RE: Close Combat - The Bloody First, dates update (Full Version)

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



Message

Nomada_Firefox -> RE: Close Combat - The Bloody First, dates update (12/7/2016 10:49:16 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: PipFromSlitherine

The time is to take good screens and ensure they represent the quality we want. Not the posting [:)]

Cheers

Pip

You have been selling us it for 4 years...........we are tired.......

Do you go to blind our eyes when we play the game? because it looks as if you need show the game only at a exact point.........



Jugger -> RE: Close Combat - The Bloody First, dates update (12/7/2016 11:20:08 PM)

[&:]Yes the promise of screenshots has been requested for sometime now back in September I believe to turn around and tell us that you need more time for good screenshots that accurately represent the quality of the game just reflects that the game is far from ready to show at its current stage. I believe a Beta was also mentioned for a possible release in January well you might as well put your cards on the table and tell us where you are in relation with this happening also as people would rather be disappointed than kept in the dark?[&:]



stoker77 -> RE: Close Combat - The Bloody First, dates update (12/9/2016 9:03:53 AM)

I've been playing since the dial up days on the CC2 ladders. Still play CC every week. I understand the PR and marketing restrictions you must have but this is a fan forum! You'll only get good feedback and appreciation. You have to give me something before another year rolls by. Anything!



FroBodine -> RE: Close Combat - The Bloody First, dates update (12/9/2016 2:54:18 PM)

It takes months to decide on the perfect screenshot? Do they have to be photoshopped or something? Is there an actual game anywhere?

If it takes so long just to make a screenshot that is presentable, then this game is nowhere near complete.

I will be very surprised if this game is released in 2017. Perhaps we'll see a screenshot by then. Maybe.

Hoopla.



macroparasite -> RE: Close Combat - The Bloody First, dates update (1/4/2017 10:16:03 AM)

“Recently we have all been busy re-assessing the requirements for Close Combat “ Re-assessing, in July 2016, something once earmarked to come out in 2014?

Matrix should have done some very serious ‘re-assessing’ when Gateway to Caen came out and was found wanting: tank speeds half what they should be, troops pointlessly re-positioning etc. Faults that were there from the outset of CC1 and never addressed. There was always a problem with AI but as computers became more powerful, when errors could finally be ironed out and the game improved immeasurably, what was the big solution? 3D!

Gateway should have literally been the Gateway. Matrix had an award winning game; one that saw the reality of human fallibility in battle conditions. One that played in real time, not turn or hex based. One that was getting better looking by the year. One that had a devoted following of map makers and modders (I, under various names, was one).

If Gateway had been reassessed and the next game born from it had a new engine, AI sorted etc then we would have no need for the ugly, turn/hex based Battle Academy (I hated it so much still not got past bootcamp!) and its ilk. The money pumped into that pointless nightmare would have turned CC round years ago. Those types of games should be history. Turn based? Why?

Close Combat does not need 3D it simply needs to work. How much reassessment does that simple want/need require?

This morning, playing Panthers in the Fog, I was astounded by an aggressive AI that made short work of my pathetic defence. Yes, a rare event, but it shows there is a world-leading game, a benchmark for others to follow, in the basics and they should have been rebuilt, not just tweaked, back then.

Seeing the team on BF is small it appears Matrix does not, and has sadly never seen, just what a massive game Close Combat could be, but I fear BF is just going to be GtC again – headless-chicken troops, wandering tanks going at half-speed, but, hey, guys, it will be in 3D!!!!! Yawn, wake me up in 2019 when it finally comes out, will ya?



Platoon_Michael -> RE: Close Combat - The Bloody First, dates update (1/4/2017 2:12:44 PM)

At this point screenshots would be useless to me.

Anything short of a VIDEO! from the GAME (Being Played).......Not Intro videos.or Cut Scenes
Would be another slap in the face INMHO



STIENER -> RE: Close Combat - The Bloody First, dates update (1/5/2017 12:28:43 AM)

macroparasite makes some good points.



