Close Combat Series :: View topic

through

[^/[Print]\]
Goto page 1, 2 Next :| |:
Close Combat Series -> Close Combat Modern Tactics

#1: So... Author: Therion,

Posted: Sun Aug 09, 2009 4:55 am
—
When will the patch that implements "Accurate and realistic modern equipment modelling" and "Accurate depiction of modern tactical warfare and its challenges" come out?
Playing without these two kinda sucks. Especially the part where the broken AI performs a crawl of death instead of using the modern tactics.

#2: Re: So... Author: schrecken, Location: Sydney, Australia

Posted: Sun Aug 09, 2009 5:57 am
—
Ask for your money back if you feel your purchase has been mis-represented.

#3: Re: So... Author: AT_Stalky,

Posted: Sun Aug 09, 2009 4:03 pm
—

schrecken wrote (View Post):

Ask for your money back if you feel your purchase has been mis-represented.

And does that mean everyone who feel that way will get there money back?

#4: Re: So... Author: Tejszd, Location: Canada

Posted: Sun Aug 09, 2009 7:17 pm
—
Everyone complaining will not result in people getting money back, companies do not seem to give back what they have gotten, but it would get their attention and that could get them to put resources into making a patch....

Last edited by Tejszd on Mon Aug 10, 2009 7:28 am; edited 1 time in total

#5: Re: So... Author: Stwa,

Posted: Mon Aug 10, 2009 6:36 am
—

Last edited by Stwa on Fri Jul 17, 2015 9:02 am; edited 1 time in total

#6: Re: So... Author: Therion,

Posted: Mon Aug 10, 2009 6:32 pm
—

Stwa wrote (View Post):

But, I guess "ignorance is bliss" when it comes to the modern tactics thing Therion is mentioning. I must not know what I am missing, becuase now (even more so since CC2 Redux), I think CCMT is the best Close Combat I have experienced in a while, but then I did not get WAR or TLD.

Ok, have you seen the AI employ even the most basic tactics that are presented in the game's infantry tactics tutorial? Because I didn't. What I have seen was infantry crawling towards my positions without using smoke or suppressive fire. And dying, often without firing a single shot. Sometimes, I had a single squad with a machinegun kill whole enemy platoon without suffering any losses.
Yeah, and defending infantry running out of their positions and getting slaughtered despite having all the VLs. I'm seeing the latter very often lately.

CCMT being the best CC (for some weird reason whole series are sold with dysfunctional AI and no publisher ever felt that it should be fixed or that the game information should carry a warning about it) or you having to keep your soldiers down has nothing to do with the topic which is the broken AI that can't use even the most basic infantry tactics and its role in "accurate depiction of modern tactical warfare and its challenges".

#7: Re: So... Author: Stwa,

Posted: Tue Aug 11, 2009 6:16 am
—

Last edited by Stwa on Fri Jul 17, 2015 9:02 am; edited 1 time in total

#8: Re: So... Author: Therion,

Posted: Tue Aug 11, 2009 3:48 pm
—

Stwa wrote (View Post):

OK,

You have mentioned this before, and it is definately one of your pet peeves (I think). And in general, I am going to agree with you 100%. I also think this particular issue has persisted in other games in the series.

Which is an interesting market phenomena. It shows that there's something seriously wrong with gaming press and attitude of gamers.
Games are very expensive. As Erik Rutkins from Matrix Games said, they are a luxury. One would think that people who spend a high amount of money to get a luxurious good, would expect high quality and will reject low quality titles.

In reality, it's the opposite - gamers spend a lot of money on games, but tolerate faulty products. This leads to a situation where creating high quality products isn't necessary. One can create clones of the faulty product, replicating all the faults and people will still buy them.
Most of people aren't in such privileged position as game developers - they have to do good work or perfect work, otherwise they lose their job.

I don't think there's any reason why we should tolerate such inequality. Microsoft/Atomic Games/Matix Games were/are selling their CC clones with broken AI and broken vehicle pathfinding for the same prices as new new games with working AI and working pathfinding, without any warning in product information.

That's how they treat honest, hard working people who buy their games.

Stwa wrote (View Post):

However, using CCMT, I have seen some excellent combined arms attacks made by the AI, even though I realized at the time, this was basically due to sheer luck rather than shrewd planning. I have observed this in modern and WW2 scenarios.

I haven't seen CC AI doing anything excellent, ever. And imagine how efficient an enemy support (tanks, MGs, etc.) could be if it could hold back and fire at muzzle flashes.

Stwa wrote (View Post):

Also, CCMT has cleared up some other annoying issues (in my mind). You can't really rush strongholds or structures anymore. And visibility (sometimes wacky), makes the game much more difficult for the attacker.

