Prince of Eckmühl
Nope, from CC1 thru CC5 there was never an option to save a battle in progress...and IMHO there's no need. Why would you want to do that? It's not realistic to save your progress in the heat of battle
There were two great beefs about CC from the "granny-gamers:"
1) There was no way to SAVE before crucial events.
2) They insisted that a PAUSE game function be implemented, one that would allow them to plot moves and select targets during the respite.
If you scratched the surface of these guys' psyche, what you'd find is a deep-seated desire to "failure-proof" the game, to make it such that they COULDN'T lose. When Close Combat failed to fill their pre-requisite for a "proper" wargame, they assigned to it the monikor, RTS, or clickfest. It's also worth noting that many of the folks who complain the loudest about CC don't play human opponents. "Why For God's sake," they'd ask themselves, "I might lose?"
Well, here's the deal on this issue...
The fights in Close Combat depict thirty minutes or so of frequently hair-raising action. The inclusion of loss pre-emptive features like save-game functions and pauses totally distort this time element and undermines the effectiveness of the design. In other words, superimposing, deliberative and/or "second-chance" functions into a small-unit, tactical environment characterized by NO SUCH CHEATS wrecks what is perhaps the most important advantage of computer wargames over those played with cardboard counters and maps, simultaneous, real-time simulation and gaming.
Close Combat forever, unadulterated, PLEASE!!!
PoE (aka ivanmoe)
< Message edited by Prince of Eckmühl -- 3/3/2007 6:04:46 PM >
Government is the opiate of the masses.