Sorry, long-term fan who's had enough

[JudgeDredd]

ORIGINAL: Foolio

I wasreally thinking about getting this as I loved the original CC2, but by the sound of it it's just a reissue of a 10 year old game. I haven't seen anything to convince me otherwise.

Well I most certainly wouldn't say it's a re-issue of a 10 year old game (CC2 was released more than 10 years ago anyway).

There seem to be (from what I've now seen) some tactical AI issues and some pathing issues. Others have reported strat AI issues and some have said there is no issue with the strat AI.

Regardless - you get a hell of a lot of game here and it really isn't all bad...not by a long shot. The devs are looking into the AI and pathing.

I most definitely don't regret my purchase at all.

[RD Oddball]

You're a wise and reasonable man Judge Dredd. Now we know why you're the judge. [;)]

[Dundradal]

Couldn't take it...downloading now.... [:D]

[Andrew Williams]

Addict!

[Dundradal]

Game purchased...now only to find time around work, MMCC3, my GC in WAR with Damp, my GC in WAR with lorman, my GC in CC5 El Alamein with Gravy, and a few other GC's I've got that I can't quite recall [8D]

[Foolio]

Thanks for the advice, but I'm going to leave it for a while and see what happens. I may even just install the original.

The thing that puzzels me is that each game I think about getting from Matrix gets a not inconsiderable amount of people slating it in one way or another on this forum. I'm used to that with games, typically it's "x game is rubbish, because I say so" on all the more childish forums, but generally this forum is far more intelligent than that actually making considered points and giving example of the issues. I'm just seeing too much of it for it to be just a disgruntled buyer or geneal idiot trying to stir up a fuss.

I'm going back to CotA [;)]

[JudgeDredd]

ORIGINAL: Foolio
...just a disgruntled buyer or geneal idiot trying to stir up a fuss.

Oh they are still here [;)]

[MajFrankBurns]

ORIGINAL: Andrew Williams

Isn't it funny how some people really struggle against the AI... good counterpoint post you have made.

Yes but idiots aside the majority don't struggle and you know it.

[Dundradal]

So after getting some time in with the game I see some good and some annoying (I won't call it bad).

Vehicle pathing certainly is an issue. Sometimes they move beautifully, however say you have a line of 3 shermans advancing up a road and you want them to move roughly at the same time. I've noticed that the last sherman in line will often "wander off" as it advances. I'm guessing it has something to do with the other tanks being in front of it and potentially hindering the route. I'd almost bet that was the reason after watching how it responded.

The defensive AI seems ok to me. It is placing units in fairly intelligent places and is putting up a good fight. Haven't tried against the attacking AI.

The maps are beautiful. Although I do find the strategic map a bit confusing, although that's probably because I'm just used to the WAR map. Units look great, I was really impressed with the look of the 88s!

I haven't played enough to form any more opinions than that, but so far so good!

Good work guys!

[JudgeDredd]

...and right on que!

[Reboot]

I would have believed that the bloom would be off the rose by now. Like many other CC devotees I have been playing it for many years, in my case since the release of CC2. LSA ensures that my enjoyment of CC (read - my addiction to CC) will be sustained for years to come. Even the most jaundiced eye has to admit (even secretly) that there are many new features added since TLD that measurably improve the CC war-gaming experience.
 
I imagine what it would be like to be someone with a passion for war-gaming that discovers CC for the first time through LSA, and then realizes the wealth of other versions of CC available as well as the incredible treasure trove of mods and maps (I got em all)  - and that there currently is a sale on - wow, no sleep or work for that dude.
 
And here is my personal case study in response to the caterwauling over price:
 
Total investment in CC games = approx $300
Hard drive to store mega gigs of games, maps & mods = $150
22" monitor (had to see the sprites didn't I?) = $250
Total = $700
 
Conservative estimated playing time over 10+ years = 2500 hours
 
Cost of fun = $.28 per hour (now that is a cheap addiction)
 

[bairdlander2]

ORIGINAL: MajFrankBurns

ORIGINAL: Andrew Williams

Isn't it funny how some people really struggle against the AI... good counterpoint post you have made.

Yes but idiots aside the majority don't struggle and you know it.

So you are saying anyone who struggles with the ai is an indiot?Nice post,insulting forum members.[:-][:-]There's two wagging fingers for you[:D]

[Reboot]

ORIGINAL: bairdlander

ORIGINAL: MajFrankBurns

ORIGINAL: Andrew Williams

Isn't it funny how some people really struggle against the AI... good counterpoint post you have made.

Yes but idiots aside the majority don't struggle and you know it.

So you are saying anyone who struggles with the ai is an idiot? Nice post,insulting forum members.[:-][:-]There's two wagging fingers for you[:D]

You mean to say he was implying that there was enough of a problem finding any intelligence at all let alone "Artificial Intelligence"???
......the noive, but not to worry, Hawkeye and Trapper will put him in his place

[Foolio]

Okay, so my heart won over my head and I downloaded it against my better judgement.
 
