Editorial Close Combat gets both a video and written restrospective in this Tacticular Cancer Special

[Hoodoo]

 

[Burning Bridges]

Firefight

 

[BelisariuS.F]

CC is not an RTS that borrowed some elements from the wargame genre. It's a tactical wargame with real-time gameplay. Adding real-time gameplay to a tactical strategy game doesn't automatically turn it into an RTS. CM introduced real-time gameplay (in addition to the WeGo), but it doesn't mean that we should treat it as some kind of RTS game.

bro, the whole concept of "RTS" is a misnomer. The games in this genre are in fact real time tactic games. Second they allow neither much tactics nor strategy, because they are simply too fast. For me that genre is more characterized by the typical green health bars, mostly unrealistic combat and chaotic gameplay, and I'd be more content if they were called "bustling units" games, for that's what they are. But since they have already hijacked the term RTS, and a lot of people have a preference this kind of game, there's nothing that can be done except live with the fact.

Well, OBVIOUSLY. I was using "RTS" in a generally accepted (incorrect) meaning.

I think we can agree that CC is not a RTS by that definition? But imo "tactical wargame with real-time gameplay" is also not a much better term, because that would also describe e.g. Command Ops, Men of War, or Scourge of War Gettysburg, etc and those are all completely different games. CC is a beer and pretzels, real time war game, and a lot more. Most of all, it's CC. I don't think it fits into any clearly defined genre.

Command Ops isn't tactical, it's operational. Men of War is not a wargame at all.

And lastly while I never liked RTS games, and am a turn based gamer by heart, I never had a problem with real time in CC, mostly because of the slow motion factor and the relatively high realism.

Exactly. In CC real-time gameplay is slooow, so it doesn't turn the game into a clickfest, and because of it it doesn't negatively affect the main goal that any good wargame should have - realistic (to some degree, of course) simulation of the military operations at a particular level (tactical, operational, strategical). CC shouldn't be treated as some failed messiah that had a chance to transform the RTS genre, because it's not an RTS (and RTT is too broad a term, because, as you can see here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real-time_tactics, people use it to describe realistic wargames as well as casual strategy games), it's a wargame. It's more easier to get into for the average player because tactical level it's easier to understand than, for example, this http://www.matrixgames.com/files/games/317/20110213115920.jpg?height=600&width=800, and it was more pleasing for the eye and ear than other wargames when it came out, but it's still a wargame.

 

[Trash]

TC producing content wut?

http://www.tacticularcancer.com/content.php

 

[Trash]

Seems the map generator has been updated quite a bit from the version I played.

 

[Hoodoo]

Maybe. Russia and France seem to have very different maps and sometimes I get mountain/desert one. Still 2-3 mechanics from being a great game by itself though. Good timewaster now and then and had to link, cuz it dosnt get much love.

 

[Trash]

Maybe. Russia and France seem to have very different maps and sometimes I get mountain/desert one. Still 2-3 mechanics from being a great game by itself though. Good timewaster now and then and had to link, cuz it dosnt get much love.

What made me walk away from it was the utterly lame spotting mechanics in place. A tank could sit next to some infantry and they still wouldn't notice the behemoth. Also seeing a fully armored charge through an open field only become visible to my own troops at twenty or so meters pissed me off. Otherwise a splendid game.

He made an IOS version which is apparantly much better than the last Windows version and is currently looking at porting it. Unfortunately he intends to port it to Windows 8.

 

[Hoodoo]

Yeah. Slight tweak to that (AA guns spotted after they fire if units within certain range, tanks very visible). Tweak on the fire command to override tank and AT tunnel-vision... unit exp... artillery buffed but also improves cover defence depending on concentration on area. Couple things like that and it would be a great game, im surprised nobodies tried modding it.

 

[sser]

CC is not an RTS that borrowed some elements from the wargame genre. It's a tactical wargame with real-time gameplay. Adding real-time gameplay to a tactical strategy game doesn't automatically turn it into an RTS. CM introduced real-time gameplay (in addition to the WeGo), but it doesn't mean that we should treat it as some kind of RTS game.

bro, the whole concept of "RTS" is a misnomer. The games in this genre are in fact real time tactic games. Second they allow neither much tactics nor strategy, because they are simply too fast. For me that genre is more characterized by the typical green health bars, mostly unrealistic combat and chaotic gameplay, and I'd be more content if they were called "bustling units" games, for that's what they are. But since they have already hijacked the term RTS, and a lot of people have a preference this kind of game, there's nothing that can be done except live with the fact.

