Please model close combat animations

[user1000]

Keeping in tradition with combat mission 1 games I think close combat should be modeled bayonets, fists, knives. If it's too much work model wise maybe just a kick or punch when close to the enemy like they did in CM 1 would be nice. 

[MG TOW]

13 minutes ago, user1000 said:

Keeping in tradition with combat mission 1 games I think close combat should be modeled bayonets, fists, knives. If it's too much work model wise maybe just a kick or punch when close to the enemy like they did in CM 1 would be nice. 

They would have to model melee damage as well, not just the animation. On a rare occasion I have had opposing teams in the same room completely out of bullets and frags. Yes for this situation it would be good.

[snarre]

animations are not important , system what we had on CMX1 was more than enough to model hand to hand fight.

[umlaut]

5 hours ago, snarre said:

animations are not important , system what we had on CMX1 was more than enough to model hand to hand fight.

So I guess you' re still playing CMx1 then?

[snarre]

nou im not playing it any more but i rember hand to hand fight sounds brety well 

 

[Pak40]

On 1/14/2017 at 8:28 AM, user1000 said:

Keeping in tradition with combat mission 1 games I think close combat should be modeled bayonets, fists, knives. If it's too much work model wise maybe just a kick or punch when close to the enemy like they did in CM 1 would be nice. 

Well, it's been a long while since I played CMx1 but I don't recall any type of hand to hand or melee fighting, at least not animated. I do remember Close Combat modeling it.

[MikeyD]

During combat in these simulations 99.99% of the time the enemy's just gonna shoot you. Okay, so maybe 00.01% of the time maybe he might beat you over the head with a shovel. If you've got to that point during a scenario maybe you should just throw up your hands and surrender.

[Blazing 88's]

38 minutes ago, MikeyD said:

During combat in these simulations 99.99% of the time the enemy's just gonna shoot you. Okay, so maybe 00.01% of the time maybe he might beat you over the head with a shovel. If you've got to that point during a scenario maybe you should just throw up your hands and surrender.

lol....

[user1000]

They wouldn't have made knifes, bayonets and slapjacks if close combat never occurred. It's easier to say the animations can't be made rather than say it never happened in war.

[A Canadian Cat]

That's not how the explanation goes. Hand to hand combat happened rarely. Spending scarce time on rare events might not be the best use of those scarce resources. It's priorities not denial.

[Wicky]

For those that want hand-to-hand combat there's always Mortal Kombat...

[Michael Emrys]

12 hours ago, user1000 said:

They wouldn't have made knifes, bayonets and slapjacks if close combat never occurred.

Percentage wise, there were a small number of engagements where bayonets were used. Except for an extremely tiny number of incidents (mostly involving special forces trying to be stealthy) knives were hardly ever used. In extremely close quarters fighting, entrenching tools, rifle butts or whatever came to hand could be and were used. But more normally, before that could happen, one side or the other would throw up their hands and try to surrender.

Frankly, it's been clear to me for a long time that many players derive their impressions of how the war was fought far more often from watching fictional movies than from any kind of legitimate historical research. And the movie makers choose to depict what they think average movie goers want to see over whatever might have actually happened.

Michael

[user1000]

Just now, Michael Emrys said:

Percentage wise, there were a small number of engagements where bayonets were used. Except for an extremely tiny number of incidents (mostly involving special forces trying to be stealthy) knives were hardly ever used. In extremely close quarters fighting, entrenching tools, rifle butts or whatever came to hand could be and were used. But more normally, before that could happen, one side or the other would throw up their hands and try to surrender.

Frankly, it's been clear to me for a long time that many players derive their impressions of how the war was fought far more often from watching fictional movies than from any kind of legitimate historical research. And the movie makers choose to depict what they think average movie goers want to see over whatever might have actually happened.

Michael

Agreed movies are the lazy way to history and facts, I think books are best. The older the better.

[Michael Emrys]

1 minute ago, user1000 said:

The older the better.

Sometime maybe, sometimes maybe not. I agree that many of the older histories are treasures to be guarded and loved. But they sometimes contain errors and omissions that more recent research has uncovered. And sometimes, a bit more rarely, more recent works cast reinterpretations in a newer light that is worth knowing. It all depends, and a wise reader treads carefully.

Michael

[General Jack Ripper]

12 hours ago, user1000 said:

They wouldn't have made knifes, bayonets and slapjacks if close combat never occurred. It's easier to say the animations can't be made rather than say it never happened in war.

How many knife wounds were there in World War Two? 10? 20? 100? Probably less than 1000? Point us to a statistically significant amount of hand to hand combat, and then you might have an argument.

Until then, you're effectively arguing for (to use Steve's own example): Tactical Cow Herds.

[user1000]

3 minutes ago, SLIM said:

How many knife wounds were there in World War Two? 10? 20? 100? Probably less than 1000? Point us to a statistically significant amount of hand to hand combat, and then you might have an argument.

Until then, you're effectively arguing for (to use Steve's own example): Tactical Cow Herds.

There was more close combat than documented, the stories just never made it out. A lot of that was in the constant house to house fighting and clearing.

