RE: Close Combat February Update

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: Close Combat February Update

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 >> RE: Close Combat February Update

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Close Combat February Update - 2/22/2018 8:03:49 AM

Destraex

Posts: 2102
Joined: 2/14/2001
From: Aust
Status: offline

I am just not a fan of games that skimp on terrain thinking that saving frames on terrain is an acceptable way to gain frames.

_____________________________

(in reply to Rosseau)

Post #: 31

RE: Close Combat February Update - 2/22/2018 8:04:19 AM

Nomada_Firefox

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Benedict151

Sorry Nomada
I don't quite understand the query (probably me, not you)

quote:

Sorry Nomada
I don't quite understand the query (probably me, not you)

Check this image.

(in reply to Benedict151)

Post #: 32

RE: Close Combat February Update - 2/22/2018 12:56:08 PM

Hexagon

Posts: 1133
Joined: 6/14/2009
Status: offline

In the video uploaded in facebook looks like terrain is not only decorative... maybe we can see the creation of attack routes using explosives over terrain???

https://www.facebook.com/499867453747548/videos/500277830373177/

Apart this soldiers move very close and try offer less target for enemy... good, but i ask if with that movement introduce bigger squads is possible... 7-9 is a more adecuate size for a pure infantry squad with no support weapons and leave that kind of squads smaller between 5-6.

More i see game more i like it but i want see it leaving the ton of diferent installations model from old CCs, i want see DLCs that add a new pair of formations to use in same campaign... for example you can add Fallschirmjager company+UK infantry company in a Montecassino campaign, or a USMC VS Japanese infantry units in Guadalcanal campaign.

(in reply to Nomada_Firefox)

Post #: 33

RE: Close Combat February Update - 2/22/2018 1:23:25 PM

Nomada_Firefox

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

quote:

More i see game more i like it but i want see it leaving the ton of diferent installations model from old CCs, i want see DLCs that add a new pair of formations to use in same campaign... for example you can add Fallschirmjager company+UK infantry company in a Montecassino campaign, or a USMC VS Japanese infantry units in Guadalcanal campaign.

All them look perfect for a mod.

(in reply to Hexagon)

Post #: 34

RE: Close Combat February Update - 2/22/2018 1:39:30 PM

mickxe5

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hexagon
... but i ask if with that movement introduce bigger squads is possible... 7-9 is a more adecuate size for a pure infantry squad with no support weapons and leave that kind of squads smaller between 5-6.

The CC infantry teams represent half squads. A standard US squad had 12 soldiers, a standard German squad had 10 (9 late in the war). The 7 teams that make a platoon or zug in PITF/GTC are 6 half squads (= 3 squads) + 1 command group.

In practice both sides very often fielded smaller squads due to attrition and replacement shortages.

(in reply to Hexagon)

Post #: 35

RE: Close Combat February Update - 2/22/2018 2:29:42 PM

Nomada_Firefox

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

Another question. Can be the black arrow showing the path from a team disabled? it does not look bad but some people will not like it.

(in reply to mickxe5)

Post #: 36

RE: Close Combat February Update - 2/22/2018 3:49:06 PM

Hexagon

Posts: 1133
Joined: 6/14/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: mickxe5

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hexagon
... but i ask if with that movement introduce bigger squads is possible... 7-9 is a more adecuate size for a pure infantry squad with no support weapons and leave that kind of squads smaller between 5-6.

The CC infantry teams represent half squads. A standard US squad had 12 soldiers, a standard German squad had 10 (9 late in the war). The 7 teams that make a platoon or zug in PITF/GTC are 6 half squads (= 3 squads) + 1 command group.

In practice both sides very often fielded smaller squads due to attrition and replacement shortages.

Yes but if we start with half squads if you in campaign lack reinforcements maybe is possible finish with infantry units of 3-4 guys... instead a reduced squad of 5-6 VS a full squad of 8-9

Apart introduce bigger squads could made more diferent then between diferent nations, even inside in same nations (you can have pure rifle units bigger than units based around a MG or bigger infantry units in infantry formations VS armored formations).

Half squads work IF infantry can survive fire duels, if not, if is to easy lose soldiers in the moment you score 2 or 3 hits unit is out while a bigger unit with 2-3 casualties enter in the half squad area.

Imagine with nations using bigger squads... japanse used 13 men squad if i dont remember bad... and well, in "Winter war" mod soviets with 10 soldier units offer a diferent aproximation VS play as Finland units.

In the momevement arrows... maybe use more visible colours... and use the old CC movement colour code to know what order are they using.

