GC & MP questions & suggestions

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

GC & MP questions & suggestions

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 >> GC & MP questions & suggestions

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

GC & MP questions & suggestions - 7/29/2017 11:32:19 AM

sinosoldat

Posts: 5
Joined: 9/28/2014
Status: offline

1. The Bloody First follows the Big Red One to different theatres: North Africa, Sicily & Normandy, so is the Grand Campaign of The Bloody First similar to the GCs of CC 4,5,2,6,7 (with a Huge Strategic Map), or similar to the GC of CC 3 (With Linear Maps of Operations)?

2.In the other thread, you mentioned that MP beyond 1 vs 1 is unlikely due to smaller player base. But why was Close Combat Modern Tactics (CCMT) designed to have a 5 vs 5 MP system? (The only CC have a MP beyond 1 vs 1). I have to say I really miss the experience of 10 guys playing CCMT in 5 vs. 5 MP at the same time back in 2007!

3.Have you CC developers ever consider to turn the CC franchise into a MMO or something? I mean, in this MMO, you can have 5v5, 10 v 10 or even 100 vs. 100 Rooms, hosting Operations, Campaigns or Grand Campaigns, with each player commands a battle group(company, battalion or regiment) to fight the other side to win the operation or campaign. You guys can sell premium units and supports, like extra tigers & panthers platoons, or artillery & air supports as revenue. I know this whole idea maybe sounds immature or even crazy, but I think with proper marketing efforts, this MMO could be a success.

< Message edited by sinosoldat -- 7/29/2017 12:06:55 PM >

Post #: 1

RE: GC & MP questions & suggestions - 8/1/2017 7:35:04 PM

SteveMcClaire

Posts: 4472
Joined: 11/19/2007
Status: offline

The campaign and operation game play in TBF will be closer to CC3. There is no 'strategic map' level game in TBF.

More than 1 v 1 multi-player isn't going to happen the first release. It is something we discuss from time to time, but CCMT is a different sort of game from all the other CCs -- there's no campaign system or overall 'story' to it. There are a lot less complications supporting 5v5 in CCMT versus one with a campaign game.

A live 'mega game' of Close Combat has been discussed from time to time, but again, that's a very different beast than the current game. I don't foresee that happening anytime soon.

Steve

(in reply to sinosoldat)

Post #: 2

RE: GC & MP questions & suggestions - 8/5/2017 1:17:16 AM

Tejszd

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

The campaign game does not need to support 5 vs 5 as that could be reserved for single map battles.

(in reply to SteveMcClaire)

Post #: 3

RE: GC & MP questions & suggestions - 11/20/2017 8:30:12 PM

mickxe5

Posts: 458
Joined: 4/9/2016
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: sinosoldat
...why was Close Combat Modern Tactics (CCMT) designed to have a 5 vs 5 MP system?

CCMT leveraged the MP capabilities of CCM AT/JTAC which also supported 10 players but in a 9v1 configuration as the USMC needed a platoon level training sim. 9 on the blue side allowed an actual USMC squad to train 'up' by assigning fireteam members as fireteam leaders, each controlling 4 individual Marine sprites. The 3 fireteam leaders acted as non-playing squad leaders, while the squad leader took the role of non-playing plt ldr/gunnery sgt. Non-player leaders viewed static game maps, joined in the comm net and issued orders 'blind'.

(in reply to sinosoldat)

Post #: 4

RE: GC & MP questions & suggestions - 11/21/2017 2:12:45 PM

SchnelleMeyer

Posts: 221
Joined: 3/26/2014
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: mickxe5

quote:

CCMT leveraged the MP capabilities of CCM AT/JTAC which also supported 10 players but in a 9v1 configuration as the USMC needed a platoon level training sim. 9 on the blue side allowed an actual USMC squad to train 'up' by assigning fireteam members as fireteam leaders, each controlling 4 individual Marine sprites. The 3 fireteam leaders acted as non-playing squad leaders, while the squad leader took the role of non-playing plt ldr/gunnery sgt. Non-player leaders viewed static game maps, joined in the comm net and issued orders 'blind'.

Interesting insight into MC usage of the sim on the lower command levels. Would platoon leaders train the same way with squad leaders as "controllers" and Pltldr leading based on map and reporting from sqdldrs on coms?

Did they ever stop using CCMAT for teaching small unit tactics?

(in reply to mickxe5)

Post #: 5

RE: GC & MP questions & suggestions - 11/21/2017 8:08:21 PM

mickxe5

Posts: 458
Joined: 4/9/2016
Status: offline

There were scenarios designed to have the 9 fireteam leaders in a platoon act as sqd ldrs, each controlling 3 fireteams. The platoon's sqd ldrs had roles as non-playing plt sgts with the plt sgt acting as company cmdr. In practice however, much more difficult to round up the non-coms from an entire platoon to 'play games' while also leaving the lower ranks unsupervised. Tough enough to muster full sqds for plt level training.

CC was not the preferred training sim in the DVTE suite of a decade ago. Marines were more familiar with, and eager to use an FPS like Virtual Battle Space (ARMA), which integrated with the Combined Arms Network, a Lockheed Martin sim. It was noteworthy that the imposition of realistic C4 practices when training with CCM AT dramatically slowed the pace of battle, highlighting just how time-compressed typical CC gameplay is.

(in reply to SchnelleMeyer)

Post #: 6

RE: GC & MP questions & suggestions - 11/21/2017 8:44:59 PM

SchnelleMeyer

Posts: 221
Joined: 3/26/2014
Status: offline

Sorry, seems I have drifted off topic here, but thanks for sharing your insight into this Mickxe5. I sent you a PM.

(in reply to mickxe5)

Post #: 7