Close Combat is back

[Llyranor]

Some of you should be Close Combat fans.

 

Matrix Games - a publisher of wargames - now seems to have the license to publish games in the series, and plans to revise CC2/3/4.

 

http://www.gamespot.com/news/6160284.html?...pc&subj=6160284

 

In its purest form, Close Combat is a tactical simulation. It uses psychological and morale models (designed by a NASA AI specialist) that accurately portray men under battle conditions. Simtek has worked with the US Marine Corps and the British military on combat simulations using the Close Combat engine enhancing the original Close Combat, and they are in use right now, training officers and noncommissioned officers on tactical warfare. We want to bring what we have learned, while doing this, into the Close Combat series.

 

There will be permanent servers online with campaigns that players can log into and play the game as part of an overall operation with their friends. This will be online and available 24/7. Simtek will be there adding new campaigns. So as either the Germans or Allies, you can play as a group and have an effect on the whole campaign. If you win or lose in your sector, this will affect the overall online campaign being fought. This was not part of the original series but will add much to the online play for Close Combat.

 

I have found that some games just play best the way they are designed and do not need to be in a 3D world to improve them or take them to the next level. When this is forced, the attempt really destroys the true magic of the game. Steel Panthers and Close Combat are two such games that I really feel will not be improved by throwing them into a 3D engine. We felt that by going back to the original and building on that solid base, we could give followers on tactical simulations something to enjoy.

 

We are considering updating the original games and selling them as one or two bundle packs. The first game out the door will be called Close Combat: Cross of Iron.

 

Close Combat: Cross of Iron is set on the Russian front just as the original Close Combat 3 was. Close Combat: Cross of Iron is far more accurate when it comes to all the weapons used on the Russian front compared to the original. All the game data has been changed to reflect this. You will see armor and infantry squads not seen in the original.

 

Along with the changes mentioned above, Close Combat: Cross of Iron will include upgraded graphics, a complete series of new campaigns, and operations with brand-new maps not seen before. The replay value of Close Combat: Cross of Iron is enormous given the new maps and such that are shipping with the game and the thousands available for download.

 

We have made some significant changes to an already great psychological and AI model. This will show up in both head-to-head play and against the artificial intelligence. I don't want to say too much about this at this time, as we are still deciding what will make it into the release. We would like players to discover the changes for themselves, but I will say this: Commanders are even more important to your squads now. There are also past issues that always caused problems, such as vehicle pathing, that have been reworked.

 

Having never really played the games in-depth (yet I loved the demo for CC1 back in the day), this is pretty tempting.

[Darque]

That looks interesting.

[alanschu]

OMGOMGOMGOMGOMGOMGOMGOMGOMGOMGOMGOMGOMGOMGOMGOMGOMGOMGOMGOMGOMGOMGOMGOMGOMGOMGOM

OMGOMGOMGOMGOMGOMGOMGOMGOMGOMGOMGOMGOMGOMGOMGOMGOMGOMGOMGOMGOMGOMGOMGOMGOMGOMGOM

OMGOMGOMGOMGOMGOMGOMGOMGOMGOMGOMGOMGOMGOMGOMGOMGOMGOMGOMGOMGOMGOMGOMGOMGOMGOMGOM

OMGOMGOMGOMGOMGOMGOMGOMGOMGOMGOMGOMGOMGOMGOMGOMGOMGOMGOMGOMGOMGOMGOMGOMGOMGOMGOM

OMG

[Slowtrain]

I played several close combat games back im the day. 1-3 I think. Never really liked them, though it seemed that I should. I always found them quite dull, but kept buying the lastest one on the hopes that it would have improved.

 

Maybe if they release this updated version, I'll check it out and see if it is more interestinmg to me now.

 

The notion however that a tactical combat game wouldn't be improved by 3d engine is something I don't buy for a sec. Any game that takes place in a simulated 3-dimensional world is improved by having a 3d engine. They're just spinning the fact they don't want to spend time developing a new engine as if that is something good.

 

FIne, no new engine. But don't act like it's a good thing.

[letsryde23]

I played the original CC and CC: a brige too far back in the day. Its wierd i was just talking about this subject with one of my buddies, like, "i wonder why they havent updated Close Combat?" but like with ALL microsoft products, If you think about them, a small high frequency signal goes out to Bill Gates super computer in his garage and it makes a game, when Bill get tired of eating his platinum, diamond, and $100 bill casorole, he goes down an gives the game to the Microsoft Game studios or highest bidder.... HAHHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

 

Man, im bored...

[alanschu]

Well, CC wasn't technically a Microsoft product. It was made by Atomic Games, and I don't think the last two, maybe 3 (I'm not sure about Russian Front) were published by Microsoft. I think they were published by SSI.

