Close Combat wishes in here?

[Spy_Eye]

Lets have a fine and open discussion about Close Combat and WW2. Everybody want to have their ideas in the game. Lets say that we have to make a choice on every dicision made.

Like for exemple; Some wants bigger map, other complaint about big maps... Some want to tell their knowledge about ww2 weapons. Like the this tank do that and this. But on the other hand another player say differently. For weapons you have to adapt them to game play, since the only real thing about them is to get a ww2 rifle or mg and go play with it in your backyard. Even WW2 veterents dont tell the same stories since the half of their efficacities reside in the user. T-34 were the best all around tank of ww2. But were badly manned by russian farmers. But since them made 23 times then amount of all the germans armors. How someone can compete with those and having Hitler as supprem comander!!! Another exemple, Close Combat is a command game. So dont be surprise to find stupid crews driving some of your tanks. And yes some tanks turn their hull the wrong way. So crews did in ww2. Some even get lost half a mile from their own command HQ. I seen worse in comabt mission. i seen a sherman doing a skating ballet around 2 house with 2 inf squad with faust not even trying to shot at it. So i can call that AS = Artificial Stupidity. But i dont complain since funny things happend even in war. Sure only the ones who think they are the real reference in ww2 history and weapons complain about Close Combat. But what are you doing if your a real reference in that domain? you dont work on a software creation? Or you too occupied with signing autographs at the exit of a ww2 museum? So Atomic made choice. Some like classical music other think rock and roll is the only music valid. For me i like both, and i think the one who have time to complain are the ones who have time to do it. The others are working to bring you WW2 game to the confort of your houses "Bunkers". I can tell you a lot about choices. So even are related to Combat Mission. So why no complaints? Because Close Combat 2 made a big impression on a lot of people, and now they expect to have a real tank and all the crews to act like them.

[Guest KwazyDog]

Umm, not quite sure what responses you are expecing here, but I will point one or two things out.

Firstly, the CC series in my opinion cant be called realistic. An example is the Russian tanks made of wet paper that could be easily be taken out by indirect german rocket fire from half tracks parked directly behind a house. And how about the vehicles with the wrong amount or crewmen, or even with the wrong weapons? These are details that should NOT be wrong in a true wargame. You might say that these points can be debated, but they are easily resarched and well documented information, not hear say. Then there are the problems with getting tanks to simply drive over bridges. And how about when tanks sit there and spin in utter confusion, damn that one used to have me screaming (I remember one case where is was a veteran SS King Tiger too, no farmers in that one, hehe.) This is just the tip of the iceberg.

Now dont get me wrong, I didnt mind the CC series, especially CC2. I even wrote the map editor for CC3. It just seems that you are trying to compare CC to CM which, in my opinion, cant be done. They are two totally different games. CC for instance has made some pretty big historical innacuracies in favour or making the games more balanced or fun. CM has the accuracy down to a degree that hasnt been done before in a wargame, but may not be as interesting to those whom arent as interested in this.

Finally, you must remember that the version of CM you have played is a beta, some 15-20 builds old now. The version of CC3 I have and are basing my observations on is the final plus patch, and still has all the problems mentioned above. Please dont take this as a flame, its not, just my personal opinions

[Spy_Eye]

I didnt say that combat Mission was not good, to the contrary. But a lot poeple expect the game to be what each of them think it should be. To have a really AI you have to drive the tanks yourself. Even that, some are really poor drivers Or driving drunk . But even here i see poeple complaning about Close Combat. My point was that it is difficult to make the dreams of everyone come true, since everyone have diferent dreams. Mission Combat is another dream from someone. Even if i find things not realistic, i like it better then chess who represent totally inacurate units. who thought the calvalry to move in L and what about a tower who moves. Hehe, i exagerate maybe a little. But to make a game really accurate you have to make the impossible. Can you predict how much ammo a t-34 should have. In some periode of ww2 some lead attack t-34 had only 3 AP rounds. Because they knew all the panzer were likelly to kill them in the first min of engegement. So how could you make it show in a game. You simply cant. And the germans rocket launchers were not the nebelweffer that everybody think of, the not small 60 KG rockets. It was big ones, with flamable liquide in them. Napalm and variant. Their range was very short. and sure they kill. But the game in cc3 dont show the flames they sure did. And about bad drivers. Why do you think they put tanks of NKVD units behind the attacking russians forces. They shot every russian backing up and stoping tanks. In a real realistic game we should not give preicise orders, since its the sarges who carried them. No officers will tell to move the third tank 3 m left or right. He will simply say" Protect my flank or cover the bridge aproach in v formation 50 m wide. But how lovely to drive ourself.

My comments were just post for the complaning ones. Not for the ones who are working to make it better. suggestions from thousands dont make anything. The castle wont stand if we make each of us plans. To make a war game better AI we should make it very dumb. So we could manipulate it more. But we sure will see some of our dumb tank crews not shooting if fired at. The answer to the AI is to not have one. And we can do anything with it. except we sure will need more then 2 arms and 3 eyes... oops 2 for some. why do you think Combat mission is played in sequence?. Because you have time to think. Combat mission have a weak AI, but the way the turn base is, makes it very controlable. So a lot a ww2 fans love to control. NO GAME CAN BE THE REAL THING. WW2 IS OVER...HITLER IS DEAD. We just have to have fun playing simulations. And its a command simulation, not a driving tank simulatiom. At the end its just dice rolls.......

[Fionn]

Well, if your idea of world war 2 is coloured by all these myths then only a very poor game is going to sound realistic to you.

1. The whole "they gave them only 3 AP rounds since they were the first rank" is a war myth.

It's the same as kamikazes. Do you know that kamikaze's usually only hit a target on their THIRD kamikaze mission. They had enough fuel to return to base on all but a very few missions.

2. Data errors are just that.

3. There ARE some very knowledgeable people around who offer comment about issue to do with WW2 and wargames. No-one's perfect but the more of these knowledgeable people who look at a game prior to release the more likely a small mistake is to be spotted.

4. "To make a wargame better we should make it dumb." I know what you're trying to say insofar as the ability of units to follow orders should be lessened etc BUT if you try to simulate the friction of war by making your tanks unable to drive straight down a straight road (at times) then you have dumbed it down too far

Ps. I don't think anyone here really wishes to be "CC bashing" BUT I think a lot of people here feel there are flaws in the series and are willing to discuss them publicly. Also you should note that a lot of the people posting here are people who have had a hand in creating user-mods for the CC series.

I can name over a half-dozen frequent posters who have all been intensely involved with the fixes for CC3. So, your data in that respect is wrong.

------------------

___________

Fionn Kelly

Manager of Historical Research,

The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers

[howardb]

I don't want to get into a war between pro-CC and the other camp but personally I'm starting to think CC has given all the fun it can. Partly because since cc2 everything has declined if you ask me and the game is too broad now, a wargamer should always have the upper hand in a wargame just of the fact that he knows the tactics, armor, infantry etc. that is not the case with cc anymore. I've bought all the games of the series btw.

The thing that bothers me the most is the ridiculous voice cues for the germans, no one would detest that the germans are supposed to be the bad guys of ww2 but do they have to sound like bad guys ? All the uncorrect flashy units like flamethrowers, rocket launchers, all powerful allied weapons etc. Even Stuarts are knocking out my Panthers for crying out loud. The ability of straight driving is also a pain. I dunno how many tanks I've lost because they've started to swivel around to show their side armor to the enemy. Sometimes I never know what I got or what's opposing me because nothing is called anything anymore, only the generic: little tank, medium tank, big tank etc and that's hardly good enough for a wargamer is it?

Lastly I must put in that I think developers of supposedly historic wargames should feel a responsibility to educate it's gamers with historic information about equipment and tactics deployed. This was done in excellently in CC2 with even the different sound cues for different guns etc.

I'm putting the question up to you again, has the CC series played it's part ? Is the CC series starting to look dated and old ? It's soon year 2000 can we expect anything more, maybe even 3D battlefields

[Spy_Eye]

Well Fionn, is that so. so let me ask these

1- Why are they posting CC complaints in here? Could they influence Atomic? Could they make Combat Mission Better? Even combat mission dont want our advises, since we are too many; only on vision is made, not thousands.

2- DATA. You say it yourself. Myths. But you have to consider that every units have particularities, they are never equal. Some tank carried extra ammo, others not. Even in Stalingrade some tanks didnt even had a aiming divice for the gun, the loader had to look in the barrel to give instructions to the gunners. So dont talk about myths in war. Never 2 tanks performed the same. Some panzer didnt even had winter heather for their engine fluid.

3- the ones making cc3 mods are very nice to do so. But still some can complain about inacuraties and variants, but they had to make choices. i love cc3 mods. The only thing close to be the real thing is the ww2 weekend reinatments. Even those are inacurate since its not real blood. Think of a war game units as pieces you have to work with. If your good, you will do good whatever the kind of pieces you play with. Chess, CC, Combat mission. You will never have the plesure to fight Wittman tiger. since that he is dead. but we could try to make a game looking like it. But theres never one way to look at things. You can debate for years that your data is the best. Once people beleive the earth to be flat.

I sure will love to play Combat Mission. like i am playing close combat. But i dont try to make my data to be superior of others. I play Close Combat , not SPY_EYE Combat. So i live with it.

[Guest KwazyDog]

"but personally I'm starting to think CC has given all the fun it can."

I think that is a very good point howard, the CC series was really aimed at fun more than realism in my opinion. From what Ive read about CC4 it seems to have an grand campaign idea which at CC4's level of play really isnt aimed at being realistic. The Battle of the Bulge involved thousands upon thousands of troops, and can no way be covered by a game such as CC4 which can handle a max of what, 200 troops per battle?

I think the CC engine had great potential at being a very detailed wargame, but atomic decided to broaden its market by designing it as they have. Its really not aimed at the hard core wargamer, and is more of a mix between a wargame and a RTS game. Its a fun little game to play but can not be treated as an accurate simulation of battlefield conditions.

I lost count of the hours I played CC2 Mind you I havnt been to bed earlier that 2:30 since Ive been playing CM, and thats over 2 months now

[Bamse]

SPY_EYE have you played CC4 ?

It's a Command & Conquer clone !

I realy tried too like it but I could'nt after 5h of confusing combat(?)....

What about Atomics Customerbashing then ?

That alone is enought to don't bye the game !

[Guest Big Time Software]

Spy_Eye, the reason why people are trashing CC (here and EVERYWHERE else), is because it has pretty much ceased being a WWII wargame and is now more close to a WWII Real Time Strategy game. The errors in the latest one are too many to overlook, especially because the last one was criticized heavily for its failings. The "Mods" didn't really fix the underlying problems with the game, as they were NOT just data mistakes.

For the record, I loved CC2 even though it too had flaws.

Answers to your last three points

1. NOBODY seems able to influence Atomic Games in order to make Close Combat more realistic. In fact, the game seems to be purposefully unrealistic now.

2. In CM units do have slightly different ammo loads. Also, the scenenario designer can manually change these for each individual vehicle. Also in CM, no two units will behave the same way in the same circumstances. But in all cases the behavior, and results, are as close to realistic as we can make them be. The opposite is the case for CC.

3. Some wargames are more accurate than others, and none (not even Combat Mission) are totally accurate. Nobody should ever try to argue differently. The Mods for CC3 did make it more accurate in some ways, but not in others. A game is more than just data, so if the game itself has flaws, perfect data means nothing. For example, in CC the treatment of armor values for tanks and such is overly simplistic and inherently flawed. You can use any Mod you like, but you will not fix this.

In the end there is no reason why CC has to be trashed, except for the fact that its creators still claim that it is a realistic wargame. It no longer is, and therefore those claims are largely baseless. Since it wishes to be judged on its realism (so says its marketing hype), then so it shall be Of course if they just came out and said it was "a Realtime Strategy Game using a WWII setting" I don't think anybody would be trashing it.

Steve

[Moonpie]

I have been over at ClubSSI on thier BBS for a week or two now.

I was personally looking very foward to the game, since I loved the CC series and they were about to recreate my favorite battle of the war. After struggling to download the demo (thier ISP original servers crashed with the amount of requests).

Everything looked excellent. Graphics looked good. I could even get over the cheezy voices (I like the Germans) and equipment labels. But when I tried to move my vehicles across a bridge and my panther couldn't. I just lost it. How many times has this been pointed out a it's biggest flaw? At the very least the problem could have just been the same, but it has been getting progressivly worse in each iteration?!?

The CC people are defending the game, which I can understand. But when I (as a very recently reformed and diehard CC fan) asked some serious questions about the increasing problem with the AI plotting, I am simply ignored. If they can't answer the question with Grognard history, it just doesn't seem to be a problem to them. I don't understand. I think that says PLENTY.

Good luck to you guys on your game. I don't know if I will get it yet, not having a demo of the game (no, not the BETA demo, I have it). But I do like your manifesto and praise you guys for sticking to your ideals instead of selling out.

I like military history, but I definitely wouldn't classify myself as a Grognard (to the level of many here). Can anyone explain to me why people can continue to blindly like a game that continues to get worse?

I mean, I too did my share of yelling at the computer when my tank would drive backwards toward the enemy in previous CC iterations, but not being able to cross a bridge now?

Why?

[SS_PanzerLeader]

ok SPY_EYE ,

Here why I feel it necessary to post my opinion on the current status of the CLose cOmbat series.

1st an foremost I live in free country

2nd. I was a huge support of CC2 even though it had numerous faults. I was an avid cases ladder competitor an played several games a day, up until an online meeting with atomic

3rd. THe meeting with atomic proved very very informative on the type of people we were dealing with, Beta testers CC2 vets and genral supporters alike offered hardline questions to atomic.These questions were on the realism, historical accuracy, and problems with the game. I myself posed a question to Atomic, letting them know that myself and many other avid fans, were not pleased with their efforts. I also praised them on C2 . They simply responded by basically saying they didnt care what we thought and had no intentions of doing anything about it.

4th. any company with an attitude like that deserves what it gets IMHO

5th. BTS jsut hit the nail onthe head when it replied to the question of why people are trashing cc4 and cc3; THey are representing this as a historical realistic wargame - IT IS NOT!

SS_PanzerLeader.........out

[Spy_Eye]

My main statements like Big Time Software mention is about Historical accuracy. Its is just a goal to look to, but never a game could achive. Like every military simulator cant either. The fun of playing these games, CC or CM, is what we espect from them. If you want to recreate a famous battle with all the actions and the units presents there; thats could be said to be accurate. But games tends only to go to an objective. The one of beeing the most accurate of all. But this perfection will be never obtain. some years ago VforV series was a nice game, who try to be historic in the command game category. Across the Rhine was a nice mix betwenn actions and command. I played a lot of stategy games since many years. Iron Cross, Perfect Generals, Steel Panthers, M1 tank platoon,D-DAY, Command HQ, and numerous "in the seat" simulation games, but CC is the closest of all for accuraties. Like i said thats not perfect, even then, each onme of you have a different version of perfection. The things i deplore is that some think theirs are the only one we should tend to. Atomic made their game, you dont like the vision, you complain. How can you espect them to response to all. Democraty is a compromise on all views. but a line must be drawn. My only hope for those who complain is that CM could be in their views. If not you should think of playing micro armors in your basements. For me, even if i dont know each name or what they ate for souper of every soldier in CC or CM, i still like to play those. I wont Stop playing CC. But please dont buy cc4 if you are buying to complain after.

And for those who complain about tanks, you should have a driving course. I dont have problem crossing bridges, and my tanks rarelly turn their back to show their 6 to other tank "mooning". I hear it a lot, and see it a lot on my ennemies. Atomic should give driving and command lessons to some!!!

Lets go far in the WW2 games, but let the chance of the designer to make them. I like the idea of CM. If i find flaws, i wont be the one complaning or going to call the homes of the designers, like some cc3 players did!! I will sure help them by buying the game. If they ask my opinion i will give it. They simply cant listen to everyone views. Atomic made choice base on the fact that if the game was the specific views of certain people, Close Combat should not exist today. They went for the selling for the regular people, not for the historians of ww2 freaks. 5000 copies dont pay bills. the one making cc3 mod know it well, if 500 people have their mods, thats a big "best seller" even thought its free

So let the dogs of war go free, and stop making compairaison of games here.

Panzerleader should be the one who make games and listen to all the sugjestions. Let say that sometimes costumers are like old complaning wifes, nothing is perfect in their eyes. for once you have to stop listening to it and make the job.

[Fionn]

1. They're posting here in frustration at CC I imagine. Obvioously most of those who post here about CC are frustrated at how it has developed and are psoting to make their opinions known (much as you now post with a contrary viewpoint).

