RE: Sorry, long-term fan who's had enough

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

RE: Sorry, long-term fan who's had enough

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 Series >> Close Combat: Last Stand Arnhem >> RE: Sorry, long-term fan who's had enough

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 5 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Sorry, long-term fan who's had enough - 7/20/2010 9:53:04 PM

D.Ilse

Posts: 330
Joined: 5/2/2009
From: Florahduh, yea that state.
Status: offline

in regards to Bad AI is just something that we deal with.

Remember RomeTW, when the AI sieged a fort, and you mustered to fight in the first or second days the complete idiocy of the enemy you will just run back and forth and then withdraw or run the timer down.

_____________________________

(in reply to Adam Rinkleff)

Post #: 61

RE: Sorry, long-term fan who's had enough - 7/20/2010 11:05:47 PM

TheReal_Pak40

Posts: 186
Joined: 10/8/2003
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress

Have you tried the GC? I am now 3 battles into the GC and so far the Germans have been deployed pretty well in all of them.

I'm much further than you in the GC and I can validate the horrible deployment AI. Many times the AI will deploy in no cover whatsoever ignoring nearby buildings, trees, shrubs etc. Since my units have full view of these units the slaughter begins...

You wont usually see this when you first attack a map because your deployment is such a small portion of the map and your visibility of most maps is very limited. But, on subsequent battles on the same map you will be able to see more and notice that the AI is just horribly deployed, usually gravitating around VLs. Any captain or lieutenant that would purposely deploy his men in these locations would be court marshaled.

Unfortunately this is the same deployment AI that EVERY Close Combat game has ever used. Why they can't code the AI to favor buildings, trees, tree lines, hedges, etc. is beyond me.

(in reply to GaryChildress)

Post #: 62

RE: Sorry, long-term fan who's had enough - 7/20/2010 11:37:20 PM

TheReal_Pak40

Posts: 186
Joined: 10/8/2003
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: AdamRinkleff
the AI has never improved in any significant way. Im sorry, but if you find this game to be even remotely a challenge, then you simply have -no- tactical ability whatsoever.

Well said

quote:

Its annoying that they keep releasing these remakes of the early Close Combats, and they don't really change anything of substance. Oh, wow, we have night mode now where the map is darker? That's cool, but seriously... fix the AI. Make this game a challenge, please.

I agree. I've played CC so much over the years I almost know where the AI is going to deploy and how the TacAI is going to react.

quote:

The only thing the AI seems able to do is blow up AT guns. Every time I pick an AT gun, it will be lucky to get one shot off, and then the enemy mortar hits it with a perfectly aimed shot that causes the thing to explode. It makes me wonder why they ever even made AT guns during WWII?

I've been screaming about this for years. Part of the problem is the unrealistic modeling of mortars which breaks down to two main issues: Instant firing (i.e, no setup or adjusting of the mortar every time you issue a fire order) and unrealistic flight time of the rounds (currently about 3 seconds but realistically should be closer to 10-12). Combine the flight time with bracketing techniques required to fine tune your fire and it should take about 40 seconds to 2 minutes to KIA an AT gun, not 10 seconds like it's currently modeled.

quote:

Amazingly, none of these problems represent my pet peeve about this game. What annoys me the most? That idiotic decision to limit each side to 15 squads. Could we get an increase on this to 30 or 45? Or at least 20! In theory, if the AI started on the top right, middle right, and bottom right of a map, with 15 squads on each side, and I was defending in the center... I might actually start to feel like I might get overrun. I might even be able to pretend that the AI was thinking and that it had some kind of a plan with 3 attacks converging all directly upon me!

The bottom line: If you aren't going to improve the AI, then you should at least let us give the AI more squads so that it becomes a halfway interesting zombie simulation.

Well, I admit that increasing the number of units at first seems like a good thing but I fear that it will make a bad AI even worse. I'm not try to compare CC to Combat Mission but I remember that making very large battles(battalion) in CM made for very poor AI performance. CM could handle company size and smaller battles fairly well though.

< Message edited by TheReal_Pak40 -- 7/20/2010 11:38:01 PM >

(in reply to Adam Rinkleff)

Post #: 63

RE: Sorry, long-term fan who's had enough - 7/21/2010 2:31:56 PM

SkyStrike

Posts: 29
Joined: 6/9/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: squatter

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?

Indeed.

