Any improvements or additions to MT - please make suggestions (Full Version)

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



Message


Andrew Williams -> Any improvements or additions to MT - please make suggestions (11/30/2007 9:46:55 AM)

Please post here any suggestions for updates or improvements. (can't make any promises, but we're listening)

1. Visible VL's




zon -> RE: Any improvements or additions to MT - please make suggestions (11/30/2007 10:24:59 AM)

2. Easier map additions  (i.e. no dimension standards)
3. Some improved vehicle graphics (not enough contrast, especially Army summer camo)
4. Blunt the arty -- way too powerful for good gameplay (realism arguments notwithstanding)
5. Fix floating sprites
6. Fix LOS loss (happened 2x for me so far, where units had no LOS whatsover)
7. Distinct sides (not the mishmash we have for both sides now)
8. Fix soldiers on roofs (map issue???)

(for me, visible VLs and easier map add-ons are top priorities)




Yute -> RE: Any improvements or additions to MT - please make suggestions (11/30/2007 2:59:58 PM)

Before I start - the more i play the more i love the game - thanks for listening and keep up the good work!!

- be able knock down trees - i love how i have to blow up a wall to shot what's on the other side but it's really tough with tree - even if i turn a tree into a woodpile, I still can't fire past it sometimes.

- make the stryker a little bit more small arms resistant - a sniper took my commander and driver AND immobilized the vehicle out which I've never heard about happen! otherwise it's the coolest vehicle!

- improve pathfinding - my men have trouble finding exits...

- LOS improvements:
1. Make the fire red line ie "out of LOS" more apparent - sometimes I try to put suppressive fire fire on say a corner of a building and the line looks green, but actually it's not - there's a tiny bit of red which I cannot see. Is quite tough to adjust since you're pretty much pixel hunting. Example:
[image]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v131/DagaYute/cc1.jpg[/image] If you look really closely, there's a bit of red on the line and it's usually obscured by the fire button.

2. Make it easier to find the windows or find a way to make the squads use the windows. Otherwise in very small buildings it is really difficult to get your men to fire because you're trying to adjust their positions minutely and most of the time they will not move. Example:
[image]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v131/DagaYute/cc2.jpg[/image]


3. Some of the walls/windows are not working - example: Here I cannot fire through walls
[image]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v131/DagaYute/cc3.jpg[/image]
And here I can:
[image]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v131/DagaYute/cc4.jpg[/image]

4. be able to order a tank to fire onto any part of a building, not just the center or certain sides. Example: Why can I fire here:
[image]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v131/DagaYute/cc5.jpg[/image]
but not here?
[image]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v131/DagaYute/cc6.jpg[/image]

5. be able to fire atgm/rpgs at buildings - I know this might not be possible but CCM had it - no reason why you can't just blow up a building!


Wish list :) :
1. Militia/guerilla/terrorist units that are really lightly armed - e.g. just AKs, grenades
2. VBIEDS
3. UAVs
3. Allow .50 cal machine guns to knock down some walls after some time

Again thanks for a fun game!




Venator -> RE: Any improvements or additions to MT - please make suggestions (11/30/2007 3:38:30 PM)

Improved pathfinding and Yute's LOS issues nos. 2 and 3 are the key problems with the game for me. I'd like to see them addressed before any 'frills' are added please.




Neil N -> RE: Any improvements or additions to MT - please make suggestions (11/30/2007 5:20:45 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: zon
3. Some improved vehicle graphics (not enough contrast, especially Army summer camo)

5. Fix floating sprites



3. Specifically, which vehicles did you have in mind please

5. Any specifics here? Which sprites are floating?




zon -> RE: Any improvements or additions to MT - please make suggestions (11/30/2007 5:45:53 PM)


quote:

3. Specifically, which vehicles did you have in mind please


Generally, Army vehicles have low contrast (light shadowing) which limits definition of turrets, guns, etc. OPFOR is much better. There's nothing wrong with the graphics; they just need darker shadows.

quote:


5. Any specifics here? Which sprites are floating?

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=1618935

I don't know what is causing this... game bug, graphics overloading???




