Attempt at Infantry and Armor Cooperation

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Attempt at Infantry and Armor Cooperation

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 – The Bloody First >> Attempt at Infantry and Armor Cooperation

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Attempt at Infantry and Armor Cooperation - 2/3/2017 8:55:25 AM

sepp3gd

Posts: 35
Joined: 8/6/2015
Status: offline

Hello again. Happy to see all is well with the progress of this series. Going from 2D to 3D is no light matter.

That being said - One concern I run into is my inability to synchronize the maneuvers of the Armor and Infantry units.

Example:
I attempt to have both a tank and recon infantry move together in close proximity; the infantry follows in formation closely behind the tank and benefits from the cover it affords from small arms fire, while the tank benefits from the increased situational awareness resulting from the eyes and ears of the infantry in close proxy.

However, the tank ends up out-pacing the infantry as well as ignoring small arms fire, to the effect that the infantry are left caught out in the open prior to reaching the objective. Conversely, the tank is sometimes knocked out with AT weapons prior to reaching the objective stemming from a lack of situational awareness as a result of the recon infantry being pinned down and out of commo range.

Whether the tank leads and the infantry closely follows, or the infantry leads in the front, or takes position to move parallel on the flanks of the tank, the effect is exponential with regard to increased capacity to engage the enemy effectively on the greatest terms possible for the permitting situation.

Such strategy is essential to traversing urban road and or forest path where the benefit of searching and destroying the flanks as well as close in support where terrain and or enemy tactics negate the deployment of a proper vanguard; For moving across open terrain, forests, mountainous terrain, as well as moving through urban environments, or any combination thereof, the ability for Armor and Infantry to work closely together is critical.

--- NOW I DIGRESS ---

And that is why this game is so realistic -

The greatest war game ever made in my opinion, not despite, rather as a direct cause, when the employment of complicated tactics has such an effect, that the lack is so appreciable to the degree that victory or loss is at stake.

I think that this company needs to patent their alogarithm? (IDK what it is) that has enabled true AI with regard to human behavior under combat stress. It is what makes this game in the .01% of RTS.

--- THE RANT CONTINUES ---

Which is precisely why I would like to see the incorporation of the 2D top down hand drawn maps of the past coupled with the added function of 3D first person gameplay.

Again, all decisions MUST be made strictly from the 2D function except for engaging enemy targets with mechanical weapons (within set field of fire) which will be accessable to the operator at both the 2D and 3D functional level of gameplay; and still employ the restrictions imposed by combat stress injury on the psyche of the man.

Its Google Earth meets Close Combat meets Battlefield.

--- I HAVE TOO MUCH FREE TIME ---

I watch alot of War Thunder videos featuring Realism Mode Battles using the highest PC graphics settings - and I just beat BF1... And my take away is the following:

Beyond incorporating the 3D graphics of the above mentioned games into the realistic gameplay of the Close Combat series, we must also take even greater effort to realistically depict the details of ammunition fire effect on target and the varying differences with respect to ammuntion type and target physical properties - depicting the incadescent shock wave that precedes the mechanical detonation witnessed as a violent, shocking, awesome, and swift disruption to the surrounding elements of the hit target; detected in rapid dislocation of flora, earth, moisture, and other organic material to include the air itself (rapid change in temperature).

We must study the effects that different ammuntions have on different targets upon impact (armor, wood, brick, dirt, mud, water, grass, woven fabrics, etcetera) and truly depict them in the most realistic manner possible. This is the most critical and most overlooked element of gameplay today.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QfDoQwIAaXg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1QgXuhv7-54

Post #: 1

RE: Attempt at Infantry and Armor Cooperation - 2/7/2017 6:07:27 PM

SteveMcClaire

Posts: 4472
Joined: 11/19/2007
Status: offline

Hi sepp3gd,

The psychological model is definitely one of the Close Combat's best features.

Smashing two games together (2D RTS-style and FPS) is a cool idea, but not where the Close Combat franchise is headed in the near future. An FPS element would really make it into an entirely different game. Not that that new game might not be great, but if the player can have a significant impact on the battle with his FPS skills aiming and shooting individual weapons, it wouldn't really be Close Combat anymore, in my opinion.

Steve

(in reply to sepp3gd)

Post #: 2

RE: Attempt at Infantry and Armor Cooperation - 2/9/2017 8:21:55 AM

sepp3gd

Posts: 35
Joined: 8/6/2015
Status: offline

Steve,

I agree that the combat stress injury model that Close Combat series offers is what makes it the Close Combat Series.

I agree with you that having the ability to fire different weapons and pick targets is a take away and becomes an entirely different game.

That being said :
The solution is 'Active Spectate' - Make decisions in the traditional Close Combat method with the added ability to spectate from the soldiers POV.

So then -

"The optimum operating crew of an MG 42 for sustained fire operation was six men: the gun commander, the No.1 who carried and fired the gun, the No.2 who carried the tripod, and Nos. 3, 4, and 5 who carried ammunition, spare barrels, entrenching tools, and other items. For additional protection the commander, No.1 and No.2 were armed with pistols, while the remaining three carried rifles. This large team was often reduced to just three: the gunner, the loader (also barrel carrier), and the spotter. The gunner of the weapon was preferably a junior non-commissioned officer (or Unteroffizier)."*

Gunner - Spectate through No.1 POV as he deploys weapon on tripod. Checks field of fire. Loads and locks. Engages targets over open sights or through telescopic sight. Changes barrels. Takes cover from enemy fire. Breaks down weapon for displacement. Etcetera.

Loader - Spectate through No.2 POV as he deployes weapon on tripod. Checks field of fire. Loads and locks. Readies ammuntion. Spots targets. Breaks down weapon for displacement. Carries tripod.

Assistants - Spectate through assistant POV as they pass ammunition. Assist with the changing of barrels. Engage targets on the flank with their Karbiners. Throw grenades / smoke when applicable. Engage in close combat hand-to-hand fighting. Prepare fighting positions with entrenching tools. etc.

The ability to enter into First Person mode is always an option to spectate. You can see detailed visuals of the terrain, weapons, the weapons respective operations to include the abiity to see from a POV the different types of ammuntion used for the different weapons in close detail, look through the different sights for the different weapons, examine the interior of the different tanks and AFV from the respected POV of the soldiers function, mortar crew, AT Field Gun crew, etcetera.

It offers players the ability to literally see the combat through the individual soldier's POV. You will have no control over their decisions. You will, however, have the ability to control the soldiers via the traditional Close Combat methods.

If there were a Picture in Picture function, one for the display of the POV and one for the traditional Close Combat display of the 2D hand drawn map, then it would be very smooth and exciting style of gameplay that I have not yet seen done at this level of realism and detail.

You would not have any control to influence what the soldier chooses to focus on during POV. But anything that is within his field of view would be fair game.

Remember when CD ROM games were using Full Motion Video to create interactive arcade style shooters like SWAT?

This is similar in that it would essentially be Full Motion Video VR at the relevant weapon. Then to just have the abilty to render the environments in 3D and "blue screen" away the negative spaces in the Full Motion Video VR so that the backdrop is the environment within the game.

For AFV and Tanks it would be easier than MGs and field guns because the only time you would see the 3D Map would be through the sights and periscopes and commanders cupola. Again, when the hatches are open, it would be the matter of imposing the 3D environment upon the negative space.

Once we got it done for commercial use for the Close Combat series, we could then take it the next level and go private.

Mike

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8FK3iLaiPis

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iRZVXpkxVNc

*https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MG_42 (Accessed 2/9/2017)

(in reply to SteveMcClaire)

Post #: 3