Edited January 18, 2017 by user1000

[Michael Emrys]

6 minutes ago, user1000 said:

There was more close combat than documented, the stories just never made it out. A lot of that was in the constant house to house fighting and clearing.

Still, the vast—and I do mean vast—majority of that was settled with gunfire and grenades. Plus the occasional satchel charge.

Knives, BTW, were mostly used for the same things that civilians use knives for: cutting rope, food preparation, and similar mundane purposes. Another thing, in photos I see sailors wearing knives more often than GIs, and I really doubt that they were expecting to do much hand-to-hand fighting.

Michael

[General Jack Ripper]

16 minutes ago, user1000 said:

There was more close combat than documented, the stories just never made it out. A lot of that was in the constant house to house fighting and clearing.

You clear a house by throwing grenades into it, not by rushing in and stabbing the defenders.

[Rinaldi]

4 minutes ago, SLIM said:

You clear a house by throwing grenades into it, not by rushing in and stabbing the defenders.

I'd say you clear a house by throwing grenades, rushing in & shooting and stabbing the suvivors. In that particular order  By the time you get to step 3 its not worth modeling in game.

I recall that Theater of War and Graviteam have close-combat animations...which was literally a short-white-girl kick that looks ludicrous. I'd rather have nothing at all than something half-assed.

Edited January 18, 2017 by Rinaldi

[General Jack Ripper]

Just now, Rinaldi said:

I recall that Theater of War and Graviteam have close-combat animations...which was literally a short-white-girl kick that looks ludicrous. I'd rather have nothing at all than something half-assed.

Yeah, that's kind of like the Close Combat method. They just had a weapon labeled "Melee" which had a range of 0 and an accuracy of 50%, modified by the "Strength" and "Stamina" stat of the attacker and defender. Unit experience also counted, which is why Super Elite Snipers could ninja-chop whole squads at once.

[Ales Dvorak]

15 hours ago, Pak40 said:

Well, it's been a long while since I played CMx1 but I don't recall any type of hand to hand or melee fighting, at least not animated. 

Me neither.

[JonS]

2 hours ago, Michael Emrys said:

movie makers choose to depict what they think average movie goers want to see over whatever might have actually happened.

Saving Private Ryan being (mostly) the exception that proves the rule here. The opening sequence was ripe with moments that Spielberg could've chosen to resolve with a bit of the ol' hand-to-hand. Instead he went with waaaay more accurate depictions that told a better story ...

 

 

[Michael Emrys]

41 minutes ago, JonS said:

Saving Private Ryan being (mostly) the exception that proves the rule here.

I thought The Pacific was substantially more authentic (at least truer to the books it was based on) than the average. It was not for the most part pretty to watch, but then that war was seldom pretty. Mostly it was unrelieved horror, or horror relieved only by boredom.

Michael

[RockinHarry]

4 hours ago, SLIM said:

How many knife wounds were there in World War Two? 10? 20? 100? Probably less than 1000? Point us to a statistically significant amount of hand to hand combat, and then you might have an argument.

Until then, you're effectively arguing for (to use Steve's own example): Tactical Cow Herds.

I think the statistical data you guys refer to is from medical branches and such. Which in particular btw? Just out of curiosity and CC/animations not beeing at the top of my personal CM wishlist.

If giving any info at all, usually the infantry losses lists deal with the most prevalent injury/death causes only, leaving out the secondary ones, including those of the "unknown" types (not counting illness, frostbite, trenchfoot and such). Same for statistical tank losses with rather high numbers in the unknown category. With CC beeing quite a bloody affair, I´d say there´s not so many guys left who could have told of it. Some the remainder (from german side at least) could be found in this list:

http://www.wehrmacht-awards.com/war_badges/heer/close_combat_bar.htm

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Close_Combat_Clasp

One could also do some interesting math and evaluation on the following data:

The badge was presented based on the number of combat days as follows,

Bronze class for 15 combat days 
Silver class for 30 combat days 
Gold class for 50 combat days

Of the roughly 18–20 million soldiers of the German Wehrmacht and Waffen SS, 36,400 received the Bronze Class, 9,500 the Silver Class and 631 the Gold Class. (Note: "Wehrmacht" includes all of the german military personnel, not just the front line ground combat troops)

(Close) Combat days can also include multiple CC engagements a day and not just one.

Considering how many guys didn´t survive long enough to reach the bronze status, or those who were just under 15 CC days requirements makes me believe that the estimated number of unknown cases is very high. I´ve seen close combat (german term "Nahkampf" which exactly means "hand to hand combat") mentioned often enough in numerous battle accounts, that I wouldn´t believe it was "rare", particularly at the eastern front.

[Rinaldi]

The Close Combat clasp isn't to be taken literally; urban fighting of high intensity qualified you for it, trench assaults, sewer fighting, etc. Close Combat =/= Hand-to-Hand combat, despite the terms colloquially being interchangeable. Histories have the bad habit of using the phrase 'fighting was hand to hand' to describe what in reality were furious grenade duels and battles with submachineguns and pistols in relatively confined spaces (i.e: a prepared fieldwork).

Edited January 18, 2017 by Rinaldi