RE: 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

CSO_Sbufkle -> RE: Any improvements or additions to MT - please make suggestions (12/3/2007 8:12:50 PM)

So you cant even add a GC using the simple battle data array that MMCC3 ran off???



mavraamides -> RE: Any improvements or additions to MT - please make suggestions (12/3/2007 11:23:29 PM)

1) Visible VL's
2) Campaigns like COI



thefunction -> RE: Any improvements or additions to MT - please make suggestions (12/5/2007 4:22:15 AM)

Any ETA of implementation of some of these improvements and bugs that have been found?



mudrock -> RE: Any improvements or additions to MT - please make suggestions (12/8/2007 5:18:16 AM)

Matrix Games - thanks for re-issuing this game. I was/ am a fan of the old MS CC series and I am glad to see I am not the only sick old hawk out there. I am enjoying the game. Having said that, there have been many changes between this version and the last release of the classic CC. remarkably the classic seems to run smoother with fewer anomalies, like armor being able to follow a simple road / path (for the life of me I don't understand this problem, I never had a PFC not be able to follow a road). armor pointing and shooting in the same direction, armor shooting on command, armor hull forward / gun forward when defending or ambushing in the same direction, soldiers moving or running smoothly (current version is very stop action). Where is the throw grenades command? wasn’t there a throw grenade command? Rookie / veteran switch is missed as the AI is still not much of a great challenge to basic "fire and move" unless turned all the way up. Also I liked the "follow orders" switch, which allowed me to establish the degree of obedience the soldiers had. I personally think your AI algorithm is way off. Marines do what they are told while on patrol, unless under the most withering direct fire, and even then you have someone who will get up and move if you scream at them. I am amazed there are no operations or campaigns in single player mode, why not? Iraq war, Afgan operations, Iran? Lots of interesting scenarios to choose from. (I guess i could be social and get my tail waxed on line by some kid with too much time on his hands). Also, why not identify my victory locations? Reality is, unless you’re on the defensive, military leadership always tells you the objective - rarely is it to kill /destroy everything in sight (unless your on defense). The armor is way too thin-skinned by the way - on both sides of the ball. RPGs / LAW's don't take out most modern day armor. Blow a track, blind a gunner or driver or disable a motor - but not taking it out. The Stryker is way too fragile in the game play.

Well anyway I am enjoying the game. thanks again.



Neil N -> RE: Any improvements or additions to MT - please make suggestions (12/8/2007 6:26:29 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: mudrock
The Stryker is way too fragile in the game play.


The Stryker is way to fragile in real life.[;)] That has always been the primary complaint while in development, and almost got the project killed off. The Strykers armor is only designed to protect up to 14.5mm rounds....so an rpg, 40mm grenade, mortar rounds, can all make hamburger out of a stryker.

The opfor rpgs and nato man-portable AT weapons are not like the old ones. RPG7 and RPG16 can take out just about anything on the battlefield except MBTs...of course they can track it or damage the gun. RPG 27 and RPG 29, each having a tandem warhead, are proving very lethal on today's battlefields. Ask the Israeli's...who lost nearly 50 Merkavas to RPG27/29s in their war with Hamas last year...and the British who lost a Challenger II to an RPG29 in Iraq...it defeated the ERA and penetrated the frontal armor. The Javelin employed by US forces is capable of knocking out just about any enemy vehicle that it encounters on the battlefield.

Many of the other things you mentioned that you liked about some of the older games...experience slider, always follow orders option...were not part of CCMT, because it was developed from CCM which is used by the USMC as a training tool.

Visible victory locations, as well as some other things are going to be addressed in a patch in the near future.

Glad you're having fun...we're having many a good MP battles with it too.



