Close Combat Series :: View topic

through

[^/[Print]\]

Close Combat Series -> Close Combat 5: Invasion Normandy

#1: CC5 vs CC3 Author: Pzt_Kevin_dtn, Location: USA

Posted: Thu Oct 12, 2006 8:16 pm
—
Why is there continued interest in CC3 when CC5 is available with multiple mods operating under the CC5 format. Is it strictly the interest in the eastern front? Do people feel the AI is better? Is it easier to mod?

I noticed that with Simtek working on the rerelease of CC they are concentrating on CC3. Why? Why bother with CC3? Fix the issues with CC5. Not sure if I will buy the rerelease of CC5 unless i can still use Mods AND they make major improvements/fixes to the original release.

Very interested in activity for CC6. I would have liked to have been part of beta test team but I'm far too busy with life in general (i.e. poor flexibility).

#2: Author: Tejszd, Location: Canada

Posted: Thu Oct 12, 2006 8:33 pm
—
I'm a CC5 fan too and would have preferred they fixed 5. But CC3 does have some good points compared to CC5;

1) a bit better AI (probably more to do with the smaller maps)
2) a wide range of equipment is available as the game covers many years which allows for some neat options in that a battle/operation maker can control what is available (rarity)
3) individual squads/units can be upgraded
4) individual squads/units can be rested without losing their history
5) points allow freedom to "buy" whatever you want but will stop someone from having all tanks or veteran units or...
6) you can flee a battle
7) prearranged bombardment for a battle (setup by the battle/operation maker)

#3: good points Author: ANZAC_Tack, Location: Australia

Posted: Fri Oct 13, 2006 5:54 am
—
i decided to leave cc3 cold turkey some 3 years ago, i tried ccv demo days after release, and ccv weeks after release, 5.0 was shocking for me, not as bad as cc2/4 where, but still a poor experience. yes the sounds, graphics and maps left cc3 for dead, but within weeks ccv(smaller sometimes),graphics and sounds where in cc3 wf style mods! so when i played GJS(think v 2) i thought, shit i know this, then when v3.4 i think came out, i quit cc3 completely(played cc3 from when RR first came out,the original manual install!) won a tournament in bout 2000,and on TH no1 a few times, loved it!(cases best i could do was top 10 as i never played with great frequency online, due to real life,and wife...)

yes i dislike how u cant rest units, cant buy as you choose, ccv players are spoilt, always taking best units(except GCs/ops sometimes) points made u choose most effecient, or attacking in numbers or smaller quality units. another tactical edge, but cc3s real downfall was the GC, thats where cc2/4/5 beat cc3 hands down!

when somebody can make cc3 in ccv,now thats would be a game! i have thought about making points style in ccv, by adding numbers next to units, but its requires some honesty ;o) and would cause confusion.

sometimes i love big maps, other times 15 units is just not enough!

#4: Author: Pzt_Kevin_dtn, Location: USA

Posted: Fri Oct 13, 2006 7:22 pm
—
Thanks for the response. Its been such a long time since I last played CC3 that I forgot all about some of the features that you referenced. I don't even have CC3 installed on my PC anymore.

I've also been playing the CC5 mods for awhilel. Are people still developing mods for CC3 or has that evaporated? I guess I could check the CC3 forums huh?

Happy gaming - Its fall here in the Mid South US and its the best time of the year here.

#5: Author: Pzt_Kevin_dtn, Location: USA

Posted: Fri Oct 13, 2006 7:28 pm
—
How and when did I become a Corporal? Last I saw, I was a newbie. Is it based on numbers of posts? I thought it was a H2H ladder honor thing.

#6: Author: Pzt_Kevin_dtn, Location: USA

Posted: Fri Oct 13, 2006 7:31 pm
—
DAAAAUUUUUGGHHHH!!!! Who keeps drawing these stripes on my sleeve? Now I'm a Sargeant!!! Too funny Laughing

#7: Re: CC5 vs CC3 Author: Ivan309,

Posted: Sun May 15, 2011 10:08 pm
—
the thing that i disliked the most in CC3 is that in the end, whoever had more tanks wins. CC5 is focused in infantery, which in my opinion is alot more interesting and challenging than running down your opponent with tanks.

#8: Re: CC5 vs CC3 Author: zoober,

Posted: Thu Jun 14, 2012 3:34 pm
—
How is vanilla CC5? I mean does it need some mods to be playable the way CC3 needed Real Rad or some other mods based on RR data?

#9: Re: CC5 vs CC3 Author: ArmeeGruppeSud,

Posted: Fri Jun 15, 2012 2:23 pm
—

Pzt_Kevin_dtn wrote (View Post):

Why is there continued interest in CC3 when CC5 is available with multiple mods operating under the CC5 format. Is it strictly the interest in the eastern front? Do people feel the AI is better? Is it easier to mod?

Well simply because CC3 is a much much better game!

CC5 is as boring as hell.

Playing on the same maps over and over and over again zzzzzzzzzz Rolling Eyes

Only 44 maps
You can play a whole CC5 campaign without even playing on all of them Rolling Eyes

Rather, you might fight a dozen battles each on 2 or 3 maps Shocked

Oh the tedium Rolling Eyes

Then there are the tiny vehicle and soldier graphics, and no zoom aaghhh! Surprised

Then there is the total waste of combat time stuffing around with the stupid strat map when you could actually be engaging in "CLOSE COMBAT".

If you realy want to be ahistorical and rewrite history playing on strategic maps, just play Panzer General, its much much better than CC5!

In CC5 there is virtually no soldier history, because a unit may be shot up a bit, so you put it back in force pool (where it is immediately automatically put back to full strength with no loss/liability/penalty) and when you reacquisition it, all the names are new and the original soldiers' combat histories are lost.
About the only teams that ever seem to build much statistics are mortar teams (boring).

Shocked

OMG!

How incredibly mind nummingly boring!

It was the soldier personal stats that realy got me hooked with CC1!

During a DOF CC3 H2H Campaign, one SS soldat, Schuss, began his career as a buck private during Fall Blau (early in 1942)
Eventually Schuss , after a distinguished career, including 8 promotions, met his demise on Prokhorovka Ridge as Hauptman Schuss, when his Kommand Panther was fatally struck by a bazooka rocket.
In CC5, that could never happen Sad

Legendary CC Heroes, i will never forget their names, Schuss, Frieder, and so many other legendary sprites in my CC Campaigns

CC3 is so much easier to mod than CC5

In CC3, it is so much easier to create game balance than CC5 (because of points system_

CC3 has far fewer bugs and glitches than CC5

CC3 lends itself far better to online play than CC5

CC3 kicks CC5's ass so hard, in so many areas, realy i can't understand why people bother with CC5 Confused

As far as the complaint about CC3 being too much of an armourFest, well that is easily enough fixed

Sorry Pzt_Kevin_dtn, but i cant disagree with you more.......

CHEERS

AGS

.

Last edited by ArmeeGruppeSud on Sun Jun 17, 2012 7:58 am; edited 1 time in total

#10: Re: CC5 vs CC3 Author: zoober,

Posted: Fri Jun 15, 2012 3:21 pm
—

ArmeeGruppeSud wrote (View Post):

As far as the complaint about CC3 being too much of an armourFest, well that is easily enough fixed

That'd be my main complain about CC3 either and as Ivan309 aptly noticed in his post:

the thing that i disliked the most in CC3 is that in the end, whoever had more tanks wins. CC5 is focused in infantery, which in my opinion is alot more interesting and challenging than running down your opponent with tanks.

And it's not just about massive numbers of tanks in CC3 but also their ability to spot and kill infantry at almost any distance and terrain. I remember being so frustrated about these all-seeing-all-killing god almighty tanks that in the end I hardly used infantry - which really sucked and wasn't any fun for me at all.

Today I finally got my CC5 installed and played already a few battles and I'm really happy. Actually I almost run over some Germans with my M4 because I couldn't spot them:o And this is great - now having tanks doesn't mean you have to win easily. You need to be cautious and concentrated on what you're doing with them. And for me this is a big big advantage of CC5 over CC3.

But I'd be curious how that "armourFest" can be fixed in CC3 ?

#11: Re: CC5 vs CC3 Author: US_Brake, Location: USA

Posted: Fri Jun 15, 2012 3:55 pm
—
I share ArmeeGruppeSud's points.

CC3 has always been better than CC5.

#12: Re: CC5 vs CC3 Author: johnsilver, Location: Florida

Posted: Fri Jun 15, 2012 6:10 pm
—
Hmmm. That would depend on if one is playing H2H, or vs the AI on which is better am thinking.

Back in the glory days.. Like when CC3 was going strong and CC4 and 5 were still new, this line was still going strong and I was also in that camp (preferred 3), but I was an ardent H2H player only at that time also and not allowing myself to fully appreciate the forcepool aspect (CC5) that was brought into CC5, not the grand campaigns that both CC5 and especially the outstanding on that 4 had brought into the mix.

The various mods, many of which are not available for 3 even.. TT's vetmod being one and then there is the newer versions of CC4/4.. TLD and WAR that outdate (so to speak) even more of the purchase only system.. **IF** one chooses to play vs the AI, rather than H2H.

The answer is not so simple for every type of player. They evolve.

#13: Re: CC5 vs CC3 Author: ArmeeGruppeSud,

Posted: Sat Jun 16, 2012 2:18 pm
—

ArmeeGruppeSud wrote (View Post):

As far as the complaint about CC3 being too much of an armourFest, well that is easily enough fixed

zoober wrote (View Post):

But I'd be curious how that "armourFest" can be fixed in CC3 ?

Well, you can make an infantry mod, removing all the tanks Wink

OR

Lower the Requisition Point allowances to minimise the amount of AFVs affordable
My main H2H buddy and i played a 14 Operation DOF Campaign in which we used the default DOF campaign operations for playing AI which had a low RP allowance.

It was a very infantry orientated campaign.

Was unable to find the final Campaign Debrief Screen, but i think after more than 200 battles/days of fighting, there were only about 125 tanks destroyed in the combined German/Russians losses

Attached is a Campaign Debrief Screen from near the end of that Campaign

Please also note that, just like in the real historical statistics, the amount of artillery losses is much higher than that of AFV losses (actually double).

This is what WW2 stats should look like!

zoober wrote (View Post):

Actually I almost run over some Germans with my M4 because I couldn't spot them:o And this is great

Thankyou for this comment, because this is inspiring me to reEdit the Elements.txt file for DOF3.
Maybe i can make it possible for infantry to hide better.

If anybody can give me some advice/help in this area, the whole community and i will be very grateful

CHEERS

AGS

P.S. My opponent and i took great delight in taking one anothers sprites captive as we both HATE IT when our men surrender.
The russian prisoner count would have probably topped 300 if my opponent was not so inclined to using his mortars on his own surrendering sprites Shocked

Last edited by ArmeeGruppeSud on Thu Jun 21, 2012 7:10 am; edited 1 time in total

ROTRvR12.jpg

Description:

CDS from a DOF2 Campaign fought 2005-2006

Filesize:

136.36 KB

Viewed:

16632 Time(s)

#14: Re: CC5 vs CC3 Author: zoober,

Posted: Mon Jun 18, 2012 11:42 am
—

ArmeeGruppeSud wrote (View Post):

Lower the Requisition Point allowances to minimise the amount of AFVs affordable

And how do I do that?

Regarding making infantry hiding better in CC3 - maybe you could check other mods (like GJS or vetBoB) and compare them with yours?

#15: Author: US_Brake, Location: USA

Posted: Tue Jun 19, 2012 3:00 pm
—

Tejszd wrote (View Post):

I'm a CC5 fan too and would have preferred they fixed 5. But CC3 does have some good points compared to CC5;

1) a bit better AI (probably more to do with the smaller maps)
2) a wide range of equipment is available as the game covers many years which allows for some neat options in that a battle/operation maker can control what is available (rarity)
3) individual squads/units can be upgraded
4) individual squads/units can be rested without losing their history
5) points allow freedom to "buy" whatever you want but will stop someone from having all tanks or veteran units or...
6) you can flee a battle
7) prearranged bombardment for a battle (setup by the battle/operation maker)

Yes... 7 reasons why CC3 rocks.

#16: Re: CC5 vs CC3 Author: Stwa,

Posted: Tue Jun 19, 2012 3:40 pm
—
Sometime after I got CCMT, I really wanted to get COI.

I had bought CC5 back in 2000 and I couldn't agree more with Sud's first few points about the CC5 Campaign. I try to play a campaign or an operation and there were many maps were there was never a battle, not one.

But, I thought to myself, I would wait for WAR, and then WAR was crap.

Then, I thought to myself, I would wait for TLD, and then TLD was crap.

Then, I thought to myself, I would wait for LSA, and then LSA was crap.

So now, I am worried that if I get COI, it wont run right on W7. Oh, I am sure it will run right on your W7, just not on mine. Laughing

#17: Re: CC5 vs CC3 Author: zoober,

Posted: Tue Jun 19, 2012 8:56 pm
—
Let's be honest guys - all CC games are great and it's only a matter of personal preferences to say which one is better than other. I got CC3, 4 & 5 and like them all and can't really decide which one is my favorite. On the other hand, of course non of them is perfect either - all have some flaws and bugs. But it's been so many years since these games were released and no one has made anything that would beat or even come close to them. And that's just the best proof of how good these games are:)

#18: Re: CC5 vs CC3 Author: Stwa,

Posted: Wed Jun 20, 2012 6:53 am
—
OK,

I will play along.

Since Matrix decided to institute public beta testing as an integral component to the production of thier line of CC games (starting around the time of WAR), the quality of the games at their initial release have led me to believe that the games might be crap, relative to other games in the series.

The re-release of the re-releases, and on-going reliance upon public beta testing hasn't done much to make me zip out the plasctic and pick one of these titles.

It is really a time issue, more than a money issue.

But this topic is about CC3 v CC5. So in that sense, I might extend the comparison to COI and TLD, if anyone is willing.

#19: Re: CC5 vs CC3 Author: southern_land,

Posted: Wed Jun 20, 2012 8:34 am
—

Stwa wrote (View Post):

I try to play a campaign or an operation and there were many maps were there was never a battle, not one.

but thats a good thing. In play testing Meuse on tLD I started several GCs, each played out differently even against the AI and some maps were missed in some campaigns, and played on in others. When the game is expanded to 64 maps this diversity will further increase. Who wants to recycle the same game over and again?

#20: Re: CC5 vs CC3 Author: Stwa,

Posted: Wed Jun 20, 2012 10:01 am
—
Point accepted, but I am wondering if I am thinking there were just some maps in the CC5 GC, that just would never come up. Anyway, I haven't really tried a complete GC in a long time.

#21: Re: CC5 vs CC3 Author: acebars,

Posted: Wed Jun 20, 2012 4:48 pm
—

US_Brake wrote:

I share ArmeeGruppeSud's points. CC3 has always been better than CC5.

2nd this + 5 other friends of mine 2nd it as well!

CC3 has always been better than CC5 and CC4!

The last two are nauseatingly boring!

Stwa wrote:

So now, I am worried that if I get COI, it wont run right on W7. Oh, I am sure it will run right on your W7, just not on mine. Laughing

It should work on W7, I recall playing it on W7 but dont take my word for it. You should really get COI, its good and easy to mod!

Quote:

I remember being so frustrated about these all-seeing-all-killing god almighty tanks that in the end I hardly used infantry - which really sucked and wasn't any fun for me at all. Actually I almost run over some Germans with my M4 because I couldn't spot them:o And this is great - now having tanks doesn't mean you have to win easily.

You wouldn't get away with that in Close Combat 3, my engineer squads would flame your tanks crispy or my german squads would faust you. Very Happy

#22: Re: CC5 vs CC3 Author: southern_land,

Posted: Thu Jun 21, 2012 7:24 am
—

Stwa wrote (View Post):

Point accepted, but I am wondering if I am thinking there were just some maps in the CC5 GC, that just would never come up. Anyway, I haven't really tried a complete GC in a long time.

maybe some on the left of the strat maps as by the time the Allies reach there the germans are pretty tattered generally

#23: Re: CC5 vs CC3 Author: AT_Stalky,

Posted: Fri Jun 22, 2012 10:01 am
—
This link below leads to a Poll that gives a more ”unbiased” quantitative answer to the question asked in the topic.

http://www.closecombatseries.net/CCS/modules.php?name=Surveys&op=results&pollID=35

But from a personal preference view, one can’t care less what other people favour. My taste, your taste, are subjective.. Lucky we have both CC3 and CC5, (and CCMT for Stwa, and CC4 to Platoon_Michaels)!

As a side note, what I don’t understand is why PITF do not have both types of Strategy systems. I mean, how hard can it be to have a selection either “CC5 strategy map” or “linear CC3 style strategy”…. The same maps can be used…

/S

#24: Re: CC5 vs CC3 Author: acebars,

Posted: Fri Jun 22, 2012 12:17 pm
—

AT_Stalky wrote (View Post):

This link below leads to a Poll that gives a more ”unbiased” quantitative answer to the question asked in the topic.

http://www.closecombatseries.net/CCS/modules.php?name=Surveys&op=results&pollID=35

But from a personal preference view, one can’t care less what other people favour. My taste, your taste, are subjective.. Lucky we have both CC3 and CC5, (and CCMT for Stwa, and CC4 to Platoon_Michaels)!

As a side note, what I don’t understand is why PITF do not have both types of Strategy systems. I mean, how hard can it be to have a selection either “CC5 strategy map” or “linear CC3 style strategy”…. The same maps can be used…

/S

It must be that 40% of Close Combat players are american, because I can't see any other reason for wanting to play CC5!

#25: Re: CC5 vs CC3 Author: ArmeeGruppeSud,

Posted: Sat Jun 23, 2012 12:32 am
—

acebars wrote (View Post):

It must be that 40% of Close Combat players are american, because I can't see any other reason for wanting to play CC5!

Thats a good point and probably has some bearing on the statistics.

Part of CC3's appeal is that it attracts genuine WW2 history buffs because 60-70% of European WW2 was fought on the East front.
2 out of 3 German soldiers died on Die Ost Front.
CC3 players want to experience simulated ww2 combat command in the battles that actually happenned, in the historical order they happenned, its fun.

Whereas CC4/CC5 attract ahistorical players who attempt to attain ahistorical results

Regardless of the "American factor, CC3 is a better war game than CC5 for the dozen or so reasons mentioned in posts by US_Brake,Tejszd, and myself.

CC3 involves more closecombat time (none wasted looking at stratmap)

Not saying there's no fun with the whole stratmap thing.
Obviously there is (Or CC5 would be totally dead).

Never played MMCC3, but i'm sure it would have been better than CC5 Very Happy

CHEERS

AGS

.

#26: Re: CC5 vs CC3 Author: AT_Stalky,

Posted: Sat Jun 23, 2012 9:27 am
—

acebars wrote (View Post):

It must be that 40% of Close Combat players are american, because I can't see any other reason for wanting to play CC5!

ArmeeGruppeSud wrote (View Post):

Thats a good point and probably has some bearing on the statistics..

I doubt that explain the CC5 strategy system preference.

Just some observations:
In ~2002 the CC5 stock game (US vs Germany) was suffering form overplaying, the users declined in rapid phase the game room was very empty. The CC5 stock decline continued up to GJS was released. There was a massive return to the game… And GJS is not US vs Germany...
Conclusion, none or very few played the stock game by then. People played mods and has been since.

Lets look at the mods that actually are played, and see what image they depict of the so called American effect on CC5 preference:

Thee most popular CC5 game is GJS, its UK vs GE…. That’s not US…
Second most popular is Stalingrad By Dima/Manoi its GE vs Russ… That’s not US…

Battle of Berlin is popular its Ge vs Russ That’s not US…
Then we gave PJs 3 East front mods, they are popular:
Stalingrad DK that’s GE vs Russ. That’s not US…
Stalingrad DKDK that’s GE vs Russ. That’s not US…
Stalingrad OC that’s GE vs Russ. That’s not US…

Karelia I & II are popular, that’s Finland vs Russ. That’s not US…
Tali mod, thats Finland vs Russ. That’s not US…
Winter war is Finland vs Russ. That’s not US…
And Remis Battle of the Scheldt, thats GE vs UK/Canada . That’s not US…

Spain civil war that´s Firefox vs terciooriamendi. They are a part of us.…
Meuse is played, and its GE vs Frensh. That’s not US…
Africa 1940 its ? GE/Ital vs UK. That’s not US…
Africa Elalamain that’s GE vs UK. That’s not US…

Red Storm Rising, that’s NATO vs Russ.

Then we have the US based mods:
Okinawa, US vs Japs
Bloody Omaha is… well.. not finished.. but its GE vs US..

A second observation, the CC5 “game room” has the most players in European time zone, not American. Conclusion…?

Im from Sweden and that’s Europe, why would I prefer East front? In fact I don’t..

/S

Last edited by AT_Stalky on Sat Jun 23, 2012 10:24 am; edited 2 times in total

#27: Re: CC5 vs CC3 Author: AT_Stalky,

Posted: Sat Jun 23, 2012 10:05 am
—
My belief why CC5 has more “fans” than CC3 is to be found in the strategy layer.
The same strategy layer AGS finds just boring and time wasting.

I will not slash CC3 system as I understand that that system in its simplistic way has its appeal and it focus on the lower commanders job in a war. And I do believe it works rather good as such.

However, the CC5 system offers more diverse interaction with its macro and multiple micro level views of the war. That obviously (and statistically proven) has its appeal to so many CC-players…

The combination of the strategy layer and the tactical layers objectives is the strength in the CC5 system. In a CC5 GC game, the VL are or low importance, they are just nominal in its nature. The importance in a CC5 GC is the real value, as in taking the right exits/entry’s and combine that tactical layer objectives with the overall strategy layer objectives… This is a strong side of the CC5 strategy layer, that offers REAL value objectives in the tactical fight.

The CC5 player do not get that attached to his troops, as he may command some 25+ BG/Battalions, (maybe some 25 000 men). In that way he don’t care about little private soldier in the same way as a CC3 player cares about his small BG who he is so attached to. If, like in CC5 one command 25K troops one can’t know all soldiers names, and care about each man, it’s another scale and a macro view. What is best, it’s simply preference nothing else.

Fighting on all maps is of no value of its own. Think about it… Any commander would have preferences and trying to avoid fight in a terrain his troops has a comparative disadvantage. The CC5 player will not enter maps with troops that are not suited for the map or the job at hand, this is a part of what makes CC5 so cool to so many.
CC5 = matching BGs with maps, and the job at hand taken the opponents BG into account.
He will match the BG types with the map terrain type and the job they need to do. Or if he hav not the right BG at hand, he will use (delay/carefull) tactics and play accordingly until he can swop out the ill suited BG to a BG that matches the requirements. Or not enter that map at all, just side pass it if possible and surround it… This is as in real life operations, a challenge, and adds value to the CC5 player…

The linear CC3 strategy system can’t do this, there the linear composition instead offers different situations pre GIVEN to the players, and they just have no say and thought how best to overcome the landscape.

Preferences nothing else.

#28: Re: CC5 vs CC3 Author: acebars,

Posted: Sat Jun 23, 2012 11:03 am
—
CC2 strategy system is better imo than CC5 and the best in the series imo.

I agree I like the whole idea of a flexible stategy map, like CC4 and CC5.

But personally find the strategy execution of these last installments is simply woeful, movement phase and battle phase included. For example: There are these odd and strange reinforcement pool rules as well as units spontaneously disbanding after losing battles only to spawn a day later on a supply point 5 sectors behind lines.

Personally find the whole thing a shambles and cannot see how in practice or in an actual war a strategy map would look anything like they do in CCIV or CCV. In Close Combat 2 I can see realistically how the campaign looked and was fought and what the effects of winning/losing a battle are on the whole strategy and Close Combat 3 resembles very well the ebb and flow of reinforcements as a front line operational commander. CC4 and 5 do none of these the strategy map may as well be a war in a fantasy world, not a realistic sim portrayal that close combat is meant to be.

Perhaps Close Combat IV and V should have taken a little more example from Hearts of Iron 2 when coming to the strategy map. e.g. when a unit is beaten it must retreat or is encircled etc. and not just vanish into thin air. Perhaps this is the over dependence on single battle groups in one sector and not being able to have mutliple battle groups on the map.

CCMT made great strides in this direction being able to have 5 battle groups on each side. Perhaps this could be incorporated with stacking battle groups in future cc strategy games.

Yes CC4 and CC5 incorporate a strategy map not seen before in the close combat series, but they do this very badly, woefully imo. Obviously rushed through with no thought and a load of crappy strategy map rules to bridge the lack of innovation gap. Like a Hollywood remake of a classic movie, its bigger, has better visual graphics, a badly sewn together script, storyline, plot and terrible acting.

#29: Re: CC5 vs CC3 Author: AT_Stalky,

Posted: Sat Jun 23, 2012 11:38 am
—
Yeh, I can see what you mean to a degree.
But think about it. In real life, a BG that has been overrun how did the soldiers and units react in them situations? They scattered into individuals or small gropes that tried there best to go back behind there own line. They are not easy to stop, there are countless situations like that in WW2, they just walk through other units… scared, shocked and demoralized. Tick tack, time.. What happened when they got back behind there own line? They was guided to reassembly places and reformed. IE: The BG disappears as a big unit into thin air and are scattered into small unseen unusable units until they are reassembled again to a big visible and usable BG. CC5 = mimic that rather good.

Lets say a unit was disbanded at St mare Eglise, its 10 Km back to the beach.
Carentan to beach is 20+ Km. Valognes is 50 Km from the beach. A man easy walks 50 Km a day if rested and 22-25 Km a day after a 10 day march. By motor vehicle the same distances are just… minutes..
Though the resembling should maybe be seen in a symbolic way. I would argue that the penalty should be higher in terms of losses if disbanded.
As a side note, for a well made GC, especially in the early stages, a disband of a unit may be very very very hard to overcome. Loosing (disbanded) BGs the first days in Reg or GJS is…. It don’t help one bit that it reappears again the next morning, for the defender its many rounds before it can block the attacker again.. For the Assaulter it’s also very very bad, as he misses out on the early days easy gain ground opportunities….

The strategy map in CC5 for fills a propose, it adds the operational dimension to the CC game and as such, it removes the nominal values of the tactical games, and replace them with real values.
The innovation in CC4 & CC5 is thus that it replaces the nominal and unrealistic VLs as targets and replace em with real values, but only IF one can see the big picture, thus the link between the operational level and the tactical level in CC5. For if someone can see that, they do see the beauty of the CC5 strategy map AND what it adds to the tactical game!!! And maybe that’s the reason why the CC5 strategy map is so popular.

#30: Re: CC5 vs CC3 Author: ArmeeGruppeSud,

Posted: Sat Jun 23, 2012 1:59 pm
—

AT_Stalky wrote (View Post):

In ~2002 the CC5 stock game (US vs Germany) was suffering form overplaying, the users declined in rapid phase the game room was very empty. The CC5 stock decline continued up to GJS was released. There was a massive return to the game… And GJS is not US vs Germany...
Conclusion, none or very few played the stock game by then. People played mods and has been since.

OK, first, i only said:

ArmeeGruppeSud wrote (View Post):

some bearing on the statistics

Never said that it was THE REASON
CC5 would have sold well in the US because of the whole: The US won WW2 in Normandy bit Rolling Eyes

You make a good point how CC5 was revived by the mods
It lost interest because it was a crappy game, but the mods revived it.
Yes, the CC5 eastern theatre mods definately helped CC5's popularity
You can thank CC3 for enlightenning the CC players to where most of European WW2 was realy fought

AT_Stalky wrote (View Post):

A second observation, the CC5 “game room” has the most players in European time zone, not American. Conclusion…?

