RE: OB Smoke?

RE: OB Smoke? (Full Version)

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

Message

Krasny -> RE: OB Smoke? (11/18/2008 11:17:19 AM)
quote: That's because CC is no longer a mere tactical wargame. It's an operational wargame where tactical combat isn't really important. It's the strategic layer that is most important and deserves most improvements because it adds depth to the series. I'm pretty sure, that everyone agrees that it's better to dedicate limited resources to improving the strategic combat instead of adding a new tool to something that is just an equivalent of a dice roll on strategic map. I know, that's the reason why I bought WAR. It's the only reason to buy / play WAR. It's WAR's unique selling point. If Battlefront had brought out a strategy layer for Combat Mission, I would be playing that. WAR's tactical game is an embaressment. Even Firefight (http://www.computer-game.us/strategy_war/firefight.htm has OB smoke. For some reason the developers of the CC series chose to let the tactical game whither on the vine. However that debate is for another thread. quote: Without this I can't see a great desire to have OB smoke as an option because the main reason, giving cover, would not be archived. If smoke is broken it should be corrected. However broken smoke is not a cogent argument to not implement OB smoke. I don't know whether smoke is broken or not. Answers in another thread. quote: This game delivered what was advertised. They said it was a re-release of CC4 that worked on modern computers with some updated graphics and campaign. I'm happy with that. If you expected more than what they promised, that's on you. And if they don't deliver what they hype, that's on them. But I think Matrix did everything pretty damned fairly and honestly with this release. Yep caveat emptor. Latin for 'screw you', I believe. I'm not arguing for a refund here, although given woefully inadiquate nature of the tactical game, I wouldn't refuse one. I'm arguing that the developers / fanboys ("Close Combat right or wrong"), should stop acting like Douglas Haig and start acting like George Patton. Just because something hasn't been in the game for 14 billion years, doesn't mean that it shouldn't be in the game. quote: CC1 in 1996 and CC4 in late 1999. And in all that time neither you nor anyone else discussed nor asked for OB smoke. So what. Big fat hairy deal. Defence stipulates that he has neven posted on a CC forum before this thread. Just becuase the Emperor has had no clothes for some time, doesn't mean the little boy can't cry out "The Emperor is stark bollock naked!" Seriously you guys are acting like I'm a heretic. Put away your torches and pitch forks, and come and join the enlightenment.

Perturabo -> RE: OB Smoke? (11/18/2008 2:43:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Krasny If Battlefront had brought out a strategy layer for Combat Mission, I would be playing that. WAR's tactical game is an embaressment. Which is because of strategic game parasiting on CC series. I'm pretty sure that Atomic Games could improve the tactical gameplay a lot if they weren't too busy adding and improving a strategic minigame.

Tejszd -> RE: OB Smoke? (11/18/2008 5:54:59 PM)
quote: Which is because of strategic game parasiting on CC series. I'm pretty sure that Atomic Games could improve the tactical gameplay a lot if they weren't too busy adding and improving a strategic minigame. Actually the strategic game is probably less risk and less work to change than the tactical battle part of the game. So taking the effort put into the strategic changes would get you less changes in the tatical battles. Also, you didn't reply with the name of that freeware game that can give CC a run for its money???

Perturabo -> RE: OB Smoke? (11/18/2008 6:13:12 PM)
Sorry, I didn't notice your post. It's Armored Brigade. I wouldn't say that it can give CC a run for its money because it's in different scale than CC, but it has a lot of features that I always wished CC would have. Sadly, there are no unarmed civilians to kill[:(].

