Review for the developers

[Hanomag]

Good:

• The new graphical effects (explosions, fire, etc) are very well done.
• Noticeable improvements to the vehicle pathfinding. It's not perfect, but it might just be the best it's ever been. (maybe this was improved in PTIF, I didn't play it enough to notice it)
• 32-bit graphics (i.e., increase in scale) is an improvement, but it takes getting used to. (PTIF had this, but I didn't play that enough to comment on it.)
• You made it an option to see the stupid “fog” feature that was introduced in PTIF.

Bad:

Nothing new (i.e., meaningful) was brought to the series. Only the graphical effects were improved (and while pretty and cool, they aren't a gameplay element), the only issue to get corrected was vehicle pathfinding--kudos on that but the vehicle pathfinding fix is just a bit (15 years+ now) overdue. At this point, for the price we're paying, and considering how many releases there has been (seven, or more?, since CC5), I'm expecting a way to choose the forcepool requsition system (i.e, allowing the player to choose between CC5 and CC3's systems, and definitely not the current system), a powerful scenario editor, 2v2/3v3 multiplayer, etc.

• You did not re-implement a proper forcepool requsition system. You changed it to this system in Panthers in the Fog and why? To save the combat history of a soldier? What use it when the rest of the platoon is decimated? This change was half-thought out and is not better than CC5 BG-pased and/or CC3 point-based forcepool requisition. Not only that, but no one asked for it to be changed. Close Combat is about giving you control, you stripped it away. Forcepools are now mind-numbingly boring and extremely restricting. It ruins this game.

• You did not fix the "girly soldiers" (as it is now called) that were introduced in Cross of Iron ("taking cover", "enemy spotted", "redeployment aborted by attack", blah blah blah). Soldiers take cover, crawl, and cancel orders when litterally, no exagerration here, ONE enemy shot is fired in their general drection. This is unacceptable. And it has made simply moving units impossible. This awful change was created in Cross of Iron and every “development” team to touch CC since has refused to acknowledge/fix the problem (even though many people have complained about it). Again, this behavior has had a crippling effect to gameplay and player control--and that is a bad thing.

• You did not fix the multiplayer crash bugs (00:00 timer bug, airstrike bug, truce bug, etc.) that have plagued Close Combat since the game was created (15+ years ago). Patch 1.01 didn't help.

• You did not add an option to hide the “night” feature. It hurts the eyes and does not add any value. It's a distracting gimmick.

• Soldiers situate themselves in most awkward ways, especially in buildings (making it sometimes near impossible to get them situated as you want them to be).

• Same lame, limited scenario/campaign/operation editor. Close Combat 3 (from 1998) had a more powerful editor (though it too was lame).

• German infantry teams waste panzerfausts on infantry (with NO effect), and it’s still impossible to assault tanks with infantry squads that have AT weapons (even if the tank's turret is turned the other direction and your squad is within 10-15 meters and is running up from behind they'll holler "enemy spotted" and immediately start crawling and disobeying orders, then they'll get shot to pieces).

• In-game multiplayer lobby is far too simplistic and totally underdeveloped. You can't cancel an invite after sending one requiring you to compeltely close the game and re-open it. This is very frustrating.

• We still only have 1v1 multiplayer.

• Maps, while maybe historically accruate, are boring. And there are too many flat maps (yeah yeah, I know, historically accurate), which don't work well in CC. Varied terrain has always been the best, and is why PTIF's maps (while ripped by some, mainly due to coloring), are fantastic.

• You removed the only good feature of LSA, the ability to attach BGs to one another (i.e., not merging).

• Computer AI is still utter junk (you claimed, like every developer in every CC release, to have improved it). View Mooxe's AI demostration video threads here on Steam (you "developers" didn't even comment on that).

• No support for CC3-type (point-based) and CC5-type (battlegroup) requisition system.

• No tools to support a modding community.

• No support (i.e. patching, updates, fixes) for the game after release beyond superficial data value changes, and inconsequential code changes. Look at what real game development companies do in terms of supporting their product, free patches/updates for other games have put in more work than you did on this entire game.

• Data and other random issues (vehicles move way too slow, half-tracks sometimes won’t use their weapons, tanks/AT-guns miss their first shot most of the time irrespective of range).

• and on and on and on....

These are things that been voiced before by countless people over course of this release and the last few CC releases, they are either ignored, deflected (“but we don’t money/time/staff”), and belittled (“but 99% of the REAL Close Combat players who only play single player [who are nowhere to be seen] LOVE it this way”).