Neil N -> RE: Any improvements or additions to MT - please make suggestions (11/30/2007 7:12:41 PM)

Thanks Zon,

Andrew is thinking that the soldier animation must be game speed related and is trying to gather more info.

As far as the vehicles, thanks for the suggestion...I've got a pretty full plate for the 1st patch, so if I can't fit it in there, I'll see what I can do to try and improve those after the first patch.

Neil




Perturabo -> RE: Any improvements or additions to MT - please make suggestions (11/30/2007 8:19:04 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: zon
7. Distinct sides (not the mishmash we have for both sides now)

I agree, CCMT shouldn't be about modern battles between 3 different types of forces - it should be about American crusade against enemies of America.
The game shouldn't allow battles between Centralians and Montanyans or between Centralians and Centralians or Montanyans and Montanyans.
The only proper type of battle is good American Christians against evil infidels.




TomBombadil711 -> RE: Any improvements or additions to MT - please make suggestions (11/30/2007 8:55:16 PM)

Save function during battles.

Tom




newabortion -> RE: Any improvements or additions to MT - please make suggestions (12/1/2007 1:03:53 AM)

Excuse me... If your just another euro jerk who Insults Americans because you want somebody to hate then I'm afraid your on the wrong board, there is hope for your flameing american hatred its called youtube, every video becomes a giant American hate house. If your just being a smart ass...well... thats all I have to say about that.
Anyways I Just bought this game and I'm downloading it now FTW! ut I just wanted to ask/say that wouldn't it be rather simple to just add new countries? Seriously, aside from the voices everything is pretty much just stats? I'd love to have a conflict between the PLA and the JDF, or Germany against France
quote:

ORIGINAL: Perturabo


quote:

ORIGINAL: zon
7. Distinct sides (not the mishmash we have for both sides now)

I agree, CCMT shouldn't be about modern battles between 3 different types of forces - it should be about American crusade against enemies of America.
The game shouldn't allow battles between Centralians and Montanyans or between Centralians and Centralians or Montanyans and Montanyans.
The only proper type of battle is good American Christians against evil infidels.





jukofyork -> RE: Any improvements or additions to MT - please make suggestions (12/1/2007 1:46:13 AM)

1. I think the visible VLs is prolly the most important thing to add - they don't have to tell you who owns which VL, but just need to see where they are.

2. I'm also a bit confused by what I'm supposed to be doing on the requisition screen - it looks like I can get rid of units and replace them with much better stuff at no extra cost (no requisition points?), but should I just be using the default set of units or what?

3. The ability to play veteran, hard and hero mode has gone? These used to be helpful for making the AI a bit of a harder challenge.

Even though we can't have a GC, is there any chance we could have operations? I used to enjoy playing operations much more than the GC or single maps.

A couple of "dream" features would be:

a) A hotkey to toggle between normal map background and "height-map" background (ie: black=sea level, then colours get lighter as height increases). This would save pressing the RMB and/or guessing based on shadows to see the height of the land.

b) By pressing the middle mouse you get to see all of the sub-squares which are visible from a certain location. This would save alot of hassle when deploying your units as you would instantly be able to see when a unit has a bad LOS from a tree or a wall... I can't count the number of times in CC that I've placed a AT gun on a new map, only to realize when the map starts that the LOS is blocked by something.

I think (a) should be very easy to add, and I know (b) is possible but could be hard to add to the existing code (many years ago I made a simple X-Windows app that did just that for CC3 maps and even back then on a P266 it worked almost in real-time).

Juk :)

PS: I love the dig-in and mount options - great additions!




Perturabo -> RE: Any improvements or additions to MT - please make suggestions (12/1/2007 3:05:24 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: newabortion

Excuse me... If your just another euro jerk who Insults Americans because you want somebody to hate then I'm afraid your on the wrong board, there is hope for your flameing american hatred its called youtube, every video becomes a giant American hate house. If your just being a smart ass...well... thats all I have to say about that.

