Posted: Sat Aug 27, 2011 3:40 pm Post subject: Re: Historical Accuracy or Game Play?
Generally, I prefer completely fantastic scenarios using fantastic hardware which try to be realistic (are logical, don't break laws of physics, etc.).
The main problem with historical accuracy is that the presence of the player, his way of doing things, etc. is inherently ahistorical.
I believe that historical balance is the best balance, that's why my goal was to make GJS 4.4 TRSM as historically accurate as CC5 can afford and i believe i've achived that .
AGS, i suggest you ignore that guy as he is real troll (if you have questions about EF, just drop me PM).
(Hello Dima, its been a while!)
I'd like to say that there really need not be a conflict between game play and balance. The game play is rather enhanced by the perpetual transformation of power on both sides. Deploy, battle groups, fuel or no fuel - all of these changing factors in grand campaigns are a big part in the longevity of the game; I am sure I would not still have been as interested in CC if it had just been about single battle meeting engagements with equal number of tanks, etc. (Ok, a rough simplification but you get the idea.) The fact that things always keep changing on the battle field creates the value of CC.
So clearly I believe historical accuracy to be of high importance, not only because it would feel weird playing a Normandy mod where e.g. Germans have air supremacy or Hitler contra factually having deployed his two panzer divisons (most us are history buffs to some degree why this has importance in itself anyway), but because the historical assymmetry gives CC its unresistable flavour.
Finally I dont think it really matters if Germans "cant" win a campaign over 26 days, doing well as Germans should count as a stalemate, at least as far as I am concerned.
Posted: Wed Sep 05, 2012 4:35 pm Post subject: Re: Historical Accuracy or Game Play?
I agree with the Weapons aspect for Historical Accuracy but what about Force Pools?
Do you automatically assume that during your GC a Infantry BG in game would not have any supporting units such as Half-tracks and Tanks?
And when editing a BG such as Peiper do you force the players had at a certain Date and automatically remove his Panthers and replace them with Half-tracks?
I think we all want as much historical accuracy as we can get but it must be balanced against game play. Let's take mortars into consideration. Its obvious that mortars had a minimum range that more oftern than not would require them to be somewhere off the (cc) field of battle. But since we're only taking a snapshot of a much larger battlefield as a whole the mortar range has to be tweaked downward to allow it to be on the small size battlefield being used. Some would argue this runs contrary to historical accuracy and place a minimum range that basically negates the use of the mortar team in game play. Give us balance baby....
historical accuracy as much as practical but there are some things...that just dont work right like mortars
I have Banged on about mortar range many times in differant forums for the size and types of battles we are playing a reduction in min range is fine ...one of the few areas i dont mind given up historical accuracy ...but firing them at open top AC/HT is going too far thats why any thing i mod i try to make them less of a killer of AC/HT they were not used in that way.
I think you'll find the Mortars to be much more to your liking.
? sorry i dont know what u mean!
Dima in the TRSM mod made the Mortars duel and less accurate more like how they were used...after all they are not AT guns and was not used to fire apon vechicles normaly.
I agree with the Weapons aspect for Historical Accuracy but what about Force Pools?
Do you automatically assume that during your GC a Infantry BG in game would not have any supporting units such as Half-tracks and Tanks?
And when editing a BG such as Peiper do you force the players had at a certain Date and automatically remove his Panthers and replace them with Half-tracks?
Since this has to do with "your" Vetbob, 2 different answers.. Of course want something actual units and close, but exact to where it actually ruins gameplay.. Towing the line in keeping historical units at say Place "A" when they should have been, only because they were actually there for the sake of historical accuracy? **NO**
I think you have done a good job (so far) of units and actively pulling them out, or forcing to use certain vehicles/units on a certain day is not a good idea, or it isn't to me at least. Using the experience bar can adjust strength and think you and Selded mentioned the possibility of a plugin at some later possible date to modify some aspects also.
Posted: Tue Sep 11, 2012 8:04 pm Post subject: Re: Historical Accuracy or Game Play?
First time poster here. Overall, I voted for historical accuracy.