Nomada_Firefox -> RE: Close Combat - The Bloody First, dates update (1/5/2017 8:10:55 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: STIENER

macroparasite makes some good points.

I do not agree with any of them. He should think better what is he saying.

By these reasons.
quote:

Matrix should have done some very serious ‘re-assessing’ when Gateway to Caen came out and was found wanting: tank speeds half what they should be, troops pointlessly re-positioning etc. Faults that were there from the outset of CC1 and never addressed. There was always a problem with AI but as computers became more powerful, when errors could finally be ironed out and the game improved immeasurably, what was the big solution? 3D!

Exactly 3D. The 99,9% from the engines at these days are 3D. 2D engines are old and poor. The engine from GTC is the same engine from CC1 with some edits. By these reasons the amount of errors after many edits probably was higher. In fact, it was not thought for to run at modern computers, it is one thing from the previus century.

quote:

Gateway should have literally been the Gateway. Matrix had an award winning game; one that saw the reality of human fallibility in battle conditions. One that played in real time, not turn or hex based. One that was getting better looking by the year. One that had a devoted following of map makers and modders (I, under various names, was one).

GTC is exactly FOG with few changes. When it was released, there were not too modders or people making new maps. I do not know who you are.........perhaps because you hide your name with different names. But clearly you are dreaming. How many mods from FOG or GTC can we find?

quote:

If Gateway had been reassessed and the next game born from it had a new engine, AI sorted etc then we would have no need for the ugly, turn/hex based Battle Academy (I hated it so much still not got past bootcamp!) and its ilk. The money pumped into that pointless nightmare would have turned CC round years ago. Those types of games should be history. Turn based? Why

Very probably Steve will agree with me at this, you are dreaming. A game born from GTC? impossible. Imagine a program which you were improving with new features each day for more of 20 years and each year, you added 5 hidden holes at it. Now you have 100 hidden holes in the program and nobody can find them. A complete mess. Work with the old engine had not sense.

quote:

Close Combat does not need 3D it simply needs to work. How much reassessment does that simple want/need require?

Continue dreaming in the paradise where everything is too easy..........[:-]

At the end, the old engine had a very poor AI and a lot of problems playing multiplayer games. The code was a big headache. Start with a new engine was the best and easier option. If you can not see it, it is not my problem. [8|]

Now, I am sure how they could code Archon as a 2D game but if they could make a 3D, was it a bad idea? for me it was great. I do not see it as a problem.[8D]



mickxe5 -> RE: Close Combat - The Bloody First, dates update (1/5/2017 3:35:17 PM)

3D is both a convenient marketing hook but also a big fix for one of CC's glaring shortfalls - beneath those pretty map graphics lurked an opaque 10x10 pixel grid, mechanically almost as clunky as an Avalon Hill hex map, and all too prone to terrain coding errors.

I dont grasp the proposition that 3D and a 'new, improved' CC are somehow mutually exclusive. After 6 dev cycles (CCM AT/JTAC->GTC), why bother starting BF from scratch if not to do CC right, freed from the limitations of a 20 year-old code base. It's surely not because a programmer of The Blood's caliber needs a Matrix paycheck. 3D is a non-issue as far as Im concerned, and a foregone conclusion for a real-time tactical wargame these days. The belated but better question is about changing scale in PITF-GTC from 5pix/m to 8pix/m. Improved graphics at the expense of a claustrophobic, 60% reduced view of the battlefield on my old 1368x768 monitor. Less width-wise when you factor in the newly vertical Teams list.

Im finding the AI in GTC (which I only bought last month :) to be pleasantly refined, all things considered. Given the more open, tank-friendly terrain in GTC, IMO the tweak was toward caution. Units deploy in better terrain, AI infantry follows covered approaches where it can, its tanks rarely get exposed in front of the dismounts, and it sites & sits still better on defense. On offense the GTC AI generally wont overwhelm with aggression but also will less wantonly impale itself on the player's better deployed sword. On defense the AI is noticeably harder to defeat simply because it is more cautious, and moderately better deployed.

