Looking good in general. The silhouette icons though I do not like.
This game looks like Steel Divisions
Funny, I thought it looked like Combat Mission with the view pulled way back.
Quote from: Destraex on May 12, 2018, 07:57:15 AM
Looking good in general. The silhouette icons though I do not like.
Agreed regarding the silhouette icons...I wonder if there is an option to turn them off? Otherwise, looking good.
Looks terrible, but thats what happens when a game is delayed by almost 8 years. Technology and the market surpasses you. Obviously, CC will always have a place in my heart as one of the forefathers of RTS gaming, but this is a hard pass.
1. That 3D engine looks cheap and hard on the eyes, especially compared to Wargame and Steel Division. As gamey as Wargame/SD and CoH are, their engines are the standard for appearance.
2. That movement system looks awful. Click, then click again, then click again. Three clicks just to move a unit or have a unit engage the enemy. Just have hotkeys like every other RTS game out there.
3. Pathfinding looks terrible.
Nothing was wrong with the old graphics or 2d game- the only thing that was broke was the AI. Had the AI been fixed, then CC could've lived on forever.. Talk about developers trying to fix things that aren't broken, and/or not fixing the root causes.
I hope they fixed the AI as well, or that it is entirely new. But I would not be surprised if it is the same old AI files and the 3D engine is the only new thing.
However I did hear somewhere they had to migrate to a new engine recently. I actually don't mind the look that much. But yes, it is certainly not cutting edge.
I for one am though, excited about this. I played the old ones up to CC5 so much that I gave the series a break from about 2000 or so up until now iirc. The Gold Juno Sword mod for CC5 imho was the pinnacle of this games achievement.
I do not think I would have considered another close combat game unless it had these things to put it above combat mission and the older close combat games:
1) 4 Player multiplayer including 2 player vs AI
2) A new 3D engine
3) A theatre other than normandy
"Hello Guys
We are hoping to include Co Op in The Bloody First
Players will share the standard sized force - 2 players won't double the number of units on the map
regards
Ben Wilkins "
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=4441333
Quote from: Apocalypse 31 on May 12, 2018, 12:34:05 PM
3. Pathfinding looks terrible.
its a CC feature not a bug. :2funny:
FWIW, The Bloody First's campaign (and the skirmish mode) features Tunisia & Sicily, as well as Normandy. Normandy is the final arc of the campaign last time I checked.
Also the movement system is exactly the same (as far as I remember) as the original Close Combat games.
I just can't get excited about Close Combat games anymore. There was a day...but there's been so little innovation :'(
Quote from: JudgeDredd on May 15, 2018, 03:42:27 AM
I just can't get excited about Close Combat games anymore. There was a day...but there's been so little innovation :'(
I think if it'd still been Microsoft and Atomic Games, we might have seen some extra innovation by now - the problem is as developers and publishers change, and when you're dealing with a series that's achieved 'cult classic' status... one can be hesitant to do too many change.
I reckon
The Bloody First is going to be an 'ok' game, but incredibly divisive... but it's also going to lead to a far better future for the series than if Matrix hadn't gone 3D at all.
To me, the best thing about the series was the strat layer tied into the tactical in the campaign. The tactical engine kinda of sucked really. Once combat mission came out I dropped close combat series like a bad habit. The Campaigns were all that were missed and the one thing combat mission can't do.
Reading this and other threads over the years has opened my eyes to the fact there are two broad types of wargamers. Many play these tactical games with extreme minutia (and please, don't take this as a criticism, it's not), they spend a lot of time reviewing the battlefield, plotting the best lines-of-sight, initial placement of units, lines of advance, etc. etc., developing deep strategies thus overwhelming most games' AI's, criticizing the AI's as awful. And for them they are. I suspect that is why many of these gamers prefer to play a human opponent. Then there are gamers like me who use the "Agrippa Maxentius" method ( I enjoy his YouTube videos)....go in with guns ablazing and just have fun. Yes, we strategize some but we don't obsess with it, we don't ponder each and ever action...and yes, we lose a lot but we sometimes win, and we find the game AI's to be quite challenging. That's why I always chuckle when I read posts of how awful AI's are on games that I find to be challenging. (Close Combat and most HPS games come to mind) I'm not judging either style of play, neither is the right or wrong way to play. To each his own. I'm curious as to what others think of this?