 

I loved CC2 for it's campaign. It was Operation Market Garden, and successes and failure actually had an impact. If you could secure a drop zone as the Germans, the allies in that area were going to be in for a rough time.

 

I also loved the tank battles, given that for the most part, one shot meant a kill, assuming you got armor penetration. It was so satisfying flanking a Tiger with two Shermans and knocking it out. I remember being bold with a PIAT team when defending the Arnhem Bridge, getting it into a 3 story house, and getting a shot from the top in on a Panther. Considering it was the only AT weapon I had at the time, it was pretty sweet.

 

CC3: Russian Front was a better game tactically. It introduced artillery strikes, and the AI was smarter (less tanks turning around while in combat, exposing their rear to enemy tanks, and stuff like that). Unfortunately, the campaign was nothing more than a series of operations. I was able to actually capture the Kremlin, and I got operational Total Victory, but I'm still screwed to lose the war no matter what. Even when I successfully held off advances from IS-2 tanks at the Reichstag, and again received Total Victory at an operational level, it meant nothing.

 

I suppose this is somewhat realistic, as I doubt my little Kampfgruppe would really make a huge impact in the grand scheme of the war, but it's nice to feel you have SOME impact.

 

CC4: Battle of the Bulge, reintroduced a dynamic campaign. Except this time, it even let you control the allocation of your forces. The Germans had to successfully break through the Ardennes forest, while the Allies needed to resist. Like in real life, the area is a bit of a logistical nightmare. Movement through the forest could be a pain in the butt, as forces get stuck behind other forces, unable to properly advance. Bastogne was an immensely useful town to take, as it had 6 or 7 ways out of it, making it key for flanking operations to cut off supply. And supply was exceptionally important. If you could cut a unit off from supply, it's reinforcements would be limited, and it would start to suffer huge penalties to morale. It also introduced air strikes, though they weren't as stellar as I was hoping. I kept forgetting what type of planes I had (or maybe they were random), so sometimes I would do a strafing run against tanks, and drop bombs on infantry.

 

 

All in all though, I sunk more time into that series than probably any other WW2 game. I loved those games.

 

Nothing like hearing the Germans scream "Scharfschutse" when a sniper gets them, and screaming at your men when they call out "We're pinned down!" when you try giving them an order.

[Colrom]

That's great. I played them all. Atomic was a small company with a narrow focus. It was a shame they coundn't/didn't keep going.

 

I'm glad they are sticking with the 2d perspective.

 

The ones I like the best were Market Garden and the Russian campaign - although I thought the campaign scheme for the Russian campaign was flawed. I especially liked the flexibility to do a few different styles of attack and defence.

 

The AI was not so smart though - it was pretty much 1 dimensional - couldn't think about flanking moves. I will be very pleased to see that improved.

 

Great!

[alanschu]

An odd thing I noticed about Market Garden, was that the AI had a tendency to place units towards the bottom parts of the map.

[Colrom]

I don't recall that.

 

I read the press release.

 

I don't think the AI will be two dimensional this time either. I undertstand that is difficult, but hoped they might have made some progress. I guess it's possible they have, but arn't mentioning it.

 

If they haven't improved the AI into 2 dimensions then the maps will continue to be narrow or channeling or one side in static defense.

 

Still a good game though.

Edited October 21, 2006 by Colrom

[Llyranor]

I'm wondering why they aren't updating CC5. Was that a bad game?

 

If they actually have the nerve to implement coop, I'm punching jerkbrain in the face and making him buy it. Too bad it's highly unlikely. Still, persistent online campaign, hehehehehehehehehehehe.

Edited October 21, 2006 by Llyranor

[Llyranor]

Hi Guys,

 

The deal does include CC5, it was an error

 

Sulla

 

Excellent.

[Colrom]

If they actually have the nerve to implement coop, I'm punching jerkbrain in the face and making him buy it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Who could resist an invitation like that! :D

[Nick_i_am]

I like my face, shut up.

 

and the problem with CC5 was that it was CC4, and the problem with CC4 is that it wasn't CC2.

[Llyranor]

Cross of Iron (CC3 rerelease) gold candidate has been submitted and release date is projected to be before the end of the year.

 

The original premise behind the

CoIReleaseNotes.doc

Edited December 8, 2006 by Llyranor

[DemonKing]

I'll be interested to see how CoI turns out, but given that I find the gameplay of CoH to be like CC on speed, it will be difficult to convince me to try CoI out if it is essentially the old games in a slightly upgraded package.

[alanschu]

Well, Company of Heroes never really claimed to be anything like Close Combat as far as I know.

[Llyranor]

Huh, I didn't get into CoH from the beta. It was just a RTS with a superficial WW2 layer on top of it.