(in reply to squatter)

Post #: 64

RE: Sorry, long-term fan who's had enough - 7/21/2010 9:23:48 PM

squatter

Posts: 1033
Joined: 6/24/2006
Status: offline

The comment about being willing to pay $500 dollars for a fully-realised, fully functional version of Close Combat is very indicative - the comments being posted here are not from people who hate close combat, they are by and large by people who recognise it as a classic, who have played it for years, and have spent $100s over those years supporting new versions. However, the 'newness' of those versions is declining and we're feeling like we're increasingly paying full-whack for what would have been released as mods not long back.

If this game was properly re-tooled, all of us here would gladly pay premium price for it, a la War in the Pacific which is, what $70. The business model for future Close Combat development needs to be addressed.

A higher squad limit. A functional AI. A more integrated operational/tactical interaction. Pathfinding sorted. The outstanding tactical issues addressed - mortar accuracy, troop behavior re: buildings and cover etc. Easier modding. A close combat that featured all this would reignite the market for this game.

But with the current 'new lick of paint' approach to new releases the number prepared to keep investing is sadly going to dwindle I suspect.

(in reply to SkyStrike)

Post #: 65

RE: Sorry, long-term fan who's had enough - 7/21/2010 9:33:01 PM

Andrew Williams

Posts: 6116
Joined: 1/8/2001
From: Australia
Status: offline

I don't want a higher squad limit.... click click click

(in reply to squatter)

Post #: 66

RE: Sorry, long-term fan who's had enough - 7/21/2010 10:30:17 PM

Dundradal

Posts: 753
Joined: 6/9/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: squatter

If this game was properly re-tooled, all of us here would gladly pay premium price for it, a la War in the Pacific which is, what $70. The business model for future Close Combat development needs to be addressed.

A higher squad limit. A functional AI. A more integrated operational/tactical interaction. Pathfinding sorted. The outstanding tactical issues addressed - mortar accuracy, troop behavior re: buildings and cover etc. Easier modding. A close combat that featured all this would reignite the market for this game.

But with the current 'new lick of paint' approach to new releases the number prepared to keep investing is sadly going to dwindle I suspect.

No re-tooling. You can only retool a P-51/F-51 for so long before you need a new better and faster engine. That's what CC needs. Stop coding into the old engine. Code a new engine with the best features of all the CCs and include a mod builder that will make us all fall over and become the "imagined group" of modders Mooxe mentioned. I know at least such a scenario editor is out there somewhere...

By coding a new engine the first advantage is obvious. It would be for modern machines with modern graphics. Don't get me wrong, I do love the look of CC maps. They are amazing. Troops and tanks are pretty good as well. I'm guessing the thing people would want is photo-realistic graphics or something? I don't know. I really like the map style. Units could use improvements but I just don't know how to describe what I like.

I could go on and on with the logic behind this and from the sounds of it people have been making the same one for the better part of a decade.

I can tell you right now I would pay more for a full functioning battle stati...errr Close Combat running on a new engine that delivered the wish list of features fans have asked for for a long time. This would provide extended longevity to the series as well as providing a modern modding platform that could inspire more to take up the call.

Who knows...

But to your points...I don't want more units. I like the size of my BG now. I agree with everything else. See above

(in reply to squatter)

Post #: 67

RE: Sorry, long-term fan who's had enough - 7/22/2010 8:09:02 AM

Adam Rinkleff

Posts: 375
Joined: 7/24/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Andrew Williams

I don't want a higher squad limit.... click click click

I don't need a higher squad limit myself, although I think I could handle 45 squads without too much difficulty. Yes, I would be clicking all the time, and I would be losing track of stuff happening around the map, but I think I could enjoy that. However, the -real- point of adding more squads is to help the AI out. If all its going to do is make direct frontal assaults, it needs three times as many people to have even a slim chance of success!

My point is that there is more than one way to get the job done. Better AI would be great, but in lieu of that, the game could just be improved by increasing the number of units that the AI is sending at you. In addition, when they attack onto a map, it would be nice if they would start across the entire frontage of the map, instead of having EVERY unit start in a small little box which you can simply surround and turn into a killing field.

(in reply to Andrew Williams)

Post #: 68

RE: Sorry, long-term fan who's had enough - 7/22/2010 8:21:24 AM

Adam Rinkleff

Posts: 375
Joined: 7/24/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dundradal
Code a new engine with the best features... for modern machines with modern graphics.

My fear is that if they ever do that, they will waste all their money on graphics. I don't want 3D. I don't want photorealism. I don't want to zoom in to first-person view, or change the angle of the 'camera'. I also worry they will try to distort the game into something more 'fun' which will play more like Warcraft with 'missions', 'commando' style 'special units', and 'barracks' which 'produce' reinforcements.

