Comparison to Close Combat

[Destraex]

agree that CC is better as TOW stands at the moment.

CC does work under XP!!!! what are you talking about?

However I was saturated to the point of not being able to play CC and all its mods anymore. TOW is a breath of fresh air to me.

CC had some rather bad flaws of its own too including:

Bad tank pathing

men killing themselves by moving at random

Tank heavy in most scenarios (although this was fun)

poor ability to see terrain elevation

men not to scale with tanks

searching for mortars by sound

mortars firing on small maps

small maps bordering on the ridiculous - modders fixed this to some extent

SHOCKING AI!!!!!! nobody remembers this ???? The ai got so predicatable that only playing against a person was fun

directdraw errors since XP updated

unrealistic\abstract depiction of re-inforcements

I could go on.........................

We all learnt to deal with these flaws and have long forgotten about them

personally I think cc1 was the best of all of them

[Sfox28]

"what are you talking about?"

I'll tell you what I was talking aout.....My computer and my XP would not let the line of sight and movement lines (direct draw or what etc} work properly...maybe the video card. It was a brand new dell (fixed up for gaming)Dimension XPS Gen 4 and it did not work correctly!

How suscinc can I be?

So I was CC down for almost 2 years and it just started working again with the new CC-COI! Whatever they did to up grade the new version of CC worked for me. Get it! Worked for me! I was talking about the CC game and TOW...and so let's talk about that. Yes, the early CC's had their flaws. All of what you stated on them were true. The bad tank pathing was the worst.

Anyway, both are good games...TOW is gonna need some work though.

[Destraex]

cc has always worked for me under XP.... as in has never stopped working GET it?

Anyways I agree with you, just some peeps are claiming CC is perfect.... COI I cannot judge but considering how long close combat had to come of age..... well you take my point ??

[KiloAlpha4]

It was just released so we have to atleast give it a chance.

[seppDieter]

we can only hope i guess, its just that i thought this game would start of on a higher level.

sure most stock CC's had flaws, but at least they had everything needed to become exellent games(simulations)

the list of flaws and missing features in TOW is so huge that i doubt they can be fixed.

yea the AI in CC was no so smart, but at least it wasnt totally scripted like in TOW. i doubt anybody wil enjoy playing the TOW campaigns over and over.

ive been playin CC for 8 years mostly single player, and its different at each time.

[Paul T. Gardner]

There SHOULD be a comparison between CM and ToW. There seems to be too little command and control compared to CM. Surely it wouldn't be too much to ask for the 'advance to contanct', or 'move' or 'fast move' commands? My tanks if left unmanaged (which with lots of tanks is hard to keep up), they wander all over the place, getting shot up in their flanks.

[Prince of Eckmühl]

Originally posted by Sfox28:

"what are you talking about?"

I'll tell you what I was talking aout.....My computer and my XP would not let the line of sight and movement lines (direct draw or what etc} work properly...maybe the video card. It was a brand new dell (fixed up for gaming)Dimension XPS Gen 4 and it did not work correctly!

How suscinc can I be?

So I was CC down for almost 2 years and it just started working again with the new CC-COI! Whatever they did to up grade the new version of CC worked for me. Get it! Worked for me! I was talking about the CC game and TOW...and so let's talk about that. Yes, the early CC's had their flaws. All of what you stated on them were true. The bad tank pathing was the worst.

Anyway, both are good games...TOW is gonna need some work though.

The problem is that the video card's 2D is too fast for CC in WinXP. There's a fix for it at the CSO website, I believe. The problem is also fixed in the CC3-CoI upgrade recently released by Simtek and published by Matrix Games.

PoE

[chanss]

Close Combat was crap! That AI it had was just awfull, utterly awfull, or shall we say nonexistant. In my opinion that game is a waste of time. ToW is a lightyear ahead.

[ April 25, 2007, 07:55 AM: Message edited by: chanss ]

[CaptainBly]

Close Combat is near best they come to great computer wargame. Combat Mission and Steel Panthers right along side it. But, this game, this game, this game kid fodder. Too much going on, too much pausing, too much like kiddie rts games of before. BF best stick to what make it famous and do away with the likes of this game. This game need publisher more like EA or Strategy First where it expected game to be crap.

[seppDieter]

Originally posted by chanss:

Close Combat was crap! That AI it had was just awfull, utterly awfull, or shall we say nonexistant. In my opinion that game is a waste of time. ToW is a lightyear ahead.

well see in 10 years how much are still playing TOW, and how many armies in the world use irt to train their officers...

[hellfish]

Close Combat has had 10 years to refine itself. ToW has had less than a week. As it stands right now, ToW is more fun and offers better gameplay than CCIII for me.

Anybody remember CC1? Thats's what you should be comparing TOW to, if anything, based on gameplay merits.

I love ToW so far, and while I won't say it's better or worse than the CC series, I'm going to play it for quite a while.

I expect expansion packs or upgrades in the future as well, which I'll happily buy.

[Bloodstar44]

Originally posted by seppDieter:

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

Close Combat was crap! That AI it had was just awfull, utterly awfull, or shall we say nonexistant. In my opinion that game is a waste of time. ToW is a lightyear ahead.

well see in 10 years how much are still playing TOW, and how many armies in the world use irt to train their officers... </font>

[aleader]

Ok, I'm gonna eat crow a bit here. This game is much better when infantry\AT guns aren't involved. I was able to focus on the sights, sounds, and actually quite stunning realism of the tank battles. The sound, damage modeling, animation, and engagement ranges are quite good.

The BIG problem(s) I'm having involve the positioning of the tanks and their maddening refusal to stay put, and the lack of any indication of hull-down. Am I missing something? When I put them in formation and give them an order to stay put, I look back only to see half of them turning completely around and heading in all different directions. Why won't they stay where I order them to?!

Also, without knowing where to position them on favourable terrain, it's a crapshoot as to how well they are defended.

[Sfox28]

Most of all the comments and arguments and ideas presented here are right on. Destraex, I'm not trying to have an argument with you about my computer. We agree on almost everything. It is interesting though that "Prince of Eckmuhl ( sorry NO umlout (sp) on this computer) has stated that their was a problem with windows XP but that they had fixed it

Quote---"The problem is that the video card's 2D is too fast for CC in WinXP. There's a fix for it at the CSO website, I believe. The problem is also fixed in the CC3-CoI upgrade recently released by Simtek and published by Matrix Games."

He put my problem on the mark and since I do have CC3-COI it also works just fine now. I would also like to note that I spent quite a bit of time trying to work out THAT PROBLEM with the CSO guys...but to no avail. It might have been my troubles with that led them to fix it...LOL...at least I hope so...LOL. Hey, it works fine now and I want to move on. TOW needs some work but lets let that happen before we "CAN" it!

Mahalo...for all the comments though.....

[Robban]

I started this thread because i thought this game would be something like a 3d cc (infantry in houses, smoke etc)... It wont be because that is not the intention of the developers. Saying cc or tow is the best is like arguing about which car is the best... Volvo or alfa? Depends on taste and personality.

[Laci's Ghost]

According to the link provided above CC6 isn't due out until 2008. most likely, that bleeds into 2009. so, I have to believe we should bet on a few update patches to ToW to make us all happy. Start with better spawning for reinforcements then get my infantry into the buildings.

[Hertston]

Originally posted by Bloodstar44:

And what I found lacking in CoI is the price.

CoI cost 40$ and they invested 0 (ZERO) dollars in new graphics... Graphics BTW is most expensive thing in game development.

Sorry but even if God himself have come down from the Olymp and made the game it's lousy move from the Matrix. Remakes must cost a fair price!

I think the brutal truth is that Matrix priced it exactly the same way Battlefront priced ToW; the price which they estimate would make the most money. In their judgement, which I suspect was right, they could have cut the price by 25% but only gained 10% more sales. I'm guessing the figures, of course, but I doubt they are far off.

As to graphics, they have actually been perked up a little but beyond that I'm not really sure what they could do. CC is rooted in 2D, and within that I'm not really sure what improvements you could have. A new graphics engine would have made the whole project totally unviable. I think you need to look at the aims of the project too, which were;

1. To make some money, not least to finance the development of CC6.

2. To provide an updated version (with more than a few tweaks under the hood) for fans of the series.

3. To make CC3 available to those who never played it first time around (of 2 to 5, CC3 is by far the most difficult to get hold of)

To new players CoI is well worth the money, IMHO. For existing CC3 owners there is no compulsion to buy it.

haven't we had this conversation before, somewhere?

[Bloodstar44]

I think the brutal truth is that Matrix priced it exactly the same way Battlefront priced ToW; the price which they estimate would make the most money. In their judgement, which I suspect was right, they could have cut the price by 25% but only gained 10% more sales. I'm guessing the figures, of course, but I doubt they are far off.

*************

Well, I am just stating that I didn't see 1C spreading some mantra that we must buy I don't know Il-2 because they need money to develop Theatre of War. We see that they worked on a game and delivered the game - OK there are really some problems but let's imagine for a moment that they will be settled. And I don't think that game development in Russia regarding financing is better than regarding financing in USA or UK. Only workforce is cheaper. I still think that it's a rip off and of course would use what your countrymen Joe Strummer once said "I vote with my dollar" (he said that for boycotting McDonalds but anyway good in this case as well.

********

As to graphics, they have actually been perked up a little but beyond that I'm not really sure what they could do. CC is rooted in 2D, and within that I'm not really sure what improvements you could have. A new graphics engine would have made the whole project totally unviable. I think you need to look at the aims of the project too, which were;

*********

I don't mind this old graphics - because I know that they would in fact maybe mess up gameplay if they opted to upgrade graphics or maybe not. Point is that they used exactly 0$ for graphics, took some mods and wham here is a new game for 40$. I can guarantee to you that many gamers will just pass this up, they are not so naive as it seems.

**********

1. To make some money, not least to finance the development of CC6.

**********

I see. That is a new trend? Customers act like a bank, venture capitalist, rich daddy?

Well sorry but I don't buy that.

*********

2. To provide an updated version (with more than a few tweaks under the hood) for fans of the series.

*********

At least something but again not worth 40$.

********

3. To make CC3 available to those who never played it first time around (of 2 to 5, CC3 is by far the most difficult to get hold of)

********

Yes, Pedro from Mexico City is crazy about CC.

They had fans of Close Combat as targeted customers but browse some forums. You will see that it is truth that many are not so very enthusiastic about this price. Hint: Wargamer.com etc...

************

To new players CoI is well worth the money, IMHO. For existing CC3 owners there is no compulsion to buy it.

************

When new players see this 1997. graphics they will ask for a 10$ rebate coupon.

***********

haven't we had this conversation before, somewhere?

***********

Yes, we had, hehe. But, I guess that some things need to be said here. Don't know why you so much defend Matrix when from Mars is visible that they made an error... And that is really a rip off of fans. Nothing else. You may use pretty words but that is reality.

We just need fair pricing system. Europa Universalis 3 is new game, with new engine and price on Paradox site is 40$. Think about it, Hertson.

Mario

[ April 26, 2007, 12:05 AM: Message edited by: Bloodstar44 ]

[Hertston]

Originally posted by Bloodstar44:

Well, I am just stating that I didn't see 1C spreading some mantra that we must buy I don't know Il-2 because they need money to develop Theatre of War.

.......

I see. That is a new trend? Customers act like a bank, venture capitalist, reach daddy?

Well sorry but I don't buy that.

"Buy it" or not, that's the way it is. It is not a 'trend' and it is not new; many indie game projects work in exactly that way.

There is no element of 'venture capitalism' involved; the only rewards are seeing the game at the end. What you don't seem to understand is that we are talking about a niche market. Continuing development of CC is not far removed from an 'indie' project.. CSO Simtek are NOT Paradox or even 1C, they make their 'real' money from their military development and sales. C:CoI is an 'old' game, and nobody has pretended otherwise - 'otherwise' was not the objective. You will see much the same with some of the other Matrix products, with Harpoon 3 being the best example.

We just need fair pricing system. Europa Universalis 3 is new game, with new engine and price on Paradox site is 40$.

You can't compare the two games in marketing terms. Define 'fair'? 'Fair' for who? CoI was never going to sell a tenth of the copies of EU3 however it was priced. The project has to be worthwhile for those doing it; if that means charging more than you are willing to pay, so be it. Sometimes you have to pay more (and $40 is hardly 'more') for something that has a limited market. It's exactly the same with books, for example.

[Bloodstar44]

sorry double post

[ April 25, 2007, 04:51 PM: Message edited by: Bloodstar44 ]

[Bloodstar44]

Originally posted by Bloodstar44:

There is no element of 'venture capitalism' involved; the only rewards are seeing the game at the end. What you don't seem to understand is that we are talking about a niche market. Continuing development of CC is not far removed from an 'indie' project.. CSO Simtek are NOT Paradox or even 1C, they make their 'real' money from their military development and sales. C:CoI is an 'old' game, and nobody has pretended otherwise - 'otherwise' was not the objective. You will see much the same with some of the other Matrix products, with Harpoon 3 being the best example.

