Col Deadmarsh Posted September 25, 2000 Share Posted September 25, 2000 After playing Close Combat 2 for years, we were all very excited when we heard CC3 was coming out. Then, it arrived. Boy were we disappointed. It was just a battle of tanks. Infantry played no part in the fighting and were merely walking corpses. Is this what CM2 will be like? After all, we're talking about Russia here-frozen tundra and all. How can you hide infantry let alone sneak up a schreck team on a T-34 when there are no trees to hide behind? The most you'll probably be provided with are the winter skeletons of what few trees actually grow there. There are of course the buildings to hide in, but in this game they come crashing down with a few shots from a 75mm or bigger gun. What is an infantry team to do to survive on the East Front? ------------------ Everything in moderation...except CM. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slapdragon Posted September 25, 2000 Share Posted September 25, 2000 Historically, 12 million infantry did not survive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Commissar Posted September 25, 2000 Share Posted September 25, 2000 I agree with Deadmarsh. I too, being a former CC player, felt CM3 was sort of unbalanced towards armor. Yes, armor dominated the field and infantry were useless additions, unable to do anything except maybe hold a VL behind friendly lines or something of the sort. I hope that we are not just served "frozen tundra" maps on which tanks dominate the field without question. Anyway, i will love the game either way, so bring it on! ------------------ "...Every position, every meter of Soviet soil must be defended to the last drop of blood..." - Segment from Order 227 "Not a step back" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abbott Posted September 25, 2000 Share Posted September 25, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Colonel_Deadmarsh: After playing Close Combat 2 for years, we were all very excited when we heard CC3 was coming out. Then, it arrived. Boy were we disappointed. It was just a battle of tanks. Infantry played no part in the fighting and were merely walking corpses. Is this what CM2 will be like? After all, we're talking about Russia here-frozen tundra and all. How can you hide infantry let alone sneak up a schreck team on a T-34 when there are no trees to hide behind? The most you'll probably be provided with are the winter skeletons of what few trees actually grow there. There are of course the buildings to hide in, but in this game they come crashing down with a few shots from a 75mm or bigger gun. What is an infantry team to do to survive on the East Front? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> LOL... Russia has many diverse geographical areas. Open Steppes to the rugged mountains. Light forests, rolling hills, open farmland, dense forest, and small and large rivers. Even the Steppes are cut with huge culverts from rainwater run off. Russia is as diverse geographically as any body of land. Drive or take a train from the East coast of America to the West coast of America (or any country) see the difference in terrain features? [This message has been edited by Abbott (edited 09-24-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red Devils Posted September 25, 2000 Share Posted September 25, 2000 3 words...Human wave attacks. ------------------ I'm sorry, we haven't the facilities to take all of you prisoner. Was there anything else? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScoutPL Posted September 25, 2000 Share Posted September 25, 2000 Great account of the differing terrain types in the former Soviet Union but how is it going to fit into the game? Are all those wadis and cutouts you were talking about going to be 20m wide? I hope not. I dont see why the game system cant include an option to go down just like you can go up when it comes to the buildings. Gullies, streambeds and wadis can easily be depicts much like a road or trail is. All we need is a simple pop-up menu, "Are you in or out?" Those "in" would be out of sight except for other units with height advantage or looking down the depression lengthwise. Those "out" would have to take advantage of the predominant terrain in the square. Fire into the depression could be treated as area fire or have no effect at all. Of course fire out of the depression would have to be treated the same way. I think this would be much more realistic then the rolling pool table we have now. I dont know how many ditches, streambeds and washouts I've used as an avenue of approach to an objective, but I know its been alot more then the times I've advanced across a smooth surface!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Col Deadmarsh Posted September 25, 2000 Author Share Posted September 25, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>LOL... Russia has many diverse geographical areas. Open Steppes to the rugged mountains. Light forests, rolling hills, open farmland, dense forest, and small and large rivers. Even the Steppes are cut with huge culverts from rainwater run off. Russia is as diverse geographically as any body of land. Drive or take a train from the East coast of America to the West coast of America (or any country) see the difference in terrain features?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Abbott, I'd love to see our wonderful country? How about financing my trip so I can see exactly what you mean? Seriously though, I didn't say Russia didn't have different kinds of terrain. But some of the different kinds of terrain you're talking about don't provide the concealment infantry teams need to make sneak attacks on armor or other targets. Steppes are merely plains. Open farmland and river banks don't provide concealment either. Mountains and hills may work but from what I've read on this forum, there have been problems with infantry hiding on reverse slopes. You seem to think that there will be forests to hide in. Well, I hope you're right. CC3 didn't have any. Maybe that's because every map was a "snow map" in the dead of winter. Here's hoping that CM2 won't be the same thing and that infantry will play a big part in the game. ------------------ Everything in moderation...except CM. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pham911 Posted September 25, 2000 Share Posted September 25, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Colonel_Deadmarsh: Abbott, I'd love to see our wonderful country? How about financing my trip so I can see exactly what you mean? Seriously though, I didn't say Russia didn't have different kinds of terrain. But some of the different kinds of terrain you're talking about don't provide the concealment infantry teams need to make sneak attacks on armor or other targets. Steppes are merely plains. Open farmland and river banks don't provide concealment either. Mountains and hills may work but from what I've read on this forum, there have been problems with infantry hiding on reverse slopes. You seem to think that there will be forests to hide in. Well, I hope you're right. CC3 didn't have any. Maybe that's because every map was a "snow map" in the dead of winter. Here's hoping that CM2 won't be the same thing and that infantry will play a big part in the game. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> There were a number of forested maps in CC3. Not sure which campaigns they were for, but if you played the Grand Campaign, once you were pushed out of the first city you invaded you counterattacked against the Russians on wooded, non winter ground. Also, Stalingrad was not winter terrain in CC3... That's as far as I got before getting fed up(mostly with the scale. 48 men or so per side and a couple tanks fought the battle for the Tractor Works?). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruno Weiss Posted September 25, 2000 Share Posted September 25, 2000 Well there's Stalingrad to hide in... I hope it is different in that we have a good portrayal of at least that little contested piece of ground, if not Kharkov. And don't forget the encirclements. Korsun Pocket comes to mind. I'm sure we all could name a dozen more. Thing is, the Ostfront in and of itself pretty much presents a lengthly period of time wherein tactics, terrain, equipment, and the tides of battle changed so drastically during that period that it is going to have to be a pretty serious effort to represent it all in a single game. CC3 tried, but IMHO just wasn't able to pull off the all encompassing vaste nature of that conflict. Not saying it was a miserable failure, quite the contrary it did a fair job, but trying to incorporate all of the various aspects of the entire Ostfront conflict time period is going to be a hard challenge unless..."I schmell ADDONS!" ------------------ "Wer zuerst schiesst hat mehr von Leben" Moto-(3./JG11 "Graf") Bruno "Stachel" Weiss Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark IV Posted September 25, 2000 Share Posted September 25, 2000 Here's hoping (and believing) that CM2 models reality at least as well as CMBO, and infantry plays the same part as it did on the Eastern Front in real life. If the unit modeling is correct it shouldn't matter which scenario you play... what happens in the game should be pretty close to what happened in real life, like it is in CMBO. It is weird to think that the people who put this wonderful combined arms maneuver game together, would suddenly abandon all principle to create an ahistorical blastfest. It was a big war and I think BTS will get it right. It'll probably be later than anybody's worst guess, and I'll pre-order now... if I get a poster! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Supertanker Posted September 25, 2000 Share Posted September 25, 2000 I assume the terrain choices will lean in favor of gameplay. Read the BTS CM FAQ on, "The Allies had so much of everything, how can you balance scenarios?" (Since I know someone will ask, just click that little cartridge over on the left marked "FAQ" and scroll down.) It would be easy to make unbalanced scenarios in CM1, but they didn't. I would guess the same will apply to CM2. Scenarios will likely focus on battles for cities, villages, and other terrain where infantry played a vital role and had a good chance to take out armor. Personally, I've got a few dozen virtual sticky bombs that bear the hammer and sickle and are aching to be applied to some German armor. They didn't apply Zimmermit because they thought it looked cool! If there is a lot of open terrain, well, Red Devils is right - there should be a LOT of Soviets, too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pham911 Posted September 25, 2000 Share Posted September 25, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mark IV: Here's hoping (and believing) that CM2 models reality at least as well as CMBO, and infantry plays the same part as it did on the Eastern Front in real life. If the unit modeling is correct it shouldn't matter which scenario you play... what happens in the game should be pretty close to what happened in real life, like it is in CMBO. It is weird to think that the people who put this wonderful combined arms maneuver game together, would suddenly abandon all principle to create an ahistorical blastfest. It was a big war and I think BTS will get it right. It'll probably be later than anybody's worst guess, and I'll pre-order now... if I get a poster!