It is actually quite complicated. General theme of the formulas is what ever your starting strengths are the game will try to reinforce you accordingly especially if you take more than expected losses where you will then receive bonus reinforcements as your expected strength is higher than real strength.
It is a nice points formula for a unit that is part of a larger army, but it would be nice if there was a formula off button in the editor and the game would then stick rigidly to reinforcements set.
Yea you're right the soviets used their armed forces to make fantastic battle scenes.
The one you mention is great, also the film Waterloo although western was made in Ukraine with the Ukranian army (can you see the similarity between the film styles?). The Polish communists also made some great films via similar method like "The Deluge" some great battle scenes using their armed forces for man power.
Finished reading "Vietnam: A History" by "Stanley Karnow".
Good book, but although it is a history not totally comprehensive and detail of certain key events is patchy whereas other points very detailed, more like "Vietnam a history by a reporter who was there" as opposed to a richly studied piece.
Jumped back about 3 centuries, now nearly finishing "The Siege of Vienna" by "John Stoye" a little dry but thorough, it really seems like the Poles have a knack of saving Europe's ass this being the first time they averted or repulsed a major European crisis!
Christian or other religions are nothing compared to the agro Muslims.
Its not a religion its a cult, if there was a God do you really think he'd tell one guy to try to subdue the whole world with fire and sword (same guy also happens to be a polygamous paedo).
Islam is hateful, aggressive, anti-semitic and homophobic, the worst of the other religions has nothing on it. Try a heated discussion with them, they will promise to behead you!
Just discovered more bullshit by the oppostion namely that "bayonets were used as a main infantry tactic during WW2"
Weapons actually innovated during WW2 on both sides did not prioritize a bayonet.
For example I just discovered the Gewehr 43 had no bayonet fixture, the germans were quite able to provide a fixture but it was considered not a necessity.
Conclusion of this debate CC3 logically and factually wins hands down over CC5 which has to use BS arguments to win.
Why trouble yourselves with all the fantasy campaign layers, that only seem to satisfy the purists, or nebulous point systems and blatantly problematic TOE's that the AI will never understand.
Instead just arm yourself with 15 king tigers like CCMT would allow for.
Personally think CCMT has potential but was a bit of a failed project, and it is only really entertaining imo during multiplayer.
As for...
Quote:
nebulous point systems
The point system so far in CC3 is the most true to life accurate system of how an army works in any of the CCs so far, as I've logically described before.
And Australia finally allows immigration! (I actually happen to agree with Australia)
Quote:
I can see the headlines from the year 2016...
I can see a different headline, Close Combat VI comes out, an incredible new historical strategy game featuring a 3D down birds eye view, featuring all the benefits of CCMT, the best of CC3 + CC2 combined and the strategy map based on a HOI2 strategy engine.
-A limited force pool with the ability to allocate sector points to each BG and operational points as a whole (like in CC2) or likewise the possibility of a unit reinforcement pool for a whole division with units only available and updated on that day or left overs from previous days. (A revamp of the CC2 reinforcement system).
-15-30+ units per team, 5 teams available on each side (like in CCMT) and unit stacking on the strategy map.
-Preselected bombardement and limited during battle bombardement possibilities (CC3 + CCMT mixed)
-Strategy map includes possibilty of fleeing/withdrawing from a battle. (CC2/CC3)
-AT guns can be moved with vehicles or towed by infantry + horses and must flee off map with this method to be able to retain their guns uncaptured.
-Crews can be made to abandoned their vehicles/tanks/guns and also ordered back into them, other crews can also be ordered into them (this de facto happened in many battles).
-Captured tanks have a chance of being available in the force pool. (CC3 sort of does this but not really)
-Mounting of vehicles and digging in (like in CCMT).
-Possibility of neutrals who have either no disposition or are disposed to one side or another i.e. civilians caught in between fighting (this would enable you to have sympathetic to vietcong neutral villagers in a Vietnam mod for example who would normally be neutral but also have a very small chance of trying to join the fight independently as ad hocs, particularly useful in uprising mods).
There is so much more, I could go on.
I have a dream. That my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by what Close Combat game they play but because the game they play is the best in the Close Combat series. I have a dream today!
I have understood what makes you tick and what mission you’re at here. Congratulations you have succeeded.
Well I'm not here to moan about what is really positive criticism or give negative points to anyone for criticising the obvious, which is childlish imo.
