CloseCombat future, graphically speaking.

[berto72]

Hi to all CC community.

Sometimes I think about how the next generation of close combat could be, with the support of newer graphic cards, and imagine a lot of FX like tracer, dust, and debris that blow away - as in Company of Heroes (incredible look, surely not so the game for who tried CC) -…will be great!
At same time hope that a new look will not gap away from the playability gave by CC graphic, that I think to be the right scale between video resolution and units, and the clear vision of those, in a top eagle view that put all situation under full control. (instead of low and limited view of all 3D rts I saw until now)
I have 19” and play at 1280x960. The screen view in enough to see all my units engaged and enemy that do it , with except of mortars (and guns in more open field maps, but due to long distance they are not extreme dangerous at first shell).
So scroll is needed only to spot mortars and guns smoke and to check sectors where other friends units have a secondary fight with others enemy units ( i.e. with flanking role).
The larger map could be checked in about 4 “screen sectors”, so job is easy.
(Surely more difficult is to focus in right place while multiple fights are in being, and I think this is a good skill of cc player)

For this, I suppose WWII theatre mods have great success : weapons range is proportioned to the monitor size with a resolution that don’t compromise identification of units.
(I tried ccv Red storm Rising mod : all from tanks to infantry was lethal at long range, my screen was full of tracers, AT rockets, APDSFN shell and more, fired by troops and tanks near the borders, so all time I had to scroll to saw who’s fire at who… maybe I was wrong something…or have to try more modern warfare mods…)

In CC, units are so small to allow huge view of battlefield but at same time tanks are really beautiful and infantry, once spotted, is clearly distinguished from background and not obscured by trees… I think anyone of us while movin’ tanks take a peek to see if two men incoming with a long tube, or check among a squad suddenly spotted (usually Russian) if someone carry strange (and flammable!) iron backpack…

I’m sure next titles will be improved from the best tactical simulations to a fantastic cinematic experience.

Looking forward, good hunt to everyone.

Berto72

[Doggie]

Speaking for myself, I'm tired of having to upgrade my computer every time a new game comes out.  What I want are reasonably priced games that run smoothly.  Blue screen errors are a real distraction from my gaming experience, and spyware viruses installed along with the game make me end my gaming experience entirely with the greedy little dweebs who market them.  It's my computer; not theirs, and they can keep their filthy paws off any programs in it that aint required to run their game.  When I click on "start" and see "Ubisoft's Computer" listed in the menu, maybe then can hide their crap in my hard drive, but not until then.
 
The Close Combat graphics are just fine the way they are.  If Marc Schwanebeck want to do some improved tanks, that's cool.  His old graphics mods for the earlier CC series looked just fine.  One of the reasons I prefer Close Combat to something like Combat Mission is I don't have scroll around trying to find my troops with the 3-D camera.  I know where my little sprites are in Close Combat and they don't look like Ken Dolls dressed up by little nazis with a  swastika fetish.  The Battlefront forums are a refuge for gay leather freaks who think SS uniforms are just so butch.
 
What needs to be improved is the AI.  Computer controlled troops need to get out of Zombie mode and start acting like their IQ is at least equal to third generation offspring of kissing cousins.  That reminds me, I need to go annoy CSO_Sbufkle into making his Jethro mod into a Night of the Living Dead mod.  The CC AI is perfect for controlling shuffling ghouls.
 
 

[hurtzDonut]

Proud to be a Steakhouse "Moron" says it all: 
 
I agree with "Doggie", that it should not be necessary to buy a new computer to play the latest games, but to besmirch the entire Battlefront/Combat Mission forums with your homophobic rant is bullsh!t.  "Doggie style"  please read some of the posts on the Battlefront Forums almost all detest the SS, leather fashion sense and all.

[Doggie]

Pardon me. but I aint been to the Battle front forums since I was banned for taking on a mod maker who thought leather and swastikas were just way kewl.  He had a nazi flag mod, where all his favorite SS panzerkamfwagons were adorned with glorious red and white "Aircraft Identification Panels."  That and the usual, "american gangsters only fought 'stomache battalions'; the glorioius SS was never defeated in a fair battle".  I know a fascist fan when I see one.  I aint been back since.

[Prince of Eckmühl]

This is an interesting subject, 2D versus 3D graphics for wargames, I mean.

A bozo from The Warlamer recently criticised Close Combat's use of top-down maps. What I found astounding about his comments was his inability to grasp the role of maps, nice-flat ones, in military planning. Historically, good maps have been critical to military success, and not just on the strategic side of operations, either. Knowing where you are, one's position on the grid, as well as the location of friendlies and hostiles, is absolutely essential to survival on the battlefield. Traditionally, maps have been used to position troops and help coordinate movement and cooperation amongst them. Sound like Close Combat at all?

