Saturnian
Posts: 99
Joined: 12/7/2013 Status: offline
|
@Destraex SSI(which butchered close combat) made it so those little trenches appear (i think at the first battle and only for defenders, which makes sense). But they never really built on the idea and it never felt complete. I agree, if it has been done in the past, why not build upon it? especially if there are cease fires. then the soldiers get the ability to build better fortifications based on how much time they have between battles. Another aspect to that is ammunition. If you have a machine gunner in a bunker, I would assume they would be able to have more ammunition than a small team in the shrubs, far off from any victory locations. So prior to battle it would make sense to be able to distribute ammunition and make it available in strategic points on the map. Think about it like with tanks: this is HARDWARE and must be stored somewhere, then is utilized by troops. So it goes in a separate part of the force pool. For this reason it can be deployed just like infantry would be deployed. And mounted and unmounted, of course. Lets say you need a Panzerfaust? Well, logically, those could be positioned somewhere on the map, just like how real life is. I mean, where are they kept between battles, anyway? Some magic untouchable place? I think the quartermasters will allow some weapons and ammo to be available in the place they are needed, by orders of the commander (YOU!). Is it unrealistic to put physical objects in physical locations? NO! In REAL LIFE do you have to wait until the next battle to get a crappy panzerjager team with 1 measly panzerfaust, or can you place several Panzerfausts in a building(perhaps, when possible but not always, guarded by a supply team similar to a truck driver or a command squad?) and then during battle order troops to retrieve them, or have THEM go to the other troops? Maybe even hurt or inexperienced troops can be dispatched to do this. Just like in real life. Because yes this is how real life is! And WE WANT CLOSE COMBAT TO BE REALISTIC!!! The point is that it can be easily done. And I know it adds lots of complexities to the game(like forming teams and where does issuing of weapons start and end?) but i think these would be able to be ironed out. The FOUNDATION of the game was on psychometrics. That IS what Close Combat was founded upon. So to have soldiers gain weapon experience in battle makes sense. Maybe prior to deployment mode you would be able to issue troops with guns and ammunition based on availability and carrying capacity, then position ammunition and support crews in strategic locations on the map to assist when necessary. So in some ways you would have a force pool, then a supply pool, then an experience pool all dynamically interacting. To me this is the inevitable development of Close Combat. That is IF the developers don't screw it up. I know the upcoming release is experimental, but once they work out the kinks in the engine i think it MUST make changes if they want to be true to what makes Close Combat a unique game. There are plenty of other games that ignore the microscopic details, and that's where close combat is different@ That is the SELLING POINT of close combat. slopping on additional strategic screens, but losing touch of the realism of soldiers in real-time battlefield is just poor development. And I am not insulting MAtrix because they have done a phenomenal job with what they inherited from Atomic, Microsoft and SSI, but we need to move forward instead of just slopping together junk and then never revising it. That's what SSI did and no one wanted to undo the damage of SSIs mistakes(or lack of follow through) from literally 20 years ago. @Kilovski And I totally agree about the deployment mode. It doesn't make sense to have just a little box for 50 soldiers and equipment to break through with. Some may argue is is more realistic since they are entering the map, but is it really more realistic to clump together an entire force in a tiny square in a screen? I mean its not like in real life battles were fought in digital boxes with sharp boundaries, so its reasonable to tweak this. This was a major cruddy downside of SSIs butchery. Matrix should be able to rework this. Here is the most logical solution I can think of: We are aware of black, white and gray deployment. The user only is allowed to deploy in white. The enemy, in black. Well, add a new deployment zone which only some units can be deployed. So there is whit, but then maybe a 'red' zone which is allowed only for lightweight teams such as halftracks, recon, etcetera. I personally lean against allowing vehicles, though, because this zone would be more for infiltrating. A vehicle is spotted first, so can't really infiltrate. maybe line of sight could be configured, but that's complicated, the above is simple and workable IMMEDIATELY! it could prob be programmed in a day. Maybe even by making it so you can enter troops on the map at a later time, and/or just limit what troops can be deployed out of the initial zone and others enter gradually(per order determined prior to battle?) For example, a tank must be deployed in the tiny square(or maybe can enter the map later, if the user wants) then light infantry can infiltrate and be deployed in further zones(so instead of white gray and black deployment zones, there can be a fourth zone for recon and lmg teams). Maybe that could be just at the FIRST battle, like with the fortifications/foxholes. Defenders have advantages of 'digging in' and then attackers, too, have their own unique abilities in an initial battle. Attackers have infiltration abilities while defenders have ability to fortify. The defender has no idea how many light teams the enemy has, or how many the enemy is committing to battle at the start. Just for the initial battle on the map, maybe. I hope that makes sense. to me it is the most logical. I have spend too many hours playing close combat, as you can probably tell. haha.
|