What kind of reception did you think Gateway to Caen, Panthers in the Fog, or any of the other Close Combat games since CC5 should receive from those of us who have been in this community since the originals? Go look at what real game developers provide for $40-50, and how much work they put into every release of their games. There are FREE patches for games, FREE mods for games, that have put in more work than you did into this and Panthers in the Fog.

It certainly doesn’t inspire much hope for The Bloody First. But I’ll be sure to find a way to play that game and give you a real, non-superficial review of it—and I’m sure it will go ignored and you have a slew of dingbats who "play" the game to tell you how GREAT it is.

[PipFromSlitherine]

So... "You added nothing new!" "expect for the new features you added but they are awful!" "anyone who disagrees with me is a dingbat!"

There was also a patch within weeks of release, yet you complain of no patches or support, even though you cite the patch!

Most issues you mention have been responded to by the team either here or on Matrix. You may disagree but the idea that anything other than a great deal of time and care went in to this release is untenable.

Cheers

Pip

[crackwise]

Even though the tone of Troger's post is somewhat harsh, I agree with the points argued. The reason why we, as the old-school Close Combat players, are angry is as follows: We have been pointing out improvements, suggestions and begging for fixes for 15 years on closecombatseries.net, which has been all this time one of the most reliable CC fan-sites. However, the developers do not appear to take into account these suggestions when making new games. This community should normally be considered as a very precious feed-back source, since these guys have been playing this game literally for more than a decade!

CC5 was not without bugs. It was a fine game, but it had a lot of issues even the patches and the mods could not fix. The most game-breaking thing with that game was the random multiplayer crashes, end of game freezes, airstrike crashes, lack of a decent AI for single-player etc. Fixing those should have been a priority. Yet, those issues still persist up to PitF and GtC! Putting up new titles of a game with the same old bugs included is NOT ETHICAL by any chance! If this was not a video-game, but some other product, I am sure the company producing faulty materials deliberately would be sued. (I don't think this is deliberate though, I think the developers just cannot find the source of the multiplayer problems. It is some haunting source-code issue? In any case, it should have been fixed by now.)

Yes, there have been some improvements, such as the vehicle pathing fix, 32-bit graphics, nice explosions etc. However, as have also been summarized by Troger, in addition to game-breaking issues not having been fixed, the features which made CC so much fun have also been removed without consulting the community. The introduction of this "girly soldier" behavior of the troops, the locked nature of BGs etc. have made the game less enjoyable. I don't doubt the developers' skill or anything, however the improvements and feature removals have been arbitrary, more important issues have not been fixed.

We are criticising because we love the CC games. We would like to trust the developers and see them making Close Combat much better, at least in a much more fixed and polished state. So far, this has not been really the case. I am really tired of still having multiplayer freezes and an awful AI after 15 years!

[PipFromSlitherine]

The AI issue has been spoken to I think - from what I understand it is mainly when playing maps with switched sides? I think Iain gave more details in a post here.

The MP crashes are an ongoing issue. The key problem for the team is that we cannot repeat them. Given that some players are saying they get them almost all the time it is as frustrating for the devs as for the players. I can say that weeks have been spent trying to track them down and we were fairly confident that the patch would solve them. If you are able to get the error on a consistent basis then we can try hooking you up to a debugger or provide a logging version to try and nail down the problem.

The fact the Troger has already been active in these discussion on the Matrix forums but has decided to reiterate them here (in a much more toxic tone) is pretty dispiriting for the developers.

Cheers

Pip

[crackwise]

Thanks Pip for the swift reply. When I have more time, I will test the multiplayer more intensively and let you know if the frequency of the crashes/freezes have decreased or not after the patch.

I really want to see the multiplayer CC community thrive. That is why I spent my time to write up a nice tactical guide to CC multiplayer battles. However, with the connection and multiplayer issues present, people are less inclined to start multiplayer games. I hope these issues eventually get fixed.

As for the upcoming CC title, the Bloody First, please take into consideration the suggestions and the feedback given here. After all, we want a stable and fun game, with attention dedicated to both single player and multiplayer aspects.

[PipFromSlitherine]

One of the reasons for choosing Unity as an engine was its robust multiplayer support. We are just as hopeful as you that the new engine will provide a much better MP experience.

Cheers

Pip

[Hanomag]

Originally posted by PipFromSlitherine:

There was also a patch within weeks of release, yet you complain of no patches or support, even though you cite the patch!

