ArmeeGruppeSud wrote (View Post): |
OH! WOW! HMMM, AT_Stalky notices CC players playing in European time zone more than AT_Stalky sees people playing in US Time zone AT_Stalky lives in Sweden Conclusion = AT_Stalky notices more players in Euro time zone because, being in Europe, AT_Stalky spends most of his online CC time in European time zone because most US players wont come online until AT_Stalky is well asleep as they are 6-9 hours behind Swedish time. Its no surprise that AT_Stalky does not play US people online often as AT_Stalky would have to either stay up till dawn playing or get up extremely early to play during US evening playtime |
ArmeeGruppeSud wrote (View Post): |
@ Stalky My response was entirely logical. ,. |
ArmeeGruppeSud wrote (View Post): |
Watch out for AT_STALKY, he will try and pin you down on side issues i.e. the Americn content of CC5 players
|
ArmeeGruppeSud wrote (View Post): |
This is a diversionary tactic so he can stay off the real topic, because he knows CC3 is better |
ArmeeGruppeSud wrote (View Post): |
Dima (a LEVEL 9 TROLL) & AT_STALKY (a LEVEL 6 TROLLl) |
Dima wrote (View Post): |
1) it is linear and has tiny maps that offer frontal assault tactics most of time!! |
Dima wrote (View Post): |
2) it had so huge success after CC2 that Atomic moved to CC4-5 with stratmap and non linear GC!! |
Dima wrote (View Post): |
3) it has incredible invisible ATGs - so cool!! |
Dima wrote (View Post): |
5) infantry suppression work really great - soldiers get unsuppressed when enemy team charges them!! |
Dima wrote (View Post): |
7) it doesn't represent real units like battalion size BGs in CC4-5 |
ArmeeGruppeSud wrote (View Post): |
The above CC3 Campaign Debrief Screen statistics also give a much more historically accurate reflection of comparitive tank/gun loss ratios than CC5. |
ArmeeGruppeSud wrote (View Post): |
For proof, i give you the Campaign Debrief Screen from the Dima v AT_STALKY TRSM H2H AAR:. |
ArmeeGruppeSud wrote (View Post): |
PLEASE NOTE CC5's TOTALLY UNREALISTIC TANK/GUN LOSS RATIO. |
ArmeeGruppeSud wrote (View Post): |
There is now further proof of why CC3 is a far better wargame, because its statistical results depicts far more accurately a reflection of historical battle losses statistics in the results . |
AT_Stalky wrote (View Post): |
This debate should have ended at page 2. Though.. |
AT_Stalky wrote (View Post): | ||||||||||
AGS, again a very sad type of argumentation.. But, if someone state that there was more CC5 players in the European time zone than in the American time zone, then what does that mean..? A hint mate, you interpretation was wrong. And example of unit that is overrun, and “disappears”, Well, what directly comes to mind is winter in East 1941… How many battalions and division did that happen to? Finland summer 1944… How about Soviet forces in early Barbarossa? I don’t argue that the CC5 disband function is perfect, but it does work. A better system would be an orderly retreat under certain circumstances, and a total mess and reform far behind the lines under other circumstances. Yeh, and how often does a unit disband in a CC5 H2H GC game? Make a percent there.... .. |
AT_Stalky wrote (View Post): |
AGS, mate. You’re the one together with acebars who brought up the US-effect- “side issue” explaining the CC5 preference. Frech up yer memory at page 2. please. (see posts made: Fri Jun 22, 2012 2:16 pm & Sat Jun 23, 2012 2:31 am). |
AT_Stalky wrote (View Post): |
Actually, you’re the ONLY one who are still at that US-side issue, and keep coming back to it again and again. and probable will again... |
ArmeeGruppeSud wrote (View Post): |
Thats a good point and probably has some bearing on the statistics. |
AT_Stalky wrote (View Post): | ||||
I doubt that explain the CC5 strategy system preference. Just some observations: In ~2002 the CC5 stock game (US vs Germany) was suffering form overplaying, the users declined in rapid phase the game room was very empty. The CC5 stock decline continued up to GJS was released. There was a massive return to the game… And GJS is not US vs Germany... Conclusion, none or very few played the stock game by then. People played mods and has been since. Lets look at the mods that actually are played, and see what image they depict of the so called American effect on CC5 preference: Thee most popular CC5 game is GJS, its UK vs GE…. That’s not US… Second most popular is Stalingrad By Dima/Manoi its GE vs Russ… That’s not US… Battle of Berlin is popular its Ge vs Russ That’s not US… Then we gave PJs 3 East front mods, they are popular: Stalingrad DK that’s GE vs Russ. That’s not US… Stalingrad DKDK that’s GE vs Russ. That’s not US… Stalingrad OC that’s GE vs Russ. That’s not US… Karelia I & II are popular, that’s Finland vs Russ. That’s not US… Tali mod, thats Finland vs Russ. That’s not US… Winter war is Finland vs Russ. That’s not US… And Remis Battle of the Scheldt, thats GE vs UK/Canada . That’s not US… Spain civil war that´s Firefox vs terciooriamendi. They are a part of us.… Meuse is played, and its GE vs Frensh. That’s not US… Africa 1940 its ? GE/Ital vs UK. That’s not US… Africa Elalamain that’s GE vs UK. That’s not US… Red Storm Rising, that’s NATO vs Russ. Then we have the US based mods: Okinawa, US vs Japs Bloody Omaha is… well.. not finished.. but its GE vs US.. A second observation, the CC5 “game room” has the most players in European time zone, not American. Conclusion…? Im from Sweden and that’s Europe, why would I prefer East front? In fact I don’t.. /S |
