Why do many Close Combat players dislike this one (debate on if I should buy it)

[Atomic Poet]

Im an old Squad Leader grognard. What got me into Close Combat series from the originals to the Matrix reboots and new entries. I would ask to those what are the pros and cons to this version but since they are going towards 3D now besides that, what are the differences to the other Close Combats. I will thank you in advance for any feedback

[Nomada_Firefox]

You can help me improve it in the TBF - Veteran mod discussing here https://discord.gg/VbcqswT the future changes and additions.

[Simonson [29th Ret.]]

I think it's one of the best ones. I've played all of them to some extent. I like this one the best, followed by Bridge too Far remake. I really didn't like Battle of the Bulge remake or the original. I also liked the CC1 remake a lot, and Panthers in the fog was pretty good too.

Pros: 3D brings new life to the game. Campaign is cool if you like the premise of commanding an American division through an epic campaign. Classic CC gameplay and feel. Campaign is tense and pretty difficult. Plenty of opportunity to use tried and true battlefield tactics to good effect.

Cons: Bugs. No German campaign (You can play as them but I don't think it's persistent). Recycled sounds from the 1990s (Come on guys).

Debatable: The campaign map presents you with decisions after battle on what to do next (rest or attack) and the campaign is somewhat linear (but still fun). Compared to other CC games like the Bridge too Far remake where you get to move divisions and take territory. Since you're only controlling one Division, your choices come from which sections/platoons to use, like Battle of the Bulge.

[Atomic Poet]

Originally posted by Nomada_Firefox:

You can help me improve it in the TBF - Veteran mod discussing here https://discord.gg/VbcqswT the future changes and additions.

I haven't purchased it yet. But when I do I will check your mod out for sure! But I read so many mixed reviews and not just the complaint of price but some saying it's bad compared to the other close combat's

[Atomic Poet]

Originally posted by No Limit Soldier:

I think it's one of the best ones. I've played all of them to some extent. I like this one the best, followed by Bridge too Far remake. I really didn't like Battle of the Bulge remake or the original. I also liked the CC1 remake a lot, and Panthers in the fog was pretty good too.

Pros: 3D brings new life to the game. Campaign is cool if you like the premise of commanding an American division through an epic campaign. Classic CC gameplay and feel. Campaign is tense and pretty difficult. Plenty of opportunity to use tried and true battlefield tactics to good effect.

Cons: Bugs. No German campaign (You can play as them but I don't think it's persistent). Recycled sounds from the 1990s (Come on guys).

Debatable: The campaign map presents you with decisions after battle on what to do next (rest or attack) and the campaign is somewhat linear (but still fun). Compared to other CC games like the Bridge too Far remake where you get to move divisions and take territory. Since you're only controlling one Division, your choices come from which sections/platoons to use, like Battle of the Bulge.

Thank you for a little in depth. I read reviews that give it thumbs down but don't go into detail why. My favorite is The Longest Day remake. Battle in the Bulge remake I've played little. I do like Iron Cross. But I do like seeing the Tunis desert warfare on this one. I'll invest into it

[ToreDL87]

Because nothing really happens, updates are just 1kb or something, graphics are still unpolished and the game doesn't "have a soul" as a result, it's like an early version of Soldier ww2 or something.
For as hyped as the 3d engine was it just doesnt do the game justice.

[Nomada_Firefox]

Originally posted by ToreDL87:

Because nothing really happens, updates are just 1kb or something, graphics are still unpolished and the game doesn't "have a soul" as a result, it's like an early version of Soldier ww2 or something.
For as hyped as the 3d engine was it just doesnt do the game justice.

You are claiming impossible things. Graphics does not go to change. They are as you see, similar to the previous CC games.

Anyway, perhaps you should play a Sudden Strike 4 or Blitzkrieg 3 and just think what you do not see inside them comparing to the TBF.

[ToreDL87]

Originally posted by Nomada_Firefox:

You are claiming impossible things

I'm stating my opinion, and opinions are like caviar stars, everybody's got one.

