Talk:Close Combat (series)

Criticism Entry Needed or Not?

I don't think the games were that controversial, and I wouldn't expect to see such a passage in an encyclopedia article, since it cites no sources and contains several opinions.

"Only a handful of maps were included with each game, which had to be fought over multiple times in some campaigns. The top down maps were unusual amongst games of that era for their detail and realism, but also guaranteed that terrain could not be randomly generated.

Another criticism levelled against all real time tactical games, not just the Close Combat series, by proponents of turn-based games is that the real time setting places unrealistic burdens on the single human player in command of platoon-plus sized forces, while proponents of real-time argue that it adds to the excitement and more accurately models the challenges of a real life commander."

Close Combat 3, 4 and 5, which I own, have what I would call a large number of maps each. So 'a handful' is a loaded word that also has the misfortune of being arguable. It would be far better to know how many maps were in each game or some other fact, than this uncited opinion.

The second paragraph is a statement of two opinions, and from the sentence construction (cloncluding with the positive) was clearly written by a fan of the game. The writer also discounts the argument against the game by saying it's true of all RTS games. That calls into question again whether the para is pertinent. Do articles say this or is it a disagreement between teh author and his roomate? It's unclear without sources, so unless some can be found I say kill both paras: 202.82.171.186 03:46, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I thought Close Combat: First to Fight was a completely unrelated game that just happened to have the same name, being released years after the original series. Thoughts, before I change stuff?-LtNOWIS 02:16, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The reasons you have stated as well as the game's completely different nature do lend to confusion. However, it's title is actually derived from the Close Combat series in spirit. This article [1] on the official website illustrates that there is a link between the two, as well as Destineer's (developer of First to Fight) relationship with Atomic Games (developer of original Close Combat series). Clue 02:33, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Bayonet Fighting?

The article says that troops that are out of ammo will fight with bayonets or scavange enemy ammunition. Are you sure this is right? I have played these games a lot and I've never seen troops that are out of ammo do these things. All I've ever seen them do is hide, run away or surrender if the enemy gets too close. Fighting with bayonets I can believe might happen if you set the 'Always Obey Orders' option on but scavanging I am convinced does not happen. Shimbo 10:10, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, they do scavange enemy weapon and ammunition. You have to move your out-of-ammo soldier to the dead enemy soldiers. I only notice that in Close Combat III and afterward.

They do fight with bayonets sometimes. Pretty rare, but it does happen. /Eric

Supported platforms?

Can someone list the operating systems on which the games can be installed?

The first two were Windows/Mac, after that it was just Windows. Shimbo 15:53, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Close Combat: RAF Regiment?

I removed the following text added by an anonymous user:

• Close Combat: RAF Regiment - A new training module for the British Royal Air Force Regiment, which is a ground force. It has been rumoured that a modified version will be released commercially to the public. There is not a single reference to this on google. If anyone can provide a source for this assertation then I will put it back. Shimbo 08:06, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

This from the Designer/Publishers Website:

"CSO Simtek Ltd announces that the Alpha of Close Combat RAF Regiment is now in testing. CCRAFRegt is a modification of CCM (Close Combat Marine) under License from Destineer, for the British RAF Regiment, and will become part of their training programme as a TDS (Tactical Decision-making Simulator) at the Squad or Small Team level.

As well as graphic changes in order to make it personal to the RAF Regiment, this iteration of Close Combat introduces several new features. Multiplayer is now 5 on 5, making 10 concurrent sessions possible. Battle Replay (although present in CCM, it was broken), had to be rebuilt. This includes Multiplayer sessions." Hi Shimbo, I have heard of it but never seen it.See this link. Link: http://www.csosimtech.com/News.html

Also: CC: JTAC / AT (Joint Terminal Attack Controller / Anti Terrorism) - 19 - Oct - 2006 CSO Simtek Ltd announces that it will be building CC Anti Terrorism and Joint Terminal Attack Controller for Destineer Publishing Inc. This will be built using the CC engine and will involve many new items being added to CC. The Simulations are going to be used by the USMC FAST

--Shaun Wallace aka Sulla (talk) 09:21, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Motorfix 23:25, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I've put it back, but we could do with a reference. Shimbo 09:25, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi, this is the anonymous user. Sorry if I was'nt clear enough.