AT_Stalky wrote (View Post): |
I have no idea how many times I said it in this thread alone. For you my old friend, I say it one more time: I don’t believe one can say CC5 is a better game than CC3, or vice versa, its about preferences.. |
AT_Stalky wrote (View Post): |
IIntresting. Do you have that trollster list in a excel file, or is it in yer head only? |
ArmeeGruppeSud wrote (View Post): |
long winded dribbling argument to this side issue in this post |
ArmeeGruppeSud wrote (View Post): |
If you have no desire to argue that CC5 is better than CC3, WTF R U doing in this thread? The thread is called CC5 v CC3 after all . |
Quote: | ||
Oh Dima you are getting so desperate to win a point lol Yes, there is that one map |
Quote: |
27 battalions, vs the 54 allied battalions. The forces are totally available to the commanders in CC5, they are not in CC3. |
acebars wrote (View Post): | ||||||
I couldn't help but getting involved again its too exciting.
Agree completely with AGS about the strawman arguments there's been a lot of those flying around, also writing "lol" is not an argument its about as retarded as using "um" in a sentence.
The penny only dropped last night that Dima is Russian so from a nationalistic perspective such a notion as fighting in Moscow is unacceptable in a video game, quote "wannabes try to capture the Kremlin". It should be noted that German recon units were 8km away and could see the Kremlin and that the closest Panzer division 17km, they had not continued because they had been ordered to halt, however in theory it would have been quite possible for a succesful company (small battalion) to lead a pincer and once a line had been broken to lead a brigade and then division through to attack the rear, this is the very nature of the Blitzkrieg doctrine. That said a company/small battalion would still not have altered the course of the war as the Russian counter-offensive on the 5th of December forced the Germans to withdraw. A battalion unless a special forces unit (like the precursor to the SAS in North Africa) could not and would not have an effect on the outcome of World War 2 it is simply too small a unit. So Close Combat 3 quite clearly deals with the variance of what could have happened realistically in the situation as a commander and not the fantasy that a battalion could change the course of WW2. This brings us to CC5, where
I'd like to point out that whole US regiments stormed the beaches of normandy not companies or small battalions. Lets take the Germans who fielded a total of 14 divisions in the Normandy invasion (I do not count the last 1 division that took part) a total of around 380,000 men. 4-6 (lets say 4) battalions = 1 Regiment/Brigade 3 Regiments/Brigades on a low average = 1 Division So the minimum battalions let alone companies they fielded was at least 4 X 3 X 14 = 168 battalions. (4 divisions in the actually landings in Normandy, 3 adjacent and immediately involved , 4 futher armoured division within a week, 3 further armoured divisions after 21 days having refitted at Coutances (south west Normandy).) So again I call bullshit on the strategy element of CC5, you are fighting a pretend Normandy Strategy map with 27 small battalions (Allied total strength 1,332,000 btw ) with fantasy retreating and supply point settings. Its just total bullshit. Anyone talking about any realistic element in CC5 is just talking out of their arse, it was fought by division and regiments and not by companies. So you can pretend to play the Normandy landings but its nothing like it, whereas CC3 is an accurate historical simulator of war on the Eastern front. Btw I still believe a majority of CC5 players are from the US. That is an excellent flow chart AGS, however I can't comprehend how CC2 is on a par with CC4 I believe the lost sheep must return to the fold. |
acebars wrote (View Post): |
Lets take the Germans who fielded a total of 14 divisions in the Normandy invasion (I do not count the last 1 division that took part) a total of around 380,000 men. |
acebars wrote (View Post): |
So the minimum battalions let alone companies they fielded was at least 4 X 3 X 14 = 168 battalions. |
acebars wrote (View Post): |
So again I call bullshit on the strategy element of CC5, you are fighting a pretend Normandy Strategy map with 27 small battalions (Allied total strength 1,332,000 btw ) with fantasy retreating and supply point settings. |
acebars wrote (View Post): |