Quote:
Na, I have not presented any such numbers. I have presented figures that points to how the tactical fights was in Normandy in June 1944. I have not presented figures from the whole campaign.
Whats your point? I never said you presented such statistics, I asked if you could present those statistics specifically AT statistics, to back up your argument.
Quote:
And that the fight is not the same as 4 years of fighting in the East front…
This is arguably a fair point.
Quote:
Did you not understand that? I have understood what makes you tick and what mission you’re at here.
My mission here is to prove that de facto CC3 is a better game than CC5, and I'm not resorting to any underhand derailment tactics to prove this and you are not doing a very good job of factually and logically defending it without resorting to personal attacks.
German Units credited with number of Allied tank kills in June 1944 (21 days):
The numbers I presented was from June 1944. So the only problem is that Operation Goodwood starts 18 th of JULY…… You know like…. later… tick tack..
Basics …
Mate at least read Wiki article or something before reply. It works best that way, for everyone.
Please.
Nice try with the patronising response and the "basics" accusation. I've been working at the computer all day and only glossed over your post so sorry if I didn't note it was June only, besides I posed a question I didn't make a statement, my first genuine mistake is used as evidence of not knowing the basics etc. thats pretty low even for you Stalky, tut, tut. If someone mentions Goodwood and happens to know it was an armoured fence off in Normandy it presumes they know a little bit more than just basics. Please.
How about those AT gun statistics to back up your armoured losses comparison.
Personally don't see what is wrong with criticism, it is in fact democratic and positive and should surely prompt improvement? (Or conversion back to CC3 )
Quote:
In 1941 the Paks was basicly represented by the 37 mm Pak 36. Towed with hourses or a small car. Ok, was that so in 1944? What happened? A cool tank in 1941 was the Pz Mk III with a 37 mm or a short 50mm gun. What was a cool tank in summer of 1944… How many Tank Destroyers was there in 1941? Why did the Germans change to self-propelled AT guns?
....How about close combat AT ability’s in 1941? Compared to summer 1944…. See what I mean?
I think you'll find that the Germans were still towing many of their AT guns with horses in 1944, and I doubt SP ever overtook the amount of AT guns available.
Quote:
So lets see, of the 626 Allied tanks killed in June 1944 in Normandy 227 tanks was killed by German tanks,as in 36% of the allied tank was killed by a German tank…. …..
I would be interested to know how many AT guns the Germans fielded compared to the tanks they fielded, + the losses of their AT guns vs their Tanks.
Likewise aren't the Allied tank vs tank losses you quote not mostly from Operation Goodwood and hence distinct from the rest of Normandy?
Hello pvt_Grunt, thank you ! Well this accusation seems dependent on which side you are on, and has been the oppositions last resort to not answering points logically or factually.
Neither CC3 nor CC5 is historical...neither starts or ends up with the same result as history, neither should they...they are games played in safe first world countries by gamers in their underwear like me
Well I'd argue the result is always the same in CC3 the defeat of Germany, no? The close combat series originally was meant to be a historic combat simulator, I personally believe CC2 got this spot on, CC3 also did very well and well then we come to CC5 (Off topic: There are actually many players in 2nd world countries (for example Russia) and also 3rd world continents like Africa (I actually played a guy in South Africa, who knows he may have had to play real life close combat in his underwear! )).
-In CC5 divisions are represented as 2-3 companies.
Yes! Also the maps are NOT continuous, it is a sector of a larger area that the regiment occupies. This is the "abstaction" that allows the game to be played with only 15 units representing the forces in a small part of a larger area
Personally don't find this very plausible, regiments fight as regiments, I think its really apologising for a blatant flaw in the game. In CC3 you make part of the front line hence the movement is linear and I always presupposed I was being flanked by other units/companies of my regiment etc. This brings up another concept flaw in CC5, there is no concept of a front line, instead when you attack a map you just arrive as a blob in one area and then you fight it out until you from that blob or the other blob control the whole map, this is irrespective if the side of the map you are controlling actually backs onto a massive opponent force, so CC5 is in fact a cellular strategy game with instances of a frontline.
No a regiment is a regiment, you just dont play a battle with the entire regiment as this would be ridiculous. The force pools account for the rest of the regiment.
