CC6 wish list thread (Full Version)

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



Message

Pford -> CC6 wish list thread (3/1/2007 9:28:45 PM)

A near identical thread may already exist somewhere, but - I'm new to the debate. The designers have already dropped hints about the next version; bigger maps, more unit slots, pre-plotted barrages, etc. One assumes they're addressing the bugs (for some) in the mp configuration. Here are some elements it would cool to add, imo:

*Ability for units to prioritize targets, iow, some variation on the cover arcs found in later editions of CM. Now, when an inf team pops up on the flank tanks will rotate their turrets in their direction ignoring enemy armor- and kaboom! There must be a rough and ready way to enforce facings and soft or hard target preferences. As it stands now now, I see gamey abuse potential esp in H2H play.

*A move command that enables tanks and grunts to walk at the same pace. Had assumed this would be the 'sneak' command for vehicles, but apparently not.

*Forward observers with the appropriate ordnance- esp important on larger maps. Also, variable delays based on national profiles. Russian mortars are a bit too responsive in COI, imo.

Any others?



Beeblebrox -> RE: CC6 wish list thread (3/1/2007 9:40:00 PM)

quote:

A near identical thread may already exist somewhere
Oh boy, are you ever right! [:)]  This should keep you absorbed for a while:

http://www.closecombat.org/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=90

Over 1800 posts there already.



Pford -> RE: CC6 wish list thread (3/2/2007 12:06:26 AM)

Hehe, I perused that lengthy thread. Medics? Bah.



Beeblebrox -> RE: CC6 wish list thread (3/2/2007 1:20:45 AM)

Surprising how often that one comes up, and no more thought through than before.  To me Medics in a CC battle would be no more than extra cannon fodder, and have no real value to the action (and many possible distractions).   I don't think it is intrinsically wrong, but I don't see it adding value to the tactical game of this type.  But like I say, the suggestion comes up surprisingly often.  In a Strategic perspective maybe some useful function, but any introduction would need very careful handling otherwise it certainly could compromise the qualities that CC has established, and which make it still quite unique imo.






Pford -> RE: CC6 wish list thread (3/2/2007 2:08:42 AM)

That's why you're a designer, Beeblebrox, and the the 'medics' supporters are fans. A successful game consists of judicious pruning of the extraneous. Like gardening.
However, I didn't see the issues I addressed above mentioned in the mega-thread.



Randall Grubb -> RE: CC6 wish list thread (3/2/2007 8:56:18 AM)

Pford, your first suggestion is a part of other suggestions and one that is being evaluated/worked on. The AI control tries to face the threat that has the potential for the greatest immediate threat. It doesn't actually know which threat is greater. In the case of an infantry squad at 30 meters a tank at 300 meters, it really doesn't know if the squad has anti tank weapons or if the enemy tank has a first round kill capability. The AI code is being looked at to produce a wiser without cheating decision making process.

Your suggestion #2 is related to the map Elements file and the movement rates through each type of terrain. In post CC5 elements files, the rate of movement for soldiers and tanks are more well matched. A tank on "Sneak" and an infantry squad on "Move" do keep pace in most cases. Wait until you play with my "No Walks Through Walls" elements files, which has been pooh-poohed as being too hard. It is a grog level file that is very realistic, especially in urban maps.

The third suggestion is actually two: The use of forward observers and the rate of response and fires for mortar teams.

The first part, forward observers will only be teams that can enhance and increase the use of CAS and fire missions allocated to that battle. They will not be a 155mm gun or an aircraft disguised to look like a team. That will be disallowed in code. You get what you have in the battle and that is all, which can be quite plentiful or quite sparce. See my other post for the explaination of the multiple types of missions that will can be available.