OH!

WOW!

HMMM,

AT_Stalky notices CC players playing in European time zone more than AT_Stalky sees people playing in US Time zone
AT_Stalky lives in Sweden
Conclusion = AT_Stalky notices more players in Euro time zone because, being in Europe, AT_Stalky spends most of his online CC time in European time zone because most US players wont come online until AT_Stalky is well asleep as they are 6-9 hours behind Swedish time.
Its no surprise that AT_Stalky does not play US people online often as AT_Stalky would have to either stay up till dawn playing or get up extremely early to play during US evening playtime Razz

AT_Stalky wrote (View Post):

But think about it. In real life, a BG that has been overrun how did the soldiers and units react in them situations? They scattered into individuals or small gropes that tried there best to go back behind there own line. They are not easy to stop, there are countless situations like that in WW2, they just walk through other units… scared, shocked and demoralized. Tick tack, time.. What happened when they got back behind there own line? They was guided to reassembly places and reformed. IE: The BG disappears as a big unit into thin air and are scattered into small unseen unusable units until they are reassembled again to a big visible and usable BG. CC5 = mimic that rather good.

Now how often when a BG is forced from a sector would that have actually happenned in REAL LIFE?

Maybe less than 1% of the time.

Most often, say 99% of the time, a unit (BG) would retreat/withdraw into a sector behind their previous position (erxactly as in CC3 & CC1).

Therefore, CC3 depicts REAL LIFE 98% better than CC5 Razz

CC3 ROCKS

CHEERS

AGS

#31: Re: CC5 vs CC3 Author: AT_Stalky,

Posted: Sat Jun 23, 2012 2:57 pm
—

ArmeeGruppeSud wrote (View Post):

AT_Stalky wrote (View Post):

OK, first, i only said:

ArmeeGruppeSud wrote (View Post):

some bearing on the statistics

Never said that it was THE REASON
CC5 would have sold well in the US because of the whole: The US won WW2 in Normandy bit Rolling Eyes

AT_Stalky wrote (View Post):

A second observation, the CC5 “game room” has the most players in European time zone, not American. Conclusion…?

AT_Stalky wrote (View Post):

CC3 ROCKS

CHEERS

AGS

AGS, again a very sad type of argumentation.. But, if someone state that there was more CC5 players in the European time zone than in the American time zone, then what does that mean..? A hint mate, you interpretation was wrong.

And example of unit that is overrun, and “disappears”, Well, what directly comes to mind is winter in East 1941… How many battalions and division did that happen to? Finland summer 1944… How about Soviet forces in early Barbarossa?
I don’t argue that the CC5 disband function is perfect, but it does work. A better system would be an orderly retreat under certain circumstances, and a total mess and reform far behind the lines under other circumstances.
Yeh, and how often does a unit disband in a CC5 H2H GC game? Make a percent there.... ..

#32: Re: CC5 vs CC3 Author: zoober,

Posted: Sat Jun 23, 2012 3:31 pm
—
This discussion is starting to look like kids spat over apples and oranges - which are better, does anyone know? Can anyone tell?

AT_Stalky summed it up already: Preferences nothing else.

But AGS if you wanna continue... be my quest and tell me: what's the difference between CC3 and CC4/CC5 from the tactical point of view? To me, none whatsoever. And now, what's the difference from the strategic point of view? Doesn't strat map of CC4/CC5 offer more choices for the players? I think it does. And it's something that CC3 is missing. But doesn't it mean it's better/worse game? To me it's only different - that's all.

#33: Re: CC5 vs CC3 Author: Stwa,

Posted: Sat Jun 23, 2012 3:41 pm
—

AT_Stalky wrote (View Post):

But from a personal preference view, one can’t care less what other people favour. My taste, your taste, are subjective.. Lucky we have both CC3 and CC5, (and CCMT for Stwa, and CC4 to Platoon_Michaels)!

Over time I have discovered that players get different things out of CC. They also see and appreciate the game features in different ways, and at least as Single Players, they probably apply methods of play in differing ways as well. This is true, even amongst the few CCMT players I have met along the way.

It is the main reason, I try to stay in my CCMT cage (forum) for the most part. Far beit for me to go into another forum, and post critical remarks about that game. It is best to stay in the forums of the games you like, as a general rule.

That being said, its a no-brainer, when it comes to trying to understand why a lot of people like the historical campaigns that are presented in CC4, CC5, and the corresponding mods and re-releases.

#34: Re: CC5 vs CC3 Author: acebars,

Posted: Sat Jun 23, 2012 5:14 pm
—

Quote:

It is the main reason, I try to stay in my CCMT cage (forum) for the most part. Far beit for me to go into another forum, and post critical remarks about that game. It is best to stay in the forums of the games you like, as a general rule.

I've played all the games extensively with mods and without (except for the re-releases and CC1 which I've only played a little bit) so CC2, CC3, COI, CC4, CC5 and CCMT (only recently) respectively, so feel I am relatively qualified to give a balanced appraisal of the series.

I really tried to like CC4 and CC5, I've completed both grand campaigns playing both sides (more than once in some cases), and I was initially perplexed at how bad CC4 was considering the demo at the time was so good (similar verdict with CC5 later).

That said I'd rather not get into any bickering matches, because with everything in life there will be always the few or the many that prefer one thing to another given a choice and/or have differing opinions regardless of what the concensus considers to be "better".

Another thing that keeps cropping up with people who prefer CC5 is that more often than not they started with Close Combat V and/or IV with out any real proper experience of delving into the older games. Whereas I started with CC2 and worked my way up (and then back down again Very Happy

) they will have started with IV or V and then later "tried" CC2 or CC3 or one of the crappy re-releases.

CC3/COI has a fast learning curve but a long experience curve, meaning you'll be quite able to play a game of CC3 after a few minutes, but you'll only be able to appreciate its intricacies after spending further time on it. These intracies are all but lost in CC4 and CC5 so if all you focused on was the (shaky) strategic element in CC5 you'd be disappointed by going back to CC3 which is a far more tactically robust and oriented game than CC4 or CC5.

My point and my argument is that strategic gameplay in CC4 and CC5 which imo is poor affects the tactical element of the game negatively, whereas CC3 is linear/operational with a little strategy its really a pure tactical game, which means somebody who was brought up on CC4 and CC5 would expect the strategic element and not appreciate or underappreciate the tactical element CC3 provides.

This argument also carries over to CC2 (which albeit has a weaker tactical game than CC3) where until replaying the campaigns individually recently I finally fully understood how the whole campaign worked, I doubt players from CC4 and CC5 would grasp the strategic element at all until seriously delving into the game and certainly many would quickly become frustrated.

This also gives some explanation of the poor reception of CCMT, which has absolutely 0 strategy in it but possibly the most advanced tactical Close Combat engine seen yet, albeit its still plagued by some of the ridiculous systems carried over from CC4/CC5 (i.e. the morale nonsense) and ghosts from CC2 in the form of poor vehicle path finding amongst others. Probably due to having no strategic, operational/linear gameplay and all the annoyances of the CC4/CC5 engine it fails to attract CC2/CC3 players and due to having no strategic element whatsoever falls on deaf ears with the CC4/CC5 crowd.

I would like to see CC5 players really delve into CC3/COI and at least finish the grand campaign on both sides, I know which way the tide would turn!

#35: Re: CC5 vs CC3 Author: AT_Stalky,

Posted: Sat Jun 23, 2012 6:24 pm
—

acebars wrote (View Post):

Another thing that keeps cropping up with people who prefer CC5 is that more often than not they started with Close Combat V and/or IV with out any real proper experience of delving into the older games. Whereas I started with CC2 and worked my way up (and then back down again Very Happy

) they will have started with IV or V and then later "tried" CC2 or CC3 or one of the crappy re-releases.

Where did you get that statistics from?

I have only an impression of what most CC5ers started with… and that impression do not fully agree with your observation/statistics.

acebars wrote (View Post):

because with everything in life there will be always the few or the many that prefer one thing to another given a choice and/or have differing opinions regardless of what the concensus considers to be "better".

If a strong majorety would equal consensus, then there would be "consensus" that CC5 would be the best of the games debated here.
But, with qualitative meassures, a strong majoretys opinion dont really matters, that still dont equal that CC5 is the "better" game in general. It only means that more ppl prefers CC5 over CC3, or one may say CC5 is more popular than CC3...

Preferances.... thats all.

/Stalk

#36: Re: CC5 vs CC3 Author: acebars,

Posted: Sat Jun 23, 2012 7:50 pm
—

Quote:

Where did you get that statistics from?

I have only an impression of what most CC5ers started with… and that impression do not fully agree with your observation/statistics.

Statistics are a bit of a null argument in forum discussions (and no I don't have any to present to you) as you will never have a 100% information statistic and no way of factoring variance of a given sample such as CCS forum players voting to non-CCS forum players not voting etc. (just one flaw example) at best they are indicators in this case, so so far one can only deduce that CC5, CC2 and CC3 are broadly played as much as each other in general from the stats.

My observations which without trying to brag have been pretty accurate so far, are that most of the flag waving CC5 players (and I assume players who started out with CC4 also) have not had a thorough experience with previous versions of close combat, they may only have tried CC3 before or after the CC4/CC5 experience and quickly returned to CC5.

Quote:

If a strong majorety would equal consensus, then there would be consensus that CC5 would be the best of the games debated here. But, with qualitative meassures, one can hardly say that. It dont matter how many more ppl prefering CC5 over CC3, that still dont equal that CC5 is the better game in general. Though one may say CC5 is more popular than CC3, or more ppl prefer CC5 over CC3..

Preferances.... thats all.

You've just regurgitated what I said and ended it with "preferences", I don't want this to deteriorate into a debate over semantics. Its not just a preference, a majority of people giving an opinion/judgement gives rise to a general concensus "de jure" but due to many of those people not having perfect information what the majority considers as the correct judgement may "de facto" be completely wrong. But I'm not going to jump down peoples throats for having a different opinion that was my point. There are repeated examples of this in history, for example the "de jure" judgement in 1970s that Japanese motorcycles were the most reliable in the world, when "de facto" italian motorcycles were, a little known fact to most motorcyclists, the Japanese had cheap aluminium cast engines and a good marketing scheme.

In this same vein, how many solid CC5 players solidly played CC3 before swapping over? I think you'll find many CC3 detractors all tried CC4 and CC5 thoroughly (like myself) and all have the same thing to say about it, I am saying that I believe de facto CC4/CC5 is pants and that in this case the de jure CC5 supporters are judging without perfect information that is all.

Out of interest, what is your history of playing CC, which one/s did you start off with and how much time did you spend on it/them?

#37: Re: CC5 vs CC3 Author: Tejszd, Location: Canada

Posted: Sun Jun 24, 2012 2:47 am
—
Being trying to stay out of this but as a CC5/re-release fan....

The biggest complaint I have with CC3 compared to CC5 is the lack of control the player has on the strategic level. You will always win or lose the war based on the side you play and the only control you have is to move right or left between maps on an Operation.

Now not trying to start a CC5 vs re-release debate but an option was added where a BG can retreat on morale break if they hold an exit to a map they can move onto (the BG can not move the following turn). A BG only disbands/dissolves when it can not retreat as that is seen as bigger penalty....

#38: Re: CC5 vs CC3 Author: Dima,

Posted: Sun Jun 24, 2012 12:43 pm
—
Yeah, used to play alot of CC3 since the release.

CC3 rocks as:
1) it is linear and has tiny maps that offer frontal assault tactics most of time!
2) it had so huge success after CC2 that Atomic moved to CC4-5 with stratmap and non linear GC!
3) it has incredible invisible ATGs - so cool!
4) you play same maps again and again as there is no way to move to other maps until you finish those!
5) infantry suppression work really great - soldiers get unsuppressed when enemy team charges them!
6) it has awesome point system - so successful that Atomic moved to FPs in CC4-5!
7) it doesn't represent real units like battalion size BGs in CC4-5!
etc?

CC3 rox Wink

#39: Re: CC5 vs CC3 Author: Dima,

Posted: Sun Jun 24, 2012 12:44 pm
—
Re-releases suck mainly. TLD is better than CC5 nowadays Smile

#40: Re: CC5 vs CC3 Author: ArmeeGruppeSud,

Posted: Sun Jun 24, 2012 2:01 pm
—
OMG! Shocked

This thread has been too busy since i last looked Confused

Would love to reply in depth but time constraints deny me such a pleasure

@ Stalky
My response was entirely logical. you asked for a conclusion,

AT_Stalky wrote (View Post):

A second observation, the CC5 “game room” has the most players in European time zone, not American. Conclusion…?

So i gave a logical conclusion. If logical = sad, then your comment is correct

AT_Stalky wrote (View Post):

But, if someone state that there was more CC5 players in the European time zone than in the American time zone, then what does that mean..?

By your response i must gather that you stay up all night online every night, maybe even 24/7 and carefully count the numbers of CC players online in both European and US timezones, therefore you know all these statistics with indisputable accuraccy Question

Is that what you mean?
Or is that Europes greater 1st world population = larger number of CC players, that is probable.

zoober wrote (View Post):

This discussion is starting to look like kids spat over apples and oranges - which are better, does anyone know? Can anyone tell?

Yes it does Very Happy

AT_Stalky loves to sparr with me Confused

zoober wrote (View Post):

AT_Stalky summed it up already: Preferences nothing else.

Not liking to admit it, but AT_Stalky is 99% right there Razz

zoober wrote (View Post):

But AGS if you wanna continue....

. Not realy Razz

zoober wrote (View Post):

be my quest and tell me: what's the difference between CC3 and CC4/CC5 from the tactical point of view?.To me, none whatsoever. And now, what's the difference from the strategic point of view?

There are some tactical level differences, especially relating to exit/entry VLs

zoober wrote (View Post):

Doesn't strat map of CC4/CC5 offer more choices for the players? I think it does.

It gives little or no more choices re CLOSE COMBAT

zoober wrote (View Post):

And it's something that CC3 is missing

CC3 does not miss it at all.
Its a distraction from the CLOSE COMBAT that CC3 is not burdened with Smile

zoober wrote (View Post):

But doesn't it mean it's better/worse game?

No, but it is the dozen or so reasons listed earlier that make CC3 a BETTER GAME.
Time constraints inhibit me from retyping them, you can read back.

Dima wrote (View Post):

Yeah, used to play alot of CC3 since the release.

CC3 rocks as:
1) it is linear and has tiny maps that offer frontal assault tactics most of time!
2) it had so huge success after CC2 that Atomic moved to CC4-5 with stratmap and non linear GC!
3) it has incredible invisible ATGs - so cool!
4) you play same maps again and again as there is no way to move to other maps until you finish those!
5) infantry suppression work really great - soldiers get unsuppressed when enemy team charges them!
6) it has awesome point system - so successful that Atomic moved to FPs in CC4-5!
7) it doesn't represent real units like battalion size BGs in CC4-5!
etc?

CC3 rox Wink

Is that sarcasm? or do you you call it irony?

CC5 rocks
1) it is ahistorical so wannabes can try to rewrite history with different outcomes Wink

2) it had such a huge success that Atomic died!
3) you play same maps over and over again and again as there is no way to play more than 44 maps in a campaign.
It is more likely that you will play on less than 40 maps and may play one single maps 20 plus time zzzzzzz
4) it has awesome soldier history system - so successful that at end of campaign only mortar teams have any real history
5) it doesn't represent a real command at all, because it is a fantasy world where you are a Fieldmarshall commanding several regiments and you are also several battalion commanders and dozens of company commanders as well. You are not at all in touch with your men because you are sufferring with multiple identity disorder, so realistic Rolling Eyes

etc etc etc?
CC5 rox Wink

Tejszd wrote (View Post):

Being trying to stay out of this....

That was wise

Tejszd wrote (View Post):

but

You blew it Razz

Tejszd wrote (View Post):

The biggest complaint I have with CC3 compared to CC5 is the lack of control the player has on the strategic level. You will always win or lose the war based on the side you play and the only control you have is to move right or left between maps on an Operation.....

Well we dont need to play with history, we just wanna experience simulated Close Combat at company level command.
Its not right or left, its forward or back, a company commander has little other choice as he has other supporting companies on his left and right.

.

You can win battles in CC3

You can win operations in CC3

You can win Campaigns, based on points in CC3
.

No, you cannot win WW2 as Germans in CC3

But i have some shocking news for you those who use this point to criticise CC3

Even in CC5 you CANNOT WIN WW2 AS THE GERMANS, !

SO GET OVER IT!

So CC5 still has nothing over CC3 except fantasy and multiple personality disorder

CHEERS

AGS

.

Last edited by ArmeeGruppeSud on Mon Jun 25, 2012 12:11 am; edited 1 time in total

#41: Re: CC5 vs CC3 Author: AT_Stalky,

Posted: Sun Jun 24, 2012 2:52 pm
—

ArmeeGruppeSud wrote (View Post):

OH! WOW! HMMM, AT_Stalky notices CC players playing in European time zone more than AT_Stalky sees people playing in US Time zone AT_Stalky lives in Sweden Conclusion = AT_Stalky notices more players in Euro time zone because, being in Europe, AT_Stalky spends most of his online CC time in European time zone because most US players wont come online until AT_Stalky is well asleep as they are 6-9 hours behind Swedish time. Its no surprise that AT_Stalky does not play US people online often as AT_Stalky would have to either stay up till dawn playing or get up extremely early to play during US evening playtime

ArmeeGruppeSud wrote (View Post):

@ Stalky My response was entirely logical. ,.

ArmeeGruppeSud wrote (View Post):

AT_Stalky loves to sparr with me

Sad low form of argumentation. Childish at best…

You’re responsible for your own text.

#42: Re: CC5 vs CC3 Author: Dima,

Posted: Sun Jun 24, 2012 2:53 pm
—

Quote:

CC5 rocks
1) it is ahistorical so wannabes can try to rewrite history with different outcomes

wannabes try to capture Kremlin in CC3!
CC5 players try their skill to win historical operation as all the historical operations had at least 3 possible outcomes Wink

Quote:

2) it had such a huge success that Atomic died!

yes! as it had released CC3 2 years before that was a huge success after CC2!

Quote:

3) you play same maps over and over again and again as there is no way to play more than 44 maps in a campaign.

there are 44 maps in 1 operation making it highly detailed - of cause that's much worse than 3-4 maps per operation in CC3!

Quote:

It is more likely that you will play on less than 40 maps and may play one single maps 20 plus time zzzzzzz

lsame as CC3 that offers 3-4 maps for operation!

Quote:

4) it has awesome soldier history system - so successful that at end of campaign only mortar teams have any real history

i see you talk about CC3, why do you say that in CC5 thread? ;)

Quote:

5) it doesn't represent a real command at all, because it is a fantasy world where you are a Fieldmarshall commanding several regiments

of cause CC3 does represent real combat! But wait do we have same 15 units in CC5 but with different composition per BG?
Btw, CC5 BGs are battalion level.

Quote:

and you are also several battalion commanders and dozens of company commanders as well. You are not at all in touch with your men because you are sufferring with multiple identity disorder, so realistic

yeah, it is realistic, don't be jelous Wink

Quote:

CC5 rox

good you accept that Smile

#43: Re: CC5 vs CC3 Author: acebars,

Posted: Sun Jun 24, 2012 3:21 pm
—

Quote:

2) it had such a huge success that Atomic died!
yes! as it had released CC3 2 years before that was a huge success after CC2!

More proof that staunch CC5 defenders have not been in touch with the previous versions and have no real idea about CC3.

CC3 was a huge success after CC2 and it was made by MICROSOFT

Matrix games has only produced shite.

Quote:

there are 44 maps in 1 operation making it highly detailed - of cause that's much worse than 3-4 maps per operation in CC3!

Yep and all the battles take place over and over again on maybe 10 maps. ZZZZ

Quote:

wannabes try to capture Kremlin in CC3!
CC5 players try their skill to win historical operation as all the historical operations had at least 3 possible outcomes Wink.

Yep and even if you do capture the Kremlin you are pushed off, which I would say is realistic. Many operational commanders had success but if the overall strategic situation is bad a pull back is necessary anyhow.
This is completely ommitted in the bullcrap CC5 system. How can one battalion expect to change the course of history?

Quote:

yeah, it is realistic, don't be jelous Wink.

CC5 is anything but a realistic strategy game, and it ruins the tactical element. Anyone who has played Hearts of Iron 2 will know exactly what a real WW2 strategy game should look like that or CC2.

Still waiting to hear a coherent argument for why CC5 is better than CC3, and would also like posters to describe their experiences with both games (AT_Stalky for example) have you just tried CC3 or played it for a month at least?

#44: Re: CC5 vs CC3 Author: AT_Stalky,

Posted: Sun Jun 24, 2012 4:33 pm
—

acebars wrote (View Post):

yes! as it had released CC3 2 years before that was a huge success after CC2!

I don’t believe that. There are sales figures some ware and as I remember CC2 was the top seller of the series by far. Anyone know where those figures are?

acebars wrote (View Post):

CC3 was a huge success after CC2 and it was made by MICROSOFT

Microsoft was the DISTRIBUTOR, not the developer..
Atomic games was the developer.

acebars wrote (View Post):

Matrix games has only produced shite.

Well, Matrix has not produced any Close Combat game… Matrix is the DISTRIBUTOR.
SCO-Simtec developed COI, Blackhand developed LSA, and now PITF, and Strategy 3 Tacics developed WAR & TLD. CCMT was developed by S3T? if I don’t remember wrong.

acebars wrote (View Post):

CC5 is anything but a realistic strategy game, and it ruins the tactical element. Anyone who has played Hearts of Iron 2 will know exactly what a real WW2 strategy game should look like that or CC2.

I believe that people can judge that by them self. And I believe ppl regard CC as a tactical game, with a strategic element. (Not the other way around)

acebars wrote (View Post):

Still waiting to hear a coherent argument for why CC5 is better than CC3

The arguments are here in the 3 pages, and there seem to come down to --- personal prefeances…

acebars wrote (View Post):

and would also like posters to describe their experiences with both games (AT_Stalky for example) have you just tried CC3 or played it for a month at least?

Started with CC1 the first day it was sold. Stayed with Atomics CC since, and liked all versions.. CC1 was a favourite. CC2 wasn’t that cool to me, CC3 was a huge favourite, had some issues with the point system and the way one buy units that were totally unrealistic. Liked CC4 with its BGs, but saw weakness with the locked force pool, went back to CC3, and played both for some time. Locked BGs was fixed in CC5. Tried COI, but was like CC3 to me. Tried CCMT, but lacking continuous battles, though saw potential in the APC and some more things… Tried WaR but it was not finished. Tried LSA, but still w8ing for the final patch… Have not bothered with LSA.. Have some hopes for PITF, but I cant give a rational answer why I still hope it will be good.

#45: Re: CC5 vs CC3 Author: acebars,

Posted: Sun Jun 24, 2012 4:54 pm
—

Quote:

I had thought Microsoft collabed in the making of the game and basically took the CC2 game and microsofted it into CC3, that the atomic team were not the same peeps after CC3, and that Matrix created the re-releases, SSI distributed and collabed with CC4 and CC5. I'm pretty sure this is right correct me if I'm wrong.

Many good video game producers go down for one reason and another its not always to do with how good the games they make, Bullfrog for example or Looking glass studios (who made the classic system shock 2)

In any case it is certain CC4 and CC5 had something to do with killing Atomic.

The annoying thing for me is that with the simple addition or improvement and removal of ridiculous rules in CC5 would make it a better game than CC3 for me personally. But the battle group nonsense in CC5 just kills it for me.

Its so close yet so far, that its just jarring.

#46: Re: CC5 vs CC3 Author: AT_Stalky,

Posted: Sun Jun 24, 2012 5:25 pm
—
I have no idea how the team composition changed in Atomic. It seem to be a natural thing in any business that ppl come and go. Atomic-MS collabed, resources. Later Atomic-SSI.
CSO-sim was owned by some CC fans, not Matrix. The S3T team is not the exact same as the Blackhand team, composition has changed.

Quote:

In any case it is certain CC4 and CC5 had something to do with killing Atomic.

We know that It keep the series going for ~2,5-3 more years.
We don’t know how competition in the genre affected the sales. CC is grapixly shit.

There are probaley so many factors..

#47: Re: CC5 vs CC3 Author: Dima,

Posted: Sun Jun 24, 2012 6:03 pm
—

Quote:

More proof that staunch CC5 defenders have not been in touch with the previous versions and have no real idea about CC3.

haha, acebar, i used to play all the versions since 1996.
used to win Pz_Clan Tournament in CC3 back in 2002 (or 3?). Show me your stats ;)

Quote:

CC3 was a huge success after CC2 and it was made by MICROSOFT

haha, Microsoft was destributer like SSI after.

Quote:

Matrix games has only produced shite

Matrix came in charge like 8 years after last Atomic game...

Quote:

Yep and all the battles take place over and over again on maybe 10 maps. ZZZZ

definetly you talk about CC3 as you play 3-4 maps per operation forth and back.
anything to say about CC5?

Quote:

Anyone who has played Hearts of Iron 2 will know exactly what a real WW2 strategy game should look like that or CC2

you are funny, CC5 is the evolution of CC2 - CC3 was just an dead-end appendix Wink

Quote:

Yep and even if you do capture the Kremlin you are pushed off, which I would say is realistic.

thank you confirming how CC3 is linear and that player doesn't affect the campaign unlike CC5 GC where player's skill can be the difference between loss and victory. Like it was in reality.
the germans weren't at Kremlin walls in reality btw - totally unrealistic Wink

Quote:

Many operational commanders had success but if the overall strategic situation is bad a pull back is necessary anyhow.

totally agree - like example CC3 doesn't give you chance to win as the germans unlike CC5 btw ;)

Quote:

This is completely ommitted in the bullcrap CC5 system. How can one battalion expect to change the course of history

1 battalion - sure you've tried CC5?

Quote:

CC5 is anything but a realistic strategy game, and it ruins the tactical element.

wow i second that but what can we do against so many? ;)

Quote:

Still waiting to hear a coherent argument for why CC5 is better than CC3, and would also like posters to describe their experiences with both games (AT_Stalky for example) have you just tried CC3 or played it for a month at least?

mate, as i mentioned above, i used to play CC3 alot, and only vs human so yes, i can judge. Can you?

#48: Re: CC5 vs CC3 Author: acebars,

Posted: Sun Jun 24, 2012 7:36 pm
—

Quote:

This is completely ommitted in the bullcrap CC5 system. How can one battalion expect to change the course of history
1 battalion - sure you've tried CC5?

Dima can you read english or just laugh all the time? One battalian cannot change the course of history in CC3, it retreats and moves forward with the overall movement of the frontline.
The bullshit system in CC5 doesn't even allow battalions to retreat they just vanish into thin air.

Dima wrote (View Post):

haha, acebar, i used to play all the versions since 1996.
used to win Pz_Clan Tournament in CC3 back in 2002 (or 3?). Show me your stats Wink

I only have been able to play multi since gameranger, never done stats in my life, happy to meet online I want actual battle proof of your CC3 claims Wink

Dima wrote (View Post):

mate, as i mentioned above, i used to play CC3 alot, and only vs human so yes, i can judge. Can you?

I'm looking for my copy of CCV, maybe you can show me what I missed? I played it extensively before putting it away for good, and I was disappointed.

#49: Re: CC5 vs CC3 Author: Dima,

Posted: Sun Jun 24, 2012 8:07 pm
—

Quote:

Dima can you read english or just laugh all the time?