On the CSO website you can see a number of press releases(on the homepage where news is updated). There are currently screenshots, and photos of usage in RAF Honington and there is more info on its current Alpha state, and is being used, but not fully functional. Links http://www.closecombat.org/CSO/index.php?name=News&file=article&sid=272 http://www.closecombat.org/CSO/index.php?name=News&file=article&sid=271 Full article : http://www.closecombat.org/CSO/index.php?name=News&file=article&sid=267

Recently removed section

The gist of this section was recently removed:

“ Close Combat was originally a simulation the effect of morale on soldiers, but was developed as a computer game version of the acclaimed Avalon Hill boardgame Advanced Squad Leader (ASL). The primary consultant for the morale model was Dr. Steven Silver, a combat-related trauma spcialist. ”

I have no idea if this is true or not, though it is very interesting. Could the editor (User:Motorfix) who removed this comment on why it was exciced, or could anyone substantiate the claims above? If it is true it is very worthy of being included in the article. If no reason why it was excised is offered I will reinsert it since it seems like very relevant information. Mikademus 13:50, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Close Combat Mods

Close Combat mods are a world of their own. Quantitatively, and in my opinion qualitatively, many surpass the original game. I propose making a detailed list of mods. It is a reasonable undertaking as there are under 30 mods for all 5 CC RTS games.

Close Combat 5 mods: 1. Gold Juno Sword 4.4 by Boka. Normandy landings and subsequent advance by British/Canadians. 2. Red Storm Rising 1.0 by a group of developers. Modern warfare(1989) in Germany. NATO vs Warsaw Pact. 3. Stalingrad 1.2 by another group of proficient developers. Operation "Blue" German advance onto Stalingrad. 4. Meuse Crossing 3.4 by Luer, Moloch, Tejszd. German assault through low countries into France in 1940. 5. Karelia 2.1 by Sapa. Soviet forces face Finnish ones in 1944. 6. Winter War 1.3 by PanzerEddie and kartboy. War in winter of 1939-1940 between USSR and Finland.

Close Combat 4 mods: 1. VetBoB 1.13 by TT Battle of the Bulge with much improved graphics, compuer AI. 2. Winter War 1.1b by Moloch and Luer. War in winter of 1939-1940 between USSR and Finland. 3. Rebellion 1.1. German forces that revolted against the Nazis and fought in Ardenees in 1944(fantasy). 4. True Green. A highly acclaimed early mod of CCIV. Also the Battle of the Bulge in 1944. Edit this list as with more info.

Close Combat 3 mods: 1. France 1940 by Dreaded88? Very nice mod. Early, high quality work that was upkept as years went on. 2. Real Red 8.22 by Ron Geitz? First major mod of CC3. Took community by storm. As the original, it is set on German-Soviet 1941-1945 front. 3. Die Ost Front 2.0 by ArmeeGroupSud. Currently quite popular. Soviet-German front in WW2. This is a start. CC3 is the most modded of all CC games. It would be useful to have this list on main Close Combat page.

I strongly agree. I play only the modded versions, including one that is rather recent (Stalingrad for CCV). And it's HOW many years since the games were released? For me the mods MAKE the game and ARE the phenomenon that is Close Combat, and should be addressed at the top and then in depth in the article. 202.82.171.186 03:49, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Moved page

Hello. I just moved the page in order to leave the way open to create the first Close Combat under that name. If anyone disagrees, just move the page back, or leave me a message. Thanks. | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 21:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Close Combat 2 battle.jpg

The image Image:Close Combat 2 battle.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --00:51, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

external links

Eik Corell asked me to comment about the use of fansites. From Alex, closecombat.org has a rank of 1,200,000; closecombatseries.net 500,000, the much more general site wargamer.com, 116,000, & the company site matrixgames.com (of course they have many games) 66,000. The matrixgames site is so general that the appropriate top link probably should be http://closecombat.matrixgames.com/ The rule against fansites is not absolute, and it is possible that the two mentioned above provide the best information in this instance.If you who work here decide to use them, then as a minimum, what I sugges is that the text of "http://www.closecombatseries.net/ Close Combat Series - All the latest techsupport, mod files and news about Close Combat" be changed to http://www.closecombatseries.net/ Close Combat Series". Similarly "http://www.closecombat.org/ CSO Close Combat - First online mod and map portal for the series" must be changed to "http://www.closecombat.org/ CSO Close Combat " We absolutely can not have the advertisement after the link. DGG ( talk ) 04:52, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Specifically I was referring to closecombatseries.net - The editor who first added it, and continues to do so, is the site's owner. In other words, conflict of interest. The link might might be ok on this article here, but plastering it on the article of every single game's article reeks of spam. Furthermore, it does not offer any further insight or details on the games, which I believe is a requirement for such links to acceptable; that they offer deeper insight than Wikipedia can. Furthermore, he is engaging in meatpuppetry on his own site here[2]. Good faith has gone right out the window for me at this point, but then again, I am an "ungrateful turd" after all. Eik Corell (talk) 05:27, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Fansites and forums are links normally to be avoided. I can't see any compelling reason to make an exception here. That forum post, I think, shows that the poster is more concerned with linking to his site rather than improving the encyclopedia. Marasmusine --Shaun Wallace aka Sulla (talk) 09:09, 24 February 2014 (UTC)(talk) 22:15, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll agree that on every page is spam, but on the main page it is not. I am not concerned with how many people visit my site from here, my main concern is awareness that the game is still active online and available to purchase in order to attract new players. That information is prominent to any anonymous user who visits the main page.Mooxe (talk) 05:03, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