************

Hehe, no, I see that is being a niche and that is actually irrelevant in this discussion. And I am not telling that CSO is Paradox but Matrix here is a publisher. Other than price being a RIP OFF other assumption is just a number of assumptions that every sane lawyer would brake on every court. You just have this on a very fragile legs.

*************

can't compare the two games in marketing terms. Define 'fair'? 'Fair' for who? CoI was never going to sell a tenth of the copies of EU3 however it was priced. The project has to be worthwhile for those doing it; if that means charging more than you are willing to pay, so be it. Sometimes you have to pay more (and $40 is hardly 'more') for something that has a limited market. It's exactly the same with books, for example.

*********

Everything is comparable if it draws money from your pocket. Fair price - well of course fair price for customer. And if this is fair price than why so much gamers are not very comfortable with it. I am sorry but picture is a lot rosier once you put those FANBOY glasses.

Nobody is denying you the right to be the one but that doesn't means to base all facts on that, to justify all this by absolute faith in fanboyism.

By applying this ridicule price Matrix Games just LIMITED the Market - and not vice versa. But of course you got numbers on your side, silly me.

And in fact if CC: CoI sell tenth of EU 3 sales. So 200000*0,10 = 20000 copies * 40$ = 800000 $ brutto.

Oh really nice money for investing ZERO dollars into graphics but pickpocketing your fans for a last penny.

Theatre of War - let's say that they sell 50000. That is 50000 * 45$ = 2250000 (number goes up with sales, Battlefield 2 strangely sold just 200000 is that telling that PC gaming is not very well hehe).

So in fact those Russian guys at 1C are very generous guys in fact. So many of them practicabllly worked for peanuts they're ass off. Look at credits and see how many of them have worked on this game.

Obviously we have different stance on this. Suit yourself.

And paying more means obviously that we line up like lambs preparing for slaughter and hand over the money to the publisher because we are drooling fanboys, isn't it that Hertson? Since the days of first trade, customer will give money to the trader exactly the summ he think that is right for him to pay. I really don't think that this will work, only in fantasy la-la land and they will just shoot themselves in the foot and condemnn itself to miserable sales right from the start.

And don't in fact think that people are so blind that this will in fact bring them good word of mouth. Yes, it can if we will mask everything to suit our diplomatic need and in any case it's easy to fool ignorant fools anytime. But if you show them both side of the coin then even them can get "?" in their head.

Mario

[Hertston]

Originally posted by Bloodstar44:

Hehe, no, I see that is being a niche and that is actually irrelevant in this discussion.

It is totally relevant when it comes to the marketing and pricing policy, which is what we are talking about.

Other than price being a RIP OFF other assumption is just a number of assumptions that every sane lawyer would brake on every court.

In what way is it a rip-off? It was made perfectly clear what people were getting for their money, and they had a totally free choice as to whether to pay it or not. You mean no more than "it cost more than I was prepared to pay". You didn't, so how have you been ripped off? Can you point me to any purchasers of CoI who claim that they have been?

Everything is comparable if it draws money from your pocket. Fair price - well of course fair price for customer. And if this is fair price than why so much gamers are not very comfortable with it. I am sorry but picture is a lot rosier once you put those FANBOY glasses.

It has nothing to do with being a 'fanboy', which incidently I'm not.

Of course everything is comparable in those terms but, again, you have a free choice. I just don't see why you think the pricing is "unfair". If you think another game is more worthy of your $40 then buy that instead. Sure, if the price had been less more people would have bought it. But how many more? I said I was guessing the figures, but there is simply no evidence a lower price would have produced a greater profit. Matrix (and Battlefront, come to that) know the market better than we do - their living depends on it.

By applying this ridicule price Matrix Games just LIMITED the Market - and not vice versa.

Not true. As I said it's a niche product, and (in essence) a nine year old game. The market was limited to enthusiasts no matter what price they charged. By your reasoning every gamer in the world will have downloaded Steel Panthers: World at War (being free). Have they? Nope. The great majority just wouldn't want to play it.

And paying more means obviously that we line up like lambs preparing for slaughter and hand over the money to the publisher because we are drooling fanboys, isn't it that Hertson?

Nope. Yet again, you have a perfectly free choice whether to pay or not. I think, even as an existing CC3 owner, it was money well spent.

I won't comment as to who is in fantasy la-la land...

[Sfox28]

Ohhhhh Boy, this tomato throwing backyard war sounds great! ROFLOL!

[Hertston]

Originally posted by Sfox28:

Ohhhhh Boy, this tomato throwing backyard war sounds great! ROFLOL!