Acebars, yes you are right, i really laugh at your arguments.
Anyway, when you start reading Russian i will accept this argument.

Quote:

One battalian cannot change the course of history in CC3, it retreats and moves forward with the overall movement of the frontline.

why did you enter my argument with AGS if you are not ready for that?
but well, iam good today, so i will repeat: CC5 has capability to recreate single operation in high details and in such scale where even 1 battalion can change history if it is in right place right time.
of cause CC3 is better having 3-4 maps per operation (instead of 44 for CC5) and one fights forth and back.
And ye, there are at least 27 battalions in CC5 Wink

Quote:

The bullshit system in CC5 doesn't even allow battalions to retreat they just vanish into thin air

of cause awesome system of CC3 does allow your teams to retreat, but some teams that were close to enemy do vanich in thin air, don;t they?
now picture whole batallion was close to the enemy Wink

Quote:

I only have been able to play multi since gameranger, never done stats in my life, happy to meet online I want actual battle proof of your CC3 claims

mate, i don't need to proove anything to you - there are enough players in community who know me.
Can you say the same?

Quote:

I'm looking for my copy of CCV, maybe you can show me what I missed? I played it extensively before putting it away for good, and I was disappointed.

lol i will not as i don't play with noobs, sorry mate.

#50: Re: CC5 vs CC3 Author: acebars,

Posted: Sun Jun 24, 2012 8:38 pm
—

Dima wrote:

mate, i don't need to proove anything to you - there are enough players in community who know me.
Can you say the same? llol i will not as i don't play with noobs, sorry mate.

For starters, I'm not your "mate". You've pretty much showed your true colours then, a load of bullshit you can't back up, maybe your internet friends can give you a medal?

Quote:

of cause awesome system of CC3 does allow your teams to retreat, but some teams that were close to enemy do vanich in thin air, don;t they?

Yep thats because they have to surrender not vanish only to reappear 50km behind lines. Your arguments are incoherent and fanciful.

If you can't back it up on a battlefield then stop talking shit and run along and play with your internet friends.

#51: Re: CC5 vs CC3 Author: AT_Stalky,

Posted: Sun Jun 24, 2012 8:46 pm
—
Acebars, you just entered this commity less than 2 weeks ago. You come with some strong language and some bold agressive arguments. Consider that people will respond accordingly. Some ppl almost feel strong attached to this place and the ppl here, and has feelt that for a long time.

Perhaps you should consider that many of us here go back 12-15 years. That means we have played H2H for one and a half decade.. And formed rather strong social bands.
Yeha, we though CC3 was cool back in 1998. But if one feel a bit trapped just playing the same 3 platoons time after time, then CC5 came as a fresh breath, with its 25? German BGs, and 54 allied BGs. But non will force you to play CC5... Keep at yer CC3 non here threaten yer relation with that game, no matter what ppl think of it.

And FYI, we did not as you, got stuck on 10 maps vs the AI on the CC5 GC…

Those time back then… So crowded. Many of us have arranged public GCs, as well as being apart of making tournaments, and participated in the same others has arranged. Not to mention the ladder era, where most of us formed the relation in the first place. If I don’t remember wrong, Dima was No1 in the CC5 ladder, cant remember what place he got to in the CC3…
Many of us are also moding the games, and or are participating in the making of em, and many even are a part of the making of the Matrix CC games….

But of coarse, if you just started playing H2H with GR, and became a member of the community some 10 days ago, we must take that into account.

Welcome aboard this awesome community

Last edited by AT_Stalky on Sun Jun 24, 2012 8:59 pm; edited 1 time in total

#52: Re: CC5 vs CC3 Author: acebars,

Posted: Sun Jun 24, 2012 8:58 pm
—

AT_Stalky wrote (View Post):

Acebars, you just entered this commity less than 2 weeks ago. You come with some strong language and some bold agressive arguments. Consider that people will respond accordingly. Some ppl almost feel this is there waterhole, and has been for a long time.

Perhaps you should consider that many of us here go back 12-15 years. That means we have played H2H for one and a half decade.. And formed rather strong social bands.
Yeha, we though CC3 was cool back in 1998. But if one feel a bit trapped just playing the same 3 platoons time after time, then CC5 came as a fresh breath, with its 25? German BGs, and 54 allied BGs.
And FYI, we did not as you, got stuck on 10 maps vs the AI…

Those time back then… So crowded. Many of us have arranged public GCs, as well as being apart of making tournaments, and participated in the same others has arranged. Not to mention the ladder era, where most of us formed the relation in the first place. If I don’t remember wrong, Dima was No1 in the CC5 ladder, cant remember what place he got to in the CC3…
Many of us are also moding the games, and or are participating in the making of em, and many even are a part of the making of the Matrix CC games….

But of coarse, if you just started playing H2H with GR, and became a member of the community some 10 days ago, we must take that into account.

Welcome aboard this awesome community

I don't think I've been untoward to anybody or aggressive, although I am allowed to retaliate. I don't give much respect to any time seasoned community in any field of life, there is nothing like new blood to flush out "old cronyism" so forgive me if I don't back down and no I don't give a damn how many tournaments you've won or how many internet people you know or how long you've been part of a community, never have never will.

If you have a look at my Scenario point calculator I posted, I'm sure you'd have denoted only someone who is seriously into this game would ever do something like that, time allowing.

That said you do have a point in that my CC5 experience has been mainly against the AI, we did play a little multi but soon went back to CC3. Like I did hint before I'd be willing to pull out CC5 again and perhaps be "illumined" and as I love close combat really would like it to be good, like I said before I desperately tried to like CC5. Perhaps it was I who was judging without "complete information" as I put it before, I would like to know.

#53: Re: CC5 vs CC3 Author: AT_Stalky,

Posted: Sun Jun 24, 2012 9:04 pm
—

acebars wrote (View Post):

I want actual battle proof of your CC3 claims

acebars wrote (View Post):

and would also like posters to describe their experiences with both games (AT_Stalky for example) have you just tried CC3 or played it for a month at least?

acebars wrote (View Post):

I don't give much respect to any time seasoned community in any field of life, there is nothing like new blood to flush out "old cronyism" so forgive me if I don't back down and no I don't give a damn how many tournaments you've won or how many internet people you know or how long you've been part of a community, never have never will.

Mate your the one who keep pushing us to show you our cards, remember? Read above again. You’re the one that wanted to know from what experience we came from… Your looking more like a troll for each post. If your not, consider how to reply now.

#54: Re: CC5 vs CC3 Author: acebars,

Posted: Sun Jun 24, 2012 9:15 pm
—

Quote:

Those statements aren't related to each other. I wanted to know what peoples experiences of all the games were purely out of interest, for example someone can say yep I played CC3 single/multi extensively and disliked it I prefer CC5, I stated where I stand on the games to make a judgement thats all.

My statements to Dima are nothing to do with that, if someone wants to give big chat let them prove it, maybe this "noob" will bloody their nose. I was the one who offered a friendly or a chance to have my mind changed about CC5 only to be rebuffed with arrogance, hardly trolling on my part.

...and the last statement is in reply to some due reverence I am meant to have because I've been on this forum for 2 weeks?

#55: Re: CC5 vs CC3 Author: AT_Stalky,

Posted: Sun Jun 24, 2012 9:47 pm
—
I have not met you with arrogance. I have not slashed CC3, I have respect for every preference of this game. Even though you don’t show the same respect for other ppls preferences.
I have answered many of your questions and statements and elaborated as much as the time allows..
I have also made a “declaration of my and others CC history” as demanded by you.. And now it seem that it was more than you asked for, and then one get this through in the faces:

acebars wrote (View Post):

#56: Re: CC5 vs CC3 Author: acebars,

Posted: Sun Jun 24, 2012 10:01 pm
—

AT_Stalky wrote (View Post):

I have not met you with arrogance. I have not slashed CC3, I have respect for every preference of this game. I have answered many of your questions and statements and elaborated as much as the time allows..
I have also made a “declaration of my and others CC history” as demanded by you.. And now it seem that it was more than you asked for, and then one get this through in the faces:

I wasn't referring to you concerning arrogance and the statement you quote refers to the notion that I or any new members of any community/forum should have deference, I respect all equally noob or seasoned vet regardless of time spent.

I don't feel angry or anything typing behind the keyboard maybe thats not really reflected over the net, I am/was genuinely interested in people's experiences of the game to pass judgement rather than demanding it as it may have seemed to you. i.e Perhaps there is something I missed in CC5 that actually makes it a good game to play.

I know how futile this whole argument is and perhaps I am just venting my frustration at how disappointed I was with CC5 because I love all of CC and really wanted to enjoy it, I am a history buff as well so the historical element is one of the reasons I play, but like I said before maybe I can be shown the light, I tried some of the CC5 mods (stalingrad for example) to no avail, I'll be installing it again next week.

Perhaps I've already said too much in what is a futile discussion and should give my leave.. Peace Stalky.

#57: Re: CC5 vs CC3 Author: ArmeeGruppeSud,

Posted: Mon Jun 25, 2012 2:10 am
—
OMG! Shocked

This thread has been too busy since i last looked Confused

Would love to reply in depth but time constraints deny me such a pleasure

zoober wrote (View Post):

Doesn't strat map of CC4/CC5 offer more choices for the players? I think it does.

It gives little or no more choices re CLOSE COMBAT

Actually, the CC3 requistion system gives the CLOSE COMBAT player more choices than CC5

Cheers

AGS

.

Last edited by ArmeeGruppeSud on Mon Jun 25, 2012 8:18 am; edited 1 time in total

#58: Re: CC5 vs CC3 Author: ArmeeGruppeSud,

Posted: Mon Jun 25, 2012 8:04 am
—

AT_Stalky wrote (View Post):

Sad low form of argumentation. Childish at best…

Hmmm.......Throwing insults like: "Childish at best" is a perfect example of Sad low form of argumentation

You’re responsible for your own text. Razz

CHEERS

AGS

.

#59: Re: CC5 vs CC3 Author: ArmeeGruppeSud,

Posted: Mon Jun 25, 2012 8:09 am
—
@ acebars

Some advice, don't play with these 2 trolls, Dima (a LEVEL 9 TROLL) & AT_STALKY (a LEVEL 6 TROLLl)

These 2 are very experienced trollers with enhanced superpowers in baiting, mockery, disrespectfullness, sarcasm, scorn, condescension, strawman arguments, derision, ridicule, contempt and just plain lame argumentation.

Watch out for AT_STALKY, he will try and pin you down on side issues
i.e. the Americn content of CC5 players

This is a diversionary tactic so he can stay off the real topic, because he knows CC3 is better ;)

Dima is also an expert at topic derailment

English is not their 1st language and they will use that to their advantage by misinterpreting your position so they can misrepresent your argument and use Strawman arguments against you

They have considerable ability to waste hundreds of hours of your time which could be better spent watching reality TV show repeats.

These CC5 Trolls are sentenced to endlessly roaming/trolling forums because CC5 has bored them into a state of eternal trolldom.

They have only one course of salvation.

They must break their CC5 discs and repent by converting to CC3

CHEERS

AGS

.

Last edited by ArmeeGruppeSud on Mon Jun 25, 2012 8:57 am; edited 1 time in total

#60: Re: CC5 vs CC3 Author: ArmeeGruppeSud,

Posted: Mon Jun 25, 2012 8:35 am
—
OH DIMA, you ol' trollster

You once told me that you only troll trolls (i did love that line Laughing

)

By trolling me, are you, by chance, inferring that i am a troll? Shocked

If so, i would be so much more deeply hurt by that Sad

than by any of AT_STALKY's most vicious attempts to crush my selfesteem Rolling Eyes

Dima wrote (View Post):

wannabes try to capture Kremlin in CC3!

Oh Dima

you are getting so desperate to win a point lol

Yes, there is that one map Embarassed

OH the shame of it (please note that this ahistorical option is not included in DOF)

Dima wrote (View Post):

CC5 players try their skill to win historical operation as all the historical operations had at least 3 possible outcomes

CC3 players try their skill at CLOSE COMBAT command, to lead their men, keep them alive (as much as possible) and win their sector within historical operations

Dima wrote (View Post):

CC5 players try their skill to win historical operation as all the historical operations had at least 3 possible outcomes

In CC3 operations, there are 3 possible outcomes ;)

Quote:

2) it had such a huge success that Atomic died!

Dima wrote (View Post):

yes! as it had released CC3 2 years before that was a huge success

Correct, CC3 was a HUGE success.... And deservedly so ;)

Quote:

3) you play same maps over and over again and again as there is no way to play more than 44 maps in a campaign.

Dima wrote (View Post):

there are 44 maps in 1 operation making it highly detailed - of cause that's much worse than 3-4 maps per operation in CC3!
Actually, CC3 has up to 5 maps to represent the company level CLOSE COMBAT sector where CC5 has just one single solitary map, so much better ;)

[quote]It is more likely that you will play on less than 40 maps and may play one single maps 20 plus time zzzzzzz

Dima wrote (View Post):

same as CC3 that offers 3-4 maps for operation!

Not at all the same.

In CC5 campaign you have only 44 maps available and will likely play on less than 40 during that Campaign (maybe less than 30)
In a 16 OP CC3 Campaign, you can have up to 80 maps to play on and will often play on more than 44 maps during a CC3 Campaign.
Such variety is soooooo nice Very Happy

Also, you are not likely to play on the same map for some 20+ battles zzzzzz

Even worse for CC5

In a single CC5 mod, there is only one playable campaign

In a single CC3 mod, there can be multiple playable campaigns with the possibility of playing on literally hundreds of maps (but only if DIMA will make all the OPs for me )

Dima wrote (View Post):

you talk about CC3, why do you say that in CC5 thread?

Please excuse me, i did not start this thread.
Please refer to the 1st post where Pzt_Kevin_dtn made such an outrageous comment that i felt obliged to refute it.
Then a bunch of others have jumped in (AT_Stalky finds it near impossible to stay out of a fray, especially when it gives him the opportunity to attempt to be insulting with such cutting words as: sad and childish, oh the pain Rolling Eyes

)

Dima wrote (View Post):

CC3 rox

Its good that you accept that Wink

Dima wrote (View Post):

CC5 is the evolution of CC2 .

CC2 players say CC5 is a devovlement of CC2, a step backwards Rolling Eyes

Dima wrote (View Post):

CC3 was just an dead-end .

Not a dead end at all!
Especially when it has continued evovling through mods with a dedicated following of players who love it adoringly, as one loves a faithfull wife,
CC5 players love their game like they love an unfaithfull woman, passionately, but never stop bitterly complaining about her indiscretions

Actually CC5 is the dead end of CC game series, because it is at the end of the series where the series died. Sad

Whereas, CC3 is at the centre and pinnacle of CC developement, please view flow Chart below

______________________________________________________________________________

CC3

CC2 CC4

CC1 CC5

birth of series death of series
______________________________________________________________________________

As you can clearly see by the Flow Chart that is was all downhill after CC3 Wink

Dima wrote (View Post):

CC3 is linear and that player doesn't affect the campaign

Totally wrong!
In CC3, the player's skill totally affects the campaign result, they can either lose or win on points like any otheR game, (i.e. football, basketball, etc), who ever has highest score wins, Duh!

Dima wrote (View Post):

unlike CC5 GC where player's skill can be the difference between loss and victory ............ CC3 doesn't give you chance to win as the germans unlike CC5

What total B.S!

No, you cannot win WW2 as Germans in CC3

Here is some shocking news for those who use this point to criticise CC3

Even in CC5 you CANNOT WIN WW2 AS THE GERMANS, !

SO GET OVER IT!

Tell me Dima, in CC5, have you ever played as Germans and driven the allies back into the sea and actually won the entire Normandy Campaign as Germans?

Tell me Dima, in CC5, have you ever played as Germans and completely driven the Russians back across the Volga and out of Stalngrad and actually realy won the battle of Stalingrad as Germans?

Tell me Dima, in CC4/5, have you ever played as Germans and driven the Allies out of the bulge and captured Antwerp?
Have you actually succeeded in attaining the German strategic goals of Wacht am Rhein?

No, of course not

Has anyone?

No, of course not

So no, just as in CC3, the outcome is the same.

The allies eventually win at Normandy, Stalingrad, the Bulge, and Berlin.

Ther best the Germans achieve in any CC5 campaign is exactly no more than in CC3, simply the inevitable is just delayed Rolling Eyes

When some wanker builds a series of CC5 mods where the Germans capture Moscow, Stalingrad, Leningrad Ekaterineburg, London and New York, i'll build one CC3 mod that matches them all Razz

If you like, i can use some of the CC3 Great War mod's cratered maps so that the Germans, after successfully winning WW2 in CC3, will successfully invade and capture the moon in CC3 Razz

CHEERS

AGS

.

#61: Re: CC5 vs CC3 Author: AT_Stalky,

Posted: Mon Jun 25, 2012 10:07 am
—
This debate should have ended at page 2. Though..

ArmeeGruppeSud wrote (View Post):

OH! WOW! HMMM, AT_Stalky notices CC players playing in European time zone more than AT_Stalky sees people playing in US Time zone AT_Stalky lives in Sweden Conclusion = AT_Stalky notices more players in Euro time zone because, being in Europe, AT_Stalky spends most of his online CC time in European time zone because most US players wont come online until AT_Stalky is well asleep as they are 6-9 hours behind Swedish time. Its no surprise that AT_Stalky does not play US people online often as AT_Stalky would have to either stay up till dawn playing or get up extremely early to play during US evening playtime

ArmeeGruppeSud wrote (View Post):

@ Stalky My response was entirely logical. ,.

Did I say your argumentation was sad, low and childish! Yes, I did…
Are you suggesting that I should rephrase that to:

“Well though out, high level and mature argumentation”?

ArmeeGruppeSud wrote (View Post):

Watch out for AT_STALKY, he will try and pin you down on side issues i.e. the Americn content of CC5 players

AGS, mate. You’re the one together with acebars who brought up the US-effect- “side issue” explaining the CC5 preference. Frech up yer memory at page 2. please. (see posts made: Fri Jun 22, 2012 2:16 pm & Sat Jun 23, 2012 2:31 am). Actually, you’re the ONLY one who are still at that US-side issue, and keep coming back to it again and again. and probable will again...

ArmeeGruppeSud wrote (View Post):

This is a diversionary tactic so he can stay off the real topic, because he knows CC3 is better

I have no idea how many times I said it in this thread alone. For you my old friend, I say it one more time: I don’t believe one can say CC5 is a better game than CC3, or vice versa, its about preferences..

ArmeeGruppeSud wrote (View Post):

Dima (a LEVEL 9 TROLL) & AT_STALKY (a LEVEL 6 TROLLl)

Intresting. Do you have that trollster list in a excel file, or is it in yer head only?

#62: Re: CC5 vs CC3 Author: ArmeeGruppeSud,

Posted: Mon Jun 25, 2012 11:07 am
—

Dima wrote (View Post):

1) it is linear and has tiny maps that offer frontal assault tactics most of time!!

CC2 had tiny maps, CC3 began with medium sized maps and now has many huge maps included in my DOF Campaigns

Dima wrote (View Post):

2) it had so huge success after CC2 that Atomic moved to CC4-5 with stratmap and non linear GC!!

CC5's associated bugs, malfunctions, problems, crashes, and various other dificulties led to the demise and end of Atomic's previously successful CLOSE COMBAT series Sad

Yes CC3 was HUGELY Successful

There has never been such a huge online H2H community since CC3's heyday

It seems that CC5 killed the Glory days of online CC which was achieved through CC3

Dima wrote (View Post):

3) it has incredible invisible ATGs - so cool!!

Realy?

What are you crying about mister Sooky-La-La

Let me explain some basic truths to you.

Both Tanks and AT guns have firepower as their main superpower

Tanks have mobility and armour protection as their other inherant superpowers

The only superpower that AT guns have to protect them against tanks is their ability for concealment (you call it invisibility).

If AT guns were as visible as tanks, they would be utterly useless.

AT guns are easily hidden, because, unlike tanks, they are small, they are narrow with low profiles, which enables them to be easily consealed (invisible)

So there is a sound argument why AT guns should not be easily seen.

Now to prove to you that AT guns are not invisible in CC3 and their concealment superpower does not give them an unfair advantage over tanks in CC3.

The statistics from a CC3 campaign are conclusive evidence against ATgun invisibility in CC3.

If ATguns were truly invisible/undetectable in CC3, then there would be more tanks destroyed than ATguns.

There are a total of 116 tanks destroyed and 247 guns destroyed in this CC3 campaign, so far.

If ATguns were invisible/undetectable in CC3, then why did the tanks destroy so many ATguns whilst losing so few tanks?

The above CC3 Campaign Debrief Screen statistics also give a much more historically accurate reflection of comparitive tank/gun loss ratios than CC5

For proof, i give you the Campaign Debrief Screen from the Dima v AT_STALKY TRSM H2H AAR:

PLEASE NOTE CC5's TOTALLY UNREALISTIC TANK/GUN LOSS RATIO

412 tanks v 93 guns

There is now further proof of why CC3 is a far better wargame, because its statistical results depicts far more accurately a reflection of historical battle losses statistics in the results Razz

Dima, a true historical accuraccy enthusiast, who is committed to historical accuraccy, would of course know that true historical statistics of battle losses always show 2-4 times as many gun losses as tank losses............

Dima wrote (View Post):

5) infantry suppression work really great - soldiers get unsuppressed when enemy team charges them!!

Yes, i am sure when an infantry squad charges your position, you would just sit there and wait for the bayonet in your gut Rolling Eyes

Dima wrote (View Post):

7) it doesn't represent real units like battalion size BGs in CC4-5

Of course it does not represent a battalion sized unit Rolling Eyes

CC3 represents a company sized unit, with a company sized group of soldiers on the battlefield.
Its not realistic Rolling Eyes

like CC5 where you have a company sized group of soldiers representing a regiment :roll:

CHEERS

AGS

.

#63: Re: CC5 vs CC3 Author: AT_Stalky,

Posted: Mon Jun 25, 2012 12:23 pm
—

ArmeeGruppeSud wrote (View Post):

The above CC3 Campaign Debrief Screen statistics also give a much more historically accurate reflection of comparitive tank/gun loss ratios than CC5.

Well argued AGS.

Lets logically test your argument:
Lets say that I play a CC3 GC, and I would not picked a single tank.. Then I would not have lost a single tank either.. So then the Germans tank losses in east front would have been exactly “0”, zero… And how realistic would that have been?
Conclusion, the losses are a factor of the troops selected.

Reset the argument.
Lest say that I pic exact ratios of troops, and my opponent do the same. Will the losses really be the historical ratios? Would that imply that the player skill and tactics have no meaning in CC3?
Conclusion: loss ratios are a factor of the 2 players individual skill and there relative comparative advantages.

Conclusion: your (well presented) argument has no relevance and no explanatory power on the realism of a CC3 GC.

Lets move on:

ArmeeGruppeSud wrote (View Post):

For proof, i give you the Campaign Debrief Screen from the Dima v AT_STALKY TRSM H2H AAR:.

ArmeeGruppeSud wrote (View Post):

PLEASE NOTE CC5's TOTALLY UNREALISTIC TANK/GUN LOSS RATIO.

ArmeeGruppeSud wrote (View Post):

There is now further proof of why CC3 is a far better wargame, because its statistical results depicts far more accurately a reflection of historical battle losses statistics in the results Razz

The reason why your argument fails here are basically the same as the CC3 GC argument above.

To add to this, one may also acknowledge that another reason why you have the ratios here in THIS CC5 GC is because of the German 27 battalions, vs the 54 allied battalions. The forces are totally available to the commanders in CC5, they are not in CC3.
The force pools should mimic the real thing, at best. But it’s not an re-enactments battle we are playing in CC5… It’s not a war documentary of the operation we are trying to mimic.
How the CC5 commander chose to use all them resources and WHERE is his own and only his own decision. The commander is also a “victim” of his own ability as well as the opponents abilities. This means that one will not have the same loss ratios against any other opponent..

/S

Last edited by AT_Stalky on Mon Jun 25, 2012 12:36 pm; edited 1 time in total

#64: Re: CC5 vs CC3 Author: ArmeeGruppeSud,

Posted: Mon Jun 25, 2012 12:35 pm
—

AT_Stalky wrote (View Post):

This debate should have ended at page 2. Though..

Yes it should have ended on page 2, but sadly, you had to drag it into page 3 with your obessession on the US side issue

This post began page 3

AT_Stalky wrote (View Post):

ArmeeGruppeSud wrote (View Post):

AT_Stalky wrote (View Post):

OK, first, i only said:

ArmeeGruppeSud wrote (View Post):

some bearing on the statistics

Never said that it was THE REASON
CC5 would have sold well in the US because of the whole: The US won WW2 in Normandy bit Rolling Eyes

AT_Stalky wrote (View Post):

A second observation, the CC5 “game room” has the most players in European time zone, not American. Conclusion…?

AT_Stalky wrote (View Post):

CC3 ROCKS

CHEERS

AGS

AT_Stalky wrote (View Post):

Actually, you’re the ONLY one who are still at that US-side issue, and keep coming back to it again and again. and probable will again...

LOOK HERE
Regarding the US player % side issue, i gave it just one lonely little sentence

ArmeeGruppeSud wrote (View Post):

Thats a good point and probably has some bearing on the statistics.

Then, it was AT_STALKY who inflated it into a massive side issue by devoting entire post of long winded dribbling argument to this side issue in this post

AT_Stalky wrote (View Post):

acebars wrote (View Post):

It must be that 40% of Close Combat players are american, because I can't see any other reason for wanting to play CC5!

ArmeeGruppeSud wrote (View Post):

Thats a good point and probably has some bearing on the statistics..

SO there you have it, acebars and i briefly mentioned it, it was AT_STALKY who escalated a minor point into a massive side isssue

AT_STALKY have you always been this way?

Making mountains out of molehills?

AT_Stalky wrote (View Post):

And yet again, i will agree with you that the reason more people play CC5 is just a preference thing.
It is clearly not because CC5 is a better game than CC3 (because it isn't).

If you have no desire to argue that CC5 is better than CC3, WTF R U doing in this thread?

The thread is called CC5 v CC3 after all Idea

AT_Stalky wrote (View Post):

IIntresting. Do you have that trollster list in a excel file, or is it in yer head only?

Nah, i got that info from www.trollregistar.com

CHEERS

AGS

P.S. I do love you Stalky ol' chum and i hope we meet in the afterlife.

#65: Re: CC5 vs CC3 Author: AT_Stalky,

Posted: Mon Jun 25, 2012 12:50 pm
—
Everyone except you ended the “US- side issue” long ago mate, acebars droped it direct and has not mentioned it again, it was nothing there to debate after considering how ppl play CC5. ..

ArmeeGruppeSud wrote (View Post):

long winded dribbling argument to this side issue in this post

Yes, the long endless post … sad are they not.

ArmeeGruppeSud wrote (View Post):

If you have no desire to argue that CC5 is better than CC3, WTF R U doing in this thread? The thread is called CC5 v CC3 after all Idea

As in many things there are not just two sides of an issue, it may be three or more.
So, 1) some seem to argue that CC3 is “better”, 2) some other argues that CC5 is “better”, and 3) I argues that non is the better.. They are just different and there quality’s are subjective in nature.
May I not argue that for you? LOL
Must I pick a side?

#66: Re: CC5 vs CC3 Author: acebars,

Posted: Mon Jun 25, 2012 4:15 pm
—
I couldn't help but getting involved again its too exciting.