Nah, I respect USA for some things like Constitution, Freedom of Speech, Right To Bear Arms and Separation of Church and State.

I'm just pissed off at certain people with US-centric thinking that were talking about how CCMT will suck, because terrorists don't have chances against US tanks or that the player should be Army and OPFOR as sides without choosing from all nations (which would turn CCMT into an US vs the rest of the world game).

Personally, I prefer fighting Centralians vs Montanyans or a different combination of normally "OPFOR" countries because it brings the game closer to WWII, especially if only old AFVs are used :) .

quote:

A couple of "dream" features would be:

a) A hotkey to toggle between normal map background and "height-map" background (ie: black=sea level, then colours get lighter as height increases). This would save pressing the RMB and/or guessing based on shadows to see the height of the land.

b) By pressing the middle mouse you get to see all of the sub-squares which are visible from a certain location. This would save alot of hassle when deploying your units as you would instantly be able to see when a unit has a bad LOS from a tree or a wall... I can't count the number of times in CC that I've placed a AT gun on a new map, only to realize when the map starts that the LOS is blocked by something.

Heh :) ...
I have exactly the same dream features :) .




mooxe -> RE: Any improvements or additions to MT - please make suggestions (12/1/2007 3:23:40 AM)

1 - Change grid squares on minimap to alphanumeric
2 - Change color of grid square indicators to something else, you cant make them outclearly on a winter map
3 - Explain the OPFOR ranks
4 - 60mm, 81mm and 120mm mortars all have same icons
5 - Change the thunk sound of the mortars
6 - The .50cal and M1A1 main gun sounds sound washed out or distant
7 - Rank icons on the status bar for American troops do not fit properly, there is a small area on the bottom that a different colour. Also there is alot of white pixels in all American ranks.
8 - Add all the vehicle images, they were in CCM3.1 but not in CCMT. Its useful for knowing if your tilted.
9 - Add team chat
10 - Ability to play vs AI single player or multiplayer with any combinations of human vs AI
11 - Include maps with more city fighting. Modern tactics today are not open field battles. Our theatres are mostly cities and towns at the moment.
12 - Make game launchable via BHQ or better yet, Gamespy.
13 - Does the AI use the mount/dismount and dig in? If not, is it possible that they can use it effectively?
14 - Remove useless sections from the Op Order
15 - Fix the original Op Orders (spelling, grammar, pointless encouraging statements)
16 - Remove observer status
17 - Remove the auto search for LAN games in the multiplayer screen
18 - Make multiplayer screen before battle selection
19 - Ability to tell which enemy vehicle has enemy troops should be removed
20 - Military symbols removed or explained. Theres not much point to have them.
21 - Houses not drawn with the side showing. This is usefull to know where the doors and windows are.
22 - Rotors of the Apache appear to be underneath the helicopter
22 - Redesign the main screen. Its three large rectangles to click on and it doesnt support high res.
23 - Boscity map - I spent a year in Bosnia and any house that had a fire lost the roof. The only thing wooden was the roof beams and they always burned and fell down. The houses all look like warehouses with the red tile knocked off.




Yute -> RE: Any improvements or additions to MT - please make suggestions (12/1/2007 3:58:55 AM)

OOh and be able to see Landmark captions at the most zoomed out mode ie the largest map.




newabortion -> RE: Any improvements or additions to MT - please make suggestions (12/1/2007 5:18:47 AM)

Gamespy suport! Why is it so hard to get a game going! Why do i need to know tech stuff like port changeing to play with friends!




Andrew Williams -> RE: Any improvements or additions to MT - please make suggestions (12/1/2007 5:57:57 AM)

You only need that idf you run on a network at home


the more complicsted you make it at your end the more work you have to do.

I had to set up World of warcraft the same for my kids to play.




Neil N -> RE: Any improvements or additions to MT - please make suggestions (12/1/2007 8:30:08 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: mooxe
22 - Rotors of the Apache appear to be underneath the helicopter


It's that way on all of the helicopters. With the blades showing above the helicopter....like they should....you basically never see the helicopter underneath the blade images during the animation sequence.

