Wargamer REVIEW

Wargamer REVIEW (Full Version)

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

Message

CaptRio -> Wargamer REVIEW (3/30/2007 3:05:38 AM)
Are you guys sleeping or what???!!!!! [X(][X(][X(] http://www.wargamer.com/reviews/crossofiron/ Best REVIEW I've ever seen!!!! [&o][&o][&o]

Prince of Eckmühl -> RE: Wargamer REVIEW (3/30/2007 7:09:37 AM)
I rarely visit that site. I consider its pages to be a virtual compendium of truisms about corrupt relationships between gaming advertisers and the gaming media. Because of this, I had deleted it from my favorites. Still, though, Trotter is marvelous, and I think that he went straight to the heart of why CCx still towers above other titles in terms of its strengths as both a game and a simulator of small-unit, company-sized combat. It's a great read and I genuinely believe that his article buttresses the desireability of the continued development of Close Combat. Hats off to Trotter for honesty and insights, PoE

Hertston -> RE: Wargamer REVIEW (3/30/2007 9:28:02 AM)
A terrible review! Not only has Mr Trotter failed to give the game a score at all, in order that he can immediately knock off 30% because CoI is a re-release, but he has completely failed to comment on the ludicrous over-pricing because the original game is 8 years old and Theatre of War costs $45! It defies all logic! quote: If you’re already a fan, you’ll find full value in this welcomed new edition. If you have yet to savor the addictive intensity of this game, I urge you to deprive yourself no longer. Outrageous!! [;)]

Randall Grubb -> RE: Wargamer REVIEW (3/30/2007 11:30:36 AM)
On my second attempt to read though every word in Bill Trotter's review, I did manage it without nodding off. Some people accuse me of being overly verbose in my posts, but boy, can that guy write. And write and write and write! All in all, I enjoyed his review from the descriptions and expose on the development of the various AI's and on to his perceptions and his mini AAR. Though long, it is well written IMHO. Does he get paid by the word? Two nits, though. First, he refers to the orginal Close Combat (CC1 to those that count) as "Close Combat Normandy". I've looked closely at the box, the CD case liner, the CD and the game reference manual published by Microsoft and no where that I can find it refered to as anything other than "Close Combat". No where do I find it being refered to as "Close Combat Normandy". CC5 was called "Close Combat Invasion Normandy", but he was referencing CC1. A very minor point. The second is in the fourth to last paragraph on the last page. He says while describing one of his battles; quote: Then, to my amazement, the top hatch opened and an arm appeared, waving a white rag in surrender. One by one, the shaken Russian crew clambered out and marched docilely away to enjoy the dubious hospitality of my POW compound, while the Team Monitor blinked and informed me that my men had captured a fully operational T-34! I lost no time turning the vehicle against its previous owners, who were easily routed when an apparently friendly tank suddenly came roaring down the road, spitting MG fire at them. Italics added. 'Cuz me. What? Don't happen. Not in CoI, nor in CC3, CC2, CC4, CC5 or any of the military CC sims. I'll allow that it was an exuburent mis-conception during the heat of battle. All in all, I give the review two thumbs up, not because it is a positive CoI review, but because it is very well researched and quoted developers from the first Close Combat, and CoI was very obviously played extensively before writing the review.

Marc von Martial -> RE: Wargamer REVIEW (3/30/2007 12:33:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Senior Drill On my second attempt to read though every word in Bill Trotter's review, I did manage it without nodding off. Some people accuse me of being overly verbose in my posts, but boy, can that guy write. And write and write and write! I love his style. His reviews are always multi-multipage but you can read them better then many single page reviews.

Comrade_Blabsky -> RE: Wargamer REVIEW (3/30/2007 1:38:25 PM)
That captured tank thing was off-putting....but I think you can interpret his memory of getting a captured T34 in the rec pool, rather than jumping in the still-idling beast and chasing Russkies down the road. I still have the strategy guide. It was fun. Glad he's a fan. Ludicrous overpricing? I'd pay for the new maps and campaign, besides that the game works much better than old CC3. Some people need to get some education and training, and join the workforce. It's only a couple hours pay for goodness sake.

