Story in the History of CC & Atomic Games

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Story in the History of CC & Atomic Games

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 >> Story in the History of CC & Atomic Games

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Story in the History of CC & Atomic Games - 9/28/2017 9:43:11 AM

Saxxon

Posts: 5
Joined: 9/7/2011
Status: offline

Way back when after CC3 around the time of CC4 release, I had opportunity to meet some of the Atomic Games development crew including Keith Zabalouie.

They were making a change which is familiar in the subsequent releases, but it is my opinion at least, led to the downfall of Atomic/Microsoft collaboration to that point, and hurt the games overall flexible replay ability. That flaw was the removal of the by-unit Requisition Screen, replacing it with a forced compliance of unit battle order based on "historical accuracy" at a company level. This decision stemmed from an article critiquing the game by some rube at a gaming magazine (rag) who called the Requisition Screen "the single most confusing screen in gaming history". If they found that confusing, I'd suggest they never try driving a car, shopping online or looking thru large forums like this as their head might explode, that moron writer had an enormous and adverse impact on this game series.

Thing is, I know myself and others I knew that played, liked to create scenarios that weren't necessarily historically accurate, but in the realm of what if and see how things unfolded. The original CC2 & CC3 allowed that, afterward it didn't, and by CC5 Atomic folded the flag and left the field.

I think having the strategic game, and the availability of historically accurate order of battle is great - but the game value increases several fold by retaining flexibility to create widely varied scenarios.

What happens when a single 88m & a machine gun crew face the Red Tide? Can't do it with the latter versions, and that was a mistake.

Post #: 1

RE: Story in the History of CC & Atomic Games - 9/28/2017 6:23:56 PM

SchnelleMeyer

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

Couldn't agree more with your post Saxxon. - This flexibility of selecting each sub-unit and a scenario editor that allows for user defined deployment zones freely, all across the map is among the things that makes CCMT shine and degrades PIFT and GtC in my opinion. - Unfortunately linking scenarios into OPS and Campaigns are impossible in CCMT.

(in reply to Saxxon)

Post #: 2

RE: Story in the History of CC & Atomic Games - 9/28/2017 11:30:49 PM

Kanov

Posts: 312
Joined: 5/21/2012
From: México
Status: offline

True that.

About CCMT, I think its downside is not so much the lack of linked scenarios, but that the points system is not enforced by the game, the points are just...there. CCMT is basically the wet dream of the now defunct CC2 multiplayer crowd... if it had a working point system and came like 10 years before it was released.

what is the excuse of not having the two systems in one game by the way?: linked scenarios-campaigns with battlegroups and multiplayer single map battle point system multiplayer (is 1v1 still called multi-player nowadays?) where you choose whatever unit you want.

_____________________________

Hard-core Spectre

(in reply to SchnelleMeyer)

Post #: 3

RE: Story in the History of CC & Atomic Games - 9/29/2017 12:13:09 PM

Nomada_Firefox

Posts: 1327
Joined: 11/12/2001
From: Spain
Status: offline