I have a fond spot for the old "Close Combat" strategy games... even
though - if I'm forced to admit it - I didn't actually enjoy playing
them all that much.
It's just that... well, you have to understand what gaming was like in
the 80s and 90s. Wargames were always a mainstay of computer gaming,
if only because they had the memory to keep track of so many units,
each with dozens (or more) of variables, across what was - for the
time - impressively large maps. And so there were hundreds of wargames
- many utilizing rules and mechanics from board-games - on the
computer platform. Although SSI was later known for its RPGs, it made
its name originally by selling wargames. Microprose too. Wargames were
/huge/ on computers.
But they were also really, really dull. Well, except for wargaming
grognards, I suppose; they loved that sort of thing. But memorizing
the minutia of differences between the ten thousand different
variations of the T-34 tank just wasn't that exciting to most people. Especially since the presentation of the games at the time all showed
the tank using the same 8x8 pixel graphic.
I have a fond spot for the old "Close Combat" strategy games... even
though - if I'm forced to admit it - I didn't actually enjoy playing
them all that much.
It's just that... well, you have to understand what gaming was like in
the 80s and 90s. Wargames were always a mainstay of computer gaming,
if only because they had the memory to keep track of so many units,
each with dozens (or more) of variables, across what was - for the
time - impressively large maps. And so there were hundreds of wargames
- many utilizing rules and mechanics from board-games - on the
computer platform. Although SSI was later known for its RPGs, it made
its name originally by selling wargames. Microprose too. Wargames were
/huge/ on computers.
But they were also really, really dull. Well, except for wargaming
grognards, I suppose; they loved that sort of thing. But memorizing
the minutia of differences between the ten thousand different
variations of the T-34 tank just wasn't that exciting to most people. Especially since the presentation of the games at the time all showed
the tank using the same 8x8 pixel graphic.
We all played the wargames, though. Because of course we did. What
else was there to play?
But by the mid 90s, things were starting to change. "Dune" and
"Warcraft" vastly improved the graphics of strategy games, streamlined
the mechanics, and added some much needed action to the genre. In
fact, they were so different from regular wargames they created an
entirely new genre; 'real-time strategy'. Regular old-war games were
forced to play catch-up.
The "Close Combat" games were some of the first games to feel
'modern'. It was still turn-based tactical combat but it had animated
units that moved and responded realistically to events around them. No
more tiles sliding across mostly barren hexes; the maps looked like
real battlefields. It captured the presentation of real-time strategy
while still retaining most of what made wargaming fun. (That it was
pretty much "Advanced Squad Leader*: The Computer Game" didn't hurt
either). After years of dreary Gary Grigsby** wargames, the "Close
Combat" games felt like a breath of fresh air. For the first time in
years, I was actually having fun playing a proper wargame.
Still, by 1996 - when the first "Close Combat" game was released - my
tastes were changing and even if I recognized that "Close Combat" was
far better than the wargames of the past, still they struggled to keep
my interest for long. I played the first game several times through; I
played its sequel once. The third and fourth games I bought but never finished. The fifth game I never purchased at all. Anyway, by that
time the "Combat Mission" games were out, which were to "Close Combat"
what "Close Combat" had been to earlier wargames.
Nonetheless, I have never forgotten that feeling of revelation and
excitement when I first played the original "Close Combat", so seeing
the games on Steam***... well, you can imagine what happened. I mean,
I have the reputation (and the giant video game library) I do for a
reason. And, playing the original again for the first time in years, I
can see why they had such an effect. I /still/ can't see myself
playing them for very long, but - if only for a brief while - I'm
having fun battling my units through the hedgerows of Normandy.
Welcome back, "Close Combat". I'm surprised to say it, but I missed
you.
* a popular table-top wargame infamous for its detailed rules and
scenarios.
** a long-time developer of PC wargames, his games remained extremely old-school
*** apparently the games have long been available on GOG, but I never noticed. They're still on GOG too. But now they're on Steam as well.
I have a fond spot for the old "Close Combat" strategy games... even
though - if I'm forced to admit it - I didn't actually enjoy playing
them all that much.
It's just that... well, you have to understand what gaming was like in
the 80s and 90s. Wargames were always a mainstay of computer gaming,
if only because they had the memory to keep track of so many units,
each with dozens (or more) of variables, across what was - for the
time - impressively large maps. And so there were hundreds of wargames
- many utilizing rules and mechanics from board-games - on the
computer platform. Although SSI was later known for its RPGs, it made
its name originally by selling wargames. Microprose too. Wargames were
/huge/ on computers.