The half-speed GTC vehicles have previously been explained as a conscious design decision to limit the effect of tanks in battle. Easily modded to full speed if one cares to recreate blitzkrieg tactics. Using a combination of small PITF maps, single-man player teams and a spoofed unit structure with 21 slots available for a forcepool of ~45 soldiers, Ive been able to mod GTC into a challenging platoon scale game for solo play as the Germans.

If it takes until '19 before BF ships, or even if it doesnt, so be it. CC, and all involved in keeping it alive, dont owe me nothing.



Nomada_Firefox -> RE: Close Combat - The Bloody First, dates update (1/5/2017 8:55:45 PM)

Everybody forget or ignore the great advantage from the new 3D engine. The map editor. For years to create a new map was a big limitation for CC games. In fact I believe how the strategic map was added by this limitation. Because it adds a lot more of maps per game. But now at BF, we will be able to create our own maps with a small amount of difficulty, mostly the free time.;)



IainMcNeil -> RE: Close Combat - The Bloody First, dates update (1/6/2017 9:33:21 AM)

The way 3D works you cant take screenshots until its pretty much complete. Until the shaders are finished no screenshots can be done. Tweaking the shader effects everything and we're not happy yet. They're still being worked on, as is the UI so anything we show now would not be how the final game would look. We are still months away from completion so don't want to show something until we are happy. I'm sorry if that means you have to wait a bit longer, but we're not going to compromise on the look and feel of the game. Thanks for your patience!



Nomada_Firefox -> RE: Close Combat - The Bloody First, dates update (1/6/2017 11:37:03 AM)

You should have told us before about the work with shaders. I can easily accept it. Shaders are everything at 3D graphics.

For all the people, I recomend you ignore it temporaly, to think at other things, other games, by example Bliztkrieg 3, it has a very good early access version. Yes, it is not a CC game but it is fun. Enough for me while I wait the BF.



easternhellbender -> RE: Close Combat - The Bloody First, dates update (1/8/2017 4:28:35 AM)

There's a hell of a lot I'd love to write regarding frustration with the way things have been communicated (and sometimes not communicated) during the ongoing development of TBF, but there's little I could add that others haven't already expressed in their own words.

Most of us clearly understand how absurdly challenging game development can be. It takes as long as it takes.

Please keep communicating with us regarding progress (or setbacks). We support you, keep throwing us bones! [&o]



Hexagon -> RE: Close Combat - The Bloody First, dates update (1/9/2017 12:08:43 PM)

Is not like you need show in battle screenshots... you can show the "company manegement" system... i dont imagine you need perfect shaders to show how you control your company resources... you can do copy paste from combat of unit panel to show details about units and how players receive info about units... you can show the scen pre battle screen... post action informs... there are a lot of things to show without need shaders.

If you want you can, but looks like after 2 years give players "wait tomorrow" as answer become the rule.

I can say you that game now is not in the list of many guys i know, to much years with out show something to mantein interest and well is not like last years and 2017 is going to offer only CCBF.



IckieStickie -> RE: Close Combat - The Bloody First, dates update (1/9/2017 12:34:18 PM)

Well january 2017 is finally here and wheres this beta or any INFO on this would be great please Matrix?now is the time...are we getting this beta this month?were notbothered about a few shaders etc,we are used to playing betas etcand we know what to expect after how many years?.so please enlighten us...



IckieStickie -> RE: Close Combat - The Bloody First, dates update (1/9/2017 12:58:44 PM)

Well said Nomada_Firefox.I have all CC games apart from CC,1+2,and None have any form of Mod attached,why?because i can't find any!Certainly nobody on here as mentioned anything about any decent mods regarding any CC game in my library.Now that is something ive always wanted to see,why hasn't this happened?i'm not a mod'er so i wouldn't know these things,i have to get a friend to install all my mods for me,but to be able to Mod CC like they have done with games like winSPWaW i would have thought they would have done this by now?.Guess its not as easy as some of us think.[:-]



Nomada_Firefox -> RE: Close Combat - The Bloody First, dates update (1/9/2017 10:13:57 PM)

quote:

Well said Nomada_Firefox.I have all CC games apart from CC,1+2,and None have any form of Mod attached,why?because i can't find any!Certainly nobody on here as mentioned anything about any decent mods regarding any CC game in my library.

