Me thinks this is precisely the point. There are several kinds of historical accuracy in CC, but prehaps this means the accuracy associated with the combat itself.
So, we can use the Close Combat Marines Workbook, and take a look at the section regarding the Infanty Assault and compare what is described by the Marines to the battles I described above.
SO, is the combat ACCURATE OR NOT.
Maybe the historical [combat] accuracy of the game is about to take a hit. Ya think.
Last edited by Stwa on Wed Sep 25, 2013 1:44 pm; edited 1 time in total
Posted: Wed Sep 25, 2013 12:04 pm Post subject: Re: Historical Accuracy or Game Play?
Long, unsupported assaults across open ground are deadly. A single enemy soldier with an automatic rifle can destroy a squad crossing 100 meters of open ground. Assault for short distances, from broken terrain, against weak or well-suppressed enemy positions, under the protection of suppressive fire and obscuration. -CCM Workbook
At Riviere, the Germans fielded 60 total combatants, while the Americans fielded 92. So, were the Germans weak comparatively.
The assault was deadly. The Americans lost over half their force. But so did the Germans.
Thre was no suppresive fire, except the self-supporting kind, and no obscuration (like smoke).
Nevertheless, the Americans reached the ridge without difficulty.
The Americans had the element of surprise, since they instantly beamed onto the battlefield and started running toward the German position.
They did not suffer much loss of morale, or fatique for the long run to the ridge, and in fact this movement was unrealistic and swift.
What moral and fatique that was experienced during the sprint to the Germans was recovered in a very short period of time.
Posted: Wed Sep 25, 2013 12:35 pm Post subject: Re: Historical Accuracy or Game Play?
The enemy, unaware of your intentions, is slow to react. Short assaults from nearby assault positions surprise the enemy. -CCM Workbook
It's the CC AI, so you can bet your last paycheck it is TOTALLY unaware of the Human Player's intentions.
And in both battles, the AI was dreadfully slow to react. At Riviere, the Americans had reached the middle of the map before the Germans started firing at them.
It would be hard to imagine that the AI actually registers any kind of surprise, other than perhaps some reaction to the quantity of attackers now present and running toward them.
Short or long assaults don't seem to apply in these situations, since fatigue is quickly recaptured and the enemy holds its fire, or considers itself out of range until the attackers get close.
It is entirely possible that the CC5 data set is the real culprit here.
Posted: Wed Sep 25, 2013 12:57 pm Post subject: Re: Historical Accuracy or Game Play?
Long assaults exhaust your men, leaving them vulnerable when you enter the enemy’s position. Long assaults expose you to increasing enemy observation and fire. The enemy has time to react with reinforcements and supporting arms. -CCM Workbook
But the Americans didn't suffer much fatique, and they were not vulnerable. When arriving at the VLs they simply hit the dirt and started firing immediately.
The Germans did have time react, but foolishly sent reinforcements (from the North end of the ridge) to the castle, ON THEIR BELLIES.
Posted: Wed Sep 25, 2013 1:08 pm Post subject: Re: Historical Accuracy or Game Play?
Assault only with obscuration. Smoke grenades and mortar smoke save lives. Every assault should be obscured by darkness, fog, or smoke to reduce the enemy’s ability to see and react. Obscuration reduces casualties and increases the morale of the assaulting force. -CCM Workbook
As mentioned earlier, the enemy was already slow to see and react. The combination of the AI and the CC5 data, eliminated the requirement for smoke.
When designing the battle, I made sure each Amercan unit had the highest morale and experience possible.
Posted: Wed Sep 25, 2013 1:20 pm Post subject: Re: Historical Accuracy or Game Play?
So you where playing against the AI, in a battle designed by yourself. TIK was talking about a battle against a human opponent in the maps provided by the game or mods.
Also, a couple of mortar rounds would have destroyed your men in that situation, specially the 12cm, or maybe an artillery or mortar barrage.
So you where playing against the AI, in a battle designed by yourself. TIK was talking about a battle against a human opponent in the maps provided by the game or mods.
Are you sure any of that would make a big difference.
Because this request [of TIK] for ideas for an Infantry Assault, was at the bottom of his post, which was at the bottom of page 5, and I believe he was partially responding to my suggestion that he try the Rambo Tactic, which was the prior post.
There was no mention of multiplayer/single player. No mention of pre-designed battle, etc.
Based on the battles I have presented compared to the CCM Workbook,is the combat in the game accurate or not.
Posted: Wed Sep 25, 2013 2:28 pm Post subject: Re: Historical Accuracy or Game Play?
Playing against the AI and a Human opponent is completely different.
You have there a tailor made map for this assault in that the victory locations are exactly where you need them. If you had more victory locations, spread through the map, the enemy would have to spread their forces and while you are mass assaulting that hill, he would be 1) firing at your running forces from a lot of different positions with direct and indirect fire, 2) realizing what you are doing, he would rush your undefended VL cutting you from your supply lines.
Also, you might even find that hill empty because he retreated, denying your victory for low morale and leaving you with a depleted force in an empty hill.
Posted: Thu Sep 26, 2013 7:40 am Post subject: Re: Historical Accuracy or Game Play?
I agree with Ivan. You've given us a biased scenario that favours a mass assault across open ground against the AI. And although I didn't specify, I was requesting tactics that could be applicable to both the AI and a human opponent so everyone could benefit. You know what, I'm going to open another thread about this rather than disrupt this thread anymore. -TIK
Okay, but the leetle soldiers are going to run too fast in that thread too.
Why bother with MP, as you (and I) have said before, no one is really doing MP.
And how could the scenario be biased when it met YOUR specifications.
Posted: Thu Sep 26, 2013 9:17 am Post subject: Re: Historical Accuracy or Game Play?
Although few people are playing MP, if a tactic works for MP it'll work in SP. Plus, the idea is to help people be more confident in moving on from SP to MP. If they're confident with their tactics, all they'll have to do is get over the crashes, bugs, freezes and terrible connection problems of all the games (with the notable exception of PitF which connects like a dream) and they'll play more MP.
Posted: Thu Sep 26, 2013 2:53 pm Post subject: Re: Historical Accuracy or Game Play?
Well, he wants to go do multiplayer. Who am I to stop him.
But, as my example battles have shown. The best way to rout the enemy off the map, is to run like hell to their position, and shoot them from 10 meters away.
The battles take about 5 minutes on average, and are great when you have limited time for a game.
I figure the 7.7 (I use the 9.5s) soldiers are moving (fast) in excess of 25 MPH (in gorund scale) on my system.
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!