Comparison to Close Combat

[Robban]

First... the game looks great... no doubt about it. also like the atmosperic sounds of barking dogs etc... just like CC. Ive just played the demo and now to my question;

The tanks seem rather stupid compared to CC. In CC they reversed when you told them to move when an enemy was in front. this made retreat a quite good tactic... to, for example, stand with your Tiger in a street and, when there was risk of getting flanked , back away while facing with the strongest side to the enemy... when i try to get out of an engagement in TOW the tank makes the worst of the situation by turning around... me or the game?

is there smokegrenades in the tanks (and for infantry) for hasty retreats/cover for infantry? now the infantry gets slaughtered instantly. no way for my tankcrews to escape... they get surrounded and killed. none of my infantry/crews survives the intitial onslaught to participate in the defence of the hills... even if they are crawling for dear life the tanks gets them... no enemy infantry in sight that i can see.

is there som way to see what type of inifantry the diffrent groups are? cant find info in the manual and my memory isnt good enough to remember what configuration the command staff/panzerschreck had.

it would be great to see a citybattle in the demo to test that type of combat... where infantry plays a greater roll. in this scenario it just ends in a tank shoot out where I put my strongest tanks (jagdtiger and tiger II) in a high position with the front towards the enemy and firing until the end while the smaller tanks tries to outflank... the reinforcements comes at the worst place ever... 20-60% gets killed instatly by IS II and heavy tankkillers from far of on the other side of the river. would be better (and probably more logical) to come into battle via the road at the hills foot.

[Vegeorite]

Actually, I observed my French tank reversing from two or three Panzer IIs and thought 'bull****' cos he seemed to be in a good position to knock 'em out. But hitting 'enter' and going to first person I found the tank was being peppered with machine gun fire (sounded excellent) and the crew, being surrounded, were crapping themselves!

Yet, the best is - they pulled the tank back (AI) and out of the firing line they recovered their nerve. So, I sent them back into it and they were murdered!!

Tanks seem at least as good as CC.

[Vegeorite]

Smoke and building entry would be a nice patch-in!!

[Robban]

maybe just the demo then. is there some way, like in CC, to tell them to be cautios, normal or assault (the two last are ther of course)...

[Cornfleek]

I can't imagine building entry will be patched in. This has been a design decision, and would have been sorted out ages ago if it was feasible to do so. My guess is that they're not able to make the infantry actually use the houses in a proper way using windows, doors and such. Close combat nailed that one, Squad Assault failed at it, and they didn't even try with this game (which might have been a good decision).

And there is no city fighting because of this. It's all rolling hills with some trees and bushes (that don't do much at the moment for cover and such) and trenches and more trenches and then some trenches. Its a bit like WWI in that respect...

Given the fact that tanks have no problem shooting through rows and rows of trees at the moment, I don't think that smoke will stop them. Besides that, my guess is they did not forget to include smoke, they looked at it and decided not to.

Don't try to compare this to CC, you'll get disappointed (I know I did). This game is good for medium distance tank battles and has got loads of eye candy. It's most definitely not an infantry game.

[Robban]

to bad. will have to wait for another game then :-( thought this would be THE game... been longing for a new Close Combat... I made the mistake to lend my copies to a former boss... when i quit he "forgot" to give em back... I still have CC III (which tends to be a Tank shoot out too) but i miss CC II.... great battles Infantry vs Tanks in narrow streets and AT guns hiding in streets...

edit: of course not illegal copies... after trying the demo for CC II I bought CC II, CC III... then MS sold the license and CC IV was quite booring so i jumped that one... bought CC V which was quite fun.

[Msv]

1)I miss something that tell if im in great cover, good cover, light cover or not in cover at all.

In cc you could click at the terrain and get that information and even better, a halfcircle with different colors in front of your units. Green=your unit is in great cover for the moment etc.

2)I miss the bar low at the screen with every one of your units at the map. The information told me what they was doing etc. A simple click on a particular unit/symbol at the bar and then you was moved to that unit in the battle map. Very easy, this should be a good thing in this hard camera handle game.

Besides this and some other stuff that some of you mentioned above, this game has potential to be the best game ever after close combat.

And that will say a lot.

/Msv

[MikoyanPT]

Comparing ToW with close combat ?

They are a century apart, why bother !

Welcome to the new century.

[Cornfleek]

Originally posted by MikoyanPT:

Comparing ToW with close combat ?

They are a century apart, why bother !

Welcome to the new century.

Depends what you look at:

Graphics ToW > CC

AI ToW = CC

Gameplay Tow < CC

* edit, ok, lets be reasonable here, this situation goes for this version of ToW, BF & 1C might pull a rabbit out of the hat and actually improve AI & gameplay.

[chanss]

Robban, there actually is a Retreat button to use when you want your tanks to backout from a fight. If you combine this with the holdfire button the tanks will retreat rather quick while still facing the enemy.

[Hammer-n-Sickle]

I know i'm forced to use Hold ground alot just to get them to stay where they are supposed to

[Prince of Eckmühl]

There's very little comparison, IMO.

The strength of CC is infantry play, so much so that the Marine Corps uses a custom version of it for training. It begins to get silly, though, when too many vehicles, more than two or three, are included in a scenario.

While the (several) developers of ToW attempted to build some cool infantry play into the game, I think that it's strength is clearly armour play. Because of this, I believe that a better comparison is with Combat Mission.

PoE

[seppDieter]

Originally posted by MikoyanPT:

Comparing ToW with close combat ?

They are a century apart, why bother !

Welcome to the new century.

youre right, there not competing on the same level.

CC is a tactical real time strategy battle simulation! TOW is a real time strategy game

the only improvement of TOW VS CC is 3D.

thats about it.

close combat is really well made, it is a beauty to watch, you cant do better than that in 2d.