Agree completely with AGS about the strawman arguments there's been a lot of those flying around, also writing "lol" is not an argument its about as retarded as using "um" in a sentence.

Quote:

wannabes try to capture Kremlin in CC3!

Oh Dima you are getting so desperate to win a point lol Yes, there is that one map

The penny only dropped last night that Dima is Russian so from a nationalistic perspective such a notion as fighting in Moscow is unacceptable in a video game, quote "wannabes try to capture the Kremlin".

It should be noted that German recon units were 8km away and could see the Kremlin and that the closest Panzer division 17km, they had not continued because they had been ordered to halt, however in theory it would have been quite possible for a succesful company (small battalion) to lead a pincer and once a line had been broken to lead a brigade and then division through to attack the rear, this is the very nature of the Blitzkrieg doctrine.

That said a company/small battalion would still not have altered the course of the war as the Russian counter-offensive on the 5th of December forced the Germans to withdraw. A battalion unless a special forces unit (like the precursor to the SAS in North Africa) could not and would not have an effect on the outcome of World War 2 it is simply too small a unit.

So Close Combat 3 quite clearly deals with the variance of what could have happened realistically in the situation as a commander and not the fantasy that a battalion could change the course of WW2.

This brings us to CC5, where

Quote:

27 battalions, vs the 54 allied battalions. The forces are totally available to the commanders in CC5, they are not in CC3.

I'd like to point out that whole US regiments stormed the beaches of normandy not companies or small battalions.

Lets take the Germans who fielded a total of 14 divisions in the Normandy invasion (I do not count the last 1 division that took part) a total of around 380,000 men.

4-6 (lets say 4) battalions = 1 Regiment/Brigade
3 Regiments/Brigades on a low average = 1 Division

So the minimum battalions let alone companies they fielded was at least 4 X 3 X 14 = 168 battalions.

(4 divisions in the actually landings in Normandy, 3 adjacent and immediately involved , 4 futher armoured division within a week, 3 further armoured divisions after 21 days having refitted at Coutances (south west Normandy).)

So again I call bullshit on the strategy element of CC5, you are fighting a pretend Normandy Strategy map with 27 small battalions (Allied total strength 1,332,000 btw Very Happy

) with fantasy retreating and supply point settings. Its just total bullshit.

Anyone talking about any realistic element in CC5 is just talking out of their arse, it was fought by division and regiments and not by companies.

So you can pretend to play the Normandy landings but its nothing like it, whereas CC3 is an accurate historical simulator of war on the Eastern front.

Btw I still believe a majority of CC5 players are from the US. That is an excellent flow chart AGS, however I can't comprehend how CC2 is on a par with CC4 Embarassed

I believe the lost sheep must return to the fold.

#67: Re: CC5 vs CC3 Author: AT_Stalky,

Posted: Mon Jun 25, 2012 7:03 pm
—

acebars wrote (View Post):

I couldn't help but getting involved again its too exciting.

Agree completely with AGS about the strawman arguments there's been a lot of those flying around, also writing "lol" is not an argument its about as retarded as using "um" in a sentence.

Quote:

wannabes try to capture Kremlin in CC3!

Oh Dima you are getting so desperate to win a point lol Yes, there is that one map

Quote:

27 battalions, vs the 54 allied battalions. The forces are totally available to the commanders in CC5, they are not in CC3.

I believe the lost sheep must return to the fold.

There is a scale in the CC5 tactical side, the fight is represented by 15 teams.

acebars wrote (View Post):

Lets take the Germans who fielded a total of 14 divisions in the Normandy invasion (I do not count the last 1 division that took part) a total of around 380,000 men.

acebars wrote (View Post):

So the minimum battalions let alone companies they fielded was at least 4 X 3 X 14 = 168 battalions.

You know, let me explain some basics for you:

1)The CC5 game only covers the Utah beach landing…. Not the WHOLE Normandy landing…
2)And its timeframe is 6 of June up to the 30 of June. Not the WHOLE Normandy campaign.
3)In the CC5-regular game the Germans BGs are regiments with attachments..
4)And yes, one can have 5 different amounts of troops depending on preference and how hard one want the operation to be.
5) a CC5 BG is made up by fighting men only. There are no GHQ personal, nor the artillery personal or the of map Flak personal in the CC5 games. You can’t fine the priests nor supply personel…. Nor medics, or medic dogs. Etc

acebars wrote (View Post):

So again I call bullshit on the strategy element of CC5, you are fighting a pretend Normandy Strategy map with 27 small battalions (Allied total strength 1,332,000 btw ) with fantasy retreating and supply point settings.

Nopz, we are not pretending we are fighting the Normandy Campaign, we are pretending that we fight the Utah beach and that sector.

acebars wrote (View Post):

Its just total bullshit.

Have you really played CC5? I mean, how in gods name did you miss that CC5 was only the Utah beach landing?

acebars wrote (View Post):

(4 divisions in the actually landings in Normandy, 3 adjacent and immediately involved , 4 futher armoured division within a week, 3 further armoured divisions after 21 days having refitted at Coutances (south west Normandy).)

Yeh, they landed on the 5 beaches in Normandy, BUT the only problem is that CC5 don’t cover the whole NORMANDY landing, it ONLY covers the one beach, the Utah sector.

acebars wrote (View Post):

Anyone talking about any realistic element in CC5 is just talking out of their arse,

Yeh, we don’t want to form too many sentences with that body opening, just look at the mess it has delivered so far. ..
What will come next?

#68: Re: CC5 vs CC3 Author: Dima,

Posted: Mon Jun 25, 2012 9:06 pm
—

Quote:

Dima (a LEVEL 9 TROLL)) & AT_STALKY (a LEVEL 6 TROLLl)

and when they are together in same thread with AGS they perform crazy multiclass combo boosting their TROLL level by at least 10 levels Wink

.

Sorry guys, have been having a severe hangover for the whole day - will be back with you tomorrow Smile

#69: Re: CC5 vs CC3 Author: acebars,

Posted: Mon Jun 25, 2012 9:14 pm
—

Quote:

No, no let me explain the basics to you the total german divisions I quoted were those who saw action within the month you mention in the Normandy Landings as a whole, they are not to do with the Normandy breakout afterward which you refer to as the campaign and a many of them featured on the American scene up to Cherbourg.

3 whole divisions with several regiments and battalions faced the American landings, the 709th Static Infantry Division at Utah and 352nd Infantry Division at Omaha, as well as the 91st Air Landing Division which faced the US Airborne troops. Only 1 the weakest division faced the British and Canadians. In CC5 these divisions are represented by a couple of companies, very realistic! and no a BG in CC5 cannot legitimately represent a regiment, a regiments soldiers of around 1000 men are counted as fighting soldiers not as cooks and priests.

A whole Division landed at Utah not 2 piddly companies! 23,500 men landed in one day on Utah and I'm not even mentioning the adjacent german divisions that took part later.

CC5 strategy is bullshit, sorry but it is really.

#70: Re: CC5 vs CC3 Author: Dima,

Posted: Mon Jun 25, 2012 9:31 pm
—

Quote:

3 whole divisions with several regiments and battalions faced the American landings, the 709th Static Infantry Division at Utah and 352nd Infantry Division at Omaha, as well as the 91st Air Landing Division which faced the US Airborne troops.

you can add 1 716.ID battalion in Isigny, 243.ID at the west shore and GHQ units as well and yes, they all (battalions) are in Utah mod for CC5.

Quote:

Only 1 the weakest division faced the British and Canadians.

i don't know why you think 716.ID was weaker than 709.ID but yeah, plus 21.Pz, 12.SS-Pz and 346.ID that were in closest vicinity and in combat by June 7th.
and yes, all their battalions that were in combat in June are in TRSM.

Quote:

In CC5 these divisions are represented by a couple of companies, very realistic!

check above Wink

Quote:

and no a BG in CC5 cannot legitimately represent a regiment, a regiments soldiers of around 1000 men are counted as fighting soldiers not as cooks and priests

why not? there are 2-5 battalion sized BGs per each german regiment (as they all had different organization there) in CC5.

#71: Re: CC5 vs CC3 Author: AT_Stalky,

Posted: Mon Jun 25, 2012 9:33 pm
—

acebars wrote (View Post):

Quote:

acebars wrote (View Post):

My observations which without trying to brag have been pretty accurate so far, are that most of the flag waving CC5 players have not had a thorough experience with previous versions of close combat, they may only have tried CC3 before or after the CC4/CC5 experience and quickly returned to CC5.

acebars wrote (View Post):

In this same vein, how many solid CC5 players solidly played CC3 before swapping over? I think you'll find many CC3 detractors all tried CC4 and CC5 thoroughly (like myself) and all have the same thing to say about it, I am saying that I believe de facto CC4/CC5 is pants and that in this case the de jure CC5 supporters are judging without perfect information that is all.

acebars wrote (View Post):

Out of interest, what is your history of playing CC, which one/s did you start off with and how much time did you spend on it/them?

Read your own quotes above.

After all the bald talk and blaha talk, it turns out that you don’t even know the basic of CC5…

#72: Re: CC5 vs CC3 Author: Dima,

Posted: Mon Jun 25, 2012 9:36 pm
—

Quote:

23,500 men landed in one day on Utah

if you calculate the number of "combat soldiers" among them you will be very surprised IMO Wink

#73: Re: CC5 vs CC3 Author: Stwa,

Posted: Tue Jun 26, 2012 6:42 am
—
The SHIT is getting real deep in this thread Exclamation

I cant bring myself to read each post entirely, but I was trying to find at least one line that was definitive for me at least.

they can either lose or win on points like any other game, (i.e. football, basketball, etc), who ever has highest score wins, Duh!

Now, everyone with an IQ of less than 100, will totally fucking understand, right Idea

[slaps forehead]

#74: Re: CC5 vs CC3 Author: acebars,

Posted: Tue Jun 26, 2012 10:30 am
—

AT_Stalky wrote (View Post):

Read your own quotes above.

After all the bald talk and blaha talk, it turns out that you don’t even know the basic of CC5…

Really how so? You've yet to explain this or counter any of the arguments I put forward with a concrete reply? AGS mentioned straw man arguments and derailment? Completed the grand campaign on both sides at least twice and had limited multi experience as mentioned before, it was 3 years ago, maybe its was such a boring experience that I forced myself to forget.

Quote:

if you calculate the number of "combat soldiers" among them you will be very surprised IMO Wink

Really? So what the Allied beach landings and subsequent breakouts were made by Chef and Priest batallions?

Quote:

why not? there are 2-5 battalion sized BGs per each german regiment (as they all had different organization there) in CC5.

No there are 2-5 companies per division in CC5!

Quote:

i don't know why you think 716.ID was weaker than 709.

Because it was made up of the most ost truppen, this is off topic anyhow.

#75: Re: CC5 vs CC3 Author: ArmeeGruppeSud,

Posted: Tue Jun 26, 2012 1:11 pm
—

Stwa wrote (View Post):

The SHIT is getting real deep in this thread Exclamation

]

. It surely is

At least there is some activity happenning in the CCS forum

Gives the punters something to read that they can have a giggle at Very Happy

Stwa wrote (View Post):

I cant bring myself to read each post entirely

Nor can i because of time constraints Sad

BTW....... nice boots Razz

CHEERS

AGS

.

#76: Re: CC5 vs CC3 Author: ArmeeGruppeSud,

Posted: Tue Jun 26, 2012 1:11 pm
—

AT_Stalky wrote (View Post):

Well argued AGS.

. Sarcasm?

AT_Stalky wrote (View Post):

Lets logically test your argument:.

. This is gonna be good Very Happy

AT_Stalky wrote (View Post):

Lets say that I play a CC3 GC, and I would not picked a single tank.. Then I would not have lost a single tank either.. So then the Germans tank losses in east front would have been exactly “0”, zero… And how realistic would that have been?
Conclusion, the losses are a factor of the troops selected.

Ok, what happened to logically testing my argument?

Guess that idea just went out the window, eh?

OK, lets look at the failed logic of AT_STALKY's attempt at refutation:

1st The Campaign was played, not to create statistics, like your hypothetical example, the Campaign was played to win!
The statistics resulted from a genuine CC GC with both sides playing to win.
If AT_STALKY was silly enough never to requistion a tank, he would lose the campagin very badly.

2ndly

AT_Stalky wrote (View Post):

. You think?

Obviously you did'nt.

My stats, as quoted were for combined German & Russian Tank and ATgun losses.

What about your opponent?

Your opponent probably requisitioned 100+ tanks during the campaign and the Russians utterly defeated AT_STALKY

Unless you refused to destroy any of them so that you lost every single operation, there still would have been Tanks losses

Or did you pay your opponent not to requisition any tanks for the entire GC just so that you could fabricate statistics.

Regarding AT_STALKY's argument in trying to refute me, if it was a horse, the vet would have shot it dead because it was so lame Razz

One must ask, what is AT_STALKY trying to prove?

He is proving that he will argue with anything i write Rolling Eyes

What is your point?

Are you trying to prove:

(A) that AT guns in CC3 are invisible and have an unfair advantage over tanks?

Or are you trying to prove:

(B) that the CC5 result statistics better reflect historical battle loss statistics than CC3

Or are you trying to prove:

(C) that AT_STALKY will argue with just about anything that AGS writes

There was little evidence for either A or B in your post, therefore, it can only be C

AT_Stalky wrote (View Post):

Lest say that I pic exact ratios of troops, and my opponent do the same. Will the losses really be the historical ratios? Would that imply that the player skill and tactics have no meaning in CC3?

This is another AT_Stalky sideshow argument which realy has NO BEARING on either of my arguments.

AT_Stalky wrote (View Post):

Conclusion: loss ratios are a factor of the 2 players individual skill and there relative comparative advantages.?

Is this lame argument an attempt to prove that the game in question has no bearing on the statistics the game delivers?

Your arguments totally failed to disprove anything.

You presented ZERO evidence, only a hypothetcal based on statistcal manipulation, not actual serious gameplay

Call the vet!

The reason why your arguments failed is because you simply ignored the evidence & facts and you concentrated on variables that have little relevance to the object of the argument.

Lets make this very easy, so that even people with IQs below 100 could understand.....

If you had game (A) that had tanks, but no AT/field Guns and game (B) that had both, which game's post battle result statistics would better reflect battle loss statistics from a war that included both tanks and AT/field Guns, A or B?
Just to make it easier for you, both sides are played by the AI with nobody making selections to manipulate the statistics.

Conlcusion: the game you play will ultimately affect the statistcal nature of the results.

Conclusion: your arguments had little relevance to the 2 points i was making in that post and did not refute one iota of my arguments.

CHEERS to you mister AT_AGS_STALKER

AGS

.

#77: Re: CC5 vs CC3 Author: ArmeeGruppeSud,

Posted: Tue Jun 26, 2012 1:12 pm
—

AT_Stalky wrote (View Post):

Everyone except you ended the “US- side issue” long ago mate, acebars droped it direct and has not mentioned it again, it was nothing there to debate after considering how ppl play CC5. ..?

Everyone except you ended the “US- side issue on page2, it was you you restarted on page 3 and kept it going.

You posed questions to me, so i was required to answer......

Am i not allowed a right of reply?

Then you continued to draw focus on the side issue.
For me it should never have been escalated into an issue and would have been over long ago if you had not been so obsessed about it.

ArmeeGruppeSud wrote (View Post):

If you have no desire to argue that CC5 is better than CC3, WTF R U doing in this thread? The thread is called CC5 v CC3 after all Idea

AT_Stalky wrote (View Post):

So, 1) some seem to argue that CC3 is “better”, 2) some other argues that CC5 is “better”, and 3) I argues that non is the better.. They are just different and there quality’s are subjective in nature..

For the third time, I agree with you that the reason more people play CC5 is all about preference, not that CC5 is a better game

AT_Stalky wrote (View Post):

May I not argue that for you? LOL
Must I pick a side?

No you dont have to pick a side

But you have......

You have chosen to be on any side that is opposed to mine Wink

CHEERS

AGS

.

#78: Re: CC5 vs CC3 Author: AT_Stalky,

Posted: Tue Jun 26, 2012 2:08 pm
—

ArmeeGruppeSud wrote (View Post):

What is your point?

The loss ratios in any GC is not an unbiased measurement of realism. The loss ratios are also affected by many other factors. For example: 1) The troops selected, IE: if one don’t pick any tanks one will not lose any tanks. That’s an extreme example, but it should point to the conclusion that the troops selected by the players affect the loss ratios.
2) The loss ratios are also subject to the player’s individual skills. This should point to the conclusion that the players skills affect the loss ratios.

ArmeeGruppeSud wrote (View Post):

the “US- side issue [....] For me it should never have been escalated into an issue and would have been over long ago if you had not been so obsessed about it.

It’s sad that this “side issue” has become an "issue" for you. But none here seem to be interested in debating a “non issue” with you. Perhaps because this "side issue" is a “non issue” thus no "issue" for us ...

#79: Re: CC5 vs CC3 Author: Dima,

Posted: Tue Jun 26, 2012 6:54 pm
—
AGS,

Quote:

There has never been such a huge online H2H community since CC3's heyday

i believe that it was due to several main factors:
1) CC3 had much better gameplay (game mechanics) than CC2 although CC2 was already a huge success.
2) That was a golden age of 56K modems that could nicely work with action packed CC3 battles instead of TBS wargames.

Quote:

It seems that CC5 killed the Glory days of online CC which was achieved through CC3

CC5 just couldn't compete with new multiplayer games when DSL/LAN became widespreaded.
Same for CC2/3/4.

Quote:

CC5's associated bugs, malfunctions, problems, crashes, and various other dificulties led to the demise and end of Atomic's previously successful CLOSE COMBAT series

if CC5 was/is so miserable why it is the most played online CC version even after 12 years since it was released?

Quote:

yes, really, even small caliber ATGs like pak36 and M37 were to be spotted and engaged by tanks at 500m.
their ability for concealment is important as they have longer range of direct sight against tanx than tanx against them and could make first shots.
so yes, invisible ATGs are unrealistic and ahistorical and that's why they were fixed in CC4-5.

Quote:

Now to prove to you that AT guns are not invisible in CC3 and their concealment superpower does not give them an unfair advantage over tanks in CC3.
The statistics from a CC3 campaign are conclusive evidence against ATgun invisibility in CC3.
If ATguns were truly invisible/undetectable in CC3, then there would be more tanks destroyed than ATguns.
There are a total of 116 tanks destroyed and 247 guns destroyed in this CC3 campaign, so far.
If ATguns were invisible/undetectable in CC3, then why did the tanks destroy so many ATguns whilst losing so few tanks?

no, that picture shows only:
1) that you were taking more ATGs than tanx in your battles.
2) there are too few tanks available in these operations shown in the picture which confirms limitations of CC3 where one has to use only single reinforced company throughout all operations.

Quote:

For proof, i give you the Campaign Debrief Screen from the Dima v AT_STALKY TRSM H2H AAR:
PLEASE NOTE CC5's TOTALLY UNREALISTIC TANK/GUN LOSS RATIO
412 tanks v 93 guns
There is now further proof of why CC3 is a far better wargame, because its statistical results depicts far more accurately a reflection of historical battle losses statistics in the results

no, you just proved:
1) that with good tactics ATGs can be effective against tanx without making them unrealistically invisible like it was in CC3.
2) that GJS sector was heavy on tanks which is historically represented in TRSM Wink

Quote:

yes, Dima knows that historically guns were in larger numbers than tanx and it is obvious that statistically more ATGs could be lost than tanx.
Dima also knows that historically where ATGs were able to penetrate tanx at all combat ranges, tanx were lost in much greater numbers than those ATGs.

Quote:

Yes, i am sure when an infantry squad charges your position, you would just sit there and wait for the bayonet in your gut

you are wrong, that's why bayonet charge against static/suppressed enemy was the common combat infantry tactics for most of the armies.
so yes, infantry supression model is flawed in CC3 and was fixed in CC4 (2nd patch)-5.

Quote:

Its not realistic like CC5 where you have a company sized group of soldiers representing a regiment

that is of cause wrong as in CC5 player chooses a company sized group from battalion force pool (BG) to be in combat and it several BGs in their turn represent a regiment in good details.

#80: Re: CC5 vs CC3 Author: Dima,

Posted: Tue Jun 26, 2012 8:22 pm
—
Acebars,

Quote:

that was a reply to AGS's CC5 wannabees and nothing to do with nationalistic perspective.

Quote:

It should be noted that German recon units were 8km away and could see the Kremlin

that's a myth AFAIK.

Quote:

they had not continued because they had been ordered to halt, however in theory it would have been quite possible for a succesful company (small battalion) to lead a pincer and once a line had been broken to lead a brigade and then division through to attack the rear, this is the very nature of the Blitzkrieg doctrine.

do you understand what would it take to cross 17km inside the modern city that is prepared for defence and have adequate forces to defend it? Check how many kilometers did they cross in Stalingrad and how long did it take them?
and of cause the nature of Blitzkrieg doctrine was different.

Quote:

So Close Combat 3 quite clearly deals with the variance of what could have happened realistically in the situation as a commander and not the fantasy that a battalion could change the course of WW2.

in that situation that was a pure fantasy.

Quote:

Really? So what the Allied beach landings and subsequent breakouts were made by Chef and Priest batallions?

Priest battalions helped alot with their 105mm guns Wink

.
you better read somewhere when did they make breakouts and how many men and war materials did they land by then.

Quote:

No there are 2-5 companies per division in CC5!

sure you've played CC5?
could you prove that in CC5 there are only 2-5 companies per division?

Quote:

Because it was made up of the most ost truppen, this is off topic anyhow.

most of the replies in this thread are off topic anyway Smile

709.ID and 716.ID had 3 Ost-Bataillone each. Again why do you say 716.ID was the weakest?

#81: Re: CC5 vs CC3 Author: acebars,

Posted: Tue Jun 26, 2012 9:16 pm
—

Dima wrote (View Post):

that's a myth AFAIK.

No its not. The argument about the myth is whether or not they may or may not have seen the Kremlin.

Dima wrote:

Moscow was anything but a modern city (it is even debatable whether it is a modern city today given its economic disparities), it certainly wasn't the megapolis sprawl that it is today, the recon unit that made it the closest stopped at Khimki which was then still a rural town and in no way connected to Moscow city as a whole. In other words 8km away they had not even reached the suburbs before being ordered to stop.

Dima wrote:

Quote:

So Close Combat 3 quite clearly deals with the variance of what could have happened realistically in the situation as a commander and not the fantasy that a battalion could change the course of WW2.

In that situation that was a pure fantasy.

Not really it was quite possible if one leading unit of a division had performed well, it still would have been difficult and very unlikely, but CC3 does simulate the possibilities without it being complete fantasy imo all that is missing is a suburb map in between, alas 5 maps is the maxium in CC3, and it still wouldn't have had an outcome on the war as the Soviets had been planning a counteroffensive long before those 2 weeks.

Dima wrote:

you better read somewhere when did they make breakouts and how many men and war materials did they land by then.

Pot calling the kettle black you better read about the Normandy landings, I have read about the Normandy landings and like I said 23,500 combat troops not chefs or clergy men landed in one day on Utah beach.

Dima wrote:

sure you've played CC5? could you prove that in CC5 there are only 2-5 companies per division?

Yep I'm playing it now and you can prove it just by starting the Grand campaign in CC5, day 1. 709th Static Infantry Division at Utah is represented by 3 companies, 2 actually at the beaches and one behind which fights the US airborne. The 91st Air Landing Division an Elite Division is represented by only 2 Companies which fight the US airborne troops, need I go on?

I also noted I'm able to requisition a Stuart as a US Airborne unit far behind the beach landings! (I'm playing as veteran btw) Lol, thats really realistic I wonder how many parachutes that took, maybe they put seperate parts into gliders and built it on the spot? More utter bullshit in CC5.

Dima wrote:

Quote:

Because it was made up of the most ost truppen, this is off topic anyhow.

most of the replies in this thread are off topic anyway Smile

709.ID and 716.ID had 3 Ost-Bataillone each. Again why do you say 716.ID was the weakest?

I was under the impression (if I recall correctly) that the 716th had more Ost truppen than the 709th which also had them, this and the fact they were mostly facing the combined forces of the British and Canadians meant the Allies there had an easier time than elsewhere, perhaps they were comparitively weaker, I am now reading about Vietnam it was a while since I read about the D-Day and the Western Front.

#82: Re: CC5 vs CC3 Author: johnsilver, Location: Florida

Posted: Tue Jun 26, 2012 11:04 pm
—
It's a game. Some of it is historical and some of it isn't going to be, just like the mods (or some) might have added for playability.

Lets maybe lighten up a tad and enjoy the one we prefer.

#83: Re: CC5 vs CC3 Author: ArmeeGruppeSud,

Posted: Wed Jun 27, 2012 1:08 pm
—
@ STWA

Sometimes i can be realy S-------L-----------O------------------W

Only just clicked to the significance of this pic when i saw it again today l Laughing

Stwa wrote (View Post):

The SHIT is getting real deep in this thread Exclamation

]

So deep you need those wading boots to get through it pmsl

Now please excuse me, please do tell

Whats with the CC3 Stangrad screenshot?

Btw, there were never any StuG-III-Gs in Stalingrad, Dima?

CHEERS

AGS

>

#84: Re: CC5 vs CC3 Author: ArmeeGruppeSud,

Posted: Wed Jun 27, 2012 1:17 pm
—

johnsilver wrote (View Post):

It's a game. Some of it is historical and some of it isn't going to be, just like the mods (or some) might have added for playability.

Yep yep yep

Fair comment

johnsilver wrote (View Post):

Lets maybe lighten up a tad and enjoy the one we prefer.

Don't be ridiculous

We'll have no lilly livered peacemongers here thankyou

Pick a side and join the fray Twisted Evil

CHEERS

AGS

.

#85: Re: CC5 vs CC3 Author: ArmeeGruppeSud,

Posted: Wed Jun 27, 2012 1:26 pm
—

AT_Stalky wrote (View Post):

If your “side issue” is such a “non issue”, then why do you keep bringing it up Rolling Eyes

Thats just so sad Crying or Very sad

CHEERS

AGS

.

#86: Re: CC5 vs CC3 Author: Dima,

Posted: Wed Jun 27, 2012 3:50 pm
—

Quote:

Now please excuse me, please do tell
Whats with the CC3 Stangrad screenshot?

i bet Stwa puzzled everyone with this Smile

Quote:

Btw, there were never any StuG-III-Gs in Stalingrad, Dima?

well, the production started in December 1942 so i doubt it - looks like their babtism of fire was at Kharkov.
late production F8 with 50+30mm armor were in Stalingrad AFAIK.

#87: Re: CC5 vs CC3 Author: AT_Stalky,

Posted: Wed Jun 27, 2012 4:22 pm
—
Nominal vitory are simplistic

#88: Re: CC5 vs CC3 Author: Dima,

Posted: Wed Jun 27, 2012 4:45 pm
—

Quote:

No its not. The argument about the myth is whether or not they may or may not have seen the Kremlin.Moscow was anything but a modern city (it is even debatable whether it is a modern city today given its economic disparities), it certainly wasn't the megapolis sprawl that it is today, the recon unit that made it the closest stopped at Khimki which was then still a rural town and in no way connected to Moscow city as a whole. In other words 8km away they had not even reached the suburbs before being ordered to stop.

you said that yourself, Khimki station was 17-19km from Kremlin. 8km myth came from P.Carell, and of cause it was impossible to see Kremlin even from that range.
and yes, Moscow was a modern city in 1941 and, although i don't like it, it is a modern city today.

