Will the Begining Battle Placement be reworked?

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Will the Begining Battle Placement be reworked?

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Close Combat – The Bloody First >> Will the Begining Battle Placement be reworked?

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Will the Begining Battle Placement be reworked? - 5/26/2018 11:30:55 PM

GrdAdmiral

Posts: 107
Joined: 5/12/2018
Status: offline

I've been thinking about this a lot lately since I learned of a new close combat being released this year. I loved the old series, with a Bridge to Far being my tall time favorite. However, one thing that has always bothered me, besides the pathing issues, was the opening unit placement sequence. We would have these huge maps to play on, but your unit placement was confined to a small square in the corner of the map. Would it be possible to make the deployment area larger and less constricting? Or extend the neutral shading area around the initial placement zone to be larger so the opponent doesn't just set up on deployment zone and knock out all your units as soon as the begin turn is pushed?

Post #: 1

RE: Will the Begining Battle Placement be reworked? - 5/29/2018 3:05:27 AM

Rosseau

Posts: 2757
Joined: 9/13/2009
Status: offline

Good idea, of course. There's actually a number of things they need to do in order for it not to be another cookie cutter CC game. Not that I envy them working with old code! For me, the easy text modding makes the previous games like CC:TLD somewhat interesting, but I'm guessing only a few people pull out their spreadsheets and make changes these days.

IMO, Panthers in the Fog was pretty much the same old stuff. A 60% positive on Steam for $40. Of course, I bought it at release

(in reply to GrdAdmiral)

Post #: 2

RE: Will the Begining Battle Placement be reworked? - 5/29/2018 8:13:43 PM

CGGrognard

Posts: 594
Joined: 10/3/2013
From: USA
Status: offline

Perhaps having the battles in the game labeled as attack or defend could offer some variation of the initial unit placement. Although, one could easily consult history of a specific battle, or even play that battle a few times to have a good idea of unit placement by the AI.
Each CC game series had at least one battle where your units are confined at setup for easy picking from the AI. But those battles encouraged the issuance of the 'move quick' command on the first turn in an attempt to move the units out of harms way.
Therefore, since the game is structured on maps and units, there will always be limitations of initial unit placement.
Would it not be great to have the AI generate a random battlefield on it's own to add more variety and longevity to the game?

_____________________________

"The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting." - Sun Tzu

(in reply to Rosseau)

Post #: 3

RE: Will the Begining Battle Placement be reworked? - 6/2/2018 3:25:27 AM

Saturnian

Posts: 99
Joined: 12/7/2013
Status: offline

My biggest problems with the deployment mode had to do with the lack of realism between ceasefires. Though maybe at some points in history enemies allowed lots of movement and repositioning on a battlefield during a ceasefire, I find it hard to believe you can position a tank in an small part of a map that is cut off from the main force without a new battle erupting. Like "oh thanks for agreeing to the ceasefire, we're just gonna move three Panthers into this little encircled village now, thanks!" I mean, think about it? It makes no sense for that to be possible and there is no excuse it has been possible for so long in a game that prides itself of its rationality. How did they never address that with so many re-releases, where they layer and layer these NEW strategic layers, essentially creating a second game you play the main game in, but totally ignore the tactical aspect of the gameplay, which is the highlight of the game?!!?

For example you can have a battle where you occupy a victory location at the top of the map, surrounded by the enemy. Then at the bottom of the screen is your main force. Currently in all previous Close Combat games(except maybe the first one) you would be able to reposition reinforcements in the isolated section during a cease fire! That makes no sense!

It would more realistic and enhance challenge and gameplay to prevent such "pockets" of resistance from getting resupplied and reinforced during a ceasefire(unless maybe its at the edge of a map, along a controlled road). It would make the game so so much more strategic, tense and nerve racking to actually make this aspect realistic! Imagine having a small force cut off from the main force, running out of ammunition and supplies and you need to break-through to reinforce them, or else lose those troops! they addressed that with the strategic map, but stupidly always ignored it in the part of the game that counts most of all, the actual BATTLE!

There are other similar problems to this:

Like how if a machine gunner dies, his assistant would magically get the gun, even if he was across the map. Yet if you have a battle where you lose gunners, you lose ALL their guns and ammunition, even if you still occupy those sections of the map where the guns and ammunition were left! Or an anti-tank crew is killed, and another anti-tank gun's crew is intact but gun is lost, all on territory YOU control? well, you LOSE that gun and, in newer releases EVEN THE CREW!!! Why?! Yet, in battle, you can scavenge. You can scavenge in battle, but not in a ceasefire? You can't scavenge in a ceasefire, but you can reinforce soldiers in a part of the map cut off from the main force? hmmmm...

