Jump to content

What do you think of close combat??


Recommended Posts

Like I posted in my current thread on GTOS, I picked up the full family on super sale yesterday. I haven't started any campaigns yet. I've just run a few quick battles on "Simulator" style and "Normal" difficulty. It really feels like a blend of Close Combat and Total War.

It's too early for me to critique it, other than to say that the CM AI would have inflicted a lot more pain on me if I used the same tactics against it. I need to get into the manual and learn how stuff works. I think I'll enjoy it, but CM is in no danger of losing its status as my main squeeze.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The fanbase for CC came pretty close to killing the game and to a certain extent they did. I played all 5 original combat missions. Great game, I was fan. When the re-releases started coming out I posted comments to the effect of hey where's the new engine?, Why can't I use a scroll wheel to change viewing altitudes. Because this WAS the same game I played on my Pentium 1 years back. Then came the chorus of "if it aint broke don't fix it, don't change it" reply from the fanbase. I was like OK, I'm moving on.

I saw this in other games too. Like in Jagged Alliance back in action. (Sorry for the Apple to Oranges topic) A really really good modern remake of the Single guy squad wargame. But the original fans just attacked the developer of JABIA every way they coul:, bad comments, spams, absolute insults to the poor moderators. Yep never would get a sequel there, so now we have nothing.

I digress. My points is the new CC engine was a long long time coming. Fortunately CM is more innovative where change is concerned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I saw this in other games too. Like in Jagged Alliance back in action. (Sorry for the Apple to Oranges topic) A really really good modern remake of the Single guy squad wargame. But the original fans just attacked the developer of JABIA every way they coul:, bad comments, spams, absolute insults to the poor moderators. Yep never would get a sequel there, so now we have nothing.

On the otherhand i think that reaction shows the power of having open modding tools for the community.

Jagged Alliance 2 with the 1.13 community patch is in many ways better than Jagged Alliance: Back in action.

I always wonder what cool things CM could do if it was as moddable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The fanbase for CC came pretty close to killing the game and to a certain extent they did.

I don't think the fanbase killed it. It's own lack of financial success killed it. They never got the resources to invest in a new engine so they kept repackaging the same one with new maps and a couple of new features here and there.

What was true of the CC fanbase is true of pretty much all of them. The vocal, online fans are a tiny slice of the total customer base. CM fans are no different. Over the years the fans have told BFC that CM would fail without hex maps and counters, that 3D was useless, that the battlefield needed to be littered with dead bodies, that players needed the option of executing prisoners, that going to 1:1 representation for infantry would be a huge mistake, and that going to a real-time engine would cause a mass exodus of customers. I can't imagine where we'd be if BFC had listened.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well they seem to be investing now in a 3D version:

I had never noticed this. I really like them a lot. Be good to see them when the camo and finer details are presumably added.

I am now really looking forward to this as long as everything is realistic and improved. Close Combat: The Bloody First is the name.

One of the things that really annoyed me about Close Combat was that the soldiers were waaay to big in comparison to the tanks. I hope this has been changed. Ranges also have to be realistic. I have not played close combat in a long time but seem to remember that tank ranges were a little unrealistic in the original titles to offset the small maps.

I wonder what has been improved... borg vision ? A zoom feature could make this really amazing, this lean to thing I don't know about.

Also with 3D we should finally be able to clearly see undulations in the terrain. Something very very hard to do in both combat mission and the original close combat titles.

Are we going to be able to have maps big enough to support a real battlegroup or unit composition this time? Like combat mission has where you get to use half tracks the way they were supposed to be used. I am assuming we now have entry and exit animations for transports?

It would be great if the campaign was a little more realistic as well. Again this is something that combat mission cannot compete with. A map similar to the unity of command games would be good.

Will there be re-enforcements? That sort of thing did not happen in CC1 - You were never able to have a battlegroup come to help from an ajacent block on the campaign map even if it was originally inbound.

WOW two player COOP!!!! This is something combat mission cannot compete with!!

But America in Normandy again? I hope there is a German campaign because I personally am sick to death of the

default Normandy as the Americans perspective. It's not that I hate it, just that it is well covered. Having said that I

guess it is the lowest risk for a new title.

WAIT WHAT! PC AND IPAD? I hope the PC version will NOT be limited by the IPAD version. I.E. THe game is only developed to the IPAD's potential and the PC is wasted on it. I want to see tank tracks moving and men animating like in company of heroes.

I will never touch company of heroes again if this game turns out! I don't know yet if it will compete for realism with combat mission.

http://www.pockettactics.com/news/io...-close-combat/

Screenshot_CC_TBF_01.jpg

Screenshot_CC_TBF_02.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's something wrong with those screenshots. The vehicles look undetailed.

I strongly suspect that they aren't really going full 3d. I think it is more like the old isometric view that was popular in the RTS games. So gimmick 3d and not true 3d. Why else would you need the little inset map to show you which part of the map you're looking at?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's something wrong with those screenshots. The vehicles look undetailed.

I strongly suspect that they aren't really going full 3d. I think it is more like the old isometric view that was popular in the RTS games. So gimmick 3d and not true 3d. Why else would you need the little inset map to show you which part of the map you're looking at?

You can play CMx2 like that: raise the camera and make it point in almost straight towards the ground. Not that I recommend that: all the cool tricks that Phil has been programming over the years to make CMx2 look good will break down in quite spectacular ways. If you play like that, though, you'll probably get completely disoriented and have a Steel Panthers deja vu :)

From what I can gather from past statements made the CC devs, the 3D is meant to be mostly to determine LOS and LOF in a more convincing fashion. I don't think there's going to be a detailed ballistic model that takes into account the 3D-shapes of vehicles or 3D terrain affecting HE fire effects, as we have in CMx2.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...