Craig Posted November 19, 1999 Share Posted November 19, 1999 And now it's time to cry for more demo scenarios again, cause the wait is going to seem even longer now. Craig A proud Canadian hick. err farmer. (hide the sheep) (sorry Steve, I think this is the fourth time now) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomm Posted November 19, 1999 Share Posted November 19, 1999 Downloaded the CC4 demo, too. Had a few colleagues standing around when I started it. They were mildly interested. Then (like so many others before me) I set some way points: Tanks started to rotate in place when they should have just driven 10 meters across a bridge, a Königstiger went backwards towards the enemy for 100 meters ... and so on. People who had never seen Close Combat before shook their head, made a few nasty comments about the AI and went on with their work. It was pretty sad, actually. I have to admit that the reaction of this "reference group" to Combat Mission was much more enthusiastic in the Ahhh and Ohhh department ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SS_PanzerLeader Posted November 19, 1999 Share Posted November 19, 1999 IS such a shame that all this negative feeback falls on deaf ears with the guys at atomic - most companies with any sense listen to their customers - but then maybe they got a money tree in their backyard :0p SS_PanzerLeader............out Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stef Posted November 19, 1999 Share Posted November 19, 1999 I've just downloaded and tried CC4 for a few minutes ('caus I have to work a few...here at work A friend of mine very enthusiastic about the "new CC" was looking with me. What we've seen was a "Rocket Sherman" destroying one after the others all my panzers approaching the US lines (they never had a shoot at the sherman) and this with an impressive accuracy ( it seemed as a "Command & Conquer" with WWII graphism !) I'm not very enlightened in WWII tactic neither in such sherman equipment and have played the game very very fast but IMO the realism of this is very suspect !! The worst...or the best is after I've played "CM", because of the contrast between the 2 games, CC4 seems really a crap in WWII simulation (sorry for Atomic Games but it's like this )...They can't honestly pretend they were aiming WWII realism ! Thank BTS for Combat Mission. The enthusiasm of my friend vanished very fast... Stephan [This message has been edited by Stef (edited 11-19-99).] [This message has been edited by Stef (edited 11-19-99).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lee Posted November 19, 1999 Share Posted November 19, 1999 Yes, when it comes to truly realistic squad- based WWII combat, there is CM and then everything else. It's still hard to believe how good CM is, and all we've seen is the demo (which is like 2% of the game)! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Arabian Posted November 19, 1999 Share Posted November 19, 1999 The saddest thing for me about atomic was that after CC1, my roommate and I (we were constantly playing H2H at the time) sent an email with comments about ways to improve CC2 - things we disliked such as the arbitrary ceasefires, etc. At the time, Atomic emailed us back a personal response addressing the issues, saying what had been taken care of and what would be improved, etc. After CC2, however, their heads appear to have, er, inflated a bit. Microsoft syndrome or something I guess. To me the saddest part is not so much how they are acting now, but that they actually were decent before and degraded to this point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Lokesa Posted November 20, 1999 Share Posted November 20, 1999 I could be mistaken but I believe most of the people who worked on CC1 and 2 have moved on. I remember when John Anderson went to Sierra before CC3 came out giving us all what turned out to be a well warranted scare. Indeed Atomic was different back in the day, they were very helpful, now... I wonder, besides KZ, who's left from the original project? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest titan Posted November 20, 1999 Share Posted November 20, 1999 I could be mistaken but I believe most of the people who worked on CC1 and 2 have moved on. I remember when John Anderson went to Sierra before CC3 came out giving us all what turned out to be a well warranted scare. Indeed Atomic was different back in the day, they were very helpful, now... I wonder, besides KZ, who's left from the original project? Well lokesa it's amazing what alittle success can do i was holding high hopes for cc4 i haveent seen it yet but sure are considering to buy it. Maybe some fixes may be made before release,or maybe they are just lazy and after enough complaints they will bring a patch out,Hey thats one hell of a way to get a beta tested.Get the general public to buy it first then after enough brain damage release a patch WAMMO!! you then have the finial release without having to go through to much testing yourself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fionn Posted November 20, 1999 Share Posted November 20, 1999 Atomic has a long history of not fixing gameplay issues (what everyone's complaining about) but only taking care of crash bugs. Mark my words, ANYONE who buys CC4 hoping Atomic will patch the AI or the various gameplay issues is just