Monkeys Brain -> RE: Wargamer REVIEW (3/30/2007 3:10:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Hertston A terrible review! Not only has Mr Trotter failed to give the game a score at all, in order that he can immediately knock off 30% because CoI is a re-release, but he has completely failed to comment on the ludicrous over-pricing because the original game is 8 years old and Theatre of War costs $45! It defies all logic! quote: If you’re already a fan, you’ll find full value in this welcomed new edition. If you have yet to savor the addictive intensity of this game, I urge you to deprive yourself no longer. Outrageous!! [;)] Again Hertson? Guys this has become boring. As anyone cares what that fat pig Trotterson is writing. He is recycling his articles from 1995. from PC Gamer lol. And he writes also some fantasy books lol like fictional wars in America lol. And you are right, any decent reviewer would mention the price but Trotter clearly don't have stamina, intelligence to do it. That just makes lousy reviewer and gone mad fantasy writter LOLZ And Hertson, I won that argument so you don't need to bring that again and again do you? Goebels methods don't cut. Mario

Monkeys Brain -> RE: Wargamer REVIEW (3/30/2007 3:13:40 PM)
quote: Ludicrous overpricing? I'd pay for the new maps and campaign, besides that the game works much better than old CC3. Some people need to get some education and training, and join the workforce. It's only a couple hours pay for goodness sake. Hoho... what a bunch of nonsense. But you don't know what word principle means. Ah, I would have expected better from Rebels and not Yankees lolz (as I always liked more South than North lolz) Money is not an issue as money per se. Hard to understand? Mario

Marc von Martial -> RE: Wargamer REVIEW (3/30/2007 5:08:39 PM)
Could you simply just stop high jacking threads? You sound like a broken record already. If not I will simply put you on a two weeks vacation. Let alone for the personal insults in the direction of Bill Trotter. If you want that people take your seriously here then you better act at least a bit mature.

Monkeys Brain -> RE: Wargamer REVIEW (3/30/2007 5:13:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Marc Schwanebeck Could you simply just stop high jacking threads? You sound like a broken record already. If not I will simply put you on a two weeks vacation. Let alone for the personal insults in the direction of Bill Trotter. If you want that people take your seriously here then you better act at least a bit mature. Alright, my apolohies to Trotter, I also think that he have a style. Foolish words in a moment of rage. But it would be good that you as admin say that as well to other side. If they want to ridicule my opinion they must be prepared to get something back from me. But I am satisfied many people have contacted me and told me that I am right so I am using this opportunity to thank them. That is enough for me. Ban? That is good idea, I could use some vacation hehe. Mario

Marc von Martial -> RE: Wargamer REVIEW (3/30/2007 5:18:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Monkeys Brain Alright, my apolohies to Trotter, I also think that he have a style. Foolish words in a moment of rage. But it would be good that you as admin say that as well to other side. If they want to ridicule my opinion they ... Ever heard the word "satire" or "sarcasm" [;)]. I know it is hard to comprehend jokes for non native speakers. But even I got the sarcasm in Herstons post.

Monkeys Brain -> RE: Wargamer REVIEW (3/30/2007 5:26:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Marc Schwanebeck quote: ORIGINAL: Monkeys Brain Alright, my apolohies to Trotter, I also think that he have a style. Foolish words in a moment of rage. But it would be good that you as admin say that as well to other side. If they want to ridicule my opinion they ... Ever heard the word "satire" or "sarcasm" [;)]. I know it is hard to comprehend jokes for non native speakers. But even I got the sarcasm in Herstons post. OK, clearly missed that [;)] So I will forgive Hertson all and send him bottle of best champagne to settle this...[sm=scared0018.gif] Mario

Comrade_Blabsky -> RE: Wargamer REVIEW (3/31/2007 12:00:25 AM)
Looks like I missed the sarcasm too, even with the [;)]. But the atmosphere has been a little thick in here. Best point of the review is to introduce it to the new generation who were in short pants when CC first appeared. It may be a niche market, but the niche transcends the generations.

Monkeys Brain -> RE: Wargamer REVIEW (3/31/2007 1:03:45 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Comrade_Blabsky Looks like I missed the sarcasm too, even with the [;)]. But the atmosphere has been a little thick in here. Best point of the review is to introduce it to the new generation who were in short pants when CC first appeared. It may be a niche market, but the niche transcends the generations. Agreed. I also in fact like Trotter hehe but has been little bit carried away [;)] All is settled now and well [:)] Mario

old man of the sea -> RE: Wargamer REVIEW (4/1/2007 5:57:51 AM)
Bill is a great guy. E

Marc von Martial -> RE: Wargamer REVIEW (4/1/2007 12:49:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: old man of the sea Bill is a great guy. E He is and he eats Ketchup for breakfast, Jesus [;)] ...

David Heath -> RE: Wargamer REVIEW (4/1/2007 10:57:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Monkeys Brain quote: ORIGINAL: Marc Schwanebeck Could you simply just stop high jacking threads? You sound like a broken record already. If not I will simply put you on a two weeks vacation. Let alone for the personal insults in the direction of Bill Trotter. If you want that people take your seriously here then you better act at least a bit mature. Alright, my apolohies to Trotter, I also think that he have a style. Foolish words in a moment of rage. But it would be good that you as admin say that as well to other side. If they want to ridicule my opinion they must be prepared to get something back from me. But I am satisfied many people have contacted me and told me that I am right so I am using this opportunity to thank them. That is enough for me. Ban? That is good idea, I could use some vacation hehe. Mario Mario how old are you.