Fred98 -> RE: OB Smoke? (11/18/2008 9:58:58 PM)
The CC4 game engine, the first of the series to have off map air and artillery support, was produced in 1999. The idea of off map arty to fire smoke is a good idea. I have not seen the idea discussed over the last 9 years. Perhaps it might be incorporated in Close Combat 6 To summarise this thread: quote: ORIGINAL: Krasny How do I get OB mortars / arty to fire smoke? quote: ORIGINAL: Andrew Williams That is not an option. That was a clear and accurate answer. quote: ORIGINAL: Krasny Why in heavens name not? Because the feature is not in the game. quote: ORIGINAL: Krasny But WHY is it not an option. Because nobody thought of it before. quote: ORIGINAL: Krasny Is it going to be an option in future patches? If not why not? No. Those who produced the game engine back in 1999 never thought of it so it cannot be added in a patch. The producer, Atomic Games, no longer exists -

Krasny -> RE: OB Smoke? (11/19/2008 11:43:24 AM)
quote: The idea of off map arty to fire smoke is a good idea. Thank you. A sane honest answer after days of mendacity, corperate obfuscation, and fanboy wuckfittery. It's not a good idea however. It's a bleedin' obvious idea. Not sure what manner of drooling retards neglected to exclude such an obvious feature to the battle game. I'm sure it could be added as a patch. It's not rocket science.

TheReal_Pak40 -> RE: OB Smoke? (11/19/2008 3:09:43 PM)
I think we could all go on and on about how the offboard artillery system is unrealistic. I personally think that the presence of it negatively alters the game play. It is way too powerful for such a small force pool. I try to limit my use of it against the AI because I'm already kicking the AI's butt anyway. Using artillery seems unfair, especially since the AI tends to group its infantry into nice and juicy target areas. All I have to do is find out where they are and then wham - I can call in an accurate mortar or artillery strike within seconds (not minutes, like it should be) and virtually wipe out the AI's unarmored forces. I feel they system should either be eliminated or made so that it works in realistic manner which would make it less powerfull.

Perturabo -> RE: OB Smoke? (11/19/2008 7:06:56 PM)
I agree with what you say, TheReal_Pak40. Support in CC4-5-MT almost like some kind of superweapon from Command & Conquer, not something I'd expect from a realistic wargame. quote: ORIGINAL: Krasny Thank you. A sane honest answer after days of mendacity, corperate obfuscation, and fanboy wuckfittery. It's not a good idea however. It's a bleedin' obvious idea. Not sure what manner of drooling retards neglected to exclude such an obvious feature to the battle game. Oh my, what a display of bad manners. Really, there's no reason to throw insults at people.

Krasny -> RE: OB Smoke? (11/20/2008 11:42:08 AM)
Please point out where I have been untruthful and I will apologise. EDIT: The drooling retards is a bit out of order. I retract drooling retards and substitute underachieving dullards. The whole point of CC is the tactical game, the operational game is a lovely addition, but at the end of the day, CC stands or falls on it's tactical game, which has been well and truly eclipsed, but nobody else seems to care.

Stwa -> RE: OB Smoke? (11/20/2008 1:46:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Tejszd quote: Which is because of strategic game parasiting on CC series. I'm pretty sure that Atomic Games could improve the tactical gameplay a lot if they weren't too busy adding and improving a strategic minigame. Actually the strategic game is probably less risk and less work to change than the tactical battle part of the game. So taking the effort put into the strategic changes would get you less changes in the tatical battles. Also, you didn't reply with the name of that freeware game that can give CC a run for its money??? Don't think I agree at all with this. The strategic layer as incepted long ago, created a ton of new graphics, screens, and program code. Just all the additional graphics made creating a CC game much more costly in time and money, and for CC5 modders, much more costly in time. Had this simply been eliminated as a concept, the producers could have put all that money and time into other features, like a generic interface, or supporting more than too nations at a time, or SMOKE, or perhaps the tactical game as well.

Stwa -> RE: OB Smoke? (11/20/2008 1:50:47 PM)
Close combat 6 has always been and will remain a myth. Isnt' WaR just really CC5. I am not sure I have spotted anything that indicates otherwise. Perhaps I am not looking close enough. Your post cracked me up. [:D]

Stwa -> RE: OB Smoke? (11/20/2008 1:58:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheReal_Pak40 I think we could all go on and on about how the offboard artillery system is unrealistic. I personally think that the presence of it negatively alters the game play. It is way too powerful for such a small force pool. I try to limit my use of it against the AI because I'm already kicking the AI's butt anyway. Using artillery seems unfair, especially since the AI tends to group its infantry into nice and juicy target areas. All I have to do is find out where they are and then wham - I can call in an accurate mortar or artillery strike within seconds (not minutes, like it should be) and virtually wipe out the AI's unarmored forces. I feel they system should either be eliminated or made so that it works in realistic manner which would make it less powerfull. I gotta agree with all this. The artillery, naval, and air strikes, are very gamey. (like vetmods). Perhaps someone can create a flying and flaming 14 man assault engineer squad that flys over your guys at high speed.