The second part, mortar response times and accuracy is data controlled. There is a complex interaction between the data files. A data set can be made for a wide variety of weapon, weapon and soldiers and teams. One could have four different mortar teams, one that is elite and usually very quick and accurate, one that is moderately so, one that is ethusiastic, but not all that accurate and one that is just plain lousy in most respects. It can get even more complex by making a lousy mortar team that sometimes gets it together or gets lucky. There will be limits to the types of teams, weapons and soldiers teams and weapons capabilities and attributes that one can have in the files, simply because it gets really difficult to find that "just right" team in a list of hundreds to create a battle, or to select the best one for your battle group as you play a game out of the hundreds of possible attributes they could have. Just to avoid information overload there has to be some generalizations, or else one would have to take a very long time in the pre-battle screens trying to find that one team he really wants. The limits will be greater that you see in CoI or in CC5, but there are going to be a practical limit. The point is to play the game, not to micro manage the capabilities of teams before you even start to play, although there will be some of that.






Beeblebrox -> RE: CC6 wish list thread (3/2/2007 1:57:41 PM)

quote:

However, I didn't see the issues I addressed above mentioned in the mega-thread.
Thanks for mentioning them.



Pford -> RE: CC6 wish list thread (3/11/2007 12:39:04 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Senior Drill

Pford, your first suggestion is a part of other suggestions and one that is being evaluated/worked on. The AI control tries to face the threat that has the potential for the greatest immediate threat. It doesn't actually know which threat is greater. In the case of an infantry squad at 30 meters a tank at 300 meters, it really doesn't know if the squad has anti tank weapons or if the enemy tank has a first round kill capability. The AI code is being looked at to produce a wiser without cheating decision making process.


It's reassuring that this is being addressed. The ideal is some simple orders routine available to the player that constrains/modifies targeting. I gather you're thinking of simply fine-tuning the TacAI. OTOH, one assume actual arcs, a la CM, would entail an engine re-write.



old man of the sea -> RE: CC6 wish list thread (3/11/2007 6:08:05 AM)

mine dogs damn it, we want mine dogs!

E



Yellonet -> RE: CC6 wish list thread (3/19/2007 9:17:41 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Beeblebrox

Surprising how often that one comes up, and no more thought through than before.  To me Medics in a CC battle would be no more than extra cannon fodder, and have no real value to the action (and many possible distractions).   I don't think it is intrinsically wrong, but I don't see it adding value to the tactical game of this type.  But like I say, the suggestion comes up surprisingly often.  In a Strategic perspective maybe some useful function, but any introduction would need very careful handling otherwise it certainly could compromise the qualities that CC has established, and which make it still quite unique imo.

I really think that the inclusion of a medic soldier/group in CC could be made without sacrficing what CC is.
It could possibly work something like this:

Medic would be a regular infantry (single or group) or vehicle (Car/APC) team, lightly armed but not probably not intended for a fighting role. They would be used to take care of wounded soldiers (duh) (special command?). Obviously they should not be able to revive soldiers or instantly make wounds disappear, but would be used to save (a certain chance depending on wound and experience of medic) incapacitated soldiers from death.
Between battles any saved(incapacitated) soldier would have a certain chance of becoming a wounded (yellow) soldier who could be put back in action, and any wounded (yellow) soldier would have a chance of becoming a healthy individual ready to kill and get killed again :D

To me this system would make sense and would not take away from the CC feel but rather add new elements to it.
As you've advanced your fighting front you could send forth the medics and take care of your casualties, or if in a hot zone you could send out a medical APC with an MG and pick up the incapacitated soldiers.



vonB -> RE: CC6 wish list thread (3/20/2007 2:48:37 AM)

I have really thought this through.  As a fan of CC, I have an inclination to have all realistic components included, and medics were a component.

The difficulty is seeing how it can contribute to the game (or Sim) in the context of a 20 minute battle.  All a medic could do would be to stabilise the wounded who can be stabilised, leave the dead, and get shot or wounded himself.  A severe wound could keep the medic busy for 5, 10, or more minutes.

