Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: squatter

I have bought every single Close Combat game since CC2, including all the recent remakes.

I realised that the AI was broken and unplayable by CC4 and havent tried to play against the AI since. I buy these games exclusively for multiplayer. Clearly, I understand that it is the best/only tactical real-time simulator out there.

This edition is no different: the AI is practically non-existent. In fact, on the strategic level it is completely Kaput.(see earlier threads)

On defence, the AI places rifle teams in the middle of roads when there are buildings on either side. Its units get up and run around rather than defending. On attack, it moves blindly towards any given victory location, hardly stopping to engage the defender. I think its about time you stopped claiming this game has a viable AI. It does not. Anyone who doubts this - try playing a few battles with 'always see enemy' selected, and watch what the AI does.

All the other problems that have bedevilled this game are present - vehicle pathing, unit deployent zones on top of each other, only 15 teams per side max, etc. Essentially, you, the developers are tweaking the data for each release, but are unbable to change the hard code beneath. You are releasing mods - very good mods, I'll give you - as full price games.

I understand the need to support developers in niche markets, but it's getting ridiculous to rely on the same old customers like me to shell out full price to download massively flawed tweakings of 12-year old software.
I just paid nearly £40 to download this, like I paid to download The Longest Day, Wacht Am Rein, and Cross of Iron before it. Each is utterly unplayable as a single player game, only valid as a multiplayer game with significant house rules and scenario modification.

My point is, I am feeling a little exploited right now, like my loyalty has been tested to the end. You shouldnt be offering discounts on previous games to people who havent bought a CC game before as you are, but discounts on the new editions for those that have invested 100s of dollars already on the previous releases, each one as flawed as the last!!

And my secondary point, trying to salvage as much multiplayer value as possible, can we have more information on how purchase points are assigned to battlegroups in battlemaker? And how, exactly, does stacking affect how many teams can be selected from each battle group? Is it better to have a larger unit as the frontline supported by a smaller one? Or vice versa? The manual says that having stacked battlegroups 'MAY' mean you get extra team slots. What are the parameters affecting 'MAY' in this case?

Third point: why continue with the absurd divisional level strategic map, and squad level tactical map, as if the fate of divisions is decided by a skirmish between two platoons?

Surely the sensible way to take the game is to simulate something like a battalion vs battalion battle on the strategic map, with companies or platoons as units of maneuvre. Then the tactical battles are actually fought between the units represented on the strategic map, rather than absurd, minute abstractions of themselves.

quote:

ORIGINAL: squatter

I have bought every single Close Combat game since CC2, including all the recent remakes.

I realised that the AI was broken and unplayable by CC4 and havent tried to play against the AI since. I buy these games exclusively for multiplayer. Clearly, I understand that it is the best/only tactical real-time simulator out there.

This edition is no different: the AI is practically non-existent. In fact, on the strategic level it is completely Kaput.(see earlier threads)

On defence, the AI places rifle teams in the middle of roads when there are buildings on either side. Its units get up and run around rather than defending. On attack, it moves blindly towards any given victory location, hardly stopping to engage the defender. I think its about time you stopped claiming this game has a viable AI. It does not. Anyone who doubts this - try playing a few battles with 'always see enemy' selected, and watch what the AI does.

All the other problems that have bedevilled this game are present - vehicle pathing, unit deployent zones on top of each other, only 15 teams per side max, etc. Essentially, you, the developers are tweaking the data for each release, but are unbable to change the hard code beneath. You are releasing mods - very good mods, I'll give you - as full price games.

I understand the need to support developers in niche markets, but it's getting ridiculous to rely on the same old customers like me to shell out full price to download massively flawed tweakings of 12-year old software.
I just paid nearly £40 to download this, like I paid to download The Longest Day, Wacht Am Rein, and Cross of Iron before it. Each is utterly unplayable as a single player game, only valid as a multiplayer game with significant house rules and scenario modification.

My point is, I am feeling a little exploited right now, like my loyalty has been tested to the end. You shouldnt be offering discounts on previous games to people who havent bought a CC game before as you are, but discounts on the new editions for those that have invested 100s of dollars already on the previous releases, each one as flawed as the last!!

And my secondary point, trying to salvage as much multiplayer value as possible, can we have more information on how purchase points are assigned to battlegroups in battlemaker? And how, exactly, does stacking affect how many teams can be selected from each battle group? Is it better to have a larger unit as the frontline supported by a smaller one? Or vice versa? The manual says that having stacked battlegroups 'MAY' mean you get extra team slots. What are the parameters affecting 'MAY' in this case?

Third point: why continue with the absurd divisional level strategic map, and squad level tactical map, as if the fate of divisions is decided by a skirmish between two platoons?

Surely the sensible way to take the game is to simulate something like a battalion vs battalion battle on the strategic map, with companies or platoons as units of maneuvre. Then the tactical battles are actually fought between the units represented on the strategic map, rather than absurd, minute abstractions of themselves.

quote:

ORIGINAL: squatter

I have bought every single Close Combat game since CC2, including all the recent remakes.

