Quango

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by gashford: Hello and welcome to the board. I do not claim to be an expert, I have been truly amazed at some of the answers to technical questions from the people on this board, it is my opinion that many history teachers and WW2 'experts' would do well to lurk on this board (any out there?). <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Thanks for a very lucid reply! There are some CC boards where such discussions have taken place. I'm not quite that level of an enthusiast, I tend to want to know what works and what doesn't <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Personally I would like an RTS in 3d which will allow me to stop game play at any time and reissue orders, leaving everyone to get on with it unti I pause the game again.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Cheer! I tried to make the point earlier that I'd like the option of being able to do things. Then the wargamer high-priests and realtime heretics can both live peacefully together! <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Hence I love bith CC and CM games because both have a bit of each.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Imagine the best of both in one package? ------------------ Howard

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>"Naa naa naa, Atomic's gonna put BTS out of business" doesn't strike me as reasonable. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> That's what you read. I said that it would remain a niche product. If the developers don't want success/money/etc. then fine, I won't try to convert them, or anyone here. I won't buy shares in them either though ------------------ Howard

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> RTS, the winner is ultimately who clicks the fastest. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> True in AoE/AoK. Not true in CC, for example.I used AoE to illustrate it is possible to have a large & complex game work in real time. Rush forward in CC and you end up dead, quick. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> In AoE, you select your big horde of soldiers, and you send them at the enemy. Whoever has a bigger horde, wins! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yes, but see previous point about use of aoe as illustration. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Now, in CM on the other hand, .. (strategy stuff etc.) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yes, appreciated. CC is very similar to CM in that context. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> In real life, all you would have to do is Radio the Platoon leader and yell "Squad #1 to Hill 213!" From there on, the Platoon Leader would be earning his pay by positioning his men accordingly.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yes - CC does this quite well. For example you can tell a squad to move from A to B in a straight line. They will use the best route based on cover. The unit behaviour modelling is more complex that CM I think. The AI in CC definitely isn't - I can usually beat the computer every time. Haven't played CM enough to judge. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> So you are given a choice Howard: 1) You sacrifice depth, intelligence, and planning for large scale rea time. 2) You only play out small scale combats with only a platoon or two as in CC. 3) You wait 5 years until computers become powerful enough to process all this in real time, and act as your subordinates of your force, leaving you largely out of the action. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I can see that the wargamers rule here I guess CM is going to remain what it is, and concentrate on strategy and turns. I completely accept the argument that you can't simulate a big map in realtime because of control / detail problems. But my issue with turn-based method is it really sanitises and kills the impact. For example I've had situations in CC where the enemy surprised me with a tank attacking my forces. In real life the commander would be in a mad scramble or even panic to tell his units to withdraw, move a reserve tank or AT team up to counter. You get a real adrenaline rush trying to think tactically in real time. In the CC FAQ there is even a question: "Why didn't you make it turn based?". Their answer - because it killed the action stone dead! What amused me is that this problem becomes a bit redundant if you think in terms of multiplayer gaming. Three or four players controlling such a large force, would be quite possible in real-time play. It is interesting to note that it took me about seven or eight hours last night to play the four scenarios in the demo (both sides). Given they are 60secs x 40 and 60x35 in reality I was actually 'fighting' for only about two and a half hours. I bet the real WW2 commanders would have thought such 'thinking time' a real luxury! ------------------ Howard

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Henri: Yes, but that's not all: If CM2 does not have a flight simulator included along with Roger Wilco to allow conversations with the tower and between planes, they will lose a lot of sales, and I bet someone else (probbly Microsoft will do it! [This message has been edited by Henri (edited 08-18-2000).]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> [sigh] look I was trying to make reasonable, clear and logical points. This sort of tosh isn't clever..

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by KwazyDog: "It does almost all of the same modelling of weapons, armour, etc. that CM does." Actually Howard to be honest CC dosnt even come close to touching the level of physics behind the balistics in CM, but thats another discussion.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Perhaps, I don't know CM well enough. I do note that CC is actually a better real-life simulation. For example, CM models at the 'squad' level, whereas CC models at the individual soldier. In CM (as the FAQ says) EVERYONE panics/fires/hides etc. In CC each soldier has his own characteristics, weapon, rate of fire and reloading capabilities. I suppose when you get to the big CM maps with a thousand men this level of detail would be overwhelming and over-complex. Depends on whether you are concentrating on modelling realistically or just representing units as 'tokens' but in 3D. I think we'll all have to differ on this one. ------------------ Howard

Thanks for the URL and the FAQ on it. I was surprised there was no FAQ here - as you and others have said my questions are not the first time they have appeared. Searching thousands of messages to find out if it has been asked before is a bit silly.. if it has been asked before, won't there be lots of messages matching my search?!