Quote from: Rayfer on May 15, 2018, 12:13:16 PM
Reading this and other threads over the years has opened my eyes to the fact there are two broad types of wargamers. Many play these tactical games with extreme minutia (and please, don't take this as a criticism, it's not), they spend a lot of time reviewing the battlefield, plotting the best lines-of-sight, initial placement of units, lines of advance, etc. etc., developing deep strategies thus overwhelming most games' AI's, criticizing the AI's as awful. And for them they are. I suspect that is why many of these gamers prefer to play a human opponent. Then there are gamers like me who use the "Agrippa Maxentius" method ( I enjoy his YouTube videos)....go in with guns ablazing and just have fun. Yes, we strategize some but we don't obsess with it, we don't ponder each and ever action...and yes, we lose a lot but we sometimes win, and we find the game AI's to be quite challenging. That's why I always chuckle when I read posts of how awful AI's are on games that I find to be challenging. (Close Combat and most HPS games come to mind) I'm not judging either style of play, neither is the right or wrong way to play. To each his own. I'm curious as to what others think of this?
I like to minimize my casualties (winning with 3 units left isn't winning but a desaster) so I guess I'm in the first category for historical games (WWII, ...).
This works for me in games like Combat Mission but for some reason my losses are always huge in games like Graviteam Tactics.
One of the reasons I suck at Combat Mission is I cannot stand losing my little Pixeltroopers. Heavy losses make me cringe.
when played against a human the CC engine was just fine in fucking over both players with realism.
Quote from: Rayfer on May 15, 2018, 12:13:16 PM
Reading this and other threads over the years has opened my eyes to the fact there are two broad types of wargamers. Many play these tactical games with extreme minutia (and please, don't take this as a criticism, it's not), they spend a lot of time reviewing the battlefield, plotting the best lines-of-sight, initial placement of units, lines of advance, etc. etc., developing deep strategies thus overwhelming most games' AI's, criticizing the AI's as awful. And for them they are. I suspect that is why many of these gamers prefer to play a human opponent. Then there are gamers like me who use the "Agrippa Maxentius" method ( I enjoy his YouTube videos)....go in with guns ablazing and just have fun. Yes, we strategize some but we don't obsess with it, we don't ponder each and ever action...and yes, we lose a lot but we sometimes win, and we find the game AI's to be quite challenging. That's why I always chuckle when I read posts of how awful AI's are on games that I find to be challenging. (Close Combat and most HPS games come to mind) I'm not judging either style of play, neither is the right or wrong way to play. To each his own. I'm curious as to what others think of this?
I have often thought that games like combat mission and other tactical games that allow unlimited time to ponder moves to be unrealistic in and of themselves.
Because in a combat situation you do not always have the luxury of so much time and detail of information. Think of all those US soldiers who thought they were facing tigers, well instead of that feedback, we generally get very detailed information on exactly what armour thickness, armament etc they have and insane amounts of time to study.
This is the problem in general with most games. To be utterly realistic you need real people playing all the roles and restricting communications to in game coms.
I understand that AI is not so good on the human side and so the player must play every tank commander. But that is the problem. Because the player is doing that he ultimately has an overall understanding of the situation that no real commander would have.
It is why I do not mind so much that RTS games like steel division kind of steel some of this back by making you work and multitask quickly, negating some of the advantage of "god mode" by forcing you to miss some things. It is why I should play combat mission in real time really. The outcome would be much more balanced (not that I am good at it WEGO anyways!).
If that's how you like games..."realistic"...you should be playing Steel Beasts from the map only. It can be set up to have almost complete fog of war with only contact reports on enemy positions and no real-time view of your own units.
It can sometimes be fun, but most of the time its frustrating and a lot like work. But the best part is the AI, if set up properly by the player though the initial plan and the designer during scenario build, can hold its own in sticking to a plan or following alternate plans.