Development Info Close Combat: Panthers in the Fog

[Burning Bridges]

Tags: Close Combat

New forums and product information on both Matrix and Slitherine heralds that a "brand-new" Close Combat is in the making.

Close Combat: Panthers in the Fog is the first new release (not a re-make of a previous games) in years in the critically acclaimed Close Combat series. It details the desperate German counter-attack at Mortain, the last chance of the Wehrmacht to stave off defeat in Normandy. Can you match the tenacity of the American defenders of Hill 314? Or can you succeed where the Panzers failed, driving through to the sea and changing history? Improved 32-bit graphics and the ability to control more squads than ever bring the Close Combat engine to a new level.

According to Eric Rutins, "brand-new" means that this will be another re-release of the CC5 engine but for the first time with a distinct setting and new features like an improved graphics engine (32 bit) and UI. In the same sentence he also pussyfoots around the issue if there will be a completely new engine after Panthers in the Fog (read very carefully).

This is both a brand new CC game (not a re-do) and also the last CC game using the current engine. That sentence is carefully phrased.

Ok ok so Panthers is still using the old engine I got that. The statement is still a riddle to me. If this is really the last game using the current engine, why make such a substantial update to it? To learn how it's done before making your own engine? Or because there needed to be yet one more game with the old engine? Speculate. Or simply wait until they have sorted their things out.

I will put some screens in the feedback thread.

 

[Burning Bridges]

 

[Shannow]

The real question is whether the old legacy bugs will finally be fixed or not...
Will units have non-aggravating pathfinding? Will infantry finally be able to take out AT guns if they catch them in crossfire? etc

 

[deus101]

Close Combat! Rad!

 

[Trash]

LSA was a great CC marred by an AI that's really starting to show its age and ineptitute and a myriad of bugs. Unfortunately Matrix basically stopped patching those bugs after the first two patches and only recently delivered a vital patch to squash some gamebreaking bugs after a lot of fans petitioned them for it. However that patch also introduced new gamebreaking bugs that basically make playing the campaign futile and Matrix does not seem inclined to do anything about that. Getting enthousiastic about a new game with this all going on is not something I do.

 

[Burning Bridges]

The real question is whether the old legacy bugs will finally be fixed or not...
Will units have non-aggravating pathfinding? Will infantry finally be able to take out AT guns if they catch them in crossfire? etc

I bet very little of that sort. Otherwise they would be over "a vastly improved AI and pathfinding engine" in every announcement. Matrix's propaganda speak is always using hyper-euphemisms, so if something isn't mentioned, it sure ain't there.

I think they have only found a way to slap 32 graphics over it, and are planning to reprogram the remaining part so they can call it a "new" engine.

Here is the feature list. Not worth mentioning besides: 32 bit graphics, Ui improvements, and an increased number of squads.

• Over 50 historically accurate key units and 47 weapon types rendered in exact detail
• Campaign map with 35 unique regions to fight over.
• Command up to 21 squads at a time, and each squad can contain up to 10 men.
• Improved 32 bit graphics allowing smoother, more realistic maps, more varied trees and improved effects
• Refined front end and UI design making the game easier to play and updating the UI to more modern standards.
• Improved force selection more accurately reflects WW2 formations meaning formations cannot be re-customised every battle. Losses and fatigue must be managed and platoons are historically balanced
• Enhanced multiplayer experience using Slitherines integrated lobby, match making systems and routing server, which mean its never been easier to find an opponent and just play!
• Improved High Level Gameplay brings the strategies of the battle to life with
• oAnimated maps showing the progress of attacks and troop movements with new clarity
• oHolding high ground allows players to observe distant enemy troop movements.
• oChoose whether to allocate your air and artillery as close support for your own troops, or to interdict distant enemy formations.
• Fog hides enemy formation

 

[Syril]

Lovely, but they still cannot make campaign map for shit lol

CC4 map was the most pretty one.

 

[DakaSha]

Still being produced by matrix.
gonna be shit

 

[deus101]

What specifically are you thinking of when it comes to path finding.​

​

I mean there were very little HARD obstacles... infantry moved through most stuff.​

​

Also..I can't quite recall but we did have a way to set point-to point path did we not?​

 

[DakaSha]

What specifically are you thinking of when it comes to path finding.​

​

​

​

?
Tanks or other vehicles acting retarded and being destroyed because of it? (That is if the retard AI decides its a good idea)

 

[deus101]

What specifically are you thinking of when it comes to path finding.​

​

​

​

?
Tanks or other vehicles acting retarded and being destroyed because of it? (That is if the retard AI decides its a good idea)

Hmm...never had that problem before.

But then...I used more time to micromanage the vehicles..then you would on inf.


.sending stuff on long treks could get risky, and me being lazy or impatient often cost me.


Ah..i forgot this was more about how the AI follows the path, not the pathing/march orders itself.

Yes..getting your tank stuck in the end at a wall was annoying and time consuming.

But making the unit behave more independently is risky. If anything the freedom to plot a course might get annoying.



Maybe the trick can be to expand the goto/vector function.

That is you implement a traveling salesman sort , and the vector you setup goes from a straight line to something that curves around the corners and obstacles. and fast move means longer turns, etc.

Same thing with Inf, you want to sneak or move you, then the path diverges slightly so that they don't move completely out in the open if there is some cover they can exploit.

