If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the
FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to
register or
login before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
| 10 SEP 2008 at 3:59pm |
GDS StarfuryGeneral


Posts : 16394 Joined: 26 MAY 2001 Location: 0, Starbase 10
Status : Offline | Ill be the judge of that.
|
| 12 SEP 2008 at 12:19pm |
FranCenturion


Posts : 74 Joined: 31 OCT 2005
Status : Offline | Was looking forward to read more about multi player. Interested to know if known multi player bugs was addressed?
Thanks
|
| 12 SEP 2008 at 2:17pm |
LongBladeGeneral


Posts : 20586 Joined: 2 MAY 2003
Status : Offline | I can find out.
|
| 12 SEP 2008 at 2:38pm |
combotCenturion


Posts : 467 Joined: 28 JAN 2009 Location: 0
Status : Online | Currently in multiplayer testing.... no crashes/freezes/lockouts in the last week.
testing continues..........
|
| 13 SEP 2008 at 1:42am |
MikeGERCommander


Posts : 1664 Joined: 3 MAR 2005 Location: DE
Status : Offline | here are some questions asked from 20 miles east of the Rhein ;-)
any estimated release date so far ?
...there is not even a topic in Matrix Games "Coming Soon in Development" area yet ?
its nice to hear that everything is edible... but does it play well right out of the box (well, it will be the downloaded installer zip file in my case :-) ) esp. the tactical battles.
any comments about the AI, pathfinding, etc ....
|
| 15 SEP 2008 at 7:07am |
RD_OddballCenturion


Posts : 1 Joined: 15 SEP 2008
Status : Online | Hey Mike, As for the estimated release date... soon.
It does play well right out of the box. Better than the original version for sure. Highly improved AI as well as vehicle pathfinding. Both have been worked on extensively to improve the known issues over the original game.
|
| 30 SEP 2008 at 6:15pm |
Dave68124Centurion


Posts : 19 Joined: 11 FEB 2005
Status : Online | Before you guys get too far ahead of yourselves about all the new fancy details and graphics, I suggest you proof read your Preview on the front page. You identify a P-38 Lightning as a P-51. Kind of begs the attention to detail mantra that the article boasts about.
|
| 1 OCT 2008 at 2:19pm |
KapitanHelmetCenturion


Posts : 8 Joined: 14 JAN 2005
Status : Online | Does anyone know if they fixed the bug that when a BG is out of supply and loses squads in a fight, they aren't ever actually lost? (sorry if this has been covered I couldn't find any reference).
That bug was a real PITA on CC5, a BG in a strong defensive position, cut off and surrounded, with low ammo, could still last for ages as long as it wasn't routed in a fight, because it never actually lost any squads/vehicles (so a heavy tank BG could hold on for a long time, or a decent inf in a castle). It meant we had to do our own manual force pools for any BG that had taken losses while out of supply.
Also a BG that suffered a forced disband didn't lose any of its force pool, which it should have according to the manual.
What about the buildings bug where some buildings had spots where soldiers could never be killed?
The bugs are coming back to me now... at the end of a tense fight with both sides having low morale, the game would often crash, losing the battle result. Is that resolved?
There was another bug where sometimes BGs moving into a new map would for some reason take half of the map... and sometimes on the wrong side of the Front...!
Vehicle pathing could be resolved on CC5 by changing it to use the same pathing logic as a command group (I think it was the SOI column)... so hopefully that has been fixed in this version (sounds like it has).
Anyway this new version sounds great, I am very happy that someone has updated Close Combat, I have not played it for years now but it is still the best WW2 combat wargame... (Combat Mission is close but not as much fun).
|
| 1 OCT 2008 at 2:46pm |
LongBladeGeneral


Posts : 20586 Joined: 2 MAY 2003
Status : Offline | Originally Posted By Dave68124
Before you guys get too far ahead of yourselves about all the new fancy details and graphics, I suggest you proof read your Preview on the front page. You identify a P-38 Lightning as a P-51. Kind of begs the attention to detail mantra that the article boasts about.
That is my fault, not the design teams. It's now corrected.
And I do know the difference, but can't always be perfect when moving quickly... Apologies to all.
|