Well its only ridiculous because the makers tried to press the Close combat engine into a strategy game requiring regimental size and division size units not companies. Regiments fight as regiments and the disposition of their companies according to the front line, it is simply ridiculous to think that 80+% of the fighting force of a regiment trailed behind. The germans certainly could not afford such luxuries being heavily outnumbered.
CC3 takes place over many years, CC5 is many days so it needs a different system. Production of units and material available is irrelavent as they were already on the planes and boats!
The argument stills stands, a commander still cannot and for intelligence reasons would not know what his future reinforcements will be accurately, he could know roughly he will have many tanks, no artillery and air support for example. It is the duty of high command to distribute reinforcements army and then division down, no commander had a trail of hundreds of exactly calculated reinforcements. A commander knows what his force is and his immediate reserves are and the force pool cannot be justified as reserves as it is many times larger than the company actually fighting, neither can it be justified as a reinforcement pool for the whole division as it is specific to only that unit.
Quote:
The fresh units are waiting behind lines, why go into battle with depleted units? In CC3, units with injuries carry them for months / years unless rested.
The argument still stands, they are in no way accounted for as being wounded and I can never again requisition that team with that wounded soldier. The fact that teams still 2/3 intact are completely replenished to no detriment is also not accounted for.
Quote:
NO, the map where the battle is fought is only a small part of the sector on the strat map. The units are not trailing them around, they are in the sector..... Of various units fighting their way to Moscow to the CC5 version where the units represent a small section of a larger force (force pool).
Well this is exactly what we are hammering at, the units simply aren't in the sector they are only seen if you put them in the company for action, likewise they are not a real force pool they are not shared with other units in that division they simply trail around with that and specifically for that company until you select them for action, again I doubt the germans could have afforded such a luxury being heavily outnumbered.
Quote:
You need to change your thinking from CC3's battles which seem to represent a mixed Kampfgruppe(mixed SS / Heer and FJ troops - really?
Units were in fact sometimes mixed for example in the Italy campaign, even an FJ regiment could have several companies of wehrmacht supporting it* and nearly every wehrmacht squad in italy had 1-2 SS troops in it. I thought this was nicely hinted at in CC3 as the higher ranking you are the more potential you have to control or have put under your control varied units.
Quote:
I still enjoy CC5 over CC3 - this is a subjective opinion, no point arguing! The start map adds so much to the game I cant go back to CC3.
We prefer to think of this as a preference, but that de facto CC3 is a better game. :wink:
*FJ units were actually the purest of all the German units in Italy, I edited this after other posts had been made for clarification.
you are just retard. you don't understand shit. there were no direct routes from Khimkin to Kremlin in 1941 - eat shit like you like to do.
I repeat point to point Khimki-Kremlin is less than 20km, basic geography.
Quote:
you are useless troll and good bye.
No more replies to stupid troll from me.
The Tsar has had enough of this upstart revolution threatening his regime of lies and bullshit and leaves in a filthy mouthed name calling tantrum, very mature. Good riddens.
Tsar syndrome again? You sound like the bad boss in a James bond movie.
Quote:
Anway, now you are the only person I know with negative reputation at CCS - refer to (1) plz.
You don't know me and like I said before refer yourself and your dirty mouth to your own references.
Quote:
You are so stupid troll that doesn't understand that modern highways were not existing that time and all the bridges would be blown up.
A direct route from Khimki measured point to point is LESS than 20km, via road it is 20km, roads are rarely straight, basic geography and you can call anyone dumb?
Quote:
Actually, i've met alot of trolls but they were either lacking knowledge or were too optimistic - you are just too dumb.
Look in the mirror!
Quote:
You are so stupid troll that you are so bullshiteater that you don't understand you ate so much shit. You are just so stupid troll and please stop using my name in your posts - i tried, i failed, you useless
Erm it is you who keep refering to me (after dgfreds post, remember?), it was you who gave me negative votes, it is you who keep throwing insults at me. Don't be a sore loser and wash your bloody mouth out.
Page 1 of 3
Goto page 1, 2, 3Next Time synchronized with your computer time
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!
Topic: 
.
! Well this accusation seems dependent on which side you are on, and has been the oppositions last resort to not answering points logically or factually. 
(Off topic: There are actually many players in 2nd world countries (for example Russia) and also 3rd world continents like Africa (I actually played a guy in South Africa, who knows he may have had to play real life close combat in his underwear! 