Hmmm... nice description. Time to shut up.

[Bloodstar44]

It is totally relevant when it comes to the marketing and pricing policy, which is what we are talking about.

*********

We are moving into circles in this discussion.

It is truth that many gamers have openly said that they will not buy CoI at this price. Browse the forums and see for yourself. If that is relevant for this game being a niche then those LOST sales are hurting them more than helping them.

BTW here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dollar_voting

with one regard - Matrix is not McDonalds so I am not using dollar voting for them to go into bacrupcy, I bought now TOAW 3 at their 40% off sale hehe at 24$ and that was price I was ready to pay. Anyway it will collect dust for some time. Similiar in the case of CoI they are just asking too much.

**********

In what way is it a rip-off? It was made perfectly clear what people were getting for their money, and they had a totally free choice as to whether to pay it or not. You mean no more than "it cost more than I was prepared to pay". You didn't, so how have you been ripped off? Can you point me to any purchasers of CoI who claim that they have been?

**********

I see that you are in love with Matrix Games and as CSO Simtek is a UK company I smell even God Save the Queen being played while you type your posts. Good Lord, am I speaking Chinese or Mandarin?

I said, if CoI has a fair price than 1C and Battlefront are giving to us almost for free ToW.

Do you think that 1C guys don't need money and that God is throwing fried chickens every day from the clouds?

Being niche or not doesn't makes a difference but attitude toward your customers. Do you think that CC fans all want to give them 40$ for a CC3 with slapped mods, few things improved etc...? They could have give them extra motive as lowering the price. I know some diehard CC3 players who told me exactly what I am saying that they will not buy CoI at this price. So it is pitiful when hardcore fans of CC are saying that then something is wrong. I would rather please them.

********

It has nothing to do with being a 'fanboy', which incidently I'm not.

********

Then I don't know why you are defendig this bad practice? I have my reasons - I am against big prices for PC games but esp. big price when there is not reason for that. I would rather reward guys like 1C for working so hard - even considering so many flaws which I really criticized. (again last night PC froze, ah forgot to turn music off haha. and again monitor refresh rate goes to 60 hz! will put that into tech support).

*******

Of course everything is comparable in those terms but, again, you have a free choice. I just don't see why you think the pricing is "unfair". If you think another game is more worthy of your $40 then buy that instead. Sure, if the price had been less more people would have bought it. But how many more? I said I was guessing the figures, but there is simply no evidence a lower price would have produced a greater profit. Matrix (and Battlefront, come to that) know the market better than we do - their living depends on it.

*********

See, you have the case of Matrixis... You must play other games daily for six month and you will be cured

I said to you numerous times why I think that and you are constanly jumping over my arguments when you don't have stronger to show. In poker you would be beaten long time ago.

Matrix have just shoot themself in the foor. If price was lower than you are also making good PR for yourself (this isn't good PR and word of mouth), pleasing the fans and also fans coud then buy some other games as well to reward Matrix. I am telling you that I would not piss hardcore CC players. And judging by the forums they done just that in some cases. Not in mine I am not so big fans. I would not out Battlefront beside Matrix in this. Battlefront.com has not been ripping customers like Matrix is doing in this case.

Defend those wrong principles as much as you want. I can then also release PAC-MAN from 1980. and slap 100$ price on it. But wargamers are high income sheeps for processing.

********

Not true. As I said it's a niche product, and (in essence) a nine year old game. The market was limited to enthusiasts no matter what price they charged. By your reasoning every gamer in the world will have downloaded Steel Panthers: World at War (being free). Have they? Nope. The great majority just wouldn't want to play it.

********

Oho, I see. Now you just jumped into your own throat as we will say LOLZ

So Pedro from Mexico City will not want to buy CoI? See, you are just proving my facts that in niche products aim to please majority of fans with the price if content is so-so. And Oleg Mastruko have butchered content. So in this case we have rather high price for a 97 graphics and we have poor additional content.

**********

Nope. Yet again, you have a perfectly free choice whether to pay or not. I think, even as an existing CC3 owner, it was money well spent.

I won't comment as to who is in fantasy la-la land...

**********

I am certanly not in fantasy la-la land and I am not giving them my 40$. When it drops to 24$ then we will see, not before. Until then I will reward creativity and hard work of others and in some cases being able to produce a perfect game (that is MTW 2 from your UK countrymen at Creative Assembly). (will not try to explain what means perfect).

Mario