I have never been in battle myself, so can only postulate what the experience is like, but I would use something like Band of Brothers to try and help me appreciate what is going on, for example then the 101st were holding the line in front of bastogne getting shelled by the Germans.  The medic pounds around going from casualty to casualty stabilising or confirming dead.  Take the Carentan action, where wounded are getting picked up and heaved to some shelter, to remain wounded and out of action while the Medic goes off to find other casualties.

I try and visaulise this on the CC battlefield, and I just can't see it giving me any added value, and possibly distractions that may detract from the experience.

Now, having said that, if we were to zoom further in to the CC model, perhaps we can see some prospect of Medics, which by the way I believe are totally feasible at the strategic level.  But back to the tactical.

For example, a Team which has wounded in could have an extra item in the command menu of Medic.  When selected, a call will be made for a medic, and if there is one in earshot and not otherwise engaged, he may be able to manouvre to the wouonded and give treatment.  Whether the player can have independant control over a Medic would be another issue to deal with.

We appreciate that 9 times out of 10, the Medic is not going to put a wounded soldier back into action.  If the wound is light enough, then the soldier (or one of his team) will be quite capable of dressing or treating on the spot, so a Medic would not be needed to put him back into action.  However, if a wound is serious enough that self help (or a team mate) is not enough, then I doubt a Medic would be able to put that soldier back into action in that battle.

However, there could be some perfectly valid consequnces of medical interaction on the result of the battle.  For example, if a soldier does not die of his wounds due to the intervention of a medic, then that is one more man back for the next battle.  The total number of combatants on the CC battlefield make this possibly useful?  To have 2 more soldiers survive a battle would be important to me...

Unfortunately, for such a relatively small feature, there would be quite a lot of work on the code needed, so if Medics do appear on the battlefield, they are probably not going to happen until some major work is done on the CC model.

Maybe it can be made to work, and complement the CC experience, but I still need quite a bit of persuading...




Randall Grubb -> RE: CC6 wish list thread (3/20/2007 7:36:36 AM)

Of the six "health" states that show in the Unit Status bar for a team, the only three that do not change in a battle are Orange for seriously wounded, White for surrendered and Red for dead. Green for healthy is the top state and can only go down. Both Yellow for lightly injured and Black for panicked can change back to green, given time.

It is the "Incapacitated", or seriously wounded soldier that is in contention on the issue of medics. The crux of the biscut is just the degree of seriousness that any given wound is. A bullet hole in a leg is one thing, but missing the entire leg is another. The bullet hole in the leg soldier may, just may, recover and be declared fit for duty. The one without a leg would not. And yes, there were exceptions, but those exceptions were very, very far and few between.

Just because a soldier can heal and recover after weeks or months of hospital care and rehabilitation does not mean that he will rejoin his former unit. The vast majority of woundeds from all sides in WWII were reassigned to other units, the few exceptions being due to a critical specialty that soldier had earned prior to being wounded.

Medics have no place on a 20 or 30 minute battle field in CC and even if there, would have little to no utility, let alone function, in battles that are only 4 to 24 hours apart. Medics in CC is a no and a dead horse subject.



webprofessor -> RE: CC6 wish list thread (3/20/2007 11:09:19 PM)

The game is great as is from a mechanics point of view. The AI is horrendous though and is my #1 improvement request. 



7A_CavScout -> RE: CC6 wish list thread (3/21/2007 2:44:42 AM)

How about a Field Chaplain? If we can't save the dying and wounded, then at least we can send them in piece. [&o]



vonB -> RE: CC6 wish list thread (3/21/2007 3:54:55 AM)

quote:

How about a Field Chaplain? If we can't save the dying and wounded, then at least we can send them in piece. [&o]
He he... now you are just taking the 'piece'! [:D]



Prince of Eckmühl -> RE: CC6 wish list thread (3/21/2007 4:03:32 AM)

I believe some attention should be given to the notion of a CC2 style campaign based on a battle like Monte Casino. Between the mountains and the mud, that's prime real estate for a game which has infantry play as its strong suit.