-you can only win in CC with intelligence and tactics

-you can best win in TOW by finding the best glitches and exploiting faults in the AI

-CC is a complete game: you have all the tools to use proper tactics like ambushes, smoke screens, buildings...

-TOW is not a complete game, you have to forget that ambush was a tactic and that smokes and buildings etc...were used back then

-CC has all kinds of environments from villages to cities

-TOW has open fields

-more realistic feel to CC, no icons on the field

-etc etc...

Close Combat was even used and promoted by many military officer schools to practice tactics in realistic situations without having real soldiers killed!

TOW is a nice game, but in no way it deserves the "tactical, simulation or realistic" mention next to its name. its an RTS nothing more

[fil]

i think, this comparison is not correct.

TOW has its unique gameplay. its unique damage system, much more realictic , than in CC

and more unique futires

[CBR]

And we are talking RTT games and not RTS. There is no base building, unit production and resource gathering as well as no silly short LOS or hitpoints on units.

In that sense CC and ToW are in the same category except ToW is 3D. The big question is if the use of 3D is detrimental to gameplay in modern warfare settings or not.

CMSF will show another company's take on how to do it. I dont see ToW to be more than a limited attempt in this genre. There are IMO too many things missing or not done properly in ToW to show the potiential of using 3D.

CBR

[liuzg150181]

The strength of CC is infantry play, so much so that the Marine Corps uses a custom version of it for training. It begins to get silly, though, when too many vehicles, more than two or three, are included in a scenario.

While the (several) developers of ToW attempted to build some cool infantry play into the game, I think that it's strength is clearly armour play. Because of this, I believe that a better comparison is with Combat Mission.

PoE

But at least infantry units in CM series are more useful than those in ToW......

[Lord_Simmox]

i wouldve thought the campaign system in CC was the best thing going for it

pity we cant have similar with this game

in all honesty,this graphics style with the CM interface and wego play.bigger maps of course,would be about perfect for me.

theres so much beauty to behold in this game that the game play system doesnt really allow the player time to get down and view it.

[Robban]

my post wasnt which game was the best... just what the developers wanted with the game. if im not totally wrong the developers mentioned that they had CC in mind while developing the game (I googled on CC and similar... thats how i found the game for start). when I tested the demo there was a lot of infantry to select from... so i thought maybe i misused what resources I choosed... I have played the demo several times but havent got the same feeling as in the close combat II demo... but it is rather cool to put a king tiger on a hill top and literally letting him be the king of the hill... then letting the Tiger I and his little "Panzer vier" buddies outflank the ruskies in the end!

the conclusion is that this isnt a game for ME. anyone got any suggestions for an old CC-fanatic? will there be a REAL CC VI?

[Hertston]

Originally posted by Robban:

? will there be a REAL CC VI?

It's in development. Part of the reason so many existing CC3 owners were willing to fork out on CoI was to help finance it.

[TTorpedo]

Got that wright! CC6 is the future.

For aditionam information on CC

http://www.closecombat.org/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=90

Meantime lets hope future improvoments can elevate Tow to CC stantards, specialy on strategical and MP gameplay

[Cornfleek]

Originally posted by Hertston:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Robban:

? will there be a REAL CC VI?

It's in development. Part of the reason so many existing CC3 owners were willing to fork out on CoI was to help finance it. </font>

[wokelly]

Originally posted by Vegeorite:

Actually, I observed my French tank reversing from two or three Panzer IIs and thought 'bull****' cos he seemed to be in a good position to knock 'em out. But hitting 'enter' and going to first person I found the tank was being peppered with machine gun fire (sounded excellent) and the crew, being surrounded, were crapping themselves!

I am not bashing what you saying, and I understand the context, but I think its imporant to realize in real life tankers had no idea what enemy guns could and could not do. We have penetration tables, but in WWII they did not and for all they actually knew the german 20mm could go through them at 1000m. They really had no idea.

[Sfox28]

I'm a really big fan of the CC series and I agree with almost everything in the above comments. TOW can be the "Best Game" ever if it gets it's act together. Most of the problems I believe can be cleared up by patches and the modding community! Anyway, let's sure hope so! I had to stop playing CC a couple of years ago because it became incompatable with my XP. Since the release of COI ( Close Combat Cross of Iron ) it is once again working on my machine and once again is my favorite wargame. I don't care if it's 2D as opposed to 3D...it has all the components of what things were like in total combat in WWII. All this being said...I still love TOW because of what it already is and what it can be! Let's play them both and bring TOW up to snuff!

[Col Deadmarsh]

Originally posted by seppDieter:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by MikoyanPT:

Comparing ToW with close combat ?

They are a century apart, why bother !

Welcome to the new century.

youre right, there not competing on the same level.

CC is a tactical real time strategy battle simulation! TOW is a real time strategy game

the only improvement of TOW VS CC is 3D.

thats about it.

close combat is really well made, it is a beauty to watch, you cant do better than that in 2d.

-you can only win in CC with intelligence and tactics

-you can best win in TOW by finding the best glitches and exploiting faults in the AI

-CC is a complete game: you have all the tools to use proper tactics like ambushes, smoke screens, buildings...

-TOW is not a complete game, you have to forget that ambush was a tactic and that smokes and buildings etc...were used back then

-CC has all kinds of environments from villages to cities

-TOW has open fields

-more realistic feel to CC, no icons on the field

-etc etc...

Close Combat was even used and promoted by many military officer schools to practice tactics in realistic situations without having real soldiers killed!

TOW is a nice game, but in no way it deserves the "tactical, simulation or realistic" mention next to its name. its an RTS nothing more </font>

[DASman]

this thread makes me feel good.

e