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Poster? Cool idea. I'd pay extra to get a CM2 poster(hopefully in a nice, dark Russian or German propoganda style, with most of the text in Russian or German). That would be sweet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiger Posted September 25, 2000 Share Posted September 25, 2000 Where did the impression that The East Front was all tank warfare or trench warfare come from? To foster the notion that tanks alone can win the battle is foolhardy. The battles in the East were fought by tanks combined with infantry, artillery and aircraft, all highly mobile and working together. The Russians had problems doing this, and the Germans did as well. The Russians because of their tactical doctrine and lack of lower-level initiative; and the Germans due to shortages of manpower, equipment and the weather. The East front was a highly mobile war. You simply can not attack all the time though, so you build defenses. However it would be wrong to confuse this with the static warfare on the Western front of WW I. Attacks by both sides of the Eastern front used as much mobility as possible, simply because you can not win otherwise, numbers or no. Suggested reading: Panzer Battles by Maj. Gen. F.W. von Mellenthin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abbott Posted September 25, 2000 Share Posted September 25, 2000 Originally posted by Colonel_Deadmarsh: Steppes are merely plains. Open farmland and river banks don't provide concealment either. -------------------------------------------- Steppes or Plains rise and fall. They are riddled with culverts, gullies and draws. These depressions provide cover and concealment for movement. Even though hill crests in CM do not offer LOS protection when you are near the crest they do offer concealed and covered routes. Farmland offers rises and falls, walls, hedges, stands of trees, woodlands that have not been cleared and buildings. Many if not most riverbanks are covered with vegetation if not overgrown with it. There will be enough cover to deploy infantry effectively, it all depends on the scenario and area being played. -------------------------------------------- Abbott, I'd love to see our wonderful country? How about financing my trip so I can see exactly what you mean? ------------------------------------------ As you know I was raised next door to the town you presently reside in. I travel there three to four times per year to visit family. I also visit friends there who share the same interests I do. Drop me a line with your address Col_ and I will stop in and see you in three or four weeks and we will discuss the details of our trip. [This message has been edited by Abbott (edited 09-24-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pham911 Posted September 25, 2000 Share Posted September 25, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Supertanker: I assume the terrain choices will lean in favor of gameplay. Read the BTS CM FAQ on, "The Allies had so much of everything, how can you balance scenarios?" (Since I know someone will ask, just click that little cartridge over on the left marked "FAQ" and scroll down.) It would be easy to make unbalanced scenarios in CM1, but they didn't. I would guess the same will apply to CM2. Scenarios will likely focus on battles for cities, villages, and other terrain where infantry played a vital role and had a good chance to take out armor. Personally, I've got a few dozen virtual sticky bombs that bear the hammer and sickle and are aching to be applied to some German armor. They didn't apply Zimmermit because they thought it looked cool! If there is a lot of open terrain, well, Red Devils is right - there should be a LOT of Soviets, too.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> In CM I can make a max size map with 5 battalions against 11 rifle companies. It breaks my computer and requires a cold boot to fix if I run it, but I can make it. If the CM2 engine is just a more capable version of CM1, it could handle large battles. However, it'd probably have to be called Combat Micromanagment instead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruno Weiss Posted September 25, 2000 Share Posted September 25, 2000 Very good points Tiger. Good reference too, I've read it. Give you a couple more suggested scriptures that I hope BTS is using: Ostfront 1944 by Alex Buchner Scorched Earth by Paul Carell Red Army Tank Commanders by Richard N. Armstrong ------------------ "Wer zuerst schiesst hat mehr von Leben" Moto-(3./JG11 "Graf") Bruno "Stachel" Weiss [This message has been edited by Bruno Weiss (edited 09-24-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abbott Posted September 25, 2000 Share Posted September 25, 2000 Scorched Earth by Paul Carell. A fine read! [This message has been edited by Abbott (edited 09-24-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slapdragon Posted September 25, 2000 Share Posted September 25, 2000 CC3 is an example that happens in many game design companies: a falling away of purpose and a motivation on straight numbers profit. You can see it no better than in the way CC1 and CC2 compared to CC3, and how SSI's line for Panzer General died with the release of PG2 and never got back the elegance and simplicity older games. So what did they do? 1) They abandoned development on the Mac platform. This may seem to make sense from a business stand point since the mac platform is only about 10% of the game buying audience, and if you look at the market psychographics it is the most uptight of the 10%. Crash causing bugs, poor user interface, and dorky graphics generally don't fly with the Mac crowd, but the PC crowd is so large you can find someone to buy almost anything. So dropping the Mac development saves money and allows you to cut a lot of corners with the game. PC gamers are not stupid though, and they note the problems with the game and do not buy your next one. PG 3D and 3, CC3, and others are examples of this. A classic example is the Sim City series which slumped when development ceased on the Mac platform. Now it is back. 2) Your Grognards are your main free advertisement vehicles, but your video gamers buy more games. Look at Steel Panthers: enough was there to make Grognards support the game on Usenet. I certainly did. But with the move in SSI to make the Video Gamers happy with snappier playing, the Grognards lost interest and quit the back channel communication needed to make a game successful. 