Regarding Close Combat 4... please don't bother

[TODave DEFENCE:]

It's already got excellent support at...er...that other place that sounds like 'The Bone', and to be honest, it's not all that good. I wrote the Close Combat 2 FAQ and I'm in regular contact with the CC community. The single player game is okay, but the online h2h isn't that hot.

Concentrate your resources elsewhere.

Just my opinion.

[Mabs]

2 true unfortunately
CC2 - good
CC3 - better
CC4 - utter b0ll0x :(
CC5 - due out l8er this year :)

[WPS]

Thanks for the pointer Dave. This forum wouldn't be the same without you http://forums.gameplay.com/ubb/teeth.gif

[TODave DEFENCE:]

I just don't want to see you guys (+Kirst) putting a load of effort into a game that I don't think you'll get anyone playing. Even Atomic (the developers) admit that the h2h play is flawed.

Hey Mabs, you sound like a bit of a veteran. CC3 better than CC2 though?! No way, CC2 is still the pinnacle. For every good feature they added in the later versions, they took one away. The AI and Grand Campaign in CC3 were seriously flawed. Half the time the AI would just sit there waiting for you to do something, when it was meant to be on the attack (eg, if the AI was playing the Russians, later in the war it would just sit there waiting for you to take the map, when it was meant to be forcing you back). As for the Grand Campaign, no matter how well you did as the Germans, in the end you would be fighting in Berlin. You could win every battle, but you'd still end up defending Berlin. In CC2 you had a chance to change history. CC3 really only came alive when all the mods started, some of which have been excellent (Vietnam, Bulge, France 1940, etc).

CC4 has a better grand campaign, but in doing that they made the h2h play a bit naff.

However, the good news is that Atomic have promised to get the last in the series *right*, so hopefully that will round off the series nicely.