Quote:

ok let's count,
4th ID landed at Utah beach that had about ~6-8K combat troops, then we have 2 Tk Battalions (~500-700men), elements of 4th Cavalry (~200-300men), 1 TD Bat (~200men), so whom else did you add to get 23,500 of combat troops landed at Utah beach on June 6?

Quote:

well, yeah, I agree that Atomic did alot of mistakes, releasing CC3 was one of them Razz

.
check Utah mod, there you will have 6 battalion sized BGs representing 709.ID and 6 battalions for 91.LLD, btw it was far from beeing elite - actually it was raised in 1944 and was not fully combat ready by D-Day ;)

Quote:

I also noted I'm able to requisition a Stuart as a US Airborne unit far behind the beach landings! (I'm playing as veteran btw) Lol, thats really realistic I wonder how many parachutes that took, maybe they put seperate parts into gliders and built it on the spot? More utter bullshit in CC5

actually squadron of 4th Cav did reach the Paras on June 6 and was supporting them with their 37mm and MGs.
so tell us about more CC5 bullshit Wink

Quote:

Utah landing took a toll of 200 US servicemen - no other beach had such smooth landing.
and as for easy landing of Canucks against 716.ID, google for Juno Wink

#89: Re: CC5 vs CC3 Author: acebars,

Posted: Wed Jun 27, 2012 5:51 pm
—

Dima wrote (View Post):

Whatever the case, Khimki was a rural town then, far from the Moscow suburbs.

Moscow was not a modern city, a modern city implies that all its residents had modern amenities at the time, like for example basic sanitation and extensive sewage systems which outside the very city centre Moscow simply did not exist even up to a decade after the war. Modern cities in Europe at the time were for example London, Paris, Berlin, Budapest (which had modernised first in the whole of continental Europe in the late 19th Century) as far East I would say as Warsaw (which was modernised by English architects in the late 19th Century). Due to the purges in the countryside etc. and forced relocation Moscow had grown rapidly in terms of millions and despite efforts to house everyone (which were largely succesful) many of these buildings lacked basic sanitation = not a modern city.

Off topic: This argument can be extended today, by modern standards Moscow is anything but today, income disparities make huge gaps between those in poverty and the rich. Cities that are Megapolises and not modern imo are for example Mexico city, Sao Paulo, Shenzhen, Moscow, New Delhi.

Modern implies Hong Kong, Paris, London, New York etc. where poor people don't die from hunger.

Quote:

23,500 Combat troops landed on Utah beach, I'm not going to debate it with you pick up a history book.

Quote:

actually squadron of 4th Cav did reach the Paras on June 6 and was supporting them with their 37mm and MGs.
so tell us about more CC5 bullshit Wink

Really can you explain why a stuart managed to get dropped 3-4 sectors away from the Beach landings? A few battlegroups get them. An unacceptable excuse to what is bullshit. WW2 tanks flying through the air with parachutes.

Quote:

Utah landing took a toll of 200 US servicemen - no other beach had such smooth landing.
and as for easy landing of Canucks against 716.ID, google for Juno Wink

I happen to know that Utah was the easiest landing I never said that the Brits/Canadians had it the easiest I said that as whole they had it relatively easier than the US forces i.e. Omaha beach. Yes they got hit at Juno hard, nothing compared to the US losses. Please stop with the misintepretations and strawman arguments, just pick up a history book, I have already and can't really be bothered to keep refering to it on your behalf.

Quote:

Er bullshit, some armies didn't even supply bayonets with certain rifled weapons towards the end of World War 2. Of all armies the ones probably doing the most fixing of bayonets were the Russians because only they could sustain the horrific losses required to get into close quarters and even the Soviet "deep operations" strategy was designed to have mass russian hordes wielding submachine guns not rifled bayonets. German doctrine specifically hinged on the MG34/MG42 to keep Russian infantry out of close range and was specifically against close quarters fighting.

Bayonet charges against a suppressed force is a World War 1 concept, by the end of World War 2 it was largely obsolete. It is still a left over that remains today in many Armies. Its like a caecal appendix, we all have one but its very rarely used if ever. So sorry I call absolute bullshit on that one.

#90: Re: CC5 vs CC3 Author: Dima,

Posted: Wed Jun 27, 2012 7:31 pm
—

Quote:

Whatever the case, Khimki was a rural town then, far from the Moscow suburbs.

good that you accept that it was still too far from Kremlin when they reached Khimki.

Quote:

23,500 Combat troops landed on Utah beach, I'm not going to debate it with you pick up a history book.

well thanks for clarification - looks like the only search you can make is open wiki... and even there they don't say about 23,500 combat troops but the overall number of men landed at Utah beach on June 6.

Quote:

Really can you explain why a stuart managed to get dropped 3-4 sectors away from the Beach landings?

i repeat, B troop of 4th Cav landed at Utah beach and reached Paras at St.Mere Eglise by afternoon with their vehicles.

Quote:

A few battlegroups get them. An unacceptable excuse to what is bullshit. WW2 tanks flying through the air with parachutes.

that is mistake of Atomic again - they have been doing alot of mistakes in historical details in all their game, including CC3 which had too many of them. Hopefully modders, like AGS, do fix them Wink

.
and SURPRISE!!! the brit Paras did land tanks with their gliders in Norm Wink

Quote:

I happen to know that Utah was the easiest landing I never said that the Brits/Canadians had it the easiest I said that as whole they had it relatively easier than the US forces i.e. Omaha beach.

you did say 716.ID was the weakest.

Quote:

Yes they got hit at Juno hard, nothing compared to the US losses

so maybe you can give us casualty numbers of GJS sectors and Utah/Omaha for comparison? ;)

Quote:

Please stop with the misintepretations and strawman arguments, just pick up a history book, I have already and can't really be bothered to keep refering to it on your behalf.

i don't even need to open the book to see how deep your knowledges are Smile

Quote:

Er bullshit, some armies didn't even supply bayonets with certain rifled weapons towards the end of World War 2.

example please..

Quote:

Of all armies the ones probably doing the most fixing of bayonets were the Russians because only they could sustain the horrific losses required to get into close quarters

open my eyes please - what is the total number of RA irretrivable casualties and how does it compare to the German irrretrivable casualties?

Quote:

even the Soviet "deep operations" strategy was designed to have mass russian hordes wielding submachine guns not rifled bayonets.

ahha! another historical breakthrough, like the nature of Blitzkrieg?
please tell us who was wielding SMGs in RA?

Quote:

German doctrine specifically hinged on the MG34/MG42 to keep Russian infantry out of close range and was specifically against close quarters fighting.

i bet they used different infantry doctrine against the allies, right?

Quote:

Bayonet charges against a suppressed force is a World War 1 concept, by the end of World War 2 it was largely obsolete.

and probably that's why it was the main infantry tactics of the CW Armies, USA, JEA and RA to mention some.

Quote:

So sorry I call absolute bullshit on that one.

no problems, it just proves your deep knowledges Smile

#91: Re: CC5 vs CC3 Author: AT_Stalky,

Posted: Wed Jun 27, 2012 7:55 pm
—

acebars wrote (View Post):

Well, im not gone slash CC3s way to pick units even though its unrealistic. Its a game mecanics after all.

But it’s cool that you fined it unrealistic that CC5 has tanks available in the force pool for the AB units from day one. Most of us who played CC5 GC did not picked the tanks in the first battles. The house rule was that one was allowed to use the tanks ONLY when the AB unit was linked to the beach. This is modeble by the way, so its "fixed".

But when you react against that (modeble) detail in CC5, how come that you don’t react against the point system in CC3?
What Company commander in the east front had a requisition point account from where he purchased units? Where was the Wehrmacht super markets located? Buy a tank or two, buy some guns, and buy that cool infantry team... ?? … I cant remember, was it even possible to buy FJ and SS!!!

Brrr.... the images that comes to my mind when a CC3 Wehrmacht Company commander get that Visa card and go on a shopping tripp… Theres just something here that feels so... unrealistic?

But, perhaps one should not forget that it’s a …. game..

Last edited by AT_Stalky on Wed Jun 27, 2012 8:56 pm; edited 1 time in total

wehrmart (kopia).jpg

Description:

Filesize:

155.26 KB

Viewed:

9030 Time(s)

#92: Re: CC5 vs CC3 Author: acebars,

Posted: Wed Jun 27, 2012 8:54 pm
—

Quote:

you did say 716.ID was the weakest.

No I said that they were relatively weaker. Do you understand what that means? It means 1 German against 20 Americans is stronger than 2 Germans against 55 Americans.

Quote:

good that you accept that it was still too far from Kremlin when they reached Khimki.

Where did you get that notion? The only thing I accept is that they still had a lot of countryside to get to the Kremlin and not the laughable 17km of city you claim Moscow to be then.

Quote:

No, wiki and Antony Beevor's D-Day landing book, maybe you should read it.

Quote:

nd SURPRISE!!! the brit Paras did land tanks with their gliders in Norm Wink.

No, tankettes and universal carriers do not count as tanks. No stuart to my knowledge ever took part in a para drop.

Quote:

i repeat, B troop of 4th Cav landed at Utah beach and reached Paras at St.Mere Eglise by afternoon with their vehicles.

I repeat I had several tanks fly in from the sky before the beach had even been taken!

Quote:

Er bullshit, some armies didn't even supply bayonets with certain rifled weapons towards the end of World War 2.

example please..

Err for example US and US supplied units? By the end some had received Garands with and without bayonets, and some had discarded them in favour of combat knives.

Quote:

open my eyes please - what is the total number of RA irretrivable casualties and how does it compare to the German irrretrivable casualties?

Like I said I'm not going to do your job of reading up the facts, why don't you find a late war german infantry manual, there is no mention of ever favouring fixing bayonets as a tactic, it is infact meant to be avoided.

Quote:

ahha! another historical breakthrough, like the nature of Blitzkrieg? please tell us who was wielding SMGs in RA?

Well I'm not sure what they've been teaching you in Russia, but its common historical knowledge that the Kalashnikov machine gun doctrine after the war was based on the mass human wave tactic employed by the Soviets during the war, except for the assault rifle was meant to replace the original sub-machine gun idea, that was the theory at least. Perhaps Kalashnikov got it wrong they were actually meant to fix bayonet? Laughing

Quote:

and probably that's why it was the main infantry tactics of the CW Armies, USA, JEA and RA to mention some.

Most laughable notion that armies fixed bayonets as a main tactic in World War 2. Please stop taking the piss.

Quote:

no problems, it just proves your deep knowledges Smile.

Resorting to petty statements about someone's knowledge while yourself showing ignorance, straw man arguments and not answering/avoiding/derailing the actual discussion is weak.

Quote:

But when you react against that detail in CC5, how come that you don’t react against the point system in CC3?
What Company commander in the east front had a requisition point account from where he purchased units? Where was the Wehrmacht –Mart super markets located? Buy a tank or two, buy some guns, and buy that cool infantry team... ?? … I cant remember, was it even possible to buy FJ and SS!!!

I think its an excellent way to depict reinforcements in Close Combat and other war games (i.e. Combat Mission). If I have a massive reinforcement pool like in CC5 why don't I just field everything? Also the reinforcement pool gives no indication of the availability of units at that particular time it just has a set values, so you have "x" teams and thats it, never has a conflict been such, never can a unit exactly calculate what its future reinforcements are or not, even in an accurate build up such as the US troop buildup in Vietnam could commanders and units say exactly how many or what type of tank they'd receive in a certain month.

CC3 correctly depicts reinforcements, which are based on availability for refit which is the pool of units in that sector/division and are those available to the Commander at the time. The point system is effectively the importance/military resource availabity you have as a unit of receiving reinforcements at that time. So for example if you are due on an offensive you have more points or importance as a unit to pick more teams from a pool. When Germany is losing the war it has less military resources available and hence less points. The point system is effectively a reinforcement potential much like an army in real life.

In another light its quite possible that a force receives a lot of importance in its mission and all available military resources pushed towards it thus receiving a lot of points, but if the quality of reinforcements however is poor this is reflected in the force pool because these are the only units available to that Division at the time, an excellent example of this would be a scenario of fighting around Berlin where German armies were still at large and received all reinforcements possible but military material was less available. This would be completely undoable in the CC5 engine.

The system in CC3 is very similar to how armies have worked for centuries, for example a commander can request more tanks, mortars, reinforcements or whatever and depending on the avalibility of military resources and the importance of that unit at the time is either granted these units or not. Instead in CC5 a commander is told exactly you have x amount of tanks y amount of mortarx and z amount of infantry, which is simply not realistic and total bullshit.

Last edited by acebars on Wed Jun 27, 2012 10:21 pm; edited 1 time in total

#93: Re: CC5 vs CC3 Author: Stwa,

Posted: Wed Jun 27, 2012 9:20 pm
—
The point system is effectively the importance/military resource availabity you have as a unit of receiving reinforcements at that time. So for example if you are due on an offensive you have more points or importance as a unit to pick more teams from a pool. When Germany is losing the war it has less military resources available and hence less points. The point system is effectively a reinforcement potential much like an army in real life.

CC3 is not the first game to try to explain away what their nebulous point system actually means. Besides, earlier posts suggested these points were in fact just POINTS, like in a football or basketball game.

But now, we are told points mean importance or reinforcement potential or military resources.

WTF Exclamation

#94: Re: CC5 vs CC3 Author: acebars,

Posted: Wed Jun 27, 2012 9:51 pm
—

Stwa wrote (View Post):

CC3 is not the first game to try to explain away what their nebulous point system actually means. Besides, earlier posts suggested these points were in fact just POINTS, like in a football or basketball game. But now, we are told points mean importance or reinforcement potential or military resources.

WTF Exclamation

Well how else are you going to depict something that is not rigidly set or settable in any army? How is it nebulous?

An actual discussion between a US colonel and a US general in Vietnam may have looked like this in real life:

Colonel: "Due to our recent losses after the Tet offensive, I require replacement tanks as well as extra reserve artillery to bolster my defense if I'm to hold here"
General: "I'm afraid other sectors were hit worse, besides Westmoreland needs all the armor & artillery he can get against Hue, I can reinforce some of your infantry losses but you're just going to have make do with what you've got until we get the situation under control"

In other words the importance of that unit is low due to an offensive elsewhere so in CC3 points are low, tanks and artillery are available in the force pool as the war material is available to the US army but you do not have the points to be able to afford them until later or in a later operation.*

How you can portray this in a video game other than using a system like CC3 employs? Instead in CC5 US forces after the Tet Offensive all have hundreds of units of reserves and replenish them instantly, just nonsense.

So how the concept of reinforcement potentials against military resources at the time is a nebulous concept to you is beyond me, its about as nebulous as the real situation in a real life army.

*I corrected this part after other posts had already been made.

Last edited by acebars on Thu Jun 28, 2012 11:01 am; edited 5 times in total

#95: Re: CC5 vs CC3 Author: AT_Stalky,

Posted: Wed Jun 27, 2012 9:53 pm
—

acebars wrote (View Post):

Also the reinforcement pool gives no indication of the availability of units at that particular time it just has a set values, so you have "x" teams and thats it, .

You have not played CC5, or understood it have you?
The force pool is the battalion directly combat ready troops that are under his command. A battalion commander definitely know the amount of available troops BEFOR the battle, and that what CC5 mimics.

acebars wrote (View Post):

never has a conflict been such, never can a unit exactly calculate what its future reinforcements are or not, .

hm, future reinforcements? A CC5 battalion is the troops at hand. Future reinforcements, would then be the allied reinforcements option, where he can reinforce the whole battalion one time. And the CC5 player has no idea how the force pool will look when reinforcing it. As each day may have different units and different numbers of units… So, you wrong again. You have not played CC5 have you? Or is it that you don’t get it?

acebars wrote (View Post):

The system in CC3 is very similar to how armies have worked for centuries, for example a commander can request more tanks, mortars, reinforcements or whatever and depending on the avalibility of military resources and the importance of that unit at the time is either granted these units or not..

Ehh, a German whermacht company commander requests some SS units, and some FJ units. And some cool tanks, or flame SPW, what more?… To whom does he do that, OKW, OKH or direct to the Wher-Mart store?
A Company commander talks to the battalion commander only. I doubt he can give him what he asks for, and if he requests what is available in the CC3 pool, he may instead get some weeks R&R, as the battalion commander most probable will think the CP commander has got some serious delusions, perhaps shell shock, or battle fatigue with some grandiose Napoleonic tendencies.

You just fantasising are you not? Making up things as you debates?

#96: Re: CC5 vs CC3 Author: acebars,

Posted: Wed Jun 27, 2012 10:11 pm
—

Quote:

The force pool is the battalion directly combat ready troops that are under his command. A battalion commander definitely know the amount of available troops BEFOR the battle, and that what CC5 mimics.

No a commander knows what his reserves are, this is something usually defined by the commander (again you can rest/reserve troops in CC3 but not CC5) and he knows what his potential reinforcements are, he doesn't have a horde of 50-100 units walking around behind him ready to reinforce him, its not the Cannon Fodder SNES game.

Quote:

As each day may have different units and different numbers of units… So, you wrong again. You have not played CC5 have you? Or is it that you don’t get it?

Bullshit, reinforcements stay the same in BG you have a horde of reinforcements marching around with you, why can't I field the 50 or so units I am carrying around with me? A commander cannot possibly know what the force pool is, its not his job and I doubt any commander in any army is told in detail what the make up of the forces are as it would be a serious intelligence flaw if he was captured! This and the force pool is ever changing, a fixed horde doesn't walk around after him, it is the job of the high command to allocate reinforcements to armies and then divisions down, you don't have companies walking around with a trail of reinforcements.

Quote:

A Company commander talks to the battalion commander only. I doubt he can give him what he asks for, and if he requests what is available in the CC3 pool, he may instead get some weeks R&R, as the battalion commander most probable will think the CP commander has got some serious delusions, perhaps shell shock, or battle fatigue with some grandiose Napoleonic tendencies.

You just fantasising are you not? Making up things as you debates?

German units were often mixed, usually the SS imposing itself on the Wehrmacht, for example in nearly every Wehrmacht squad in Italy (except for the Fallschirmjagers) there was 1-2 SS troops and Regiments often fought as mixed battalions with SS, Wehrmacht and Fallschirmjagers squads throughout the defensive campaign. Its explained quite nicely in CC3 as the higher ranking you are the more of these troops you get, higher ranking commanders have more units under their command and therefore more likely to have had mixed troops under their command, its a step towards the realistic situation at the time.

Quote:

You have not played CC5, or understood it have you?

Stop the bullshit and start debating seriously, image below.

Last edited by acebars on Wed Jun 27, 2012 10:34 pm; edited 1 time in total

#97: Re: CC5 vs CC3 Author: AT_Stalky,

Posted: Wed Jun 27, 2012 10:33 pm
—

acebars wrote (View Post):

it was 3 years ago [I played CC5], maybe its was such a boring experience that I forced myself to forget. .

Yeh, it was so long ago you so you believed that CC5 was the whole Normandy campaign. When in fact its just one beach… The Utah beach..

FYI, I have not played regular CC5 since GJS came out, and that was like 9? years ago. Funny how you have forgot the BASICS about CC5, and I have not..

You arguing and making so many mistakes about the CC5 game mechanics that either your suffering from some brain memory disorder, or you have not understood how it functions, or you just a forum troll.

For someone who’s just been a member of this community for 2 weeks, and the way you argues, points to a troll.

You’re a troll and a waste of time.

#98: Re: CC5 vs CC3 Author: acebars,

Posted: Wed Jun 27, 2012 10:51 pm
—

Quote:

Yeh, it was so long ago you believed that CC5 was the whole Normandy campaign. When in fact its just one beach… The Utah beach..

No I never believed it was the whole Normandy campaign, you deliberately misinterpreted this to try and use it as an argument.

Quote:

You arguing and making so many mistakes about the CC5 game mechanics that either your suffering from some brain memory disorder, or you have not understood how it functions, or you just a forum troll.

You've yet to actually show me how I don't understand the CC5 game mechanics, all you do is deliberately misinterpret, make presumptions, never answer the question and make some illogical arguments? You can't argue by making bullshit up.

Can you actually seriously counter any of my propositions without making things up such as "Yea you believed it was the whole Normandy campaign", how can you argue against someone who pretends to not understand and then makes up presumptions based on this? I am not arguing using any presumptions about you, I am strictly sticking to the facts, so please dispense with the straw man arguments.

Quote:

You’re a troll and a waste of time.

That you have to resort to naming me a "troll and a waste of time" clearly shows you are unable to form a constructive argument irrespective of prejudice towards me (and I've heard enough already) to the points I have raised in CC5 and CC3, its simply a cop out and shows to me you are not capable of actually defending CC5 without having to resort to pathetic arguments like calling me a troll or questioning my experience or what I'm doing in this forum i.e. stick to the discussion about the games and stop trying to derail it.

I can likewise start saying bulllshit like "oh you obviously don't remember CC3" or calling you a troll, but that is just bullshit and speculation, stick to the facts not bullshit.

Very Happy

#99: Re: CC5 vs CC3 Author: dgfred, Location: N.C., USA

Posted: Thu Jun 28, 2012 1:22 am
—
Hey Ace.

I understand you like CC3. I don't understand your ripping CC5 so hard tho. Each obviously has it's fans and others that just don't care to play it when they can play the other (or any kind of game instead).

I have played them all, including H2H in CC2 and CC5 for a long time. I really think if you took some time to dl some of the mods for CC5- like for instance GJS, TRSM, Utah, Battle of Berlin, Stalingrad, Der Kessel, and some others that catch your eye you may even grow fond of the game. Plus as Stalky mentioned you can play h2h if you like... and make gentlemen's rules to make each game/op/campaign as 'realistic' as possible.
I personally play vs the AI probably 85% of the time now because of RL time constraints... and the 'decisions' the AI makes both strategically/tactically/picking units/always will just blow your mind sometimes and almost ruin it for you. I have learned to live with it somewhat... but it always happens. It is hard to find someone in your time zone with the same ideas/time/etc to hook up and play with... but it sure is fun if you can. If not, your gonna have to have a good imagination to play any War game IMO.

Maybe look at the Bge/Div mix in the Allied BGs and the Rgt/etc/Div German BGs at the start of your Operation/Campaign as the troops at hand for immediate battle with their 'reserves' in the pool as most units would not commit every available unit to a battle in an area (map) from moment one. For instance you know you began the campaign with 5 Cromwells... had 3 in the opening battle and lost 2. Do you save your 'points' (remaining Cromwells) or use them now? Do you just hold on a few more turns, thin out the opponent, then bring them on later? Etc?

I have complaints with every one of the the CC games... but if I don't like one enough, I just play the other Wink

#100: Re: CC5 vs CC3 Author: ArmeeGruppeSud,

Posted: Thu Jun 28, 2012 2:08 pm
—
Shocked

MEIN GOTT!!!!

GOTT IM HIMMELL

This thread is going BERZERK!!

MAYBE IT COULD OVERTAKE TRAINWRECKS

Stwa wrote (View Post):

Besides, earlier posts suggested these points were in fact just POINTS, like in a football or basketball game. ..But now, we are told points mean importance or reinforcement potential or military resources.
WTF Exclamation

Now Stwa dont be a dweeb Rolling Eyes

The points refered to earlier were Campaign Points which are awarded to the player for winning operations
Whoever gains the most Campaign Points wins the Campaign, (like whoever score most wins sports game) DUH! (slaps hand against forehead) Rolling Eyes

Anybody, even those with less than 100 IQ, will know acebars was referring to Requisition Points,

not

Campaign Points

CHEERS

AGS

P.S. have not even had time to read all the posts since i last logged in,....... later Question

#101: Re: CC5 vs CC3 Author: ArmeeGruppeSud,

Posted: Thu Jun 28, 2012 2:38 pm
—
Idea

OK, just one more

@ AT_ags_Stalker

Lets talk about realism

You criticise CC3 for its Requisition points system.....

This is where CC3 totally phecies all over CC5

Lets have a hypothetical (i know you like them Wink

)

During a battle, the troops you deploy, the 15 units are shot to pieces, but none are wiped out.
Each squad has 1 or 2 men left, all your tanks are very severely damaged, but not lost.

In CC5 you go back to your force pool, and swap them for new teams.
The shot to pieces units go back into the force pool where they miraculously automatically become 100% brand new units

Whats have you lost Question

NOTHING

You have exactly the same force strength as the day before and you have suffered no loss/penalty for throwing away so many lives etc

You may have gained some ground on the maps, your opponent had much fewer casualties, but lost 5 complete teams, so his loss is actually much greater, is that fair?

In CC3, every loss of life will cost you and all the damage your tanks cop will cost you Shocked

Now surely you must see that this is both a fairer and a more realistic penalty for frivolous leadership

Of course my Stalker will find a side issue to make some disagreement and avoid the real issue Wink

CHEERS

AGS

Razz

#102: Re: CC5 vs CC3 Author: ArmeeGruppeSud,

Posted: Thu Jun 28, 2012 2:47 pm
—

dgfred wrote (View Post):

Hey Ace.
I understand you like CC3. I don't understand your ripping CC5 so hard tho. Each obviously has it's fans and others that just don't care to play it when they can play the other (or any kind of game instead).

I have played them all, including H2H in CC2 and CC5 for a long time. I really think if you took some time to dl some of the mods for CC5- like for instance GJS, TRSM, Utah, Battle of Berlin, Stalingrad, Der Kessel, and some others that catch your eye you may even grow fond of the game. Plus as Stalky mentioned you can play h2h if you like... and make gentlemen's rules to make each game/op/campaign as 'realistic' as possible.
I personally play vs the AI probably 85% of the time now because of RL time constraints... and the 'decisions' the AI makes both strategically/tactically/picking units/always will just blow your mind sometimes and almost ruin it for you. I have learned to live with it somewhat... but it always happens. It is hard to find someone in your time zone with the same ideas/time/etc to hook up and play with... but it sure is fun if you can. If not, your gonna have to have a good imagination to play any War game IMO.

Maybe look at the Bge/Div mix in the Allied BGs and the Rgt/etc/Div German BGs at the start of your Operation/Campaign as the troops at hand for immediate battle with their 'reserves' in the pool as most units would not commit every available unit to a battle in an area (map) from moment one. For instance you know you began the campaign with 5 Cromwells... had 3 in the opening battle and lost 2. Do you save your 'points' (remaining Cromwells) or use them now? Do you just hold on a few more turns, thin out the opponent, then bring them on later? Etc?

I have complaints with every one of the the CC games... but if I don't like one enough, I just play the other Wink

Don't pick on acebars

He did not start this CC5 v CC3 war

if you kindly read the 1st post, you will plainly see that this feud was started by a CC5 fan who picked a fight.

We CC3 fans are just standing up against unfair criticism

If the CC5ers can't take it, then they should not dish it out Razz

CHEERS

AGS

Wink

#103: Re: CC5 vs CC3 Author: AT_Stalky,

Posted: Thu Jun 28, 2012 4:14 pm
—

ArmeeGruppeSud wrote (View Post):

OK, just one more

I doubt that..

ArmeeGruppeSud wrote (View Post):

@ AT_ags_Stalker Lets talk about realism

How can you call me a stalker when YOU are the one adressing me time after time?

Or is it a monologue you really prefer? If so, stop talking to me, please.

ArmeeGruppeSud wrote (View Post):

In CC5 you go back to your force pool, and swap them for new teams. The shot to pieces units go back into the force pool where they miraculously automatically become 100% brand new units Whats have you lost NOTHING

Wrong. In a well constructed GC almost every team counts. Especially quality teams. Any CC5 GC player can tell you that.
Even better why don’t you try what you just suggested and see how that would play out in a CC5 GC?