Only played it for a couple of hours and first impressions are that the new maps are nicely rendered and also well laid out to provide a challenge. The feel of the game is the same as the original CC2 so easy to pick up.
 
The voices are all messed up, I hear British and American accents. Armour pathing is cack (I'm sure it has been said before) with tanks sometimes unable to find reach a spot down a dead straight road with no obstructions. I won't mention the AI as the limitations have already been discussed, but there is one thing that really annoys me (it's been the same since day 1 of CC). When you put a squad in a building I really wish they would make some use of the cover and position themselves next to the windows so thay can all fire out of them. I had several occurances last night when I ordered a Bren team to defend from a building and I had one guy (with an Enfield) firing from a window whilst everyone else lay on the floor. The squad member with the Bren was furthest back of the lot and never fired a shot.
 
All-in-all I'm hopeful that I'm going to enjoy it in the long run. I think if I wasn't looking at this through CC2-tinted specs I would be asking for my money back shortly.

[advo]

1. Unfortunately in new game have decreased scale of fights - as now 15 it is a maximum team. Many fights happen at participation only 7-9 team on the one hand.
2. To realise the real tactical scheme of protection - two-three strengthened points, support (mortars) and a small tactical reserve even at 15 team it is difficult. 3. I welcome that the quantity team which can participate in fight, differs at various battlegroup. But it is a pity to me that it is made by number reduction team less than 15, instead of by their increase more than 15.
4. To the most popular mod with the big separation from others) for ÑÑ remains GJS (ÑÑ5) is it is possible to see by quantity of messages at a forum. GJS are fierce battles with participation of a considerable quantity of tanks and other technics; reasonable structures battlegroup (there are no 30 panthers); as a rule big team infantry (6-7 mens). Campaigns which are done by you, unfortunately, are constructed on other principles - a minimum of tanks, small groups of infantry. In many cases of reduction of number team. Battles have basically character of infantry fights. All it is realistic. Other question that creating for each game only one campaign based on such principles you push away many. To play GJS all already has bothered, and anything similar on gameplay was not.
On personal sensations the people search at forums MODs to various ÑÑ, but do not find anything so interesting. Thus I do not remember, that it is a lot of visitors of a forum were delighted with official campaigns for ÑÑ, made Matrix. Therefore I think it would be reasonable, if you prepared some campaigns for each game. One that is pleasant to you, another or others which will be closer on gameplay to popular MODs. It will involve people. What sense to buy next ÑÑ with some changes and one campaign intended only for one group and so not numerous fans of this game. Even if would allow to participate in fight to 30 units on the one hand it would change gameplay ÑÑ more strongly, than all today's changes. And it would be pleasant to much. You could allow to adjust a maximum of groups for battle (15,20,25,30). Yes it would become more difficult to make ÀI, but I do not think that is a lot of buying this game for single battles against AI. Besides, for single battles against AI it would be possible to enter also restriction (for example 15).

P.S. I have already bought 2 licences for game (for me and the friend), but it first of all to support people who develop series ÑÑ. And I agree that it is a lot of changes, but hardly them will name revolutionary.
I am sorry for bad English.

[Andrew Williams]

from feedback

Mod 1 = small maps mod.

Mod 2 = Big Bg's mod


modders  - start your engines.

[CaptRio]

I think we're near something here.......From CloseCombatSeries.net forums

New German Grand Campaign, Line, Timer 15 minutes. Settings: all German units placed in Walkensward except 1 FJ unit in the lumbermill in the middle off the map

Changes made: Schrecken helped me change Victory Locations on Walkesward map.Removed the 4 Victory Locations (Bridge, Bridge, Crossroads and Lumbermill) Changed Walkensward village VL to 200 p.Changed in Data/Base/Battlegroup for all BG:s belonging to XXX Corps Aggression +5. Caution -5, Charisma +5, Tactics +5

Timer 1140 first Sherman at river, knocked out my single StuG

Timer 1000, Brittish Infantry attacking my unit in the lumbermill, fought them off

Timer 0811 Brittish Infantry attacking village Walkensward, the attack was repulsed

No more action during this first battle.Real big changes from before but it is not perfect..

Source: http://closecombatseries.net/CCS/module ... c&start=15

[&o][&o][&o]

[Andrew Williams]

Mod 3 = BG characteristics mod (pump up the aggression)

[Adam Rinkleff]

I agree with squatter. I remember buying the original Close Combat, it was my favourite game, I was completely satisfied with the graphics, I was satisfied with the features... and there was just one glaring problem: the AI was dumb, really really dumb. So dumb that when it was supposed to attack, it would sometimes do nothing, and when it was supposed to defend, it would attack from the very start with direct frontal human-wave assaults. Sadly, the AI has never improved in any significant way. Im sorry, but if you find this game to be even remotely a challenge, then you simply have -no- tactical ability whatsoever.