Its just total bullshit. |
acebars wrote (View Post): |
(4 divisions in the actually landings in Normandy, 3 adjacent and immediately involved , 4 futher armoured division within a week, 3 further armoured divisions after 21 days having refitted at Coutances (south west Normandy).) |
acebars wrote (View Post): |
Anyone talking about any realistic element in CC5 is just talking out of their arse, |
Quote: |
Dima (a LEVEL 9 TROLL)) & AT_STALKY (a LEVEL 6 TROLLl) |
Quote: |
You know, let me explain some basics for you:
1)The CC5 game only covers the Utah beach landing…. Not the WHOLE Normandy landing… 2)And its timeframe is 6 of June up to the 30 of June. Not the WHOLE Normandy campaign. 3)In the CC5-regular game the Germans BGs are regiments with attachments.. 4)And yes, one can have 5 different amounts of troops depending on preference and how hard one want the operation to be. 5) a CC5 BG is made up by fighting men only. There are no GHQ personal, nor the artillery personal or the of map Flak personal in the CC5 games. You can’t fine the priests nor supply personel…. Nor medics, or medic dogs. Etc |
Quote: |
3 whole divisions with several regiments and battalions faced the American landings, the 709th Static Infantry Division at Utah and 352nd Infantry Division at Omaha, as well as the 91st Air Landing Division which faced the US Airborne troops. |
Quote: |
Only 1 the weakest division faced the British and Canadians. |
Quote: |
In CC5 these divisions are represented by a couple of companies, very realistic! |
Quote: |
and no a BG in CC5 cannot legitimately represent a regiment, a regiments soldiers of around 1000 men are counted as fighting soldiers not as cooks and priests |
acebars wrote (View Post): | ||
No, no let me explain the basics to you the total german divisions I quoted were those who saw action within the month you mention in the Normandy Landings as a whole, they are not to do with the Normandy breakout afterward which you refer to as the campaign and a many of them featured on the American scene up to Cherbourg. 3 whole divisions with several regiments and battalions faced the American landings, the 709th Static Infantry Division at Utah and 352nd Infantry Division at Omaha, as well as the 91st Air Landing Division which faced the US Airborne troops. Only 1 the weakest division faced the British and Canadians. In CC5 these divisions are represented by a couple of companies, very realistic! and no a BG in CC5 cannot legitimately represent a regiment, a regiments soldiers of around 1000 men are counted as fighting soldiers not as cooks and priests. A whole Division landed at Utah not 2 piddly companies! 23,500 men landed in one day on Utah and I'm not even mentioning the adjacent german divisions that took part later. CC5 strategy is bullshit, sorry but it is really. |
acebars wrote (View Post): |
Another thing that keeps cropping up with people who prefer CC5 is that more often than not they started with Close Combat V and/or IV with out any real proper experience of delving into the older games. |
acebars wrote (View Post): |
My observations which without trying to brag have been pretty accurate so far, are that most of the flag waving CC5 players have not had a thorough experience with previous versions of close combat, they may only have tried CC3 before or after the CC4/CC5 experience and quickly returned to CC5. |
acebars wrote (View Post): |
In this same vein, how many solid CC5 players solidly played CC3 before swapping over? I think you'll find many CC3 detractors all tried CC4 and CC5 thoroughly (like myself) and all have the same thing to say about it, I am saying that I believe de facto CC4/CC5 is pants and that in this case the de jure CC5 supporters are judging without perfect information that is all. |
acebars wrote (View Post): |
Out of interest, what is your history of playing CC, which one/s did you start off with and how much time did you spend on it/them? |
Quote: |
23,500 men landed in one day on Utah |
AT_Stalky wrote (View Post): |
Read your own quotes above. After all the bald talk and blaha talk, it turns out that you don’t even know the basic of CC5… |
Quote: |
if you calculate the number of "combat soldiers" among them you will be very surprised IMO Wink |
Quote: |
why not? there are 2-5 battalion sized BGs per each german regiment (as they all had different organization there) in CC5. |
Quote: |
i don't know why you think 716.ID was weaker than 709. |
Stwa wrote (View Post): |
The SHIT is getting real deep in this thread ] |
Stwa wrote (View Post): |
I cant bring myself to read each post entirely |
AT_Stalky wrote (View Post): |
Well argued AGS. |
AT_Stalky wrote (View Post): |
Lets logically test your argument:. |
AT_Stalky wrote (View Post): |
Lets say that I play a CC3 GC, and I would not picked a single tank.. Then I would not have lost a single tank either.. So then the Germans tank losses in east front would have been exactly “0”, zero… And how realistic would that have been?