TheHellPatrol -> RE: Any improvements or additions to MT - please make suggestions (12/9/2007 12:44:14 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: mudrock

remarkably the classic seems to run smoother with fewer anomalies, like armor being able to follow a simple road / path (for the life of me I don't understand this problem, I never had a PFC not be able to follow a road). armor pointing and shooting in the same direction, armor shooting on command, armor hull forward / gun forward when defending or ambushing in the same direction, soldiers moving or running smoothly (current version is very stop action). Where is the throw grenades command? wasn’t there a throw grenade command? Rookie / veteran switch is missed as the AI is still not much of a great challenge to basic "fire and move" unless turned all the way up. Also I liked the "follow orders" switch, which allowed me to establish the degree of obedience the soldiers had. I personally think your AI algorithm is way off. Marines do what they are told while on patrol, unless under the most withering direct fire, and even then you have someone who will get up and move if you scream at them. I am amazed there are no operations or campaigns in single player mode, why not? Iraq war, Afgan operations, Iran? Lots of interesting scenarios to choose from. (I guess i could be social and get my tail waxed on line by some kid with too much time on his hands). Also, why not identify my victory locations? Reality is, unless you’re on the defensive, military leadership always tells you the objective - rarely is it to kill /destroy everything in sight (unless your on defense). The armor is way too thin-skinned by the way - on both sides of the ball. RPGs / LAW's don't take out most modern day armor. Blow a track, blind a gunner or driver or disable a motor - but not taking it out. The Stryker is way too fragile in the game play.


I'm glad i read this...thanks![&o] I was willing to look beyond the GC issue and figured i'd enjoy some good 'ol CC. No GC. no German Armor...ok...no experience/orders input on top of the AI issues just killed it for me[:(]. That and the fact that this era/theater will only have a couple tanks unlike WW2...i have removed it once again from my cart.



Yute -> RE: Any improvements or additions to MT - please make suggestions (12/9/2007 5:07:10 AM)

Question - were the "fanatic", "heroic" and "berserk" moral markers taken out?



Masterjts -> RE: Any improvements or additions to MT - please make suggestions (12/9/2007 5:34:08 AM)

Just bought the game last night and played it today. Did some h2h with a friend. The only thing that we really noticed that was annoying was the fact that you couldnt ban certain troops from a game and that there was not a set number of points per troop and a pool of points to buy troops with before a match. I know you can remove the mission troops and get new ones but nothing stops you from loading up on the best of the best troops.

It would be nice to be able to set a troop point limit and let each side pick their own custom troops within that set of points. (unless this feature is already in the game and I just missed it?)



Andrew Williams -> RE: Any improvements or additions to MT - please make suggestions (12/9/2007 5:47:30 AM)

Before the game establish some rules.

eg

2 tanks
3 other armoured vehicles
rest infantry

It's easy to set ground rules before a battle.



Perturabo -> RE: Any improvements or additions to MT - please make suggestions (12/9/2007 5:56:47 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yute

Question - were the "fanatic", "heroic" and "berserk" moral markers taken out?

No. They aren't easy to encounter in game though, because they are characteristic for troops with very low morale.



Masterjts -> RE: Any improvements or additions to MT - please make suggestions (12/9/2007 7:13:19 AM)

yes it is easy to set ground rules but you can easily not use those ground rules and then 30 minutes into the game someone starts using something they should have and you are forced to either exit the game or play the rest of the game angry. Neither is any fun. Plus there is no reason to use tier b and c troops when you can use tier A unless you specificaly lock the troops. Would be better to assign point values to the troops and then let people select what they want within the total troop points. Would also be great to be able to ban troop types either on the senario creation screen or the hosting game screen.

Just my thought on it anyways.



Yute -> RE: Any improvements or additions to MT - please make suggestions (12/9/2007 8:29:05 AM)

quote:

No. They aren't easy to encounter in game though, because they are characteristic for troops with very low morale.


Odd - the manual (p. 43) seems to indicate those moral markers are not in the game. Haven't seen it yet either.



Neil N -> RE: Any improvements or additions to MT - please make suggestions (12/9/2007 8:49:16 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Yute

Question - were the "fanatic", "heroic" and "berserk" moral markers taken out?


