Jump to content

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 56
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

The real question is will anyone want to even bother playing any CC game after they've had a taste of CM? wink.gif In my view, CC is going to have to make some MAJOR improvements and fixes to the game before I'll even consider looking at one of them again.

Mikester out.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Rollstoy

This is not the way to go! At least not for CC. They should stick to their hand-drawn bitmaps, because they do the job nicely, but provide some tool which gives the desired height information (overlay terrain contour lines?!) or a static 3D rendering of the map, see Clochimont from CC IV as an example:

Clochimont.jpeg

I can tell you from my own experience that a map like this is absolutely sufficient to use the terrain to your advantage.

For those, who want true 3D, there is Combat Mission, for those who want 2,5D, there is Sudden Strike. Close Combat should not go this road, unless they can transfer all the picture quality of the current engine - which I doubt.

Regards, Thomm

Link to post
Share on other sites

**warning: i'm going to use the FORBIDDEN word**

**do not read further when easily offended smile.gif**

I always think RTS-games (God NOOOOO he said the R-word!!!) are not much fun. There is sometimes some fun to be had but usually this wears off soon. The "tactic" that works in every RTS is as follows:

1) Scout the landscape asap

2) build 1 zillion harvesters

3) make muchos dineros

4) create one uber-army

5) attack enemy

6) you won...and there was much rejoycing smile.gif

The CC serie (as in Close Combat...not Command and "click-like a madman" Conquer smile.gif) was always slightly different but it had one big downfall which every RTS suffers from. Apart from not being realisitc you always need quick reflexes.

Are you attacked in the North...quickly scroll. You Tiger is behaving moronic...quickly scroll and click.

The best thing about turn-based games has always been the time you are given to think about your next moves without the problem of getting interupted (unless you find out you're out of cigs and need to refill smile.gif)

That's what attracts me most in CM. Beautiful graphics, great historical accuracy and....TIME TO THINK !!!

If CC is going to be 3d then there are many problems (imho).

1) If you must be able to scroll fast, the graphics will be not so good.

2) You still have the clickfest-gameplay

3) You still have no time to think, making planning in 3d hard and probably a pain.

Aah well, we'll just have to wait and see i guess. I also actually forgot why i wrote this masterpiece. I mean, i'm whining about a game that hasn't even seen the daylight smile.gif

I must be pretty bored.

PanzerShark

Link to post
Share on other sites

After CC4, I have gotten sick and tired of Atomic and their indifference to the desires of gamers. I am also sick of them milking the same old 4 your old technology and then merely adding some minor feature and then calling it a "new" game. Ability to place ineffective, short term mortar fire is NOT a new game make. In addition, they seem to be drifting away from making a wargame that preserves some semblence of historical accuracy and detail. CC5 is about Normandy. Uh, you guys did that for CC1. Take Warcraft and put it into a WWII setting and you bascially have what CC is becoming. With CM, the detail and level of historical accuracy is just mind blowing. There is just no going back. CC should have gone 3d a long time ago. I was hoping that SSI would kick Atomic's backside back into gear but CC5 seems to show otherwise. With CM you can play battles like Market Garden in complete 3d with a high level of detail and historical accuracy. Why would you go back to a flat 2d surface ever again??

Let ATomic make their "games" for whoever they think their market is. It certainly doesn't appeal to me anymore. I am getting too old of a grognard to bother with them anymore. Unless CC6 is drastically different and improved, let CC slide from the factory straight to the bargain bin.

A historically accurate RTS game can be made without it becoming a click fest. Simply allow the gamer to pause the game at any time and still be able to issue orders while paused (like Sid Meir's Gettysburg or Antietam does). However CM's method of turn based-real time execution probably is the best model. You have plenty of time to issue orders and overview the situation. The real time execution allows you to watch the entire action unfold like a movie but since you can't stop the game and issue new orders or cancel them, you have the antcipation that comes from unexpected developments or simply giving an unwise order to one of your units and watching the consequences. Seems pretty realistic to me.

[This message has been edited by Commissar (edited 05-31-2000).]

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you wnat ot talk about a REAL 3D battlefeild I believe that Myth II set the standard! Serioulsy it is the most beautiful and graphically stunning 3D battlefield you will ever see, it is in REAL time yes RTS and there is NO resource harvesting. Same theory as CM this what your forces are, and you might pcik up some guys on the way or get a few eienforcements and thats it. If you have not seen Myth II I would suggest you not comment further here as it is a stunningly beautiful RTS game in true 3D, mines that actaully explode true gore and blood and guts and flaming arrows, but sadly no true armour or tank combat, except in an after market 3D mod which does not at all account for hits or the damage an individual round does the wayBS as so accurately simulated that in Combat Mission.

If you are looking to RTS 3D infantry combat, (swoards and arrows) check out Myth it was in my opinion the first 3D RTS tactical combat sim and it was on a Mac first.

-tom w

Link to post
Share on other sites

Another thing to consider: when will be seeing a CC6? CC5 is not even out yet, CC4 appeared and disappeared very quickly not long ago... even if they started working on CC6 right now, so what - is it three or four years until we'll see something? By then, we'll will be playing CM4, the Early War...

Link to post
Share on other sites

I heard that CC5, due out this fall, will be the last in the series. That may have changed. Will CC5 still cover( err botch) D-Day? If there is a CC6, what campaign will they screw up?

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

Always with the negative waves, Moriarty.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest grunto

CC3 with the RealRed patch is the pinnacle of that series. CC3 without the patch is more of a joke... no really fast BTs, T-26s lumped in with BT-5s.

I remember when CC1 came out and I was a big player and proponent. I thought I could help the development process by sending a laundry list to Keith at Atomic. Keith got so sick of hearing from me after a brief exchange that he never replied back. I was basically telling him that a lot of his data was bad and needed to be fixed, among other things. CC2 was terrible (...you're advancing along a raised road... don't place/move your AFVs off of the road because it's a bog)... fire up the scenario and there are german AFVs all over out in that "bog."

CC6 is probably vaporware in response to CM. Keith at Atomic, if you're reading this you'd better make CC6 accurate first and foremost, because CM has already done a very nice job of that and my guess is that no one who is playing CM will play CC6 if the CC6 data is bad from the get-go. Why is it so hard for the Atomic people to put good data into their games? I know ASL/SL were abstractions but even that data would be better than what CC gave us.

Also, what's with the totally ahistorical unit configurations?... every nationality has a 3-man SMG team... right... sure...

CM has the actual unit compositions... very cool from an historical standpoint.

CC6... yeah right... the people at SSI/Atomic must have no idea how lame that sounds. One last thing... you need good data (and perhaps AI) worse than you need 3D. You're missing the whole point.

FWIW

Andy

Link to post
Share on other sites

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by grunto:

CC6 is probably vaporware in response to CM. Keith at Atomic, if you're reading this you'd better make CC6 accurate first and foremost, because CM has already done a very nice job of that and my guess is that no one who is playing CM will play CC6 if the CC6 data is bad from the get-go. Why is it so hard for the Atomic people to put good data into their games? I know ASL/SL were abstractions but even that data would be better than what CC gave us.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Keith, dougie and the rodent have made it clear many many times, that wargamers are not their target audience.

As far as i can tell, they aim for the impulse buyers and the clickhappy dip****s first. If some people with brains like it, so be it ... It's left to the consumer to make the data as accurate as possible and creare decent mods which make the games somewhat playable.

MK

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's also worth noting that CC5 will *not* be D-Day and Normandy. Rather, it will be an extremely narrow view of D-Day and Normandy... specifically Utah beach. That's right 1 beach - 2 armies. Whoohoo, yeah cause no other countries participated in the invasion. I have to admit that for me, one of the greatest selling points of CM beyond the great game play is that I can play as the Canadians.

Cheers,

Walter R. Strapps

Link to post
Share on other sites

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Walter:

It's also worth noting that CC5 will *not* be D-Day and Normandy. Rather, it will be an extremely narrow view of D-Day and Normandy... specifically Utah beach. That's right 1 beach - 2 armies. Whoohoo, yeah cause no other countries participated in the invasion. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

is it just me or does the CC series really seem to be regressing?

Link to post
Share on other sites

"The best thing about turn-based games has always been the time you are given to think about your next moves without the problem of getting interupted "

Yes, but this isn't exactly realistic, is it?

Battlefield commanders don't have all day to make decisions. A good commander can make important decisions quickly, this is where real time shines. Turn based games that allow the commander to take as long as he needs to give orders to units is TOTALLY unrealistic.

Close Combat was excellent because it gave the players a sense of "being overrun" by an aggressive attacker. It gave a player a sense of "total loss of control" over his units, something common in combat from what I've read. Yet you never felt you were losing due to a clicking duel because you only had 14 or 15 units max.

Combat Mission allows the best of both worlds: time to decide what to order to your troops AND loss of control when a previously unseen Tiger suddenly takes out 3 of your Shermans in less than a minute.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by Pak40:

Yes, but this isn't exactly realistic, is it?

Battlefield commanders don't have all day to make decisions. A good commander can make important decisions quickly, this is where real time shines. Turn based games that allow the commander to take as long as he needs to give orders to units is TOTALLY unrealistic.

Close Combat was excellent because it gave the players a sense of "being overrun" by an aggressive attacker. It gave a player a sense of "total loss of control" over his units, something common in combat from what I've read. Yet you never felt you were losing due to a clicking duel because you only had 14 or 15 units max. END QUOTE

While battlefield commanders obviously do have to make their decisions in real time--and live with the consequences, something no wargame can/will aspire to--IMO the biggest flaw of real-time clickfests like CC is the excessive span of control they foist on the player. It is no accident that in most armies any given decision maker from a fireteam leader to a corps commander usually doesn't have to track more than ~3 subordinates simultaneously. Most folks can't juggle many more things than that at once, even without the stress of being under fire!