A compromise could be, instead of the 'blurry triangles' currently in use, use individual blades that can clearly be seen as on top of the helicopter...but the trade off is that they appear to be spinning to slow for some people.




Daviald -> RE: Any improvements or additions to MT - please make suggestions (12/1/2007 10:00:42 AM)

Found a recurring bug.
02. Operation Restore Hope
Zoom out, place a unit in a field, order it to dig in, "Rectangle provided was invalid.", Game crashes.

OR place a unit in a field, order it to dig in, then zoom out, "Rectangle provided was invalid.", Game crashes.

Just rechecked, It happens in multiple operations.




Daviald -> RE: Any improvements or additions to MT - please make suggestions (12/1/2007 10:23:14 AM)

2. Upgrade the Javalin to full potential.
3. Ignore "4. Blunt the arty -- way too powerful for good gameplay (realism arguments notwithstanding)" and improve its accuracy. [:)]  (Sorry.  Fan of Arty and realism.)
4. Every thing Yute Suggested.
5. At least the option of Requistion points for Multiplayer matches.
6. Units auto place to the best postion available.  IF on defend they immediately move to fireing postions.  If on ambush they find the best place with cover/concealment with less concern for firing postions.






KWP -> RE: Any improvements or additions to MT - please make suggestions (12/1/2007 7:16:34 PM)

Add a column or change an unused column in the teams.txt files that allows one to specify if the passengers are riding internally (protected from fire) or externally (exposed to fire).




zon -> RE: Any improvements or additions to MT - please make suggestions (12/1/2007 10:21:32 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Daviald

3. Ignore "4. Blunt the arty -- way too powerful for good gameplay (realism arguments notwithstanding)" and improve its accuracy. [:)]  (Sorry.  Fan of Arty and realism.)



You just like hammering my soldiers to bits at Battle HQ, Daviald


Add this to the list: AI ability to requisition units when presented with empty slots in a scenario.




zon -> RE: Any improvements or additions to MT - please make suggestions (12/1/2007 10:22:33 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: KWP

Add a column or change an unused column in the teams.txt files that allows one to specify if the passengers are riding internally (protected from fire) or externally (exposed to fire).


Nice!




mooxe -> RE: Any improvements or additions to MT - please make suggestions (12/1/2007 10:31:27 PM)

The artillery is too powerful, plain and simple. Artillery can win this game alone without any combat. Realism has to be sacrificed for game play. If you want artillery to be real, then I can say that artillery dropped on men in a field will kill them all. If you want people to die quicker, your games will end quicker right? Were talking about a kill radius of 30-50m, and the danger for injury quite larger than that. That in itself tells you how much it would add to gameplay.




Daviald -> RE: Any improvements or additions to MT - please make suggestions (12/1/2007 11:25:15 PM)

Simple fix, use the requisition system to make arty extremely expensive to acquire.  It makes sense from both a game play stance and a real world stance.  I am sure that if every fireteam in the military could have two dedicated 120mm mortar teams they would appreciate the added support, but not if it meant that that they were the only squad on the field of battle in a direct combat role.  The 120mm should have been kept at the battalion support level. 

The idea that you can field an entire company worth in Army Armor, but cannot match that amount in Army infantry is ludicrous.  You can barely pull enough army men on the field to make a reinforced platoon.  Does something not seem wrong here?  Which is worth more?  Which is more difficult to acquire?  This game could easily be relabeled Tank Tactics in close quarter combat.  Not modern tactics, as company level tank operations are not a common thing these days with anything less than a full battalion of infantry support.

As a commander though, I will not neglect to use any weapon system that will improve my chances of winning.  If the game is set up to use these various weapons systems, I'll continue to use them, as I think the natural progression of the gameplay and warfare in general will always follow the extremes.

If realism is going to be sacrificed, then I think it would be misleading to promote this game as an honest attempt at combat simulation.  Might as well have orcs and elves running around or star wars characters.  If I wanted a fair balanced game, I would have bought a fantasy title instead.  The truth is that the real world sucks.  We as humans have to use our heads to adapt to the hardships of a conflict, adapt and overcome the enemy strengths, and exploit his weaknesses.  That is the real game and the real interest of this series for me.