Did you even bother to readwhat I wrote? Here, I'll put it again for you so you can actually read it:

"No support (i.e. patching, updates, fixes) for the game after release beyond superficial data value changes. "

Pay attention to the bolding, it's a pretty important part of that sentence. I can go grab a couple screenshots of Steve saying he didn't have time to actually implement any real changes to patches in GTC, PTIF, and other releases. But yeah, I guess I should be sooo thankful for your changes to values in the excel data.

Originally posted by PipFromSlitherine:

Most issues you mention have been responded to by the team either here or on Matrix.

No, they haven't been addressed. Unless you call the type of junk posts you've just made proper replies. I don't know what hole you crawled out of, but go around the CCS forums, Matrix forums, CSO forums since every release starting from Cross of Iron. Things that I listed abiove (and many more that I didn't) have repeated by plenty, only to get some "response" like the junk you just gave.

Originally posted by PipFromSlitherine:

You may disagree but the idea that anything other than a great deal of time and care went in to this release is untenable.

I don't know what you are here for, other than proving my point. You're just doing more of the same, deflecting and avoding alll the very legitmate issues I outlined in many bullet points about. It's the same s-h-i-t that I (and many others) have been posting for years. You asked for constructive criticism, now you have it. Why don't you get off this forum and go do one of the things on that list, Mr. Developer.

[Hanomag]

Originally posted by PipFromSlitherine:

The fact the Troger has already been active in these discussion on the Matrix forums but has decided to reiterate them here (in a much more toxic tone) is pretty dispiriting for the developers.

But yet you claim I haven't been active in voicing my thoughts in your other posts..... seems you are the one mixed up.

Do some actual work and improve this game, and I'll be your biggest supporter.

[Smack]

Originally posted by Troger:

"No support (i.e. patching, updates, fixes) for the game after release beyond superficial data value changes. "

Perhaps you're not aware of the patches, both of which do in fact contain code changes and bug fixes beyond data tweaks?

It seems you have your own vision for what you want Close Combat to be. The fact that the current game design does not match your vision does not mean the game is broken. It is simply not the game you would have made, given full creative control. I understand some frustration over this, but I do not think your tone is particularly constructive.

Thanks for your feedback.

Steve

[Hanomag]

Steve, that's another deflection. It the same thing from all you guys, doesn't matter what the "development" label is (CSO Simtek, Strategy 3 Tactics, and now Slitherine). I'll make this point nice and bold:

You all have read the Close Combat forums over the years, you know my opinions are not just my own, but the opinions of many. So you can all stop with that "well sorry it's not the game you want it to be" b-u-l-l-s-h-i-t. Why don't you go do what those of us actively playing this game are begging for? I know why, because it doesn't fit YOUR vision of this game. And it's easier to pander to the idiots who "play" this game for a whole two hours against the AI and never touch it again and couldn't care less what you do.

I'd rather not be writing this stuff, but I'm so sick and tired of you people doing nothing for this game and expecting a medal for it. You know you have failed those of us that have been around here for a while. You should expect an even worse reception than the one you've received.

And yeah, I'm aware that Patch 1.01 had to manipulate the code in some way, but it didn't fix the issue, and it doesn't excuse the fact that every patch for every Close Combat game has been superifcial data changes.

I wish you'd put a 1/10th of the effort you do into deflecting criticism and actually do what is needed for this game. If you don't have the time/money/ability, higher some real developers by crowdsouring, kickstarter, or something. Your current recipe is a proven failure, and Matrix is an utter joke of a publisher.

And you'll just have to forgive the toxic tone and lack of "pretty please".

[crackwise]

@Steve:

By the way, the UI bugs mentioned by platoon micheal have also not been fixed yet either. Patch 1.01 does not adress these issues. We would like to see these things fixed in a new patch as well.

[K-Metal]

Thank you for bringing that up crackwise.
I've been waiting for three months now hoping for a patch to fix the errors.

I dont play GWTC anymore due to this.

[Smack]

The UI issue are on the list of things to address next time we do work on Gateway to Caen.

Steve

[K-Metal]

Thank you very Much Steve.
I do appreciate it.
I've said it before and I'll say it again.
Visually GWTC is awesome for me.

After the fixes I can see me completing a GC and maybe hopefully edit it.
I'd Love to see a Battle of the Bulge mod look as visually nice as you guys have done with this version.

[Smack]

Originally posted by Troger:

... and it doesn't excuse the fact that every patch for every Close Combat game has been superifcial data changes.

This is simply untrue. Every patch I can think of contains bug fixes in the code.

Steve

[cineadept]

Start with fixing multiplayer it does not work!