If you do not try........you will not find them [;)]....and do not tell us how you have tried because you have not made even a small search at google[:'(]. All my mods can be found at my place http://firefoxccmods.com/ , some of them at Moddb http://www.moddb.com/company/firefoxccmods and easily you can find the mods from other people here at these forums.

Now try or do not try, but how difficult it is, it is not a excuse.[;)]



mickxe5 -> RE: Close Combat - The Bloody First, dates update (1/10/2017 12:40:17 AM)

Theere are dozens of 'decent' CC mods available from the CSO and CCS sites, including full installs of versions 1 - 5 and the CC Marines training sims. The earlier versions were extensively modded but the CC mod (and player) community has grown considerably smaller in recent years so the later releases have fewer mods.

Fear not, many mods are self-installing.



CGGrognard -> RE: Close Combat - The Bloody First, dates update (1/10/2017 12:42:14 AM)

From previous posts, I know a release date is out of the question, but can you offer the fans here some indication by production if it will be completed this year or next?



IckieStickie -> RE: Close Combat - The Bloody First, dates update (1/10/2017 6:23:38 AM)

Really?thankyou for the info anyways regarding weather ive tried in the past or not dont make assumptions ok,your not very good at it it seems.I should have mentioned also that i hadnt looked for mods in the last few years!.I notice alot of your stuff on that site you kindly sent me is quite recent and that explains why i gave up a few years back,way before i even came across Matrix![:)]Oops i just noticed says "in reply to you Mickxe5 this was actually meant for the other guy Nomada firefox above,please ignore:)



IckieStickie -> RE: Close Combat - The Bloody First, dates update (1/10/2017 6:26:11 AM)

Thankyou very much Mickxe5 I'm reinstalling as i speak,and i will have a good look again.Now i know it's worth looking.Cheers guys.Done same to you to grog i apologise my friend.seems im hitting wrong reply oh dear!



IckieStickie -> RE: Close Combat - The Bloody First, dates update (1/10/2017 6:35:51 AM)

Wow free installs of the first 5?I used to have 3/4+5 on disk,and later when i wanted these titles again i got 3/4 again but they only worked for a little whilst,i think windows updates put paid to them working again,then i didnt come across them again for few years untill i discovered Matrix/Slith,i would be interested in maybe trying CC2 Arnhem again from that site?as for the others as i now have matrix versions which also have their originals there somewhere theres no need for those.Thanks ill look later see if ic an find CC2



Nomada_Firefox -> RE: Close Combat - The Bloody First, dates update (1/10/2017 8:31:49 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: CGGrognard

From previous posts, I know a release date is out of the question, but can you offer the fans here some indication by production if it will be completed this year or next?

How they go to know when it will be finished if they do not work with a release date. Other games work with it but they release the game when it reach the date even if it is unfinished.



PipFromSlitherine -> RE: Close Combat - The Bloody First, dates update (1/10/2017 3:50:52 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: IckieStickie

Wow free installs of the first 5?I used to have 3/4+5 on disk,and later when i wanted these titles again i got 3/4 again but they only worked for a little whilst,i think windows updates put paid to them working again,then i didnt come across them again for few years untill i discovered Matrix/Slith,i would be interested in maybe trying CC2 Arnhem again from that site?as for the others as i now have matrix versions which also have their originals there somewhere theres no need for those.Thanks ill look later see if ic an find CC2

I edited your post, but any future discussion of piracy will lead to a ban.

