Suggestions PLEASE READ DEVS (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Close Combat – The Bloody First



Message

CloseCombatRob -> Suggestions PLEASE READ DEVS (1/27/2015 1:25:03 PM)

Please for the love of god, look at CC2 for inspiration for your games instead of CC5, most close combat fans still agree CC2 is the best of the series, CC5 is only loved for the mods, but the game itself is average without mods, and the reason CC2 is preferred is due to the smaller maps and better AI, being able to pick your units in a much better fashion, and overall much more intense, this game is called "close combat" after all so massive maps really do not suit this game, and it shows, the AI cannot handle them, and this is only good for multi player maybe but for single player people like myself this is just a boring stalemate. I'd give my left testicle for a re-release of CC2 with this new engine and updates, that would be the perfect game, also what would be nice is cutting down on the games set in the invasion of France, this is way overdone now to the point where people are starting to hate it, another operation market garden game would be amazing, I love how its more urban so tanks don't just dominate the match and infantry have a chance, maybe another eastern front, or something new like the pacific front would be nice too. I just hope I'm not the only one with this opinion, we need smaller maps and urban maps again if you want a brutal CC game, please not another boring stalemate like stock CC5.



Nomada_Firefox -> RE: Suggestions PLEASE READ DEVS (1/27/2015 7:27:48 PM)

I feel how today, after probably years of development from this game, is too late for suggestions.

But I feel how they are not making very big maps and how clearly the IA will be better because at the end, this game will use a new and lot better engine.

At the end, comparations about how the IA was at previous CC games are useless.



CloseCombatRob -> RE: Suggestions PLEASE READ DEVS (1/27/2015 8:54:29 PM)

Guess the best thing we can do then is just hope its not another cc5 styled stalemate game and a proper close combat game for once :)



SteveMcClaire -> RE: Suggestions PLEASE READ DEVS (1/27/2015 9:50:11 PM)

CloseCombatRob,

Thanks for your suggestions. The current plan for The Bloody First is a campaign system similar to CC2 and 3, rather than the strategic map meta game of CC4+. There will be campaigns for Tunisia, Sicily, and Normandy.

Steve



Nomada_Firefox -> RE: Suggestions PLEASE READ DEVS (1/28/2015 4:16:15 AM)

But at CC2 there was battlegroups and strategic map, the unique difference was how you can not select where your bg could be deployed.

But for the record, CloseCombatRob was speaking from the size of the maps.;)



TIK -> RE: Suggestions PLEASE READ DEVS (1/31/2015 1:37:32 PM)

I support what CloseCombatRob says.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nomada_Firefox

But at CC2 there was battlegroups and strategic map, the unique difference was how you can not select where your bg could be deployed.

But for the record, CloseCombatRob was speaking from the size of the maps.;)



True, although I'll argue that the CC5 strategic map system is awful. All battlegroups move one province per turn regardless of type of formation, it forces you to play unimportant/boring provinces (e.g. CC2 maps were focused on the areas of the Market Garden Operation that were important, rather than have numerous unimportant/unnecessary maps like in CCLSA) and the provinces and the turns make it very slow paced and Risk-like.

As for the small maps - small maps make the action more intense. This is "Close Combat" after all. However, that was the old engine. If the new engine can support a LOT more units on the map, then I guess bigger is good too. The only thing is, there has to be a balance between gameplay and realism. There's no point having hundreds of guys on a huge map if it takes 3 hours to play. 20 or 30 minutes is the norm now for battles, and anything longer than that is probably exhausting to your casual gamer. (I'd argue that 10 minutes is more than enough, but that's because I was brought up on CC2 not CC5)

The one thing I really like about CC2 and CC3 is that the maps are (usually) won in one battle. This makes it feel like you're making progress as you race from map to map. In CC4 onwards it became about the Victory Locations and taking one or two of them before the time ran out. It feels like the gameplay has been slowed down because of this, although I've heard that some prefer it this way.