That brings up more problems: It's not Wikipedia's job to push places where people still organize multiplayer or community events, in other words, telling people how to do stuff. As far as general usefulness, I'm don't see any relevant insight surpassing that of Wikipedia on that site, seeing how it's primarily a small community site, unfortunately bringing us back to WP:ELNO. Now, providing links to places that sell games, whether old or new, falls under WP:NOTCATALOG if I'm not completely mistaken here. Eik Corell (talk) 09:54, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

The site is all inclusive. It has information about every aspect of the game. Multiplayer events, descriptions of in game units and maps, tech support, instructions, external links and downloads. Thats insight. You cannot purchase a game from the site, but you are told where to go in order to do so, just like here. Is linking Matrox Games against policy? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mooxe (talk • contribs) 16:24, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I feel that the link is not appropriate. I took a close look at the sight and could find much actual information on the games. I did come across Mooxe's failed attempt to at off site canvassing [3], he probably doesn't know about the policy, but WP:CANVASS prohibits this kind of action. I would take the advise of the last person to post. Improve these articles and forget about linking to your own website which is clearly a conflict of interest. --Leivick (talk) 20:03, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Just a little comment - Wikipedia isn't all-inclusive. You might want to read What Wikipedia is not(you can click the . As it relates here, it means: Multiplayer events - No, because Wikipedia is not a community site. Tech support - inappropriate per WP:NOTGUIDE. Instructions - No, because Wikipedia is not an instruction manual. You can click these policies listed here and read them for yourself, long as they may be. On another note, what is the consensus here? I personally don't think this website is relevant. Looking at the other sites, I don't see their relevance, either. One is yet another community sites, one is a generic website catering, obviously, to war games. MatrixGames might be relevant. Eik Corell (talk) 00:24, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

please add Close Combat: Panthers In The Fog

http://www.armchairgeneral.com/close-combat-panthers-in-the-fog-pc-game-preview.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.126.2.30 (talk) 03:43, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Entry by Shaun Wallace aka Sulla

i, I ran www.closecombat.org , www.militarygamer.com, www.wargamer.com and was head of operations at Matrix Games for 4 years as well as owning and runing CSO Simtek. You will not see my sites or fandom, plastered all over the article. I worked with Destineer, and Simtek, on completing an Anti Terrorism version of CC, A JTAC version as well as developing Cross of Iron. I have nuemerous contracts that back this up. The peice about the RAF Regt is also true and is well known. Again proof is available. The letter of commendation from the USMC to Simtek is available. There are photographs of the presentation with Martin Bushika [PMTRASYS] and the the stand in for the commandant [4star general] of the USMC and others pesenting a Simtek employee with he commendaion within the booth at the Pentagon. It seems that much of the page is accepted at face value, but any edits or updates require sourcing? If the people working on these projects [past projects now] are not a source? what is considered a source?

Close Combat Marines, was the very first use of a commercial game as part of USMC or any other forces training. The USMC made it part of their junior leaders and NCO's course. Lt Col McBreen even produced a workbook to go with this training. The very fact that in two nations CC was used as a simulation prior to active deployment is surely of historical and scientific interest? It was funded in the US thru Destineer and Atomic from ONR, DARPA, via PMTRASYS [MARCORSYSCOM] and went on to become part of the ARMA development by BIH Australia. Given Atomic games historical anti moddinf stance its somewhat ironic that CC became one of the most modded games. Fansites hosting these mods were integral to the rise and longevity of CC. No similar game has existed or been played consistenly for so long. CC is also in the top 50 all time PC Games.