Cheers

Pip



Jugger -> RE: Close Combat - The Bloody First, dates update (1/10/2017 10:47:46 PM)

[:D]Looks like "The Wargamer" has used 6 month old news to suggest that "The Bloody first" will start beta testing sometime this month and be released 2nd quarter this year suppose that going to happen when you don't have regular or accurate updates[:D] http://www.wargamer.com/news/the-wargamers-videogame-guide-to-2017/



Reed -> RE: Close Combat - The Bloody First, dates update (2/12/2017 12:52:17 PM)

Hi

Any news???
the game is cancelled?????

Reed



PipFromSlitherine -> RE: Close Combat - The Bloody First, dates update (2/13/2017 4:02:21 PM)

Development is ongoing! We're just not quite ready to share screenshots. Marketing likes everything to be just so [:)]

Cheers

Pip



Tactics -> RE: Close Combat - The Bloody First, dates update (2/15/2017 10:46:25 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: PipFromSlitherine

Development is ongoing! We're just not quite ready to share screenshots. Marketing likes everything to be just so [:)]

Cheers

Pip


This is getting ridiculous. Marketing....lol



macroparasite -> RE: Close Combat - The Bloody First, dates update (2/17/2017 3:14:40 PM)



Normada_Firefox, and possibly others, rather misread what I wrote: “If Gateway had been reassessed and the next game born from it had a new engine, AI sorted etc…”

Please notice the phrase ‘new engine’ – which I fear N_F must have missed as he keeps wittering on about it! In no way did I suggest that Gateway should be re-tweaked. My point was that the endless re-tweaking had to stop. Somebody had to seriously reassess the game, back then, from the ground up, and my point was simply to get this bloody great game to work first, before pimping it.

OK, point taken that 3D engines are the way to go but CC works fine purely as birds-eye view. FOG and GTC were visually stunning so graphics was never an issue. All that was needed was a game that had the psychological heart and brains of CC but was playable by the ‘new’ generation. Let’s look at what should have been reassessed a long time ago. And this, N_F, is not ‘dreaming’, if you are going to reassess something then serious points should be addressed.:

1) A major frustration of FOG and GTC was having a ‘mission’ then doing it, doing it well but at the end the program saying the other lot won because they had ‘more victory locations’. Huh? My task was to get the bridge, which I did! Where was the real break down? If my troops morale was still high at the end, if nobody had freaked out and surrendered; was that taken into consideration? Was it hell. But it should be. ‘You secured the town and all the VLs but your troops morale is so low you need to retreat’ Minor victory rather that total/decisive victory. A player now has the challenge of trying again, to keep his troops under control, maybe ditch that sexy tank in favour of another group leader etc. However, as it stands, every game/battle/operation/ simply boils down to ‘get as many VLs as possible’. Which is not really that interesting!
2) I love sitting waiting, listening to the crump of distance shells. That’s the beauty of the reality of CC – often nothing happens, and often for a long time! Now, I’m fine with that but a modern ‘blast ‘em’ player will die of boredom. What to do? Easy: Mickxe5 mods his, so why can’t the actual game have options? Term them ‘real’ and ‘game’ and the ‘modern’ player might get the drift that keeping people alive and sane, the true essence of CC, is far more important than body count.

The two points show that the game plan, not just the AI, was flawed. Here is a game built around the mindset of humans at war and the results do not reflect, in any shape or form, the handling of it.

Reassess or sort things like that that out before ‘3d’ was my point. I said that we are in danger of getting the same game but in 3D and I fear that seems to be the case. Everyone seems to be begging for screenshots etc but my new question is, and I shout: ‘WHAT IS THE GAME?’. So – Matrix. What is the game? Get as many VLs as possible (but in 3D)? Is that it? I bloody well hope not!

PLEASE MATRIX: You have a gem of a game that works in real time, not turn based: It is a rare beast. Make it work!

