CC5 vs MT? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Close Combat Series >> Close Combat: Modern Tactics



Message

Kung Karl -> CC5 vs MT? (11/17/2007 12:58:01 AM)

So, how does this game compares to Close Combat 5? I am wondering about graphics and AI specifically. Better or worse or maybe the same with diffrent maps and weapons?



davmarksman -> RE: CC5 vs MT? (11/21/2007 11:02:46 PM)

Almost exactly the same apart from it doesnt have campaign mode. ( really annoying). On the plus side it does allow infantry to mount and dismount (perfect for cavalry charge using tanks and apc's) and dig in



Daviald -> RE: CC5 vs MT? (11/25/2007 8:32:56 PM)

Modern Tactics simply does not compare to CC5.  Modern tactics is packaged and played like an advanced MOD to CC5 with the new features of mount and digin. 
AI is the same.  Pathfinding is even more fustrating.  Even in A Bridge to Far I could expect to lose a single infantry man here and there, who would be stuck wandering around the inside of a building.  Never an entire squad worth of men though.  The fustration of watching a the one man in the squad with a Javalin, running around in circles inside of a building is too much at times.
It seems as if the code was copied from other CC's.  For example, even the individual soldier stats increase in the AAR.  Since there is not a campaign, Why was that included?
If this game was given even the ability to create Campaign's the Total value of this game would have gone up tremendously.   Imagine recreating Falluja or Hit, Black Hawk Down, or any number of real world battles.  Even mock Simulations of those places in a campaign mode would have been highly entertaining.

It should be remembered though that this game is only 30 dollars.  So I guess it is to be expected you only get 3/5ths of a game here.  I would have been happy paying the extra 20 bucks for a campaign.



Erik Rutins -> RE: CC5 vs MT? (11/25/2007 10:33:18 PM)

As you note, the pricing takes into account that MT does not include a campaign, but it does include up to 10 player multiplayer. While this may not be a big feature for some, it is definitely a huge feature in terms of development effort and effectively took the place of the campaign in this release. If you ever get to try a 10 player scenario on a LAN with MT, I think you'll find it's really a whole new CC experience.



Daviald -> RE: CC5 vs MT? (11/26/2007 6:42:17 AM)

Thank you for taking the time to respond to my post.  The more I play the game the more I am fascinated by the multiplayer aspect and I certainly appreciate the time that was taken to build it into the multiplayer platform.

A concern I have is that the real world capabilities of the equipment were compromised to get a fair balance on the field.  As of now I cannot take tactics right out of a modern field manual  or unit SOP and apply them to this game. The title of Modern Tactics is deceptive.  Was there not another way to handle play balance?

Also, is a later expansion in the works to allow for campaigns?  After all the game seems poised for it already.

I hope you understand that I am not trying to be belligerent here, am am simply being inquisitive.  If I disliked the game I would not even be offering my observations on the subject.  Quite the contrary I feel that you have a good solid working platform here.  Like a good historical war game enthusiast, I have a whole list of small things that I have noticed that deviate from reality.  I fully understand that there are legitimate design reasons for most of these issues, but curiosity still gets the better of me.  That and the hope that perhaps by bringing these issues up my frustration at watching the venerable Abrams tank get blown apart by an RPG, will be alleviated.



Perturabo -> RE: CC5 vs MT? (11/26/2007 5:23:38 PM)

quote:

A concern I have is that the real world capabilities of the equipment were compromised to get a fair balance on the field.

Could you elaborate, please?

quote:

That and the hope that perhaps by bringing these issues up my frustration at watching the venerable Abrams tank get blown apart by an RPG, will be alleviated.

Err...
Which RPG?
There are RPGs and RPGs...



CSO_Sbufkle -> RE: CC5 vs MT? (11/26/2007 5:25:36 PM)

This version of CC is geared for multiplayer.. as Daviald explained.. takes it up a notch. Really amazing gameplay CC cmultiplayer.