< Message edited by Hexagon -- 2/22/2018 3:50:00 PM >

(in reply to mickxe5)

Post #: 37

RE: Close Combat February Update - 2/22/2018 5:37:49 PM

mickxe5

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

The problem with increasing the size of teams so that 1 squad/gruppe = 1 team is that you lose the ability to use a squad realistically. If the entire squad is just one team then everybody shoots or everybody moves. IRL a squad/gruppe acted as two or even three teams - the BAR/MG team provided a base of fire and the rifle/schutze team acted as the manuever element. The third team function in a US squad were the scouts. Often it was more tactically sound to send 1-2 soldiers forward to reconnoiter rather than risk 5-6 soldiers to do the same. Unfortunately CC doesnt allow you to detach 1-2 soldiers from a team to scout ahead.

I'd like to see more emphasis on identifying and maintaining squad and platoon integrity. Platoon/Squad designations could be added to the team name. Instead of having multiple teams named BAR and Rifle you'd have BAR 1/1 or Rifle 3/2 for teams from 1st Plt/1st Sqd and 3rd Plt/2nd Sqd. PITF/GTC did so on the Battle Group screen (although it wasnt explicit that each squad was composed of two teams) but ff you didnt rename your teams then you just had an amorphous collection of seemingly unrelated teams in battle.

Attachment (1)

(in reply to Hexagon)

Post #: 38

RE: Close Combat February Update - 2/23/2018 11:17:39 AM

Hexagon

Posts: 1133
Joined: 6/14/2009
Status: offline

Well, in the moment they cant use full squads for me next option is play with weapons+number of soldiers.

A rifle based half-squad needs 2 soldiers more over a half squad based in a support weapon.

For example for USA we can have 8 soldiers in rifle units (sargent with SMG) and 6 soldiers in units with BAR (even is possible add a 2nd BAR in certain half squads to have a more static unit VS a more mobile 1 BAR unit).

For germans same, 7 soldiers armed with rifles (sargent with SMG) BUT the MG unit could be smaller... 3 soldiers to have a mobile MG team BUT not powerfull enough to enter in close combat and if you want a fast small support team is possible use a recon unit based in 4 soldiers (for me recon teams with 3 soldiers are excesive small and not very versatile because they need move more compared with a MG team).

In later war germans could receive the 6 men half squads BUT have 3-4 STGs with bolt rifles working in sniping role... here i am curious if tactical AI now can made soldiers use their weapons based in the effectivity range, i refer avoid squads with a a few medium-long range weapon use all weapons at this range instead base use in individual weapon distance... and in general how AI work with the use of weapons, the frustration to mantein a full control over your units to prevent run out of ammo because they waste ammo in bad shot situations, i think in SMGs and how run out of ammo fast in rifle units (USA units are other history with Garands... sometimes was more important control ammo use than move them).

Anyway the problem i see with small squads is based in how useless they are after suffer a pair of casualties because they are tiny and with moral in bad status, not same lose 2 in 8 than 2 in 6.

Other point is i want see certain nations-units based in bigger infantry component with more cannon fodder.

Lets see if we can see in game infantry dealing with fire and how well protected they are VS it... using terrain and the weapons lethality, maybe this help solve a part of the problem with small units and open room to introduce bigger infantry units... part of the problem with old CCs was how easy die the 2-3 guys over 7 men squads.

(in reply to mickxe5)

Post #: 39

RE: Close Combat February Update - 2/23/2018 4:05:29 PM

mickxe5

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

One problem with larger team sizes is that the tactical AI needs to be that much more robust. Recall the 10 man CC3 Russian LMG teams losing stragglers on the factory maps.

While I can appreciate the desire to get as command soldiers as possible I dont find small teams to be useless. Led well, this squad can hold its own in a battle against an opposing AI company(-).

Attachment (1)

(in reply to Hexagon)

Post #: 40

RE: Close Combat February Update - 2/23/2018 6:49:26 PM

nikdav

Posts: 895
Joined: 3/9/2008
From: Italy
Status: offline

The screenshots are impressive !
I like to see the new 3d engine and the old Close Combat feelings.
I just imagine a future "CC Stalingrad"

(in reply to Rosseau)

Post #: 41

RE: Close Combat February Update - 2/24/2018 11:06:12 AM

Specrecce

Posts: 12
Joined: 3/30/2014
Status: offline

Absolutely stoked! Seems ages ago I tested for CSO Simtek and Close Combat Modern Tactics! If there are testers needed, always glad to help out.

(in reply to nikdav)

Post #: 42

RE: Close Combat February Update - 2/25/2018 10:17:48 AM

Hexagon

Posts: 1133
Joined: 6/14/2009
Status: offline

For me the strongest part in CC was in the infantry combat... and the biggest problems to, part in the lack of use of true squads, part in the limitations from engine... that in the end set infantry units in 4-6 soldier even when with 7 in CC5 worked fine and in certain mods 10 soldiers squads adapt well to the nation... i think in Winter War soviet squads that offer a good aproximation to the big but not very usable.