Either way I'm glad the devs are going down the CC2/CC3 route [:)]



zakblood -> RE: Suggestions PLEASE READ DEVS (1/31/2015 4:09:39 PM)

i'll make me mind up in beta if i get in [:D][;)]



CloseCombatRob -> RE: Suggestions PLEASE READ DEVS (2/1/2015 4:13:16 PM)

Just a little minor thing about the CC2/CC3 campaign system, CC3 was very linear and whether you won or lost it didn't effect where you would end up, for example if you kept winning as the Germans, you'd still end up in Berlin at the end, when in reality you should be taking over Russia, where as CC2 got this right, winning did help on where you would end up and changed the outcome of the campaign, so whilst I liked it in cc2, in cc3 it was too linear for my liking, so forget CC3 and look how CC2 did it.

Since this includes Africa and Sicily, will the enemy have Italian units and weaponry or will it be just Germans? Also how come we are forced to play as Americans? Is that because of how the campaign is? I mean i have nothing against Americans personally but we've already seen way too many games focusing on them, and this could potentially lower the replay value, If we can't play as axis, then why not include British forces in the first couple of campaigns at least as they historically took part? Now I can forgive all this if the game play is a huge improvement over the previous games, you're selling this for nearly £40 so anyone is right to expect perfection

I agree with what the imperator knight said about CC4 onwards with how the way you win a battle changed, for the worse in my opinion, the battles got spread out a lot longer and became a boring stalemate, and this is really annoying for people who want to play single player, in cases your just stuck waiting with no chance of winning, but the ai doesn't bother to attack and you have no option to flee like in the older games, so you just sit there waiting hoping they'll finally get "exhausted" or cease fire, it wasn't too much a problem in cc4/5 as it was in most of the games by matrix, but it was still there, I really recommend going back to cc2/3 sized maps if the ai is having any problems, whilst big maps might be cool for multi player, for single player guys like me its just a case of either slaughtering the AI very easily or getting completely obliterated by them because there much stronger than you and they just sit at the back so you can't ambush them, which resorts in a stalemate, also what happened to urban maps? in urban maps if you were all infantry and you were facing tanks, you still had a chance, on an open map its nearly impossible unless you get really lucky, and GWTC literally had none, I just hope the bloody first isn't just a graphical update of GWTC and fixes all these issues, because the close combat series to me feels like its becoming a stalemate right now, and I'd hate to see it die out because I know there's still lots of potential in this series, now every game has its flaws and no game can be perfect for everyone, but if that's the case, go with what the bigger majority wants.

Thanks for taking your time to read this.



Nomada_Firefox -> RE: Suggestions PLEASE READ DEVS (2/2/2015 2:46:59 AM)

At the end, everybody will be able to make new maps with the map editor. If we think how they are too big, we can make others smaller.

About the IA, it was bad at previous CC games because all them shared the same bad old engine. Here there is a new engine and we should wait some different.



CloseCombatRob -> RE: Suggestions PLEASE READ DEVS (2/2/2015 10:45:57 AM)

If it was just down to the "same old engine", then how come the ai is alot more functional in the older games, mostly cc1-3, the ai actually did what it was supposed to there



Nomada_Firefox -> RE: Suggestions PLEASE READ DEVS (2/2/2015 12:32:18 PM)

Never I have seen how the IA was more functional in the first CC games. Really the IA was equal, the unique differences were the amount of different chances for the IA. By example, CC2, there was a strategic map but the IA was moved around it always in the same direction. The maps were a lot smaller and the IA does not need resolve a lot of problems, just move forward and not too much. After these games, they increased the size from the maps and they added a big strategic map, at the end, the increased the amount of questions what the IA should resolve and it started to be a very bad IA.

But the point from increase the size of the maps was from the community, many people requested bigger maps. Not me. Never I liked them. But I remember how many other people wanted these big maps without study too big about what could happen.