Originally posted by Nomada_Firefox:

similar to the previous CC games.

The graphics aren't even close to the previous CC titles, but with a 3D engine I never expected them to be, but that's not the issue :)

Originally posted by Nomada_Firefox:

Graphics does not go to change.

Now perhaps YOU should THINK very carefully about what it is YOU are CLAIMING.
Your word carries weight in the CC community, you care about the franchise and I respect that, but when you say graphics aren't gonna change, you do realize that's the same as LOST INCOME for the developers?

I havent even played the game for 2 hours because I only check in for 2 minutes now and then to see if the graphics change, I can refund on the spot without batting an eye, you are lucky that I'm patient enough to hold my horses until I have final word from the devs.

Originally posted by Nomada_Firefox:

Anyway, perhaps you should play a Sudden Strike 4 or Blitzkrieg 3 and just think what you do not see inside them comparing to the TBF.

I don't own those games ^^

[Nomada_Firefox]

I do not claim anything. Just I am trying being constructive. I have not told you a lie. You are claiming better graphics but it does not go to happen. But the graphics from the TBF are the closer than they can be to the old CC games. In fact all the game is the thing more close to one old CC at 3D.

You do not how I was testing the game two years before the release and I can tell you very proudly how the game is as you see because the developers follow some of my opinions. ;)

The developers do not go to lose income by my opinions, in fact they will win income, it is a fact.;)

Check this.
https://steamuserimages-a.akamaihd.net/ugc/1172572644780430803/004C74BAE6F4B5EB0113584042F5FAC0A7C6CBD9/

Now please be constructive and do not be screaming here waiting impossible things.

[marinesku13]

I haven't played much TBF, but I am veteran in other CC games.... My impression is - TBF is more tactical and more realistic. I definitely like it. I have heard a lot of criticism because people get used to strategic turns and they miss it here. A lot of bugs has been fixed already I believe. And of course a lot of people believes they are experts and know better than developers how efficient MG-42 are etc.

[Nomada_Firefox]

Originally posted by marinesku13:

I haven't played much TBF, but I am veteran in other CC games.... My impression is - TBF is more tactical and more realistic. I definitely like it. I have heard a lot of criticism because people get used to strategic turns and they miss it here. A lot of bugs has been fixed already I believe. And of course a lot of people believes they are experts and know better than developers how efficient MG-42 are etc.

Yes, comparing to the other CC games, TBF is more realistic, now weapons have real ammo, everything with their correct values. Vehicles have real values from armor, reload, movement and more, everything work in the game, it is not just code. There are a lot of things from this type making TBF the most realistic CC.

However, I have improved the game combat as you will see in the Veteran mod this week probably.

[Atomic Poet]

Originally posted by marinesku13:

I haven't played much TBF, but I am veteran in other CC games.... My impression is - TBF is more tactical and more realistic. I definitely like it. I have heard a lot of criticism because people get used to strategic turns and they miss it here. A lot of bugs has been fixed already I believe. And of course a lot of people believes they are experts and know better than developers how efficient MG-42 are etc.

Thanks mate! Everybody is an expert right? Lol

[Atomic Poet]

Originally posted by Nomada_Firefox:

Originally posted by marinesku13:

I haven't played much TBF, but I am veteran in other CC games.... My impression is - TBF is more tactical and more realistic. I definitely like it. I have heard a lot of criticism because people get used to strategic turns and they miss it here. A lot of bugs has been fixed already I believe. And of course a lot of people believes they are experts and know better than developers how efficient MG-42 are etc.

Yes, comparing to the other CC games, TBF is more realistic, now weapons have real ammo, everything with their correct values. Vehicles have real values from armor, reload, movement and more, everything work in the game, it is not just code. There are a lot of things from this type making TBF the most realistic CC.

However, I have improved the game combat as you will see in the Veteran mod this week probably.

I have purchased it from Matrix direct, is your mod on there? I haven't delved into it too much but will once time permits. Thank You very much for all your feedback