Close Combat Bloody 1st - First video footage

Started by Destraex, May 12, 2018, 07:57:15 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

GDS_Starfury

when played against a human the CC engine was just fine in fucking over both players with realism.
Toonces - Don't ask me, I just close my eyes and take it.

Gus - I use sweatpants with flannel shorts to soak up my crotch sweat.

Banzai Cat - There is no "partial credit" in grammar. Like anal sex. It's either in, or it's not.

Mirth - We learned long ago that they key isn't to outrun Star, it's to outrun Gus.

Martok - I don't know if it's possible to have an "anti-boner"...but I now have one.

Gus - Celery is vile and has no reason to exist. Like underwear on Star.


Destraex

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!).
"They only asked the Light Brigade to do it once"

RyanE

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.