Initial impressions

Initial impressions (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Close Combat Series >> Close Combat: Wacht am Rhein

Message

SlickWilhelm -> Initial impressions (10/29/2008 4:50:00 PM)
Just for you guys still sitting on your wallets, I stayed up late last night playing through the Bastogne scenario so I could give some of you a reason to warm up your debit cards. First off a quick look at my system specs, for comparison to what you have if you're wondering how WaR will run on your system: Intel P4 3.4ghz 2GB RAM 512MB ATI Radeon 3850 AGP Windows XP Professional sp3 LG 22" widescreen monitor @ 1680x1050x32 The good news is that WaR runs very smoothly on my system. Air strikes were smooth(and spectacular!). I didn't notice any slowing down or lagging during fights. Bottom line, if you enjoyed "Cross of Iron" you should enjoy "Wacht am Rhein". Since I've only played one scenario, I can't comment with authority on the AI, but from what I've seen in my limited time, it appears to perform at step up from the AI in COI. Pathfinding appeared to be mostly very good. The graphics are very nice, with beautiful little explosions and smoke, even the smoke markers for the air strikes are a thing of beauty. Battle sounds are also very well done. I especially liked the mortar sounds. Just so I don't sound like too much of a fanboy, there were a few things that I don't like about WaR from an initial impression. I don't like the fact that the menu screens are in 1024x768. I assume it was too much work to recode it to be able to have the menus at the same resolution as the battle screens. Although, COI was able to accomplish this. But, whatever. I'm also not very impressed with the American voices used. Unlike COI, where it felt like the Russian soldiers were yelling at you like you were right on the battlefield with them, the Americans are radioing their information to you, complete with mic clicks. The Americans also seem too relaxed and calm, like they are out for a Sunday walk instead of in the middle of a battle. When my M10 Wolverine got taken out by a Tiger, the instead of the crew screaming and yelling that they're hit, I get a calm, collected "We're bailing out" radio message from the crew. I'm not sure if these voices were in the original CC4, as it's been too long since I've played that...and I didn't have time to boot it up last night to check. The ambient battlefield sounds are a little sparse, and the volume is quite low. I wish there was a way to elevate them a bit so that the distance crump of shells and the occasional bird can be heard in the background. Of course, those are very minor nitpicks. Overall, the game seems to be pretty much the same Close Combat that I have loved over the years. If you're a Close Combat enthusiast, based on my admittedly limited experience with WaR, I see no reason not to whip out the debit card and make the purchase. The gameplay is great, the graphics are gorgeous and the AI is improved. What more do you need for an excuse to support the fine folks at Matrix?

SlickWilhelm -> RE: Initial impressions (10/29/2008 4:52:36 PM)
Oh, one more complaint. I wish there was a way to zoom in on the battlefield like there is in COI. I could zoom out just fine, but I wasn't able to zoom in to see my guys battle from close up like I can in all COI's pixelated glory. :) If there is a way to zoom in closer, then I sit corrected and I'm all ears.

jimi3 -> RE: Initial impressions (10/29/2008 5:09:56 PM)
I’m running a similar system with no problems. So far I’ve played one short scenario and loved it. I completely agree with your observations. This appears to be one that will keep you up for long hours. One thing was missing and you pegged it. I wish I could zoom in on the action. Artwork is beautiful and the zoom would be icing on the cake. Also, good observation on the voices. That being said, a big two thumbs up to Matrix. [:)]

Lützow -> RE: Initial impressions (10/29/2008 5:55:50 PM)
From initial impression (didn't play a scenario yet) I like the fact that German units have native descriptions. I find it disturbing when I have to watch 'platoons', '88mm flak' or 'heavy tanks' by leading Wehrmacht forces.

Neil N -> RE: Initial impressions (10/29/2008 6:32:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lützow From initial impression (didn't play a scenario yet) I like the fact that German units have native descriptions. That was definitely something that we wanted to make sure and do better...unlike the originals

W Thorne -> RE: Initial impressions (10/29/2008 6:45:57 PM)
Congratulations on a great job. I haven't played any of the CC games for some time and have been pretty much out of wargaming for the last two years but your remake has really brought back a lot of pleasant memories. I would guess that this is probably what CC4 & 5 should have looked like. Now to brush up on my old modding skills.

Andrew Williams -> RE: Initial impressions (10/29/2008 8:40:13 PM)
quote: I get a calm, collected "We're bailing out" radio message from the crew. Voice Cues

Lützow -> RE: Initial impressions (10/29/2008 8:51:53 PM)
The AI seems to have improved as well. Since I don't own the original game anymore I can only judge by comparing to CC4 demo which I played some days ago. While the demo mission was a walkover, I got my ass handed at first campaign scenario already.