No GC is rough.. but people should now know there isnt one when they approach to buy it.



Daviald -> RE: CC5 vs MT? (11/26/2007 7:37:52 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Perturabo

Could you elaborate, please?
Err...
Which RPG?
There are RPGs and RPGs...


Sure.
For starters the Artillery systems. The Stryker mortar Carrier, artillery support, and air support available to the Army forces is far to inaccurate. With the communication abilities of the modern battlefield, it is unreasonable that a forward spotting unit cannot direct more accurate fire. Especially a Command unit. The capabilities of modern mortar and fire support teams has been much improved since the Era of WWII. Since the 81mm mortar is accurate to within two mils (2 meters at 1000 meters), with a good forward observer someone could practically go sniping with the things. As it stands in game the hit pattern is pretty much random and remains that way when it should be zeroing in on a target. Same with Off board artillery support and close air support.

For the RPG. Good point. There is a significant difference in the two RPG's.

The RPG 29 in the game shows repeated ability to penetrate and kill or seriously incapacitate the crew of the MBT. This seems too far fetched to me considering the information available on the two weapon systems.

The RPG 29 is capable of penetrating 600mm of RHA, while the Abrams tank has 1320 mm of RHA armor protection or 940mm of armor protection against kinetic energy.

While there have been some reports of the M1 Abrams being vulnerable to side impacts the American's have only lost a total of two tanks to enemy fire while 14 have been disabled as of 2003. (The most recent report I could find on hand to cite.) Of those losses only one is suspected of being an RPG attack.

In the Gulf War of 1991: "during the Gulf War, when U.S. ground forces killed upwards of 1,000 Iraqi tanks while losing just 18 of their own" http://www.newamericancentury.org/def_natl_sec_019.htm

I believe that it is possible to lose an M1 Abrams tank to an RPG-29 attack. However, it is rare. So rare that I would not expect to see it occur as often as it does in the game.



Neil N -> RE: CC5 vs MT? (11/26/2007 8:33:52 PM)

Hi Daviald,

While my Abrams tend to get tracked by the RPG weapons, one thing to remember...the 1320mm equivalent of RHA on nthe Abrams is on the front Glacis plate only. Many other angles to hit that baby from.

While I agree if an RPG-29 destroyed an Abrams every time that it let a rocket fly would be unrealistic, a British Challenger II tank found out rather painfully the capabilities of the RPG-29 in Basra. The Brits confirmed a report, that an RPG-29 was fired at, and penetrated the ERA applied armor and front glacis plate of a Challenger II (what is claimed to be the most heavily armored of all NATO tanks). It is estimated that the glacis plate of the Challenger II is equivalent to approximately 1000mm of RHA versus HEAT, without the ERA. So either the penetration of an RPG-29 was underestimate, or NATO has overestimated the RHA equivalent of today's composite armors.

Either way, the tandem warhead on that baby makes it a very lethal threat to armor.



Andrew Williams -> RE: CC5 vs MT? (11/26/2007 9:03:10 PM)

You also have to incorporate tactics into your calculations.

How many times has an Abrams been put in the line of fire of an RPG?

In game, where lives don't count, much, you are more likely to run your Abrams into a dangerous situation.


If you sit your Abrams out at maximum range and pound the enemy , you will never loose it to an RPG.






Daviald -> RE: CC5 vs MT? (11/27/2007 1:31:26 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Andrew Williams

You also have to incorporate tactics into your calculations.

How many times has an Abrams been put in the line of fire of an RPG?



Plenty of times with the RPG-7. Unknown with the RPG-29.

So is it confirmed that the armor ratings of these tanks are as accurate to real life as possible?



Andrew Williams -> RE: CC5 vs MT? (11/27/2007 3:09:29 AM)

Yes


E&OE



mllange -> RE: CC5 vs MT? (11/27/2007 3:12:33 AM)

quote:

You also have to incorporate tactics into your calculations.