Now with Unity3D, I´m sure how they can add better and different triggers for a good attack from the IA. We have read many times how in the old games, it could not be made because the code was a mess.





CGGrognard -> RE: Suggestions PLEASE READ DEVS (11/2/2015 4:32:43 PM)

I would like to see the soldier display position changed. Right now, the display rests in the lower right hand corner (it can be moved) but I think it would make better sense to show up as the mouse is rolled over the unit.



CloseCombatRob -> RE: Suggestions PLEASE READ DEVS (11/2/2015 5:51:56 PM)

Personally I think they should go for the CC1 and CC2 ingame UI style because it was all in one place, it didn't get in the way of the corners of the map, and not cluttered around the screen. Maybe make it look a little more modern though.



Nomada_Firefox -> RE: Suggestions PLEASE READ DEVS (11/2/2015 7:25:54 PM)

Probably the tactical UI concept is similar but very probably, they have made some new. The new engine gives a lot of possibilities.



Destraex -> RE: Suggestions PLEASE READ DEVS (11/6/2015 11:14:39 AM)

I liked the cc4/cc5 campaign map but I also liked choosing units in cc3.
CC2 I have less experience with unfortunately. But I certainly do not want something linear :(
That seems like a cop out?



CGGrognard -> RE: Suggestions PLEASE READ DEVS (11/6/2015 10:16:07 PM)

Every now and then in PitF or GtC I will accidently click the solder display and drag it into the field of battle. I would like to keep it "off" but until there's a way to hot key units, especially mortars, I keep it on to get to those units fast. As for the soldier display, I use it to check the units' ammo level during battle. If it would pop up next to the unit when I scroll or click on it, that would be more useful.
As for campaign maps, I think they got it right with GtC. But I understand that the TBF maps will be different as in ala CC3 style.



SteveMcClaire -> RE: Suggestions PLEASE READ DEVS (11/9/2015 5:31:07 PM)

There is a way to hot key units in Gateway to Caen, and all the previous versions of CC. Select a group of units and hit Ctrl+1 through 9 to define the group. Then just hit 1-9 to select that group. This is described in the manual section about selecting and creating units by groups, as I recall.

There will be something similar in Bloody First.

Steve




CGGrognard -> RE: Suggestions PLEASE READ DEVS (11/9/2015 10:39:26 PM)

Thanks Steve! I recall that being the case in earlier CC titles, but I never thought it carried over. Glad it did though, for now I can keep the unit display off.



AudioKingCC2 -> RE: Suggestions PLEASE READ DEVS (2/23/2016 9:50:05 PM)

I agree with CloseCombatRob. Especially about keeping the battlefields small and having the same CC2 unit requisition system - was extremely conducive to competitive multiplayer.

I wish I knew what his CC2 Cases Ladder name was.



loyalcitizen -> RE: Suggestions PLEASE READ DEVS (3/27/2016 10:52:46 PM)

I would prefer a mix of map sizes. Small urban is good. Large, open fields for tank battles is good, too. I hate when tank have no maneuver room.



macroparasite -> RE: Suggestions PLEASE READ DEVS (3/3/2017 10:22:06 AM)

March 2017:Everyone seems so interested in screenshots or should there be medics etc etc but one very important area I can't see being covered or questioned is the post-game result/feedback which I hope Matrix have got covered but I would like to know a little of what they have in mind.

The idea of VLs, as they stand, is woeful and actually demean the very nature of the psychology of CC. In theory a lone surviving jeep, with morale running well low, could run around getting as many VLs as possible and win the game yet the enemy could have three tracked Tigers remaining. Or: your force is reasonably well intact, your morale is high yet you could 'lose' or just have a minor victory because of VLs. Nothing else is taken into consideration. It makes the game frustrating and pointless. I hope Matrix have rethought the point of VLs.