Well, OBVIOUSLY. I was using "RTS" in a generally accepted (incorrect) meaning.

I think we can agree that CC is not a RTS by that definition? But imo "tactical wargame with real-time gameplay" is also not a much better term, because that would also describe e.g. Command Ops, Men of War, or Scourge of War Gettysburg, etc and those are all completely different games. CC is a beer and pretzels, real time war game, and a lot more. Most of all, it's CC. I don't think it fits into any clearly defined genre.

Command Ops isn't tactical, it's operational. Men of War is not a wargame at all.

And lastly while I never liked RTS games, and am a turn based gamer by heart, I never had a problem with real time in CC, mostly because of the slow motion factor and the relatively high realism.

Exactly. In CC real-time gameplay is slooow, so it doesn't turn the game into a clickfest, and because of it it doesn't negatively affect the main goal that any good wargame should have - realistic (to some degree, of course) simulation of the military operations at a particular level (tactical, operational, strategical). CC shouldn't be treated as some failed messiah that had a chance to transform the RTS genre, because it's not an RTS (and RTT is too broad a term, because, as you can see here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real-time_tactics, people use it to describe realistic wargames as well as casual strategy games), it's a wargame. It's more easier to get into for the average player because tactical level it's easier to understand than, for example, this http://www.matrixgames.com/files/games/317/20110213115920.jpg?height=600&width=800, and it was more pleasing for the eye and ear than other wargames when it came out, but it's still a wargame.

Semantics like these are a waste of time. Close Combat falls into a niche between the RTS genre and the wargames genre. It's not like there's dictionary definitions of either one of those things. If you ask me, Close Combat is a highly-detailed RTS game with wargaming elements. But some other folks believe it's a fast-paced wargame played out in real-time. Neither viewpoint particularly matters. In the video, I tried to show that a wargame (Combat Mission) took after the series, while the RTS genre was self-admittedly too closed minded to get away from its roots. It's really easy to say the market ignored CC because it was a niche game, but niche games literally made genres during this era of gaming so, in my opinion, it's kind of worth looking at what features the RTS genre missed out on. Admittedly, the video doesn't quite have the production values or quality input to get across what I really wanted, but CC is a pretty important game, IMO, that could have had some features poached for the benefit of more than just one genre.

 

[Burning Bridges]

If you ask me, Close Combat is a highly-detailed RTS game with wargaming elements.

No, not by a mile.

 

[sser]

There's a certain level of disrespect here to just discount a viewpoint like that when:

CC is not an RTS that borrowed some elements from the wargame genre. It's a tactical wargame with real-time gameplay.

CC is a beer and pretzels, real time war game, and a lot more

both of you admitted to there being a lot of overlap between genres.

I happen to hold wargames and RTS games to different standards, that's all. Again, find me a dictionary that says these are definable. Even the listed "Wikipedia" links are full of overlap. You can argue that CC is closer to wargames, but it's really missing the point. Close Combat, absolutely, can be played like any other RTS games. You can turn features on and off that will more or less shape it into a game that's consistent with its RTS peers. I even showed a scene in the video where health bars are present. One could argue, hey, that's not the "normal" way to play it. Sure, that's obvious. But the inclusion of these gameplay modes show Atomic Games' effort to find a middle-ground between the "details and thoughtfulness" of wargaming and the "action and control" aspects of RTS games, no? And the condensed nature of the battles, the resource allocation aspects, and the unit purchasing aspects, are all gamey in ways the vast majority of the wargaming genre avoids.

ABTF, again, is a great example of the middle-ground. On one hand, you are running a battle at operational levels and, yet, the success of the operation revolves around skirmishes between a handful of companies. The Russian Front's mix of elements is the most egregious of the series, wherein an entire theater of war is governed by a series of small battles loosely connected to the bigger picture. The disconnect between the scope of the history and the game's ability to portray the battles is enormous. I have a really hard time seeing CC strictly as a "wargame" when compared to its peers that handle these exact same scenarios. At the same time, I have a hard time seeing it as just an RTS, too. But if I had to choose, the "real-time" genre is overwhelmingly just the "RTS" genre -- a genre with a strong mix of things, including RPG elements -- and the wargaming genre is overwhelmingly turn-based with more realized sense of scope. Thus, to me, CC is an RTS game that borrows heavily from wargaming. This is even more apparent to me when I look at which genre -- RTS/wargaming -- has more to "learn" from CC and find myself looking at the RTS genre again and again. BTW, when I played CC online, the community was a very strong mix of grognards and casual gamers used to the RTS genre. I think it's very reflective of the sort of niche, multi-faceted approach Atomic Games had.