But they were also really, really dull. Well, except for wargaming
grognards, I suppose; they loved that sort of thing. But memorizing
the minutia of differences between the ten thousand different
variations of the T-34 tank just wasn't that exciting to most people. Especially since the presentation of the games at the time all showed
the tank using the same 8x8 pixel graphic.
We all played the wargames, though. Because of course we did. What
else was there to play?
On Sun, 19 May 2024 09:25:10 +0100, JAB <noway@nochance.com> wrote:
On 18/05/2024 20:22, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
I have a fond spot for the old "Close Combat" strategy games... even
though - if I'm forced to admit it - I didn't actually enjoy playing
them all that much.
It's just that... well, you have to understand what gaming was like in
the 80s and 90s. Wargames were always a mainstay of computer gaming,
if only because they had the memory to keep track of so many units,
each with dozens (or more) of variables, across what was - for the
time - impressively large maps. And so there were hundreds of wargames
- many utilizing rules and mechanics from board-games - on the
computer platform. Although SSI was later known for its RPGs, it made
its name originally by selling wargames. Microprose too. Wargames were
/huge/ on computers.
But they were also really, really dull. Well, except for wargaming
grognards, I suppose; they loved that sort of thing. But memorizing
the minutia of differences between the ten thousand different
variations of the T-34 tank just wasn't that exciting to most people.
Especially since the presentation of the games at the time all showed
the tank using the same 8x8 pixel graphic.
<snip to keep the post shortish!>
I played lots and lots of hours of 2 and 3 and although I bought 4 and 5
they just didn't grab me anywhere near as much. 3 is a particular
favourite although I felt it was slightly let down by the campaign being
impossible to 'win' and once you got to outside Moscow it was always
destination Berlin from there on in.
As you say though it really made a change to have a wargame that instead
of effectively being a table top game in digital form was a actual
computer wargame. Another couple of mentions I have would be Combat
Mission and Command Ops. Both are less casual than CC, and that's true
particularly for Command Ops, but they do something that you really
can't do on the tabletop and aren't just a case of as the computer does
a lot of the grunt work we can have massive scenarios that no one in
their right mind would play by hand.
The strange thing is it could be said that computer wargames have almost
gone backwards as whereas a lot of TT ones have been influenced by the
rise of euro games computer wargames still often seem like designs from
the 70's and 80's.
I can't say too much about the tabletop games, but computer wargames
are -wonderfully!- all over the place. Want a Gary Grigsby-style game
with a hex-map and tile-based units with incomprehensible symbols on
them? They're making those again. Want something akin to Panzer
General? You'll find that. Want a Combat Mission clone? Those are out
there too.
I mean, none of them are 'triple-A' productions, of course. Long gone
are the days somebody like Microsoft would make such a niche title as
a wargame! But the Indie scene has you covered.
CC itself, the originals have been remade but they're rather
disappointing as for £35 all you really get is some nicer graphics while
things like the pathfinding, notoriously poor, have been left untouched.
The Close Combat series got shuffled between numerous publishers over
its lifespan. It started as a Microsoft product (developed by Atomic
Games), later got transferred to Mindspan (developed by what was left
of SSI) and then got bumped to Slitherine. And that was just the main
series. After that the name got shopped around - there was even a
Close Combat FPS - and the general quality of the titles plummeted. In
the early 2010s, the series saw something of a revival as it focused
on its core identity again, but by that time I'd moved on to other
games and I can't say much about the newer games.
But all that jumping between publishers did nothing for the
franchise's quality. It wasn't helped that wargames were seen as an increasingly niche and nonprofitable genre in an industry that
considered a game a failure if it didn't immediately sell 1 million
units, so the budgets of the later games were pretty small.
Still, the versions on Steam are the original games, only updated to
run smoothly on modern hardware. I wasn't aware they had been remade,
but if you want the old-school versions, that's the ones to get (IMHO)
On Sun, 26 May 2024 19:32:39 -0600, PW
<iamnotusingonewithAgent@notinuse.com> wrote:
Just bought Close Combat 2 from GOG. It won't start "Action not >>supported". Typical GOG.
I bet if I buy the Steam version it will start fine!
Actually, it's a fault in the game. The Steam version suffers from it
too.
https://www.gog.com/forum/close_combat_series/action_not_supported_cc2_abtf
Yuip Spalls. I spent $5 on the Steam version and it crashes too but
does get farther in the game.
Do you know of a version of this series that may be better than the
early versions like this one and actually works?
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 483 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 160:23:42 |
| Calls: | 9,594 |
| Files: | 13,676 |
| Messages: | 6,149,308 |