Monkeys Brain -> RE: Wargamer REVIEW (4/2/2007 2:28:34 AM)
[/quote] Mario how old are you. [/quote] I apologize - it will not happen I promise. I will be civilized :-) Mario

Williamb -> RE: Wargamer REVIEW (4/8/2007 4:38:21 AM)
Welll Trotters review is the reason I stopped back. He said that the one thing that killed CC3 (the tank heavy russian AI) is fixed. So wanted to see if that is true. I cant tell you how much I hated that with a passion. Im still in the no catagory for this game. I really want the CC5 ability to pick both sides of the battlefeild. I could stop the AI from ruining the game. Still hoping for a better remake of that classic.

Oleg Mastruko -> RE: Wargamer REVIEW (4/8/2007 11:42:09 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: David Heath Mario how old are you. [:D] LOL!! [:D] I missed the fun again. He's over 35, am I right Mario? [:D] However, in his defence, I think it was Hertston who "hijacked the thread". He went back to "high price vs low price" flamewar with his sarcastic post, and after that it's open season, free for all again. It takes a man of great self control and restraint (points to self) not to jump into that again [8D] Anyhow congrats on a good review though I for one cannot stand Trotter's baroque and self-obsessed style.

Monkeys Brain -> RE: Wargamer REVIEW (4/8/2007 4:15:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko quote: ORIGINAL: David Heath Mario how old are you. [:D] LOL!! [:D] I missed the fun again. He's over 35, am I right Mario? [:D] However, in his defence, I think it was Hertston who "hijacked the thread". He went back to "high price vs low price" flamewar with his sarcastic post, and after that it's open season, free for all again. It takes a man of great self control and restraint (points to self) not to jump into that again [8D] Anyhow congrats on a good review though I for one cannot stand Trotter's baroque and self-obsessed style. I will turn 35 this month. But I am young in my soul like little kid lol so more 3,5 hehe You are right Hertson hijacked the thread and thanks for defense [:)] but I didn't had to react like that and I apologized for that , that was not nice. In fact partly I wrote this as a ploy to attract you into thread. [;)] I know how flamboyant you could be (whatever that means LOLZ) As you also write for Wargamer I thought that I would say something bad about Trotter so that you also open fire lolz. My ploy misfired... In fact Trotter is good read but I agree with you that he is somewhat self obsessed. But again I am not trying to open this discussion again. Or on price, that discussion for me is over. Hristos vaskrs! lolz Mario

Uncle_Joe -> RE: Wargamer REVIEW (4/9/2007 4:30:24 AM)
quote: Welll Trotters review is the reason I stopped back. He said that the one thing that killed CC3 (the tank heavy russian AI) is fixed. So wanted to see if that is true. I cant tell you how much I hated that with a passion. In my experience, the AI is still extremely tank-heavy in the campaigns. By the 4th-5th Op or so I'm routinely facing large numbers of armor. I think it has a lot to do with the handicapping points that are handed out if the force levels are unbalanced. And the AI tends to get the bulk of its force killed off every battle so the forces are usually unbalanced. So, it gets a ton of points, proceeds to spend them on generally a mass of armor again, loses them all and the cycle repeats. I've totally given up on the campaign game for that reason. Its just not fun doing the tank orgies game after game after game. I'm holding out some hope for the 1940 Mod. The armor in that one should be a little less common and a little weaker. If that doesnt pan out, then I'll just continue to ignore the campaign altogether. Note that if you want to pick the AI's forces, it is possible to do that for individual battles by creating a scenario yourself. That's basically what I've been doing since giving up on the tank orgies and it works pretty well. The only real downside is that the fog of war of the enemy forces is gone since you picked 'em yourself. I would take that review with a large grain of salt. Its obvious that the reviewer enjoys the game and is excited about it and that seems to cloud his experience with some of the details. He has the fundamentals right and it IS a good game, but vs the AI it still seems to be the same old same old I remember from CC3 with the RR mod...ie, tanks, tanks, and more tanks.