ArmeeGruppeSud wrote (View Post):

You may have gained some ground on the maps, your opponent had much fewer casualties, but lost 5 complete teams, so his loss is actually much greater, is that fair?

Well, mate that’s called a “pyrrhus victory” and yes its possible to have such victorys in a CC5 game, but that will bite the “victorious” side later on. (Thus why we call that....)
This “pyrrhus victory-tactics” is often used in CC5 GC, especially by the more experience players who know how to use that to draw the opponent into something that will cause his defeat later on. Its a matter of skill and experiance only, noobs should not try that at first.

Mmmm thinking of it, isn’t that how many fights in real life has been won and lost? Is that bad when that can be simulated in a game?

ArmeeGruppeSud wrote (View Post):

Of course my Stalker will find a side issue to make some disagreement and avoid the real issue

I can only guess what will come next…

#104: Re: CC5 vs CC3 Author: dgfred, Location: N.C., USA

Posted: Thu Jun 28, 2012 5:39 pm
—

ArmeeGruppeSud wrote (View Post):

dgfred wrote (View Post):

CHEERS

AGS

Wink

Thanks... but I've read every post. Wink

I think the critism is flowing both ways.

#105: Re: CC5 vs CC3 Author: Dima,

Posted: Thu Jun 28, 2012 7:40 pm
—
Acebars,

Ok, I got bored with you, do yourself a favor next time, start reading on topic you want to argue about - you really look like looser and bullshitter..(1) - will be our reference number.

Quote:

No I said that they were relatively weaker. Do you understand what that means? It means 1 German against 20 Americans is stronger than 2 Germans against 55 Americans.

what's wrong with you? can't stand your own words?
Only 1 the weakest division faced the British and Canadians.(c)acebars - do you understand what that means?

Quote:

Where did you get that notion? The only thing I accept is that they still had a lot of countryside to get to the Kremlin and not the laughable 17km of city you claim Moscow to be then.

worse for you, refer to (1)
Khimki was 8km away from the city border. From Khimki it was 17km until Kremlin wall towers and 37km until Kremlin itself.
and that's how Moscow looked like in 1941:

Quote:

No, wiki and Antony Beevor's D-Day landing book, maybe you should read it.

By the end of D-Day, some 23,250 troops had safely landed on the beach, along with 1,700 vehicles(c)wiki - start reading what is written and not what you want to read - where is number of combat troops?
and btw recommendation of Beevor alone shows your level of knowledges.

Quote:

No, tankettes and universal carriers do not count as tanks. No stuart to my knowledge ever took part in a para drop.

refer to (1) - both Tetrarch I and Tetrarch ICS were tanks.

Quote:

I repeat I had several tanks fly in from the sky before the beach had even been taken!

that are your problems. don't use that many drugs and you will stop see flying tanks.

Quote:

Err for example US and US supplied units? By the end some had received Garands with and without bayonets, and some had discarded them in favour of combat knives.

refer to (1) - Garands were supplied to troops with bayonets till it was in production, same for M14 and M16.

Quote:

refer to (1), read what is written by the people who knows - i've listed armies that used that as a main infantry tactics.

Quote:

refer to (1), you are so amateur....can't even comment this crazy shit.

Quote:

Most laughable notion that armies fixed bayonets as a main tactic in World War 2. Please stop taking the piss.

refer to (1) - that's how these armies were trained to attack.

Quote:

Resorting to petty statements about someone's knowledge while yourself showing ignorance, straw man arguments and not answering/avoiding/derailing the actual discussion is weak.

haha, funny, i've just understood why why this discussion is weak for you - you don't understand anything lol
and yes, refer to (1) and go your way.

#106: Re: CC5 vs CC3 Author: acebars,

Posted: Thu Jun 28, 2012 9:17 pm
—

Quote:

Thanks... but I've read every post. Wink I think the critism is flowing both ways.

Yep, but the insults are only flowing from one direction, it seems that the otherside has to resort to insults when they run out of ways to defend CC5 in a debate.

Dima wrote (View Post):

Acebars,Ok, I got bored with you, do yourself a favor next time, start reading on topic you want to argue about - you really look like looser and bullshitter..(1) - will be our reference number.

You're bored of me? Then why did you write a whole page essay with added photographs? "Ok, I got bored with you" who are you to get bored with anybody anyway? You seem to be suffering from Russian Tsar syndrome and your arrogance is offensive.

Quote:

what's wrong with you? can't stand your own words? Only 1 the weakest division faced the British and Canadians.(c)acebars - do you understand what that means?

You asked me why they were the weakest and I explained to you that they had relatively more troops against them, they may have actually been stronger as a unit but I can't be arsed to waste my time looking it up, stop trying to pick little things up and blow them out of proportion and the only person with linguistic problems and a foul mouth seems to be you.

I quote myself again when this point was embryonic:

Quote:

Khimki was 8km away from the city border. From Khimki it was 17km until Kremlin wall towers and 37km until Kremlin itself.and that's how Moscow looked like in 1941:

37km again bullshit, type in Khimki to the Kremlin in google maps it is de facto 20km by road.

Thats a nice photo of the city centre, looks like the size of any other large city centre in Europe at the time. The top down map proves what? That Moscow had a city centre? That top down photo isn't even a 3km radius (you can check this again by comparing it to google maps) ? The outskirts of Moscow suburbs are now connected to Khimki do you logically think that Moscow hasn't grown since 1941? No, I prefer to accept the historical accounts and researches of historians who all acknowledged that the Germans closest point was some 20km away from the Kremlin and that they were still in rural Russia they had not yet reached the suburbs.

Or are you suggesting that they had reached the suburbs? Total bollocks either way.

Quote:

Yes because the allies correctly calculated that they should send thousands of chefs and clergymen on the 1st day of the landings to break out of the beach head. Laughing

Quote:

and btw recommendation of Beevor alone shows your level of knowledges.

Really what because we can all count on post-war Russian historians who were totally unbiased? Or perhaps you know better than a professional historian?

Quote:

refer to (1) - both Tetrarch I and Tetrarch ICS were tanks.

The difference is academic those "light tanks" are nothing more than tankettes, they certainly performed as such and I'm not going to get bogged down in an argument over semantics. Besides, the argument was over Stuarts landing in Parachutes or Gliders.

Quote:

that are your problems. don't use that many drugs and you will stop see flying tanks.

You're totally unable to give a decent explanation or argument, so you have to resort to insults.

Quote:

refer to (1) - Garands were supplied to troops with bayonets till it was in production, same for M14 and M16.

Bayonets are still produced along side weapons today! That doesn't mean they all got issued or weren't discarded, the US army was not as rigid logistically or discipline wise as it is now. The bayonet has evolved into a combat knife which is what many double as today and they look nothing like a WW1-WW2 bayonet. Like I said before they are like ones appendix, we all have one but it is rarely if ever used,

Quote:

refer to (1), read what is written by the people who knows - i've listed armies that used that as a main infantry tactics.

Yep except for you are a century behind WW2, along with cavalry charges, they happened in WW2 but they were not the proscribed doctrine, bayonet charges were dropped as doctrine after WW1 and cavalry charges before that.

Quote:

refer to (1), you are so amateur....can't even comment this crazy shit.

Again resorting to insults because you are unable to explain the blatant logic presented to you. So you are saying that Kalashnikov actually got it wrong, he should have designed a new bayonet instead of the AK-47 for human waves? Laughing

Quote:

refer to (1) - that's how these armies were trained to attack.

Every army is trained to use bayonets, it is not the main fighting doctrine and hasn't been since World War 1

Quote:

you really look like looser and bullshitter....(1) - will be our reference number.

So, so far we have ascertained that you are arrogant, uncooth and immature, and when you are unable to provide a logical and factual argument you resort to lies and insults and at best misinterpret and/or cling to pathetic points for one-upmanship.

Quote:

haha, funny, i've just understood why why this discussion is weak for you - you don't understand anything lol

The only joke is you and your Boratesque arguments. Refer to (1) yourself.

#107: Re: CC5 vs CC3 Author: Pzt_Kanov, Location: México

Posted: Thu Jun 28, 2012 10:57 pm
—
Yo guys, I'm really happy for you, I'ma let you finish, but CC2 has one of the best AI of all time!

#108: Re: CC5 vs CC3 Author: Stwa,

Posted: Fri Jun 29, 2012 3:17 am
—
The SHIT is getting real deep in this thread Exclamation

I cant bring myself to read each post entirely, but I was trying to find at least one line that was definitive for me at least.

[slaps forehead]

The point system is effectively the importance/military resource availabity you have as a unit of receiving reinforcements at that time. So for example if you are due on an offensive you have more points or importance as a unit to pick more teams from a pool. When Germany is losing the war it has less military resources available and hence less points. The point system is effectively a reinforcement potential much like an army in real life.

CC3 is not the first game to try to explain away what their nebulous point system actually means. Besides, earlier posts suggested THESE points were in fact just POINTS, like in a football or basketball game.

But now, we are told points mean importance or reinforcement potential or military resources.

WTF Exclamation

these
Definition
ADJECTIVE
1. plural of "this": the form of "this" used before a plural noun or with a multiple referent
" (pron) These are the people I was telling you about."
" (adj) These delays, along with the paperwork, can be costly for banks."
[ Old English þæs, þ?s, plural of þes (see this) ]

Fucking Morons Exclamation

Last edited by Stwa on Fri Jun 29, 2012 3:44 am; edited 1 time in total

#109: Re: CC5 vs CC3 Author: Stwa,

Posted: Fri Jun 29, 2012 3:23 am
—
Yep, but the insults are only flowing from one direction, it seems that the otherside has to resort to insults when they run out of ways to defend CC5 in a debate.

Last edited by Stwa on Fri Jun 29, 2012 3:41 am; edited 1 time in total

#110: Re: CC5 vs CC3 Author: Stwa,

Posted: Fri Jun 29, 2012 3:25 am
—
So, so far we have ascertained that you are arrogant, uncooth and immature, and when you are unable to provide a logical and factual argument you resort to lies and insults and at best misinterpret and/or cling to pathetic points for one-upmanship

Last edited by Stwa on Fri Jun 29, 2012 3:42 am; edited 1 time in total

#111: Re: CC5 vs CC3 Author: Stwa,

Posted: Fri Jun 29, 2012 3:26 am
—
In other words the importance of that unit is low due to an offensive elsewhere so in CC3 points are low, tanks and artillery are available in the force pool as the war material is available to the US army but you do not have the points to be able to afford them until later or in a later operation.*

How you can portray this in a video game other than using a system like CC3 employs? Instead in CC5 US forces after the Tet Offensive all have hundreds of units of reserves and replenish them instantly, just nonsense.

So how the concept of reinforcement potentials against military resources at the time is a nebulous concept to you is beyond me, its about as nebulous as the real situation in a real life army.

*I corrected this part after other posts had already been made.

Last edited by Stwa on Fri Jun 29, 2012 3:49 am; edited 1 time in total

#112: Re: CC5 vs CC3 Author: Stwa,

Posted: Fri Jun 29, 2012 3:27 am
—
You've yet to actually show me how I don't understand the CC5 game mechanics, all you do is deliberately misinterpret, make presumptions, never answer the question and make some illogical arguments? You can't argue by making bullshit up.

#113: Re: CC5 vs CC3 Author: Stwa,

Posted: Fri Jun 29, 2012 4:09 am
—
That you have to resort to naming me a "troll and a waste of time" clearly shows you are unable to form a constructive argument irrespective of prejudice towards me (and I've heard enough already) to the points I have raised in CC5 and CC3, its simply a cop out and shows to me you are not capable of actually defending CC5 without having to resort to pathetic arguments like calling me a troll or questioning my experience or what I'm doing in this forum

#114: Re: CC5 vs CC3 Author: acebars,

Posted: Fri Jun 29, 2012 9:52 am
—
Stwa seems you have a pretty faulty BS meter, it seems to be detecting the user Wink

.

I have so far been called a loser, a bullshitter, a troll, an amateur, a waste of time, a drug addict, an ignorant and a moron to name but a few, would you like to indicate to me just where I or the CC3 side have been name calling in such a manner? Or does your BS meter react to that as well.

Quote:

In other words the importance of that unit is low due to an offensive elsewhere so in CC3 points are low, tanks and artillery are available in the force pool as the war material is available to the US army but you do not have the points to be able to afford them until later or in a later operation.*

How you can portray this in a video game other than using a system like CC3 employs? Instead in CC5 US forces after the Tet Offensive all have hundreds of units of reserves and replenish them instantly, just nonsense.

So how the concept of reinforcement potentials against military resources at the time is a nebulous concept to you is beyond me, its about as nebulous as the real situation in a real life army.

*I corrected this part after other posts had already been made.

Quote:

How are any of the points above BS, it seems the only thing you can't call BS on is when google maps shows the proof damn clearly. Clarify all your arguments rather than just labelling them BS, which is again a great way to argue seems you too are lining yourself up with the maturity crowd. I can too dissect everyone's posts and label them BS to, wouldn't that be fun?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Back to the subject at hand:

Recently in CC5 my Stuart with a 37mm knocked out a Mark IIIJ in one shot head on.
Likewise my 81mm mortar knocked out a MarkIID with an indirect shot that fell beside it.

I personally doubt both the above were possible, but I may be wrong, can't see how a late war Mark III with updated armour would be knocked out frontally by a 37mm gun.

Likewise I can't see how a 8cm mortar round with no design for penetrating armour would knock out a Mark II by falling beside it.

On the AT argument, I personally find AT guns are far too easy to detect in CC5, likewise AT guns are super sensitive to mortar fire blowing up pretty much instantly, I find this difficult to be plausible.

#115: Re: CC5 vs CC3 Author: ArmeeGruppeSud,

Posted: Fri Jun 29, 2012 10:21 am
—

AT_Stalky wrote (View Post):

How can you call me a stalker when YOU are the one adressing me time after time?

Quite easily.

After i answered MajorFrank's attack on my faith, my Stalker quickly appeared Shocked

After i answered Pzt_Kevin_dtn's attack on my game, my Stalker again appeared Shocked

Also, your CCS ID has "Stalk" written all over it Wink

AGS's_Stalker wrote (View Post):

How can you call me a stalker when YOU are the one adressing me time after time?

Regarding me addressing you all the time, I am simply replying to your comments/questions which were generally addressed to me.

Must i quote them all? (Rhetorical)

Just reread the thread, starting page 2, the evidence is there in black and white (or black and grey, depending on your chosen CCS color scheme)

ArmeeGruppeSud wrote (View Post):

During a battle, the troops you deploy, the 15 units are shot to pieces, but none are wiped out. Each squad has 1 or 2 men left, all your tanks are very severely damaged, but not lost.

ArmeeGruppeSud wrote (View Post):

In CC5 you go back to your force pool, and swap them for new teams. The shot to pieces units go back into the force pool where they miraculously automatically become 100% brand new units

ArmeeGruppeSud wrote (View Post):

You may have gained some ground on the maps, your opponent had much fewer casualties, but lost 5 complete teams, so his loss is actually much greater, is that fair?

No answer to that question,......of course Rolling Eyes

ArmeeGruppeSud wrote (View Post):

Of course my Stalker will find a side issue to make some disagreement and avoid the real issue

Well, he definately avoided answering the question: "is that fair?"

AT_Stalky wrote (View Post):

Wrong. In a well constructed GC almost every team counts. Especially quality teams. Any CC5 GC player can tell you that.
...........Well, mate that’s called a “pyrrhus victory” and yes its possible to have such victorys in a CC5 game, but that will bite the “victorious” side later on. (Thus why we call that....)
This “pyrrhus victory-tactics” is often used in CC5 GC, especially by the more experience players who know how to use that to draw the opponent into something that will cause his defeat later on. Its a matter of skill and experiance only, noobs should not try that at first.

ArmeeGruppeSud wrote (View Post):

Of course my Stalker will find a side issue to make some disagreement and avoid the real issue

Just call me Nostradamus Cool

AGS's_Stalker wrote (View Post):

I can only guess what will come next…

Guesswork is unnescesary for me, my Stalker's movements and tactics are predictable.

AT_Stalky wrote (View Post):

Or is it a monologue you really prefer? If so, stop talking to me, please.

No problem, i shall no longer address you, provided you lead by example and no longer address or quote me, i shall happily recipricate. :D

CHEERS

AGS

.

#116: Re: CC5 vs CC3 Author: ArmeeGruppeSud,

Posted: Fri Jun 29, 2012 11:01 am
—

Pzt_Kanov wrote (View Post):

Yo guys, I'm really happy for you, I'ma let you finish, but CC2 has one of the best AI of all time!

Won't argue with you.

That seems to be a well established consensus.

Though some do suggest that the AI only performs better in CC2 because of it's smaller maps.

That theory does carry some weight, especially when considering, that if the better AI performance was because of better AI programming, then why was the CC2 AI programming not used in later CCs?

Only somebody with intimate knowledge of the AI programming of the various CC versions could answer that, i guess.

Lets hope, if it was better AI programming in CC2, that CC2's AI programming will be included in PITF

CHEERS

AGS

P.S. With that Passion for CC2, maybe you could follow your clansman and start a thread called:
"CC2 v CC4", i'm sure Platoon_Michael would oblige Very Happy

#117: Re: CC5 vs CC3 Author: dgfred, Location: N.C., USA

Posted: Fri Jun 29, 2012 2:08 pm
—
Hey Ace. Please give something besides the original CC5 regarding problems with wrong units, powerful mortars, other weapons, etc.

#118: Re: CC5 vs CC3 Author: Dima,

Posted: Fri Jun 29, 2012 2:20 pm
—
Dgfred,

he doesn't worth it.

#119: Re: CC5 vs CC3 Author: acebars,

Posted: Fri Jun 29, 2012 3:36 pm
—

Quote:

I understand you like CC3. I don't understand your ripping CC5 so hard tho. Each obviously has it's fans and others that just don't care to play it when they can play the other (or any kind of game instead).

Hi dgfred, I'm only ripping into CC5 compared to CC3 to which it almost has no legs to stand on, I'm actually playing it again now (albeit single player) and its fairly boring, but if I really hated it I wouldn't be playing it, I have actually played the Stalingrad mod multiplayer and will probably play others in the future.

dgfred wrote (View Post):

Hey Ace. Please give something besides the original CC5 regarding problems with wrong units, powerful mortars, other weapons, etc.

Ok dgfred fair enough wrong units, powerful mortars etc. are modifiable and hence should not be included in the debate. Likewise the fact that 2 companies of only some 100 soldiers landing on Utah beach can be forgotten about because CC5 can be modified by complete mod make overs etc. fair enough.

But I think there have been enough problems raised regarding the very core structure of CC5, which without rewriting and remaking the whole game cannot be changed.

Let me condense some of the points for you so far unanswered or logically explainable/debated by the opposition.

-In CC5 companies cannot retreat or fallback they simply vanish into thin air only to reappear 50-100 miles behind lines the next day.
-CC3 is historical, CC5 is ahistorical, a company cannot change the course of a war.
-In CC5 divisions are represented as 2-3 companies.
-In CC5 a Regimemt is represented by a company.
-Historical/Realistic ratios of losses are incorrect in CC5, far too much Armour to AT losses.
-Tanks that could not at the time be paradropped in fact can be behind enemy lines in CC5, they cannot in CC2.
-The reinforcement point system in CC3 is a realistic simulator of war material available vs priority of that unit that very well mimics real armies throughout the centuries, CC5 cannot do this.
-The reinforcement system in CC5 is unrealistic, units shot to pieces can be miraculously swapped around for a brand new team with 0 detriment to the force as as whole.
-The reinforcement system in CC5 is unrealistic, a unit shot to pieces but with 2/3 or more intact (something like that) is miraculously reinforced incurring 0 losses and of 0 detriment to the force as whole.
-The battlegroup system in CC5 is unrealistic, companies walk around with a trail of hundreds of reinforcements behind them with perfect information of how many reinforcements they have and will have, these reinforcements are not an army pool and cannot be shared with other units as a whole. (CC2 btw got this right)

These are just some of the points. I think you will find many of these are completely unfixable in CC5, without having to go back to playing CC3 a better game (or even CC2!).

Dima wrote (View Post):

Dgfred,

he doesn't worth it.

Dima, no longer able to actually put a coherent argument (or sentence) together without name calling tantrums has had to resort to this last hopeless defence of calling people Trolls.

This is a weak way of avoiding answering the points or debating the defence of CC5 and is a trollism itself.

Let me do your job for you, there is one way CC5 is better than CC3, tanks can drive through objects and hedgerows and in the process clear them.

Other than that thanks for convincing someone who (if you read my earliest posts) was open to the question about CC5, that CC3 is a much better game.

As AGS put it, your only course of salvation is to break your CC5 discs and repent by converting to CC3!

#120: Re: CC5 vs CC3 Author: acebars,

Posted: Fri Jun 29, 2012 8:40 pm
—
You got so bored of me you gave me some points! Thanks for the vote Dima, more insults + the pot calling the kettle black an act of desperation. What else are you going to resort to? I have stood by all my words and defended/conceded points, whereas as you have resorted to insults whenever you are pressed and unable to defend your position, this topped off with the audacity to call anybody else a troll.

Quote:

Khimki was 8km away from the city border. From Khimki it was 17km until Kremlin wall towers and 37km until Kremlin itself.

Coming from somebody who claimed Khimki was 37km from the Kremlin, when it is de facto 20km on google maps nearly half that by road , really gives you the substance to call anyone a bullshitter (not mentioning fixing bayonets as a main WW2 tactic).

Me thinks somebody's a sore loser.

#121: Re: CC5 vs CC3 Author: Dima,

Posted: Fri Jun 29, 2012 9:43 pm
—
Hopefully that will be my last for you until you start preparing to argue about anything.

Quote:

Coming from somebody who tried to suggest Khimki was 37km from the Kremlin, when it is de facto 20km on google maps nearly half that, really gives you the substance to call anyone a bullshitter (not mentioning bayonets).

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.
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 :)

Actually, i've met alot of trolls but they were either lacking knowledge or were too optimistic - you are just too dumb.

Anway, now you are the only person I know with negative reputation at CCS - refer to (1) plz.

#122: Re: CC5 vs CC3 Author: acebars,

Posted: Fri Jun 29, 2012 9:52 pm
—

Quote:

Hopefully that will be my last for you

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 Smile

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.

Last edited by acebars on Fri Jun 29, 2012 10:07 pm; edited 2 times in total

#123: Re: CC5 vs CC3 Author: Dima,

Posted: Fri Jun 29, 2012 10:00 pm
—

Quote:

A direct route from Khimki measured point to point is LESS than 20km, via road it is 20km, roads are rarely straight, basic geography (I am tempted to call you a retard now for not realising this).

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.

you are useless troll and good bye.

No more replies to stupid troll from me.

#124: Re: CC5 vs CC3 Author: acebars,

Posted: Fri Jun 29, 2012 10:04 pm
—

Quote:

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.

#125: Re: CC5 vs CC3 Author: johnsilver, Location: Florida

Posted: Sat Jun 30, 2012 12:43 am
—
As the world turns is over for this week's episode..

Stay tuned next week for the next, even hairier episode. Razz

#126: Re: CC5 vs CC3 Author: pvt_Grunt, Location: Melbourne, Australia

Posted: Sat Jun 30, 2012 8:27 am
—
Hello Acebars / Ubertroll and welcome to CCS Very Happy

I have played both and prefer CC5, why? because it was more fun. The first GC I played in CC5 was in 2001 and it was gripping, my BG's advancing across the map being counterattacked form the south. I didn't realise at first you cant use MOVE FAST all the time, I learned that lesson soon!

acebars wrote (View Post):

-In CC5 companies cannot retreat or fallback they simply vanish into thin air only to reappear 50-100 miles behind lines the next day.

Yes this is strange.

acebars wrote (View Post):

-CC3 is historical, CC5 is ahistorical, a company cannot change the course of a war.

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 Embarassed

acebars wrote (View Post):

-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

acebars wrote (View Post):

-In CC5 a Regimemt is represented by a company.

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.

acebars wrote (View Post):

-Historical/Realistic ratios of losses are incorrect in CC5, far too much Armour to AT losses.

Yes and neither should they be, it is a game, if you want to finish with the same or near ratios what is the point of playing?

acebars wrote (View Post):

-Tanks that could not at the time be paradropped in fact can be behind enemy lines in CC5, they cannot in CC2.

Yes they tried to simulate the ground forces meeting and reinforcing the paratroops by changing the forcepools after a few days. But, if you dont reach the airbourne troops by that day, you still get the tanks. As was said this is compensated for by a player rule. Not the best, something in the game to know if a AB is connected to ground troops would be better.

acebars wrote (View Post):

-The reinforcement point system in CC3 is a realistic simulator of war material available vs priority of that unit that very well mimics real armies throughout the centuries, CC5 cannot do this.

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!

acebars wrote (View Post):

-The reinforcement system in CC5 is unrealistic, units shot to pieces can be miraculously swapped around for a brand new team with 0 detriment to the force as as whole.

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.

acebars wrote (View Post):

-The battlegroup system in CC5 is unrealistic, companies walk around with a trail of hundreds of reinforcements behind them with perfect information of how many reinforcements they have and will have, these reinforcements are not an army pool and cannot be shared with other units as a whole. (CC2 btw got this right)

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. You need to change your thinking from CC3's battles which seem to represent a mixed Kampfgruppe(mixed SS / Heer and FJ troops - really?) 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).

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.

Cheers,
Grunt - (waiting for AGS to fire...... Wink

)

#127: Re: CC5 vs CC3 Author: acebars,

Posted: Sat Jun 30, 2012 11:02 am
—

pvt_Grunt wrote (View Post):

Hello Acebars / Ubertroll and welcome to CCS Very Happy

Hello pvt_Grunt, thank you Smile

! 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. Wink

pvt_Grunt wrote (View Post):

acebars wrote (View Post):

-In CC5 companies cannot retreat or fallback they simply vanish into thin air only to reappear 50-100 miles behind lines the next day.

Yes this is strange.

You are right!

pvt_Grunt wrote (View Post):

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 Confused

(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! Very Happy

)).

Quote:

acebars wrote (View Post):

-In CC5 divisions are represented as 2-3 companies.

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.

Quote:

acebars wrote (View Post):

-In CC5 a Regimemt is represented by a company.

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.

Quote:

acebars wrote (View Post):

-Historical/Realistic ratios of losses are incorrect in CC5, far too much Armour to AT losses.

Yes and neither should they be, it is a game, if you want to finish with the same or near ratios what is the point of playing?

AGS can answer this better than I, but AT losses should be at least double than armoured losses.

acebars wrote (View Post):

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.

Last edited by acebars on Sat Jun 30, 2012 2:25 pm; edited 3 times in total

#128: Re: CC5 vs CC3 Author: ArmeeGruppeSud,

Posted: Sat Jun 30, 2012 12:15 pm
—

Dima wrote (View Post):

WRONG M8

No, it proves more ATGs were being destroyed each battle.

There could have been more tanks which swamped the ATG defenses and wiped them out

If i was taking more INVISIBLE AT guns into the battles, then tank losses would be even much higher because they dont stand a chance against INVISIBLE ATguns! Rolling Eyes

The Reason for so many ATgun casualties in the statistics is that the ATguns were NOT INVISIBLE ENOUGH!
Yes, we had to buy a lot of ATguns because the tanks kept destroying them because of their lack of invisibility

Quote:

For proof, i give you the Campaign Debrief Screen from the Dima v AT_STALKY TRSM H2H AAR:
PLEASE NOTE CC5's TOTALLY UNREALISTIC TANK/GUN LOSS RATIO 412 tanks v 93 guns
There is now further proof of why CC3 is a far better wargame, because its statistical results depicts far more accurately a reflection of historical battle losses statistics in the results

Dima wrote (View Post):

IF, you are right, and GJS is just an exception in CC5, then you would definately be able to show that in that in the other CC5 mods that the tank/gun ratio was reversed.......... (and without photoshopping CC5 GC CDS screenshots).
So, iirc, pretty much all CC5 GC CDS screenshots that i have seen, in all the various CC5 mods, show similar ratios.