How many times has an Abrams been put in the line of fire of an RPG?

In game, where lives don't count, much, you are more likely to run your Abrams into a dangerous situation.


If you sit your Abrams out at maximum range and pound the enemy , you will never loose it to an RPG.


Read the excellent and highly recommended book 'Thunder Run', by David Zucchino Amazon link - a first-hand, eyewitness account of the drive into Baghdad and you'll find that there are scores (at least) of times in very recent history the Abrams has been put in the line of fire of an RPG at close range - and hit by RPGs without being disabled, much less destroyed.

As others have said, there are significant differences in RPGs, and the possibility of a tank being disabled or destroyed certainly should be modelled in the game, but it should be a rare event - not commonplace.

Read the book in any event, I guarantee your enjoyment of MT will skyrocket and your imagination will be kindled at the possibilities.



Daviald -> RE: CC5 vs MT? (11/27/2007 4:11:28 AM)

Scratch what I said about Arty when it concerns the on board mortar teams.  It took a bit and I couldn't find it in the manual, but there is a way to go sniping with the mortars.
I tested it in game.  With 1 Stryker MC, a command team and a Sniper team for spotting it took out 5 Bradley's and 11 Strykers.  Many times it was one shot one kill.  Other times it took about 3 rounds.  Killed all the AFV's with the 120mm mortar and no casualties on my side.  Took ~10 minutes.

It is tedious but it can be done.



Senior Drill -> RE: CC5 vs MT? (11/27/2007 4:22:59 AM)

For front back and sides, actually. Top armor is way too high, but that had to be done to stop 81mm mortars from killing M1's, T-80's, T-72's, T-64's and T-55's.

It is a game, after all and not everything can be tweeked to perfection, especially since this is a commercial release of an existing training simulation and not a "new" development; from start to finish in 90 days by people who work part time.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Daviald


quote:

ORIGINAL: Andrew Williams

You also have to incorporate tactics into your calculations.

How many times has an Abrams been put in the line of fire of an RPG?



Plenty of times with the RPG-7. Unknown with the RPG-29.

So is it confirmed that the armor ratings of these tanks are as accurate to real life as possible?




Daviald -> RE: CC5 vs MT? (11/27/2007 4:57:57 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Senior Drill

For front back and sides, actually. Top armor is way too high, but that had to be done to stop 81mm mortars from killing M1's, T-80's, T-72's, T-64's and T-55's.


Not enough to stop the 120mm mortars from destroying them. Mission 22 "Desert Clash: can be played with just one command team and a Stryker mortar Carrier.



Andrew Williams -> RE: CC5 vs MT? (11/27/2007 5:06:27 AM)

Easiest fix is don't choose a Stryker MC.  120mm is huge!



Yute -> RE: CC5 vs MT? (11/27/2007 5:17:47 AM)

I enjoyed playing MT for a bit, the new units are super cool, but for now I am sticking to CCM. This game has a LOT of potential but some things bug me:

1. Firing order issues - half the time my guys in buildings can't shoot out of them and it's really frustrating. I know walls are taken into account, but compared to other CCs, units in buildings seem to derive no benefit from being indoors because of this penalty. They're always unable to shoot more than 6m out, and I can't move them around in the heat of battle cause it takes way too much time. Also, sometimes I order my vehicles to fire on a building, even a corner of a building and it annoyingly says that it's out of LOS. Out of LOS? It's a bloody building! If I want to blow the front off a 4 story building, I want it done! Not sure why but the Jav is also under powered - I should be able to kill any vehicle on the battlefield with it, but only managed to disable a T-62 once.

2. Movement Issues - not sure why but compared to CC:M the infantry units seem to move so slowly - not issues with vehicles though.