Does it really make sense to have soldiers without ammunition when thousands of rounds have been dropped over the course of days in territory they still occupy? NO! It DOES NOT make sense! Its not like this is difficult to program. I mean we ARE using computers capable of doing calculations in like the trillions a second or something crazy like that, I think a few thousand rounds of ammunition and where they landed during a battle are pretty easy to calculate. If the corpse is in a black zone, the ammo is lost, a gray zone maybe it is up for grabs in next battle(and bodies still there) and then if in white zone, it goes back into your force pool so your machine gunner doesn't have to fight with a pistol for no good reason. In CC2 you would actually have your terms MERGE automatically! YES this used to be a thing in A Bridge Too Far! You would have, for example, a Bren team with TWO Brens! isn't that cool? I think so. But this was eliminated in favor of SSI's AWFUL force pool screen. BLECH!

It just seems like the programming has gotten more and more lazy with each release of Close Combat. They just made new maps but never improved the engine or even strategic aspect of gameplay.

This always took away from the game in a big way, etireley defeating the purpose of larger maps. There is no excuse for lack of thoughtfulness when updating a game like close combat, where even the soldiers are supposed to think realistic. How is it part of the spirit of Close Combat to have soldiers that actually think fighting in a battle which makes absolutely no logical sense?

Hopefully the developers are considering making changes for the above. there really is no excuse. I hope they read my points.

(in reply to CGGrognard)

Post #: 4

RE: Will the Begining Battle Placement be reworked? - 6/2/2018 8:53:57 AM

Kilovski

Posts: 43
Joined: 11/27/2012
Status: offline

Good points raised about placement, ammunition resupply, scavenging and crewmembers. Realistic tweaks like these are what makes's a game truly awesome and immersive. Hopefully the devs will pick up on these

(in reply to Saturnian)

Post #: 5

RE: Will the Begining Battle Placement be reworked? - 6/2/2018 2:02:41 PM

Destraex

Posts: 2102
Joined: 2/14/2001
From: Aust
Status: offline

It would be great to have prepared emplacements that were placeable for the defenders.

_____________________________

(in reply to Kilovski)

Post #: 6

RE: Will the Begining Battle Placement be reworked? - 6/2/2018 7:45:59 PM

Saturnian

Posts: 99
Joined: 12/7/2013
Status: offline

@Destraex

SSI(which butchered close combat) made it so those little trenches appear (i think at the first battle and only for defenders, which makes sense). But they never really built on the idea and it never felt complete. I agree, if it has been done in the past, why not build upon it? especially if there are cease fires. then the soldiers get the ability to build better fortifications based on how much time they have between battles.

Another aspect to that is ammunition. If you have a machine gunner in a bunker, I would assume they would be able to have more ammunition than a small team in the shrubs, far off from any victory locations. So prior to battle it would make sense to be able to distribute ammunition and make it available in strategic points on the map. Think about it like with tanks: this is HARDWARE and must be stored somewhere, then is utilized by troops. So it goes in a separate part of the force pool. For this reason it can be deployed just like infantry would be deployed. And mounted and unmounted, of course.

Lets say you need a Panzerfaust? Well, logically, those could be positioned somewhere on the map, just like how real life is. I mean, where are they kept between battles, anyway? Some magic untouchable place? I think the quartermasters will allow some weapons and ammo to be available in the place they are needed, by orders of the commander (YOU!).

Is it unrealistic to put physical objects in physical locations? NO! In REAL LIFE do you have to wait until the next battle to get a crappy panzerjager team with 1 measly panzerfaust, or can you place several Panzerfausts in a building(perhaps, when possible but not always, guarded by a supply team similar to a truck driver or a command squad?) and then during battle order troops to retrieve them, or have THEM go to the other troops? Maybe even hurt or inexperienced troops can be dispatched to do this. Just like in real life. Because yes this is how real life is! And WE WANT CLOSE COMBAT TO BE REALISTIC!!!

The point is that it can be easily done. And I know it adds lots of complexities to the game(like forming teams and where does issuing of weapons start and end?) but i think these would be able to be ironed out.

The FOUNDATION of the game was on psychometrics. That IS what Close Combat was founded upon. So to have soldiers gain weapon experience in battle makes sense.