If that wasn't bad enough it is the slap in the face attitude manner in which an operation just ends with a curt 'game over'. What is needed is some kind of feedback, a sort of pseudo report so, in example one above; 'Congratulations - you may have achieved your objective in securing the bridge/hill/town but I notice you force is at critical level and the enemy remain in a position of some strength. I suggest you retreat immediately.' A 'wham-bam mam' player would learn that body count is not everything! Example two 'Congratulations - you have achieved your objectives. Although the area is only 60% secure your force appear to have the will and fortitude to hunker down and await reinforcements'. And so on. Both reports would offer the player incentive to try again, to do better.




Nomada_Firefox -> RE: Suggestions PLEASE READ DEVS (3/3/2017 1:27:48 PM)

Without screenshots or other things showed = no game.



TDefender -> RE: Suggestions PLEASE READ DEVS (3/3/2017 3:53:51 PM)

No screenshots. No gameplay features. No gameplay concepts. Simply nothing. What shoud we talk about?



Hexagon -> RE: Suggestions PLEASE READ DEVS (3/4/2017 9:42:48 AM)

Well, instead be at this moment waiting the game after see incredible screenshots and videos we are exactly like 2-3 years ago, is sad because i doubt a lot the game be a great success in the moment in this last 3 years appear good games that are ready to buy and not are simple vaporware... is curious have more screenshots (2) when game was anounced that when is on teory close to release date [:-]



sepp3gd -> RE: Suggestions PLEASE READ DEVS (3/5/2017 12:32:35 AM)

" March 2017:Everyone seems so interested in screenshots or should there be medics etc etc but one very important area I can't see being covered or questioned is the post-game result/feedback which I hope Matrix have got covered but I would like to know a little of what they have in mind.

The idea of VLs, as they stand, is woeful and actually demean the very nature of the psychology of CC. In theory a lone surviving jeep, with morale running well low, could run around getting as many VLs as possible and win the game yet the enemy could have three tracked Tigers remaining. Or: your force is reasonably well intact, your morale is high yet you could 'lose' or just have a minor victory because of VLs. Nothing else is taken into consideration. It makes the game frustrating and pointless. I hope Matrix have rethought the point of VLs.

If that wasn't bad enough it is the slap in the face attitude manner in which an operation just ends with a curt 'game over'. What is needed is some kind of feedback, a sort of pseudo report so, in example one above; 'Congratulations - you may have achieved your objective in securing the bridge/hill/town but I notice you force is at critical level and the enemy remain in a position of some strength. I suggest you retreat immediately.' A 'wham-bam mam' player would learn that body count is not everything! Example two 'Congratulations - you have achieved your objectives. Although the area is only 60% secure your force appear to have the will and fortitude to hunker down and await reinforcements'. And so on. Both reports would offer the player incentive to try again, to do better."



I disagree with everything you said.

1. If in theory a lone Jeep was able to capture Victory Locations from a force with 3 Tiger Tanks, than that would be a victory.

2. If moral is high and you have strong force and yet you fail to capture Victory Locations, it is indeed a loss.

3. As far as your complaint with regard to how the game ends - your suggestion for some sort of pep talk is both irrelevant and childish. It is as it stands relevant to be made aware of the status of your forces and the status of the enemy forces and their relevant positions as they correspond to your own, and attempt to discover their intentions weighed against your own. The victory locations are self explanatory and laconic statements are the language of the infantry.

War does not reward complacency, it does not reward force strength for the sake of force strength in and of itself, and it does not reward moral in and of itself - it rewards victory; at the cost of death and mutilation and great expense of resources. And to the loser, the proportional measure is even greater.

The objective is to capture victory locations which correspond to victory. A hill, highground, a railway station, a crossroads, a town where a major highway passes through, etc. Each one of these are significant in their capacity to allow a fighting force to continue to function, move forward toward the final victory, transfer supplies of men and material, evacuate wounded, shelter troops, observe enemy activity.

How you fail to understand that the point is simply to force capitulation by any means at your disposal is naive.



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.75