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by jgdpzr: Howard, welcome to the forum. I hope you don't get flamed, but you've hit on some points that may grate on some of the old-timers here (I hope everyone is on their best behavior). <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> So I see I notice that some don't take the time to read my points and just jump in to make that 'too complex' argument. Imagine if AoE was turn based!! It would have remained a niche product.. which is what I suspect CM will probably be. Still, as I've said in other posts, is BF don't do it, someone else will! ------------------ Howard

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by duck: Please.. you cannot even begin to compare this game to any of the CC games. See.. the difference is that CC is a very SUPERFICIAL game.. with plenty of little details that don't really matter.. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Ahem. Close Combat is a strategy game, not an 'action' game. I assume you have actually played it? It does almost all of the same modelling of weapons, armour, etc. that CM does. It's just 2D and real time. As to the point about making large numbers of decisions quickly and implementing those orders, that doesn't happen in real life either, which is the point I was making. Still it seems from the other replies that the developers have made up their mind. Fine, it's is their game and I suspect the majority of people here would be fans of the game and would prefer and defend that stance. I look forward to the day when someone else does create a Close Combat-in-3D or a Combat-Mission-in-realtime. It will make those developers rich! ------------------ Howard

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by KwazyDog: Hi Howard One thing you may not realise is that CM can actually represent up to reinforced battalion sized battle, something I think would befinately be out of the scope of real time play. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I am puzzled about this reluctance to go real-time. I often used to play Age of Empires 1 & 2, on the net against four or five opponents, on giant map settings. You can have anything upto 100 mobile units plus buildings, etc. to organise, control, etc. Perhaps you would consider building in the option of playing either turn-based or real-time? Believe me, I think you'd sell two or three times as many copies if you did enable realtime play! Think of all the "command & conquer" type games out there - the people who play those would probably find a turn based approach strange and difficult. I certainly did, but I stuck with it as I'm so familiar with CC. It just takes too long to play even a CM simple battle with turns. But hey, it's your software. If you don't want to, you don't have to. It's just that someone else almost certainly will and I'd bet that Atomic might be the ones to do it Anyway.. looking forward to the CD arriving soon! ------------------ Howard

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Fred: (A) I guess you are looking at CM as a "CC with 3D"; well it is not and it will certainly never go real-time. ( The points about "full squads" and "dead bodies" were discussed to death. For me, 12 men on the screen for every squad would not even slow down the game, but would clutter the screen. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> (A) Is that an official position from the developers? If so I would expect Close combat to do this in the near future. Then they will have the market. Can't see the logic really. These games are trying to simulate reality. You don't stop battles every 60 seconds to have a think, look at the options, etc. etc. Maybe Atomic can buy out Battlefront if that is the case..! ( So make it an option! That way we both get what we want.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Daveman: Seeing no less than 6 shots bounce off my tanks with no damage had me laughing like a madman... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I suspect the first Tiger crews had the same feeling in North Africa (which is where they first appeared I believe). Virtually all allied tanks and some anti-tank guns (anything below 75mm certainly) had little chance of a kill except from the side or the rear. Fortunately the Tiger is a slow beast. If I were in a Sherman, etc. I'd use this fact to move out of it's way, pronto!! ------------------ Howard

Hi all. New to CM - only just played the demo version, and already ordered the CD! Very impressed. As a long-time player of Atomic's Close Combat (CC), it was part of what I'd been waiting for all this time! I say PART because there are several suggestions I'd make to the developers. Niggles first, praise later.. The first, and most important is to remove the 'turns'. Close combat is essentially the same game (in 2D) and it works very successfully without the turn-based approach. I know lots of war-gamers who are used to turn-based approaches might prefer it, but it would be a much more marketable game if it had continuous action. An argument against turn-based is that too much is happening to be able to control it all without being able to stop the action. I'd disagree! One of the features of close combat, and of AoE is that it takes a skilled player to be able to manage a whole company of troops. Beginners who might be put off by this would need to be given gentle introductions, e.g. "beginner" battles with just 2 or 3 squads of troops in small scenarios. Second, I really hate the way the squads are portrayed. They are okay, but a 12-man squad presented by three figures is confusing. I realise that showing full squads would chew up screen processing etc., but we are now into the time of 1Ghz processors and superfast 3D cards. I would prefer an option to enable 'full squad' display. If you don't have enough processor grunt, it can be turned off. Thirdly, to find out a simple thing like how many are alive you have to click the squad. In close combat dead soldiers are coloured with a splash of red, and left on screen where they fall. This, plus the outlines used by Close Combat, would make it much easier to see which squads are functioning, and locate them without having to continually scale the units up during a turn, then back to normal during play so I see what is happening better. BF don't have to use the exact same method, but something would help. CC also has customisable 'status bars' that float over units, using colours (green/yellow/red/black) to signify ammo, cohesion, leadership, morale etc. Something similar would be appreciated..! I haven't played the Multiplayer yet, but I hope that this has an option where several human players can control different units on the same side. It probably doesn't make much sense with the turn-based system, but if the next version has continuous-action it, it would make for a truly realistic battle simulation system. Two or three players would have to communicate and co-ordinate their forces and their strategy. Here's hoping..! Finally, the praise. It's what I've been hoping would happen to Close Combat for years!! The 2D model they started with made sense originally, but with 3D cards in almost all new PCs, it doesn't make sense any more. CC has enabled 3D terrain modelling and LoS for their maps, but the interface is still 2D! When's the next version due? ------------------ Howard