That might be going to far, but certainly do not call the weapon system the Stryker or 120mm mortar.  Find another make-believe name for it.  I'd hate to think that some ROTC guy is out there using this game and some really dumb ideas are getting embedded into his brain about modern tactics.

Besides, There, is a counter to a player using too damn much Arty.  You just have to close the range from you to the target to within 200 meters, and all of those equipment slots he wasted are useless.  Simple fix, when arty starts pouring down on you, you'll need to push up under the fan.  Of course it would mean more if instead of simply losing one slot by filling it with a mortar unit, he is wasting 4-5 slots.

BTW, on that note, I really would like to have some molotov cocktails.  That is one simple weapon system, used the world over, and is EXTREMELY effective. If used properly at leveling the playing field in urban combat.




Perturabo -> RE: Any improvements or additions to MT - please make suggestions (12/1/2007 11:51:08 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: mooxe

The artillery is too powerful, plain and simple. Artillery can win this game alone without any combat. Realism has to be sacrificed for game play. If you want artillery to be real, then I can say that artillery dropped on men in a field will kill them all. If you want people to die quicker, your games will end quicker right? Were talking about a kill radius of 30-50m, and the danger for injury quite larger than that. That in itself tells you how much it would add to gameplay.

Isn't fire support, like, assigned in engagement editor? If someone doesn't want death raining on the battlefield, it's obvious, that he shouldn't use Arty at all and use on-board mortars and AGLs instead. Because that's what Arty would be like if it would less powerful.




Daviald -> RE: Any improvements or additions to MT - please make suggestions (12/2/2007 12:37:27 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Perturabo
Isn't fire support, like, assigned in engagement editor? If someone doesn't want death raining on the battlefield, it's obvious, that he shouldn't use Arty at all and use on-board mortars and AGLs instead. Because that's what Arty would be like if it would less powerful.


Actually, he is referring to the onboard mortars and AGL's. Think about someone using 5-6 mortar teams and 2-3 AGL's. In a 30 minutes game it means that he can maintain a constant mortar barrage on a position for the entire length, OR a 4 minute barrage on all of your positions.




Perturabo -> RE: Any improvements or additions to MT - please make suggestions (12/2/2007 3:05:48 AM)

How many mortars[X(]???!!!
What kind of person would use 5-6 mortar teams or 2-3 AGL's?

(Certainly not someone I would like to play again)




Joram -> RE: Any improvements or additions to MT - please make suggestions (12/3/2007 2:56:29 AM)

Campaign.




jomni -> RE: Any improvements or additions to MT - please make suggestions (12/3/2007 4:35:34 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Daviald
Simple fix, use the requisition system to make arty extremely expensive to acquire. It makes sense from both a game play stance and a real world stance. I am sure that if every fireteam in the military could have two dedicated 120mm mortar teams they would appreciate the added support, but not if it meant that that they were the only squad on the field of battle in a direct combat role. The 120mm should have been kept at the battalion support level.


One problem, this is game is based on CC5 so it follows the force pool model (no unit costs are modeled) . This solution would have worked for CC3 engine.




Senior Drill -> RE: Any improvements or additions to MT - please make suggestions (12/3/2007 6:25:47 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: jomni


quote:

ORIGINAL: Daviald
Simple fix, use the requisition system to make arty extremely expensive to acquire. It makes sense from both a game play stance and a real world stance. I am sure that if every fireteam in the military could have two dedicated 120mm mortar teams they would appreciate the added support, but not if it meant that that they were the only squad on the field of battle in a direct combat role. The 120mm should have been kept at the battalion support level.


One problem, this is game is based on CC5 so it follows the force pool model (no unit costs are modeled) . This solution would have worked for CC3 engine.



Actually, no. CCM was based on the CC3 engine and had it's guts ripped out, then some CC5 code hacked back in. As it is, there is no usable code for operations and campaigns.




Page: [1] 2 3   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
3.578125