All I want is solid gameplay which essentially operates like the boardgame Advanced Squad Leader and which models tactical combat as realistically as possible. But watching tanks swivel in circles in the road while infantry wander about aimlessly in the open... that's not realistic! Nor is it realistic to have an arbitrary 15-minute time-limit, or to have the battle magically end when morale drops, or to have an entire regiment or division disappear because a single company got defeated.

Sadly most computer games are designed by nerds who are obsessed with technology, and who have no idea how to actually make a -game-. They keep adding in new features, instead of stopping to fix what already exists. I think what computer game companies need the most is to hire actual game designers, instead of hiring more computer programmers. I suspect you 'need' programming experience in order to work in the industry, but the problem is that programming experience does not mean you actually know how to design a game. Im sure a lot of computer programmers would be upset to be supervised by someone with no knowledge of programming whatsoever, but I would frankly prefer the Close Combat series come under the guidance of a military historian rather than the world's best programmer.

< Message edited by AdamRinkleff -- 7/22/2010 8:23:58 AM >

(in reply to Dundradal)

Post #: 69

RE: Sorry, long-term fan who's had enough - 7/22/2010 8:23:06 AM

jomni

Posts: 2827
Joined: 11/19/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: AdamRinkleff

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dundradal
Code a new engine with the best features... for modern machines with modern graphics.

All I want is solid gameplay which essentially operates like the boardgame Advanced Squad Leader and which models tactical combat as realistically as possible. But watching tanks swivel in circles in the road while infantry wander about aimlessly in the open... that's not realistic! Nor is it realistic to have an arbitrary 15-minute time-limit, or to have the battle magically end when morale drops, or to have an entire regiment or division disappear because a single company got defeated.

Maybe you should look into other titles instead of CC. HPS Squad Battles for the ASL feel. Combat Mission for the accruate simulation (bullet trajectory, penetration modeling).

_____________________________

My Blog
Random Wargame Name Generator

(in reply to Adam Rinkleff)

Post #: 70

RE: Sorry, long-term fan who's had enough - 7/22/2010 8:28:12 AM

Adam Rinkleff

Posts: 375
Joined: 7/24/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: jomni

Maybe you should look into other titles instead of CC. HPS Squad Battles for the ASL feel. Combat Mission for the accruate simulation (bullet trajectory, penetration modeling).

Is that what Matrix wants? For people to abandon Close Combat and go somewhere else? Eventually it will happen, eventually some other company will figure out that there is a market for realistic tactical combat, but so far nobody has developed a rival. Squad Battles is no good because it is turn-based, and I'll play chess if I want turn-based, and Combat Mission is just clunky three-D nonsense that is also turn-based. I like Close Combat, the approach taken in Close Combat is great, the graphics in Close Combat are great, its just the mechanics are broken and need to be fixed.

(in reply to jomni)

Post #: 71

RE: Sorry, long-term fan who's had enough - 7/22/2010 9:42:00 AM

7A_Woulf

Posts: 91
Joined: 1/28/2010
Status: offline

There is nothing like CC! I've been looking around, testing different games, and the closes you get is by occupying the kitchen table for hours, throwing out your girlfriends cat (a.k.a 'the game-wrecker') and play 'good-old' ASL; -And still you play in turns and you loose the strategic aspect of the game.

Guess that we all want 'the same old package', with a new contents. A new AI, vehicle pathing... *drool*
Don't have to tell you what we all want, personally I could see some more units (with the current system, maybe 18-21, just 1-2 slots in each 'Platoon') a bit more research of the infantry-combat tactics during WW II and some new battles; -We all know Normandy, Market Garden and the Bulge by now!

(in reply to Adam Rinkleff)

Post #: 72

RE: Sorry, long-term fan who's had enough - 7/22/2010 11:01:44 AM

Southernland

Posts: 2283
Joined: 11/19/2007
Status: offline

My only disagreement is I don't think the game mechanics are broken so much as they are old. The core game goes back 14 or so years. I struggle to think what the average computer was back then in terms of processing ability and RAM though I do remember specifically buying a new computer so I could upgrade from cc2 to play cc3... I think (and really I'm guessing) my computer back then was 190 processor with 16 meg of RAM, it might have been less. Now we have gigs of RAM, multicore processors and huge hard drives. Were the game to be developed from scratch now I think you'd find it a very different beast even if they used identical graphics to what we currently use but i wonder how far decade and a half old software can be pushed

EDIT there you go the min specs for CC3

System requirements
Windows 95/98, 133 MHz Pentium Processor, 32 MB RAM, 1 MB video card

< Message edited by Southern_land -- 7/22/2010 11:16:28 AM >

(in reply to Adam Rinkleff)

Post #: 73

RE: Sorry, long-term fan who's had enough - 7/22/2010 11:54:21 AM

berndn

Posts: 206
Joined: 1/5/2007
Status: offline

Toying a bit around with stuff I was thinking that at least the core should be upgraded. This would include graphics and AI. There's some animation roughness where you can see that the engine has problems even on a quad core cpu

AI and terrain could be rethought. Even with a sprite festival like it is now it should be running smooth compared to the mass AI 3D objects of Total War. The number of squads are fine by me. All the rest is fine. Maybe a rethought strategic layout system but ... I'm fine with CC and appreciate every development :)

(in reply to Southernland)

Post #: 74

RE: Sorry, long-term fan who's had enough - 7/22/2010 1:31:45 PM

GaryChildress

Posts: 6830
Joined: 7/17/2005
From: The Divided Nations of Earth
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: AdamRinkleff

Ive discovered that there is a tendency on internet forums for one person to come and comment with some intelligent well-written constructive criticisms, and then for the horde of zombie fanboys to jump to the defense and bash the 'hater' for not appreciating all the hard work that went into the product. Frankly, I think that attitude is bullshit.

The people who code at Matrix are adults, and they presumably understand that the only way to become truly successful is to address concerns. Squatter has done a good job of expressing those legitimate concerns. He wasn't rude, he wasn't insulting, he was helpful. If Matrix wants to limp along re-releasing old computer games without fixing the major problems... that's fine, its their business, but if they actually want to make some money, then they'd better start addressing stuff like the AI. What Matrix doesn't need is a bunch of sycophantic 'yes boys' telling them how awesome they are and how their game is great and how happy we all are.

Sheesh, I remember when playing a solo game with miniatures meant the game ALWAYS turned out exactly the way you wanted it to. At least now we have a modicum of AI to give at least a little sensation of playing against an autonomous opponent.

Every game seems to be good for a few "this game is broken and I won't buy any more" threads. Those who side with the developer are impeding progress and those who complain are doing it for the good of the game. I absolutely LOVED playing WitP until I came to the Matrix forums and discovered how "broken" the game was. Then I wasn't satisfied with it either. However, as I've stated elsewhere, if all the complaints get us a better game then more power to the complainers. As I see it a lot of complaining has two possible results:

Possibility #1: Developer improves the game.
Possibility #2: Developer abandons the game.

I just hope we see the former and not the latter with the CC series.

_____________________________

(in reply to Adam Rinkleff)

Post #: 75

RE: Sorry, long-term fan who's had enough - 7/22/2010 1:42:56 PM

Dundradal

Posts: 753
Joined: 6/9/2007
Status: offline

Constructive criticism and bitching are two different things. Many people here post very entitled. Yes, we all paid for a product, but some need to stop acting like Matrix is being a slumlord and not replacing the light bulb outside your apartment.

I've agreed there are issues with every re-releases that need to be addressed. By pointing out mistakes and providing feedback we are helping the devs fix things. Every time we post data about bugs that's less time they have to spend looking for it. Granted it is annoying that it seems the first group of customers are acting like beta testers, but if we get a patch that fixes the errors then more power to us.

(in reply to GaryChildress)

Post #: 76

RE: Sorry, long-term fan who's had enough - 7/22/2010 7:59:22 PM

TheReal_Pak40

Posts: 186
Joined: 10/8/2003
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dundradal

Constructive criticism and bitching are two different things. Many people here post very entitled. Yes, we all paid for a product, but some need to stop acting like Matrix is being a slumlord and not replacing the light bulb outside your apartment.

Yet that's exactly what it feels like. I feel like an abused tenant that's been faithful to the landlord for years yet my criticism and complaints fall on deaf ears. Some of the bugs I can understand, such as the CTD issue with the Strategic map, because they deal with LSA only. Other bugs/issues(mortars and AI) have been with the CC series for a long long time. Every re-release people complain about these issues yet nothing is ever done - at least nothing with a notable effect. Then there are design issues that make NO SENSE, such as the decision to change the protection values for things like stone walls making it a worthless cover.

(in reply to Dundradal)

Post #: 77

RE: Sorry, long-term fan who's had enough - 7/23/2010 3:39:36 AM

Dundradal

Posts: 753
Joined: 6/9/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheReal_Pak40
Yet that's exactly what it feels like. I feel like an abused tenant that's been faithful to the landlord for years yet my criticism and complaints fall on deaf ears. Some of the bugs I can understand, such as the CTD issue with the Strategic map, because they deal with LSA only. Other bugs/issues(mortars and AI) have been with the CC series for a long long time. Every re-release people complain about these issues yet nothing is ever done - at least nothing with a notable effect. Then there are design issues that make NO SENSE, such as the decision to change the protection values for things like stone walls making it a worthless cover.

I agree with what you are saying. I was just pointing out that most are getting too harsh with their remarks. Yes, some of these issues are annoying hangovers from the older games. Do they need to be fixed? Yes. I also wonder sometimes at the strange nature of the re-releases...why weren't some features carried over? Why do they all need to install a unique version of BHQ? Why does only COI have ModSwap? I agree that these and others don't make much sense at times.

I was just trying to make the point that the best way to help get these fixed is to provide as much info on the bugs as possible. I agree it is frustrating to see the same bugs over and over and then sometimes not even consistent between games! (The odd bug in COI where tanks after a long move fast order want to then stop and do a 180 putting their ass to the enemy...but this doesn't occur so much in WAR/TLD that I've noticed)

(in reply to TheReal_Pak40)

Post #: 78

RE: Sorry, long-term fan who's had enough - 7/23/2010 3:46:15 AM

Tejszd

Posts: 3437
Joined: 11/17/2007
Status: offline

Modswap is not required for WAR, TLD or LSA as an installed mod does NOT need to replace any game files as it should be installed in its own directory/

Example; I have been testing Meuse mod which I moved to TLD and all its files go under its own sub directory;

C:\Program Files (x86)\Matrix Games\Close Combat The Longest Day\Meuse

(in reply to Dundradal)

Post #: 79

RE: Sorry, long-term fan who's had enough - 7/23/2010 5:25:46 AM

Reboot

Posts: 759
Joined: 12/18/2007
Status: offline

In the marketplace, there seem to be few comparisons to CC. Certainly in the computer gaming marketplace. There are few, if any, computer games that have survived with continuity (admittedly with twists & turns) since 1996 in any commercial form outside of flea markets.

In the broader marketplace one of the few examples that are parallel to CC, IMHO, is the Porche 911 intoduced in 1964. Grouvy cool and a revolutionary car for the time but with fundamental limitations determined by the technology of the day and the original design (rear engine, short wheel base, etc, etc, etc,) and yet the damned thing has never really gone away. Glaring differences from CC, (if you can see any parallel at all), being that Porche had available bajillions to pour into engineering to overcome/combat/evolve within the inherent limitations of the design, & global sales and marketing to develop and sell the crap out of the brand. CC was a very innovative game in its time, and in many respects still is, if one looks at the glass..er...half full, so to speak. To my knowledge the resources such as would be required for a ground up re-write have not been available for CC for a long time. Current developers are milking every fix and new feature out of the fundamental software architecture that they can, given available resources. Quite impressive if you have either insight into that sort of thing, or, an open mind to even consider that as a possibility.

Also relatively unique, is the...er...response.... to CC in the forums. There is a chance that some folks who never heard of CC before, just bought LSA and have played it, have loved it to death, then have come to these forums to seek out others with similar experiences and then read many posts in these forums that lead them to think they might be an idiot because apparently there are a host of "CC experts" whose apparent position is that the game is garbage produced by evil millionaire con-artists. Considering these are...er...CC "experts", with their apparent intimate and long term knowledge of the game, one would assume they would either understand the limitations of the game/software and the overall determining situation, or would as any other "informed" consumer, spend their disposable income on other products that better meet their needs, and just generally have better things to do than "storm the castle".

That CC has a longstanding fan base, is the main reason for CC's longevity, and fans come in a variety. Some fans like Dundradal & Gary Childress, and many others, are insightful in their understanding of the development process, and realistic in their expectations, apparently grateful that CC still lives at all, and optimistic that there could even be a better future for CC (CC6). As fans their invaluable feedback and constructive criticism helps the developers to address problems and improve the game and fellow fans benefit from their contributions. Some fans are, er, not so "insightful" but actual fans nonetheless. And then there are the self-professed... er... "fans", apparently who had such a great time with the game, way back whenever, that they are overcome with.....well, "Hell has no fury like a woman scorned"...is about the only equivalence that comes to mind. As a long term CC fan, that, I definitely have had enough of.....

_____________________________

CCNUT

(in reply to TheReal_Pak40)

Post #: 80

RE: Sorry, long-term fan who's had enough - 7/23/2010 5:38:03 AM

tigercub

Posts: 2004
Joined: 2/3/2003
From: brisbane oz
Status: offline

Finnished with the remakes?I hope they have started with the new version...built from the ground up, if i have the money i would put a team together and make it happen...

Tigercub!