deluding themselves. Sure some mods will come out but mods can't fully make up for what should have been a good game done right but isn't. There's a history here and after every CC game I see the same things being said. i.e. "OH I'll buy it and wait for the patch that fixes all these gameplay issues." It NEVER comes and it won't come now. To believe different is to just kid yourself PLUS it is to overlook Atomic's PUBLICLY STATED stance on patches. ------------------ ___________ Fionn Kelly Manager of Historical Research, The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rooster Posted November 20, 1999 Share Posted November 20, 1999 Fionn, You said this earlier and I didn't comment then, but perhaps you aren't aware of what improvements were "attempted" by Atomic in previous patches. I use the word attempted simply because as I read them again, I think some of the results were dubious. Nevertheless, very few of the fixes were aimed at CRASH BUG issues. Have a look... Dan www.microsoft.com/games/closecombat/update.htm www.microsoft.com/games/closecombat/cc2/downloads.htm [This message has been edited by Big Time Software (edited 11-20-99).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rooster Posted November 20, 1999 Share Posted November 20, 1999 Arrgh! Gosh darn UUB! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fionn Posted November 20, 1999 Share Posted November 20, 1999 Dan, Good points. I was unclear before. What I mean is that infantry lethality, pathfinding, ahistorical BGs, data errors (things people have all said they don't like) are the sorts of things which are specifically not included in the patch policy. Sure some other game issues were fixed but many of the core ones aren't, haven't and won't be One other point .. The responsiveness of Atomic to CC1 was good, to CC2 pretty good (although not great), to CC3 abysmal There's a pattern there Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted November 21, 1999 Share Posted November 21, 1999 Dan, I tried fixing your UBB URL links and it didn't work. Darned if I know why! Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guachi Posted November 21, 1999 Share Posted November 21, 1999 Steve, from what I see, the UBB code isn't working because there is a space between the last bracket and the link. This: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>www.microsoft.com/games/closecombat/update.htm www.microsoft.com/games/closecombat/cc2/downloads.htm <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Should be: www.microsoft.com/games/closecombat/update.htm www.microsoft.com/games/closecombat/cc2/downloads.htm Jason Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted November 21, 1999 Share Posted November 21, 1999 Hehe... I figured it was something silly like that! Thanks Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TeAcH Posted November 21, 1999 Share Posted November 21, 1999 Well, a lot of intelligent and accurate posts have been made here over the last few days dealing with CC and all of its iterations. I, like so many of you here, bought and fell in love with CC1. At that time, I sent off many thoughts and requests fir improvements or modifications to the game to Atmoic in emails while eagerly awaiting CC2. Heck, alot of people engaged in discussion on the CC forums asking for this and that. But, when it came out, I have to admit, I enjoyed it even though very few of the posts on CC forums had been implemented. For that matter, I enjoyed CC3 even though it felt inaccurate. Now, I just finished playing the CC4 demo a few times and am really let down. What a joke it is. Whoever said it was a WW2 Command and Conquer hit the nail on the head. People here have said how Atomic never listened to their fans when it came to realism and how they botched 2,3 (and now 4). I agree with them. It's very true that Atomic never released any patches that weren't more or less bug fixes. Here is my understanding for why that happened. To some degree, a big reason that Atomic did NOT released major facelifts adding customer-given feedback in the form of patches was because of a contract with Microsoft. Apparently, MS had (and still has) tight control over games that it publishes and puts its name on. From what I gathered in email to Atomic staff, K. Zab to name one, they couldn't dramatically alter the game while under the control of MS. The bottom line is, for me anyway, that they just dont want to make the game too realistic so they can appeal to a mass market. Or, perhaps, maybe they just dont get it. I truly was blown away by this game (CM). I even preorded. As great as it is though, I truly think that if there is anything that may keep Combat Mission from being a barn burner in sales, it is the graphics (dont flame please). Even though I think they are very good. People want to see "Saving Private Ryan on their computer". They want to see tanks that explode differently or show a multitude of damage, they want each soldier represented and then their dead bodies littering the field of battle, they want buildings that react realistically to damage (walls blown out and crumble, etc). Heck, I want that too..who doesn't? But there are quite a few people out there that will look at it and not buy it without even playing it and that will be there loss. CC sells largely because it is pretty. TeAcH [This message has been edited by TeAcH (edited 11-20-99).