3. Stryker is way too vulnerable - one of mine was disabled and then the gunner and driver killed by a sniper. Last time I checked the Stryker was protected against gunfire up to 14.5mm and none of the crew is exposed to gunfire - not too sure how that happened. Also got destroyed by a mortar a good 15m away - the armor is good enough to protect it from fragments and you can drive a stryker away missing a few wheels. With Slat armor, it can even be protected (to a degree) against RPG fire.


4. Fire Support - the "on call" mortars and arty are so inaccurate compared to your own mortars. They're pretty much useless unless there are huge clumped together enemy formations. If I want mortars on my smoke, shoot them at the smoke, not all over the place!

I know some people have said that the mortars you personally control are too inaccurate, but I personally find it annoying when my stryker gets hit by a mortar from across the map on the first shot.


Things missing in MT - I know it sounds like I'm whining, but Modern Tactics means just that:
1. UAVs - would add an interesting dimension to the battlefield. Intel is just as important as firepower these days.
2. Helos that can loiter for transport and attack
3. IEDs/VBIEDS
4. Air defense - If the enemy can have planes, I should be able to have stinger teams to take them out.




Senior Drill -> RE: CC5 vs MT? (11/27/2007 8:03:33 AM)

Hi Yute,

As one of the very few posters here that has CCM, it's good to hear your comparisons. I'd like to address a few of those.


quote:

ORIGINAL: Yute

I enjoyed playing MT for a bit, the new units are super cool, but for now I am sticking to CCM. This game has a LOT of potential but some things bug me:

1. Firing order issues - half the time my guys in buildings can't shoot out of them and it's really frustrating. I know walls are taken into account, but compared to other CCs, units in buildings seem to derive no benefit from being indoors because of this penalty. They're always unable to shoot more than 6m out, and I can't move them around in the heat of battle cause it takes way too much time.


About three years ago, some of us started using a "No Walks Through Walls" elements file that changed the silly and completely unrealistic ability of CC1 through CC5, CCM and CCRAF soldiers to run through any wall and also shoot through it, even though most of the buildings are stone or brick. The Elements.txt file for CCMT brings the CC series into reality. You can't run through a stone wall, you can't shoot through a brick wall; you can only enter, leave and shoot through openings like doors, windows and holes blasted through the walls by fires. That 6m range you are getting is more shouting insults through wall at someone you can't see, than shooting. Call that part a bug if you want to, but it is just the way the game engine is.

Movement through buildings is supposed to be tough and you do need to pay attention to what they are doing. Practice the ability to make the time to get them to do it right.

quote:

Also, sometimes I order my vehicles to fire on a building, even a corner of a building and it annoyingly says that it's out of LOS. Out of LOS? It's a bloody building! If I want to blow the front off a 4 story building, I want it done!


Main gun cannons will fire on buildings, main gun ATM and ATGM's will not. A BDRM is a good tank killer but worthless as a building destroyer.

quote:

Not sure why but the Jav is also under powered - I should be able to kill any vehicle on the battlefield with it, but only managed to disable a T-62 once.


The Javalin was too powerful and was toned down for game play. It can still kill a tank, but at real statistics was an automatic one round one kill.

quote:

2. Movement Issues - not sure why but compared to CC:M the infantry units seem to move so slowly - not issues with vehicles though.


Actually, infantry and vehicle movement rates are up to 30% faster in CCMT than they were in CCM or the rest of the series. The vehicles, not as much, but the infantry definately. Move Fast (run), Move (walk) and Move Cover (high crawl/low crawl) trial tested by me over various terrain, with 13 year old daughter holding the stop watch and praying none of her friends could see. Then transfered to the movement rates based on 7 pixels = 1m map scale.

quote:

3. Stryker is way too vulnerable - one of mine was disabled and then the gunner and driver killed by a sniper. Last time I checked the Stryker was protected against gunfire up to 14.5mm and none of the crew is exposed to gunfire - not too sure how that happened. Also got destroyed by a mortar a good 15m away - the armor is good enough to protect it from fragments and you can drive a stryker away missing a few wheels. With Slat armor, it can even be protected (to a degree) against RPG fire.


