Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Game pack figuring Close Combats

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [General] >> General Discussion >> Game pack figuring Close Combats Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Game pack figuring Close Combats - 1/22/2003 3:09:31 AM   
Greywolf2001ca

 

Posts: 19
Joined: 1/19/2003
From: Canada
Status: offline
I would love to see a game pack featuring all close combat.

I don't really care how much it would cost me, but I would buy it since those game are so great!

Maybe not all the close combat, just the first three and any expansions that might have come out as well as the best scenarios and maps that have been made after the game release as a bonus for buying this close combat gold pack.

The platinum pack could be all close combat games with even more new maps and scenarios not to mention maybe new campaigns.


I just wanted to say this because I cannot find any close combat games anymore, and I would love to get my hands on the first three and later the others. Although I wouldn't mind to buy a platinum pack containing all and everyone of them plus extra material.

What you guys think?
Post #: 1
- 1/22/2003 4:09:03 AM   
Les_the_Sarge_9_1

 

Posts: 4392
Joined: 12/29/2000
Status: offline
I voted yes tentatively.

I have not played them before, but I have heard the fan base, and think they might have merit.

The fact that they might not all be XP friendly though, is a concern that might limit my being able to justify a purchase.

That and the soon to be released Close Assault might potentially make it like buying a collected Steel Panthers on the eve of seeing Combat Leader released.

I had CC3 demo the other day refuse to run for me on XP. I have not got around to checking it on my more recent 98 SE secondary OS install.

98 SE though, has a welcome that has a definite shelf life with me. Once I replace Steel Panthers (other than SPWaW) with Combat Leader Modern, and buy a new scanner, as well as acquire a copy of Century of Warfare, I might well see my never employing 98 again.

_____________________________

I LIKE that my life bothers them,
Why should I be the only one bothered by it eh.

(in reply to Greywolf2001ca)
Post #: 2
- 1/22/2003 5:09:08 AM   
Veldor


Posts: 1531
Joined: 12/29/2002
From: King's Landing
Status: offline
There is already a package out there that has the first 3 Close Combats (Try Ebay)... If you look closely you'll see that CC4 & CC5 had different publishers than the first 3, thus you'll probably never see a pack that includes them all. Any mods and scenarios for the most part were done by 3rd parties so there again, not going to happen.

I have successfully loaded CC3, CC4, and CC5 on Windows XP without any additional effort. You don't really need the others if you have those 3.

As far as RTS "wargames" go they are the closest to turn-based style you can get while still having the RTS "feel".

Perhaps why the series is still so popular..

I'd much rather see a CC6 though. (Anyone tried G.I. Combat??)

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=3000976488&category=3606

(in reply to Greywolf2001ca)
Post #: 3
- 1/22/2003 10:47:22 AM   
Fallschirmjager


Posts: 6793
Joined: 3/18/2002
From: Chattanooga, Tennessee
Status: offline
CC2 in far an away the best....I actually lost a few battles in that one...

And stay far...far away G.I. Combat

_____________________________


(in reply to Greywolf2001ca)
Post #: 4
- 1/22/2003 11:18:29 AM   
Veldor


Posts: 1531
Joined: 12/29/2002
From: King's Landing
Status: offline
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Fallschirmjager
[B]CC2 in far an away the best....I actually lost a few battles in that one...

And stay far...far away G.I. Combat [/B][/QUOTE]

Yes it seems almost unanimous that that game(G.I. Combat) is the absolute worst. I have to say, I am VERY VERY disappointed in Strategy First as a company and it is very unlikely I will ever buy a game of theirs unless its nearly unanimously loved...

After all they put out:

1. World War II Online
2. G.I. Combat
3. Sudden Strike

The first two seem to be about as horrid as you can get, and while the third is debateable amongst some It seems to me the common element amongst all games is an absolutely unforgiveably bad "interface"... Gameplay is irrelevant if the interface sucks. After all G.I Combat is exactly Close Combat, just 3D, yet everyone seems to hate it. And not because 3D doesnt work, simply because its impossible to know whats going on, manuever, and so on due to awful controls.