PoE (aka ivanmoe)



m_i -> RE: CC6 wish list thread (3/23/2007 2:39:16 AM)

Hello to all

My number one wish is better AI, this is is a must in my opinion, I know that single player won't ever be as good as a h2h battle but there are times that you don't have internet/any avilable opponents and you stil want to play CC.

Ideas like medics are pure nonsense for me, I am also a bit worried about different victory conditions. I cant see how this could be done in a Game like CC, and still make any sense... After all war is about taking and holding ground isnt it?? I wouldnt like CC to become some kind of 'special forces' game.

I've read somewhere about maps being 4 times bigger than now - i'd say its bad idea, I guess 4 times bigger maps would mean four times more troops - wich would be too many to control for me.

If not - it means more running, less shooting, and CC is not Decathlon is it?? The maps in CCV are quite big, bif enough for sure (like ranville in GJS - its huge) One more thing would be no FO's, I hate these units, mortars,artillery/airsupport CC5 style is enough

@Prince of Eckhmul - I allso very much like the cc2 campaign style, its almost perfect. About Monte Cassino, there is a Mod for CCIV in progress for quite a long time about this battle (it's perfect for a game like CC IMO)



Muzrub -> RE: CC6 wish list thread (3/23/2007 4:25:18 AM)

I'm over there being way to many tanks.
So I believe the Pacific would be a good challenge- but I do have another question.

When CC is totally revamped and let loose on the world will there be new version of the Russian front? I hope so.



wodin -> RE: CC6 wish list thread (3/25/2007 6:35:37 PM)

I'd like to see more infantry animations. If say I attack with crack German troops I want to see my squad advance and see the troops take cover and give covering fire as they advance on the specific objective. Where as say Russian first line cannon fodder would just charge forward. This would for one enhance the visual side of things aswell as the tactical. No game has done this so far. I wait in hope.

Also just like CC2 restrict the support units.



vonB -> RE: CC6 wish list thread (3/25/2007 9:02:47 PM)

quote:

My number one wish is better AI
For myself, my top 3 wishes are:

1.  Better AI
2.  Better AI
3.  Better AI

Couldn't care a less really about any graphics upgrades.  It works beautifully as it is, and graphics never gave me a good game if the AI was crap.  The AI IS the game... though bad graphics (which CC is not) does make it more difficult to relate closely to the game.  For example CC1.  This does have superb game play no question, but the graphics are just a bit too crude, and so the experience is not totally satisfying for me.  My limitation I accept.

On the other hand games which have arguably much 'better' graphics (and some of them do have very nice graphics), get no where near the level of play that CC delivers.



KG Erwin -> RE: CC6 wish list thread (3/26/2007 12:36:44 AM)

OK, I'm gonna echo Muzrub's suggestion for the PTO. Specifically, a US Marine campaign, taking you from the steaming jungles of Guadalcanal and New Britain through the coral reefs of Betio, the mixed terrain of Saipan and Guam, the nightmarish gullies and peaks of Peleliu, the black sand of Iwo Jima (with the capture of Suribachi!) and finally fighting around the ancient castle ruins of Shuri and the tombs at Okinawa. This is my dream for CC. There WOULD be a few AFVs, yes, but it's primarily an infantry fight. Also, the challenge of conducting an amphibious landing against a defended beachhead. Now THAT would be a departure from the norm.

There's more -- the upgrade path for the USMC is a good one, with a successive uparming of the Marines from the old Springfield rifles to the M1 Garands, the Reising SMGs to Thompson SMGs and M1 Carbines, and the introduction of flamethrowers, satchel charges and bazookas.

I have said this before, but the transformation of the 9-man rifle squads of 1942 to the 13-man "wrecking crews" of 1944, based around the fire-team concept, is fascinating to see.

In the armor category, the Marines take a quantum leap from the M2 and M3 light tanks to the M4 Shermans.

That's what I want and wish for.