Well, this happens in CCM as well. The Stryker is proof against .50 cal (12.7mm), but I see that the KVPT 14.5mm can just open it up. Which is true. The contractor "proof" is a five round burst, which does crater the armor. Twenty rounds defeat it.

quote:

4. Fire Support - the "on call" mortars and arty are so inaccurate compared to your own mortars. They're pretty much useless unless there are huge clumped together enemy formations. If I want mortars on my smoke, shoot them at the smoke, not all over the place!

I know some people have said that the mortars you personally control are too inaccurate, but I personally find it annoying when my stryker gets hit by a mortar from across the map on the first shot.


Again this is a game play issue. You can have very accurate mortars that kill everything very quickly and shorten game play and replay value, or you can have very accruate mortars that can't kill a kitten, or very deadly mortar rounds with an 18 meter lethal radius that aren't too accurate that can be effective and doesn't ruin game play.

Mod away, if you like.

quote:

Things missing in MT - I know it sounds like I'm whining, but Modern Tactics means just that:
1. UAVs - would add an interesting dimension to the battlefield. Intel is just as important as firepower these days.
2. Helos that can loiter for transport and attack
3. IEDs/VBIEDS
4. Air defense - If the enemy can have planes, I should be able to have stinger teams to take them out.


As a commercial release of CCM, which you are very familar with, all I can say is; "Were they in CCM?" 'Nuff said.



Yute -> RE: CC5 vs MT? (11/27/2007 12:27:04 PM)

Senior Drill,
Very interesting insights! Don't get me wrong, I enjoy MT, but I just feel it could be tweaked an improved :) ! Also i didn't mean to compare CCM to CCMT too much - they are both different animals in purpose and function.

quote:

About three years ago, some of us started using a "No Walks Through Walls" elements file that changed the silly and completely unrealistic ability of CC1 through CC5, CCM and CCRAF soldiers to run through any wall and also shoot through it, even though most of the buildings are stone or brick. The Elements.txt file for CCMT brings the CC series into reality. You can't run through a stone wall, you can't shoot through a brick wall; you can only enter, leave and shoot through openings like doors, windows and holes blasted through the walls by fires. That 6m range you are getting is more shouting insults through wall at someone you can't see, than shooting. Call that part a bug if you want to, but it is just the way the game engine is.

Movement through buildings is supposed to be tough and you do need to pay attention to what they are doing. Practice the ability to make the time to get them to do it right.

Good point. I agree you shouldn't be able to shoot/walk through walls. I guess my main issue is that when i line up a squad on one side of a building, I expect them to use all available firing points, be that windows, loopholes, etc. Instead, usually what ends up happening is that if the TL can't see anything, the rest of the squad can't fire, even if they are right next to a window. Short of blowing up all the walls, I am not sure how to remedy this. In the Army we're just taught to make your own loopholes - something my troops in CCM don't do. To be honest I need to get used to the new system - i find it gets easier and easier to play after a while. I would appreciate any tips you might have!!

quote:

Main gun cannons will fire on buildings, main gun ATM and ATGM's will not. A BDRM is a good tank killer but worthless as a building destroyer.


Might be just be me then - I'll try to get a screen shot up, but even if I have a clear LOS and want to do suppressive fire and order my abrams to fire on a building, it doesn't. It tells me that the building is out of LOS, when it's clearly not. Might just be a bug. Why can't you take a building out with ATGM though? Seen it several times - take the building out with a TOW instead of going in and going hands on. I for one would rather level a building than go inside and clear it!

quote:

Well, this happens in CCM as well. The Stryker is proof against .50 cal (12.7mm), but I see that the KVPT 14.5mm can just open it up. Which is true. The contractor "proof" is a five round burst, which does crater the armor. Twenty rounds defeat it.