Last point: Normada_Firefox, I don’t hide my name – I forget it! It is possibly 15 years, maybe more, since I did a mod or map, which were for CCIII/ Real Red etc. Last time I looked one map (Road 2) was still around, the mod ‘Tanks? No tanks!’ (which stripped AI’s ability to keep trying to replace lost infantry with armor) seems to have gone forever! I was also the first mapmaker to include fallen trees (judging by comments at the time)– which I see were used in FOG and GTC. I also toyed, to some success, of having proper concealed guns under camouflage netting using ‘roof’ and /or ‘trees’. So yes, you don’t know me but I don’t dream – I am pro-active, actually adding my bit to CC’s history; therefore I deserve some right in making points, on being critical. Oh! And you were around back then cos I remember your name, I was living in Barcelona when I did the map and mods (I now live in Russia)– and can I say your English has got a hell of a lot better!!! Abrazos!








Saturnian -> RE: Close Combat - The Bloody First, dates update (2/24/2017 7:23:40 AM)

Good comments by all. Personally I am not sure what the obsession with 3d is. What I have wanted to see, even since CC2, was actual photo-realistic soldiers. Some very minor, easy tweaking could make absolutely breathtaking soldier animations with authentic uniforms and hyper-detailed movements. But instead we got the same cruddy soldier animations in every single release. No one wanted to touch them up! They would say the animations were "touched up" but they were often worse!!! Why!?!? It was the least they could do. This is not personal against Matrix but really started when SSI got the rights to the engine and Microsoft abandoned the product.

So since 1999 they have just slowly butchered the AI(I was disappointed with the soldier animations since CC2 in 1997! 20 years ago!!!!)

I always loved Close Combat because of the attachment to the soldiers and the psychological model. Yet every release overlooked the strengths of the game and tried to slop on a million other things that only served to make the game more cluttered and glitchy. You can't add 10 features to a game as improvements if you cannot improve the weaknesses of its strengths.

So over the past 20 years, the CLOSE in Close Combat, the soldiers, have still had the same crappy animations for CC2. And with the idea of this 3d engine I can't imagine the animations will look any realer. Probably LESS real!

But thousands of WW2 enthusiasts would have gladly helped to reanimate the soldiers to actually make them look real for a 2d close combat. IT could so easily be done to just make awesome realistic soldier animations. All it takes is focus on the DETAILS, which is what made close combat (in Keith Zabaloui times) so totally awesome.

And of course there could have been more focus on the soldier history, the ability to customize units, what weapons soldiers are equipped with, and soldier placement. But all of that important stuff was overlooked and instead we got more and more tanks, more and more poorly rendered(if animated at all) weapons for the pitiful soldier animations which were always supposed to be the core of the game but have never been improved upon since cc2! Why improve tanks but ignore the soldiers?

Gradually Close Combat became "Slow Tank Spinning" and "Tracked tank in hedgerow machine gunning useless Panzerfaust" Combat. Instead of "the thrill of combat, the power of command" it has become "hide your ten guys in the swamp and wait for the timer to run out" noncombat.

Why no customizing of individual soldiers? more and more units, more and more anonymity of soldiers? Is what I have asked in every release since the dawn of the millenium.

All of these new promises look like they pretend to keep it Close Combat, but feel like they overlook the core of what made Close Combat so awesome.

I don't mean to be negative and I can't judge a game I haven't seen, but I am skeptical about how a 3d engine is supposed to work for close combat. But I think that a much better game could have been made much more quickly if you just stuck to 2D. You could have used an engine that allows smooth movements of soldiers, reworked the AI, and created incredibly hyper realistic(really literally photo realistic) animations.

Now there aren't even multi-storey buildings but there are 3d graphics? It is just like "what?" Its like, all that 3d effort for NOTHING! the only reason I ever wanted 3d in close combat was for multi-storey buildings! Why else would we? But then you don't have them? You could have just found a clever way to make multi-storey work better in 2d and improved the game 1000% but instead we get pointless new engine without even multi-storey buildings!?!? WHY!?

It would be nice if you focused on the details rather than trying to make this massive epic sprawling thing. By the very nature of the beast it is destined to be riddled with faults. The best close combat games focused on single operations. Because what made the game was the CLOSE. the DETAILS.

But I'll get off my soap box. Please DO prove me wrong! I appreciate your hard work, but since close combat is literally the only game i'd consider wasting my time and money on, I have great expectations for a new engine.




Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.703125