Those mental states have always occured on a pretty infrequent basis in CC. In 10+ years of playing CC, If can probably count on both hands how many times I have seen those....although, I thought that I did see berserk once while playing H2H with Opfor. I had 1 surviving memeber of an Opfor Rifle team inside a building, surrounded by his dead buddies. As an army fire team entered the building, he dispatched of them with a combination of his rifle and hand to hand combat. Another fire team entered the building, and he promptly did the same thing to them. When the 3rd fire team came after him, he 4 of them before being finished off. I think I even have a screen shot of it somewhere...I'll have to see if I can find it.



Perturabo -> RE: Any improvements or additions to MT - please make suggestions (12/9/2007 9:34:11 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yute

quote:

No. They aren't easy to encounter in game though, because they are characteristic for troops with very low morale.


Odd - the manual (p. 43) seems to indicate those moral markers are not in the game. Haven't seen it yet either.

Those morale states are in game. The reason why you haven't seen them is that they are almost exclusive to very low (0) morale. Most of troops in CCMT have strong morale.
I'm working on a mod for CCMT that includes militia and conscripts with very low morale and conscript level of training and I get those states very often.



Yute -> RE: Any improvements or additions to MT - please make suggestions (12/9/2007 10:55:15 AM)

Cool - thanks for the info!

Could we also get the Jav just a bit more accurate? I just spent a game where three Jav teams with clear LOS and good command couldn't hit a T-72 standing still (let alone moving) in open terrain from 800m. Max effective range in real life is 2500m. Also would be great if we could get it just a tad more powerful - not a good thing when my teams say "can't hurt that" when ordered to fire on a T-55.... I think part of the problem is that the game thinks the Jav is not a top attack munition and treats it as a direct attack munition, therefore unless you have a side shot or rear shot to say, a T-80, you're not going to kill it when in real life it would just crash through the roof of the tank.




Masterjts -> RE: Any improvements or additions to MT - please make suggestions (12/11/2007 8:49:10 AM)

Most if not all of this will not ever make it into the game but here are some suggestions.

It would be nice to be able to select the mission (for multiplayer) after players have joined the game. Having to back out and reselect a map is a pain.

It is also annoying having to wait 5 minutes each time you go into or out of a multiplayer game for the system to search for games. I would like to have to manually search for games (manually hit the search button) to alleviate some wasted time.

It would also be nice to be able to view more information on the maps for use in multiplayer. It is also a little annoying loading up a map and having the deployment the exact opposite of what you expected.

Coop vs the AI would be nice. Just have the host's compute run the extra AI and forward the information like his own troop movements.

Add the option to flee from combat. If the other player does not want to accept a truce you should be able to abandon the field to end the game. This way to you can look at the statistics and save the replay. (not everyone plays with a 30 min game timer)

A key that shows exactly where your unit can see in a radius similar to the command radius.

A keyboard command chart in the manual showing all keyboard shortcuts.

Add a key or an overlay option showing the terrain topography. It could just be a rough drawing. Just something so you know the hill you are actually trying to hid behind isnt really a hill. Some of these maps are very deceiving. It could even be a separate map that you can only access before the game starts. Just something to to give you an idea of how the map layout looks.

Better visual architecture for the buildings. Some of the buildings only have one entrance and you do not know where that entrance is until your troops reach the building. There needs to be better exterior visual cue showing entrance/exit points on the buildings. Some buildings have them but most dont and it is frustrating not knowing if your troops will be able to get in the building or not.

Well it is 1am here and I have work in only a few hours so I need to wrap this up and get to sleep. More latter I am sure. Just would like to say that I think the game as is is very good and well worth the money. Keep up the good work. I look forward to future patches and game from you guys.



Grumbling Grogn -> RE: Any improvements or additions to MT - please make suggestions (12/11/2007 10:41:07 PM)

Sorry just saw this thread...transplanting my suggestions/impressions from my other thread:
----------------------------------

1) The vehicle pathing AI is in dire need of adjustment. Vehicles become stuck doing the "Close Combat Shuffle" way, way too often. IMHO, it is so bad as to make the game unplayable if I have more than 2-3 vehicles as I have to baby sit them all (something I hate with a passion).