It seems that the cuter that developers get with 3D, the more likely they are to abandon this vital tool in real warfighting, the old-fashioned, 2-D map. The ever ridiculous Distant Guns is a great case in point. Instead of providing players with a 2-D map to plot course and speed, the developer got clever and foisted off a truly goofy set of tools for manipulating movement in 3D. The tools absolutely suck. Did I mention that such course and speed calculation and planning at sea was indeed done on 2D maps for hundreds of years, including the era depicted in Distant Guns?

I think that the folks who are working on the next version of Close Combat would be nuts were they to abandon the overhead view that's currently so closely associated with the game. If they've got the bucks to develop a GUI that will allow players to alternate between 2D and 3D, then fine, but REALISM begins with a top down view of the area of operations.

PoE (aka ivanmoe)

[Muzrub]

I wouldnt mind some improved graphics and a more destructable environment.
It really wouldnt be a bad thing if a tank could drive through a dodgy wooden fence would it?

But I really cant imagine Matrix making very many great leaps in terms of graphics- it just doesnt seem to be their bag.
Yep- I cant see CC being as graphically sweet as Company of Heroes- but I can imagine better game play without a DOUBT[:)]

[general billy]

Is theater of War from battlefront be classed as close combat in 3d?

[Prince of Eckmühl]

ORIGINAL: general billy

Is theater of War from battlefront be classed as close combat in 3d?

Nah, the infantry play is way too loosey-goosey. The armour works okay, just, but needs polish.

As for CC and graphics, I think that it's essential that the developer keeps a 2D map to play and plot fire and movement on. What strikes me as pretty much of a must-do, though, is to make it fully zoomable via the scroll-wheel.

PoE (aka ivanmoe)

[LitFuel]

Agree with Prince, they should focus on keeping the Top Down view as the primary mode for playing...it works great. Like said if they have the big bucks then mess around with alternate modes but I don't think they will have that. I'm not saying you can't make the graphics nicer with Top down, in fact they should see about that but not at the expense of keep the traditional way of playing, which is top down. It's not broke so don't fix it. Otherwise you might as not call it Close Combat anymore and name it something else, cause I won't buy it.
 
They also need to keep the maps/game very moddable and user friendly..also a CC trademark. I like them handmade and not all generic, which is what a random map generator would do or 3D for that matter.

[Whytfyjrd]

I agree with Eckmühl and LitFuel: the top-down graphics work fine for me. So mqany 3D attempts have been buggy graphical flops, and total failures as games. If resources are scarce, I'd rather see them focused on refining and improbving gameplay.
 
I would gladly pay again (and a signficant premium) for a future version which took advantage of the sharper resolutions that are now available.

[berto72]

Hi again.
 
To focus the object (graphic), I’m not speaking to change point of view from top down, and not to pass from 2D to 3D.
In few words, i will like to see next close combats with improved FX, a more immersive game, without change the "inner essence" of CC that, for the graphic, i think to be the top down view with in screen the largest portion of battlefield without compromise units identification (team info bar and soldiers outlines are superb aids without have the video full of tag).
As negative example, long time ago i DL improved trees for CC3: really nice, but they obscured completely units above.
Another, if I remember right because played so few, Is that in CCV a game guide suggest to remove trees to play, because is hard see own tanks too…
To capture younger gamers that maybe never played 2D games, think about a new look could be a must soon or later.
 
Now, i think it's more easy use 3D models than 2D sprites to obtain newer FX, but not my work tell this.
Suppose also that 3D library could help map/modmakers, but i never did this job, so better left they speaking about.
A fear is if the superb way of CC “fog of war” will work properly in 3D ambient.
Obviousely i prefer my old 2D CC3 (in net game fast with low band too, always ran trough years, videocards and system os changed) than a new one (2D o 3D) better  to see and worst to play.
 
Sorry for my poor english, in forum license agreement miss the line told “Only post in perfect english are accepted.” I hope it’s good enough to expose my thinks.
 
Forum open, long life to CC,
 
Berto72

[Whytfyjrd]

Hey Berto72:
 
I understood your English very well. No need to apologize at all. And I think you have some good ideas there ... it comes down to a question of "are there resources available to develop new graphics?", and "will the new game sell enough to justify the expenditure?" IMO anyway --- that's why I expressed my willingness to pay $$$$s, or €€€€s, for the features I wish to see in the future.
 
Also, if anyone _did_ give you grief about your English or spelling on this forum, THAT is against Forum Rules IIRC.

[KG Erwin]

To be honest, a "binocular-eye" view would be the ultimate, but the technology isn't yet available to pull off this vision for Close Combat. I'm happy with the top-down view, for now. The remainder is in your mind's eye. A melding of the Combat Mission/Close Combat POV would be one of the last remaining barriers in combining hardcore wargaming with in-your-face RTS games.