Prince of Eckmühl -> RE: Wargamer REVIEW (4/9/2007 5:28:34 PM)
About the armour in CC3... This pretty much ruins the first eighteen months of the war for the Germans. Not in the sense that it's a challenge, but rather because it's just so hokey. And it's not just tanks, but the flock of KV1 that camps out on the VP. Later in the war, the nazees get upgraded weapons that allow them to compete. Until then, CC3\CoI game is a pain in the butt!!! PoE (aka ivanmoe)

LitFuel -> RE: Wargamer REVIEW (4/9/2007 7:47:11 PM)
You can never please everyone...not enough tanks in CC2 so they added tanks...then they say too many tanks in CC3 so what are they to do. CC3/COI was not my favorite of the bunch...CC2 is, but I do find enjoyment in it as a change of pace to the infantry heavy CC2. I just look at it as a different. There are always mods to change things up a bit as well.

GS_Schimpf -> RE: Wargamer REVIEW (4/9/2007 8:39:24 PM)
The amount of tanks is specific to the scenario. CC2 is mainly airborne troops, so no tanks normally. CC3 is set on the Eastern Front where the biggest tank battles ever took place, hence there are a lot of tanks to be found. It's not just a developer decision but the dev is somewhat bound to the historical setting he wants to employ, at least if historical accuracy is a goal of development.

Uncle_Joe -> RE: Wargamer REVIEW (4/10/2007 1:07:09 AM)
Whether the Eastern Front had more tanks is immaterial IMO. At this scale, it shouldnt always about the armor. And that aside, the AI does a TERRIBLE job with its armor. Its obvious that the AI's ability to use armor effectively is quite limited, often resulting in 'kill zones' utterly littered with knocked-out AFVs. So why the game engine continually makes sure that the AI buys AFV after AFV to misuse is totally beyond me. Its not a question of what do people enjoy per se (maybe there are those who like the tank orgies, but my guess is that they are in the minority here). The real problem is that since the AI is so inept with armor that it ruins the game experience IMO. Unless it has the well-nigh unkillable stuff, it will lose them, often to little gain. After a dozen or so such massacres, the game becomes boring as hell IMO. On the other hand, it doesnt do a terrible job if it has a well balanced or infantry-heavy force. Its not some super tactical wizard but it puts up a decent fight in many cases, unlike when it (mis)uses AFVs. So if it was infantry heavy with a little armor support it would be a far better opponent than the current opposite approach of max'ed out armor with a bit of infantry support.

Jeffrey H. -> RE: Wargamer REVIEW (5/2/2007 10:21:09 PM)
I recall trying to find CCIV and CCV opponents on MSGZ and was a little dismayed to see all the players on CCIII. I think CCIII was, in terms of played hours the most popular of the bunch. There were vocal dissenters about the AFV centric nature of it, but many players liked that part of it too. I agree that somehow the wires got crossed - the game AI clearly handles infantry much better than AFV's and yet CCIII became AFV centric. Seems like an unforseen oversight or something that maybe was not thoroughly playtested out. But, OTOH, it was the most popoular of the bunch.

mooxe -> RE: Wargamer REVIEW (5/3/2007 2:34:38 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jeffrey H. I recall trying to find CCIV and CCV opponents on MSGZ and was a little dismayed to see all the players on CCIII. I think CCIII was, in terms of played hours the most popular of the bunch. There were vocal dissenters about the AFV centric nature of it, but many players liked that part of it too. I agree that somehow the wires got crossed - the game AI clearly handles infantry much better than AFV's and yet CCIII became AFV centric. Seems like an unforseen oversight or something that maybe was not thoroughly playtested out. But, OTOH, it was the most popoular of the bunch. I agree with you that at the time, back in those days it was definetly the most played. However, with my experience with CC5, it is the longest lasting and most played of any CC version. Its still going strong on GameSpy right now. The 2nd most played version would be a tossup between CC2 and CC3. 4 and 1 coming in last. I believe the non-linear style of the CC5 Campaign made it last through the years. People got tired with linear campaigns and 1vs1 head to head games I believe.

Jeffrey H. -> RE: Wargamer REVIEW (5/4/2007 7:35:46 AM)
Well yeah CCV had a great campaign game for the Carentan Peninsula that added a layer, but CCIV had the same sort of strat layer IIRC. It's the Winter terrain that made CCIV unpopular IMHO. Nice site BTW, you certainly are a fan of the series.

helblazer -> RE: Wargamer REVIEW (6/25/2007 7:13:18 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jeffrey H. Well yeah CCV had a great campaign game for the Carentan Peninsula that added a layer, but CCIV had the same sort of strat layer IIRC. It's the Winter terrain that made CCIV unpopular IMHO. I remember getting tired of the snow white maps pretty early in the game. Everything looks too similar. In fact, I don't believe I have ever finished a campaign of CC4. I also don't like the force pool arrangement and prefer the point buy method. Its kind of funny because in real life I dislike shopping ;)

Page: [1]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.390625