Which has nothing to do with the enemy AI. And from what I noticed AI often places its troops outside strongholds and structures, in open terrain without cover where they get slaughtered, especially that they tend to crawl around. Actually, I got fed up with the AI when I discovered that it happens always when I set up an infantry assault scenario.

Another big problem is that the AI doesn't respond to fire from undetected units. While a human may spot a muzzle flash on the screen and order his units to do area fire, the AI is unable to do so - which is why it's simply broken rather just stupid.

Stwa wrote (View Post):

For those that don't know, at my household, we basically treat this game as a simulator. We only play against the AI, we design COIN missions per se, we never make the sides even (the AI doesn't get much), and we try to take the objectives with zero losses to the Blue Team. This we do for modern and to a lesser degree, WW2 scenarios.

Simulator of what? What does it simulate? Performing military operations against people who are on drugs that make them crawl around?

#9: Re: So... Author: Stwa,

Posted: Fri Aug 14, 2009 12:19 am
—

Last edited by Stwa on Fri Jul 17, 2015 9:03 am; edited 1 time in total

#10: Re: So... Author: Tejszd, Location: Canada

Posted: Fri Aug 14, 2009 12:58 am
—
Stwa,

All the games you listed came out after CC5; CCM, RTB, COI, WAR, and TLD plus CCMT which you purchased.

CCM - was not publicly available except when the marine's included a copy in their magazine. Good editor and multi player features.
RTB - is CCM with some features removed by a company who licensed the game from Atomic. Not worth getting at all.
COI - CC3 with some bug fixes but not much different other than a new short campaign
CCMT - is CCM with some bug fixes. Worth getting due to the editor and multi player features but avoid if you want to play single player as there no campaign as included in CC3/COI or CC4/CC5.
WAR - is CC4 with bug fixes and some enhancements.
TLD - is CC5 with bug fixes, WAR enhancements and some new enhancements.

For me Matrix/S3T are on the right track now with WAR and TLD. They have fixed many bugs that people complained about (especially CC5 has it had many, CC4 was actually pretty stable) and have added some new things. Each release seems to be building on the previous where under Atomic they added features each release but then always seemed to remove something too.

Is there a down side to these new products? Yes they are NOT compatible with the original releases and do introduce some bugs. But the new bugs are being addressed in patches.... I do not mind some new bugs slipping through testing as long as they are trying to move the game forward and address them. Could more testing have been done? Yes, but the cost of finding each bug goes up as the number of bugs drops. How much do you spend on testing? How many bugs are acceptable? Keep in mind that is impossible to find every bug due to all the possible combinations of hardware and software out there in PC's....

False advertising though is another issue and developers should be more accountable. If they state it should do something and doesn't the product is defective and should be returnable like any other product!

#11: Re: So... Author: Therion,

Posted: Fri Aug 14, 2009 2:08 am
—

Tejszd wrote (View Post):

For me Matrix/S3T are on the right track now with WAR and TLD. They have fixed many bugs that people complained about (especially CC5 has it had many, CC4 was actually pretty stable) and have added some new things. Each release seems to be building on the previous where under Atomic they added features each release but then always seemed to remove something too.

Except that they are still selling barely improved versions of old games that weren't in proper state for release in the first place (old games that is) for the same prices as much newer games with new engines and more features and without broken AI/pathfinding.

Stwa wrote (View Post):

Hi Therion,

Regarding CC, you may have access to better data than me (prices and units sold), so I thought I would just speak about my own experience.

I think I bought CC5 in 1999 or 2000. I paid $35 (or was it $40). About a year later I got CC4 on a bargain table for $10. In 2008 I paid $20 for CCMT. I did not buy CCM, RTB, COI, WAR, or TLD. I believe all of these games came out after CC5.

You probably don't remember, but you and I disscussed CCMT at Matrix, and I weighed your advise (and others), and picked up CCMT. In my view, it was a good move.

Now, it could be, (and I am not saying that it is), that many people have had a similar experience with CC. (i.e. they did not purchase CCM, RTB, COI, WAR, or TLD).

CCMT was sold for lower price because it didn't have a campaign (which to me isn't the problem of CCMT - actually, the single engagement system appeals to me much more than the campaign system from CCIV and CCV). Now it costs 29,99$ for a digital download.

CC3 was horribly expensive because it was a Microsoft game. CCIV and CCV were re-released in dvd cases pretty quickly. Still, they had similar prices to new games at their first release.