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest R Cunningham Posted November 21, 1999 Share Posted November 21, 1999 There's been a turn around amongst the guys who actually have the full CC4. Some of these guys were the biggest complainers and now they're singing a different tune over on the CC4 board on The Gamers Net. One guy was calling for a boycot until a patch for known issues was released and he bought it anyway and is now singing its praises. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fionn Posted November 21, 1999 Share Posted November 21, 1999 LOL... Give it time and they'll be back asking others to make a realism patch etc . The kind of people who come out with the absolute "death knell, almost-hysterical" statements are exactly the sort of people who I'd expect to buy it and change their impression of it and in time change it right back. It's the way of the world and the human psyche. I still can't take any campaign system which doesn't allow concentration of force (BGs attack in series rather than in parallel when two or more are ordered to attack an enemy *sigh* ) and in which the game designer tries to tell me that concentration of force isn't "really" a military axiom seriously. Give it time and you'll see these same posters swing right back. I've seen it happen before with games and I'll see it happen again. That's why I've learnt to trust my own counsel about games and not be swayed by people who make such quick-fire comments (as they did). There are still some more discerning people who steered a more middle road when the beta demo came out who aren't convinced and it's those more level-headed people who I'd trust more ------------------ ___________ Fionn Kelly Manager of Historical Research, The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rooster Posted November 21, 1999 Share Posted November 21, 1999 Thanks Steve and gauchi for the UUB lesson And -- wrong thread but -- thanks for the addl. scenario, BTS. Big Time Fun Dan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Davie Posted November 21, 1999 Share Posted November 21, 1999 Fionn; I drove down to the States yesterday to buy the game. To be honest I haven't gotten into the strategic coponent of the game yet, just a few scenarios. Now, I've always thought that the pathfinding component of most 'continous' action games rather brain dead and have thus used waypoints if available so I haven't seen the tank 'jig' yet. Current opinion? It's more of the same. I don't like the lack of purchase points, and as far as the series has gone, I thought it hit the high water mark in CC3. Wouldn't have been worth it were it not for the beer that I was able to buy when I was down there as well. Tom Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkoolD Posted November 22, 1999 Share Posted November 22, 1999 I just love the Mods. That is the only reason I get the CC series. CCII was the best. CC3 would have sucked, but I liked Real Red, and Western Front (Which has made it worth while.) Real Red is the thing that keeps it good. The only reason I still play it. I never finished the Russian Campaign, because I was bored with it. I am disappointed at CC4. You know they are a bunch of egotistical bastards when they encrypt the game so RR can't be added. I still can't believe that Rocket launcher is in the game. No wonder the US only has 2 tanks. The Mimi will take care of all but one tank. Then get your Bazooka to get the last one......They took a step back with the Pathfinding ablity.....I hate the tank Dance. Besides weren't only 60 of them build? The only plus, is that it runs on my old computer..... The US graphics suck, and look like GIjoe cartoons.....They just couldn't leave them alone.....CC3 had the best graphics. I still don't like the limited number of units. They should have added 5 more units, and enlarged the map. It could have been such a great game.....but it isn't......It isn't worth buy full price, and I am not going to use a hack.....so I will wait until I find it for 19.99 Tim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Lokesa Posted November 22, 1999 Share Posted November 22, 1999 Has close combat net come back online? I still get a blank page ? Could someone provide the url if it's moved please. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkoolD Posted November 23, 1999 Share Posted November 23, 1999 http://closecombat.thegamers.net/ There you go.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest R Cunningham Posted November 23, 1999 Share Posted November 23, 1999 CC4 data IS NOT ENCRYPTED. It has been changed to a binary format and compressed. The hackers have already looked at the data. Mods will be coming. For joe everyman to play with the data a tool will be developed. First mod is to fix the reliability problem of the 90mm gun on the M36. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest KwazyDog Posted November 23, 1999 Share Posted November 23, 1999 Out of interest, does anyone know if they changed the map txt file data to binary at all? If they havnt the map maker I wrote should still work for all those guys interested in making maps for it. If they have theyve buggered everybody cause the source code for it has been corrupted and I aint writing it again Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts