Initial observations from a new player

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Initial observations from a new player

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: Last Stand Arnhem >> Initial observations from a new player

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Initial observations from a new player - 7/24/2010 11:50:29 PM

JFalk68

Posts: 223
Joined: 11/5/2007
Status: offline

I have played CC2, but that was over 10 years ago. This is the first time I touched a CC game since.

My thoughts so far...

-My troops aren't very smart or brave! For example if they move into a house I have to issue another order to try to get everyone to the walls in firing position. Why don't combat veterans know how to do this? As a gamer I want to tell my soldiers what to do, not overly micromanage them so they carry out my intent. "C'mon guys, mover 3 feet over and place your body against that wall and start firing!"

-Soldiers take fire from 200+ meters away and start retreating to where they came from, they should be looking for closer cover that is available.

-Click and drag is the only way to move troops? It's mildy cumbersome, why not have a double click method so I don't have to keep my finger on the mouse key while dragging.

-How about a reverse LOS tool? Conquest of the Aegean had such a tool, LOS works much better in that series. A LOS tool would help with planning advances more. I think elevation and such also may be too detailed in game, giving off wierd LOS readings. Maybe instead of doing 1 meters increments, do 2 meter increments to smooth out line of sight. I would rather play a game where LOS is somewhat abstracted then so absolute is results in a frustrating game experience. Trying to model every single nook and cranny in the game is part of the LOS problem.

-AI vehicles can do some quirky things, I had a German tank drive to the end of a bridge and just sort of dance/pivot in place while a battle was being fought South of its position. It never moved to try to help its side and not sure why it was dancing/pivoting.

Overall I like the game, its very pretty to look at but it definitely has it frustrating moments that just makes me want to stop after 20 mins. It needs to have the rough spots smoothed out. I see a lot of potential here though. I don't want to sound like a complainer, just trying to help out here!

Post #: 1

RE: Initial observations from a new player - 7/25/2010 1:42:03 AM

Peterk1

Posts: 121
Joined: 5/4/2003
Status: offline

I'm a new player as well coming from CC2. I got The Longest Day instead of Bridge Too Far but some of your comments apply equally to that one.

I typically do one move to get the guys into the building and then a second move to bring them closer to the edge of the building. Doesn't really bug me too much. You're forgetting that someone might want to take a building but try to keep the troops away from the windows so automatically moving to firing positions is going to get some complaints too.

Keep a HQ within radius to minimize the returns to starting point. Sometimes issuing the order a second time helps. Attacking the source of the fire or getting smoke in between definitely helps. Telling them to get down and defend where they are sometimes stops the retreat. If not....well, you're seeing an act of cowardice and that's part of the game. Do it with another squad and they may do the same move with no problems whatsoever. That's the fun (and frustration) of CC. I think you can toggle the "Always Follow Orders" option if it's so frustrating as to make you want to stop playing, but really, I wouldn't.

For the click and drag while setting up, have you tried doing your first pass of the deployment in the zoomed out view? Helps a lot with the long drags.

Have to babysit the tanks a little bit. Short moves and a defend instruction after the move finishes has been working well for me. Just noticed after writing this that you were talking about the AI. Yes, I've seen some stuff like that too with the vehicles. Mind you, CM also does some frustrating pivots and turret changes and weird targetting changes so CC isn't alone in this regard.

< Message edited by Peterk1 -- 7/25/2010 6:38:35 AM >

(in reply to JFalk68)

Post #: 2

RE: Initial observations from a new player - 7/25/2010 5:58:21 PM

JFalk68

Posts: 223
Joined: 11/5/2007
Status: offline

Hi Peter,

Thanks for taking the time to respond. In regards to our discussion about troops in buildings, I would rather see buildings abstracted in a small way to facilitate gameplay. Abstracted to the point where being in a building always provides 1) additional protection 2) additional cover and 3) and because of floors, the ability for attaining LOS, no matter where you are at in the building. Let's just assume being in a building the troops are going to take advantage of the situation what is best for them at the time.

The game does most of this now, but only if you move a guy to or away from a window. I would rather it be that you get the advantages I stated without having to move them back and forth. I guess there might be some coding issues with walls and such, and distance away from the wall.

I'll try a few more battles and games and see if the system as is "grows on me" some more

(in reply to Peterk1)

Post #: 3

RE: Initial observations from a new player - 7/25/2010 7:00:19 PM

xe5

Posts: 783
Joined: 5/3/2009
Status: offline

2 meter elevation increments, rather than the current .5 meter, would only lead to more LOS anomalies. Prone (.5 m) and kneeling (1 m) soldier points of view would be even more blocked.

The statement of intent: "C'mon guys, move 3 feet over and place your body against that wall and start firing!" contains separate move and fire orders. Im more bothered when a team doesnt reposition soldiers that "Cant See" so theyll gain LOS to the target Ive designated.

re: "smart" - the retreat under fire function seems to use reverse LOS in that the retreating team will automatically steer away from the LOS of the firing unit when possible. Up to the player to maintain situational awareness and issue another order to retreating teams. If they player is distracted and busy elsewhere then c'est la guerre, next time be a smarter commander.

re: "brave" - IMO the CC sprites are far too brave. IRL, if you order a team to assault across ground where another friendly team just got cut down they'd rightly respond with some variant of "F U".

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by xe5 -- 7/25/2010 7:01:10 PM >

(in reply to JFalk68)

Post #: 4

RE: Initial observations from a new player - 7/25/2010 7:15:23 PM

Peterk1

Posts: 121
Joined: 5/4/2003
Status: offline

Hi John,
Hope it works out for you. I haven't had this much fun with a game for a long time working through Operation Overlord. Warts and all, I've had some incredibly fun and tense battles in the last week or so and can't stop playing.
Looking forward to playing Arnhem and the bridges again in the very near future. I'm sure it'll bring back some good memories.

About the buildings, what bugs me the most is when guys exit the building into fire to move along to a different area of the same building. Also, you gotta watch it with the buildings that are > than level 1. Your guys are always assumed to be moving at the highest level so you might get surprised with being shot at where you thought there was no LOS at all.

xe5. Is "Retreat under fire" something new? I don't have that command in The Longest Day. I do remember that the original CC2 had a retreat command.

(in reply to xe5)

Post #: 5

RE: Initial observations from a new player - 7/25/2010 7:22:49 PM

Ivan_Zaitzev

Posts: 49
Joined: 6/19/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Peterk1
xe5. Is "Retreat under fire" something new? I don't have that command in The Longest Day. I do remember that the original CC2 had a retreat command.

Thats when your soldiers automatically retreat when are being shoot at.

(in reply to Peterk1)

Post #: 6

RE: Initial observations from a new player - 7/25/2010 8:06:21 PM

xe5

Posts: 783
Joined: 5/3/2009
Status: offline

@Peterk1 - IIRC, the retreat command youre thinking of is the old 'Surrender' button to end the battle. The retreat under fire function has been around since at least CC3. Its automatic when an infantry team is moving and then comes under effective fire. Its recently been made more noticeable in that it takes much less incoming fire to trigger a retreat. Smart and brave arent always the same thing :)

Attachment (1)

(in reply to Ivan_Zaitzev)

Post #: 7

RE: Initial observations from a new player - 7/25/2010 9:38:36 PM

Peterk1

Posts: 121
Joined: 5/4/2003
Status: offline

Thanks guys. My mistake. I remember playing something way back that had an explicit command for short retreats. I thought it was CC2 but it was probably the first CM.

(in reply to xe5)

Post #: 8

RE: Initial observations from a new player - 7/26/2010 11:35:04 AM

Foolio

Posts: 27
Joined: 5/19/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Peterk1

I typically do one move to get the guys into the building and then a second move to bring them closer to the edge of the building. Doesn't really bug me too much. You're forgetting that someone might want to take a building but try to keep the troops away from the windows so automatically moving to firing positions is going to get some complaints too.

I really have no luck with this. I've lost count of the times I've moved my MG team into a building, only to have the MG gunner lying on the floor in the middle of the building with no LOS to anything. Is there any way to for the gunner to actually move to a window?

(in reply to Peterk1)

Post #: 9

RE: Initial observations from a new player - 7/26/2010 1:22:51 PM

Peterk1

Posts: 121
Joined: 5/4/2003
Status: offline

Are you giving them a defend with a covered arc right at the end? I've been finding that the "boys" react pretty well to that and adjust their positions.