Well they did put out EU but still... Step it up a notch guys please...

(in reply to Greywolf2001ca)
Post #: 5
- 1/22/2003 11:54:49 AM   
Fred98


Posts: 4408
Joined: 1/5/2001
From: Wollondilly, Sydney
Status: offline
I have al 5 Close Combatrs already.

The first 3 were published by Microsoft and the last 2 by SSI. Therefore I doubt you could ever get all 5 in one package.

Anyhow, it would need to include the patches.

(in reply to Greywolf2001ca)
Post #: 6
- 1/22/2003 2:32:26 PM   
Von Rom


Posts: 1705
Joined: 5/12/2000
Status: offline
The first two CCs are available free at the underdogs. . .

_____________________________


(in reply to Greywolf2001ca)
Post #: 7
- 1/22/2003 5:29:41 PM   
Marc von Martial


Posts: 10875
Joined: 1/4/2001
From: Bonn, Germany
Status: offline
[QUOTE]The fact that they might not all be XP friendly though, is a concern that might limit my being able to justify a purchase.[/QUOTE]

They run all nicely on XP, even CC1 (with a small trick to get around the installer check for the OS).

_____________________________


(in reply to Greywolf2001ca)
Post #: 8
- 1/22/2003 5:31:08 PM   
Marc von Martial


Posts: 10875
Joined: 1/4/2001
From: Bonn, Germany
Status: offline
Guys, check the GIC patches, latest is 1.04 it makes the game much better to play. You´ll also want to install the"three mod" which even enhances gameplay.

_____________________________


(in reply to Greywolf2001ca)
Post #: 9
- 1/22/2003 9:02:47 PM   
Les_the_Sarge_9_1

 

Posts: 4392
Joined: 12/29/2000
Status: offline
A, Thanks for the Underdogs alert Marc, plus B. thanks for the XP alert.

I might not have used up all the variables trying the CC3 demo I had.

_____________________________

I LIKE that my life bothers them,
Why should I be the only one bothered by it eh.

(in reply to Greywolf2001ca)
Post #: 10
- 1/23/2003 5:05:48 AM   
Greywolf2001ca

 

Posts: 19
Joined: 1/19/2003
From: Canada
Status: offline
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Veldor
[B]Yes it seems almost unanimous that that game(G.I. Combat) is the absolute worst. I have to say, I am VERY VERY disappointed in Strategy First as a company and it is very unlikely I will ever buy a game of theirs unless its nearly unanimously loved...

After all they put out:

1. World War II Online
2. G.I. Combat
3. Sudden Strike

The first two seem to be about as horrid as you can get, and while the third is debateable amongst some It seems to me the common element amongst all games is an absolutely unforgiveably bad "interface"... Gameplay is irrelevant if the interface sucks. After all G.I Combat is exactly Close Combat, just 3D, yet everyone seems to hate it. And not because 3D doesnt work, simply because its impossible to know whats going on, manuever, and so on due to awful controls.

Well they did put out EU but still... Step it up a notch guys please... [/B][/QUOTE]


To correct that, they should have made the game like Panzer General 3 for the 3d purpose. It's almost isometric, except that you can rotate the screen to see what's behind this or that unit. In the case of this game behind buildings too.

(in reply to Greywolf2001ca)
Post #: 11
- 1/23/2003 5:14:29 AM   
Greywolf2001ca

 

Posts: 19
Joined: 1/19/2003
From: Canada
Status: offline
The question wasn't "If" it is possible to have all CC games in one package, but if you would like to see it happening.

(in reply to Greywolf2001ca)
Post #: 12
- 1/23/2003 5:39:48 AM   
Les_the_Sarge_9_1

 

Posts: 4392
Joined: 12/29/2000
Status: offline
Well I now have CC2, and I would like to see the others.