Willl you now tell me that CC5 modders have banded together and decided that they will all only make mods of battles in sectors which are "tank heavy"?

If you do, you will break Stwa's BS meter!

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EDITED SECTION

Dima wrote (View Post):

no, you just proved: .............................................
2) that GJS sector was heavy on tanks which is historically represented in TRSM Wink

Just thought i would do some research, on your behalf Dima, to try to support your belief that it was just the GJS sector of Normandy was TANK HEAVY v ATGs in CC5 mods

Screenshot from your CC5 UTAH sector GC has 172 tanks v 66 guns destroyed after 6 days
Nearly 3 Tanks per Gun

Screenshot from Desert Rats Stalingrad team GC has 153 tanks v 74 guns destroyed
More than 2 Tanks per Guns
http://img97.imageshack.us/img97/1408/uo0086.jpg

Screenshot from SDK Campaign Hornet vs Ronson has 86 tanks v 73 guns destroyed
Better, but still more Tanks than Guns
http://www.closecombatseries.net/screenshots/public/UO00895765c194a04b59a.jpg

Screenshot from Desert Rats (7A) vs DAK - Stalingrad West Op has 178 tanks v 50 guns destroyed
More than 3 Tanks per Gun
http://img211.imageshack.us/img211/1064/overdc3.jpg

Screenshot from Desert Rats (7A) vs German Soldiers - Stalingrad North has 42 tanks v 37 guns destroyed
Better, but still more Tanks than Guns
http://img84.imageshack.us/img84/2068/uo0018mo9.jpg

Screenshot from AA vs GS clan war - Stalingrad south sector has 81 tanks v 79 guns destroyed
Better, but still more Tanks than Guns
http://img102.imageshack.us/img102/4084/579qx.jpg

Well, your TRSM GC had a Tank/Gun loss ratios of more than 4 tanks per Gun

Yes, the other mods seem to show a less unrealistic (Wont say more realistic) Tank/Guns loss ratios than TRSM

Research has proved, in regard to Tank/Gun loss ratios, that TRSM is the MOST UNREALISTIC CC5 mod yet! Rolling Eyes

Finally

A CC5 Campaign where there are more guns lost than tanks!

But only by tiny margin though.

124 Tanks v 133 Guns destroyed

Of course it is in the Orkinawa Mod where you would expect even more guns lost for every tank
http://www.closecombatseries.net/CCS/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&t=2435
So this is still an extremely dissappointing statistical result

Quote:

On land, the U.S. forces lost at least 225 tanks and many LVTs destroyed while eliminating 27 Japanese tanks and 743 artillery pieces

The US probably lost very few guns on Okinawa

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dima wrote (View Post):

yes, really, even small caliber ATGs like pak36 and M37 were to be spotted and engaged by tanks at 500m...........so yes, invisible ATGs are unrealistic and ahistorical and that's why they were fixed in CC4-5.

Just out of curiosity...........

This CC3 anomily of invisible ATGs.. that was later cured in a CC4/CC5......

Was it in the Data Base files, or the exe

(not a rhetorical question)

If it was in the data base files, then it would be easily edited out of existence in CC3 by a modder

Personally, i dont find ATGs to be much of a problem, they are easily enough located and destroyed.

Maybe i accidentally fixed the problem in DOF, if not, i still dont understand your complaint

CHEERS

AGS

.

Last edited by ArmeeGruppeSud on Sun Jul 01, 2012 11:17 am; edited 3 times in total

#129: Re: CC5 vs CC3 Author: ArmeeGruppeSud,

Posted: Sat Jun 30, 2012 1:00 pm
—

Stwa wrote (View Post):

CC3 is not the first game to try to explain away what their nebulous point system actually means. Besides, earlier posts suggested THESE points were in fact just POINTS, like in a football or basketball game. But now, we are told points mean importance or reinforcement potential or military resources.

Last edited by ArmeeGruppeSud on Sun Jul 01, 2012 11:57 am; edited 2 times in total

bs_meter_618.JPG

Description:

Stwa's comments flatlines the BS meter

Filesize:

7.55 KB

Viewed:

9946 Time(s)

#130: Re: CC5 vs CC3 Author: ArmeeGruppeSud,

Posted: Sat Jun 30, 2012 1:08 pm
—

pvt_Grunt wrote (View Post):

(waiting for AGS to fire...... )

Being the generous kind of guy that i am, and because you are part of the aryan master race (aussie), i shan't make you wait Very Happy

pvt_Grunt wrote (View Post):

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.

That is your preference and it wont be held against you.

But DOF3 may tempt you to renounce your heresy Wink

pvt_Grunt wrote (View Post):

CC3 takes place over many years, CC5 is many days so it needs a different system.

Yes, that is a fair comment.

You put up a better defense of CC5 than your peers AND without makiing unfair criticisms of CC3

pvt_Grunt wrote (View Post):

Yes and neither should they be, it is a game, if you want to finish with the same or near ratios what is the point of playing? .

The point of playing is to simulate the responsability, the pressure, the thrill, of commanding a WW2 unit during WW2 battles

Which of course, CC3 does better!

Why?

Because it simulates one command, being one officer, commanding one company

Commanding men that you know and have personally grown fond of as you nurture them, watching them gain experience, get promoted, men with names that you remember, names whom you grieve over/miss when they are gone

Not like CC5 where you suffer with a multiple identity disorder, as you bounce around making decisions at several command levels (ahistorical & unrealistic) as a General moving regiments, a Colonel moving battalions, a Major moving companies, and finally, the company commander moving squads.

You have lttle or no relationship with your sprites in CC5.

You may as well play Panzer General2, it is a better Strat game than CC5.

OK pvt_Grunt, i hope the shot across your bow will suffice Cool

Be careful cobber, a guided missile IS "Locked on" to your midships Evil or Very Mad

CHEERS

AGS

.

#131: Re: CC5 vs CC3 Author: AT_Stalky,

Posted: Mon Jul 02, 2012 6:49 pm
—

ArmeeGruppeSud wrote (View Post):

Research has proved, in regard to Tank/Gun loss ratios, that TRSM is the MOST UNREALISTIC CC5 mod yet! .

In the CC moding world one just don’t slash each others work like that. Work that has been done for the joy of one self and then shared with others so they can enjoy some fun and relaxation.

Shaking my head slowly…

--------------------------------------

Its been said in this thread so many times:
Loss ratios are due to troops select, and also player skill and doctines. If there is no tanks awalible one will not lose tanks etc...

CC3 playes out from 1941 up to 1945 in the EAST FRONT… 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? Things change… Take this into account and look at the open arias in east, and compare that to the close contact hedge landscape and build up arias in Normandy. Can you feel the difference? How about the material available to the UK in Normandy… Compare that to…

CC5 plays out over 25 days in June 1944.

Okay, lets look at wich German units that killed Allied tank in June 1944 in Normandy.

German Units credited with number of Allied tank kills in June 1944 (21 days):

No1 Killer unit of Allied tank was Germans Tanks, number of kills: 227
No2 Killer unit of Allied tank was Germans Stug/PzJägere, number of kills: 114
No3 Killer unit of Allied tank was Germans Close Combat AT weapons (Shrecks/Faust etc), number of kills: 108
No4 Killer unit of Allied tank was Germans Pak AT guns, number of kills: 84
No5 Killer unit of Allied tank was Germans Artillery, number of kills: 36
No6 Killer unit of Allied tank was Germans Flak guns, number of kills: 21

So lets see, of the 626 Allied tanks killed in June 1944 in Normandy only 84 was killed by German Pak AT guns, as in 13% of the Allied tank was killed by AT guns…. …..

So lets see, of the 626 Allied tanks killed in June 1944 in Normandy 542 was killed by any other unit with AT ability, as in 87% of the allied tank was killed with ANYTHING but a Pak AT gun.. …. …..

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…. …..

ect etc

That how tactical fights was in Normandy in June 1944.. The German weapon vs the allied tanks was German tanks and Stug’s, JPZ and self propelled AT guns, and also the close combat AT weapons (schreck/Faust) came handy in the hedge and build up arias in Normandy 1944.. The AT-guns and Flak guns played a sub ordinary role in the tactical fights in June 1944 Normandy … amongst the hedges, the build up arias, with the material available... And that’s what CC5 mimics...

Funny enough, that’s the same weapons we often chose’s when playing TRSM… Because…. they are available …… and they are …. effective… amongst ..... the .... hedges. .... u know .... in .... Normandy .. u know.... ..... in ....the ..... . summer ... of ..... 1944...

CC5 is not 4 years of fight in the East fronts open arias (1941-1945) .

#132: Re: CC5 vs CC3 Author: AT_Stalky,

Posted: Mon Jul 02, 2012 9:11 pm
—
As I think of it, it’s so funny that Germans in CC5 don’t have air support.
I mean the loss ratios of Germans JU87 Stuka Tank-busters vs Tanks is just so unrealistic in CC5.
Should not CC5 Normandy have the same Tank-buster vs Tank loss ratios as they had in east front from 1941 to 1945..…

http://youtu.be/XLPchQ2AbUo

In Normandy beach summer of 1944, a German soldier gives a new recruit a basic lesson of air plains.
1. If you see a gray air plain its American.
2. If you see a green air plain its English.
3. If you dont see any air plain its German.

Hidden:

Last edited by AT_Stalky on Mon Jul 02, 2012 10:38 pm; edited 1 time in total

#133: Re: CC5 vs CC3 Author: acebars,

Posted: Mon Jul 02, 2012 9:29 pm
—

Quote:

Shame on you AGS.

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 Very Happy

)

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?

#134: Re: CC5 vs CC3 Author: AT_Stalky,

Posted: Mon Jul 02, 2012 10:32 pm
—

acebars wrote (View Post):

Likewise aren't the Allied tank vs tank losses you quote not mostly from Operation Goodwood and hence distinct from the rest of Normandy?

AT_Stalky wrote (View Post):

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.

#135: Re: CC5 vs CC3 Author: acebars,

Posted: Mon Jul 02, 2012 11:49 pm
—

AT_Stalky wrote (View Post):

acebars wrote (View Post):

Likewise aren't the Allied tank vs tank losses you quote not mostly from Operation Goodwood and hence distinct from the rest of Normandy?

AT_Stalky wrote (View Post):

German Units credited with number of Allied tank kills in June 1944 (21 days):

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.

#136: Re: CC5 vs CC3 Author: AT_Stalky,

Posted: Tue Jul 03, 2012 8:37 am
—

acebars wrote (View Post):

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 Very Happy

)

I have understood what makes you tick and what mission you’re at here. Congratulations you have succeeded.

acebars wrote (View Post):

How about those AT gun statistics to back up your armoured losses comparison.

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.
And that was not loss figures at all but actual credited kills. They are not the same as actual losses either…
The figures presented should thus only give the reader a sense of the characteristics of the June fights in Normandy. And that the fight is not the same as 4 years of fighting in the East front…

Did you not understand that? I have understood what makes you tick and what mission you’re at here.

And there’s a difference between tactical combat losses (you know like the losses one we have in Close Combat Games) and the aggregated overall losses.
So you would make a mistake taking the aggregated losses and believing they are tactical battle losses… They are not.
CC don’t count losses due to strafing, that’s not simulated in the CC-game losses. CC don’t count losses due to bombing, they are not counted in the CC-game losses. CC don’t count losses due to artillery used outside the actual tactical battle. CC don’t count losses when a unit withdraws and has no vehicle or horse to tow the material with. CC don’t count the losses that occur when a unit is surrounded and they give up… CC don’t count the losses that comes from a blown up bridge or destroyed road where the unit has to leave the material behind, they are not tactical losses. Etc etc… And that’s the reason I showed them figures, as they portrays the tactical….. and not the… see what I mean... no... I dint think so.

Close Combat only counts losses in the actual tactical fight.

Did you not understand that? I have understood what makes you tick and what mission you’re at here.

#137: Re: CC5 vs CC3 Author: acebars,

Posted: Tue Jul 03, 2012 8:48 am
—

Quote:

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.

Last edited by acebars on Tue Jul 03, 2012 8:51 am; edited 1 time in total

#138: Re: CC5 vs CC3 Author: ArmeeGruppeSud,

Posted: Tue Jul 03, 2012 8:50 am
—
OMG, my Stalker is back Shocked

ArmeeGruppeSud wrote (View Post):

Research has proved, in regard to Tank/Gun loss ratios, that TRSM is the MOST UNREALISTIC CC5 mod yet! .

AT_Stalky wrote (View Post):

In the CC moding world one just don’t slash each others work like that. Work that has been done for the joy of one self and then shared with others so they can enjoy some fun and relaxation.

Oh Stalker

Seems you have no sense of humour at all Sad

thats so sad Crying or Very sad

Even Dima would have realised that i was just razzing him Razz

not genuinely attacking his work (shakes head)

Dima has earned my respect, as a man/modder who is passionate about historical accuracy,.... but you.......

Now about people criticizing a modder's work that has been done for the joy of oneself and then shared with others so they can enjoy some fun and relaxation, i know all about being a victim of that.

Nikin has ruthlessly criticised (slashed) my work on the DOF mod that i made.

DOF was made for my local friends and i to play, for our fun Very Happy

DOF was realeased to the world wide CC community in gratitude for all the CC resources the CC community made available that made DOF possible.

So don't think you have any right to become all high and mighty claiming your undeserved high moral ground and attack my reputation.

In so doing, you had to lower your own reputation, but not just in points, but where it realy matters, in the eyes of the CC fans who read the forums

You should not be shaking your head, rather, you should be lowering your head in shame

Realy, you should not log on here after having had a bad day at work Mad

AT_Stalky wrote (View Post):

CC3 playes out from 1941 up to 1945 in the EAST FRONT… 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? Things change… Take this into account and look at the open arias in east, and compare that to the close contact hedge landscape and build up arias in Normandy. Can you feel the difference? How about the material available to the UK in Normandy… Compare that to…

CC5 plays out over 25 days in June 1944.

Okay, lets look at wich German units that killed Allied tank in June 1944 in Normandy.

German Units credited with number of Allied tank kills in June 1944 (21 days):

No1 Killer unit of Allied tank was Germans Tanks, number of kills: 227
No2 Killer unit of Allied tank was Germans Stug/PzJägere, number of kills: 114
No3 Killer unit of Allied tank was Germans Close Combat AT weapons (Shrecks/Faust etc), number of kills: 108
No4 Killer unit of Allied tank was Germans Pak AT guns, number of kills: 84
No5 Killer unit of Allied tank was Germans Artillery, number of kills: 36
No6 Killer unit of Allied tank was Germans Flak guns, number of kills: 21

So lets see, of the 626 Allied tanks killed in June 1944 in Normandy only 84 was killed by German Pak AT guns, as in 13% of the Allied tank was killed by AT guns…. …..

So lets see, of the 626 Allied tanks killed in June 1944 in Normandy 542 was killed by any other unit with AT ability, as in 87% of the allied tank was killed with ANYTHING but a Pak AT gun.. …. …..

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…. …..

ect etc

That how tactical fights was in Normandy in June 1944.. The German weapon vs the allied tanks was German tanks and Stug’s, JPZ and self propelled AT guns, and also the close combat AT weapons (schreck/Faust) came handy in the hedge and build up arias in Normandy 1944.. The AT-guns and Flak guns played a sub ordinary role in the tactical fights in June 1944 Normandy … amongst the hedges, the build up arias, with the material available... And that’s what CC5 mimics...

Funny enough, that’s the same weapons we often chose’s when playing TRSM… Because…. they are available …… and they are …. effective… amongst ..... the .... hedges. .... u know .... in .... Normandy .. u know.... ..... in ....the ..... . summer ... of ..... 1944...

CC5 is not 4 years of fight in the East fronts open arias (1941-1945) .

OK

How your argument fails totally, in many respects.

(1a) You contend that because German tanks caused 36% allied tank losses compared to German ATguns 13%, thus German tanks should have higher losses compared to German PaK ATguns.

Ok, even if that was a sensible, coherant, realistic, or sane argument, 36/13 is less than 3 to 1

(1b)What if allied planes destroyed twice as many German tanks as the allied tanks did, then, using Stalky's logic, the allies must have lost twice as many planes as tanks? Rolling Eyes

That argument is so illogical, its ludicrous! (there is no smiley icon crazy enough).

(2) "Guns" in the CC losses statistics includes, not just AT guns, but also AA guns and all other non-self-propelled artillery (i.e. Howitzers, Heavy Mortars).
The fact that you argue AT guns and not Guns, makes this yet another of your "Strawman" arguments (Shakes head) Rolling Eyes

(3) For a serious, rational argument, regarding the ratio of Tank/Gun losses, it would have been wise, pertinent, sensible, logical (factors that elude Stalky when debating me) to have included statistics for Gun/artillery losses, not just tank losses Rolling Eyes

Having done some cursory research on Wehrmacht & SS Gun Losses in normandy, i found nothing definative, only a mention on Feldgrau.com re German material losses in Normandy being about 1500 tanks and 3500 guns, which is a credible ratio.

(4) EVEN IF:

AT_Stalky wrote (View Post):

Loss ratios are due to troops select, and also player skill and doctines. If there is no tanks awalible one will not lose tanks etc...

Troop selection is ENTIRELY DEPENDENT on what you have to select from.

If a CC5 game has an average of 4 guns and 16 AFVs per BG, then even a child could work out that this will ultimately have GREAT effect on what a player CAN CHOOSE and ultimately have a massive influence on the likely Tank/gun loss ratio.
(dissclaimer, the above paragraph is merely a hypothetical, not an inference about TRSM, though i would be curious to know the full TRSM TOEs)

If there is no guns available, one will not lose guns etc

If there are few guns available, one can only lose a few guns etc

Ok, Stalky, stop stalking me and go find somebody who is intelectually challenged to debate with so that you may seem to win occaisionally. Razz

AGS

.

Last edited by ArmeeGruppeSud on Thu Jul 05, 2012 10:35 am; edited 2 times in total

#139: Re: CC5 vs CC3 Author: AT_Stalky,

Posted: Tue Jul 03, 2012 9:15 am
—

ArmeeGruppeSud wrote (View Post):

You contend that because German tanks caused 36% allied tank losses compared to German ATguns 13%, thus German tanks should have higher losses compared to German PaK ATguns. Ok, even if that was a sensible, coherant, realistic, or sane argument, 36/13 is less than 3 to 1.

Yeh. Exact. Thats why CC5...

Wink

ArmeeGruppeSud wrote (View Post):

Troop selection is ENTIRELY DEPENDENT on what you have to select from.

Yeh. Exact. Thats why CC5...

Wink

ArmeeGruppeSud wrote (View Post):

German material losses in Normandy being about 1500 tanks and 3500 guns, which is a credible ratio.

Yeh. Exact. Thats aggregated losses for the whole campaign, not tactical losses in June. And yeh, the lost guns are AT-Guns and Flak guns and Artillery guns, do they also include the naval guns lost?

Wink

Last edited by AT_Stalky on Tue Jul 03, 2012 9:44 am; edited 1 time in total

#140: Re: CC5 vs CC3 Author: ArmeeGruppeSud,

Posted: Tue Jul 03, 2012 9:44 am
—

ArmeeGruppeSud wrote (View Post):

AT_Stalky wrote (View Post):

Yeh. Exact. Thats why CC5...

......is based on poorly analysed statistics?

Wink

ArmeeGruppeSud wrote (View Post):

Troop selection is ENTIRELY DEPENDENT on what you have to select from.

AT_Stalky wrote (View Post):

Yeh. Exact. Thats why CC5...

is ahistorical Wink

ArmeeGruppeSud wrote (View Post):

German material losses in Normandy being about 1500 tanks and 3500 guns, which is a credible ratio.

AT_Stalky wrote (View Post):

Yeh. Exact. Thats aggregated losses for the whole campaign, not tactical losses in June.

Yeh. Exact.
So the Wehrmacht & SS average for Tank/Gun loss ratio for the whole campaign, including JUNE, is exact 3/7 - tanks/guns, not 4/1 Wink

Last edited by ArmeeGruppeSud on Thu Jul 05, 2012 10:31 am; edited 1 time in total

#141: Re: CC5 vs CC3 Author: AT_Stalky,

Posted: Tue Jul 03, 2012 9:51 am
—

ArmeeGruppeSud wrote (View Post):

Tank/Gun loss ratio for the whole campaign, including JUNE, is exact 3/7 - tanks/guns, not 4/1 Wink

Yeh, Mate. I said it in previous post. Read back if its somthing that is unclear.

Wink

#142: Re: CC5 vs CC3 Author: Dima,

Posted: Tue Jul 03, 2012 10:44 am
—

Quote:

No, it proves more ATGs were being destroyed each battle.

Yes, and there are 2 main reasons for that:
1) You were taking more ATGs than AVFs in battle.
2) ATGs couldn’t deal with AVFs employed in battle (like 3,7cm vs KV or 76mm vs Tiger).

Quote:

There could have been more tanks which swamped the ATG defenses and wiped them out

Or could not if it was (just examples):
1) Early war and there were PzII/III vs 76mm or T26/BT vs 3,7cm.
2) Late was and there were PzIII/IV vs 85mm or T34/KV vs 8,8cm.

In both examples shown above, tank losses will be heavier than ATG losses.

Quote:

If i was taking more INVISIBLE AT guns into the battles, then tank losses would be even much higher because they dont stand a chance against INVISIBLE ATguns!

No, if you were taking KV vs 3,7cm (Tiger vs 76mm) early war or IS-2 vs 7,5cm (KT vs 76mm) late war.

In such scenarios no matter how INVISIBLE ATGs are they won’t be able to penetrate frontal armor of these AVFs so AVFs and supporting units will have enough time to spot muzzle smoke and deal with INVISIBLE ATGs.

Quote:

The Reason for so many ATgun casualties in the statistics is that the ATguns were NOT INVISIBLE ENOUGH!

Or the ATG tactics was flawed or ATGs couldn’t deal with enemy AVFs (check above) or you were just taking statistically more ATGs than AVFs in battles Wink

Quote:

Yes, we had to buy a lot of ATguns because the tanks kept destroying them because of their lack of invisibility

Or maybe because they are cheaper than AVFs and it you keep having enough points of for 1 AVF and 3 ATGs or for 2 AVFs so you were choosing to have more AT weapons to stop advance of your opponent?

Quote:

IF, you are right, and GJS is just an exception in CC5, then you would definately be able to show that in that in the other CC5 mods that the tank/gun ratio was reversed.......... (and without photoshopping CC5 GC CDS screenshots).
So, iirc, pretty much all CC5 GC CDS screenshots that i have seen, in all the various CC5 mods, show similar ratios. Willl you now tell me that CC5 modders have banded together and decided that they will all only make mods of battles in sectors which are "tank heavy"?

It is obvious now that you just don’t know that in CC5 all the AVFs that got destroyed, damaged, immobilized or taken in battle when your BG is cut and out of fuel, are listed in destroyed tanks column for the total losses. So basically if your BG is cut and you take 5 AVFs in battle and they don’t have fuel from start all 5 of them will be listed as damaged in battle debriefing screen and destroyed in operation debriefing screen while all of them remains in your roster
.
Same for ATGs, but obviously AVFs got more often damaged than ATGs Wink

Quote:

Just thought i would do some research, on your behalf Dima, to try to support your belief that it was just the GJS sector of Normandy was TANK HEAVY v ATGs in CC5 mods

Yes, m8, don’t worry you are not the first I met who fails in making correct conclusion out of information massive available. Mainly that happens due to biased carelessness or lack of basic knowledge on topic one is trying to research :P

Quote:

Screenshot from your CC5 UTAH sector GC has 172 tanks v 66 guns destroyed after 6 days
Nearly 3 Tanks per Gun

German losses: 47 AVFs vs 47 ATGs – everything is clear here IMO, the Germans mainly use ATGs and SPGs (counted as AVFs) to counter the US advance.

US losses: 125 AVFs vs 19 ATGs – here we can see that the US commander heavily replies on AVFs to break through the German lines fast and that’s why there are a lot of damaged, immobilized and destroyed AVFs listed under Armor losses. He doesn’t use ATGs much as there are not many German AVFs available.
And that’s June 1944 where most of infantry teams have solid AT weapons capable of at least immobilizing AVF (they are listed under total Armor losses, yes Wink

), not mentioning RzPB, GzB and PzF.

Quote:

Screenshot from Desert Rats Stalingrad team GC has 153 tanks v 74 guns destroyed
More than 2 Tanks per Guns
http://img97.imageshack.us/img97/1408/uo0086.jpg

Soviet losses: 44 AVF vs 53 ATGs – again the Soviets are in defense using a lot of ATGs as they lack number of AVFs to counter the German advance.

German losses: 109 AVFs vs 21 ATGs – and again we can see that the German side tries to utilize its number superiority in AVF numbers and breach the opponent defense but taken a lot of KO, damages and immobilizations in such hard battle terrain as modern city.

And yes, that’s September 1942 and most of infantry teams lack AT capability but there are a lot of ATRs that can damage/immobilize AVFs.

Quote:

Screenshot from Desert Rats (7A) vs DAK - Stalingrad West Op has 178 tanks v 50 guns destroyed
More than 3 Tanks per Gun
http://img211.imageshack.us/img211/1064/overdc3.jpg

Now we see meeting Operation that was balanced with fairly same number of AVFs per side and that’s why:
Soviet losses: 96 AVFs vs 20 ATGs.

German losses: 82 AVFs vs 30 ATGs.
Pretty same ratio as both sides try to advance with AVFs and counter enemy AVFs with their ATGs.

Quote:

Screenshot from Desert Rats (7A) vs German Soldiers - Stalingrad North has 42 tanks v 37 guns destroyed
Better, but still more Tanks than Guns
http://img84.imageshack.us/img84/2068/uo0018mo9.jpg

Again meeting with fairly same number of AVFs:
Soviet losses: 15 AVFs vs 20 ATGs.

German losses: 27 AVFs vs 17 ATGs.

Quote:

Screenshot from AA vs GS clan war - Stalingrad south sector has 81 tanks v 79 guns destroyed
Better, but still more Tanks than Guns
http://img102.imageshack.us/img102/4084/579qx.jpg

And same again:

Soviet losses: 42 AVFs vs 40 ATGs.

German losses: 39 AVFs vs 39 ATGs.

What conclusion can we make out of these examples generously shown by AGS?
1) If there is historical forces employed in GC where one side attacks than this side will generally loose more AVFs than ATGs as damaged/immobilized/KO as usually he has more AVFs in his Tank units to attack enemy infantry units with.
2) If there is historical forces employed in GC where one side in defense with mainly infantry units few supporting tank units than this side will generally loose more or pretty same number of ATGs in comparison to AVFs.
3) If there is operation that balances number of AVFs for both sides than the proportion of losses AVFvsATG is pretty same for both sides.

Quote:

Well, your TRSM GC had a Tank/Gun loss ratios of more than 4 tanks per Gun
Yes, the other mods seem to show a less unrealistic (Wont say more realistic) Tank/Guns loss ratios than TRSM
Research has proved, in regard to Tank/Gun loss ratios, that TRSM is the MOST UNREALISTIC CC5 mod yet!

