Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: Peterk1

But it could be done in a random, unpredictable and fairly subtle manner just by varying the amount of AI shift in each game. Would you really blatantly notice it if one or two units were shifted from empty parts of the map to where your attack edge was? More likely, it would just feel like the AI is defending a little bit better.

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheReal_Pak40

I have to agree with Michael. My patience is just about gone. I've bought every original CC game and two of the re-releases. NOTHING has been improved in the tactical engine since CC2:ABTF:

TacAI: just as stupid as it always was. Blindly sends it's troops to straight to the nearest VL only to be slaughtered.

Deployment AI: It's the exact same as it always was - HORRIBLE. AI always deploys around VLs with no consideration to cover or fields of fire.

Vehicle Pathing: WORSE than in CC2. I'm not just talking about the "can't go there" remarks, I mean the actual path that the vehicle takes once given a move order. Tanks on a road are given an order to move 40 meters straight up said road, but the driver decides that a scenic ride over a wall and through the woods is the path of least resistance. Honestly, Miss Daisy could drive better than that.

Instant Artillery: Wow, offboard artillery falls so quickly that there isn't enough time to realistically allow for the flight of the round, let alone the whole process of communication. And it's always perfectly accurate.

Instant On Board Mortars: The main reason why AT guns don't last more than one or two rounds after opening up. Mortar rounds land 2-3 seconds after the fire order is placed. The is completely unrealistic. The flight path of a mortar round takes at least 10 seconds alone, not to mention the whole process of adjusting the mortar to get the correct direction and distance.

LSA MGs: As if MGs in CC weren't powerful enough. I kind of liked it better when a stone wall could actually stop a MG42 bullet.

With exception of the last one, these are all legitimate complaints from your consumers for the past several re-releases and the original Atomic releases. However, like Atomic, Matrix has solely focused on re-releasing new games with new maps and not actually fixing their product. The only thing that has improved is the strategic campaign engine. This a damned shame since Close Combat's primary focus is, after all, about close combat.

Honestly, should I have any more patience after ten releases of Close Combat?

quote:

ORIGINAL: RD_Oddball

.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Southern_land

quote:

ORIGINAL: RD_Oddball

.

yup I know how you feel

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: Steve McClaire

As we discussed, here's a summary of the test results we did with the latest version of the game:

In testing with 3 x medium mortars firing at an AT gun, on average it takes a total of about 15 mortar rounds to destroy a medium sized gun (6pdr/57mm/5cm) and about 25 rounds to destroy a larger (17pdr / Pak40) gun. There are cases of 1-3 round kills with a mortar, but there are also cases of 70+ total rounds without a kill. Perhaps the outlier cases are happening too often, but this is pretty subjective.

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: Stiener

...and what do you guys use as a base for what to expect?

quote:

do you expect the a/t gun crews to be gunned down in seconds because there spotted no matter where they are on the map? do you expect the survivability of an a/t gun in WW2 to be measured in seconds?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Andrew Williams

btw I always play with Trees on as having them off is cheating.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Q.M

quote:

ORIGINAL: Andrew Williams

btw I always play with Trees on as having them off is cheating.

Concur

quote:

CC's strong point for me has always been the psychological modeling. As long as I have that, I wouldn't mind playing w/one arm tied behind my back, so to speak.

quote:



Perhaps when playing the A.I. you should introduce self-imposed restrictions. For example, use the team info icons to dispay command, and for the different colors:

...
This could force you to adjust your playing style on where and how you deploy and use leaders.
...
CC's strong point for me has always been the psychological modeling. As long as I have that, I wouldn't mind playing w/one arm tied behind my back, so to speak.

It takes maybe a week to learn how to stomp the A.I. with a roughly equal force. If someone spent two years improving the A.I., then it might take a week and a half.

Edit--I actually agree w/you for the most part. I'm just thinking that CC isn't going to ever get substantially better w/out a complete re-write from the bottom up, instead of this this over and over re-issue approach.