I realised that the AI was broken and unplayable by CC4 and havent tried to play against the AI since. I buy these games exclusively for multiplayer. Clearly, I understand that it is the best/only tactical real-time simulator out there.

This edition is no different: the AI is practically non-existent. In fact, on the strategic level it is completely Kaput.(see earlier threads)

On defence, the AI places rifle teams in the middle of roads when there are buildings on either side. Its units get up and run around rather than defending. On attack, it moves blindly towards any given victory location, hardly stopping to engage the defender. I think its about time you stopped claiming this game has a viable AI. It does not. Anyone who doubts this - try playing a few battles with 'always see enemy' selected, and watch what the AI does.

All the other problems that have bedevilled this game are present - vehicle pathing, unit deployent zones on top of each other, only 15 teams per side max, etc. Essentially, you, the developers are tweaking the data for each release, but are unbable to change the hard code beneath. You are releasing mods - very good mods, I'll give you - as full price games.

I understand the need to support developers in niche markets, but it's getting ridiculous to rely on the same old customers like me to shell out full price to download massively flawed tweakings of 12-year old software.
I just paid nearly £40 to download this, like I paid to download The Longest Day, Wacht Am Rein, and Cross of Iron before it. Each is utterly unplayable as a single player game, only valid as a multiplayer game with significant house rules and scenario modification.

My point is, I am feeling a little exploited right now, like my loyalty has been tested to the end. You shouldnt be offering discounts on previous games to people who havent bought a CC game before as you are, but discounts on the new editions for those that have invested 100s of dollars already on the previous releases, each one as flawed as the last!!

And my secondary point, trying to salvage as much multiplayer value as possible, can we have more information on how purchase points are assigned to battlegroups in battlemaker? And how, exactly, does stacking affect how many teams can be selected from each battle group? Is it better to have a larger unit as the frontline supported by a smaller one? Or vice versa? The manual says that having stacked battlegroups 'MAY' mean you get extra team slots. What are the parameters affecting 'MAY' in this case?

Third point: why continue with the absurd divisional level strategic map, and squad level tactical map, as if the fate of divisions is decided by a skirmish between two platoons?

Surely the sensible way to take the game is to simulate something like a battalion vs battalion battle on the strategic map, with companies or platoons as units of maneuvre. Then the tactical battles are actually fought between the units represented on the strategic map, rather than absurd, minute abstractions of themselves.

quote:

ORIGINAL: squatter

I have bought every single Close Combat game since CC2, including all the recent remakes.

I realised that the AI was broken and unplayable by CC4 and havent tried to play against the AI since. I buy these games exclusively for multiplayer. Clearly, I understand that it is the best/only tactical real-time simulator out there.

This edition is no different: the AI is practically non-existent. In fact, on the strategic level it is completely Kaput.(see earlier threads)

On defence, the AI places rifle teams in the middle of roads when there are buildings on either side. Its units get up and run around rather than defending. On attack, it moves blindly towards any given victory location, hardly stopping to engage the defender. I think its about time you stopped claiming this game has a viable AI. It does not. Anyone who doubts this - try playing a few battles with 'always see enemy' selected, and watch what the AI does.

All the other problems that have bedevilled this game are present - vehicle pathing, unit deployent zones on top of each other, only 15 teams per side max, etc. Essentially, you, the developers are tweaking the data for each release, but are unbable to change the hard code beneath. You are releasing mods - very good mods, I'll give you - as full price games.

I understand the need to support developers in niche markets, but it's getting ridiculous to rely on the same old customers like me to shell out full price to download massively flawed tweakings of 12-year old software.
I just paid nearly £40 to download this, like I paid to download The Longest Day, Wacht Am Rein, and Cross of Iron before it. Each is utterly unplayable as a single player game, only valid as a multiplayer game with significant house rules and scenario modification.

My point is, I am feeling a little exploited right now, like my loyalty has been tested to the end. You shouldnt be offering discounts on previous games to people who havent bought a CC game before as you are, but discounts on the new editions for those that have invested 100s of dollars already on the previous releases, each one as flawed as the last!!

And my secondary point, trying to salvage as much multiplayer value as possible, can we have more information on how purchase points are assigned to battlegroups in battlemaker? And how, exactly, does stacking affect how many teams can be selected from each battle group? Is it better to have a larger unit as the frontline supported by a smaller one? Or vice versa? The manual says that having stacked battlegroups 'MAY' mean you get extra team slots. What are the parameters affecting 'MAY' in this case?

Third point: why continue with the absurd divisional level strategic map, and squad level tactical map, as if the fate of divisions is decided by a skirmish between two platoons?

Surely the sensible way to take the game is to simulate something like a battalion vs battalion battle on the strategic map, with companies or platoons as units of maneuvre. Then the tactical battles are actually fought between the units represented on the strategic map, rather than absurd, minute abstractions of themselves.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dundradal

Now there are a few valid complaints in here, however I'm not going to fully support your statements.