(in reply to Foolio)

Post #: 10

RE: Initial observations from a new player - 7/26/2010 2:33:56 PM

7A_Woulf

Posts: 91
Joined: 1/28/2010
Status: offline

One way I use is to move the squad into the building, then I give them a crawl order on the wall or just outside. They tend to line up rather well along the inside of the wall and it's seldom I'm cursing about MG's without LOS.

(in reply to Peterk1)

Post #: 11

RE: Initial observations from a new player - 7/27/2010 3:55:33 AM

TheReal_Pak40

Posts: 186
Joined: 10/8/2003
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Foolio

I really have no luck with this. I've lost count of the times I've moved my MG team into a building, only to have the MG gunner lying on the floor in the middle of the building with no LOS to anything. Is there any way to for the gunner to actually move to a window?

I usually give them a short crawl order towards or even beyond the wall that I want him to be adjacent to. Then press defend or ambush button when he gets to his prime location. It sucks that you have to do that but you work with what you've got with this game engine.

(in reply to Foolio)

Post #: 12

RE: Initial observations from a new player - 7/27/2010 4:15:42 AM

TheReal_Pak40

Posts: 186
Joined: 10/8/2003
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: JFalk68

-My troops aren't very smart or brave! For example if they move into a house I have to issue another order to try to get everyone to the walls in firing position. Why don't combat veterans know how to do this? As a gamer I want to tell my soldiers what to do, not overly micromanage them so they carry out my intent. "C'mon guys, mover 3 feet over and place your body against that wall and start firing!"

I agree to an extent. You have to sometimes issue a short movement order to move some men over. But, on the other hand, sometimes CC has too many men being able to shoot out of a building. For instance you might have a squad set on a building side with only one window yet all your guys can fire out.

quote:

-Soldiers take fire from 200+ meters away and start retreating to where they came from, they should be looking for closer cover that is available.

Yes, this is highly annoying and not very realistic. Usually a single rifle or two will pin a squad running across the street where the nearest cover is a mere second or two from the pinned men. Any sane man would chance that run rather than stay in the street to get shot at more.

quote:

-Click and drag is the only way to move troops? It's mildy cumbersome, why not have a double click method so I don't have to keep my finger on the mouse key while dragging.

I would like to see a hotkey that would displace a unit in the setup phase.

quote:

-How about a reverse LOS tool? Conquest of the Aegean had such a tool, LOS works much better in that series. A LOS tool would help with planning advances more. I think elevation and such also may be too detailed in game, giving off wierd LOS readings. Maybe instead of doing 1 meters increments, do 2 meter increments to smooth out line of sight. I would rather play a game where LOS is somewhat abstracted then so absolute is results in a frustrating game experience. Trying to model every single nook and cranny in the game is part of the LOS problem.

Reverse LOS would be nice but would be very unrealistic. On the battlefield you never know for sure what your enemy can see. You run to a ditch for cover and hope they can't see into it. As for your opinion about 2 meter increments: I believe the games uses .5 meter increments and for good reason. You want there to be a LOS difference between standing up, kneeling, and going prone. Otherwise, what's the point of doing any of them? A 2 meter LOS increment would negate any advantage of kneeling behind a stone wall vs standing behind a stone wall.

quote:

-AI vehicles can do some quirky things, I had a German tank drive to the end of a bridge and just sort of dance/pivot in place while a battle was being fought South of its position. It never moved to try to help its side and not sure why it was dancing/pivoting.

There are many bugs in the vehicle pathing. I think the 2nd patch is supposed to address these issues.

quote:

Overall I like the game, its very pretty to look at but it definitely has it frustrating moments that just makes me want to stop after 20 mins. It needs to have the rough spots smoothed out. I see a lot of potential here though. I don't want to sound like a complainer, just trying to help out here!

There are massive bugs in the strategic map. I suggest you wait until the first patch comes out - I know I am.

(in reply to JFalk68)

Post #: 13

RE: Initial observations from a new player - 7/27/2010 4:34:12 AM

Peterk1

Posts: 121
Joined: 5/4/2003
Status: offline

I was just playing a bit tonight and I was keeping an eye out for some of this stuff. It's really curious the way the game works out.

I had a nice building occupied with 2 Bren groups and a heavy MG. The Brens were firing efficiently but the MG didn't seem to be doing very much. So I gave an order to adjust them a little bit. They got shot at from far away (red tracers) and started whining about being shot at and didn't follow the order. Repeated the process. Same result. And then I basically decided "screw you!" and I called up another MG from two houses down to take the same position and two minutes later with no complaints whatsoever they take the position and start shooting effectively. The "cowards" got moved to another building a little farther back that was quieter and they did well there.