Maybe prior to deployment mode you would be able to issue troops with guns and ammunition based on availability and carrying capacity, then position ammunition and support crews in strategic locations on the map to assist when necessary. So in some ways you would have a force pool, then a supply pool, then an experience pool all dynamically interacting. To me this is the inevitable development of Close Combat. That is IF the developers don't screw it up.

I know the upcoming release is experimental, but once they work out the kinks in the engine i think it MUST make changes if they want to be true to what makes Close Combat a unique game. There are plenty of other games that ignore the microscopic details, and that's where close combat is different@ That is the SELLING POINT of close combat. slopping on additional strategic screens, but losing touch of the realism of soldiers in real-time battlefield is just poor development. And I am not insulting MAtrix because they have done a phenomenal job with what they inherited from Atomic, Microsoft and SSI, but we need to move forward instead of just slopping together junk and then never revising it. That's what SSI did and no one wanted to undo the damage of SSIs mistakes(or lack of follow through) from literally 20 years ago.

@Kilovski

And I totally agree about the deployment mode. It doesn't make sense to have just a little box for 50 soldiers and equipment to break through with. Some may argue is is more realistic since they are entering the map, but is it really more realistic to clump together an entire force in a tiny square in a screen? I mean its not like in real life battles were fought in digital boxes with sharp boundaries, so its reasonable to tweak this. This was a major cruddy downside of SSIs butchery.

Matrix should be able to rework this. Here is the most logical solution I can think of:
We are aware of black, white and gray deployment. The user only is allowed to deploy in white. The enemy, in black. Well, add a new deployment zone which only some units can be deployed. So there is whit, but then maybe a 'red' zone which is allowed only for lightweight teams such as halftracks, recon, etcetera. I personally lean against allowing vehicles, though, because this zone would be more for infiltrating. A vehicle is spotted first, so can't really infiltrate. maybe line of sight could be configured, but that's complicated, the above is simple and workable IMMEDIATELY! it could prob be programmed in a day.

Maybe even by making it so you can enter troops on the map at a later time, and/or just limit what troops can be deployed out of the initial zone and others enter gradually(per order determined prior to battle?)

For example, a tank must be deployed in the tiny square(or maybe can enter the map later, if the user wants) then light infantry can infiltrate and be deployed in further zones(so instead of white gray and black deployment zones, there can be a fourth zone for recon and lmg teams). Maybe that could be just at the FIRST battle, like with the fortifications/foxholes.

Defenders have advantages of 'digging in' and then attackers, too, have their own unique abilities in an initial battle. Attackers have infiltration abilities while defenders have ability to fortify. The defender has no idea how many light teams the enemy has, or how many the enemy is committing to battle at the start. Just for the initial battle on the map, maybe.

I hope that makes sense. to me it is the most logical. I have spend too many hours playing close combat, as you can probably tell. haha.

(in reply to Destraex)

Post #: 7

RE: Will the Begining Battle Placement be reworked? - 6/4/2018 2:53:33 AM

CGGrognard

Posts: 594
Joined: 10/3/2013
From: USA
Status: offline

The CC series did have supply (ammunition) involved, which was part of the reason for the different commands of ambush(hide), defend and fire all having coding to determine when the units fire. Also the 'scavenge' coding was included in the third game of the series where soldiers would attempt to acquire ammo from a fallen soldier. In The Russian Front is the game that hand to hand combat was the most possible especially in the factory works.
Stamina and psychology have also been a part of the CC series. Stamina could easily be observed when ordering a MG team to 'move fast'. It's often the soldier carrying the MG that would be the last to arrive at the prescribed destination. There have been battles where the MG soldier would refuse an order because he was tired. Can you hear them calling out now? Something to the effect of "we're tired" which it was wise to place them in a position that didn't require much movement.
Suggest if you haven't done so, try some of the user created verions of the CC series like Winter War of Gold, Sword, Juno. Both add some elements that enhance the vanilla version of the game. Especially Winter War where ammo and scavenging are a big part of the game.

_____________________________

"The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting." - Sun Tzu

(in reply to Saturnian)

Post #: 8

RE: Will the Begining Battle Placement be reworked? - 6/4/2018 6:03:49 AM

Saturnian

Posts: 99
Joined: 12/7/2013
Status: offline

I'll clarify what I mean:

I know the scavenging is available the actual battle, but when a battle ends, you lose all of the supplies left on the battlefield along with the dead. And you can't capture enemy supplies even though it would make sense in desperate battles. For example when you are cut off from main force and need weapons. you kill hundreds of enemies and occupy where they died, but you NEVER get to use their weapons(from battle to battle, though YES you can scavenge during a single battle). it makes no sense not to be able to use the enemies weapons as captured from battle to battle.