Maybe modders could solve this but i am really curious how new engine deal with squads over 6 soldiers and test where is the "break point" to set the unit size... bigger is better??? not allways BUT if you can have bigger infantry units you have more room to play with the composition and diference them between nations if we can see more content for game after release.

Of course we are all thinking in move new CC to our favourite battles but i see critical not return to old CC mistake of have 1 title per battle because this made modding work disperse a lot... i prefer a single title and install over it DLCs where every DLC represent a battle-campaign... a battle-campaign you can play from both sides from start to end and that add the content to the battle creation... imagine have Bloody first + Stalingrad + Guadalcanal and you can create battles between soviets and japanese, germans and japanese or USA VS USA civil war

But the value is in mod all over a single title that made every new mod increase the base title value... the hard part is sell the base game when you do it and if game is really good and well done... sell DLCs is easy, a lot more if you have mods that help sell it.

Other point is if we can have in game a tool to install mods or return to vainilla status easy... maybe like in Campaign series and integrate JSMGE in game to work fine without need players fight with it... like with the old CC5 mod tool (maybe here add the option to have map files in diferent folders to delete them when you need easy not like CC5 that had all in a single folder).

< Message edited by Hexagon -- 2/25/2018 10:20:32 AM >

(in reply to Specrecce)

Post #: 43

RE: Close Combat February Update - 2/25/2018 5:19:13 PM

Tejszd

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

The previous Matrix titles, except COI, did handle mods well as each mod could be placed in its own sub directory and a short cut created to start the game using the mod files in that directory. No extra tool required!

The only problem was that they are all based on the CC5 battle campaign/structure so single maps could not be added easily like in COI. The feature was requested many times but no dev hours were every put into it.....

< Message edited by Tejszd -- 2/25/2018 5:20:56 PM >

(in reply to Hexagon)

Post #: 44

RE: Close Combat February Update - 2/26/2018 11:15:10 AM

Hexagon

Posts: 1133
Joined: 6/14/2009
Status: offline

Yes, you are right, i see it and since LSA you can install mods over base game without need touch base files, is like have 2 titles in same installation working like 2 diferent games... even i use it to install Tunisia mod for TLD

Well, in new title i think could be possible create a campaign map ala CC5 BUT without the problems from CC5 maps number, even in actual content could be possible have the 3 theaters showed over a single map a little like operations/actions in CC2 with the operation area divided in maps to move your unit or units and you need complete an operation to jump next one battle-campaign area... even is possible have operations individual, not linked... i think in a CC title based in airborne units with operations for german, USA, UK, soviet and japanese units with 5-6 maps per operation a little like that minimods for CC5 and more infantry combat orientated and searching maps with no multilevel buildings until they could be introduce (i dont see a Stalingrad title using only one floor buildings for example).

Apart the question about content and the cannon fodder point i am curious to know if with new engine, after see how infantry deal with obstacles finally we are going to have infantry using defensive works (individual soldier holes, trenches, weapon pits, bunkers...) correct and you can move them for a trench without see them leaving it to die... and if we can place that kind of defensive works in maps like you can do in other games.

Other important question is if vehicles are going to have the option to control what load in main gun AND decide if use it or not VS targets pre-selected, for example i want a tank load AP ammo and only use MGs VS infantry and main gun VS guns-vehicles adapting the shell to the type of target.

(in reply to Tejszd)

Post #: 45

RE: Close Combat February Update - 2/26/2018 2:49:25 PM

mickxe5

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

The /D switch makes the game mod-friendly. Moving the User-made Battles and Saved Games folders from the game directory to Documents doesnt. Inevitably, when mods are installed some of these aggregated Battles and Saves will be incompatible when used in either the stock game or a mod.

(in reply to Hexagon)

Post #: 46

RE: Close Combat February Update - 4/11/2018 1:24:49 PM

thekromewolf

Posts: 10
Joined: 4/8/2018
Status: offline

I dont have a question steve but just wanted to give you props for being so in touch with your community, ive played CC since i was a kid on the old pentium 4, big fan , thanks for a great game man!

(in reply to Rosseau)

Post #: 47

I want turn off edge scroll. - 8/15/2021 7:28:45 AM

TokyoDan

Posts: 87
Joined: 8/19/2003
Status: offline

Is there a way or a file I can edit to turn off edge scroll?

(in reply to Rosseau)

Post #: 48

RE: I want turn off edge scroll. - 8/16/2021 6:06:24 PM

SteveMcClaire

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

Hi TokyoDan -- there is not an option to disable scrolling when the mouse is right at the window edge. I'll note this as a possible feature to add in future updates, though.

(in reply to TokyoDan)

Post #: 49