Close Combat: The Bloody First....

Close Combat The Bloody First. I've cast and eye on the game from time to time out of interest. Mainly due to nostalgia for the games that I'd played previously in the 2D-ish-ness of the early franchise(the second, 3rd and 4th games). The newer games(Gateway, Arnhem, Panthers) never 'did anything for me'. The Bloody first had the potential for a true move to 3D for the franchise. The game does seem to add more of a grand strategy feel. In looks anyway. But I think they've lost the accessibility and a certain hop in "fun" factor(it is a game after all). I like strategy games but I've never been into the 'real' grand strategy games (Gary Grigsby's War series never mind the likes of Hearts of Iron 4 et al). Grand strategy always reminds me of the 90's Battleground series that seemed overly complex and a far cry from what I was playing at the time, Command and Conquer. This new close combat is somewhere in between what I've liked and what I wished I could immerse in and play but gives no motivation for me to try.

I might have another 'assessment' of Gateway, Arnhem and Panthers....

Close Combat 2....

I've been enjoying some more Close Combat 2. Some older saves take me to the late game campaigns for both sides. On the German side I'm remembering why I liked their campaign. It allowed me to do what I usually do in strategy games, hunker down, amass resources and allow the opposition to wear themselves out. Specificity one map, Son Town. You start defending with low quality troops and not enough of them. The expectation is to maybe hold it for one battle and then withdraw to the bridge map. It's a defensive challenge. One I loved to take up. I'd hold it, throw in troops when they were available and push them hard to defend. With luck you can get to a point where the map isn't contested till later in the campaign when the main Allied forces arrive (30 corp). Then it's a massive battle with more troops and armour than sense as they bat away at each other. Thankfully on the map if you destroy enough tanks and suppress the troops with hails of fire you can finish the battle quickly.

I never expected a replay to finish this quickly:

A Casual Carebear

 

Close Combat 2....

I've been pottering about with The Close Combat games again. My favourites being #2,3 and 4.
In trying to record some gamplay 3 and 4 were acting very shy by crashing a lot. 2 stood the test of time. So I did a lot with it. Even if it doesn't have a lot of the features in 3'n'4. Like the epic plinking noise for tank damage or persistent wrecks. Still a fun game.

The Son town bridge taken with 33 seconds to spare. It never happened that way in the campaign...

I had been thinking that there must be a different unit allotment and quality for the single battle map.
But no. They take the starter units from the previous map and add in the likes of the machine gun and PIAT team equal to the number of points you would have had to spend anyway. Which makes sense as your forces would've had to push through the town map before getting to the bridge.

Fair enough. If they were to alter that calculation then you'd have too many variables. How many day's into the battle do you start, how many casualties you take, how long your ceasefire lasts and how many reinforcement points you get to spend. So yea I get it, day one, same as the previous map plus the extra teams. Simples.

Here's an older campaign battle on the same map; I think I was a more cautious commander trying to keep a coherent force for the next map... I should have pushed them harder.

A Casual Carebear