3) Many game companies are very small. A falling out of the main developers can cause a flght of talent that kills your games. Look at Civilization and Civilization II. Based on a great but difficult to play board game, they defined a new generation of world building games and ruled the market. But piss off Sid Meier and the development team, and they jump ship to build Alpha Centuari while you jam out a nearly unplayable Civilization III CTP. 4) Failure to properly heed market research. Market research is great. It can also kill you. Sending out a survey asking what add on you would like to see in a game is a mistake I see over and over again. It generates bogus return and while the money people get their panties in a bunch over it, as a researcher I can tell you it is the beginning of the end. Instead you can do exactly what BigTime does and read these posts, and you can do other types of surveys that ask the question in a way that it can actually be answered. 5) Let me add a number 5. Selling out. I was a director for a number of years, and my residuals off of a stupid cubic zirconia commerical were higher than most game designers (if they get residuals) and my profit share take on a commercial show was much higher, nut I was not doing hard core sweat of the brow creative work. I was a skilled technician churning out video wall paper. Big Time will soon be dangled amazing sums of money (most on paper) in front of their face by all sorts of publishing houses to go corporate. Then, they will find out that it means getting only a trickle of money and having to write software to please a guy who thinks World War Two was the second stock market crash of 1986. Game designers are the most screwed over creative in the industry -- you can make more money maintaining the Barbie database for Mattel. And, the more corporate, the lower the games fall. Will Bungie survive Microsoft? Surprisingly, they might since Microsoft has a better games track record than some, but I bet they would not survive Hasbro. Luckily, in most of this Big Time is Big Time. Not much worried unless Charles marries Steve's dog and runs away to become a circus performer. [This message has been edited by Slapdragon (edited 09-25-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruno Weiss Posted September 25, 2000 Share Posted September 25, 2000 Well, anyway. I hope they put the cows in CM2. ------------------ "Wer zuerst schiesst hat mehr von Leben" Moto-(3./JG11 "Graf") Bruno "Stachel" Weiss Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kitty Posted September 25, 2000 Share Posted September 25, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Tiger: Where did the impression that The East Front was all tank warfare or trench warfare come from? To foster the notion that tanks alone can win the battle is foolhardy. The battles in the East were fought by tanks combined with infantry, artillery and aircraft, all highly mobile and working together . . . Suggested reading: Panzer Battles by Maj. Gen. F.W. von Mellenthin.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Tiger rules all!!! =D Kitty Ps - Not surprising though. I mean he IS a kitty =) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pvt. Ryan Posted September 25, 2000 Share Posted September 25, 2000 The problem with CC3 as I recall was that the armor was too lethal to infantry. A tank could quickly eliminate an infantry unit. CM is much more realistic in this manner, so I imagine that CM2 treat armor vs. infantry much better than CC3 did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slapdragon Posted September 25, 2000 Share Posted September 25, 2000 Killing Tigers is fun and easy, Join the Soviet Army and see the world, or at least choice parts of the Ukraine... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Col Deadmarsh Posted September 25, 2000 Author Share Posted September 25, 2000 Slapdragon said: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>) Let me add a number 5. Selling out. I was a director for a number of years...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Um...I have this great script for you to read when you get the chance... ------------------ Everything in moderation...except CM. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slapdragon Posted September 25, 2000 Share Posted September 25, 2000 Yeah, and if it is a commercial for selling ladies shoes I may just be able to produce it. Other than that, out of my area. Anyone with scripts though should seek out an agent before sticking their heads into the tree-limb chewer of the industry. ------------------ ----------------------------------------- Submit your article to: www.slapdragon.org/midnight ---------------------------------------- [This message has been edited by Slapdragon (edited 09-25-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kitty Posted September 25, 2000 Share Posted September 25, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slapdragon: Yeah, and if it is a commercial for selling ladies shoes I may just be able to produce it. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Oh? So can you get me some good deals on shoes? =D Kitty Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts