear. A boot by any other name is still a boot. It won't be a sock, but to say one is a construction boot and one a combat boot is a bit immaterial for me.

In the area of what for me is relevant, GI Combat is in the same field of amusement as Panzer Commander, Panzer Elite, Combat Mission, Steel Beasts, Battlefield 1942, and I know there are a few other titles out there that fit this bill, but I have not played them specifically yet I know then, such as Medal of Honour.

To me, running around in a tank, or running around with a rifle or running around with small groupings of same, are all essentially the same aspect of wargaming to me.

For my money I enjoyed Close Combat 2 primarily due to it having an easier to manage screen view. Top down means less wandering with the mouse to see that which I need to see.

I will likely therefore continue to indulge games that advance the top down look over games that offer the 3d look.
So I have an interest In Close Assault, whereas I likely will not have much interest in GI Combat however it evolves.

Being that I like top down, it is obvious that advances in graphics in 3d will have little pull for me personally.
The next big ticket item for me is Combat Leader.
So I will be putting my time and energy following that game. And when it arrives on the market, I will likely be to busy with it, to fret over other genres of wargaming.

I am not sure I will give up trying to find Close Combat other than #2, but I suppose there is more worth in waiting for Close Assault (especially when every dollar counts).

Greywolf2001ca · Post by **Greywolf2001ca** » Sat Jan 25, 2003 6:17 am

No matter the bugs of the game (GI...), I still love the close combats.

Just to tell you how much I like it, I got the board game it was based on (The Original Squad Leader Box Set [the 4 boxes and many additional maps].).

For a war game, the only games that can be either better or similar to in quality and durability are Master of Orion 2 and Panzer General 1 and 2. Other than that, the thousands of gmaes I played, none are of better quality than those three and the CCs. That is, in the war-like genre.

The Shadow · Post by **The Shadow** » Sat Jan 25, 2003 6:29 am

Originally posted by Greywolf2001ca
No matter the bugs of the game (GI...), I still love the close combats.

Just to tell you how much I like it, I got the board game it was based on (The Original Squad Leader Box Set [the 4 boxes and many additional maps].).

For a war game, the only games that can be either better or similar to in quality and durability are Master of Orion 2 and Panzer General 1 and 2. Other than that, the thousands of gmaes I played, none are of better quality than those three and the CCs. That is, in the war-like genre.

So the Close Combat games are modeled after the board game Squad Leader? Is Squad Leader the same as Advanced Squad Leader?

The Close Combat series are great games. My only complaint is as playtime grows shorter, I wish I could save battles in progress.

To answer the poll question: Yes I would buy it, even though I have all the games except CC1.

brent_2 · Post by **brent_2** » Sat Jan 25, 2003 7:01 am

for me the close combat games are what replaced Squad Leader. They are not turn based (cue Les stage right

) but I feel they are the closest, bar SPWAW or the Talonsoft series, which are turn based. for some reason I was never able to get into them to the same degree. I went continuous time and have never been able to go back really ( at least at the tactical scale of ASL / Close Combat)

I have the timer set to 20-30 minutes - so that is typically the longest battle I play.

Yes ASL is an upgraded, more complex squad leader

Veldor · Post by **Veldor** » Sat Jan 25, 2003 10:27 am

Originally posted by The Shadow
So the Close Combat games are modeled after the board game Squad Leader? Is Squad Leader the same as Advanced Squad Leader?

The First Close Combat was originally titled "Beyond Squad Leader". It was suppose to model the boardgame pretty closely. But as Atomic got further into the project, it grew more into something else. Far as I know there was a huge falling out and Avalon Hill abandoned Atomic altogether (might have been the other way around) so a new name was adopted and a new publisher.

I still have amongst my collection a brochure for "Beyond Squad Leader" by Avalon Hill/Atomic "Available 3rd Quarter, 1995"..

There was another attempt to capatilize on the Squad Leader name. A game titled "Avalon Hill's Squad Leader" was put out by Microprose just a few years ago. It had nothing to do with the game besides the names. By those who have played it, it is unanimously the worst computer wargame ever made. So bad you can't even find mention of it on Microprose's site. You can still find it on Ebay...

Les_the_Sarge_9_1 · Post by **Les_the_Sarge_9_1** » Sat Jan 25, 2003 7:09 pm

I find it odd that Close Combat is looked on as emulating Squad Leader.

True there is obvious linkages. The fact that the game might have even been originally instigated by AH and Atomic of course lead credence to this claim (I was out of the computer wargaming loop during that time).

I agree that only a fool would waste effort on that tragic game Hasbro tried to sell wearing the well none name Squad Leader (but when you own the name, you can basically do what you want with it).

But while I do like Close Combat enough to say its an ok game, the reality is, that Steel Panthers is the game that emulates Squad Leader or Advanced Squad Leader for that matter.

SL/ASL was a turn based structured wargame all the way. The game's turns and actions/interactions have nothing in common with the dynamics of Close Combat (beyond CC being about combat at the same level ie squads).

SLAAKATTAK · Post by **SLAAKATTAK** » Sun Jan 26, 2003 12:46 am

OH SARGE I CANT WAIT TO GET YOU INTO MY FLAMETHROWERS ROASTRANGE TO FRY YOU LIKE A BARBQ!!!

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?Vi ... ory=11047Q!!!

MAKE HASTE MY SON. TARRY NOT AND ACQUIRE THE TREASURE!!

Reiryc · Post by **Reiryc** » Sun Jan 26, 2003 3:37 am

In the area of what for me is relevant, GI Combat is in the same field of amusement as Panzer Commander, Panzer Elite, Combat Mission, Steel Beasts, Battlefield 1942, and I know there are a few other titles out there that fit this bill, but I have not played them specifically yet I know then, such as Medal of Honour.

To me, running around in a tank, or running around with a rifle or running around with small groupings of same, are all essentially the same aspect of wargaming to me.

Well this shows a complete lack of understanding of gi combat. I honestly question whether or not you actually played gi combat. GI Combat is no where near the sim games you mentioned and compare it to. I wonder how you came to such a conclusion.

I think you probably looked at some screen shots and assumed it was another sim game. When in reality it is pretty much like close combat series in 3d. Same orders interface, same scale, etc.

Reiryc

Fred98 · Post by **Fred98** » Tue Jan 28, 2003 5:20 am

A bit more background on the Avalon Hill – Atomic relationship.

Avalon Hill and Atomic had previously worked together to produce the V for Victory series.

The game system was improved and produced the World at War series.

For those who don’t know, this was a computer game, hex based and turn based. Each unit was about battalion in size.

It had the feel of a board game except that they added about 1,000 features to take advantage of computing power.

As for the look, again they used computing power to make nice graphics.

As for game play, I rarely beat the AI on a medium difficulty setting. I did not have email so I never played a PBEM game.

If you read the manuals, circa 1992, it is clear the manuals are directed at board gamers who are playing their first computer game and need to control every detail of the game.

In the manual, every detail is spelled out just the same as if the manual were written by Avalon Hill for a board game.

Matirx’s Battlefields is meant to be the successor to World at War. I expect Battlefields to be a great game.

Before Close Combat, Avalon Hill and Atomic had worked together.

Tombstone · Post by **Tombstone** » Tue Jan 28, 2003 8:30 am

GI combat is much worse than an inadequate re-hash of the 'same old thing' (btw, there are an awful lot of cliches and generalizations going on around). GI combat was done by the same people who did the close combat series. It plays VERY similar. It is in no way a sim style of game, and is nothing like Panzer Commander, Panzer Elite, Combat Mission, Steel Beasts, and Battlefield 1942 (which, aside from the tank sims are about as different a set of games about war as you can muster). GI combat's real problem is that it isn't a very good game in the classical sense. It has a serious imbalance between its features and its interface. The way that the game was meant to be played is very poorly supported by its control scheme. They did what many games in the past have done poorly, and that's the transition to a 3d environment. Combat Mission succeeds here because it's turn based. Combat Mission has somewhat cumbersome controls and it doesn't have most intuitive or clear interface. In the end that's no big deal, the game is great and with a little effort you can play it the way it was intended (the way it was designed and tested). GI Combat doesn't have the same luxuries as Combat Mission. Since it's real-time the player is forced to interact with the controls and the interface under a lot of pressure. That's frustrating, and it becomes the most significant challenge of the game. Once mastered, it plays just like the Close Combat series (with the same old problems with vehicular pathfinding).

BTW Steel Beasts is an excellent tank sim, and it plays well. Panzer Commander sucked beans. Panzer Elite, although not as good at Steel Beast (IMHO), is still an excellent WW2 tank sim.

Tomo