[Stwa]

Head on attacks are often encouraged in football. This tactic in war will get you into a lot of attritional battles that can only lead to unnecessary casualties. -TIK

Once again, I find that we are just NOT on the same WAVELENGTH.    

And all this after you promised to stop interrupting the thread. You lied.  

Perhaps, you are just expressing the beliefs of your own ethnicity. But ...

In Football, as in War, you don't always get to pick your battles.

Consider the story of Pointe du Hoc and the US Army 2nd Ranger Battalion, Major James Earl Rudder commanding.

James Earl Rudder (1910-1970) - 16th President of Texas A & M University, Graduate Texas A & M - 1932, Member of Texas A & M Football Team 1931, 1932

Excellent Analysis of Pointe du Hoc Battle and Battlefield  


Link

[Antony_nz]

[TheImperatorKnight]

[Stwa]

Now you are just pretending to be stupid, while you troll.

At least when nkin trolls, he is honest about it.   

No one is saying that football players are like soldiers or veterans.  

After all, no one dies on a football field, or they are not supposed to anyway.  

But the football/war metaphor is not exactly new, and it remains.  

Football as a Metaphor for War

[Stwa]

Also, that's the point, as a commander you should always pick your battles. -TIK

Lt. Colonel (some sources say Major) Rudder (the commanding officer) was ORDERED to assault Pointe du Hoc. In addition, he did not decide that the Normandy Coast was to be the site of the invasion.

Well, it is obvious that you didn't watch the video.  

But for some reason, I am starting to form the opinion, that you might be trying to fool us about you knowledge base as it relates to football, tactics, and warfare.  

[TTorpedo]

gameplay as in a sandbox where all the physic laws are correct.


PS Why the f* words like "gameplay" or "multiplayer" are still flagged as typos by the automatic corrector.

[TheImperatorKnight]

[Stwa]

I've seen the video. There was one sentence where someone said Rubber got everyone worked up like you do before a game of football. That was it. -TIK

BBBBBBBZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZT   [indicating wrong answer]

Either, you have an extremely short memory, or you are deliberately lying about the video. But, the video only states that Rudder, while he was a HS football coach [after he graduated from college (c. 1933)], was decribed by his players to be mostly concerned with physical training, because he felt in generated confidence in the players. So, he had the Ranger Battalion condition or prepare physcially for the battle on similar cliffs in England. The video also noted that the Rangers were fanatical about physical training anyway, with or without Rudder.

And all that is beside the point anyway.  

YOU DO UNDERSTAND what a metaphor is, RIGHT.    Or do we need to list it with the things you may be funnin us on, like football, tactics, warfare, and now a metaphor.

Metaphor

[Stwa]

Be honest. How many games of CC have you had that ended up looking like a football game? For me - none. -TIK

I can understand why you would want to change the subject. Especially if you did watch the video. But comments like these, where you try to attribute a concept to some other forumite, is just your main trolling technique. I have seen you do it over and over again in most of your threads.

YOU DO realize, that the battle at Point du Hoc was a frontal assault? Just like the Riviere battle I presented several pages back in this thread.

AND YOU DO realize, that the Rangers reached the heights aproximately 5 minutes after their landing. At the Riviere battle, the Americans reached the heights much sooner.  

AND I HOPE, that after viewing the video, YOU recall that the Germans counterattacked the American position, but not before the Americans had occupied a substantial portion of the defenses at Pointe du Hoc. Just like the example battle of Riviere.

AND DID YOU NOTICE, that the Germans seemed to have plenty of MG42s, but in the end their counterattack failed. At Riviere the Germans had 3 MG42s.

AND DO YOU recall, that the analysis of the battle, attributed the German failure to the fact the they had to fight their way back through their own defense works to reach the Rangers, and therefore, the potential of the MG42 could not be realized. Just like at Riviere where the Germans had difficulty with their own Castle.

AND I HOPED YOU CAUGHT the reason for the RANGER frontal assault. It was to save lives on Omaha and Utah beach. Ike would sacrifice the Ranger Battalion, so that the German heavy artillery could not be used to fire on the beachheads at Omaha and Utah.  

So, was the combat at the example battle of Riviere historically accurate or NOT.  

[Stwa]

The function of football, soccer, basketball and other passion-sports in modern industrial society is the transference of boredom, frustration, anger and rage into socially acceptable forms of combat. A temporary subsitute for war; for nationalism; identification with something bigger than the self.
Edward Abbey

Violent ground-acquisition games such as football are in fact a crypto-fascist metaphor for nuclear war.
Robert Downey, Jr.