2) The opponent AI is woefully under powered as well. The new "replay feature" does nothing but expose this with crysal clarity. I realize it has always been quite weak, but now it 'seems' weaker, and it is quite sad to see what the AI does sometimes. For example it will move soldiers form postions 'in cover', 'on a victory location' it is defending at setup out into a field or open location (crawling) (and back again often). The AI should be able to see the AI locations and should be able to be smart enough to simply hunker down and defend them if it already controls them.

Because I play a lot of solo games the problems with these two AI issues REALLY detract a lot from the game. #1 means I can not give the AI opponent vehicles at all as it ends up being is a waste of slots most of the time and it also means I have to "baby sit" any vehicles I take as well. But #2 means even if I don't give the AI any vehicles the AI rarely seems to have a clue as to what is expected from it to win the game and will often start moving its infantry away from the cover/victory locations it begins set up in only to crawl into a field and wait to be shot to peices.

A few other things I have noticed...

3) Response time for air/arty support is WAY, WAY too fast. There should be a delays between when support is called for and when it arrives.

4) If you defeat an enemy by breaking their morale and they can still "win" according to the final screen if they were sitting on the victory locations when they "broke".

5) The animations are quite "jerky" at all speeds and do not display correctly (at all) in slow game speed with figures showing prone when they are really "running".

6) As mentioned before adding back the linked scenarios would be nice

7) No time limit should be required for setup

8) It seems to me that some ATGMs are a bit too difficult to spot when they fire. I was under the impression that many (esp. the early ones such as Sagger) created a large plume of smoke when they were launched and were quite easy to spot even when they fired from long range.

9) It would be nice to be able to start infantry mounted in vehicles



Neil N -> RE: Any improvements or additions to MT - please make suggestions (12/11/2007 11:41:52 PM)

With regards to number 1, some of the problems the vehicles are having has to do with vehicle movement rates in the elements file. I know this is being looked at and some changes are being made



newabortion -> RE: Any improvements or additions to MT - please make suggestions (12/12/2007 4:56:48 AM)

I gota say after playing this game for a little while the path finding is one of the worst I've ever seen. I cant go up a hill 30 feet away in a apc WHAT?!
anyways I dont have ny complants really, I think the urban infantry needs squads not just fireteams, other than that oh.. more urban maps not the cramed iraq maps but the maps like the... cant think of the name, but it looks like a real town and its scary to dash across the street in it



mikmykWS -> RE: Any improvements or additions to MT - please make suggestions (12/13/2007 5:27:13 AM)

Its been worth 30 or so bucks of my time but...

  1. Its been reported numerous times but pathfinding is horrible and needs to be fixed.
  2. More scenario and database work and research. The OOB's of most scenarios are odd in terms of organization and how most units are equipped in real life. Your Opfor might be okay, your regular forces are bizarre:)
  3. When using some of the functions allow the user to access and pan the sub map. Its much easier if you'd like to plot a path across the map to click move, click the submap on the area you'd like to go and then plot. I'd normally be okay if this wasn't real time combat but manually scrolling the big map is slow.



Andrew Williams -> RE: Any improvements or additions to MT - please make suggestions (12/13/2007 5:40:09 AM)

You can plot your way points on the overview map




[image]local://upfiles/2239/76930547B7034B608E1FF82B6030F0C7.jpg[/image]



mikmykWS -> RE: Any improvements or additions to MT - please make suggestions (12/13/2007 5:51:44 AM)

Great! How'd you do that or what page of the manual?

Isn't exactly what I was talking but will fix my problem.

Tnx!



Andrew Williams -> RE: Any improvements or additions to MT - please make suggestions (12/13/2007 6:37:37 AM)

click on the little - sign at bottom left of screen... This is the zoom out view.


Hold down shift as you give the ordr and click at each way point.