I love it! It's pretty cool that a game does that.

I have a feeling the same thing is happening with the guys running way back to cover. It's not going to happen with all squads. Tonight I had a squad moving slowly down a field into the unknown and he had 2 squads and a HQ right behind him (about 20-30 yards) keeping overwatch. As he's moving I've got his menu up ready to tell him to drop. Sure enough he gets shot at. Bang I give the defend with a covered arc. And he held in a field close to the enemy with very little cover, no problem.

(in reply to TheReal_Pak40)

Post #: 14

RE: Initial observations from a new player - 7/27/2010 5:18:18 AM

Ivan_Zaitzev

Posts: 49
Joined: 6/19/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Peterk1
As he's moving I've got his menu up ready to tell him to drop.

You know, you can use keyboard keys to issue orders, in this case N will tell them to defend.

(in reply to Peterk1)

Post #: 15

RE: Initial observations from a new player - 7/27/2010 5:19:58 AM

JFalk68

Posts: 223
Joined: 11/5/2007
Status: offline

Thanks for the responses and some clarifications, I am looking at the game with "new" eyes so some things are not as apparent or I am just used to the way other wargames manage things.

Overall I am having a very good time, despite some bugs. Looks like communication is really good on the boards also. I have faith that this game, this version of CC will set a new standard for the series once the dust settles and the kinks/bugs get smoothed out

(in reply to Peterk1)

Post #: 16

RE: Initial observations from a new player - 7/27/2010 6:20:40 AM

zon

Posts: 470
Joined: 11/21/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheReal_Pak40

quote:

-How about a reverse LOS tool? Conquest of the Aegean had such a tool, LOS works much better in that series. A LOS tool would help with planning advances more. I think elevation and such also may be too detailed in game, giving off wierd LOS readings. Maybe instead of doing 1 meters increments, do 2 meter increments to smooth out line of sight. I would rather play a game where LOS is somewhat abstracted then so absolute is results in a frustrating game experience. Trying to model every single nook and cranny in the game is part of the LOS problem.

Reverse LOS would be nice but would be very unrealistic. On the battlefield you never know for sure what your enemy can see. You run to a ditch for cover and hope they can't see into it. As for your opinion about 2 meter increments: I believe the games uses .5 meter increments and for good reason. You want there to be a LOS difference between standing up, kneeling, and going prone. Otherwise, what's the point of doing any of them? A 2 meter LOS increment would negate any advantage of kneeling behind a stone wall vs standing behind a stone wall.

CC2 allows a series of cheats where holding done the Alt key gives up intel with a mouseclick (leftover from testing, I believe). In one case, by dragging out the LMB from enemy units while holding down the Alt key, you can determine the enemy's LOS. Seems like a cheat but it could be considered a feature. In CC, we're trying to think in 3D while while looking at 2D maps and can't get a sense of terrain features that real-world troops on the ground would form, including judging whether a tank on a high hill has LOS over a one-storey building to a ditch where you might go for cover. Note there are many map features (the art) in LSA that suggest much greater elevation changes than the map data actually presents. I understand your comment about realism, but maybe we need a feature to help us navigate a less-than-perfect representation of the battlefield.

(in reply to TheReal_Pak40)

Post #: 17

RE: Initial observations from a new player - 7/28/2010 1:11:56 AM

TheReal_Pak40

Posts: 186
Joined: 10/8/2003
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: zon
I understand your comment about realism, but maybe we need a feature to help us navigate a less-than-perfect representation of the battlefield.

True, there are some serious issues with the terrain not being coded at all for elevation changes and other issues where the actual land change is understated compared to the visual hill shading. However, the solution to this problem is not to add a LOS from the enemy's point of view but to fix the maps. It's a more realistic and logical solution IMO.

(in reply to zon)

Post #: 18

RE: Initial observations from a new player - 7/28/2010 1:21:51 AM

xe5

Posts: 783
Joined: 5/3/2009
Status: offline

Oddly enough, CC2 had an unannounced reverse LOS feature if you held the Alt key down while clicking on an enemy team and dragging out a fire line.