Perturabo -> RE: OB Smoke? (11/20/2008 2:06:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Krasny The whole point of CC is the tactical game, the operational game is a lovely addition, but at the end of the day, CC stands or falls on it's tactical game, which has been well and truly eclipsed, Well, the re-releases have a very limited scope of changes, which was never hidden by Simtek/S3T. I think that the only way to see new features in tactical layer anytime soon would be CCMTII. Shrecken (Andrew Williams) posted a screenshot from CCM6 in a topic titled Could this Be CCMT II, but for some reason there wasn't much of interest shown by community. Which is too bad because CCM6 has a lot of interesting features. So, if you want new features in tactical layer, lobby for CCMT II. quote: ORIGINAL: Krasny but nobody else seems to care. I do care[:)].

TheReal_Pak40 -> RE: OB Smoke? (11/20/2008 4:56:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Stwa Don't think I agree at all with this. The strategic layer as incepted long ago, created a ton of new graphics, screens, and program code. Just all the additional graphics made creating a CC game much more costly in time and money, and for CC5 modders, much more costly in time. Had this simply been eliminated as a concept, the producers could have put all that money and time into other features, like a generic interface, or supporting more than too nations at a time, or SMOKE, or perhaps the tactical game as well. Unfortunately, Atomic's business strategy at the time was to crank out as many CC games as possible with only graphical and strategic layer changes. I don't think it took all that much effort. CC3 probably posed the biggest development time just because they had a whole new crop of Russian units to code and draw. CC4 and CC5 were probably the easiest to produce because the units were already created - just draw & code some new maps and refine the strategic aspect of the game. In retrospect, they should have spent development on both the strategic game and refining the AI for the tactical game.

Tejszd -> RE: OB Smoke? (11/20/2008 5:31:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Stwa quote: ORIGINAL: Tejszd quote: Which is because of strategic game parasiting on CC series. I'm pretty sure that Atomic Games could improve the tactical gameplay a lot if they weren't too busy adding and improving a strategic minigame. Actually the strategic game is probably less risk and less work to change than the tactical battle part of the game. So taking the effort put into the strategic changes would get you less changes in the tatical battles. Also, you didn't reply with the name of that freeware game that can give CC a run for its money??? Don't think I agree at all with this. The strategic layer as incepted long ago, created a ton of new graphics, screens, and program code. Just all the additional graphics made creating a CC game much more costly in time and money, and for CC5 modders, much more costly in time. Had this simply been eliminated as a concept, the producers could have put all that money and time into other features, like a generic interface, or supporting more than too nations at a time, or SMOKE, or perhaps the tactical game as well. Definitely there is more work on graphics when doing a new release or mod because of the strategic layer but there is way less code for that then for in battle. But the risk is that the code for the AI is very complicated and adding new features that the AI will use properly is not an east task. Eliminating the strategic layer and or its in enhancements in WAR would NOT automatically mean a bunch of new features in battle. As for the strategic layer it has always caused some debate, especially between CC3/COI and CC4/5 fans, as some say it is too simple, others like you say scrap it or go back to the CC3/COI style and others think the current implementation makes CC a better game. If you do not want a strat layer and want more features in battle, Matrix and the developers already have a solution for you with CCMT. It was based on the military version and they had no use for the strategic layer of the game and wanted additional features in battle not seen in the retail versions of CC. But based on posts in the different CC forums CCMT is not anywhere near as popular as CC3/COI or CC4/5 or WAR. I�m not against adding features in battle, and in fact would like some specific things, but knowing the effort and risk I�m not holding my breath that many of them would be added�.