Conclusion, the losses are a factor of the troops selected. |
AT_Stalky wrote (View Post): |
Lets say that I play a CC3 GC, and I would not picked a single tank.. Then I would not have lost a single tank either.. So then the Germans tank losses in east front would have been exactly “0”, zero… |
AT_Stalky wrote (View Post): |
Lest say that I pic exact ratios of troops, and my opponent do the same. Will the losses really be the historical ratios? Would that imply that the player skill and tactics have no meaning in CC3? |
AT_Stalky wrote (View Post): |
Conclusion: loss ratios are a factor of the 2 players individual skill and there relative comparative advantages.? |
AT_Stalky wrote (View Post): |
Everyone except you ended the “US- side issue” long ago mate, acebars droped it direct and has not mentioned it again, it was nothing there to debate after considering how ppl play CC5. ..? |
ArmeeGruppeSud wrote (View Post): |
If you have no desire to argue that CC5 is better than CC3, WTF R U doing in this thread? The thread is called CC5 v CC3 after all . |
AT_Stalky wrote (View Post): |
So, 1) some seem to argue that CC3 is “better”, 2) some other argues that CC5 is “better”, and 3) I argues that non is the better.. They are just different and there quality’s are subjective in nature.. |
AT_Stalky wrote (View Post): |
May I not argue that for you? LOL
Must I pick a side? |
ArmeeGruppeSud wrote (View Post): |
What is your point? |
ArmeeGruppeSud wrote (View Post): |
the “US- side issue [....] For me it should never have been escalated into an issue and would have been over long ago if you had not been so obsessed about it. |
Quote: |
There has never been such a huge online H2H community since CC3's heyday |
Quote: |
It seems that CC5 killed the Glory days of online CC which was achieved through CC3 |
Quote: |
CC5's associated bugs, malfunctions, problems, crashes, and various other dificulties led to the demise and end of Atomic's previously successful CLOSE COMBAT series |
Quote: |
Realy?
What are you crying about mister Sooky-La-La Let me explain some basic truths to you. Both Tanks and AT guns have firepower as their main superpower Tanks have mobility and armour protection as their other inherant superpowers The only superpower that AT guns have to protect them against tanks is their ability for concealment (you call it invisibility). If AT guns were as visible as tanks, they would be utterly useless. |
Quote: |
Now to prove to you that AT guns are not invisible in CC3 and their concealment superpower does not give them an unfair advantage over tanks in CC3.
The statistics from a CC3 campaign are conclusive evidence against ATgun invisibility in CC3. If ATguns were truly invisible/undetectable in CC3, then there would be more tanks destroyed than ATguns. There are a total of 116 tanks destroyed and 247 guns destroyed in this CC3 campaign, so far. If ATguns were invisible/undetectable in CC3, then why did the tanks destroy so many ATguns whilst losing so few tanks? |
Quote: |
For proof, i give you the Campaign Debrief Screen from the Dima v AT_STALKY TRSM H2H AAR:
PLEASE NOTE CC5's TOTALLY UNREALISTIC TANK/GUN LOSS RATIO 412 tanks v 93 guns There is now further proof of why CC3 is a far better wargame, because its statistical results depicts far more accurately a reflection of historical battle losses statistics in the results |
Quote: |
Dima, a true historical accuraccy enthusiast, who is committed to historical accuraccy, would of course know that true historical statistics of battle losses always show 2-4 times as many gun losses as tank losses............ |
Quote: |
Yes, i am sure when an infantry squad charges your position, you would just sit there and wait for the bayonet in your gut |
Quote: |
Its not realistic like CC5 where you have a company sized group of soldiers representing a regiment |
Quote: |
The penny only dropped last night that Dima is Russian so from a nationalistic perspective such a notion as fighting in Moscow is unacceptable in a video game, quote "wannabes try to capture the Kremlin". |
Quote: |
It should be noted that German recon units were 8km away and could see the Kremlin |
Quote: |
they had not continued because they had been ordered to halt, however in theory it would have been quite possible for a succesful company (small battalion) to lead a pincer and once a line had been broken to lead a brigade and then division through to attack the rear, this is the very nature of the Blitzkrieg doctrine. |
Quote: |
So Close Combat 3 quite clearly deals with the variance of what could have happened realistically in the situation as a commander and not the fantasy that a battalion could change the course of WW2. |
Quote: |
Really? So what the Allied beach landings and subsequent breakouts were made by Chef and Priest batallions? |
Quote: |
No there are 2-5 companies per division in CC5! |
Quote: |
Because it was made up of the most ost truppen, this is off topic anyhow. |
output generated using printer-friendly topic mod. All times are GMT