Andrew Williams -> RE: Initial impressions (10/29/2008 8:53:21 PM)
quote: I got my ass handed at first campaign scenario already. It's nice when an AI can do that!

Lützow -> RE: Initial impressions (10/29/2008 11:50:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Andrew Williams It's nice when an AI can do that! Mind you it's quite some ago that I played Close Combat. [:)] Anyway, my preliminary conclusion after some hours of gameplay: Wacht am Rhein is fun and worth the purchase. With the upgraded engine it should be even for those people who still own the Original. You guys did a good job on this.

Nomada_Firefox -> RE: Initial impressions (10/30/2008 12:10:24 AM)
I have played the original CC4 many and all the other Close Combat games many more and next from playing this new Close Combat 4, I think that it is the best work by the moment on it, IA is many better, vehicle movement is perfect and all the game can be edited easily. Congratulations by a work well done.

Stwa -> RE: Initial impressions (10/30/2008 9:03:14 AM)
Just having good vehicle pathing alone would be almost enough by itself for me. My own mods of CC5 and CC4, I cut way down on the vehicles. It just seemed to work best when there were no more than 2 per side on a map.

midgard30 -> RE: Initial impressions (10/30/2008 6:35:17 PM)
It's been a while that I'm thinking about playing a tactical squal-level game. I've never played a Close Combat game and I just saw that Matrix reedited two of them. Is there a big difference between CoI and WaR, and which one would be the best to start with?

SlickWilhelm -> RE: Initial impressions (10/30/2008 7:16:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: macob30 It's been a while that I'm thinking about playing a tactical squal-level game. I've never played a Close Combat game and I just saw that Matrix reedited two of them. Is there a big difference between CoI and WaR, and which one would be the best to start with? I would start with whichever setting appeals to you more. If the Eastern Front interests you more, start with COI. If the Western Front interests you more, then go with WaR. Personally, I find the Eastern Front war between the Germans and the Russians to be the more interesting theatre of operations. That being said, my maternal grandfather was killed near the end of the Battle of the Bulge, so for obvious reasons WaR interests me greatly.

Andrew Williams -> RE: Initial impressions (10/30/2008 7:47:14 PM)
CoI covers the whole of the Eastern Front conflict, four years of war. It has a variety of maps, snow, woodlands, open steppe etc. It has a more basic linear campaign system. It has a points based "Buying" system Wacht am Rhein is set in 25 days of the Battle of the Bulge From the morning the Germans launched the offensive until the day after Hitler ordered a partial withdrawal, oficcially signalling the failure of the operation. The campaign is a more complex dynamic campaign where you have to ensure supplies can get through and you can exercise your strategic skills more fully. WaR has a forcepool based team selection system with many varying battle groups from Armored to infantry and engineers etc (each has it's own characteristics) Each game has it's "features" but my personal taste has moved on to the more complex WaR.

Tejszd -> RE: Initial impressions (10/30/2008 8:04:58 PM)
The actual individual battles are not that different between COI and WAR. The big difference is in the campaign structure of the games. COI - You play an individual fire brigade that gets moved around the Eastern Front. Advantages: Equipment/Vehicle upgrades can be done over the course of the war on the eastern front Most people are more attached to their core teams/vehicles as their experience and upgraded equipment/vehicles can really make a difference Point system for purchasing teams/vehicles for H2H play Variety in maps as many different areas are covered Zoom in feature allows for close up of teams/vehicles Disadvantages: You can not change the course the of war no matter how many battles you win You do not control support or have to worry about supply lines WAR - You control all the battle groups in 1 large battle Advantages: You can control what battle groups (bg's) move where and have to watch supply lines You can control which BG's get support (air, artillery, mortar or supply drops) Displays team/vehicle point values for H2H play (but does NOT enforce them) Must decide when to reinforce a BG (if./when available) Disadvantages: Less variety in equipment as the battle is only over maximum 25 days Over a campaign losses are high and you get less attached to individual teams/vehicles My preference would be WAR due to being able to change history....

berndn -> RE: Initial impressions (10/30/2008 10:30:45 PM)
I like it so far. Great maps and graphics :) My impressions are that the AI is better then in the original as well as in a lot of the mods. Sounds are fine while I sometimes miss a bit more atmosphere in respect to surrounding sounds. What I don't like is the 'washed out' main menu on my tft screen resulting from the monitor doing the calculations. And what has been said from others the zoom support. But I realise that rewritting the engine for this rerelease would make much to much work. Another point which I don't like is the navigation of the strat map. It gets some time to get the right feeling how to move the mouse with a bg and not to go up and down like crazy. But again I can see that it's a result from the graphics engine. I hope that modding is as easy as it seems. I will need some time to complete an allied and a german full GC ;) As someone from here has mentioned my now old tool to help starting original CC releases I downloaded it and tried it with Vista 64bit. Not sure if it works because the program has problems accessing some registry values or to enumerate some values when starting. If there's interest I can try to find out what happens.