For Close Combat, the option to "zoom in to ground level" is an option which would put you right there to maybe a disturbing degree. You could see enemy units actually firing directly towards you. Think of the psychological effect this could have. To be honest, it'd freak me out a bit. PTSD from a computer game? I could see it happening. I'm not kidding. Even in Hollywood movies, you don't have bullets headed towards the screen.

[Jeffrey H.]

Eyecandy upgrades inevitably lead to a focus on style over substance. CC has it about right currently. It might be neat to consider have some type of elevation features in the graphics, but I'd be happier with more meat and less 'fixins'.

[Ima Pseudonym]

Top down has always been great with me, flying along in my command Zeppelin and barking orders at my troops.  Seriously, this has always been an attractive feature of the game for me.
 
My one wish is for the ability to overlay/display an elevation indicator.  Someone some years back did this with the mini-maps and it was quite cool.  You couldn't flip back and forth between normal and elevation, but the concept was great.
 
Imagine that I can hot key the mini map to show a color keyed elevation map.   Hit the hot key again, and it goes back to the standard mini map.  Hit a second hot key and the main map removes trees, leaves buildings/roads/water and displays the same concept of color coded elevation.  Show the lines and change the colors for different elevations. 
 
This is one of the things that I have always wanted to see, especially during initial setup.  Sure, eventually you get a feel for the whole map, wandering around and testing lots of individual spots.  But to be able to understand the overall layout of the land that easily and then to be able to zoom down to check out local oddities would be great.
 
And don't worry too much about realism.  Ever see a terrain map?  They can be done that way and good ones will certainly include at least elevation lines.

[Blublub]

ORIGINAL: Jeffrey H.

Eyecandy upgrades inevitably lead to a focus on style over substance. CC has it about right currently. It might be neat to consider have some type of elevation features in the graphics, but I'd be happier with more meat and less 'fixins'.

Another vote for maintaining the top-down approach. Though I will admit it would be very, very sweet to be able to tilt the whole map just a bit to see the elevation changes more clearly. If it could just be done without losing all the benefits of 2D...

[Shaun]

Hia Guys,

CC in the future will remain close on the tactical level to what you have now. There will be many improvements but we are not going to fix what is not broken. The Strat layer is a whole different can of worms and many things will be chnaged once we move onto that.

CC6 will be created and indeed is being worked on right now, using the current existing engine with a raft of new stuff, far more than any previous version jump.

CC7, will be made and is again already to some degree underway. It will however make use of a new engine (while retaining the classic look and feel of all the CC series) Whats good in CC will stay good

There will be graphic chnages in both versions although obviously most graphic chnages will occur with the new engine. Our main concern is to retain what CC excelled at and improve on the areas it was weak in!

Sulla

[gunny]

There is another alternative to top-down and 3D. How bout 2.5D isometric??? Its very easy on the eye and requires much lower computing specs than 3D
 
I had my fun with the CC series, but my opinion says its time to graphically take a change. No, I don't want it to become another TOW or Squad assault 3D game either. But there are countless examples of graphically rich isometric 2.5D  templates out there that could be applied to the CC engine. And absolutely, an Isometric Sprite or building CAN have a facing with 6 sides, computed for penetration of ballistics and physics. Don't let anybody use that as an excuse not take this route.
 
Imagine CC with the graphics of sudden strike 2. You can still overlay a 2D hex to an isometric playing field. Apply a little calculus to curve shot trajectory and thats it. Unfortunately the traditional CC development team would need to be augmented and perhaps thats why this game has never progressed.
 

[berto72]

Hi all.
I think isometric is not the best view for those reasons:

1) give a front/rear sensation of field of view, and If cant rotate induct a preferencial forward direction of moving, along the deeper line of perception of space, and making
and idea of “blind back”.
In few words (and simply ) not all axis have the same deep field of view.

2) and worst, any object, specially tallest or huge building will hide troops.
Imagine urban maps with line of homes of 2/4 floors were will be hard just see streets.
A mix of blue or red outilines of units beyond a those object is a nice arcade idea, good for Age of Empire, not sure the best for a tacsim as cc.

To understand elevation on a new map, i use LOS line. After 2/3 game, I feel “at home”.
A more tone of contrast of shadow between side of an hill could help, maybe, but this is mapmaker work.

Just my thinks, Berto72

[Whytfyjrd]

Actually, I think the top-down view, plus isometric views would be ideal. The effort required to produce an isometric set of images would fairly easily be mathmatically transformed to views from all 4 orthogonal directions --- thus addressing the concerns of Berto72. And as gunny said, the isometric view(s) can present the view of units in various terrain settings more attractively than the mere topdown map-view.
 
If done, presumably you'd have 5 hot keys to quickly toggle from "map-view" to any isometric view, and then back.
 
In the end though, if the coders' and graphic artists' resources are limited, the least I'd really hope for would be support for higher resolutions for those of us with bigger LCDs ... ease the eye strain for us older geezers, etc.