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.
Posted: Sat Sep 15, 2012 8:46 pm Post subject: Re: Historical Accuracy or Game Play?
Quote:
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).
My geography of both the entire Kursk area or the entire Vistula river (it's a long river) isn't that good, if I'm honest. But you're telling me there isn't at least one forest/woods in the Kursk area? And there isn't a single piece of high ground anywhere along the East bank of the Vistula?
Quote:
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.
I'm not sure what you're refering to on some of these, but SU-152's were issued in 1943, so that's alright. KV-2's were still in use in 1942, although I admit they should be accessible earlier (probably changed for gameplay reasons). And as far as the squad sizes are concerned, that was most likely a gameplay consideration, given the limited amount of unit slots. The Russians had more troops historically, and I guess they were trying to represent this.
Tbh, I'm more of a CC2 man, so apologies on not being 100% on all this. But having read many books on the Eastern Front, I can say that CC3 does a pretty good job of representing what it was like on the Eastern Front, regardless of the issues you mentioned. And in comparison to CC5, I believe it's just as accurate, if not more so. It definately makes for better game play anyway.
Posted: Sat Sep 15, 2012 9:06 pm Post subject: Re: Historical Accuracy or Game Play?
Quote:
My geography of both the entire Kursk area or the entire Vistula river (it's a long river) isn't that good, if I'm honest. But you're telling me there isn't at least one forest/woods in the Kursk area? And there isn't a single piece of high ground anywhere along the East bank of the Vistula?
did you read my post? No steppes at Kursk. Now look at CC3 Kursk maps.
About Vistula, if you think that single elevation point can be representative (as CC3 shows that) than I can't argue with you.
Quote:
I'm not sure what you're refering to on some of these, but SU-152's were issued in 1943, so that's alright
well, actually i was wrong here, sorry.
Quote:
KV-2's were still in use in 1942, although I admit they should be accessible earlier (probably changed for gameplay reasons).
they are accessible in 1941.
No KV-2 was available by January 1942.
Quote:
And as far as the squad sizes are concerned, that was most likely a gameplay consideration, given the limited amount of unit slots. The Russians had more troops historically, and I guess they were trying to represent this.
f.e. in June 1941 the RA didn;t have more troops than the Germans while the German squad had 10men and RA squad had 11men.
since 1942, the RA squad was 9men, while the German squad was still 10men....
IIRC USSR commited 34mlns at GPW, Germany commited 23mlns so the difference was not that high...
Quote:
Tbh, I'm more of a CC2 man, so apologies on not being 100% on all this. But having read many books on the Eastern Front, I can say that CC3 does a pretty good job of representing what it was like on the Eastern Front, regardless of the issues you mentioned.
CC3 is actually just a bunch of EF myths...
I've played CC2 since the release and always H2H, even lost one campaign gathering SS-tropps at Arnhem for too long...and now i can tell you with 100% - it sucks historically.
Quote:
And in comparison to CC5, I believe it's just as accurate, if not more so. It definately makes for better game play anyway.
please point where CC5 was so historically inaccurate as CC3?
anyway, while thinking about your posts I have come to conclusion that after hard-core CC2, CC3 is way better game play wise, as Counter Strike against Ghost Recon - arcade vs tactics. And probably there was a lot of requests for that in 1998 to have arcade WW2 H2H fighting and they made CC3...was a good move that time...
but what we can see no other CC did follow it as CC4 was even more hard core than CC2...
Anyway, if you want to continue this argument, please show examples where CC5 was less historically accurate than CC2/3....
did you read my post? No steppes at Kursk. Now look at CC3 Kursk maps.
About Vistula, if you think that single elevation point can be representative (as CC3 shows that) than I can't argue with you.
Apologies, I misread. And I do agree actually, it makes more sense for there to be a stepp map.
Quote:
Quote:
KV-2's were still in use in 1942, although I admit they should be accessible earlier (probably changed for gameplay reasons).
they are accessible in 1941.
No KV-2 was available by January 1942.
Ah, I'm going to have to go check that.
Quote:
Quote:
And as far as the squad sizes are concerned, that was most likely a gameplay consideration, given the limited amount of unit slots. The Russians had more troops historically, and I guess they were trying to represent this.
f.e. in June 1941 the RA didn;t have more troops than the Germans while the German squad had 10men and RA squad had 11men.
since 1942, the RA squad was 9men, while the German squad was still 10men....
IIRC USSR commited 34mlns at GPW, Germany commited 23mlns so the difference was not that high...
Yes, the Russians in 1941 didn't have all their troops on the front, but the Russians consecutively had twice as many men in the field each year from 1943 onwards and certainly outnumbered the Germans in 1942. You said the difference isn't that high, but considering the difference in men in the squad is only 2 or 3 men, it's not that different either.
Quote:
Quote:
Tbh, I'm more of a CC2 man, so apologies on not being 100% on all this. But having read many books on the Eastern Front, I can say that CC3 does a pretty good job of representing what it was like on the Eastern Front, regardless of the issues you mentioned.
CC3 is actually just a bunch of EF myths...