TRAINING METHODS AND TACTICAL DECISION-MAKING SIMULATIONS http://edocs.nps.edu/npspubs/scholarly/theses/2007/Sep/07Sep_Fitzpatrick.pdf

http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/simulations-and-games-providing-expertise-and-vision-to-a-dynamic-world http://www.pcgamer.com/2011/02/16/the-100-best-pc-games-of-all-time/2/ http://www.cdaccess.com/html/pc/50best.htm

CC Marines Workbook: http://www.2ndbn5thmar.com/dm/CCMWorkbookMcBreen2002.pdf

CC was a core part of the work of Klein Associates with the USMC involving the use of CCM and anylysing it via Cognitive Training methedology. CT was used as part of the evaluation and eventual use of CCM. It proved a simulation was as good at building memory muscle within set parameters as repetition in Real Life. http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=5714&page=1

James E. Shiflett Colonel, US Army (Retired) SAIC Oviedo, Florida

Future developments in the use and capabilities of distributed simulation will be based largely on seminal developments that have occurred in the last thirty years. This time period witnessed the set of interrelated events that led to the development of the original Simulator Network (SIMNET) program through those that culminated in the achievements of the Close Combat Tactical Trainer (CCTT). These events have collectively formed the infrastructure that supports current and future achievements in distributed simulation. Having some knowledge about the facts surrounding this set of achievements is useful. Understanding the rationale behind the events, including the shaping constructs and influences, can transform simple knowledge into enabling wisdom. The primary goal of this paper is to set the conditions that will allow widespread growth of such wisdom.

Jennifer Phillips - CT Research at I/TSEC

CC also had a seminal paper on AI written for it, it used to be available online? This was the basis of CC's unique AI. Yes scavegning, using hand to hand weapons all happen, given the nature of the AI, and its use of reality and morale it may not happen in 3 games as its likely given a novice commander, the units will surrender first. Castigating someone for trying to make an article better is not the way to win friends and influence people Eik Corell! Given knowledge on a subject and no vested influence apart from facts and the truth and making a better article, would be a valuable source of information! --Shaun Wallace aka Sulla (talk) 18:15, 24 February 2014 (UTC) Shaun Wallace aka Sulla 18:14 UTC

I can't make heads or tails of any of this, and this was my original concern when it was added to the article; to the average reader, it's gobbledy-gook. A little example: I have no idea what a "JTAC" is. Here's some more: "This earned an unusual Comendation from the USCM Commandants Office for Simtek." Why is the commendation unusual? What is the USCM Commandants Office and how do they actually give commendations? It all makes it very confusing, and I'm not seeing sources to support any of it. You've posted links here but I can't tell which part of the text you're adding that they're supposed to hold up. As it stands now, the text does little more than make the lead section more convoluted. What you want to add needs to be rewritten to be more comprehensible to a general audience, but also condensed and supported by relevant sources. Eik Corell (talk) 10:33, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Ok, that was worth reading! I will get onto trying to make it "comprehensible" Just for now remove the Simtek worked for Matrix as it did not!

--Shaun Wallace aka Sulla (talk) 10:33, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

"This earned an unusual Comendation from the USCM Commandants Office for Simtek" -- What does this have to do with the history of Close Combat? What is this commendation? This entry is very confusing and full of spelling mistakes and obscure acronyms. It reads more like a history of various companies than a useful addition to the history of Close Combat. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.147.196.74 (talk) 02:27, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

It might be intelligible to people with a military background, but as it stands now, the additions have little value or overall relevance to the article at large. He said he would clean it up and I've been waiting for him to do that. Eik Corell (talk) 04:59, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Link addition

User:Shaun Wallace aka Sulla added this[4] link. I removed it and here's why: It's a fansite. The editor claims to have been the owner of the company that made the games, but this doesn't really have much bearing on the subject matter. If these forums were active and if he was still the owner of this company, then it would be a different story, but as it stands now, the forum doesn't see much activity, and while the site does seem to host a lot of files related to the franchise, you have to sign up to the forum to get at them. I don't think this is a good addition to the external link section. Eik Corell (talk) 12:02, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. It doesn't meet WP:ELYES, doesn't meet WP:ELMAYBE, and does meet WP:ELNO. That plus WP:COI means the link is inappropriate for the article. Woodroar (talk) 22:24, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 28 April 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move the page at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 04:11, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

---

Close Combat (series) → Close Combat – Speedy move request was declined. The term "close combat" is not spelled with caps, therefore this page should be located at "Close Combat" per WP:DIFFCAPS. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 13:22, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Eh.... I'm really not comfortable with the idea that WP:SMALLDETAILS is enough here – I think there's too much risk of WP:ASTONISH under the proposal. It's probably best that the article stay where it is (though, IMO, all video game series should actually be disambig'ed with either "(video game series)" or "(game series)" – e.g. Close Combat (video game series)...). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:00, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Source

• https://archive.org/stream/Computer_Gaming_World_Issue_198#page/n153/mode/2up

https://web.archive.org/web/20081128022512/https://www.grospixels.com/site/closecombat1.php