Of course if CA comes out, I might just settle for it, if it looks as good.

I can't expect to get a copy of every older wargame that gets past me.

_____________________________

I LIKE that my life bothers them,
Why should I be the only one bothered by it eh.

(in reply to Greywolf2001ca)
Post #: 13
- 1/23/2003 6:00:17 AM   
Fred98


Posts: 4408
Joined: 1/5/2001
From: Wollondilly, Sydney
Status: offline
Les,

Suggest that you start by playing a single battle – try Veghel bridge and play as the allies.

(in reply to Greywolf2001ca)
Post #: 14
- 1/24/2003 7:06:03 AM   
Von Rom


Posts: 1705
Joined: 5/12/2000
Status: offline
For those who are interested, the first two Close Combats are at the underdogs, plus other wargames:

http://www.the-underdogs.org/

_____________________________


(in reply to Greywolf2001ca)
Post #: 15
- 1/24/2003 7:23:18 AM   
Les_the_Sarge_9_1

 

Posts: 4392
Joined: 12/29/2000
Status: offline
Tried to get CC1 (I have CC2).

Found that the download goes smooth and fine, right till you go to run the game and get "insert cd rom".

Sometimes people there is no free lunch even at Underdogs.

_____________________________

I LIKE that my life bothers them,
Why should I be the only one bothered by it eh.

(in reply to Greywolf2001ca)
Post #: 16
- 1/24/2003 2:52:45 PM   
Tombstone

 

Posts: 764
Joined: 6/1/2000
From: Los Angeles, California
Status: offline
CC2 is the only one really worth making the effort for today. The other, were cool at the time but had enough problems not to make them worth it now. Russian Front, Battle of the Bulge and Normandy were interesting because of the improvements to their campaign system. Unfortunately it was just too easy to tool the AI. G.I. Combat is a total disappointment considering that those guys seemed to be onto something interesting and cool with the real-time wargaming experience.

BTW, I loved WW2Online... just not enough to keep playing it. Some of my best gaming experiences EVER were in a A13 cruiser with several of my friends trying to do something coordinated.

Tomo

(in reply to Greywolf2001ca)
Post #: 17
- 1/24/2003 3:19:19 PM   
Raindog101


Posts: 1209
Joined: 11/17/2002
From: Hole-in-the-Wall
Status: offline
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Tombstone
[B]CC2 is the only one really worth making the effort for today. The other, were cool at the time but had enough problems not to make them worth it now. Russian Front, Battle of the Bulge and Normandy were interesting because of the improvements to their campaign system. Unfortunately it was just too easy to tool the AI. G.I. Combat is a total disappointment considering that those guys seemed to be onto something interesting and cool with the real-time wargaming experience.

BTW, I loved WW2Online... just not enough to keep playing it. Some of my best gaming experiences EVER were in a A13 cruiser with several of my friends trying to do something coordinated.

Tomo [/B][/QUOTE]
What is wrong with GI Combat? I really wanted this game but have not heard one good thing about it. In fact I heard it was now a $10 bargin bin special at Best Buy.

_____________________________


(in reply to Greywolf2001ca)
Post #: 18
- 1/24/2003 9:38:07 PM   
Les_the_Sarge_9_1

 

Posts: 4392
Joined: 12/29/2000
Status: offline
Well it might not be so much what is wrong with a game sometimes, as much as what is right with others.

The market is a few table scraps worth of "good" computer games, and oodles of designs people eagerly tell each other are great, when they are really both A. not unique, and B. not really genuinely special.

I have seen a lot of computer games, and to be fair, a lot of them are turn based also, and even shockingly enough, some board games as well, that while "adequate" were not meriting a lot of faunig over.

I have seen more games in the past, that had the look, but could not deliver the goods when it came to play them, than I have seen that both had the look of a good game, and were in fact great when it came time to play them.