2- Certainly variance is a fact of life BUT, variance is often actually recorded. Also, what makes you think Combat Mission doesn't take variance into account? It certainly does for ammunition loadouts.

Quote "Even in Stalingrade some tanks didnt even had a aiming divice for the gun, the loader had to look in the barrel to give instructions to the gunners."

Again, that's a result of BATTLE DAMAGE and isn't some strange type of variance no-one can account for. In modelling a battle of Stalingrad it would be ESSENTIAL IMO to include a utility whereby damaged vehicles could fight on minus their damaged components.

You are using basic examples which CAN be accounted for due to common battlefield conditions as proof that variance occurs and can't be adequately modelled. I DO agree variance occurs BUT I disagree with you and think that most variances can actually be modelled. Pointing out a tank with damaged optics as an example of variance is just wrong. A tank with no optics is simply a damaged tank and can be accounted for as such.

3- Quote " But theres never one way to look at things. You can debate for years that your data is the best. Once people beleive the earth to be flat."

Why do you believe the earth is round? Answer: EVIDENCE ! I give you the same answer to your "there's no surety about data". Many German pistols used a 9mm Parabellum round. There is NO doubt about that. There is NO discussion about the accuracy of that data since it is well known. There is only discussion when either the data is very unknown (nahverteidigungswaffe) OR others don't know what they're talking about or haven't done the research they should have.

Basically I think your argument is a cop out since there are a HUGE number of things for which real data is available in sufficient quantity to adequately model. Most people mightn't be aware of the data but it's there.

E.g. What is Brinnel Hardness? Do you know the Brinnel Hardnesses for the Pz IVH, VD and VIE ? (I know they varied from model to model but I'm just making a minor point here)

Answer is, I'm sure, no SO you might feel free arguing about the quality of German armour due to a lack of data available to you. When you do a bit more research THEN you have data and most of the "grey areas" dissapear. Certainly variance still occurs but the kind of accuracy you're claiming can't be gotten can.

"But i dont try to make my data to be superior of others."

It's not about trying to make data out to be superior. It is about trying to get the right data in. If you've done more research than someone else than your data is going to be MORE CORRECT. That's a fact of life and no comments about how "data is open to discussion" will change the fact that if I say the Elefant mounted an 88mm L/71 and someone else disagrees that they will be WRONG because they haven't done the research.

------------------

___________

Fionn Kelly

Manager of Historical Research,

The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers

[howardb]

I dont think I heard a single flaming here. You asked for opinions and you got them no need to raise your voice

After the full version of CM is done you can count on that I will be first here on this board telling BTS what I liked and didnt. That's the only way I'm sure of that for the next game I will get the game I want not what "most of us" wants. Btw when developers can't listen to what the common man wants and not then he needs to get a little down to earth. We can't all like a game and I think I got the right to feel a little dissapointed when I've bought all the previous games. CC4 is a step back for military entusiasts and not really a step either way for flashbanging kids because they wouldn't buy it either way... they got Tiberium Sun. Yeah and the brotherhood of Nod which are much worse bad guys than the ridiculous voice cues of the germans.

I'm still very fond of the game and that's why I even bother to write all this. I'm just hoping that they'll go back to what used to be close combat instead of trying to make a Mattel toys game.

[PanzerLeader]

I'm very interested in hearing about the Close combat series' flaws(especially since CC3.)

The data errors are quite obvious, but I recall for example somebody saying there were problems with how morale is modelled. Why?

Just interested in understanding exactly how a wargame can miserably fail...(except for the weapon data).

Spy Eye, I think what makes a series great is when the games of that series improve one after the other because the company listened to the customers. We customers aren't idiots. Some of the people posting in this forum are actually very intelligent and give excellent ideas, advice for CM. A company that doesn't listen to its customers like Atomic is doomed because if they don't deliver what the customers except, then nobody is gonna buy the game.

BTW, please do not mix up SS_PanzerLeader and myself, I do not have the honour to be in the Waffen SS

[Moon]

Let me throw in a couple of points, each one worth a cent

A) I personally always try to see a game as what the makers of that game present it. If a company announces "a fun first person shooter with lotsablood", I am certainly not going to complain about unrealistically modelled weapons. But if a game is announced as "a real time tactical WWII wargamer that emphasizes realism" (quote from the intro to the CC4 demo), then I am going to look at it and see if it delivers what it claims.

CC4 (or the whole CC series) is a nice little strategy game, worth a couple of hours of playing fun for me personally (and therefore I am not going to buy it, too bad cost-fun ratio for me personally). But it is not realistic in most of the areas a wargame should be realistic in, IMHO, and it certainly does NOT put emphasis on realism. Since this is what Atomic claims, however, I feel it's my right and even obligation to speak up, as it's the only way that other players out there get to know that the game does not deliver what it promises.

Spy_Eye, I think you're making a mistake by shutting up even when you see serious game flaws. It's the only way to work against false advertising and crappy games. If you gladly accept all the BS thrown at you and buy it, you are only supporting more and more bad games being made. It's easy money for the guys making games. You, the customer, have only one possiblity to influence what games you will be playing for x-mas 2000 - and that is by NOT buying crappy games and sharing your opinion with others. If anybody puts any value in your opinion or not is their choice. But if you simply shut up you work in favor of the wrong side.

Now, to make it clear, there are of course also those people that will never stop complaining. We've seen some on this board in the past, and there are lots more out there on other posts. But it's easy to see the difference between those two type - one will simply say "this sux" and if challenged to give some details will only shout and flame, while the others are able to actually bring forward very good arguments. One example are the rocket halftracks and tanks in CC4. A game which claims to "emphasize realism" allows you to fire these from behind a two-story house on a target on the opposite side of a house! Errr...

For some, this might make no difference and they will enjoy the game. No problem with that at all. But for me it does make a big difference, as CC4 does not allow me to (re)play historical engagements during the Battle of the Bulge, ALTHOUGH the makers of the game claim that it should do so. Therefore I feel entitled to speak up and raise some concerns and complain and also make others aware of this so they better save their money and not spend it on what they thought the game would deliver.

Uhh... long post, much longer than it was meant to be. Thanks for listening

Martin

[Guest R Cunningham]

Close Combat does have a lot of little problems.

The attitude of Atomic is regrettable and yet perfectly understandable in some ways. Atomic is playing the computer games publishing game. They didn't write the rules. Read BTS' manifesto and you learn a little about how the rules work. Atomic can and has learned to ignore the grognards because in market terms we are insignificant. They do seem to take small suggestions, but the larger direction is driven by the rules of the game. In order to sell to joe schmuckatelli you have entice him with things he understands. If you put up penetration tables on the back of the box you'll lose the sale to joe schmuckatelli. Brinell hardness....yawn.

BTS has acknowledged that they could not have made CM the way it is within the framework of the computer industry. Why does everyone expect Atomic to somehow be able to do what BTS can't? Like any business, Atomic seeks to expand its sales by getting new customers and hopefully retaining the old. There are a lot of us CC veterans who own them all (my CC4 is on the way, army mail is slow) and still we complain because they keep making changes to make the game easier to get into. They are reacting to testing labs that show that joe schmuckatelli doesn't get it. So they make changes. The bottom line is that it's the schmuckatellis that keep Atomic afloat, not us rabid grognards.

Just as in CM every little tweak or adjustment has repercussions in other areas. CC1 had simple tile maps. Atomic upgraded the artwork and that is the root cause of the tank pathing problem. In Cc1 everything was right angles and it was easy for the AI to navigate most of the time.

The infantry survivability was considered by some to be too high in CC2. Atomic "tweaked" the model and many people were unhappy with the results. Now they've tweaked it again and a lot of grognards still think it isn't right. It may or may not be, but joe schmuckatelli doesn't ask the question. He plays the game as it is.

I can go on with a long list of CC faults and I could go on with a list of CM faults. Neither game is perfect. Neither can be. Comparing the two serves very little purpose. There are things that CC does that CM cannot do. There are things that CM does that CC cannot do. I am just glad that both exist at all.

[Spy_Eye]

In Stallingrade the tanks with no optics were brand new, they had no optics in reserve to put on them, so they roll them out of the assembly with none. It sure have made it difficult to aim throught the barrel of a gun.

For weapons i dont think your wrong about wanting to have it with the real ones they had in WW2. I am in the same view. but its all the other aspect of real life battle that is difficult to make it work. We can try, but never will. I know you like turn base games. ASL was good, but makes people have control on all things.