 

I loved the CC1 demo back in the day, but somehow never got around to getting the game. I've played a few maps of CC2 in the past year. I'm already convinced enough to fully support the series. CoI is mine day1. I'll be playing them at the slowest speed, in any case.

[alanschu]

I was a huge fan of the second one. I loved the quasi-dynamic campaign along Hell's Highway in Belgium.

 

 

Basically the grand campaign is split into 3 regions, with 3 operations happening in each one. Each operation has a few predefinied battlemaps. The regions, IIRC, are Son, Eindhoven, and Arnhem. There's about 5 or 6 bridges that need to be captured by the Allies, in order to bypass the Siegfried line and zoom into the industrial core of Germany (a "war is over by Christmas" plan).

 

The Germans are typically on defense, with some offensive areas behind the main line to retake landing zones and cut off XXX Corps (the Armoured column that has just left from Antwerp and will get to the first bridge along the Son River in about a day. While you can't decide to attack along different fronts or anything, the impact of your battles makes an impact. You get to keep your troops from previous battles, and if you can cut off the Allies, you can prevent Armoured reinforcements and dwindle their supply lines.

 

One region can be airdropped supplies a day, so if you can capture Landing Zones, it makes life easier. And if you are about to lose some of the smaller bridges, you can blow them up. This delays XXX corps by 14 hours.

 

In between battles, you can choose for 1, 4, or 7 hour ceasefires (until night time gets too close, at which point you can wait overnight).

 

The Allies have a week (or maybe 10 days) to capture Arnhem, or the operation is a failure.

 

 

Unit availability is historically accurate. For example, after a few days, one of the local SS Panzerkorps divisions in the area is made available to the Germans. A bit less stuff like this for the Allies, as their historical unit available is influenced by how well you do in the campaign (i.e. the progress of XXX Corps).

 

The third one improved on the battle dynamic, though the campaign was made up of a ton of small operations. Ultimately, given it's scale, the outcome was preconceived. A bit silly, as I successfully captured the Kremlin and held of the IS-2 tanks at the outskirts of Berlin, but oh well. I got "Total Success" for the campaign, though Germany Still loses. Kind of funny. The combat model was better though, and it also introduced artillery strikes.

 

The 4th one allowed for a more dynamic campaign, about the Ardennes Offensive. You had to make pushes up through the forest, and logistics are a mess. Only 1 division can occupy a region at a time, so if you can stall the German offensive, you can limit the amount of divisions they get in the area. It has a small map, where you can direct your divisions to go. Holding Bastogne is huge, as it's a central hub that lets you move in a large variety of directions. It also introduced air strikes. Usually they were unavailable due to bad weather, but they were another thing to call in in addition to artillery.

 

I never played the 5th one (nor the first one), but it sounded quite similar in its play dynamic of the 4th one, except it was around D-Day. The Allies needed to capture a few places like Cherbourg, Caen, and St. Lo. I believe you also had control over which division came in as reinforcements (which made lots of people happy. People like to play with TIger tanks, but the only way to get them in CC4 was to have many of your divisions lose battles and fall back to the back of the line).

[Llyranor]

I don't mind a preconceived outcome so much, my main interest is in the tactical battles themselves. The campaign is really just a bonus (I say that, but Xcom wouldn't be nearly the godly game it is if it weren't for the mix of strategy and tactics). Nick was telling me how a problem with CC3 was how you could get way too many tanks and how those ravaged infantry. It's nice to see the remake make tanks more rare and infantry have better chances of survival.

 

And yeah, jerkface says CC2 is the best one of the lot.

Edited December 12, 2006 by Llyranor

[alanschu]

CC2 limits the tanks by only allowing a small number of support units, which tanks are included under. I think you can have at most 6 tanks. But that also comes at the expense of mortars, heavy machine guns, and snipers.

 

 

The Russian Front was definitely more tank oriented than A Bridge Too Far. I think it's because there are some operations that are literally out in the fields. They removed the distinction between standard units and support units, and allowed you to mix and match in any way. But if you're coming into any town area, you'd be best having some infantry. Last thing you want is to have some anti-tank rifle shooting holes in you, or worse yet, a flamethrower at close quarters (lost a King Tiger to one once. I was pissed).

 

The tanks are very expensive for unit acquisition points though.

 

 

I don't necessarily mind a preconceived outcome, just not given some of the operations that existed in the grand campaign. I don't mind the preconceived outcome in Silent Hunter III for example. I'm just one sub, and even if I sink some huge tonnage, I don't expect to single-handedly change the course of the war.

[Llyranor]

The CC3 remake is out and available for digital download. Purchasing now.

 

http://www.matrixgames.com/games/store.asp?gid=335