Assuming GI Combat does actually work after it is patched up finally (some say 1.04 fixes a few things), will it be worth the effort to care?

GI Combat for what it's worth, is just someone's copy of the same environment yet again. It is not unique enough.
It will only appeal to someone that can't get a copy of "the other game".

A while back I was searching for a tank sim. Tried Panzer Elite. It has a horrible reputation for being buggy as hell in it's original release. But so far it has been the nicest looking of the designs I have seen.
Doesn't really matter a hill of beans though eh. Odds are I won't be finding a copy of it any time soon.
I have a copy of Panzer Commander. Was in a store (an EB in Toronto area) and had remarked to a sales person that it sucked how there was no titles on the shelf for my sort of wargamer. None save a copy of Panzer Elite Special. And I remarked that it was a game with a bad reputation as far as software went. So I was hesitant to invest my paltry few dollars at that time.
The girl reached down into a closet behind the counter and plopped a retail copy of Panzer Commander into the bag with my son's modest playstation game purchase.
I was taken aback till she made it clear enough she was dumping it on me free (I guess it was a return that was going no where).
The game runs fun (even runs on XP in spite of being a tad dated now). Visually it is a decent game. Not quite Panzer Elite.

But the point is, I now have a respectable WW2 tank sim game.
I can't imagine anyone selling me another tank sim game now, unless the software in truely extraordinary. And odds are the level of improvement I would require would exceed my machine's capacity to run it.

There was a time during the 70's when everyone and their aunt was releasing board games. It didn't last. Eventually the bubble burst and companies dropped away like flies.

I think if computer wargame designers don't start trying to seriously do something more interesting than make WW2 RTS games, eventually they will all find themselves in the same spot.

As it stands, I think WW2 RTS as a notion is as done as dinner. Adding fancier graphics won't always be enough.
I think the turn based market for WW2 might be at saturation level as well.
I think the FPS experience has absolutely gone the full route as well.

Some how, some way, I want to see something other than more turn based, RTS, tank sims or FPS games done in the same old WW2 settings now.

_____________________________

I LIKE that my life bothers them,
Why should I be the only one bothered by it eh.

(in reply to Greywolf2001ca)
Post #: 19
- 1/24/2003 10:12:14 PM   
Marc von Martial


Posts: 10875
Joined: 1/4/2001
From: Bonn, Germany
Status: offline
Les, what exactly is "the other game" and have you actually played GI Combat to say it´s "not unique enough" ?

_____________________________


(in reply to Greywolf2001ca)
Post #: 20
- 1/24/2003 10:47:04 PM   
Les_the_Sarge_9_1

 

Posts: 4392
Joined: 12/29/2000
Status: offline
Played GI Combat, didn't think it was good enough to worry about. Might be good enough with 1.04 patch, but it's like after you have 3 pairs of shoes, do you really need another pair?

As for "the other" comment, that was not indicative of any one game, it was indicative of any game other than GI Combat.

So basically, if you have a choice on the market of games A B C and D, and only one of them is available to you ie you actually saw it on the shelf and none others, does it matter.

I have seen demos for numerous games. And in most cases, you have to jump through more than a few hoops to actually locate the retail copy of any them on a store shelf.

And sadly, the world is still in a lot of cases, retail outlet preferring ie I am an impulse buyer, I want to have it the second I want it not several days from now by mail.
That, and sometimes seeing is believing, and holding the item in my hands is more important than seeing it online.

I guess in that respect it might just be my age showing (I am not overly fond of online shopping yet).

_____________________________

I LIKE that my life bothers them,
Why should I be the only one bothered by it eh.

(in reply to Greywolf2001ca)
Post #: 21
- 1/24/2003 10:58:50 PM   
Marc von Martial


Posts: 10875
Joined: 1/4/2001
From: Bonn, Germany
Status: offline
[QUOTE]Played GI Combat, didn't think it was good enough to worry about. Might be good enough with 1.04 patch, but it's like after you have 3 pairs of shoes, do you really need another pair?[/QUOTE]

So what are the other pair of shoes that are like GIC? I know of no game out there that is comparable to GIC.