CC's problems were compounded by for me by Atomic's schizophrenia about which command level they were trying to simulate. First you had to be the company/task force C.O., constructing your ops plan. Then you switched to the platoon level, positioning each squad or support asset "just so". Finally, you had to jump in and act as the squad leader, manually targetting if you wanted half a chance of finding and hitting the "best" target--and even then, the AI would frequently beat you to the punch! This is NOT a realistic model of the decision tree ANY actual combat leader faces.

One of the facets of CM I like the most is the ability it allow for me to play consistently at one level--that of the force commander. Tell your guys WHERE to fight; they'll usually manage to take care of the fighting themselves without your intervention. In fact, I rarely override the AI's choice of targetting between turns, both because it "breaks the mood" for me and frankly, because the AI usually does a decent job of this all by itself.

[This message has been edited by Iconoclast (edited 05-31-2000).]

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not like I have much of a choice on the Mac, but now that I've plaued CM, all other strategy games seem boring. (For example, I LOVED StarCraft, which was my first game purchased for my shiny iMac DV SE; but it's so pointless to me now... I just sold it on an auction biggrin.gif .) Now Myth II, as tom w said, is a different story... if you're looking for a solid 3D RTS, pick up the Myth Total Codex for $20 and have at it. It's a lot of fun for the money, and the AI and graphics are very nice.

But other than that, I haven't played much since the gold demo release... although I did break down and preorder Skyfighters 2000 a couple weeks ago and have been playing that when I'm not doing the CM thing wink.gif

Oh, and I built two models while waiting for the CM release... a Tamiya Hanomag 251/1 and a Panther A. Now I'm working on the Wirbelwind, hoping to finish it before I get CM (which seems pretty likely now frown.gif )

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, the pressure in CC games is strong. In fact it is, decision wise, too strong. In the game you are acting as a multiheaded commander as you are in CM. Not only do you have the overload of directing all the movements and orders, but you are required to act in this capacity simultaneously with only serial capabilities hence the unrealistic clickfest. There is not time to do all that is necessary. Well this is often the case in real combat, but there you are at least not all the squad and team leaders but just playing one leader role.

In CM you do have the same many leaders roles in one person as CC; BUT, in the turn based system you do have the time to execute it. The pressure on the player is there; but, it is shifted emphasise the right decision for ALL the units not just the ones you have time to click on, to remember what to do to make your units function optimaly, to scout the terrain rather than merely read a map, and finally and formost to sit back and ENJOY the unrolling of the combat executed each turn. That last task is the formost of them all made possible by the turn WEGO approach and the kind of pressure that comes natural to the system and is endured effortlessly. The only way I see the CC system begining to work competitively is by limiting the players task to near if not the lowest level of command. Then the pressure of time becomes realistic.

Neither CC nor CM are realistic. No one leads all units in combat with the micromanagement possible to each game. That is shamefully obvious. Given that realism is compromised from the start for both in this (and other ways) it remains for the game designer to make the player forget that fact in the enjoyment of playing. If that means enjoyment for people who appreciate and have knowledge of the reality and the history AND have a three dimensional expectation of reality, then CM obviously is hands down the more fulfilling of the two. IMHO (H= hubracic or humbug, or hallucinogenic, or---? smile.gif )

[This message has been edited by Bobbaro (edited 05-31-2000).]

Link to post
Share on other sites

CC1 Fun - Hooked

CC2 Loved it!

CC3 Dissapointed but still enjoyed it a bit

CC3 (w/RealRed) Much Much better!! Fun

CC4 Piece of crap. Dung! WW2 Command and Conquer. Atomic buttwipes! Cashing in on the lamers.

CC5 They can kiss my arse

CC6 Hmmm..3d battlefield? Im interested again. Will it be realtime? No doubt. Hmmm...Ill play the demo first.

Hey Grunto! I hear ya. I must have mailed Keith Zabalouser a ton of mails too. He didn't do jack.

TeAcH

Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess comparisons are inevitable, but I think CM will succeed or fail based on its merits alone and not on how it compares to a completely different product.

As for CC going 3D, that was the buzz a while ago because it seems that Atomic are devoting resources into a new project and have only a small team working on Cash Cow 5: Utah Beach. Recent comments by radioactive staff members state that the 3D project has nothing to do with the CC series. So CC3D is not a likely scenario. As others have pointed out 3D and real time are probably not a very good mix since it would combine the timepressure of continuous gameplay with the difficulty in keeping track of units (friendly and enemy) in a large 3D landscape.

Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...