Jump to content

What do you think of close combat??


Recommended Posts

Try Graviteam Tactics Operation Star instead. Best single player that I have found - battles never play out the same way as the AI is non scripted and reactive. Close Combat hasn't really changed since the 90s and I think you would get tired of it pretty quickly.

The only problem with that game is that the very first campaign pits you against tanks, when you don't have tanks.

I generally suck at the game.

My infantry never do as I need them to. My AT guns never get the tank before the tank gets them. Always out of ammo. always fleeing.

I've played 4 turns of the first campaign.

Can not win.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Closest thing to combat mission that I can find.

Trying to find a new game to play VS AI. Already overpowering AI in combat mission on "iron". Players only option.

Need single player game.

Are you still fooling around with the Combat Mission AI?

No, you not need "single player game". You need to play against human opponents.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Closest thing to combat mission that I can find.

Trying to find a new game to play VS AI. Already overpowering AI in combat mission on "iron". Players only option.

Need single player game.

I use only Combat Mission for all my small unit WWII combat tactics gaming. Mostly against the AI as well. I am seeing no need to find another type of game for this at all. Nothing comes close imo.

To each their own I guess.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you still fooling around with the Combat Mission AI?

No, you not need "single player game". You need to play against human opponents.

Some people would rather just play against the AI, myself included. Yes I have tried CM vs a human and it is very enjoyable in that mode as well. For the time being I like it the way I am using it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you still fooling around with the Combat Mission AI?

No, you not need "single player game". You need to play against human opponents.

I am currently playing against two PBEM, but sometimes they take a while to give me a turn.

I will not dedicate to live H2H games. My life is too interrupted.

In the mean time, I play singleplayer games.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Three gets no honorable mention??

I didnt like ToW 3, neither the Korean setting (limited/repetative terrain) nor the new dynamic campaign map (no story and IMO a bit meaningless and somewhat gamey - encricled units for example simply retreat through the enemy lines unharmed and unhindered if attacked and defeated instead of beeing destroyed or captured), so i didnt feel like recommending anyone to buy this game. Maybe i would have liked ToW3 if i hadnt played the previous 2 parts, but appearently i expected too much after the really cool first two parts and that got me frustrated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are a lot of things you can do to make the AI harder. Look at force size, unit choice, unit quality, etc.

Another good technique is to grab a map and do a quick custom QB in the Editor. That way, you can do things like eliminate wasteful AI 1st-turn arty barrages (but give them arty and extra FOs!) and tweak the AI plans to make things better/harder.

Yes, you know what the plan is, but depending on map, force mix, and size, that may be more than compensated for by what happens in-game.

Oh, and I had Close Combat III and IV. My first day of playing CM back when CMBO came out rendered the CC series obsolete to me. I've never been able to go back it, though I've tested the waters a few times.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Loved CC back in the day, still one of my best gaming experiences ever although that was partly because I was young and impressionable.

They nailed the infantry part almost perfectly but never got the armour quite right (ie the exact opposite if CM1) . The 1:2 scale maps was another issue that got worse as the series went along with more tanks and air and arty, with the last two almost parodically badly implemented.

CC2 was probably the best of the series, with a good campaign game as well. In retrospect they should have moved it to the Pacific where the infantry-centric model could shine, but D-Day and late war tanks (whose guns could kill anything on the map instantly) won out...

It's funny how both CC and CM started out as Computer Squad Leader and then went down separate paths, failing and succeeding in differerent ways.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My favorite part of CC was "scavenging". I remember playing a mod of the Russo-Finnish war and had maybe one Finn left and he still had a pistol and refused to scavenge so I had to have him "area fire" off his pistol ammo so he would go get another weapon. He picked up some LMG.

Once I saw the 3D nature of CM, it was to the dust bin with all the CC CD's.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CC2 was probably the best of the series, with a good campaign game as well.

Ahh...Close Combat 2: A Bridge Too Far. An all-time classic IMO.

The operational campaign lifted it from a good game to a great game. The outcome of a battle in one place had a direct effect on the starting conditions and resources available for a battle in another place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Close Combat is still fun and the latest part "Gateway to Caen" with improved graphics is absolutely great. I wished there were such beautifully designed maps in CMBN as they are in Close Combat's Normandy.