Fred98 -> RE: Any improvements or additions to MT - please make suggestions (12/14/2007 1:15:40 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: mikmyk
Its been reported numerous times but pathfinding is horrible


Since way back in CC1, the game is at it’s best with few or no vehicles. Vehicles are not compulsory!


quote:

ORIGINAL: mikmyk
The OOB's of most scenarios are odd in terms of organization and how most units are equipped in real life.


In infantry v infantry who cares?






Rotary Crewman -> RE: Any improvements or additions to MT - please make suggestions (12/17/2007 2:49:02 AM)

I understand it has been said before, but I just want to reinforce the point.

Some sort of campaign please! You will have yourselves plenty more customers if you implement this.



Raven302 -> RE: Any improvements or additions to MT - please make suggestions (12/22/2007 1:57:04 AM)

My 2 cents. Here's my suggestions.

1. If there are definitely no intentions on creating a campaign system in the future, lots MORE maps please!!!
2. As stated earlier, it's more complicated and sometimes impossible to target structures effectively.
3. I'd like to see the aiming line change from green/red for direct fire change to the orangish indirect fire line if the unit has the capability.
4. Several games now on the OPFor side my heavy weapons teams have weirded out. The squad moves EXCEPT for the soldier with the heavy weapon (AGL, Mortar). Like hes glued in place.
5. AI is terrible... even worse than the CC2 & 3 I've played for years.
6. Infantry rifle mounted GL's seem to have way too much ammunition...
7. AGL's in general are way too effective. [:@] Most games especially against AI, they completely dominate EVERYTHING except heavy armor.
8. I don't find the vehicle pathfinding much worse than what I'm already used to. I'm used to setting a boatload of waypoints... but I do find the way infantry move through buildings annoying. Look like blind rats negotiating a maze with concrete shoes on.
9. Points system in game or officially posted on forum (honor system[8|]) for fair play. 
10. "Exit" button within game.
11. Victory location symbols on map.
12. I like the fact that vehicles can randomly throw tracks and become immobilized. It would be cool if you could order the unit to "repair" like the dig in command (takes a long time).
13. Dig in taking 5 minutes? My thoughts are that the infantry would most likely be making "improvised" shelters and not digging full blown trenches in the middle of a hot area.
14. Option to place an armored until dug in, "hull down" at deployment.
15. Vehicles seem to spot infantry easier than in past versions. Just my opinion.
16. I don't understand why it breaks down the individual inc/dec of soldier stats after battle if there arent any subsequent battles to be fought.



Raven302 -> RE: Any improvements or additions to MT - please make suggestions (12/23/2007 12:12:51 AM)

Oh, one more thing. The Stryker CV does NOT carry (2) as the manual states. It will not mount even a single soldier. It also seems vehicles base load capacity off the teams FULL capacity. Not actual men left in the squad.



Senior Drill -> RE: Any improvements or additions to MT - please make suggestions (12/23/2007 7:45:48 AM)

I'm sure that there would be room for a couple of scouts in a Stryker CV if the all are real good friends. [;)] I believe that mount problem is fixed for the patch.

As to your item #6: The basic load for a grenadier with an M-203 is 400 ball, 4 fragmentation grenades, 30 40mm HE grendades and 10 40mm Smoke grenades.



Neil N -> RE: Any improvements or additions to MT - please make suggestions (12/23/2007 5:58:51 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Raven302

Oh, one more thing. The Stryker CV does NOT carry (2) as the manual states. It will not mount even a single soldier. It also seems vehicles base load capacity off the teams FULL capacity. Not actual men left in the squad.


You are correct on that one...It was looked at, but I'm not sure if a solution was found. Also, regarding the Stryker CV Passengers, I looked at the data, and currently it is set to '0' in the passengers column (column DV if you are using Excel).



Raven302 -> RE: Any improvements or additions to MT - please make suggestions (12/23/2007 6:18:46 PM)

Against the AI I like to run the new Stryker platoon groups. Works well with some practice. [:)]

Whaen is the patch scheduled to be released?



Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
2.90625