Generally, CCMT is my favourite part of CC (not counting CCMAT) because it's engagement system allows to compensate for faults of CC engine better than any other.
I can place deployments zones and victory locations anywhere I want, I can use any troops I want, I can write op orders. I can mod very fast - I just need to make a quick weapon image or a tank image and I can put a new unit in game - it's great. Yeah, and the combat is very visceral - the screams, the gunfire, the explosions!

Still, you could get Operation Flashpoint, with mission editor, scripting, playable campaign, playable missions, flying, running, driving, etc. for much lower price. And with much greater moddability than CCMT. And certainly with much more work put into it.
Yeah, and a game, where you actually can play a game and get some serious challenge, not play with a game.
I'd prefer if modding it and mission editing wouldn't be so challenging, though Razz

.

Generally, I don't *play* CCMT anymore. When I want to actually play a game, I turn on Firefight or Operation Flashpoint, because they have a functional AI (and OFP has a functional scripting/waypoint system).
In CCMT, I only tinker with my mod and sometimes set up a quick massacre. Hell, I have even removed all the regular and elite enemy units from my mod because I feel, that keeping them such a broken AI is ridiculous. I just have left crappy militia units and "civilians".
I don't think it's what "depiction of modern warfare and it's challenges" means. Especially the part about challenges. I wish I could move my mod to OFP, but it's too complicated and Firefight doesn't have as much moddability as CCMT Sad

#12: Re: So... Author: Stwa,

Posted: Fri Aug 14, 2009 6:44 am
—

Last edited by Stwa on Fri Jul 17, 2015 9:03 am; edited 1 time in total

#13: Re: So... Author: Therion,

Posted: Fri Aug 14, 2009 6:58 pm
—
I agree about the lack of campaign. I never liked the CC4/CC5 campaign as I got bored after a few turns. The marketing has decreased the price, because vast majority of CC fans are also fans of the strategic minigame.

As for the giant maps - they are fun to play in 1 on 1 multiplayer as they allow big freedom of manoeuvre. For single player, cut maps are much better as they load much faster.

#14: Re: So... Author: Dima,

Posted: Fri Aug 14, 2009 8:16 pm
—

Quote:

I agree about the lack of campaign. I never liked the CC4/CC5 campaign as I got bored after a few turns.

Therion, have you ever tried H2H GC in either cc4 or 5?

#15: Re: So... Author: Therion,

Posted: Fri Aug 14, 2009 9:11 pm
—
No. I didn't have teh internets when they came out.

#16: Re: So... Author: Dima,

Posted: Sat Aug 15, 2009 7:26 am
—

Quote:

No. I didn't have teh internets when they came out.

Me either. My first H2H GCs were via LAN.
Anyway, i suggest you to try some day, probably it will change alot for you.

#17: Re: So... Author: meade95,

Posted: Wed Sep 16, 2009 4:46 am
—
When the hell is a patch coming out? And do we know yet if there is going to be tweaks to the enemy AI?? to go along with this weapons corrections patch?

#18: Re: So... Author: MF_Church,

Posted: Fri Oct 23, 2009 10:41 pm
—
Aye ~ :)

Was wondering when 'a' wee patch might come out ...

like a wee fix for Initial deployment Shaded tiles - Make em darker and colour coordinated coded for each side...

And Same Team outline coding colours.... red, pink, purple, brown, black (Allies)
and .................................................... yellow, blue, green, orange, white (Axis)

Tks!

:)

#19: Re: So... Author: Pzt_Crackwise, Location: Switzerland

Posted: Sat Oct 24, 2009 8:09 am
—
Close Combat, and I mean all the series here, must only be played against a human opponent to get the joy and the satisfaction that the game offers. AI, as much as it can be agressive, is uncapable of managing organised attacks, and doing the stupidest thing most of the time. So playing CC against the AI just kills a player's lust, and dulls his tactical potential. So Therion if you have the chance to play CC5 online, I would strongly recommend that you and people like you to play H2H. There are lots of beautiful mods out there suitable for H2H play and GJS being one of the best among them.

As for the re-releases of the former games such as COI, WAR, TLD, I haven't played any of them but as far as I have learned the AI on the games still sucks. It is really a disgrace that the programmers just leave the AI untouched and just fix minor things and release the old game, and with such a high price! You are right in that, I think they should write on the features of the game list that *It is strongly recommended that this game is played multiplayer* Razz

#20: Re: So... Author: Stwa,

Posted: Sun Nov 01, 2009 12:23 pm
—

Last edited by Stwa on Fri Jul 17, 2015 9:03 am; edited 1 time in total

Close Combat Series -> Close Combat Modern Tactics

output generated using printer-friendly topic mod. All times are GMT

Goto page 1, 2 Next :| |: Page 1 of 2