_____________________________

You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life

(in reply to Reboot)

Post #: 81

RE: Sorry, long-term fan who's had enough - 7/23/2010 5:44:29 AM

Rosseau

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

Good post. I believe there are things going on in the code that even the devs don't know about. I also believe this series of games is haunted--in a good and evil way.

Last night, I'm just cursing as I babysit my armor moving through a town. The scenario was generally unsatisfying.

Tonight, I go with TLD first and then LSA. Three or four incredibly realistic battles. In the last couple of minutes my bazooka team hits the front of a Panther at 60 meters. "Clank"

They sneak away and set up again for a flank shot at 30. "Whamm".

Scenario ends in a victory. It's still a good series, not to mention CCMT.

(in reply to Reboot)

Post #: 82

RE: Sorry, long-term fan who's had enough - 7/23/2010 11:00:59 AM

Redmarkus5

Posts: 4456
Joined: 12/1/2007
From: 0.00
Status: offline

I played board games with cardboard counters (Avalon Hill etc.) for many years and I used to draw up my own simple tables listing the enemy's options at tactical/operational/strategic level - such as 'defend Moscow vs. retreat to the East', etc. Then I used a dice to determine what the AI would do and I applied that strategy for the rest of the season, next 10 turns, etc.

I recall one board game 'Carrier' that was built for solitaire mode and it had a similar approach which could really put the human player under pressure.

That dice roll method played out better than most of the computerised AI war game systems I have come across. I think that the computerised systems are probably too complex to be workable and that a random die roll could actually do better. Some variables that could be decided by die roll to make the AI less predictable are:

1. Attack/probe/defend? (Shift to the right or left based on factors such as strength, supply, leader, etc.)
2. Defend whole map or just setup around 1, 2, 3, etc VPs?
3. Ambush mode or defend mode?
4. Advance down roads or avoid roads?
5. Road march or cautious advance?
etc.

just some ideas...

(in reply to GaryChildress)

Post #: 83

RE: Sorry, long-term fan who's had enough - 7/23/2010 11:03:44 AM

Redmarkus5

Posts: 4456
Joined: 12/1/2007
From: 0.00
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: squatter

The comment about being willing to pay $500 dollars for a fully-realised, fully functional version of Close Combat is very indicative - the comments being posted here are not from people who hate close combat, they are by and large by people who recognise it as a classic, who have played it for years, and have spent $100s over those years supporting new versions. However, the 'newness' of those versions is declining and we're feeling like we're increasingly paying full-whack for what would have been released as mods not long back.

If this game was properly re-tooled, all of us here would gladly pay premium price for it, a la War in the Pacific which is, what $70. The business model for future Close Combat development needs to be addressed.

A higher squad limit. A functional AI. A more integrated operational/tactical interaction. Pathfinding sorted. The outstanding tactical issues addressed - mortar accuracy, troop behavior re: buildings and cover etc. Easier modding. A close combat that featured all this would reignite the market for this game.

But with the current 'new lick of paint' approach to new releases the number prepared to keep investing is sadly going to dwindle I suspect.

Exactly mirrors my opinion.

I purchased WiTP and AE, as well as BftB and would certainly pay $70 for a truly rebuilt CC6. But I won't be buying this 'mod' until all the issues have been fixed.

(in reply to squatter)

Post #: 84

RE: Sorry, long-term fan who's had enough - 7/23/2010 5:57:37 PM

Adam Rinkleff

Posts: 375
Joined: 7/24/2007
Status: offline

I have made a lot of mod changes that make the singe player game somewhat more interesting, is there a way I can post a new data file somewhere that people can try it? So far I've only done this for the German side, but if people like it I would consider making an Allied version as well. Some of the changes I've made are listed below:

) every enemy infantry squad has 10 troops
) every enemy AT squad has two bazookas/piats
) every enemy MG squad has two MG
) every enemy HQ squad has one AT and one MG and one sniper
) every enemy mortar squad has two mortars
) you can't tell which enemy squad is which, they are all just named 'infantry'
) every enemy battlegroup has maximum morale, maximum AI, and maximum experience
) you have very few replacements available
) every battlegroup has a completely revised unit list
) mortars are more inaccurate now, but they fire faster
) mortars are less effective against enemy infantry
) AT guns finally have some survivability, they are armored like halftracks
) the AI has been modified to be less suicidal
) flamethrowers fire faster
) MGs and Mortars set up faster, which helps the AI more than it helps you
) I got rid of a lot of stupid redudant squads and fixed some icons
) tanks are now much faster, with more acceleration and turn rate (they took driving lessons)
) the soldiers are more athletic and can actually sprint
) when fires start, they tend to last longer
) its easier to dig trenches now
) battlegroups will try to retreat instead of disbanding

The most interesting result of my changes is that the AI attacks in a series of waves, which feels more like a real battle. Each wave gets mowed down, but as they keep coming, casualties mount and ammunition begins to run out.

