How does it compare to the older games

[inix40]

So after years of being on the fence i decided to buy one of the games. I choosed the newest remake of the older games - Last Stand Arnhem. After playing some battles i'm really not impressed. I read about 75% of the game's manual so i'm pretty sure the problem does not lie in the controls. I didn't played the Operations or Campaign yet so the strategical aspect of the game and preserving units from battle to battle is something i need to experience to get a final feeling for the game. But from what i played until now i can't see basicaly anything that would make me want more.

My main problem is that more often than not i have hard time distinguishing my troops from the "background" graphics, distinguishing and clicking on the right squad when they are close together and other little annoying things that are making the experience for me more of a chore than enjoyment. Sometimes i found the game just too fast and i was loosing control of the situation and felt lost about what was and should do next pretty quickly. To sum it up - i find the game to be outdated in terms of graphics, sounds gameplay and overall feel. BUT as i like WW2 games and there are not many tactical ones (more authentic ones) and there is a nice discount on GOG and Matrix games shop ....

I was thinking if the Last Stand Arnhem was a bad entry to the series and if there is a better game i should try? In the end, it's a "remake" of one of the oldest games in the series so i'm curious if the newer ones have introduced something ground breaking, which fans of the series likes so much that they would recommended it as a "must play"?

I'm mainly looking on the last 3 games (Panthers in the Fog, Gateway to Caen and The Bloody First). From the screenshots and videos i saw, PitF and GtC looks and sounds a little bit better but gameplay wise - i was not able to see big differences (yeah how would i be able to, when i'm still Close Combat noob, right?). The Bloody First on the other hand looks different in the 3D, i'm just not sure if it was a step in the right direction.

So in short - would you recommend to buy any other game in the series than Last Stand Arnhem for added new features or anything else that would make the other games worth a buy? Or do you think if i try Operations and Campaign in LSA, you can tell that basically i saw everything and the other games are all the same?

[xe5]

In Options, enable one of the soldier outline states to make soldiers more visible. If that's not sufficient, try reducing the resolution at which the game is displayed to 1024x768 or even 800x600. This will make the soldiers appear larger.

Also, reducing game speed to Slow might minimize your feeling of losing control. You can always bring up the Options dialog to pause the game and drag it out of view to assess a portion of the battlefield.

The most noticeable change to PitF and GtC is that the game scale is increased 40% so everything will appear larger.

The 3D aspect to TBF enables many differences to classic CC, chief among which is a vast improvement to the line of sight mechanic. No longer does the player have to 'radar sweep' with a fire line to determine what can be seen (green line) vs what cant (red line). Simply pressing the CTRL key turns on the viewshed function which highlights the seen and shades the unseen.

All CC games prior to TBF ran on the old Atomic code base from the late '90s. TBF is built on a much newer engine and incorporates many features and enhancements that are, IMO, a considerable improvement to classic CC.

[inix40]

OK, that's +1 for TBF. Thank you very much for your elaboration.

Anybody else?

[tejszd]

I would not change the resolution lower as that only made things bigger before Windows 10 Direct-X removed the full screen option which did scale the lower resolution to fill the screen. In the latest patches they have added;
- Scale Front End: enlarges the screens before battle by 1.5
- Scale UI: enlarges the UI controls in battle by 2.0
- Use DPI: will use the Windows 10 setting to enlarge or shrink all images by the set amount (this setting affects everything including Windows 10 itself).

As suggest by xe5 the soldier outline helps make it easier to find your men. Also some players turn off trees to better see what is underneath.

Another option you can you do is setup a short cut key to select troops during the deployment phase. Select one or more teams/vehicles by holding the left mouse button and drag the box over what you want to select then press Ctrl and 1. Repeat using Ctrl and 2, etc. Then you can press 1, 2 and up to select those teams/vehicles.

The campaign does add a lot to the game as you need to worry about supply lines, troops getting experience and or tired which affects their performance.


Cross of Iron has a zoom option which uses 2 pixels instead of 1 for the map along with larger men and vehicles. When the game came out nobody used it as things were too close so you couldn't see why your vehicles were being hit on the lower resolution monitors available at the time so they removed it from later releases. Funny years later it is useful again.

Gateway to Caen (GtC) uses slightly larger images for maps, men and vehicles which can make things easier to see on higher resolution monitors.

The Bloody First allows you to zoom in since they switched to 3d images.

[inix40]

Thanks for all the suggestions. I'm pretty familiar with controls and options of the game. I've tried fiddling with every settings i could but the results were not satisfactory.

I bought TBF in the end and it's a pleasure to play CC game with graphics that makes it easier for the player to read the situation. It's a big difference and i'm glad that i bough it. It's really tempting to buy GtC and PitF but i'm almost sure i would never play them.

[Noblesse Oblige [KG] ⳩]

The close combat series was originally very engaging. In the 1990s. But this long awaited latest version is tacky. The vehicles which should have minute amazing wargamer detail look horrible and the soldiers not much better. The terrain is not bad until you notice the houses.
I have no idea why they developed such a low detail game when their are plenty of games around that kick it out of the park for detail and or graphics.

* Steel Division 1 and 2
* Combat Mission CMx2
* Men of War Assault Squad 2
* Call to Arms

Even company of heroes 1 & 2.

If only the close combat bloody first team had access to any of these graphical engines. I would have loved this game. But for a game which really only has graphics to offer compared to the other games in the close combat series. Instead we got no graphical upgrades and I would say when they went 3D instead of amazing visuals that should have been we get a downgrade in graphics. Very disappointed :( This game could have been so good. I have been playing close combat since the beginning but stopped after getting CC5 and modding the stuffing out of it. The mods from sulla etc were amazing.

Heck at least make the wheels move, at the moment the vehicles slide around everywhere because nothing on the models moves.

[The Great Misanthropist]

I'm hoping for a Close Combat game with graphics and zooming options like Steel Division 2.