I've played CC2 since the release and always H2H, even lost one campaign gathering SS-tropps at Arnhem for too long...and now i can tell you with 100% - it sucks historically.
No, sorry I can call you on this one. For the battles in Operation Market Garden that CC2 represents, it does a very good job. Yes, they left out Grave and the breakout of 30 Corps etc, but the way it handles the Arnhem relief Operation and the supply problems... Even the timing of the Polish drops and the German counter-strikes are done well. Compared to the LSA remake at least (which sucks horribly), the maps in CC2 are top-notch game play wise and very accurate to the aerial photographs of the time.
I was actually going to do my dissertation on Operation Market Garden (but didn't in the end). Why? Because I've read that many books on the subject. With all that I've read, there's only three things that CC2 falls short on. The mortars. The fact that you can't do an attack accross Arnhem Bridge from the South (as done historically). And that there's not enough troops in the field - every building at Arnhem Bridge map for example was occupied by the paras, but there's no way you can do that in game. Otherwise, it's sound.
Quote:
Quote:
And in comparison to CC5, I believe it's just as accurate, if not more so. It definately makes for better game play anyway.
please point where CC5 was so historically inaccurate as CC3?
anyway, while thinking about your posts I have come to conclusion that after hard-core CC2, CC3 is way better game play wise, as Counter Strike against Ghost Recon - arcade vs tactics. And probably there was a lot of requests for that in 1998 to have arcade WW2 H2H fighting and they made CC3...was a good move that time...
but what we can see no other CC did follow it as CC4 was even more hard core than CC2...
Anyway, if you want to continue this argument, please show examples where CC5 was less historically accurate than CC2/3....
Alright. Apart from the obvious game play issues that CC5 has, here's a few off the top of my head:
1. the BG's represent formations that are too-large to make sense in context.
2. unlike CC2, half the battles take place on a grand total of about 10 maps.
3. You take it in turns to move and fight. Really? That's accurate is it?
And the big one - it only represents part of the overall Normandy invasion. Despite being called 'Invasion Normandy', No British, No Canadians... not even all the Americans are involved! At least in CC2, the major combatants were included. To be called 'Invasion Normandy' is wrong, and anyone picking up the game who didn't know history would get the impression that the Normandy invasion was entirely because of the USA.
At least CC2/CC3 get the fundamentals right. CC3 can do a good representation of the Eastern Front, but CC5 can't even represent one Operation??? The only reason they designed CC5 as they did was because of the strategic map. If it weren't for that, they'd have gotten rid of half the boring maps they put in and included the other beaches. It's a shame they didn't.
I'd like to discuss the gameplay issues with CC5, but I'm going on holiday tomorrow, so you'll have to wait 2 weeks for that privilege
Posted: Sun Sep 16, 2012 12:24 am Post subject: Re: Historical Accuracy or Game Play?
Quote:
Apologies, I misread. And I do agree actually, it makes more sense for there to be a stepp map.
you sure are reading what I posted - NO STEPPES AT KURSK.
Quote:
Yes, the Russians in 1941 didn't have all their troops on the front,but the Russians consecutively had twice as many men in the field each year from 1943 onwards and certainly outnumbered the Germans in 1942. You said the difference isn't that high, but considering the difference in men in the squad is only 2 or 3 men, it's not that different either.
Could you please prove that?
Quote:
No, sorry I can call you on this one. For the battles in Operation Market Garden that CC2 represents, it does a very good job. Yes, they left out Grave and the breakout of 30 Corps etc, but the way it handles the Arnhem relief Operation and the supply problems... Even the timing of the Polish drops and the German counter-strikes are done well. Compared to the LSA remake at least (which sucks horribly), the maps in CC2 are top-notch game play wise and very accurate to the aerial photographs of the time.
Ok, just an example they had Hetzer(ft), JagdTigers and Sherman 105mm there....
Quote:
1. the BG's represent formations that are too-large to make sense in context
How come Battalion is too large for a BG?
Quote:
2. unlike CC2, half the battles take place on a grand total of about 10 maps.
Looks like you've played CC5 only vs AI....
Quote:
3. You take it in turns to move and fight. Really? That's accurate is it?
Of cause it is.....
Quote:
And the big one - it only represents part of the overall Normandy invasion. Despite being called 'Invasion Normandy', No British, No Canadians... not even all the Americans are involved! At least in CC2, the major combatants were included. To be called 'Invasion Normandy' is wrong, and anyone picking up the game who didn't know history would get the impression that the Normandy invasion was entirely because of the USA
I will quote myself:
Quote:
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.
yes we have GJS and other operations in details in CC5.
Quote:
At least CC2/CC3 get the fundamentals right. CC3 can do a good representation of the Eastern Front, but CC5 can't even represent one Operation??? The only reason they designed CC5 as they did was because of the strategic map. If it weren't for that, they'd have gotten rid of half the boring maps they put in and included the other beaches. It's a shame they didn't.
Once again:
Quote:
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
Quote:
I'd like to discuss the gameplay issues with CC5, but I'm going on holiday tomorrow, so you'll have to wait 2 weeks for that privilege
I believe it is my last reply to you if you won't strat proving your points...
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!