Again, though, it doesn't really matter. But I do feel better expressing my views on it.

 

[Burning Bridges]

No disrespect, I just disagree completely.

real time != RTS

Around 1997 the fronts and camps were not so clear cut. But when I showed Close Combat to my collegues which were playing RTS like Command & Conquer or Age of Empires they all said it sucked. Which is not surprising, because the games they were playing all sucked to me too.

Or in other words, the things they found missing in CC were exactly the things I hated in RTS games (and still do). They also compained about the game being "ridiculously" slow.

CC has appeal to some RTS gamers

perhaps.

CC is an RTS game that borrows heavily from wargaming

RTS is a specific subgenre, a misleading one besides, and I don't like one of my favorite games to be classified under a genre that I don't touch with a ten-foot pole.

 

[sser]

Yeah, what we see as genre boundaries is why I think we look at things differently. I just don't see the RTS genre in that way and that's probably the reason for the split. To me, the RTS genre is very diverse with its fingers in a lot of pies. I have no qualms about it on a personal level. But I dabble in most genres because I just find games to be fascinating in general. You should look at how Atomic Games saw their own games.

 

[Awor Szurkrarz]

Semantics like these are a waste of time. Close Combat falls into a niche between the RTS genre and the wargames genre. It's not like there's dictionary definitions of either one of those things. If you ask me, Close Combat is a highly-detailed RTS game with wargaming elements. But some other folks believe it's a fast-paced wargame played out in real-time. Neither viewpoint particularly matters. In the video, I tried to show that a wargame (Combat Mission) took after the series, while the RTS genre was self-admittedly too closed minded to get away from its roots. It's really easy to say the market ignored CC because it was a niche game, but niche games literally made genres during this era of gaming so, in my opinion, it's kind of worth looking at what features the RTS genre missed out on.

No. RTS is basically what you get when you take a beer and pretzel strategic-scale game with production, resources and generic units and make it real time and give it flashy graphics.

Close Combat is tactical wargame. Real time wargames existed long before RTS and were usually called real time simulation games. I know it because I actually checked game catalogues and manuals from the 80s.
The RTS term was created specifically for abominations like Dune II and Command & Conquer.

Yeah, what we see as genre boundaries is why I think we look at things differently. I just don't see the RTS genre in that way and that's probably the reason for the split. To me, the RTS genre is very diverse with its fingers in a lot of pies. I have no qualms about it on a personal level. But I dabble in most genres because I just find games to be fascinating in general. You should look at how Atomic Games saw their own games.

Except that Close Combat wasn't derived from the RTS genre in any way. It started out as a port of Squad Leader to PC. And one developer being ignorant doesn't justify your ignorance.

 

[Trash]

I was around in the 80's and when CC was first released and everyone and their neighbour's dog labelled it an rts. But what the fuck am I doing discussing genre defenitions with the aspie crowd?

 

[sser]

I'm not getting what's so controversial here. As Atomic Games stated, the whole point of the CC series was to bring the two genres together. The RTS was wildly popular in the 90s, and the wargames community was still running strong, too. Again, CC has options to make it your run of the mill RTS: removing fog of war, disabling morale and other factors, adding health bars, etc. As far as the copies I have are concerned, the games were marketed as simply "strategy" games with real-time elements. Matrix Games has them listed as real-time strategy games. RTS with wargame elements, a wargame with RTS elements, a real-time wargame, blah blah, what's the difference? There's obviously overlap going on here. You have to be super pedantic and picky to get upset with this sort of thing.

 

[Trash]

Some people just tend to get upset if they can't neatly label stuff.

 

[Lunac]

I play a standalone mission in CC3 every now and then, for fun. And fun it is. Though it makes you a bit sad to see games likes this being gone in any recognizable form or as a genre even.

...
..
.

 

[Burning Bridges]

I am not aspie I just can't let it pass if a game is labelled as RTS when it's actually a top-down tactical infantry/tank simulator

 

[Burning Bridges]

Again, CC has options to make it your run of the mill RTS: removing fog of war, disabling morale and other factors, adding health bars, etc.

.. but what a waste to play this wonderful game that way

 

[BelisariuS.F]

Some people just tend to get upset if they can't neatly label stuff.

Putting games in neatly labeled genres is useful when you are in a situation as Burning Bridges described - someone says that CC sucks, because it's slow and it's missing stuff that should be in RTS. Then you say that it isn't missing anything he mentioned, because this isn't an RTS but a wargame, and it was made to be slow to avoid turning it into a clickfest RTS. Genres define what you should expect from the game.