Close Combat The Bloody First-Veteran-Improving infantry resistance
One of the things which I do not like from the original game, it is how the infantry is killed a lot easier than in the older CC games. By this reason, in addition to the video showing a battle (with voice descriptions inside), I go to tell you my reflection about what I have made.
First the old Close Combat games. In these games, if you put two enemy teams, one in front the other in a grass field in a sneak position and they fire one to other, even if they are to 100 meters or less, they do not start to lose soldiers in the teams immediately effect as we can see in the original TBF.
In the old CC games. Maps were painted, each few pixes in the background, there was an terrain element. There were many elements, in the GTC, there are more of 300 different elements. The element values add covert values for all the positions from soldiers. The grass offerds some of covert.
Now in the TBF, there are 179 terrain elements. Some of them are hidden things as the type of terrain, many others are 3D real objects. These real objects, many of them have a covert value in some situations, prone, crouch, stand, total and they add a protection (mm RHA equivalent). This protection value would be as the armor from a vehicle.
Now in the TBF, compared to the old CC, the TBF adds maps where in many places there are not any 3D object giving covert. The 75% from a map can be considered a plain field without any covert where a bullet can cross it without nothing stopping it. It is the main problem.
In the TBF, there are painted terrain elements, dirt, graff, field, pavement but even if it it is the 75% from the map, it does not give any covert or protection. For me, it is a problem and it should give some of covert and protection to the soldiers in the sneak position because we must imagine how the terrain is not pure plain, there are grass, holes in the terrain, things giving you a point of covert and protection, at least for some small amount of time.
Yes, there is the named in options “ground clutter” and perhaps it gives some of covert but between these things, there are many opened parts of the terrain and it can not be added in a grass field really because it adds small rocks and other things.
The second is how some 3D objects or parts, they give covert but they have not a protection in mm as if they were an armor, at the end, they do not covert and clearly.
What about the buildings? Windows and doors do not give any protection, by this reason, if the walls from a building add a 8mm protection value but they have many doors and windows, they are more of less as buildings full of big holes. It explain because you lose soldiers easily inside a building. It is the reason because I have made some new buildings with less windows and doors. Other point is how the old buildings have not this quantity of doors and windows.
Other point from buildings, a machine gun as a mg42 has a base penetration RHA value of 16 mm and buildings a 8 in protection. I do not like this point because most of the buildings from WWII were made with rocks. A rock wall can reflect any mg gun. If it was a wood building, the value can be less but with rock…….it has not sense. Even if it was bricks but the bricks from WWII were more similar to one rock than to one ceramic brick. They were not hollow.
What about elevations? they affect to the LOS but elevations, with exception from holes in the terrain, they do not give too covert to the soldiers.
At few words, bullets in TBF cross terrain as this arrow Point A———>Point B without anything blocking it and your soldiers are in the hands of the accuracy values. 🙄
By these reasons, I have changed the covert and protection values. In fact, the idea was given to me by one of the TBF developers. Just I have made it more deep.
Now, you know what I have edited and you can watch the video. It is a battle in the Vierville map, a map without buildings and very few 3D objects, just trees and bocage. You can see how the infantry is not killed so easy and the combats must be closer but being a bit more realistic.