-I might add that a lot of these are changes which should have been made standard years ago in Close Combat. Making troops dart across a street or through a field... that's not something I should have to mod for. Putting armor on the AT guns? Great idea, but why hasn't it been done already? Fixing the slow ass tanks going in circles... it took me an hour, but why doesn't Matrix do it? Did you know there are like 250 different combinations of 'AI' built into Close Combat, and most of the battlegroups are deliberately set to weaker settings? The highest level isn't great, but it sure is better than what it was doing before, I just can't understand why the designers don't edit the data files themselves and release an official patch. Anyways, if someone wants to try it, let me know I think it makes for an interesting grand campaign and if thats too easy, well, I know how to make it a lot harder.

Ultimately, however, none of this really helps because of the horrid AI. Either it makes direct frontal assaults, or it sits there and does nothing. I've never believed that its a 'programming' problem, but rather its a 'concept' problem. The person who made the AI had bad tactics, that's exactly the problem here. The AI doesn't need some complex chess-like mathematical algorithm, it just needs some common sense rules. "If there is a victory location, and its undefended, move a squad in that direction." Stuff like that seems to simply elude the AI. It should really have a way to measure the number of enemy infantry within a radius X of each victory location, and if the number of infantry in that radius exceeds some other value Y, then the computer should probably not launch a direct frontal assault. Clearly the program knows where the infantry are, so it shouldn't be complicated to create such a function, except that the people at Matrix aren't actually trying to think of solutions.

Meanwhile, somebody clearly programmed the AI to decide that every game it is going to launch all of its infantry directly at the position with the most machine-guns in it. It is clearly capable of identifying the logical place where you will be defending, and then it simply makes the wrong decision about what to do. Rather than go around you and avoid your center of mass, it insists on a direct frontal assault. It would probably take just a couple hours for a competent programmer to examine the AI code and figure out how to switch that around and have the AI decide its going to focus on taking the victory location with the least number of defenders. I'd do it myself if Matrix would release the code so it can actually get worked on. That's why people here are acting like Matrix is a tight-fisted slumlord. We are smart people, we see the problem, and we know the solution. Matrix refuses to even acknowledge the problem, let alone fix it.

< Message edited by AdamRinkleff -- 7/23/2010 6:57:29 PM >

(in reply to Redmarkus5)

Post #: 85

RE: Sorry, long-term fan who's had enough - 7/23/2010 9:22:36 PM

Andrew Williams

Posts: 6116
Joined: 1/8/2001
From: Australia
Status: offline

zip it up and post it here...

or email to

info@closecombatwar.com

< Message edited by Andrew Williams -- 7/23/2010 9:23:55 PM >

(in reply to Adam Rinkleff)

Post #: 86

RE: Sorry, long-term fan who's had enough - 7/24/2010 5:29:37 AM

Adam Rinkleff

Posts: 375
Joined: 7/24/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Andrew Williams

zip it up and post it here...

Well, I was going to when I got some of the problems fixed, but now I think I'm just going to give up. I can't understand why sometimes the AI, with the exact same aggression settings, will decide to charge headlong in a suicide wave against 5 machine-guns and 2 tanks and a mortar and some flamethrowers... and then, in another situation, I'll have 30 people against 150, I'll have no machine-guns, no mortars, no anti-tank, nothing but poorly trained low morale infantry, and I'll be defending the last victory location on the map, and the AI will do -nothing-. I won't even see enemy troops. In fact, I sometimes will get bored and go grab the victory location in the center of the map, and I still won't see anybody! That's not a problem with the program, that's a problem with Matrix. This is not a problem of having 'bad' AI, this is just an incomplete unfinished product.

(in reply to Andrew Williams)

Post #: 87

RE: Sorry, long-term fan who's had enough - 7/24/2010 7:11:45 AM

Sheytan

Posts: 863
Joined: 11/28/2006
Status: offline

I would buy "All I want is solid gameplay which essentially operates like the boardgame Advanced Squad Leader". That is pretty much my holy grail in respect to this as well.

quote:

ORIGINAL: AdamRinkleff

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dundradal
Code a new engine with the best features... for modern machines with modern graphics.

My fear is that if they ever do that, they will waste all their money on graphics. I don't want 3D. I don't want photorealism. I don't want to zoom in to first-person view, or change the angle of the 'camera'. I also worry they will try to distort the game into something more 'fun' which will play more like Warcraft with 'missions', 'commando' style 'special units', and 'barracks' which 'produce' reinforcements.