Yep, but it shouldn't. The sniper that killed the crew was with a Dragunov. Since the crew is not exposed, this shouldn't happen. A dragunov also shouldn't be able to immobilize a Stryker. Blind, yes, immobilize and kill the crew, no.


quote:

Actually, infantry and vehicle movement rates are up to 30% faster in CCMT than they were in CCM or the rest of the series. The vehicles, not as much, but the infantry definitely. Move Fast (run), Move (walk) and Move Cover (high crawl/low crawl) trial tested by me over various terrain, with 13 year old daughter holding the stop watch and praying none of her friends could see. Then transfered to the movement rates based on 7 pixels = 1m map scale.


Hehe that is the cutest image! Might just be my comp - CCM seems to run faster for me then.

quote:

Again this is a game play issue. You can have very accurate mortars that kill everything very quickly and shorten game play and replay value, or you can have very accruate mortars that can't kill a kitten, or very deadly mortar rounds with an 18 meter lethal radius that aren't too accurate that can be effective and doesn't ruin game play.

Excellent point - actually I think issue I have is with mortars that are off map - they're really not accurate enough compared to the mortar teams on the map - shouldn't they be the same level of accuracy?

quote:

As a commercial release of CCM, which you are very familar with, all I can say is; "Were they in CCM?" 'Nuff said.

Absolutely! I just wish they were in there - would elevate the game to a whole new level vs the feeling that it was just CCM moded for the public.





Venator -> RE: CC5 vs MT? (11/27/2007 2:06:57 PM)

quote:

I guess my main issue is that when i line up a squad on one side of a building, I expect them to use all available firing points, be that windows, loopholes, etc. Instead, usually what ends up happening is that if the TL can't see anything, the rest of the squad can't fire


This is my major beef. You are quite right, it's frustrating and rather unrealistic.



Neil N -> RE: CC5 vs MT? (11/27/2007 6:21:05 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Daviald
So is it confirmed that the armor ratings of these tanks are as accurate to real life as possible?


Absolutely, with only minor modifications made to them for the sake of gameplay. The M1 is still pretty indestructible, but the abilities of the Opfor anti-tank weapons give pause to the allied commander, so as to not throw away their armor.

I was playing on Bosnian City, and heard the unmistakable report of the rpg weapons in the game...not a good sound when you have armor, and can't see the enemy. The sounds kept repeating, and I had no less than 3 AT teams attacking that M1 at the same time. 7 hits, and only my main hun was damaged. 4 more hits, and I was tracked. Not bad.



Daviald -> RE: CC5 vs MT? (11/27/2007 11:25:29 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Senior Drill

You can't run through a stone wall, you can't shoot through a brick wall; you can only enter, leave and shoot through openings like doors, windows and holes blasted through the walls by fires.


Why can't you shoot through brick walls?



Andrew Williams -> RE: CC5 vs MT? (11/27/2007 11:41:12 PM)

Not only can't you see through them but  they are solid.

You can blast a wall down and then shoot through it or walk through it.... as in real life



Erik Rutins -> RE: CC5 vs MT? (11/28/2007 12:26:22 AM)

You all may be interested to know that behind the scenes the CC:MT team is working on a very nice update for this release that adds in some extra OOBs and makes some other requested changes.



Yute -> RE: CC5 vs MT? (11/28/2007 1:16:23 AM)

Cool beans!! [:D]



Daviald -> RE: CC5 vs MT? (11/28/2007 4:04:24 AM)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hlF8hufWqcA
Refer to time 3:03 and 4:06
I think that you should not only have to worry about people shooting through the walls, but with the heavier caliber weapons, you should have to worry if you have troops on the other side of the building altogather.

If the Javalin is too powerful, then It should be included in the game play.  Players will figure out a way to negate the effects of it on their own.  Even if game play has to be balenced by reducing the number of troops the Army player can have to 1/4 of what the opfor has.



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
2.34375