As for wargames on the shelves, you´ll rarely find some. GIC is available on the shelves. Close Combat was, well still is if you look hard enough.

_____________________________


(in reply to Greywolf2001ca)
Post #: 22
- 1/25/2003 12:02:44 AM   
Wallenstein

 

Posts: 93
Joined: 1/19/2003
From: Austria
Status: offline
Well, part one and two are available at Home of the underdogs, but the download of CC2 took me three nights - 128MB with an average speed of 2.5k/sec.
As I find large downloads to be very boring, I would surely buy such a compilation!

(in reply to Greywolf2001ca)
Post #: 23
- 1/25/2003 3:15:21 AM   
The_Falcon

 

Posts: 1
Joined: 1/24/2003
Status: offline
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Les the Sarge 9-1
[B]Well it might not be so much what is wrong with a game sometimes, as much as what is right with others.

The market is a few table scraps worth of "good" computer games, and oodles of designs people eagerly tell each other are great, when they are really both A. not unique, and B. not really genuinely special.

I have seen a lot of computer games, and to be fair, a lot of them are turn based also, and even shockingly enough, some board games as well, that while "adequate" were not meriting a lot of faunig over.

I have seen more games in the past, that had the look, but could not deliver the goods when it came to play them, than I have seen that both had the look of a good game, and were in fact great when it came time to play them.

Assuming GI Combat does actually work after it is patched up finally (some say 1.04 fixes a few things), will it be worth the effort to care?

GI Combat for what it's worth, is just someone's copy of the same environment yet again. It is not unique enough.
It will only appeal to someone that can't get a copy of "the other game".

A while back I was searching for a tank sim. Tried Panzer Elite. It has a horrible reputation for being buggy as hell in it's original release. But so far it has been the nicest looking of the designs I have seen.
Doesn't really matter a hill of beans though eh. Odds are I won't be finding a copy of it any time soon.
I have a copy of Panzer Commander. Was in a store (an EB in Toronto area) and had remarked to a sales person that it sucked how there was no titles on the shelf for my sort of wargamer. None save a copy of Panzer Elite Special. And I remarked that it was a game with a bad reputation as far as software went. So I was hesitant to invest my paltry few dollars at that time.
The girl reached down into a closet behind the counter and plopped a retail copy of Panzer Commander into the bag with my son's modest playstation game purchase.
I was taken aback till she made it clear enough she was dumping it on me free (I guess it was a return that was going no where).
The game runs fun (even runs on XP in spite of being a tad dated now). Visually it is a decent game. Not quite Panzer Elite.

But the point is, I now have a respectable WW2 tank sim game.
I can't imagine anyone selling me another tank sim game now, unless the software in truely extraordinary. And odds are the level of improvement I would require would exceed my machine's capacity to run it.

There was a time during the 70's when everyone and their aunt was releasing board games. It didn't last. Eventually the bubble burst and companies dropped away like flies.

I think if computer wargame designers don't start trying to seriously do something more interesting than make WW2 RTS games, eventually they will all find themselves in the same spot.

As it stands, I think WW2 RTS as a notion is as done as dinner. Adding fancier graphics won't always be enough.
I think the turn based market for WW2 might be at saturation level as well.
I think the FPS experience has absolutely gone the full route as well.

Some how, some way, I want to see something other than more turn based, RTS, tank sims or FPS games done in the same old WW2 settings now. [/B][/QUOTE]
Hello all, the thing I didn’t like about Panzer Commander is there was no infantry or air support. I loved the editor in the game, was very easy to use, and an excellent manual.

Les, you got PC for free? I paid 10.00$ for the game and a really nice strategy guide.

