Saturnian
Posts: 99
Joined: 12/7/2013
Status: offline
|
These are complaints I have about the current engine that I hope don't carry over into the new engine.
1)It really annoys me when the force pool says I have, let's say, 3 tanks and when I choose that platoon I get 1 tank(or squad, or whatever). That makes no sense. I understand there is some sort of "logical" reason for it, but really it just is annoying. At least in cc3 it made sense where you are responsible for everything you have and everything you put into battle.
If I only get 1 tank, don't tell me I have 3, you know what I mean? I'll select a company from my force pool which has 3 units but I only get 1 of them, or even NONE! what is that?! just makes no sense. maybe this is a difficulty setting thing. personally I don't want to mess around with it but if it is that forgive me. But even so, if I only get one tank, don't tell me I have 3.
Also, when I choose a new platoon for some reason sometimes it draws from my support. Why would that happen? I'll click on a company(or platoon, or whatever they are) to fill my roster and I'll lose support squads. But I am not using any of those support squads in that company I chose, so why did I lose them from my support? It seems like it is because I am drawing too much from one company(or whatever) and somehow that isn't allowed, but it isn't like they are even the same units so i don't see what difference it makes. they aren't doing anything but sitting around along with hundreds of other men while 25 or so men do the fighting on a huge map. like, what? seriously? Am I missing something?
2)Enemy is not aggressive enough. makes a little push in the last 5 minutes of the battle but it is ridiculous. Enemy is just not aggressive enough and that makes it predictable and boring. I understand it is being cautious, but most of the time its cautiousness is not enjoyable and ISN'T intelligent because it is not taking the map even if it is on the offensive.Maybe there should be different commander styles for enemy battlegroups, some more aggressive than the others?
3)There are not enough troops per battle considering the size of the maps. This is one of the most absurd things about the games. If you have literally hundreds of men in a battlegroup and that group is SOLELY committed to that map, then why do we only fight with 3 companies(or platoons or whatever you want to call them)? The survival of the WHOLE battlegroup is at stake in a single battle and there are sometimes dozens of tanks available but I only get like 2 or three? how does that makes sense one bit? There are times where an entire battlegroup will be lost when only a tiny fraction was committed to a HUGE map. I mean, where are these soldiers?! they are just sitting around sipping tea? PUT THEM TO BATTLE! It makes no sense to lose a whole battlegroup like that. If you are going to have huge maps you should put more soldiers to battle.
4)Also, CC3 had it right. It recorded EVERY KILL and EVERY MEDAL of EVERY SOLDIER through the WHOLE GAME. It had a top category of total kills and it had a bottom one most recent. it also had a little ribbon for every campaign fought in so you knew how old they were. and are soldiers even promoted anymore? maybe they are but it isn't even noticeable anymore. soldiers have no more identity yet despite that battles feel very small. that makes no sense. Close Combat 3 already perfected soldier history, so why are soldiers histories sabotaged in all the recent games? Is it so difficult to just keep the soldier stats for the whole game? that is one of the things that made the game cool! So why is that not there anymore!??! is the game better without it? no, it is WORSE!!!!
5)And here I will say it again: You may as well equip vehicle crews with WHITE FLAGS instead of guns because all they do, if they do anything other than run around like idiots, is SURRENDER. They NEVER use their guns so why do they even have them? I know some people don't like the idea of being able to command a vehicle crew, but if all they are going to do is run around like an idiot and into enemy fire and not even use freaking GUNS they have, then you may as well just make them panic a moment and then, after a few seconds, rally and go under command of the player. This is a SERIOUS problem with the game not to be overlooked  . there is NO reason to make vehicle crews as stupid as they are and if you can't get them to act realistic then just put them under the command of the player when their tank gets blown up. or just issue them with white flags and make them surrender right off the bat or just drop dead because it cheapens the game play to have them act the way they do.
6)And finally: the game is too easy. the enemy needs to be much more aggressive. I understand the enemy is being cautious but it is cautious to a fault. even if it is on the offensive it barely does anything and that is just not challenging. so it is better to make the enemy risk itself than to be too afraid to make a move.
hope i wasn't too much of a jerk!
thanks.
|
Printable Version
RE: wish list - 
There is so much good stuff mentioned here, that even if only a small fraction is included in the new engine, it will revitalize interest for so many veterans who have lost their way and bring in a boat load of new recruits. 
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