RE: Modern Tactics Update / Feedback

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

RE: Modern Tactics Update / Feedback

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Close Combat Series >> Close Combat: Modern Tactics >> RE: Modern Tactics Update / Feedback

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Modern Tactics Update / Feedback - 5/13/2013 11:20:10 AM

DAK_Legion

Posts: 88
Joined: 11/28/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tejszd

Be nice to see Matrix do what they said they would do......

Yes!...of course;)

Matrix??

Steve??

(in reply to Tejszd)

Post #: 31

RE: Modern Tactics Update / Feedback - 5/16/2013 7:03:26 AM

Stwa

Posts: 484
Joined: 8/12/2005
Status: offline

Hi guys. Its hard for me to get used to posting over here.

This is a great title, but it just seems there is not enough of a user base to justify even an update. You can't fault Matrix, for running their business with a profit motive.

Its not like we have been that adament with the complaints either, but there just aren't that many of us, and even at CCS most people just prefer the other CC games more. Way more, in fact.

< Message edited by Stwa -- 5/17/2013 2:47:48 PM >

(in reply to DAK_Legion)

Post #: 32

RE: Modern Tactics Update / Feedback - 3/5/2014 4:07:22 PM

Tactics

Posts: 347
Joined: 10/28/2002
From: USA
Status: offline

Did you ever fix the bug where infantry on normal speed slide across the map when crawling? I posted about it several years back, but it never got fixed. I think some jackalope that worked for Matrix even told me that I was doing it wrong and the game wasn't meant to be played on normal.

That really ticked me off. If you could address that crawling bug on normal speed that'd be great.

-

Edit - Here is the thread. It is from 2007. That was 7 years ago, and why I don't purchase Matrix re-release, new re-releases anymore.

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=1618935

< Message edited by Tactics -- 3/5/2014 5:17:37 PM >

(in reply to Tejszd)

Post #: 33

RE: Modern Tactics Update / Feedback - 4/17/2014 9:25:39 AM

Javolenus

Posts: 233
Joined: 8/13/2010
Status: offline

I've got all the Close Combat remakes. Modern Tactics is my favourite. Why? Because it is so easy to create & set up a scenario. I like that you can create your own objectives and deployment zones. My main concern, however, is with the AI. As in all the CC games I've played, the AI does not offer a single-player challenge. In the last few days I played scenarios in 5 different CC games (with realism set to 100%) and the same thing happened in all of them -- the AI either shuffled its units around aimlessly or carelessly pushed them forward into my line of fire. It's a shame because I really love the overall design and features in the game.

As for things I'd like added. How about ...

- Mouse-wheel zoom?
- Being able to Pause the game and then scroll the map without it reactivating the game clock?
- Ability to add reinforcements -- perhaps with an added "percentage" of reliability (as in the John Tiller Squad Battles games)?
- Expanded/revised units & equipment?
- More voices added? For example, some mod adds UK units but they use the US voice-audio files.
- More maps?
- Remove the need to place deployment zones for all five teams when in single-player?
- When saving a custom scenario in the Editor -- make the Editor remember the file name?
- Larger map preview in the Editor, in order to allow better siting of objectives & deployment zones?

(in reply to Tejszd)

Post #: 34

RE: Modern Tactics Update / Feedback - 6/12/2014 3:47:09 AM

Stwa

Posts: 484
Joined: 8/12/2005
Status: offline

CCMT is the one game where you can easily create scenarios that the Human Player just cannot win.

And you don't always have to give the AI more stuff either. But, most of time that does do the trick.