Its annoying that they keep releasing these remakes of the early Close Combats, and they don't really change anything of substance. Oh, wow, we have night mode now where the map is darker? That's cool, but seriously... fix the AI. Make this game a challenge, please.

When I'm bored, I sometimes load up the latest Close Combat. I edit the enemy squads so they ALL have 10 men. That puts two machine-guns in a machine-gun team. Two mortars in a mortar team. Two bazookas in every AT squad. A sniper in every HQ squad. Sometimes I make flamethrower teams with 5 flamethrowers. I go through and edit the soldier stats so that every enemy soldier has an armor of 3, like they are running around armor plated. I increase the rate of fire on their mortars, I edit the battlegroup so the AI has all 'plans' available, I double their ammunition, I set their morale and experience so that they are fanatical and elite, I increase the accleration on their AT guns... and then I limit myself to a single platoon so that I am out-numbered 4 or 5 to 1. And what happens? I simply gun down the AI zombies and inflict about 10 casualties for every one that I take. Usually this causes the enemy BG to disband, which means I completely dominate the strategic battle as well.

Here is a video of me, out-numbered 5-1 against armor-plated zombie squads: they just keep coming, and they never even try to think about trying to go around my machine-guns, instead of driving straight forward.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gGZTyjN0OgE (notice how my AT gun is the first casualty, killed by insta-mortar)

The only thing the AI seems able to do is blow up AT guns. Every time I pick an AT gun, it will be lucky to get one shot off, and then the enemy mortar hits it with a perfectly aimed shot that causes the thing to explode. It makes me wonder why they ever even made AT guns during WWII?

Amazingly, none of these problems represent my pet peeve about this game. What annoys me the most? That idiotic decision to limit each side to 15 squads. Could we get an increase on this to 30 or 45? Or at least 20! In theory, if the AI started on the top right, middle right, and bottom right of a map, with 15 squads on each side, and I was defending in the center... I might actually start to feel like I might get overrun. I might even be able to pretend that the AI was thinking and that it had some kind of a plan with 3 attacks converging all directly upon me!

As for multiplayer? Please, its too difficult to find reliable skilled grand campaign opponents. We need a better AI. It doesn't need to be able to play chess, it just needs to be able to occupy a building and not run around in the street.

The bottom line: If you aren't going to improve the AI, then you should at least let us give the AI more squads so that it becomes a halfway interesting zombie simulation.

-Adam Rinkleff

[Adam Rinkleff]

ORIGINAL: squatter

To reiterate my main points:

1. The AI is intrinsically screwed in the Close Combat series - it needs a full re-write.
2. The game is only worth playing in multiplayer.
3. Last Stand at Arnhem, like Cross of Iron, like Wach Am Rhine, are modded versions of an old game, not a new game. I welcome these new versions, and I have bought all of them. But a price of nearly $60 to download this is far too much. It should be half the price.

I hear nothing to persuade me otherwise. In fact, even those giving me flak seem to basically agree with me (save the price).

Let's keep the discussion to these points, less of the 'hater' and 'rant' crap please.

Ive discovered that there is a tendency on internet forums for one person to come and comment with some intelligent well-written constructive criticisms, and then for the horde of zombie fanboys to jump to the defense and bash the 'hater' for not appreciating all the hard work that went into the product. Frankly, I think that attitude is bullshit.

The people who code at Matrix are adults, and they presumably understand that the only way to become truly successful is to address concerns. Squatter has done a good job of expressing those legitimate concerns. He wasn't rude, he wasn't insulting, he was helpful. If Matrix wants to limp along re-releasing old computer games without fixing the major problems... that's fine, its their business, but if they actually want to make some money, then they'd better start addressing stuff like the AI. What Matrix doesn't need is a bunch of sycophantic 'yes boys' telling them how awesome they are and how their game is great and how happy we all are. We aren't happy. We want a tactical WWII simulation that works, and we still don't have one. I'd buy a working WWII simulator for $500, but I won't pay $50 for one that doesn't work.

As squatter said, "The game would actually be better with no AI." I think he is right, if the AI just sat there and did nothing, itd be more difficult to attack. At least then I would have to probe for weak points. How hard could it be to release a patch which disables the AI? How hard could it be to increase the number of squads available for the AI, instead of the absurd decision that was made to -decrease- the number of squads.

And don't tell me that its too difficult to program a working AI. I know better, and if the employees at Matrix aren't creative enough to think of solutions, then they should hire new employees. If the AI is attacking, it should simply try to move forward where the opponent is weakest, and then once it takes X% casualties it should try to defend the nearest terrain feature. That's not a complicated concept to encode.