(in reply to TheReal_Pak40)

Post #: 19

RE: Initial observations from a new player - 7/28/2010 5:30:48 AM

zon

Posts: 470
Joined: 11/21/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheReal_Pak40

quote:

ORIGINAL: zon
I understand your comment about realism, but maybe we need a feature to help us navigate a less-than-perfect representation of the battlefield.

True, there are some serious issues with the terrain not being coded at all for elevation changes and other issues where the actual land change is understated compared to the visual hill shading. However, the solution to this problem is not to add a LOS from the enemy's point of view but to fix the maps. It's a more realistic and logical solution IMO.

My comment was really aimed at 2D maps generally, not just the current data discombobulation. I don't see reverse LOS any less or more realistic than checking your own unit's LOS.

(in reply to TheReal_Pak40)

Post #: 20

RE: Initial observations from a new player - 7/28/2010 7:53:31 AM

Andrew Williams

Posts: 6116
Joined: 1/8/2001
From: Australia
Status: offline

NO!

You can't be allowed to know what the enemy can see, crikey!

(in reply to zon)

Post #: 21

RE: Initial observations from a new player - 7/28/2010 8:20:59 AM

Sheytan

Posts: 863
Joined: 11/28/2006
Status: offline

Dont see how that is a cheat. Really...what you can see they can see. Not assclown insane candy magic here. If any of you served in combat arms you may recall field tests that did nothing but ask you to define unit assets and draw dead space, etc, and how to dictate indirect fires to these zones.

quote:

ORIGINAL: zon

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheReal_Pak40

quote:

-How about a reverse LOS tool? Conquest of the Aegean had such a tool, LOS works much better in that series. A LOS tool would help with planning advances more. I think elevation and such also may be too detailed in game, giving off wierd LOS readings. Maybe instead of doing 1 meters increments, do 2 meter increments to smooth out line of sight. I would rather play a game where LOS is somewhat abstracted then so absolute is results in a frustrating game experience. Trying to model every single nook and cranny in the game is part of the LOS problem.

Reverse LOS would be nice but would be very unrealistic. On the battlefield you never know for sure what your enemy can see. You run to a ditch for cover and hope they can't see into it. As for your opinion about 2 meter increments: I believe the games uses .5 meter increments and for good reason. You want there to be a LOS difference between standing up, kneeling, and going prone. Otherwise, what's the point of doing any of them? A 2 meter LOS increment would negate any advantage of kneeling behind a stone wall vs standing behind a stone wall.

CC2 allows a series of cheats where holding done the Alt key gives up intel with a mouseclick (leftover from testing, I believe). In one case, by dragging out the LMB from enemy units while holding down the Alt key, you can determine the enemy's LOS. Seems like a cheat but it could be considered a feature. In CC, we're trying to think in 3D while while looking at 2D maps and can't get a sense of terrain features that real-world troops on the ground would form, including judging whether a tank on a high hill has LOS over a one-storey building to a ditch where you might go for cover. Note there are many map features (the art) in LSA that suggest much greater elevation changes than the map data actually presents. I understand your comment about realism, but maybe we need a feature to help us navigate a less-than-perfect representation of the battlefield.

_____________________________

(in reply to zon)

Post #: 22

RE: Initial observations from a new player - 7/28/2010 9:28:49 AM

Andrew Williams

Posts: 6116
Joined: 1/8/2001
From: Australia
Status: offline

No, it's a cheat

Work it out , yes... be given the answer, not on your life.

(in reply to Sheytan)

Post #: 23

RE: Initial observations from a new player - 7/28/2010 10:00:34 AM

Southernland

Posts: 2283
Joined: 11/19/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: zon

My comment was really aimed at 2D maps generally, not just the current data discombobulation. I don't see reverse LOS any less or more realistic than checking your own unit's LOS.

Essentially if you're checking you're own LOS you're "seeing" what you're troops can "see" and move your troops into more advantageous positions based on a measure of reality

Checking Reverse LOS (heretoforeafter known as CHEATING) you can see what the enemy see and move your troops accordingly to stop them shooting at you by
..........reading their minds?
..........Using the powers of the entire US covert survailance apparatus
..........The hand of God?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sheytan

If any of you served in combat arms you may recall field tests that did nothing but ask you to define unit assets and draw dead space, etc, and how to dictate indirect fires to these zones.

yeah but we're talking being able to accurately to that for enemy dispositions, not your own. Fair enough knowing where the enemy are and having a rough idea where they may lay down fire by the nature of the terrain. But seriously; you want to be able to precisely map where they can see and shoot?