 

[DakaSha]

The pathfinding is most likly using outdated algorithms for old pc's.. its using aproximations so that slower processors can deal with it.
thats not needed any more.

Or its just buggy shit. Thats not needed either

 

[Awor Szurkrarz]

LSA was a great CC marred by an AI that's really starting to show its age and ineptitute and a myriad of bugs.

Starting to show its age? It started to show its age around CC5.

 

[TripJack]

what is this a joke the left hand screen looks like fucking washed out garbage compared to the 'inferior' 8 bit image on the right

 

[commie]

what is this a joke the left hand screen looks like fucking washed out garbage compared to the 'inferior' 8 bit image on the right

Same thoughts here. It's even worse in the full screenshots. Looks like a shitty filter has been added to it making it look all foggy.

 

[Burning Bridges]

From the screenshots I prefer the new look.

It's called anti-aliasing. And of course (normally) it should be optional.

But it's quite audacious to call this a "brand-new" game, and then you find out all they did is this. I guess Matrix has to maintain their reputation as the most pathetic publisher in the world.

 

[Phelot]

what is this a joke the left hand screen looks like fucking washed out garbage compared to the 'inferior' 8 bit image on the right

Same thoughts here. It's even worse in the full screenshots. Looks like a shitty filter has been added to it making it look all foggy.

Yeah that doesn't look any better... The 8bit almost looks nicer.



I just wish they'd fix pathfinding. I love watching my tank spinning around the longest way possible to target a threat.

 

[commie]

I'd rather they just gave up on this engine once and for all: sometimes you just can't do more with late 90's tech. For certain games it's better to just move on and take advantage of the processing power of new CPU's from the start rather than trying to beat more out of an engine designed for Pentium 1's!

 

[Phelot]

Somehow I feel that a new engine will only open up more worms. I love the series, but man, you'd think there would have been some progress after all this time beyond resolution changes.

Maybe it's just me, but the original Bridge Too Far felt like the AI was better capable of attacking and defending than some of the more recent editions.

 

[commie]

A new engine can bring it's own problems sure, but the fact that there's been no noticeable improvement in more than a decade with CC rehashes shows that either these devs are totally clueless or there's nothing they can do with this engine anymore. Since a variety of groups have worked on the remakes/updates and all have failed, I'd guess that there's something inherent in the engine that keeps it back.

 

[Burning Bridges]

I am also not excited about their new engine (as in really new, not just a brand-new game), if it comes at all.

They mentioned multiplatform. I also wouldn't be surprised if they remove the campaign feature - because it is too much work.
I simply don't have trust that they are the right people.

But having a new, genuinely improved CC engine could be great. Kickstarter, anyone?

 

[Burning Bridges]

Maybe it's just me, but the original Bridge Too Far felt like the AI was better capable of attacking and defending than some of the more recent editions.

I also think Bridge too Far was the best in the series, followed by CC3.

 

[Phelot]

A new engine can bring it's own problems sure, but the fact that there's been no noticeable improvement in more than a decade with CC rehashes shows that either these devs are totally clueless or there's nothing they can do with this engine anymore. Since a variety of groups have worked on the remakes/updates and all have failed, I'd guess that there's something inherent in the engine that keeps it back.

Sadly, I also have to wonder how much of this is a quick and cheap way for Matrix to make a quick buck, too.

But having a new, genuinely improved CC engine could be great. Kickstarter, anyone?

Well, isn't Firefight suppose to be the alternative to CC? I've played little of the demo, but it feels similar.

Maybe it's just me, but the original Bridge Too Far felt like the AI was better capable of attacking and defending than some of the more recent editions.

I also think Bridge too Far was the best in the series, followed by CC3.

Definitely! I wonder if it has something to do with the smaller maps of BtF that made the AI function a bit better. I don't know, I just remember the enemy really pressing attacks unlike the other games and I even played it fairly recently so it isn't just nostalgia.

 

[Burning Bridges]

Firefight gets great reviews, ask Trash who I think likes it very much. Unfortunately I couldn't get into it, it feels too primitive for my taste.

CC2 was the best because it had great athmosphere (of which the new shit has none, seriously what athmosphere do the remakes provide?), great balance, an excellent campaign system (which was abandoned with CC4), great historic accuracy, great production values (Microsoft) - think how the sound effects deteriorated with CC4. I don't think it has much better AI, but it was very challenging, the only CC where I would literally jerk off every time after I could knock out a tank.

It also had a great setting - parachute operations suit this engine very well. I always hoped they would make a Crete CC afterwards, don't know why they never did that, perhaps they didn't want the Nazis to win.

CC2 also had considerable difficulty. Again, this was provided by the campaign system which gave you only very scarce resources, and not the battlegroup nonsense they have now.

 

[Burning Bridges]

Another thing CC2 has going for may be simple nostalgia. It was the first CC most people played, and it was fun while you were still figuring it out. It's always perceived as a step back when a series is never improved afterwards, and CC was definitely a series that never improved.

Then it may also be because CC2/3 were the only versions where the AI was (subjectively) pressing the attack (mind of course, you could always get mindless AI slaughters at choke points like bridges in CC2 too). Perhaps they had some semi-intelligent scripting working, which was later removed, but I am not sure.

But at the end of the day, CC 2/3 were the only versions that were great fun, from CC4 onwards I just facepalmed.

P.S what you mean by BtF by the way?