Sorry if my last post created the impression I was comparing CC3:CoI to the original CC3. I meant to say that CC3:CoI plays very differently from CC2 and CC5. When exposed to sporadic or inaccurate fire, my units in CC3 run like a bunch of cowards away from perfectly good buildings to seek cover out in an open field. This doesn't happen in CC2 or CC5. I think this behaviour makes CC3 a fairly crappy version by comparison. I mean, who wants to play a game where your units retreat every time someone takes a potshot at them? I could understand if this behaviour was confined to Russian conscripts, but to see German regulars behave that way contradicts everything I have ever seen or heard about the Wehrmacht. Also, being told that a solid-stone, multi-story building can only provide poor cover from light arms fire while an open field gives moderate cover just doesn't cut it for me. I stand by my opinion that the designers buggered it up on that score.
Thanks for the response but I think you missed my point. The only way a house doesn't provide better cover than being out in the open is if it's made of glass. It's my understanding that, when using a house for a defensive postion, it's common practice to rip up the floor, sandbag the walls and dig a trench around the inside of the sandbags. Ok, so a unit which has just taken a house doesn't have time to prepare it to that extent but, being inside a building still makes spotting the unit more difficult. This means a unit inside a house, even one made of wood, should have at least moderate cover. Yes, it's not proof against tank shells or mortar rounds, but nothing short of a reinforced-concrete bunker will give you that sort of protection. As for not every soldier being able to fire at the same time, that can be an advantage. It allows you to rotate men out of the line of fire and conserve ammunition.
My point is that the designers of CC3:Cross of Iron have significantly changed the way the game plays in a way which is, to my mind, totally unrealistic. Given a choice between seeking cover in a building or being out in the open, most people will chose the building. It's only when the building is obviously being targetted with heavy, sustained or accurate fire that leaving the building makes sense. But the way this game plays, the enemy AI only has to pop off a few loose rounds and my units turn tail, like a bunch of chickens, and flee what should be a good defensive position for the "safety" of a completely exposed position. That's just wrong and the designers obviously buggered it up on this point. I'm just wondering whether anyone has come up with a patch to fix the flaw.
Hi. I just bought CC3:CoI (I already had CC2 & CC5) and I've noticed a big difference between this game and the others. When I play, I usually set up to have the team status icon display the unit's level of cover. I find this helps greatly in determining whether a position is defensible or is really just a deathtrap. In CC5, infantry units in buildings are usually shown as having moderate to good cover, which makes sense to me because they're harder to spot and have some protection from enemy fire. In CC2, there are no team status icons but the principle seems to be the same; units in buildings seem to fare better than units out in the open, particularly when coming under small arms fire.
In CC3:CoI, this principle seems to have been stood on its head. Whenever I move units into buildings, they display their cover status as being poor. Can anyone explain this to me? Did people in Russia live in glass houses during WW2? Or is it just another one of those strange Close Combat anomalies that drive me crazy? (Like the super-accurate AI mortars vs the wildly-sprayed player mortars, with "lucky first shot" variant.) This problem has a flow-on effect which really bugs me, too. When a unit in CC3:CoI comes under fire, they immediately stop moving towards their ordered destination and start seeking cover. (This is also different from the other games; in my experience with the other versions, units only stop moving towards an ordered destination after coming under sustained, heavy or accurate fire.) The problem I have with this change in behaviour is that, in conjuction with the change in level of cover given by buildings, my units will often flee the relative safety of a building after coming under sporadic and inaccurate fire. They will then make their way outside, only to be picked off by MG or mortar fire. Who thinks this accurately represents human behaviour? I sure don't. I would be interested to hear anyone's comments regarding this subject, particularly if they have some way to fix it.
P.S. I think CC5 is best engine of the series because of its inclusion of artillery and air-support, which makes the outcomes of battles more historically accurate. Both CC2 and CC3 suffer for the lack of it. In CC2, it is impossible to lose as the Germans and difficult to win as the Allies because, the overwhelming material superiority enjoyed by the Allies in air power and artillery supply is nullified. The reverse is true for the Germans in the early campaigns of CC3; it is impossible to lose as the Russians and difficult to win as the Germans. The KV-1 and the T-34 wouldn't be such a headache, when playing as the Germans, if I could blast them with an air strike from a Ju-87 or Ju-88.
Well, ain't that just typical. 2 days after posting that CSO has been down for months and may not be up again anytime soon, it comes back online. Problem solved, thanx to previous posters who led me in the right direction.
[quote]God is not on the side of the big battalions, but on the side of those who shoot best.
I seem to have the same problem as previous posters. I want to run CC5 on an XP machine, but it doesn't work. The CSO link has been down for a few months now and it may not be up for sometime, if ever. I have CC2, which works fine, and I've played CC5 on an older machine so I'm not feeling deprived. I'll be buying Cross Of Iron soon, but I'd still like to play CC5 some more. Could anyone out there offer some solution to this problem? Any help will be much appreciated.
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: 
Who thinks this accurately represents human behaviour? I sure don't. I would be interested to hear anyone's comments regarding this subject, particularly if they have some way to fix it.