You lose machine guns, you lose ammunition, you lose things like panzerfausts, just because the battle ended. Even though you occupy the location of the dead/supplies. It would make more sense that if you still occupied the territory the soldier died on or the gun/ammo was on, you would retain that weapon/ammo/gun and be able to use it in a future battle. Also, to capture, lose and recapture a weapons cache makes sense in battle over prolonged period on single map. its part of realism.

That's what I mean. From battle to battle there should be continuity. It doesn't make sense to lose guns and ammunition when you still occupy the territory where the ammo/supplies was left.

But i agree I always LOVED the scavenge function. the only problem is that it doesn't happen between battles. If you lose a machine gun team, you lose the machine gun once the battle ends. then you can have had another machine gun team that does not even have a gun because it lost its gunner, even though you occupy the space the other machine gun was left on. makes no sense. plain and simple. If Fritz's team dies and leaves a gun near HQ, why does Hans not get to take that gun when he needs it? should be able to take the gun from the dead team if you occupy that location when battle ends. is that clear?

< Message edited by Saturnian -- 6/4/2018 6:12:07 AM >

(in reply to CGGrognard)

Post #: 9

RE: Will the Begining Battle Placement be reworked? - 6/4/2018 8:36:27 PM

CGGrognard

Posts: 594
Joined: 10/3/2013
From: USA
Status: offline

Ahh, now I understand what you are saying. And I'm not certain what protocols were in place in retrieving weapons left on the battle field and I've watched many war movies!

_____________________________

"The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting." - Sun Tzu

(in reply to Saturnian)

Post #: 10

RE: Will the Begining Battle Placement be reworked? - 6/5/2018 3:28:38 AM

Rosseau

Posts: 2757
Joined: 9/13/2009
Status: offline

With a new engine, we should certainly get more than a rehash this time. Not sure if your good suggestions might be wishful thinking initially. The big concerns are AI, pathfinding, and (for me) whether the moddability of the original game will stand. Knowing the Archon engine and time in development, it could be yes to all these questions. Of course, multiplayer makes a lot of these potential AI challenges moot. Never tried MP myself.

(in reply to CGGrognard)

Post #: 11

RE: Will the Begining Battle Placement be reworked? - 6/5/2018 11:53:44 AM

Destraex

Posts: 2102
Joined: 2/14/2001
From: Aust
Status: offline

Agreed. It should be from the ground up this time around. However I suspect the only original piece will be a 3D engine thrown on top of old CC AI and systems.

_____________________________

(in reply to Rosseau)

Post #: 12

RE: Will the Begining Battle Placement be reworked? - 6/5/2018 3:14:32 PM

PipFromSlitherine

Posts: 1446
Joined: 6/23/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Destraex

Agreed. It should be from the ground up this time around. However I suspect the only original piece will be a 3D engine thrown on top of old CC AI and systems.

You are incorrect.

Cheers

Pip

_____________________________

follow me on Twitter here

(in reply to Destraex)

Post #: 13

RE: Will the Begining Battle Placement be reworked? - 6/5/2018 7:35:01 PM

CGGrognard

Posts: 594
Joined: 10/3/2013
From: USA
Status: offline

Multiplayer has always been an issue with this game. Yes it's fun once you get into it, but the method (i.e. Lobby) and just finding opponents to engage at a certain time provided a challenge to MP.

_____________________________

"The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting." - Sun Tzu

(in reply to Rosseau)

Post #: 14

RE: Will the Begining Battle Placement be reworked? - 6/5/2018 10:05:14 PM

Destraex

Posts: 2102
Joined: 2/14/2001
From: Aust
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: PipFromSlitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: Destraex

Agreed. It should be from the ground up this time around. However I suspect the only original piece will be a 3D engine thrown on top of old CC AI and systems.

You are incorrect.

Cheers

Pip

WOW. Thanks Pip. This makes me really want to try the game :)

_____________________________

(in reply to PipFromSlitherine)

Post #: 15

Page: [1]

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Close Combat – The Bloody First >> Will the Begining Battle Placement be reworked?

Page: [1]

Jump to:

New Messages	No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages	Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages	Locked w/o New Messages

Post New Thread

Reply to Message

Post New Poll

Submit Vote

Delete My Own Post

Delete My Own Thread

Rate Posts

1.891