Close Combat thread

[Bluehawk]

Cross of Iron doesn't have the big campaign map, you still have to play tug-of-war over the linear sequences of maps like in the original CC3. I don't know why I first expected something different...

Other than that, it's basically the same game but with some bug fixes, a new, alternative campaign that starts in '43 and some minor cosmetic tweaks.

I have only one complaint - on the single battles you can play from the menu, the roster you start with is locked in because the game considers it to be the first battle in a one-battle campaign and there's some rule against altering your initial platoon/company. That means you're tactical control is limited to the configuration THEY give you. I want to be able to try the same battle in a multitude of ways...

 

[PNV]

Thanks for the information, I suppose I'll wait until I play more of the others. It would have been awesome if there was a campaign similar to CC4 and CC5 though.

Also, is there any news as to whether A Bridge Too Far will be modified and re-released?

After reading the Matrix Games forums, I found some news (scroll down):

http://www.matrixgames.com/newsletter/june2010.html

 

[LemoN]

Both games are NOT worth the Matrix remake. Unless you have serious problems running CC3 or CC4 of course.

CC5 is the only Matrix remake that is worth it imho, REAL night battles, better los, revised cover etc.

 

[PNV]

Last Stand Arnhem has been officially announced.

YouTube - Close Combat - Last Stand Arnhem Teaser Trailer

Wargamer article:
http://wargamer.com/article/2905/close-combat-last-stand-arnhem

 

[Shadrach]

Hell yeah, getting that the day its out

And Lemon mate, they are doing a lot of good work in bug fixing, adding features and making them run on modern hardware and OS. And hopefully this version will be more stable with network play.

 

[LemoN]

Hell yeah, getting that the day its out

And Lemon mate, they are doing a lot of good work in bug fixing, adding features and making them run on modern hardware and OS. And hopefully this version will be more stable with network play.

AFAIK CC3 and CC4 remakes have no added features worth noting.... at last I didn't see any when i played them.
As already mentioned... the CC3 and CC4 remakes are only worth it if you are having trouble with the old games.

The new ones (CC5 and hopefully CC2) are a entirely different story

 

[PNV]

As already mentioned... the CC3 and CC4 remakes are only worth it if you are having trouble with the old games.

I've actually read that there's a lot that has been fixed in the CC4 remake and actually makes the game worthwhile compared to the original.

 

[NoxNoctum]

How does CC compare to Combat Mission?

 

[PNV]

How does CC compare to Combat Mission?

Close Combat is definitely a lot easier to learn than Combat Mission. It's easier to see what's going on and it's easier to control your assets. However, while it's easy to learn, some of the battles are tough and intense. Since the battles are completely real-time, you must sometimes make quick decisions that might determine the outcome of the battle. When an enemy MG opens up on your men you have to act quickly or else they will be completely wiped out.

Close Combat isn't as in-depth as Combat Mission in terms of ballistics and armors values though, but you still have to take ammunition into consideration, the line of fire of your units, the type of armor you are going against, etc. So if you just want an entertaining, yet strategic game that would put you in some of the major and minor battles of WWII, then you would really like Close Combat. Some don't like the 2D graphics now, but I think they allow for greater visual realism, especially in the layout of the maps.

 

[NoxNoctum]

How's the AI?

 

[LemoN]

How's the AI?

Tanks are still as retarded as before.
It's said that they slightly improved the tank AI... but it's still as bad as before.
Attacking AI still holds back and sneaks all the time until the time runs out, then rushed the objectives in a hurry.

 

[PNV]

It's fine, I've never seen the enemy AI do something really stupid. But sometimes when they are desperate to capture a victory location they'll keep send some of their forces through a spot where they were completely annihilated. Other than that, there's nothing really wrong with the enemy AI. On maps where you have to assault, the AI places its forces in really good positions.

As for your own troops AI, they've fixed things in the re-releases but there are still some quirks, such as moving blatantly out of cover when you give them a move order. But it's not game breaking. People play multiplayer over Hamachi, so you don't always have to play against the AI.

Yeah, Lemon brings up a good point about the tanks. They're kind of dumb, but they can be a big threat as well.

 

[JCoquillon]

CC2 has been installed on every pc i own constantly since it came out. I still play every couple of months. Can't wait for some active MP again.

 

[LemoN]

CC2 has been installed on every pc i own constantly since it came out. I still play every couple of months. Can't wait for some active MP again.

Yup, CC2 definitely is the best of the series imo.

 

[NoxNoctum]

Tanks are still as retarded as before.
It's said that they slightly improved the tank AI... but it's still as bad as before.
Attacking AI still holds back and sneaks all the time until the time runs out, then rushed the objectives in a hurry.

Well I've never played CC so I guess I mean in comparison to CM.

In CM the AI is pretty...stupid. In general it just sends all its units in a mad rush towards the objective.

In defense it's better but that's only because it justs sit there. No tactical maneuvering whatsoever or regard to flanks.

 

[PNV]

The AI in Close Combat seems to be more inclined to rush for the objectives if you set the battle time limit to something like 15 minutes. If you set no limit, the AI appears to be more cautious. I've waited ten minutes for some kind of movement once. I'm not sure if the AI actually flanks, or they are just going to the objectives though. You still have to be aware however.

 

[LemoN]

The AI in Close Combat seems to be more inclined to rush for the objectives if you set the battle time limit to something like 15 minutes. If you set no limit, the AI appears to be more cautious. I've waited ten minutes for some kind of movement once. I'm not sure if the AI actually flanks, or they are just going to the objectives though. You still have to be aware however.

Yeah that's why I normally set the time limit to something like 20 minutes.
I simply don't want to wait for 10-15 minutes doing nothing.

 

[PNV]

Yeah that's why I normally set the time limit to something like 20 minutes.
I simply don't want to wait for 10-15 minutes doing nothing.

Yeah, I set mine to about 30. I can't imagine playing the campaign without a time limit.

 

[LemoN]

Sometimes i waited 19 minutes seeing nothing and then the AI rushed and didn't even reach the first objective...

 

[PNV]

New Video:

YouTube - Close Combat - Last Stand Arnhem Video AAR

For those new to Close Combat, the gameplay in the videos look somewhat choppy, and this is something I've never experienced unless I lower the gameplay speed. Perhaps it's just the software that was used to record.