All I want is solid gameplay which essentially operates like the boardgame Advanced Squad Leader and which models tactical combat as realistically as possible. But watching tanks swivel in circles in the road while infantry wander about aimlessly in the open... that's not realistic! Nor is it realistic to have an arbitrary 15-minute time-limit, or to have the battle magically end when morale drops, or to have an entire regiment or division disappear because a single company got defeated.

Sadly most computer games are designed by nerds who are obsessed with technology, and who have no idea how to actually make a -game-. They keep adding in new features, instead of stopping to fix what already exists. I think what computer game companies need the most is to hire actual game designers, instead of hiring more computer programmers. I suspect you 'need' programming experience in order to work in the industry, but the problem is that programming experience does not mean you actually know how to design a game. Im sure a lot of computer programmers would be upset to be supervised by someone with no knowledge of programming whatsoever, but I would frankly prefer the Close Combat series come under the guidance of a military historian rather than the world's best programmer.

_____________________________

(in reply to Adam Rinkleff)

Post #: 88

RE: Sorry, long-term fan who's had enough - 7/24/2010 12:28:01 PM

Adam Rinkleff

Posts: 375
Joined: 7/24/2007
Status: offline

Let me just add that I -hate- how whenever infantry accidentally traipse into a 4-story building, they are magically transported to the top floor and can then get shot by a tank halfway across the map. Meanwhile, when enemy infantry are shooting at me from the top floor of a building, they are completely invulnerable to mortars because they are simultaneously on the bottom floor! That kind of quantum paradox is a great example of how someone got the great idea of adding in a new 'feature', and then didn't bother to take the blatantly necessary step of adding a command to tell your troops whether to move to the top or the bottom of the building. In my mod I actually made every building 1-story tall, and this improved the game immensely, if only because it made it harder to see that the AI was milling about aimlessly while you shot at it with machine-guns.

I also hate how they have never bothered to input a command to force the computer to accept a truce. You'd think they would have done that by now, because it can't be difficult. It's so ridiculous to play with the arbitrarily short 15-minute time limit, and yet at the same time, you don't want to set anything longer because the computer might as well decide to do nothing and you'll want to end the thing altogether. Indeed, attacking in Close Combat is seriously flawed, because if you take too many casualties you might want to quit attacking, and yet even though the computer is defending, it will refuse to accept a truce. With that in mind, do you remember CC1? It had a command that would order every unit you had to attack, and move forward. It also had a command that would order every unit you had to stop, and defend. Why the hell isn't that same command given to the computer, so that it actually attacks when it is supposed to and defends when it is supposed to? Hell, the player should be able to give that order to the computer just in case it forgets what it is doing.

Oh, and what about the bunching up of infantry. Surely there is some way to make them disperse a little? Have you ever watched how the AI moves? It will select a bunch of units and order them ALL to the exact same spot. Meanwhile, your own guys bunch up within their squad. Machine-guns are the most frustrating, you'll put them in a window, and they'll have a nice line of fire, and then you'll order them to fire and suddenly the machine-gunner can't see. Apparently the guy with the ammunition is standing in the window blocking everyone and just won't move.

< Message edited by AdamRinkleff -- 7/24/2010 12:32:14 PM >

(in reply to Sheytan)

Post #: 89

RE: Sorry, long-term fan who's had enough - 7/24/2010 1:06:37 PM

SkyStrike

Posts: 29
Joined: 6/9/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: AdamRinkleff

I also hate how they have never bothered to input a command to force the computer to accept a truce. You'd think they would have done that by now, because it can't be difficult. It's so ridiculous to play with the arbitrarily short 15-minute time limit, and yet at the same time, you don't want to set anything longer because the computer might as well decide to do nothing and you'll want to end the thing altogether. Indeed, attacking in Close Combat is seriously flawed, because if you take too many casualties you might want to quit attacking, and yet even though the computer is defending, it will refuse to accept a truce. With that in mind, do you remember CC1? It had a command that would order every unit you had to attack, and move forward. It also had a command that would order every unit you had to stop, and defend. Why the hell isn't that same command given to the computer, so that it actually attacks when it is supposed to and defends when it is supposed to? Hell, the player should be able to give that order to the computer just in case it forgets what it is doing.

One of the best paragraphs I've read on these forums. Learn from it Matrix!

(in reply to Adam Rinkleff)

Post #: 90

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 5 next > >>

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Close Combat Series >> Close Combat: Last Stand Arnhem >> RE: Sorry, long-term fan who's had enough