|
Desert Fox -> (9/6/2000 12:15:00 PM)
|
quote:
Originally posted by Tombstone:
By the way, what is it about the recent Close Combat games that people earlier thought ruined the game?? I really like those games, all of them.. and I like the new pseudo-operational level interface that the campaigns have.
Tomo
Well, I have a lot of experience with the Close Combat games. I play cc2 online quite religiously. I also own cc4, but have only played the demo of cc3.
I do know a lot of folks who have played cc3, and their experience mirrors my experience with the demo. Basically, infantry is completely useless against tanks in cc3. Many cc3 maps are wide open spaces apparently, so infantry is definitely not great in these areas. However, in the demo, the battle was in a city map, and there are also some other city areas in the game itself. In these maps, tanks regularly spot hiding infantry in buildings from absurd distances, with no infantry acting as recon units. This is coupled with the fact that tank fire is incredibly more lethal and has excellent accuracy. Teams hidden in buildings can be wiped out before they can even get up.
This is a large reason why people would end up with 15 tanks as their only force in campaigns, the infantry was just useless. Aside from that, I can't really comment about the rest of the game.
CC4, however, is just horrible. First off, there is no battlemaker or requisition screen for internet play. This is why you rarely find more than 10 people in the cc4 room on the zone.
While cc4 does implement a new close assault ability for infantry, they are really lucky if a tank does not kill them before they can assault. The tanks still spot infantry from absurd ranges, and are still overly lethal.
Another thing I absolutely detest about the game is its pace. It is much faster than cc2 is, and consequently, AT guns can run out of ammo firing at the front of a king tiger while you are giving orders to a few infantry units on the other side of the map. It is also very difficult to give orders that might save any unit before it is subsequently destroyed.
I also absolutely hate the pop up information screens that cover the battlefield. If your units happen to be on the edge of the battle map, you have to either close or move those information screens before you can give those units orders. I much prefer the cc2 system of information screens in which most of the map iss dedicated to the battlefield, while at the bottom of the screen, there is an information display that shows everything the pop up information screens show, but in a smaller area, and it does not cover any part of the battlefield.
Another major beef I have with cc4 is regarding inf AT. The panzershreck is the mainstay of the german forces, and is remarkably accurate, has immense destructive potential, and has a large effective range. On more than one occasion, I have destroyed 2 sherman tanks with a single panzershreck shot. They also come with 6 rockets, which is not bad, considering how effective they are.
However, by comparison, the allies get the bazooka, and they are totally useless. The bazooka has a shorter range than the panzershreck, cannot penetrate german armor in most situations, and they are horribly inaccurate. The worst part about the bazooka in cc4 is the fact that they get only 4 shots.
Now, I do know bazookas definitely had trouble penetrating german armor historically. I do not know how ranges compared between the shreck and bazooka, nor do I know much about accuracy, historically.
However, I do know that in game terms, there is no balance here. A bazooka is simply not a threat to german armor, while the panzershreck is utterly deadly to allied armor.
Another problem facing both inf AT units is a ridiculously long 'setup' time. The units, for whatever reason, must sit there and stare at the enemy armor for nearly 10 seconds before firing. This is more than enough time for a german tank to do a 180, or for any tank facing them to wipe out the team with a hail of fire. This is almost certain, due to the absurd ability of tanks to spot enemy infantry.
I will say that there are some good points about cc4. I do like the new strategic map, and the ability to decide where to move your units. If you have ever played cc2 and one of the successors, you will know immediately that tank drivers are no longer drunk when they go into battle, though there is still a large room for improvement.
The newer games also incorporate a facing system to keep tanks from doing the 'dance of death' so feared in cc2.
As for graphics, I really can't say much since they eliminated the close up zoom level in cc4. To me they just look like cartoon tanks.
My final opinion on the cc games is that they are all very fun games. They all have their niche, with cc2 being closest to mirroring the reality of the inf vs. tank battles, and being the best balanced of all the games. Infantry is hard to spot, and in close quarters, such as a city, they can easily destroy a tank.
CC3 does not portray this, rather it ends up being a huge tank battle, which can be just as fun as blowing up a panther with a well executed bazooka ambush, though it is far from realistic.
CC4 is a good game for people who like to do campaigns. Other than that, it really is not very good.
Sorry about the rambling, but you did ask for it...
|
|
|
|