(in reply to zon)

Post #: 24

RE: Initial observations from a new player - 7/28/2010 10:47:23 AM

Andrew Williams

Posts: 6116
Joined: 1/8/2001
From: Australia
Status: offline

If I have a team down in a valley... they look up and see an enemy team.

that enemy team has LOS to the next valley and beyond... my team cannot see what they can see unless they indulge in mind melding.

if you continue this argument along the lines you have so far I'll have to mark you in my little red book

**** Looking up "S" Sheytan would come just after Sbufkle and he is marked "idiot" - you wouldn't want a ditto would you? ****

< Message edited by Andrew Williams -- 7/28/2010 10:48:43 AM >

(in reply to Southernland)

Post #: 25

RE: Initial observations from a new player - 7/28/2010 2:58:07 PM

TheReal_Pak40

Posts: 186
Joined: 10/8/2003
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: zon

My comment was really aimed at 2D maps generally, not just the current data discombobulation. I don't see reverse LOS any less or more realistic than checking your own unit's LOS.

Really? I think it's completely realistic to know what your OWN units can see. After all, they're your own men. But to know what the enemy can see is basically cheating in my book. I know of no unit in WWII(or any war) that had the ability to see what enemy can see.

(in reply to zon)

Post #: 26

RE: Initial observations from a new player - 7/28/2010 3:43:09 PM

xe5

Posts: 783
Joined: 5/3/2009
Status: offline

@A.Williams - because of the top down map perspective you can see what is in the valley beyond, you just cant see who is there if "who" happens to be the enemy. I think the AI, not the player, should get access to reverse LOS from the players units. That way once the AI spots a player unit it could better determine a path to avoid fire than the current 'lets keep advancing thru the beaten zone' method.

The player gets a lot more battle info than he would IRL.

Re: cheating - I'd like to see a realism option that would include:
1. remove the enemy Force Morale meter
2. show VLs but not their current ownership
3. only show enemy teams in LOS of the currently selected Player team
4. only show enemy KIAs, and play KIA vox cues, if there is a clear LOS to them from the selected Player team (no more recon by death cry)
5. do not show enemy team info after a team is KIA

(in reply to TheReal_Pak40)

Post #: 27

RE: Initial observations from a new player - 7/28/2010 4:47:29 PM

stolidog

Posts: 76
Joined: 11/1/2008
From: Virginia
Status: offline

Good ideas, I have never thought about it before, but I like the idea of not showing the other players force morale, makes sense

Also, I havent checked this in LSA, but it use to be that the hosting player got info. that vehicles were damaged, imobilized etc.

(in reply to JFalk68)

Post #: 28

RE: Initial observations from a new player - 7/28/2010 5:21:44 PM

7A_Woulf

Posts: 91
Joined: 1/28/2010
Status: offline

Check enemy LOS in three steps without cheating:

1) Look at the map, big square things with roofs tends to blocks LOS...
2) Check LOS from your own unit, if you can see it's most likely that the enemy can see.
3) Move a squad in the area; -If they starts to scream, bleed and fall to the ground you can be sure that the enemy have LOS...

(in reply to stolidog)

Post #: 29

RE: Initial observations from a new player - 7/28/2010 6:25:54 PM

Southernland

Posts: 2283
Joined: 11/19/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: xe5

@A.Williams - because of the top down map perspective you can see what is in the valley beyond, you just cant see who is there if "who" happens to be the enemy. I think the AI, not the player, should get access to reverse LOS from the players units. That way once the AI spots a player unit it could better determine a path to avoid fire than the current 'lets keep advancing thru the beaten zone' method.

The player gets a lot more battle info than he would IRL.

Re: cheating - I'd like to see a realism option that would include:
1. remove the enemy Force Morale meter
2. show VLs but not their current ownership
3. only show enemy teams in LOS of the currently selected Player team
4. only show enemy KIAs, and play KIA vox cues, if there is a clear LOS to them from the selected Player team (no more recon by death cry)
5. do not show enemy team info after a team is KIA

6. don't show when an enemy tank has lost it's main gun

(in reply to xe5)

Post #: 30

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Close Combat Series >> Close Combat: Last Stand Arnhem >> Initial observations from a new player

Page: [1] 2 next > >>