Sorry Panzerleader. Dont worry , i wont tell the war tribunal about you

I know they have to listen to poeple, but who? On my side of the screen i can vote for you. But still the majority will still make cc3 like it is. ;-( the things is i dont complain about it. It makes nothing. It creat nothing. Sure i have dreams, but i can ask Chrysler to make a car just for me. Yes i can if i am Bill Gates. But i am not ;(

Howard do you think they will model the game to everybody wishes? The dont even want to have open beta emails ;( I understant them well, cause its impossible to pass time for all that. If they really do, the game will end up here at 250$. At that price, ill start playing GI JO's like when i was younger and Gi Jo's had barbie for girlfriend *after battle actions* I have to get my sisters toys. Dont worry i still have cc2 and cc3 to play with, even thought people baninshed Atomic for unholy game making. Lets still praise the Devil 666. I should have said CC4.

[Spy_Eye]

What game you are playing Moon? Tell us so we could buy the game you consider realistic enough to buy. Please tell us. I dont know better yet then CC. CM is very promising.

I am very in your way of thinking R Cunningham, I think we should not considering to compare both.

Moon should know better games that we all do. Yes i complained that my car use fosile fuel, but does it make them look at my request especially. The problems for them "publishers-designers" is to know at who to listen from. You are different then everybody else on earth. Why you think you have the right view? I could understand complains about the CC3 connecting problems some players had before the patch. But i had only 2 disconnections on 40 online game before it. And i think one of them was a disconnecting player. But i can see thats was a game flaw. But who to jugde everything else, thats design choices. Even of you tell me your view is better, the next guy will also say it's his.

[W583]

The game CC2 is really well made by atomic

but after that, cc3-4 sucks, I try cc3 and 4 and I think they are not a ww2 game anymore.... soldier dont' act like soldiers tanks are soo stupid that they choose to hit inf instead of tanks right in front of them......... For a real real real WW2 game, you have to gather a bunch of WW2 vet and ask them to make it..... thats the only way a good WW2 game can be made nicely ''I think that would never happen, people forgot how hard we fight and how many die without getting a grave.......'': Lt. Jack Nelson (my grandfather)

[SS_PanzerLeader]

SPY_EYE

I'd really love to know what version of the Close Combat series you are playing, to have no trouble with tank driving, do u mean to tell me that all the people that have complained about tanks doing 360's are all just chronic complainers with poor driving skills? My god what are you smoking??

QUOTE:

And for those who complain about tanks, you should have a driving course. I don’t have problem crossing bridges, and my tanks rarely turn their back to show their 6 to other tank "mooning". I hear it a lot, and see it a lot on my enemies. Atomic should give driving and command lessons to some!!!

With the way the tank AI performs they should give lessons in figuring it out because it’s beyond the realm of normal comprehension!

To think that all these people that have posted here the majority of them praised earlier versions of the close Combat series

But now because we hold an opinion we have blasphemed before the GOD of Games GIVE me a break!

QUOTE:

Democracy is a compromise on all views. But a line must be drawn.

When is this line drawn? Who made the line? When we do not agree with you, we've crossed your magical mental figmentation of a line? Or maybe its governmental censorship that you are accustomed to, brainwashing seems to be evident in your rhetoric. ALL sheep please say 'BAAAA BAAA'

QUOTE:

I wont stop playing CC. But please don’t buy cc4 if you are buying to complain after.

I don’t recall asking you not to play cc4 _personally I couldn’t care less what you play with

And why is that you think you have some divine right to tell us what we can and cannot do?? Sorry did I miss your coronation??

All over the internet people post their opinions on games - you sound as if you’ve been personally assaulted because allot of us agree on the draw backs of the later cc series- you sound like you are dating someone on the atomic team or are hoping for employment!

QUOTE:

If I find flaws, I wont be the one complaining or going to call the homes of the designers, like some cc3 players did!! I will sure help them by buying the game. If they ask my opinion I will give it. They simply can’t listen to everyone views. Atomic made choice base on the fact that if the game was the specific views of certain people, Close Combat should not exist today. They went for the selling for the regular people, not for the historians of ww2 freaks. 5000 copies don’t pay bills. the one making cc3 mod know it well, if 500 people have their mods, that’s a big "best seller" even thought its free

So what you re saying are basically is that anyone recognizing the fact that a game is historically inaccurate is a Freak? Despite the fact the game is advertised as such? You are saying we should not offer to voice our complaints we should blindly accept what is delivered upon us and smile as we bend? Do you go out an support every game when you find flaws with it- some of us just cant afford to do that and would have more brains than to do so If we did!! In regards to the mods – obviously that is 500 unhappy people if they are using mods!!!!!

Quote:

So let the dogs of war go free, and stop making comparison of games here.

More orders!

Quote

Panzerleader should be the one who make games and listen to all the sugjestions. Let say that sometimes costumers are like old complaning wifes, nothing is perfect in their eyes. for once you have to stop listening to it and make the job.

That is SS_PanzerLeader

And in response to your question I am currently in college to do just that, as I am a CIS major! When I get finished I want to be associated with people in

the business that actually cares about their customers as BTS does. Companies like Atomic treat their customers like a mindless mass audience,

Unfortunately people like those at BTS are few and far between. I’m sure its comforting for the guys at ATOMIC to know that they have people out their like you to pay their checks no matter what crap they turn out!

MY advice to you since you are so readily issuing it is

IF YOU DONT WANT TO HEAR THE ANSWER DONT ASK THE QUESTION!

SS_PanzerLeader.........out

[PanzerLeader]

R Cunningham,

There's no need to give armor penetration values at the back of the box...Does realism disturb Joe Schmuckatelli? I don't think so. Realism doesn't disturb anyone. Joe Schmuckatelli probably wouldn't care too much if suddenly he realised(after a patch) that he can't kill tanks anymore with his rocket launcher located behind a two store house! He would just notice that something has changed, and since that doesn't affect the fun value of the game then he'll continue playing it...That's just an example. I don't think realism generally affects the fun value. So why not have it?

And cc3 had other more obvious problems as well. Gameplay problems. Too many tanks. Even Joe can understand that. And that is unforgivable.

[MarkEzra]

Re: Your Grandfather, Jack Anderson: People "elsewhere" may forget but not around here. That's the reason many of us do wargame and want/require/and bitch when we don't get, some semblance of historical accuracy. And it is why many are upset with companies who are insensitive to this point.

[Guest R Cunningham]

Does realism hurt sales? Not directly. But if joe schmuckatelli gets the impression that he has to deal with the complexity desired by the grognards his money will be spent on other things.

I've got two brothers in law and I tried to get them to play CC2. I told them it was a much more realistic game then the C&C Red Alert they had been playing. No interest at all. Realism was meaningless to them.

The game cannot be intimidating for the uninitiated. That's why CC4 had the generic team names. I don't like it but they are there.

Joe schmuckatelli doesn't notice the realism when it is there and doesn't miss it when it isn't. So focus goes to other things. I don't think he would ever come to the conclusion that CC3 had too many tanks unless he stumbled across a web site full of complainers. Ignorance can be bliss. If CC3 rewards the use of tanks then the astute average player adopts the strategy rewarded by the game. Does he question why this is the way? I wouldn't think so. All the RTS games have big powerful units that are very desireable so the player can readily understand that the JS III and King Tigers are "good" things to have.

If the game appeals enough to him, he might go searching the net for more about the game he likes and if he hits the close combat net site then he'll suddenly start seeing "fans" of the game delighting in pointing out every flaw he never noticed.

But in any case realism is a relative thing. To a C&C junkie CC may "feel" very realistic until someone points out the errors to him. Even then he may not care.

He wants to play a fun game.

[Moon]

VERY GOOD point, PanzerLeader (the one in the Wehrmacht )

The difference for Joe whatwashisname in playing fun is nil. That would be a very very bad excuse for Atomic. Look at CM - does it bother you with tons of tables? Is it very realistic, maybe as realistic as it can get on a computer screen?

No, it seems more and more that the one and only reason why a game like CC is not more realistic is "laziness" on the part of the ones making the game. With laziness I mean that they are not even trying to do the effort and research even a little about the time period in question. And the reason behind that is simple as well - it costs time and money (wich, uh, is basically the same thing) to do so. And since Joe whatshisnameagain never complains when he gets a crappy game...

I can certainly see where those game publishers are coming from, it all makes sense. Unfortunately, I am on the other side of the picture and don't like what I see at all.

Spy_Eye - I am playing the full beta version of CM for months now