Okay... a few questions. (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Close Combat Series >> Close Combat - Cross of Iron



Message

warishere -> Okay... a few questions. (2/18/2007 2:59:45 AM)

1. Is CoI a stand-alone game or do I need to CC3 to play this?

2. After looking at a few screenshots, I don`t see an option to call in for an air-stike or artillery strike like in CC 4 and 5. Does this game have air-strikes and arty strikes?

3. I haven`t seen a turn-based layer either like in CC 4 and CC5. Does this game have a turnbased strategic layer or what? I guess the multiplayer game has a TB layer but what about the single player game?



e_barkmann -> RE: Okay... a few questions. (2/18/2007 3:05:16 AM)


1. No previous purchase required, it's a standalone game - but you have access to COI mods so it's quite expandable.

2. No. These features were introduced after CC3.

3. Single player strategic layer is also available via MMCC3 interface, included in the game.

cheers



warishere -> RE: Okay... a few questions. (2/18/2007 3:58:21 AM)

Thanks for the quick answer.

So the strategic game is similar to CC 4 and 5 or is it identical?

And why no inclusion of air and arty strikes? I really liked this feature in CC 4 and 5!



Hertston -> RE: Okay... a few questions. (2/18/2007 4:08:33 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: warishere

So the strategic game is similar to CC 4 and 5 or is it identical?


Neither. There isn't a 'strategic game' as such, just multi-map scenarios with a carry-forward of assets across operations ,and operations joined into larger campaigns. That said, IMHO, what there was in CC and CC5 was hardly a 'strategic game', either, just a way of linking scenarios. Only CC2 even approached a real strategic layer .. but it was never the point of series, anyway. MMCC3 is essentially a 'persistent world' multiplayer mod. There's a single-player version of it, but I'd hardly count that as real strategic game either. The nature of CC3/CoI really doesn't allow it, combining a tactical game with the whole war on the Eastern Front.

quote:

And why no inclusion of air and arty strikes? I really liked this feature in CC 4 and 5!


For the reason stated earlier. No doubt if/when they get around to CC4 and CC5 re-releases, or even CC6 you will have them. You won't miss them, or at least I don't.



warishere -> RE: Okay... a few questions. (2/18/2007 4:50:42 AM)

quote:

but it was never the point of series, anyway


Yeah, I understand but it would be nice to see a grand strategic /campaign game (similar to the Totalwar series) with the tactical battles found in the CC series. I don`t think its ever been done with WWII as the theme, unless you consider Axis And Allies (made by Timegate) as a successful attempt at this.

quote:

MMCC3 is essentially a 'persistent world' multiplayer mod.


Sounds good. But i`m a little surprised they`re releasing an old game with the same price tag as the newer games when it doesn`t have some of the features found in previous CC games. And with no graphics overhaul, how do they expect to sell this game? The multiplayer will have to be REALLY REALLY good for this game to sell.

Have you been playing the MP game?



Kameleonic -> RE: Okay... a few questions. (2/18/2007 5:32:14 AM)

Play CC3, then 4 then 5 if you already have them. Spending $40 on the same game as CC3 is a waste, d/l a free mod instead.



LitFuel -> RE: Okay... a few questions. (2/18/2007 6:45:09 PM)

Not a waste really, not if your new to it, no longer have CC3 or a just fan of the series and want it to continue...it's all how you look at it. You can take Company of Heroes ,War Front etc..and any other game you want but this series still rocks and I'll support it forever, haven't found a better one yet. I bet you CC will still be here long after these new 3D titles are gone and forgotten.



Hertston -> RE: Okay... a few questions. (2/18/2007 8:02:51 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: warishere

Yeah, I understand but it would be nice to see a grand strategic /campaign game (similar to the Totalwar series) with the tactical battles found in the CC series.


Why bolt a layer like that on? The tactical game more than stands by itself, and realism-wise a TW style abstract strategic element would be be totally out of place. Possibly you could include an operational level strategic layer, which CC2 came closest to (and which Battlefront are trying to do with Combat Mission Campaigns), but Market Garden is very different from the whole of the Eastern Front over four years in that respect. CMC is a good example, perhaps, that a strategic layer actually worth doing would represent the same sort of effort as developing a new operational/strategic level game; just not viable in this instance in view of likely sales and profits.


quote:



Sounds good. But i`m a little surprised they`re releasing an old game with the same price tag as the newer games when it doesn`t have some of the features found in previous CC games. And with no graphics overhaul, how do they expect to sell this game? The multiplayer will have to be REALLY REALLY good for this game to sell.

Have you been playing the MP game?


What features? Air and artillery strikes are pretty much trivia in my view. The CC4 and CC5 campaigns amounted to no more than scenario selection. Yeah, maybe a few Stukas and Sturmoviks would have been nice, but would they really justify the work needed to include them? I doubt it. As to graphics, I don't think 98% of the potential market cares. Although CC5 in particular was prettier, CC3 stands up pretty well IMHO (CC2 would have needed an overhaul, I agree). But there's a limit as to how far you can go with the 2D overhead approach.

As to MP, no, not yet. I'll play through the campaigns first. Again, though, although the 'persistent world' might add something, the core of the game, the tactical battles remain the same. That is "REALLY REALLY good", because it always has been. CC is, quite simply, a kick-ass multiplayer game. How many other games are regularly played online in the way CCs 2-5 are so long after release?




Erik Rutins -> RE: Okay... a few questions. (2/18/2007 9:07:50 PM)

warishere,

Please feel free to read through the developer's notes here to find out what's been changed since CC3:

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=1321439

Regards,

- Erik



warishere -> RE: Okay... a few questions. (2/19/2007 7:57:28 AM)

quote:

You can take Company of Heroes ,War Front etc..


I think the gameplay in CoH is rather pathetic compared to CC. The graphics are nice but if only CoH played like CC it would be perfect. War Front has a futuristic setting with a WWII theme. You`ve got to be kidding me.... haha!

quote:

I bet you CC will still be here long after these new 3D titles are gone and forgotten.


This is probably true but it would be nice to see slighty better graphics and perhaps a different camera angle in this game would be nice. I mean, why not build on the great things this game already does?

quote:

TW style abstract strategic element would be be totally out of place.


I guess I just have to disagree. Maybe TW is the wrong idea, how about something similar to Gary Grigsby`s WaW with real-time tactical battles. I think it would be amazing to see!

quote:

, but would they really justify the work needed to include them?


What work are we talking about? The game already has the features I mentioned. All the devz would`ve had to do is include this and call it HoI. Why even tell people this is CC3, you know, the game we played 8 years ago?

quote:

I don't think 98% of the potential market cares



True... wargamers are the market for this one but why limit yourself?

quote:

Again, though, although the 'persistent world' might add something, the core of the game, the tactical battles remain the same.


Exactly... its the same... is this enough to justify a purchase?

quote:

How many other games are regularly played online in the way CCs 2-5 are so long after release?


I could name a few but not very many. CC is a legendary game, i`m not denying tbis but I just feel like its the SAME game. Why not change it up a little, lower the price and maybe grab a bigger market share along the way? I don`t think this is a bad idea.



Andrew Williams -> RE: Okay... a few questions. (2/19/2007 8:18:05 AM)

"Change it up a little, lower the price"

Mutually exclusive statement me thinks......$$$$$$$$$$$$$$



warishere -> RE: Okay... a few questions. (2/19/2007 8:34:55 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: schrecken

Mutually exclusive statement me thinks......$$$$$$$$$$$$$$



Perhaps it is but i`m not saying the game needs to be totally different. I just said change it up a LITTLE not a lot.



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.65625