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.

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.

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.

I did have high hopes for the reboot with CC: The Bloody First but
everything I've read about says it should have been called CC:The Bloody
Mess.

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)

>I did have high hopes for the reboot with CC: The Bloody First but
>everything I've read about says it should have been called CC:The Bloody
>Mess.
>
>
>

I didn't like CC compared to C&C games. ;)

Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> 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.

> 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.

--
"Jesus did not let [the man from whom he had cast out a legion of demons] come with him, but said, 'Go home to your family and tell them how much the Lord has done for you, and how he has had mercy on you.'" --Mark 5:19. SWTPM is 25, Shrek 2 is 20, & MC is 15. :O
Note: A fixed width font (Courier, Monospace, etc.) is required to see this signature correctly.
/\___/\ Ant(Dude) @ http://aqfl.net & http://antfarm.home.dhs.org.
/ /\ /\ \ Please nuke ANT if replying by e-mail.
| |o o| |
\ _ /
( )

On 5/18/2024 12:22 PM, 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.
>
> We all played the wargames, though. Because of course we did. What
> else was there to play?
>

I never got into them. The only one I played and enjoyed was Fantasy
General, but that was a pretty late entry.

If you count 4x games, especially Master of Magic and Master of Orion,
then I did, but those weren't really wargames. I never got into Civ either.

--
-Justisaur

ø-ø
(\_/)\
`-'\ `--.___,
¶¬'\( ,_.-'
\\
^'

On Mon, 20 May 2024 07:40:56 -0700, Justisaur <justisaur@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>On 5/18/2024 12:22 PM, 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.
>>
>> We all played the wargames, though. Because of course we did. What
>> else was there to play?
>>
>
>I never got into them. The only one I played and enjoyed was Fantasy
>General, but that was a pretty late entry.

"Fantasy General" (and its predecessor, "Panzer General") was an
earlier attempt to make wargaming more palatable to the average gamer.
It was quite successful too, with a more more palatable presentation
and easier learning curve. But it was still very recognizably a
traditional wargame, and I think a lot of people avoided it just
because it still used hex-and-tile mechanics.

The "Close Combat" games /looked/ a lot more like real-time-strategy
games, what with all their little units scurrying across colorful,
detailed maps. In many ways it owed as much to games like "X-COM: UFO
Defense" as traditional wargames. (in fact, while writing my original
post, I debated if "Close Combat" really could be considered a wargame
at all).

>If you count 4x games, especially Master of Magic and Master of Orion,
>then I did, but those weren't really wargames. I never got into Civ either.

Count your blessings. Civilization and it's 'one more turn' mechanics
has destroyed more lives than some wars. Sid Meier should be held up
for crimes against humanity. ;-)

On 19/05/2024 17:31, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
> 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.
>

It's more that in terms of 'digital' boardgames there still seems to be
more of a focus on traditional ones and not more modern designs although
say Undaunted is in early access. As you say though there is still quite
a range of wargames in general and you could say the nice thing is you
don't really need triple A production values just good enough ones.

Combat Mission is series that just went downhill. They did do some
updates to the mechanics and graphics engine but it still looks like a
game from 2010. That I could put up with if it wasn't for them really
taking the pee with prices. So release a game in 2023 based on a ten
year old engine for about £50, fair enough as I got many hours of
gameplay out of the original CM:Normandy. What's this some additional
DLC, nothing wrong with that to expand the base game. Oh hang on, if you
want all the content that was in the original then you can add another
£100 to the cost.

I'll stick with the games that Graviteam released thank you very much.

>> 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)
>

Remade is probably a bit of a strong word for it, they are pretty much
you can you run the game in higher resolutions.

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!

-pw

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

On Mon, 27 May 2024 09:41:45 -0400, Spalls Hurgenson
<spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote:

>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?

-pw

On Mon, 27 May 2024 19:41:57 -0600, PW
<iamnotusingonewithAgent@notinuse.com> wrote:

>On Mon, 27 May 2024 09:41:45 -0400, Spalls Hurgenson
><spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>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?

You could always try it on period-appropriate hardware ;-)

The GOG forum link indicates the problem is a result of the game's
resolution differing from the desktop's resolution. One solution
presumably would be to change your desktop resolution to whatever the
game runs at (probably something ungodly like 800x600, I don't
remember off the top of my head and don't feel like downloading and
installing the game to find out ;-P).

Alternately, there's a third-party app called DXWnd that forces the
game into a window instead of running full-screen that supposedly
solves the problem. See
http://www.closecombatseries.net/CCS/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&t=11996

Me, I got the old hardware so that's my chosen method. I like the loud
whiiiiirrrrr of the fans and the clickety-clunks of the hard-drive to
accompany my old-school games. ;-)

On 28/05/2024 02:41, PW wrote:
> 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?

On Steam you can find the original series (except I) remade with the
main improvement being the game should run out of the box at modern
resolutions. The catch ,the price is £35 pounds which is basically a
rip-off considering the work they, well didn't, do. The good thing
though is that they spend a lot of time on a deep sale so I have Last
Stand Arnhem (CC:II) and Cross of Iron (CC:III) as those were my
favourites in the original series for £7 each.

Once you get past the graphics the gameplay is still solid so maybe have
a look at the complete series to see if one of them takes your fancy.
Something I find with wargames is that who's fighting is rather
important to me. So British and Commonwealth, German or Russian, that's
all good but other forces less so.