Pford -> RE: CC6 wish list thread (3/26/2007 1:48:28 AM)

There are, no doubt, some compelling, CC-friendly encounters that can be culled from the Pacific. But there were also a lot operations against entrenched forces (like Iwo Jima?) that more ressemble rodent extermination than the battles of maneuver that most gamers presumably favor.



KG Erwin -> RE: CC6 wish list thread (3/26/2007 3:15:16 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pford

There are, no doubt, some compelling, CC-friendly encounters that can be culled from the Pacific. But there were also a lot operations against entrenched forces (like Iwo Jima?) that more ressemble rodent extermination than the battles of maneuver that most gamers presumably favor.


How many rodents do you know of that possess rifles, machine guns, mortars, hand grenades and anti-tank guns? Your post was as racist as anything I've ever read on this forum. [8|]



Pford -> RE: CC6 wish list thread (3/26/2007 1:18:41 PM)

Lol, no racial insinuation intended, mate. The point being that, especially in the latter part of the war, many of the marquee engagements in the Pacific theater were characterized by one side on the defensive in a static and often invisible posture.



Muzrub -> RE: CC6 wish list thread (3/26/2007 3:00:36 PM)

Indeed- it was defensive in nature for the Japanese at the end- but this is a small scale game based on large operations, so its viable to have aggressive Japanese.

But apart from that.


I would like to see troops dig their own trench for cover and day + night combat.

Also tracks from vehicles would be pretty cool.

And please if we do have tanks let them be able to knock down a simple fence.

Oh and one more thing- could we keep the CC3 battle group setup? I like to have my boys stay with for as long as possible- I found found the later CC's a little lacking because of the loss of the battle group format.


cheers



dutch08 -> RE: CC6 wish list thread (3/28/2007 11:20:45 PM)

I want a large strategic battlefield where we can position our forces to attack and defend as we wish. I'd love to have the element of sending a small recon element into an unknown map to "find" the enemy. Then retreat them off the map, or pull them back away from the enemy at least. They could have the ability to retreat off the map or "call up" reinforcements from nearby supplied sectors that could show up in the rear a few minutes into the battle. Or a recon in force against a map where you only left a few machine gun squads behind to delay.

But I stress "large" map. The problem with this is handpainting every single map. So perhaps this could only be truly feasible if the maps were more generic.

Maybe not the best idea to hit the world of CC, but I'm just wondering of ways to strengthen the immersion of the game and the campaigns we find ourselves involved in.



Ima Pseudonym -> RE: CC6 wish list thread (3/29/2007 6:15:12 AM)

OMG, almost forgot about Mine Dogs!  A must for the series.

Small thought:  Tanks are sometimes "buttoned uip" and sometimes not.  This affects their ability to spot enemy troops and generally be more effective.  How about some change to the animation on the tank for two views, one open and one buttoned up?  Well, as long as that really does make a difference in the simulation.  If this is not taken into consideration, no worries, no problem, no need.

On the Pacific.  Sure it could be done.  I played the Pacific mod for a while.  But the Japanese land forces arms and armor were no match for Allied arms and armor.  I don't see that one if you are going for historic accuracy.




old man of the sea -> RE: CC6 wish list thread (3/29/2007 5:41:37 PM)

yes, mine dogs, I'm sure IGotMilk would buy it if it had mine dogs.

E



Muzrub -> RE: CC6 wish list thread (3/30/2007 3:17:23 PM)

Igotmilk- man aint he dead yet?



Dreaded88 -> RE: CC6 wish list thread (4/16/2007 5:35:26 PM)

I'd like to see some of the features of CC2 brought back, such as the historically-enforced stratmap, ability to blow bridges, and having one BG reinforce another.

Regarding map size, if scale is brought up to match soldier sprites and very large map may actually be the equivalent of an old CC2 map. I am all for this, as it would allow clearer vehicle graphics (and perhaps even some animations), room-to-room combat, etc.

I agree something needs to be done about mortars but this should be an easy change. While they are very effective weapons, having them dominate every battle gets tiresome, especially since the AI has such a preference for them.



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1