Please make looki looki here: ----> http://www.thefewgoodmen.com/thefgmforum/threads/close-combat-gateway-to-caen.20256/

Looking at this, I can definitely see things that have improved over the old versions (as they should), but... I still don't feel the need to play it. There was nothing in the battlefield game play of the CC series that wasn't much improved in CM from the get-go. I was actually never that happy with the combat in CC. I felt that weapons were either overpowered or underpowered and scenario balance was a big problem. Be it armor or infantry combat, it just never felt real to me. It always felt like a "game" with something missing.

Having said that, I did like the operational layer and the way it tracked individual soldiers and their stats. I'd be happy to have those things in CM as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Try Graviteam Tactics Operation Star instead. Best single player that I have found - battles never play out the same way as the AI is non scripted and reactive. Close Combat hasn't really changed since the 90s and I think you would get tired of it pretty quickly.

Muis front looks like it's going to be amazing. I've been a fan of the series since the first game came out. By far the best realtime tactical wargame around. The reason CM takes my top spot is because of the WEGO mechanic and replays, if I was a realtime fan than Graviteam series would be top of my list. Plus it looks amazing.

As for Close Combat, it will always have a space in my heart and I say CC2 was the best in the series. Since then inf have slowly become cannon fodder, I also much preferred the campaign system of CC2.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Muis front looks like it's going to be amazing. I've been a fan of the series since the first game came out. By far the best realtime tactical wargame around. The reason CM takes my top spot is because of the WEGO mechanic and replays, if I was a realtime fan than Graviteam series would be top of my list. Plus it looks amazing.

As for Close Combat, it will always have a space in my heart and I say CC2 was the best in the series. Since then inf have slowly become cannon fodder, I also much preferred the campaign system of CC2.

I checked out some Mius Front vids. It does look amazing. Realtime-only is a drag, but here's hoping for a demo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Loved CC back in the day, still one of my best gaming experiences ever although that was partly because I was young and impressionable.

They nailed the infantry part almost perfectly but never got the armour quite right (ie the exact opposite if CM1) . The 1:2 scale maps was another issue that got worse as the series went along with more tanks and air and arty, with the last two almost parodically badly implemented.

CC2 was probably the best of the series, with a good campaign game as well. In retrospect they should have moved it to the Pacific where the infantry-centric model could shine, but D-Day and late war tanks (whose guns could kill anything on the map instantly) won out...

It's funny how both CC and CM started out as Computer Squad Leader and then went down separate paths, failing and succeeding in differerent ways.

I too loved CC back in the day, particularly CC2 ABTF. When it came out it was the best thing going. Steel Panthers? What's that?

Thinking back on how CC developed compared with how CM developed, I think CC suffered for a couple of reasons. These were primarily the rendering engine and the developer shuffle.

The original CC came out in 1996, one year after the original Command and Conquer was released, and the 3D revolution was just starting. Quake came out that year too. The original maps were utilitarian and not very pretty to look at, but they worked better than the prettier, drawn maps that followed in CC2 and later games. All of the vehicle pathfinding issues stemmed from the mismatch of the underlying code and the appearance of the drawn maps. I haven't tried any of the CC games after CC5, so I can't say for sure, but it looks like the various Matrix versions still use the same basic engine.

So now 18 years after the original CC and 14 years after CMBO, CM has definitely aged better than CC. CMBO graphics were not cutting edge 14 years ago, but they worked and they're still crisp and clear today. The CC unit graphics are fuzzy and pixelated.

The CC series has had three publishers and at least two developers over the years, Microsoft, SSI, and now Matrix/Slitherine. CM has had some distribution partners, but it has always enjoyed the singular vision of one developer and that has added to its success immensely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Great game in its day, but It does not compare to CM as to what it can protray as to combat situations. Once I started messing with the editor in CM and was able to create my own battles. There was no way I was going to spend time with the CC games anymore.

They are a major step backwards from what we have now and I think you might find them boring very quickly. But they might be enjoyable for a while if you have never played them. It always take a while to discover the weaknesses of a system.

But there is still a good size group of people that play them, so that shows how fun they are.

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.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...