Tejszd -> RE: OB Smoke? (11/20/2008 5:44:05 PM)
CCM6 did have a lot more in battle features and could be CC6.... The lack of interest though could because there is no CC3/COI style campaign or a CC4/5/WAR strat layer. So single battles only....

Stwa -> RE: OB Smoke? (11/20/2008 6:22:45 PM)
OK, Lets just assume you are right about the AI changes and other tactical game stuff. Here is the part I don't understand. 1. Why can't the producers come up with a generic interface so modders don't have to re-create the wheel everytime. 2. Check out the inside of CCResource.dll (as I know you have), and you will see all the old CC3 screens and UI parameters, so my guess is the hooks are still inside CC5.exe to be able to use maps aboe the 44 limit. (i.e. just reference them by name and get them from the Map folder)... 3. Why cant the producers simply re-enable this functionality and POOF!, a CC4/CC5 equavalent of COI. (kinda) 4. For my own mod, I have eliminated Ops and Campaigns. Just single battles that you can edit. I am experimenting with setting the Force Pool values for any team to 15. Then in the BattleGroup Screen, I want to hide the quantities available for your teams. Since you don't need to see them, since there is no campaign.

TheTomDude -> RE: OB Smoke? (12/1/2008 1:48:37 PM)
I just read through this thread and I'm shocked how arrogant and impertinent one man can be. quote: ORIGINAL: Krasny quote: Smoke has nebver been an Off board option. That's a stupid answer and you know it is. ------------------------ quote: ORIGINAL: Krasny Yes, it seems I am wrong, I must bow to your superior wisdom and knowlwdge of WW2. Nice try Andy, but the Daddy knows best argument does not work well on adults. ------------------------ quote: ORIGINAL: Krasny If every wargame designer took such a conservative approach, we would still be playing chess, saying things like [deep south accent]"Naw me an' Skeeter dun hold wi them noo fangled hexagons."[/deep south accent] quote: And please do not forget that people may not be living in the usa; sometimes a wordplay could be difficult to get quote: Lastly, American culture is so widely disseminated, even Aboriginal tribes people would get it. I'm sorry for every american here on this forum who are absolutely not like Krasny, but I have to say this: This arrogance is typical american. This "everyone has to speak my language perfect while I do nothing to understand the rest of the world"-behaviour is such an impudence and a punch in the face of everyone how makes YOUR life easier by learning your langague so one can communicate, while you do nothing. What a shame. ----------------------- quote: ORIGINAL: Krasny Seriously you guys are acting like I'm a heretic. Put away your torches and pitch forks, and come and join the enlightenment. No you are not treated like a heretic, because you had a bad idea. Myself I like the idea of OB smoke, but how can you expect any sympathy for your idea if you act and treat people like this? Don't you think it would be better to show some respect to other people than come in here and tring to ridicule everyone who doesn't jump up in a second and shout "Great idea. Now get this done for us immediately!" quote: ORIGINAL: Krasny Not sure what manner of drooling retards neglected to exclude such an obvious feature to the battle game. quote: ORIGINAL: Krasny EDIT: The drooling retards is a bit out of order. I retract drooling retards and substitute underachieving dullards. Ridiculous, childish, insulting. No more comment needed. I cannot believe there are so many forum members still talking to someone like you here. Oh and you dont need to answer. I will not argue with you and I will not write anything else in this thread. Tom Oh one more thing: If you find any mistakes it is because english is not my first language. It's one of 3 languages I learned to understand other people.

Platoon_Michael -> RE: OB Smoke? (12/1/2008 9:27:05 PM)
One wouldnt think it would be that hard to mod...................... wouldnt it just be a matter of changing the current animated graphic that is an explosion to the same as say what the mortor crew displays? Sure you loose one of your support to just smoke.

Doggie -> RE: OB Smoke? (12/1/2008 10:11:53 PM)
The only patch we need here is getting rid of this foul mouthed little brat.[8\|] Normal people should be able to browse through a few threads without being subjected to temper tantrums from some spoiled 12 year old.

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.6875