Why? It always gets to me when I find an element in a game that is blatantly not accurate at all, but was left in for gameplay purposes. As Tigercub mentioned, the mortars leave a lot to be desired and are one of the big gripes I have with the series. If they can't get them right, don't leave them in.
But that being said, game play is important. That's why I'm a big fan of cc2 and cc3. IMHO, they have a good balance between accuracy and gameplay.
But that being said, game play is important. That's why I'm a big fan of cc2 and cc3. IMHO, they have a good balance between accuracy and gameplay.
CC2 and CC3 are probably the least historical versions of CC....
Fans of those 2 versions have also in the past had the largest (and most vocal) amount of people hollering about historical accuracy as well.. Go Figure
Posted: Wed Sep 12, 2012 9:53 am Post subject: Re: Historical Accuracy or Game Play?
I don't understand why say CC5 has more historical accuracy to CC2. And I don't understand the "poor research" element Dima mentioned. Can someone please explain these points to me?
Posted: Sat Sep 15, 2012 11:36 am Post subject: Re: Historical Accuracy or Game Play?
Quote:
My thoughts exactly, AGS. Still waiting for someone to say why CC5 is more historically accurate...
battle maps, units involved and their TOE is way more historical accurate than CC3 (which IMO is beyond good and bad history-wise). That was a base that helped community to have some very accurate mods simulating single operations in high details.
all the mods trying to make CC3 more historical accurate have not been able to fix (for 14 years already) all the historical mistakes that were in vanilla CC3 (while introducing more and more new mistakes) - but that's probably due to poor research overall and lack of knowledge of the EF.
My thoughts exactly, AGS. Still waiting for someone to say why CC5 is more historically accurate...
battle maps, units involved and their TOE is way more historical accurate than CC3 (which IMO is beyond good and bad history-wise). That was a base that helped community to have some very accurate mods simulating single operations in high details.
I don't know why you think the battle maps in CC3 aren't very historically accurate. Can you be more specific? The only one I can think of is the Moscow map - which they included for gameplay reasons, I assume. And yes, perhaps the units in CC5 were very accurate, but those in CC3 seem pretty accurate too. Again, can you be more specific?
Quote:
all the mods trying to make CC3 more historical accurate have not been able to fix (for 14 years already) all the historical mistakes that were in vanilla CC3 (while introducing more and more new mistakes) - but that's probably due to poor research overall and lack of knowledge of the EF.
What mistakes exactly? Can you provide some examples? So far, all you've said is there were mistakes and it's not historically accurate. But I'd like to know specifically what mistakes in vanilla you're referring too.
Posted: Sat Sep 15, 2012 7:23 pm Post subject: Re: Historical Accuracy or Game Play?
Quote:
I don't know why you think the battle maps in CC3 aren't very historically accurate. Can you be more specific? The only one I can think of is the Moscow map - which they included for gameplay reasons, I assume.
just out of the top of my head:
Kursk area doesn't have steppes - it has fields and a lot of forests.
Vistula area doesn't have high ground at the East bank - either walls on both sides (East Prussia) or highly elevated western bank (Poland).
Quote:
And yes, perhaps the units in CC5 were very accurate, but those in CC3 seem pretty accurate too. Again, can you be more specific?
units in CC5 were not very accurate - they were accurate in comparison to CC3.
CC3 units are, as I pointed before, beyond good and bad.
Quote:
What mistakes exactly? Can you provide some examples? So far, all you've said is there were mistakes and it's not historically accurate. But I'd like to know specifically what mistakes in vanilla you're referring too.
just some examples: Cossack/Siberian infantry, KV-2 in 1942, BS-3 in 1943, SU-152 in 1943, 45/76mm penetrating PzIIIH with frontal hits in 1941, 10men RA squads vs 7men german squads, etc ,etc.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You can download files in this forum
In August of 2004, Zappi, Homba, Bambam887, RedScorpion and MOOXE all pitched
in to create this Close Combat site. I would to thank all the people who have visited
and found this site to thier liking. I hope you had time to check out some
of the great Close Combat mods and our forums. I'd also like to thank
all the members of our volunteer staff that have helped over
the years, and all our users that contributed to this site!
.
(if you have questions about EF, just drop me PM).