e_barkmann -> RE: Initial impressions (10/30/2008 11:50:54 PM)
initial impressions after half a dozen scenarios - pathfinding improved although still a number of instances where afv get confused or tell me they can't work out a path to that spot (waypoints help them at that stage) AI seems to be a little improved but still seeing numerous instances of defending AI units deciding it's a better life choice to break cover and head for the enemy. AI on the attack is more aggressive but to the point of taking on Japanese Bushido tendencies and happily running teams over open ground at full tilt with resulting consequences. I haven't noticed attempts to soften up positions or use covering smoke, but it's early days. Nice maps, nice graphics - well done! It has a nice polished feel to it generally and I'd say a definite improvement over the last matrix CC release. I will look forward to having a lot of fun with the operations and campaigns. All we need now is some players to camp out at BHQ for some online action... cheers

squadleader_id -> RE: Initial impressions (10/31/2008 2:34:36 PM)
Nicely done S3T and Matrix! - The new vehicle graphics rules (by Neil N. AKA Linebacker right?)...the new camo schemes and details look great. CC4: VetBoB (smaller tanks vetmod) looks great...but WAR's vehicle graphics looks just as good...if not better. - The Opponent AI for single player games is surprisingly not bad...way better than the original CC4 (and CC5). Not as overkill as VetBoB (lethal weapons!)...which is good news to me. The AI still can't carry out a decent attack...it's aggressive but still dumb as the attacker (sending squads at VLs piece meal, no AFV-Infantry combined arms tactics). The AI controlled AFVs do seem to be more active moving...but sometimes just randomly...and sometimes driving straight into VLs (and easily destroyed using infantry AT weapons at point blank range). The AI on defense is pretty tough...attacking will give experienced players a good challenge. I like how the AI aggressively counter-attacks after losing VLs. AI Infantry hiding inside buildings are also especially tough to supress and destroy. The AI still doesn't setup properly, and sometimes break cover to manouver without good reason. - Yup, the Soldier AI is more prone to ducking under fire and aborting movement...but in WAR it's not as annoying as the "girlie soldiers" in CoI and CCMT...phew! A few more clicks are needed to reissue lost orders...but I find it managable :D - The new maps are awesome...SouthernLand outdid himself again...as always! :) - The weapon sounds are crisp, realistic and well done, the command and death sounds are a bit generic...a lot of CC5 mods feature more 'brutal' command and death sounds ;). Still some minor bugs in the sounds (English spoken line when US request truce while playing as Germans - speaking Germans). - Weapons artwork on the interface looks great...too bad the interface is still locked (with black borders) and not fully stretchable so you can't really see the weapons graphics up close. The guns/cannon graphics is done in 'traditional CC style'...personally I prefer gun graphics from mods like VetBoB, Utah, GJS-TRSM...close up and showing the Nozzle Break graphics. - Great work on fixing the rank graphics bug in the Tactical Map interface...now they show Heer, SS and FJ ranks correctly (this feature was broken in CC4-CC5, only displaying one type of ranks). - The Waffen-SS tank crews coded and displayed using Heer ranks need to be fixed in the next patch. Also Panzerwaffe fans might nitpick about the Panzer crew uniforms...Assault Guns crews should be wearing Gray, not Black. Waffen-SS Panzer crews also wore camo, besides panzer crew black. Maybe panzer fans can add to this? - Vehicle pathing is much better...but sometimes tanks still turn in circles or do random about turns instead of reversing smoothly. The AI controlled tanks are a lot more active, compared to the campers in CC4-CC5. - The interface screen expanded from locked 800x600 is welcome...why not make it strechable to full screen :) - The new text files for modding is a great idea...but modders need tutorials to edit these. The WAR workbook looks great too...good work, Guys! - Nice features, well polished and very playable out of the box...looks like I'll be busy with this one for quite a while :D

Neil N -> RE: Initial impressions (10/31/2008 4:09:59 PM)
Actually, Zon and AA_Gen_Jack did the vehicle graphics and I think that if you compare them side by side, VetBoB's tanks are a little larger

dogancan -> RE: Initial impressions (10/31/2008 6:54:15 PM)
I will definitely buy this game, and just waiting to read some on Bulge so I can get the athmosphere of these battles. What I want to know is, for those who do not know much about WW2 history, is any information about actual war etc. provided as a doc? And more importantly, while choosing the squad, does any information about AFVs provided ( since I do not understand anything at all when one say Tiger XXA or something like this!)? [:D]

Tejszd -> RE: Initial impressions (10/31/2008 7:15:37 PM)
The manual has couple pages on the battle for background. For picking squads/vehicles you can look at; - the weapons carried - the experience/morale But probably the best bet is to look at the point value of the unit, the higher the number usually the better unit....

Prince of Eckmühl -> RE: Initial impressions (10/31/2008 7:28:51 PM)
My initial impression is that WaR is a lot like CC4: [image]local://upfiles/21246/8B66F591EAE84BFD95D542092FCDDEE6.jpg[/image] I quit playing CC4 when I saw a vehicle shoot through a large church. AFAIK, these are the only two games in the CC series where vehicles can shoot through houses. I'd love to state, unequivocally, that WaR is improved in this regard, but I only played one scenario before noticing that the bug had gone unrectified. PoE (aka ivanmoe)

midgard30 -> RE: Initial impressions (10/31/2008 8:00:27 PM)
Thanks for all your comments. They're really helpful. Both games seem to be really interesting and have features that I like: diversity for CoI and more Strategic options and supplies for WaR. I'm really tempted by WaR for these reasons, but I'm afraid that all missions would feel all alike (winter and forest). On the other hand, since CoI is more linear, it looks more suitable for a first time player. What about the AI? Same for both games?

Andrew Williams -> RE: Initial impressions (10/31/2008 8:01:51 PM)
I checked the coding The AC is sitting an a 5m High piece of ground. The 3 Story building sits at 17m. You are shooting over the top of the building adjacent to you,where the roof meets the wall, to hit the roof of the 3 story building. Move the firing line a little either way and you will lose LOS... you are just sitting in exactly the right spot to get a perfect angle to that single spot on the 3 story roof. This can be seen in any of the CC games. [image]local://upfiles/2239/888E774A2A7B45FE9EFFA742F29C6C02.jpg[/image]

dogancan -> RE: Initial impressions (10/31/2008 8:05:55 PM)
thx, as I understand I do not need specific details about AFVs, like their fuel consumption, relative armour-speed balance, and scouting capacity. That is actually good news for me. [:)]

invernomuto -> RE: Initial impressions (10/31/2008 8:41:36 PM)
quote: What about the AI? Same for both games? I made only one mission (first mission of the grand campaing) as german vs Allies AI. I made some mistake and the AI wiped me out. In COI, first missions were far more easier. But I'm not a CC veteran. Bye

Reboot -> RE: Initial impressions (10/31/2008 9:04:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: squadleader_id - The new maps are awesome...SouthernLand outdid himself again...as always! :) JimRM2 did a few gems too

Prince of Eckmühl -> RE: Initial impressions (10/31/2008 9:19:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Andrew Williams I checked the coding The AC is sitting an a 5m High piece of ground. The 3 Story building sits at 17m. You are shooting over the top of the building adjacent to you,where the roof meets the wall, to hit the roof of the 3 story building. Move the firing line a little either way and you will lose LOS... you are just sitting in exactly the right spot to get a perfect angle to that single spot on the 3 story roof. This can be seen in any of the CC games. Hello Andrew, Thanks for responding. I honestly don't think that the target's roof elevation has anything to do with this. I can kill the green/open LOS simply by moving the shooting vehicle rearward and away from the intervening (two-story) structure, when geometry would suggest that exactly the opposite should be the case. Anyway, check out this one: [image]local://upfiles/21246/FB32277527A14FBB9013BA80A06AE34D.jpg[/image] In this second JPG, the firing vehicle has a green/open LOS to level ground on the other side of the house. If I fiddle with the placement of the vehicle, I can manipulate the LOS in all sorts of interesting ways, UNTIL the vehicle is well-clear of the structure, whereupon, geometry once again appears to reign the day. Thoughts? PoE (aka ivanmoe)

Andrew Williams -> RE: Initial impressions (10/31/2008 9:53:07 PM)
no problem glad to be of help. Your vehicle is parked alongside a window... no LOS impediment there see coding pic. [image]http://www.closecombatwar.com/WaR/AndlerLOS.jpg[/image] The walls or any object in Close Combat can be coded with certain characteristics. Warning: Getting a bit Technical. Columns Ab and Ac of the workbook refer to Line of Sight through objects including walls. Walls are coded in Ab to block LOS AC is a switch to turn off/on LOS through wall if you are adjacent (in CCMT this was turned off ) In WaR this is turned on so you can fire through a wall if adjacent ie right up next to the wall... two walls will Block LOS this allows soldiers, in particular, to fire from buildings without having to find a window (which sometimes cause only 1,2 or 3 of a team to get LOS while the others mill about) In the scenario you present the game engine must consider that your vehicle is close enough to be adjacent to the wall and gain LOS. A slight change in the angle of fire brings into play the window or not and the distance the game engine considers is close enough to be adjacent. You can see this by gaining LOS to certain points but not to others. [image]http://www.closecombatwar.com/WaR/walls.jpg[/image]

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.671875