"The AI is broken." I think the problem is you are expecting an AI similar in caliber to a human. With all the variables present in this game, it would be extremely difficult to produce an AI that I'm guessing would meet your standards.

Look at the AI in Command & Conquer...are you going to tell me it's the greatest? Or Age of Empires? Don't act like it's just CC that has an AI issue. AI is hard to code.

Now of all the issues you've mentioned, have you ever written this bugs down and posted them here so the devs can take a look at them?

Because I know that works. I just spent quite a bit of time talking to people to get the COI MMCC3 servers back to stability and now they have been running great for a while now.

While I agree there is definite need of some source code changes in the engine, you also have to remember that Matrix is not EA. They don't have millions upon millions of dollars and they don't have thousands of programmers and testers to review every product.

Matrix and the devs rely, to a certain degree, on their customers to help find mistakes so they can fix them. You act like they don't care and only want to make money. While certainly everyone wants to make money, I have a feeling (and have seen it in communicating with them) that they have a real passion for these games and enjoy them themselves. Why would they want to release a piece of crap?

And for your last points...you are complaining about something CC never tried to be. CC is a fun way to play small engagements that have an affect on a larger map. It sounds like you want a full war simulator, CC never pretends to be that. Sure it might be more realistic to have battalion vs battalion, but CC has always been about the smaller things. I for one, love the model they have going, granted I'm more of a COI guy, I still enjoy the level that the strategic map provides.

So Thank You Matrix for continuing to release these games. Yes, I do agree with squatter on some points, but I don't see it as callous disregard by Matrix. I would hope that buy now they've got a good understanding of the new CC engine source code so I'd hope they'd be able to track and fix bugs better.

So while I understand and to a different degree share you sentiments, I'd rather support the hand that feeds me in the hopes of causing positive change.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Adam Parker

One of the best game reviews I've read.

quote:

ORIGINAL: squatter

Please don't lecture me on sending in bug reports. We are not talking about bugs. We are talking about the fundamental AI coding. The dead AI in this game is not for want of me or others moaning in forums for the last 10 years. The AI was screwed in CC1, it is still screwed here, some 10 games later. This is because no-one has re-written the AI code. If I'm wrong about that, please inform me.

quote:

"And for your last points...you are complaining about something CC never tried to be. CC is a fun way to play small engagements that have an affect on a larger map. It sounds like you want a full war simulator, CC never pretends to be that. Sure it might be more realistic to have battalion vs battalion, but CC has always been about the smaller things. I for one, love the model they have going, granted I'm more of a COI guy, I still enjoy the level that the strategic map provides."

I must not be making myself clear enough. What I am arguing for is a strategic level as there exists now, only one where you are moving platoon/company units around rather that divisions/regiments so that when you zoom in for a battle on the tactical map, the forces engaged are exactly those committed on the strategic map, rather than having 3 tanks, a mortar and 30 men in effect representing an entire armoured division.

If this game was sold at $20, clearly labeled as a game that functions properly in multiplayer only, I wouldnt be posting here.

quote:

ORIGINAL: squatter

To reiterate my main points:

1. The AI is intrinsically screwed in the Close Combat series - it needs a full re-write.
2. The game is only worth playing in multiplayer.
3. Last Stand at Arnhem, like Cross of Iron, like Wach Am Rhine, are modded versions of an old game, not a new game. I welcome these new versions, and I have bought all of them. But a price of nearly $60 to download this is far too much. It should be half the price.

I hear nothing to persuade me otherwise. In fact, even those giving me flak seem to basically agree with me (save the price).

Let's keep the discussion to these points, less of the 'hater' and 'rant' crap please.

quote:

ORIGINAL: squatter
I must not be making myself clear enough. What I am arguing for is a strategic level as there exists now, only one where you are moving platoon/company units around rather that divisions/regiments so that when you zoom in for a battle on the tactical map, the forces engaged are exactly those committed on the strategic map, rather than having 3 tanks, a mortar and 30 men in effect representing an entire armoured division.

quote:

ORIGINAL: squatter

To reiterate my main points:

1. The AI is intrinsically screwed in the Close Combat series - it needs a full re-write.
2. The game is only worth playing in multiplayer.
3. Last Stand at Arnhem, like Cross of Iron, like Wach Am Rhine, are modded versions of an old game, not a new game. I welcome these new versions, and I have bought all of them. But a price of nearly $60 to download this is far too much. It should be half the price.

I hear nothing to persuade me otherwise. In fact, even those giving me flak seem to basically agree with me (save the price).

Let's keep the discussion to these points, less of the 'hater' and 'rant' crap please.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dundradal

quote:

ORIGINAL: Adam Parker

One of the best game reviews I've read.

It's not a game review though. It's someone who's angry about a perceived slight to them from Matrix.

quote:

ORIGINAL: redmarkus4

Take a look at CM Shock Force which is reasonably challenging against an AI that does very little except hide behind cover, as well as being a much more graphically appealing game.

quote:

ORIGINAL: squatter


A few other observations:

4. Not a single operation I have tried - solo or head to head - seems to me to be balanced.