A friend of mine gave me a manual for M1 Tank Platoon II that is the size of a phone book. The game appears to have infantry and air support. Have you ever played that? Or Steel Beasts?

The Close Combat games were great in there day, I was looking forward to playing the 3-D version of the CC games, GIC, but it is horrible. Not one thing about the game is intuitive everything is an effort.

Most looking forward to Combat Leader. It’s time for me to move on to the modern age.
Dam, but Korsun Pocket looks cool too.

Right now I play Uncommon Valor(or try to) SPWAW, East Front II, and Combat Mission I and II.

And to answer the thread question, No I already have all the CC games, hehe

_____________________________

"You will either die on the gallows or of a loathsome disease."
...John Montague (to John Wilkes)
"That depends on whether I embrace your principles or your mistress."
...John Wilkes, in reply

(in reply to Greywolf2001ca)
Post #: 24
- 1/25/2003 3:48:34 AM   
Les_the_Sarge_9_1

 

Posts: 4392
Joined: 12/29/2000
Status: offline
To answer Marc (sorry would have answered sooner, but suddenly got an urge to inventory every piece of wargaming software regardless of it being original retail copy or a patch or whatever).
Not a very long list though, but long enough.

I could add a dozen or more demos to it if collecting demos was all I wanted to do though.

Anyway.

GI Combat is a game where the image is of a scale that is a good deal larger than the image in say Steel Panthers.

I generally divide games into two camps, games where the image is SP size, and games where the image is tank sim or Combat Mission size.

The fact that some are turn based while others are sims or RTS games, is to me immaterial.

Some games are top down looking images while others are full 3d rendered.

But again, it's like comparing footwear. A boot by any other name is still a boot. It won't be a sock, but to say one is a construction boot and one a combat boot is a bit immaterial for me.

In the area of what for me is relevant, GI Combat is in the same field of amusement as Panzer Commander, Panzer Elite, Combat Mission, Steel Beasts, Battlefield 1942, and I know there are a few other titles out there that fit this bill, but I have not played them specifically yet I know then, such as Medal of Honour.

To me, running around in a tank, or running around with a rifle or running around with small groupings of same, are all essentially the same aspect of wargaming to me.

For my money I enjoyed Close Combat 2 primarily due to it having an easier to manage screen view. Top down means less wandering with the mouse to see that which I need to see.

I will likely therefore continue to indulge games that advance the top down look over games that offer the 3d look.
So I have an interest In Close Assault, whereas I likely will not have much interest in GI Combat however it evolves.

Being that I like top down, it is obvious that advances in graphics in 3d will have little pull for me personally.
The next big ticket item for me is Combat Leader.
So I will be putting my time and energy following that game. And when it arrives on the market, I will likely be to busy with it, to fret over other genres of wargaming.

I am not sure I will give up trying to find Close Combat other than #2, but I suppose there is more worth in waiting for Close Assault (especially when every dollar counts).

_____________________________

I LIKE that my life bothers them,
Why should I be the only one bothered by it eh.

(in reply to Greywolf2001ca)
Post #: 25
- 1/25/2003 8:17:51 AM   
Greywolf2001ca

 

Posts: 19
Joined: 1/19/2003
From: Canada
Status: offline
No matter the bugs of the game (GI...), I still love the close combats.

Just to tell you how much I like it, I got the board game it was based on (The Original Squad Leader Box Set [the 4 boxes and many additional maps].).


For a war game, the only games that can be either better or similar to in quality and durability are Master of Orion 2 and Panzer General 1 and 2. Other than that, the thousands of gmaes I played, none are of better quality than those three and the CCs. That is, in the war-like genre.

(in reply to Greywolf2001ca)
Post #: 26
- 1/25/2003 8:29:00 AM   
The Shadow

 

Posts: 14
Joined: 1/25/2003
From: California, USA
Status: offline
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Greywolf2001ca
[B]No matter the bugs of the game (GI...), I still love the close combats.