Football, wherein is nothing but beastly fury, and extreme violence, whereof proceedeth hurt, and consequently rancour and malice do remain with them that be wounded.
Thomas Elyot (1531)

Pro football is like nuclear warfare. There are no winners, only survivors.
Frank Gifford

To play this game (football) you must have fire in you, and there is nothing that strokes fire like hate.
Vince Lombardi

In life, as in a football game, the principle to follow is: Hit the line hard.
Theodore Roosevelt

Football is mesmerizing, because it's a figurative war. You go in one direction till you get there, but you get there as a team, not as an individual. Players bond whether they're black or white, much as soldiers do.
Oliver Stone

[platoon_michael]

[TheImperatorKnight]

[mooxe]

The EVE Online forums were absolutely terrible for every topic going off-topic and turning into flame wars. I never read those forums for that reason. Anytime a Dev posted, there was always a troll who would post "first" as the first reply. It usually went downhill from there. I would of liked to become more involved in that game, but the amount of trolls that were there made it impossible.

Now any conversation on forum is essentially just like a conversation in the break area of your work. Your discussions naturally flow into other topics. I don't think too many people mind when a thread goes a bit off topic, but still centers around the topic in general. When a thread finally goes so off topic that it turns into a name calling fest, and has a single mention of the infamous Trainwrecks & Offtopic Hijackers Graveyard (which somehow has 4.8million views) then I think this thread has run its course.

[platoon_michael]

While I like Stwa's views on some things CC related he has been on quite the roll with over taking threads.

Sometimes you gotta call em the way you see em.

And if you don't agree with that,

He just down right had it coming.

[Gun_Pierson]

[Schmal_Turm]

I am not sure if this is still the thread for Realism vs Playability with all the side-tracking going on but here goes.

I for one love the larger maps. I get the impression that those who prefer the smaller maps would like to see the map pretty well occupied in one turn. There is no reason that a battlefield should be decided in one or two turns. Besides that, German tactics were generally to stay in hiding and to get the first shot if at all possible, usually from a long distance where the German's superior guns and optics were what would give the edge. The Blitzkrieg may have been the tactic of choice in the beginning but the Russian Front developed into a slugging match and territory was being traded back and forth between the forces at least until after Kursk. The Germans would also try to weaken the enemy before going on the offensive. How else could you generally defeat a numerically superior force?

As far as the idea of Realism vs Playability, I would have given up on CC a long time ago if there were no realism. The game would have been no better than a number of other games I have bought over the years, or as the World of Tanks that is so prevalent on the web. The thing that gets me the most though is that the AI seems to be favored in things such as mortars, etc. where the rounds are generally pinpoint accurate while mine are all over the place. I had one battle where I dropped two full sets of 81mm mortars on an area where there were at least three full Russian infantry units and managed to only kill at the most two soldiers. That seems just a little unrealistic.

[Schmal_Turm]

Forgot to mention: I have had to literally pulverize a building to silence a unit that keeps firing, even after I have targeted it with a number of tank rounds. It would seem to me that a real life unit would decide to vacate to save their skins, or that my tank guns would have taken them out with a few rounds as it seems that the AI can generally eliminate my units in as little as two or three rounds -- even when they try to evade the incoming rounds. Something here is not quite right. I would expect that the sides would be treated the same but it seems that the AI is favored in situations such as that, as well as the artillery previously mentioned. My brother says that is to make it a challenge; I consider it cheating by the AI.

As a curiosity: What is the effective armor value on the Panther front upper glacis plate? I ask this as I have seen many different values offered and I wanted to know what differences there are.

[Schmal_Turm]

Since no one has even attempted to answer my question on the effective armor value on the Panther, I will give what I would consider the ultimate answer as it comes directly from the Office of the Ordnance Headquarters of the Third United States Army:

"The general characteristics of the frontal armor are: glacis plate 85mm (3.35 inches) at 55 degrees and nose plate 65mm (2.56 inches) at 55 degrees. Using an armor basis curve, the vertical equivalent of the glacis plate is 187mm (7.36 inches) and of the nose plate 139mm (5.47 inches)."

They did go on to say that there was a wide variation found in the quality of the plate with one Panther sustaining 30 hits before cracking while two of them sustained only a few hits before cracking. Since the upper glacis is actually rated at 80mm they did appear to get that wrong, but I am quite certain that the effective armor is pretty accurate.

They also went on to say that neither the 75mm or 76mm were capable of defeating any German late war tanks.

[mooxe]

[mooxe]

The definition of gameplay for me is a couple things. First its the ability to start a game with relatively equal odds of winning no matter what side I choose, vs AI or person. Secondly, its the ability to actually find a game online.

Gameplay since Matrix got a hold of Close Combat was not taken too seriously, they just coasted along. An example would be any fight vs the AI. Finding a game online has also been difficult because online play was barely advanced and in some cases put back a few notches.

Why would any of you vote for historical accuracy when the AI is such garbage it totally ruins the game single player anyways.

So your message got out. The people that wanted the historical accuracy of driving indestructible tanks, and playing with severely depleted non-movable battlegroups who's forcepools are locked out got what they wished for and can play vs the AI too their hearts content because nobody will play a game like that multiplayer.