Just to tell you how much I like it, I got the board game it was based on (The Original Squad Leader Box Set [the 4 boxes and many additional maps].).


For a war game, the only games that can be either better or similar to in quality and durability are Master of Orion 2 and Panzer General 1 and 2. Other than that, the thousands of gmaes I played, none are of better quality than those three and the CCs. That is, in the war-like genre. [/B][/QUOTE]
So the Close Combat games are modeled after the board game Squad Leader? Is Squad Leader the same as Advanced Squad Leader?

The Close Combat series are great games. My only complaint is as playtime grows shorter, I wish I could save battles in progress.

To answer the poll question: Yes I would buy it, even though I have all the games except CC1.

_____________________________

"Being powerful is like being a lady. If you have to tell people you are, you aren't."
...Margaret Thatcher

(in reply to Greywolf2001ca)
Post #: 27
- 1/25/2003 9:01:15 AM   
brent_2

 

Posts: 1990
Joined: 3/27/2001
From: Rheingau, Hesse, DE
Status: offline
for me the close combat games are what replaced Squad Leader. They are not turn based (cue Les stage right :D) but I feel they are the closest, bar SPWAW or the Talonsoft series, which are turn based. for some reason I was never able to get into them to the same degree. I went continuous time and have never been able to go back really ( at least at the tactical scale of ASL / Close Combat)

I have the timer set to 20-30 minutes - so that is typically the longest battle I play.

Yes ASL is an upgraded, more complex squad leader

_____________________________

I'm essentially graphically and history oriented, unfortunately to connect the two I have to do maths. I hate maths.
CSO_Brent

(in reply to Greywolf2001ca)
Post #: 28
- 1/25/2003 12:27:43 PM   
Veldor


Posts: 1531
Joined: 12/29/2002
From: King's Landing
Status: offline
[QUOTE]Originally posted by The Shadow
[B]So the Close Combat games are modeled after the board game Squad Leader? Is Squad Leader the same as Advanced Squad Leader?

[/B][/QUOTE]

The First Close Combat was originally titled "Beyond Squad Leader". It was suppose to model the boardgame pretty closely. But as Atomic got further into the project, it grew more into something else. Far as I know there was a huge falling out and Avalon Hill abandoned Atomic altogether (might have been the other way around) so a new name was adopted and a new publisher.

I still have amongst my collection a brochure for "Beyond Squad Leader" by Avalon Hill/Atomic "Available 3rd Quarter, 1995"..

There was another attempt to capatilize on the Squad Leader name. A game titled "Avalon Hill's Squad Leader" was put out by Microprose just a few years ago. It had nothing to do with the game besides the names. By those who have played it, it is unanimously the worst computer wargame ever made. So bad you can't even find mention of it on Microprose's site. You can still find it on Ebay...

(in reply to Greywolf2001ca)
Post #: 29
- 1/25/2003 9:09:25 PM   
Les_the_Sarge_9_1

 

Posts: 4392
Joined: 12/29/2000
Status: offline
I find it odd that Close Combat is looked on as emulating Squad Leader.

True there is obvious linkages. The fact that the game might have even been originally instigated by AH and Atomic of course lead credence to this claim (I was out of the computer wargaming loop during that time).

I agree that only a fool would waste effort on that tragic game Hasbro tried to sell wearing the well none name Squad Leader (but when you own the name, you can basically do what you want with it).

But while I do like Close Combat enough to say its an ok game, the reality is, that Steel Panthers is the game that emulates Squad Leader or Advanced Squad Leader for that matter.

SL/ASL was a turn based structured wargame all the way. The game's turns and actions/interactions have nothing in common with the dynamics of Close Combat (beyond CC being about combat at the same level ie squads).

_____________________________

I LIKE that my life bothers them,
Why should I be the only one bothered by it eh.

(in reply to Greywolf2001ca)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2   next >   >>
All Forums >> [General] >> General Discussion >> Game pack figuring Close Combats Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.281