M8, your research has proven that you need to spend some time learning how to make researches Wink

.

TRSM simulates GJS sector, where unlike other Normandy sectors or Stalingrad, the defender has very good number of AVFs to counter attackers AVFs as !!!surprise!!! WW2 showed that AVF is the best AT weapon Wink

.

Now let’s see:

German losses: 207 AVF vs 41 ATG.

UK/Can losses: 205 AVF vs 52 ATG.

Game wise: I have a lot of BGs cut off, so each time I go in battle with 4-5 immobilized AVFs that increase total number of Armor losses in GC Debrief screen – is it realistic to fight with immobilized tanks when the enemy cut your supply lines?
Stalky has to rely heavily on his AVFs to make a progress and that’s why I KO/damage/immobilize a lot of his AVFs that listed under Armor losses in GC debrief screen.

History wise: example 12.SS-PzD had 35 ATGs and over 200 AVFs on June 6th 1944 – so what would 12.SS-PzD more likely to lose statistically as KO/damaged – AVF or ATG?

And yes 2 other Pz divisions there had pretty same ratio of AVF vs ATG in roster Wink

. And they are the main “players” for the Germans in TRSM. Btw the density of PzUnit per front km was higher in GJS than during Zitadelle.

Take in mind that 90% of ATGs in GJS sectors had 1 shot kill capability against 99% of the Allies AVFs, not mentioning good number of PzF, RPzB, GzB and other HHL Smile

.

So again, you conclusion is wrong and TRSM is the most realistic mod in CC (not only 5) as it offers detailed simulation of forces and equipment for both sides in GJS sector in June 1944.

Quote:

Just out of curiosity...........
This CC3 anomily of invisible ATGs.. that was later cured in a CC4/CC5......
Was it in the Data Base files, or the exe
(not a rhetorical question)

Im pretty sure it was not in data.

#143: Re: CC5 vs CC3 Author: Sapa,

Posted: Tue Jul 03, 2012 1:35 pm
—
Stalky has humour..he has actually shown an image of himself with "knocked out teeth" Very Happy

teath1.jpg

Description:

Filesize:

16.4 KB

Viewed:

10879 Time(s)

#144: Re: CC5 vs CC3 Author: papa_whisky,

Posted: Wed Jul 04, 2012 12:41 am
—
You guys are great after all these years still hammering away at which game is better....I look forward to the next time this is debated in 5 years time :)

I like them both for different reasons, but have probably spent more time playing CCIII than V.

#145: Re: CC5 vs CC3 Author: pvt_Grunt, Location: Melbourne, Australia

Posted: Wed Jul 04, 2012 7:14 am
—
I can see the headlines from the year 2016...

Palestinians and Isrealis make Peace!!!

Iraqi Shiites and Sunni's join forces!!!

Northern Irish and Republicans unite!!!

And finally - CC3 and CC5 fans still at loggerheads!!

#146: Re: CC5 vs CC3 Author: acebars,

Posted: Wed Jul 04, 2012 9:17 am
—

Quote:

Palestinians and Isrealis make Peace!!!

Iraqi Shiites and Sunni's join forces!!!

Northern Irish and Republicans unite!!!

And Australia finally allows immigration! Very Happy

(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! Wink

#147: Re: CC5 vs CC3 Author: US_Brake, Location: USA

Posted: Wed Jul 04, 2012 11:14 pm
—
You have to be drunk to think CC5 is better than CC3. Laughing

#148: Re: CC5 vs CC3 Author: Tejszd, Location: Canada

Posted: Thu Jul 05, 2012 1:38 am
—
Based on the strengths of the 2 games you would think there would be something taking the best of both....

TLD has points that can be used if desired/agreed for single player (human player only) or H2H (honorable players only)

TLD BG Points.jpg

Description:

Filesize:

216.56 KB

Viewed:

10739 Time(s)

#149: Re: CC5 vs CC3 Author: Tejszd, Location: Canada

Posted: Thu Jul 05, 2012 1:51 am
—
LSA has points that must be used in single player and H2H

The points are available based on the formation and BG

LSA BG Points.jpg

Description:

Filesize:

196.79 KB

Viewed:

10732 Time(s)

#150: Re: CC5 vs CC3 Author: acebars,

Posted: Thu Jul 05, 2012 9:09 am
—

Tejszd wrote (View Post):

Based on the strengths of the 2 games you would think there would be something taking the best of both....

TLD has points that can be used if desired/agreed for single player (human player only) or H2H (honorable players only)

Personally would drop everything in CC4 and CC5 for a future CC game (if I was making it).

Quote:

LSA has points that must be used in single player and H2H

The points are available based on the formation and BG

A step in the right direction.

#151: Re: CC5 vs CC3 Author: ArmeeGruppeSud,

Posted: Thu Jul 05, 2012 10:49 am
—

AT_Stalky wrote (View Post):

Thats aggregated losses for the whole campaign, not tactical losses in June. And yeh, the lost guns are AT-Guns and Flak guns and Artillery guns, do they also include the naval guns lost?

Yeah, M8. As i have said in a previous post.
Read back if its something that is unclear. :wink:

.

Last edited by ArmeeGruppeSud on Thu Jul 05, 2012 11:27 am; edited 1 time in total

#152: Re: CC5 vs CC3 Author: ArmeeGruppeSud,

Posted: Thu Jul 05, 2012 10:58 am
—

Dima wrote (View Post):

Yes, and there are 2 main reasons for that:
1) You were taking more ATGs than AVFs in battle.

Not nescesarily, only if my opponent or i were defending would we have more Guns than AFVs
When my opponent, or i, were playing in an offensive operation, as the attacker, we would have more tanks than guns. Thats logical and tactically normal.

CHEERS

AGS

.

Last edited by ArmeeGruppeSud on Thu Jul 05, 2012 11:13 am; edited 1 time in total

#153: Re: CC5 vs CC3 Author: ArmeeGruppeSud,

Posted: Thu Jul 05, 2012 11:11 am
—

Dima wrote (View Post):

Yes, and there are 2 main reasons for that:
......................
2) ATGs couldn’t deal with AVFs employed in battle (like 3,7cm vs KV or 76mm vs Tiger).

No, this was not the case,

(A) it would be foolish to requisition inadequate guns to destroy the enemy tanks, so we did'nt.

(B)The guns were lost in greater numbers, primarily because of the fact that guns are far more vulnerable than AFVs

e.g.

Guns can be destroyed by all HE shells, whereas Tanks cannot (exception BIG HE shells)

Guns can be destoyed by light and medium mortars and hand grenades, whereas Tanks cannot

Hence, guns were destroyed in greater numbers because of their greater vulnerability

CHEERS

AGS

.

#154: Re: CC5 vs CC3 Author: ArmeeGruppeSud,

Posted: Thu Jul 05, 2012 11:25 am
—

Dima wrote (View Post):

Yes, and there are 2 main reasons for that:
1) You were taking more ATGs than AVFs in battle.

Yes, we probably did requisition more Guns than AFVs during the campaign.

So whats wrong with that?

Nothing

Its just mimmicking actual, real, historical WW2 warfare Very Happy

CC3 is not a ArmorFest like CC5 Wink

CHEERS

AGS

.

#155: Re: CC5 vs CC3 Author: ArmeeGruppeSud,

Posted: Thu Jul 05, 2012 11:49 am
—

Dima wrote (View Post):

M8, your research has proven that you need to spend some time learning how to make researches

Your comment just shows that your rash judgment on my research is flawed.
Your comments, that inspired the research, implied that, because GJS was tank heavy sector (which i don't dispute) that other CC5 games may show statistical results that reflected the general historical tank/gun loss ratios which occured during WW2 (which, hisorically were usually between 1/5 and 1/10 )tank/gun).

But they didn't Wink

Would you care to do some genuine research to prove me wrong?

Didn't think so Wink

My conclusion, from the sound research, is that CC5 forcepools generally include more tanks than guns, am i right, or am i wrong?

CHEERS

AGS

.

Last edited by ArmeeGruppeSud on Fri Jul 06, 2012 1:27 pm; edited 1 time in total

#156: Re: CC5 vs CC3 Author: ArmeeGruppeSud,

Posted: Thu Jul 05, 2012 11:53 am
—

Dima wrote (View Post):

History wise: example 12.SS-PzD had 35 ATGs and over 200 AVFs on June 6th 1944 – so what would 12.SS-PzD more likely to lose statistically as KO/damaged – AVF or ATG?

LOL

Of course, for your example, you use an ARMOURED DIVISION, which, OF COURSE, is TANK HEAVY!

Seriously, there were more infantry divisions in Normandy, and everywhere for that matter, than armoured divisions Laughing

Now imost of the heavy equipment in infantry divisions were guns, with little or no significant AFVs Wink

CHEERS

AGS

.

#157: Re: CC5 vs CC3 Author: ArmeeGruppeSud,

Posted: Thu Jul 05, 2012 11:59 am
—

Dima wrote (View Post):

TRSM is the most realistic mod in CC (not only 5) as it offers detailed simulation of forces and equipment for both sides in GJS sector in June 1944.

Dima ol' buddy

There is no doubting that TRSM is the most realistic and probably the best (sorry sapa) CC5 mod (i never said otherwise).

Was just razzing you because of its overall statistical results Razz

CHEERS

AGS

.

#158: Re: CC5 vs CC3 Author: ArmeeGruppeSud,

Posted: Thu Jul 05, 2012 12:02 pm
—

Sapa wrote (View Post):

Stalky has humour..he has actually shown an image of himself with "knocked out teeth" Very Happy

Thanks for the pic Sapa Wink

Now the image of my Stalker will be imprinted into my nightmares too Shocked

CHEERS

.AGS

.

#159: Re: CC5 vs CC3 Author: ArmeeGruppeSud,

Posted: Thu Jul 05, 2012 12:04 pm
—

US_Brake wrote (View Post):

You have to be drunk to think CC5 is better than CC3. Laughing

Good point

They say in the colder climates (where CC5 is most popular) that they drink a lot of vodka to keep warm Wink

CHEERS

AGS

.

#160: Re: CC5 vs CC3 Author: Sapa,

Posted: Fri Jul 06, 2012 3:29 am
—
Thats not true Wink

we drink vodka to keep us in the trenches and not running as the girls in the new CC Very Happy

#161: Re: CC5 vs CC3 Author: Tejszd, Location: Canada

Posted: Fri Jul 06, 2012 5:04 am
—
Here is another enhancement in LSA over CC3 and CC5 when setting up a single battle;

2 to 4 BG's can be used
Entry VL's can be random or set to specific VL's (this allows entry top, bottom or either side on a map). Note: CCMT is still better for single battle map entry setup
Points can be set per BG
Night or turn 1 to 5 can be set as the battle start time

LSA Single Battle.jpg

Description:

Filesize:

213.51 KB

Viewed:

9919 Time(s)

#162: Re: CC5 vs CC3 Author: ArmeeGruppeSud,

Posted: Fri Jul 06, 2012 10:54 am
—

AT_Stalky wrote (View Post):

do they also include the naval guns lost?

to put it in terms you could understand;

NEJ Wink

#163: Re: CC5 vs CC3 Author: Stwa,

Posted: Fri Jul 06, 2012 11:05 am
—
Had I known we were going to debate other game systems, I would have jumped into the discussion sooner.

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.

#164: Re: CC5 vs CC3 Author: acebars,

Posted: Fri Jul 06, 2012 10:03 pm
—

Quote:

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.

#165: Re: CC5 vs CC3 Author: Stwa,

Posted: Sat Jul 07, 2012 12:00 am
—
Instead just arm yourself with 15 king tigers like CCMT would allow for.

Better yet, arm the AI with 15 King tigers and test your skill and imagination. Idea

Dont stop there, give the AI a dozen air strikes, and a some off-map artillery support, and see if your zooka squads can take out the Tigers. Idea

The only person I ever considered as a good MP opponent was Church, and I really just did not have the time. Now days he spends most of his time at WW2 Online, me thinks.

I just love single player CCMT, and I recommend it for all. Even the WW2 mods are a blast.

#166: Re: CC5 vs CC3 Author: ArmeeGruppeSud,

Posted: Sat Jul 07, 2012 12:01 pm
—

Pzt_Kevin_dtn wrote (View Post):

Well i think it is about time to review, summarize the main, critical, significant, pertinant points in this debate so far.

CC3 +es

Tejszd wrote (View Post):

1) a bit better AI (probably more to do with the smaller maps)

Tejszd wrote (View Post):

2) a wide range of equipment is available as the game covers many years which allows for some neat options in that a battle/operation maker can control what is available (rarity)

Tejszd wrote (View Post):

3) individual squads/units can be upgraded

Tejszd wrote (View Post):

4) individual squads/units can be rested without losing their history

Tejszd wrote (View Post):

5) points allow freedom to "buy" whatever you want but will stop someone from having all tanks or veteran units or...

Tejszd wrote (View Post):

6) you can flee a battle

Tejszd wrote (View Post):

7) prearranged bombardment for a battle (setup by the battle/operation maker)

ANZAC_Tack wrote (View Post):

points made u choose most effecient, or attacking in numbers or smaller quality units. another tactical edge

9 Soldier's personal histories

ArmeeGruppeSud wrote (View Post):

It was the soldier personal stats that realy got me hooked with CC1!

During a DOF CC3 H2H Campaign, one SS soldat, Schuss, began his career as a buck private during Fall Blau (early in 1942)
Eventually Schuss , after a distinguished career, including 8 promotions, met his demise on Prokhorovka Ridge as Hauptman Schuss, when his Kommand Panther was fatally struck by a bazooka rocket.
In CC5, that could never happen Sad

Legendary CC Heroes, i will never forget their names, Schuss, Frieder, and so many other legendary sprites in my CC Campaigns

ArmeeGruppeSud wrote (View Post):

CC3 is so much easier to mod than CC5

ArmeeGruppeSud wrote (View Post):

In CC3, it is so much easier to create game balance than CC5 (because of points system)

ArmeeGruppeSud wrote (View Post):

CC3 has far fewer bugs and glitches than CC5

ArmeeGruppeSud wrote (View Post):

CC3 lends itself far better to online play than CC5

ArmeeGruppeSud wrote (View Post):

Please also note that, just like in the real historical statistics, the amount of artillery losses is much higher than that of AFV losses (actually double).
This is what WW2 stats should look like!

15
. CC3 has more detailed Battle, Operation and Campaign Debriefs screens

16

ArmeeGruppeSud wrote (View Post):

CC3 players want to experience simulated ww2 combat command in the battles that actually happenned, in the historical order they happenned, its fun.

ArmeeGruppeSud wrote (View Post):

CC3 involves more closecombat time (none wasted looking at stratmap)

18 You can play:

ArmeeGruppeSud wrote (View Post):

MMCC3

19
In CC3 you have a lot more choices as to what you can deploy on the battlefield

20
CC3 gives you the opportunity to play during many different time periods throughout WW2

21
CC3 better simulates a real command than CC5

Quote:

Because it simulates one command, being one officer, commanding one company. ..... Commanding men that you know and have personally grown fond of as you nurture them, watching them gain experience, get promoted, men with names that you remember, names whom you grieve over/miss when they are gone

22
CC3 Has larger standard sprite graphics, then it has a ZOOM too Cool

[23]
Historical Campaign (Linear campaign Wink

)

CC3 - es

[1]
CC3 does not have a strat map.

[2]
Linear campaign (Historical Campaign Wink

)

(Both of which i regard as CC3 strengths Wink

)

CC5 +es

1

Ivan309 wrote (View Post):

CC5 is focused in infantery, which in my opinion is alot more interesting and challenging than running down your opponent with tanks.

. CC3 can be very infantry focused as i proved on page 2

2 It has a strat map

AT_Stalky wrote (View Post):

However, the CC5 system offers more diverse interaction with its macro and multiple micro level views of the war. That obviously (and statistically proven) has its appeal to so many CC-players…

The combination of the strategy layer and the tactical layers objectives is the strength in the CC5 system. In a CC5 GC game, the VL are or low importance, they are just nominal in its nature. The importance in a CC5 GC is the real value, as in taking the right exits/entry’s and combine that tactical layer objectives with the overall strategy layer objectives… This is a strong side of the CC5 strategy layer, that offers REAL value objectives in the tactical fight.

3 It has a strat map

zoober wrote (View Post):

Doesn't strat map of CC4/CC5 offer more choices for the players? I think it does.

4
. Just to prove that i am truly objective in this debate, i will now put forward what i think is the most significant aspect that CC5 has over CC3
In CC5 a company is likely to have just one type of AFV in battle (which was common in WW2)
e.g. 4 PzIVs, or 4 PzIIIs, or 4 StuGs, or 4 T34s, or 4 Shermans, rather than the eklectic forces that are often seen in CC3 battles. Though this can be adjusted in CC3 mods, or, in player agreed rules (a factor that CC3 never normally needs, but is a nescesary evil in CC5).

5
Non-Linear campaign (ahistorical campaign Wink

)

6

Tejszd wrote (View Post):

Supply lines, determined by the strat map, affects ammo & fuel in battle for units

Tejszd wrote (View Post):

Tanks can crush fences & hedges on maps in battle

Hey, this one i like Cool

CC5 - es

[1]

ArmeeGruppeSud wrote (View Post):

Only 44 maps

[2]

ArmeeGruppeSud wrote (View Post):

You can play a whole CC5 campaign without even playing on all of them Rolling Eyes

[3]

ArmeeGruppeSud wrote (View Post):

Playing on the same maps over and over and over again ......, you might fight a dozen battles each on 2 or 3 maps Shocked

[4]

ArmeeGruppeSud wrote (View Post):

Then there are the tiny vehicle and soldier graphics, and no zoom aaghhh! Surprised

[5]

ArmeeGruppeSud wrote (View Post):

Then there is the total waste of combat time stuffing around with the stupid strat map when you could actually be engaging in "CLOSE COMBAT".

[6]

ArmeeGruppeSud wrote (View Post):

In CC5 there is virtually no soldier history, because a unit may be shot up a bit, so you put it back in force pool (where it is immediately automatically put back to full strength with no loss/liability/penalty) and when you reacquisition it, all the names are new and the original soldiers' combat histories are lost.
About the only teams that ever seem to build much statistics are mortar teams (boring).

[7]

acebars wrote (View Post):

But personally find the strategy execution of these last installments is simply woeful, movement phase and battle phase included. For example: There are these odd and strange reinforcement pool rules as well as units spontaneously disbanding after losing battles only to spawn a day later on a supply point 5 sectors behind lines.

[8] An unrealistic command simulation (multiple identity disorder)

Quote:

5) it doesn't represent a real command at all, because it is a fantasy world where you are a Fieldmarshall commanding several regiments and you are also several battalion commanders and dozens of company commanders as well. You are not at all in touch with your men because you are sufferring with multiple identity disorder, so realistic Rolling Eyes

Quote:

Not like CC5 where you suffer with a multiple identity disorder, as you bounce around making decisions at several command levels (ahistorical & unrealistic) as a General moving regiments, a Colonel moving battalions, a Major moving companies, and finally, the company commander moving squads.

[9]
Ahistorical Campaign (Non-Linear Campaign Wink

)

[10]
CC5 also has weirdly innacurate, unrealistic statistics in its debrief screens

Dima wrote (View Post):

in CC5 all the AVFs that got destroyed, damaged, immobilized or taken in battle when your BG is cut and out of fuel, are listed in destroyed tanks column for the total losses. So basically if your BG is cut and you take 5 AVFs in battle and they don’t have fuel from start all 5 of them will be listed as damaged in battle debriefing screen and destroyed in operation debriefing screen while all of them remains in your roster

So damaged in 1 stat, destroyed in another stat, but actually still available and in perfect condition for use later

Dima wrote (View Post):

Game wise: I have a lot of BGs cut off, so each time I go in battle with 4-5 immobilized AVFs that increase total number of Armor losses in GC Debrief screen – is it realistic

So even tanks not lost, get counted as lost Shocked

CC5 stats will break Stwa's BS metre Wink

NOT FINISHED YET, WILL EDIT LATER

CHEERS

AGS
.

Last edited by ArmeeGruppeSud on Mon Jul 16, 2012 12:51 am; edited 5 times in total

#167: Re: CC5 vs CC3 Author: Tejszd, Location: Canada

Posted: Sat Jul 07, 2012 9:02 pm
—
Here are a couple more CC5 +es

Supply lines, determined by the strat map, affects ammo & fuel in battle for units

Tanks can crush fences & hedges on maps in battle

#168: Re: CC5 vs CC3 Author: pvt_Grunt, Location: Melbourne, Australia

Posted: Sun Jul 08, 2012 7:23 am
—
I like CC3, all it needs added is a strat map, force polls, then set it in Normandy and it would be perfect!

#169: Re: CC5 vs CC3 Author: Stwa,

Posted: Sun Jul 08, 2012 8:48 am
—
I like CC3, all it needs added is a strat map, force polls, then set it in Normandy and it would be perfect!

Laughing

One of the better lines I have seen in a long time. Exclamation

#170: Re: CC5 vs CC3 Author: acebars,

Posted: Sun Jul 15, 2012 2:22 pm
—
Been a bit quiet here lately.

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.

#171: Re: CC5 vs CC3 Author: ArmeeGruppeSud,

Posted: Mon Jul 16, 2012 1:08 am
—
CC5 could be a good close combat game,....IF:

it had a points based system

and

IF it had larger tank graphics

and

it had a zoom

and

if it was easier to mod

CHEERS

AGS

.

Last edited by ArmeeGruppeSud on Mon Jul 16, 2012 1:23 am; edited 2 times in total

#172: Re: CC5 vs CC3 Author: ArmeeGruppeSud,

Posted: Mon Jul 16, 2012 1:09 am
—
CC5 could be a good close combat game,....IF:

it had a realistic command simulation

and

it had a good system of soldier history statistics

CHEERS

AGS

.

Last edited by ArmeeGruppeSud on Mon Jul 16, 2012 1:22 am; edited 2 times in total

#173: Re: CC5 vs CC3 Author: ArmeeGruppeSud,

Posted: Mon Jul 16, 2012 1:09 am
—
CC5 could be a good Close Combat game,.....IF:

if it could have unlimited maps like CC3

and

if it was not limited to such a short period

and

it was set on the Eastern Front where WW2 realy happenned :wink:

CHEERS

AGS

.

Last edited by ArmeeGruppeSud on Mon Jul 16, 2012 1:25 am; edited 1 time in total

#174: Re: CC5 vs CC3 Author: ArmeeGruppeSud,

Posted: Mon Jul 16, 2012 1:09 am
—
CC5 could be a good Cose Combat game,....IF:

it had a points based system

and

IF it had larger tank graphics

and

it had a zoom

and

if it was easier to mod

and

it had a realistic command simulation

and

it had a good system of soldier history/statistics

and

if it could have unlimited maps like CC3

and

if it was not limited to such a short period

and

it was set on the Eastern Front where WW2 realy happenned Wink

CHEERS

AGS

.

Last edited by ArmeeGruppeSud on Mon Jul 16, 2012 1:30 am; edited 2 times in total

#175: Re: CC5 vs CC3 Author: ArmeeGruppeSud,

Posted: Mon Jul 16, 2012 1:10 am
—
OK, updated scores for CC3 & CC5 from the post @ top of this page

CC3: +23 & -02 = +21

CC5: +07 & -10 = -03

So CC3's score is positive 21 Very Happy

and CC5's score is minus 3 Crying or Very sad

CHEERS

AGS

.

#176: Re: CC5 vs CC3 Author: southern_land,

Posted: Mon Jul 16, 2012 4:27 am
—
hey Suds, clearly you are an international banker and money man with those sort of calculations

#177: Re: CC5 vs CC3 Author: tigercub, Location: charters towers

Posted: Mon Jul 16, 2012 8:19 am
—
my 2 cents i prefer russian front but want GJS(stalingrad) type of map campaign so CC5 wins for me.

Tiger

#178: Re: CC5 vs CC3 Author: ArmeeGruppeSud,

Posted: Tue Jul 17, 2012 9:42 am
—

southern_land wrote (View Post):

hey Suds, clearly you are an international banker and money man with those sort of calculations

tigercub wrote (View Post):

my 2 cents i prefer russian front but want GJS(stalingrad) type of map campaign so CC5 wins for me.

Its all in good fun guys Very Happy

Pzt_Kevin_dtn threw down the gauntlet, so i picked it up and slapped him with it Mad

The score can be ammended, if anyone addS any minus or plus points for each CC version, i will update the score.

At this time CC3 has a clear lead of 24 points Razz

CHEERS

AGS

.

#179: Re: CC5 vs CC3 Author: Dima,

Posted: Tue Jul 17, 2012 10:14 am
—
Well, I actually decided to give a try to CC3:RR H2H GC to see if maybe I had forgotten something good in CC3. I didn't Smile

.

Now I am 100% sure that CC5 is a huge evolution in comparison to CC3 even on tactical level as:

Suppress doesn't work as in CC5 - you can set HMG, mortar, couple of rifle squads and couple of tanks/guns firing at enemy gun and it will still fire at you reliably, of cause same for your guns vs enemy targets.

Scouting doesn't work as in CC5 - my 4exp/4morale scouts couldn't spot ATG at 20m that was firing at them with rifles and gun. Needless to say ATG has spotted them sneaking in high grass and killed.

Smoke doesn't work as in CC5 - small arms reliaibly kill sneaking infantry behind a smoke screen.

Leadership doesn't work in CC3 as intended - 4exp/4morale teams with Independent Action in description start to rout if they are not next to the commander and they see enemy nearby, without enemy beeing shooting at them.

Infantry combat is just one big joke in comparison to CC5.

These engine (?) bugs multiplied by crappy RR data (is it mainly from stock CC3?) and awful map coding makes CC3:RR unplayable for me after I have experience playing good CC5 mods. Although in early 2000s I thought it was pretty much good but everything is known in comparison Smile

#180: Re: CC5 vs CC3 Author: Stwa,

Posted: Tue Jul 17, 2012 11:55 am
—

#181: Re: CC5 vs CC3 Author: ArmeeGruppeSud,

Posted: Thu Jul 19, 2012 12:38 pm
—
@ Dima

Real Red Data, say no more Rolling Eyes

The "Elements.txt" is horrible, your tanks will see some uneven ground ahead and their tracks will immediately fall off Shocked

Stwa wrote (View Post):

Too Much Laser Green For Moi

LOL, you do know that you can turn those Team Info Display Bars off Wink

The only time i have those on is during deployment and have them set on "cover", then turn them off before starting battle.

In CC5 you gotta have them on all the time so you can find your teams (because CC5 graphics are so microscopic Razz

)

CHEERS

AGS

.

#182: Re: CC5 vs CC3 Author: Stwa,

Posted: Thu Jul 19, 2012 2:03 pm
—
OK,

I admit, I am confused. Please explain.

Which laser green bars can you turn off?

Can you turn off the laser green bars over the map areas? and/or ...

Can you turn off the laser green bars on the team monitor? (where the team names are displayed)

What happens when the team gets creamed. Is the laser green changed to laser red or something?

I dont recall laser green horizontal bars in CC5, so I quess I never figured out how to turn them on.

Me thinks CCMT uses green bars on the team monitor, but they are not laser green for some unknown reason.

#183: Re: CC5 vs CC3 Author: southern_land,

Posted: Fri Jul 20, 2012 5:12 am
—
just go you your options and tunr tyhem on or off.... CC4 onwards got rid of the bars and put in little stars or cross and made them transparent, a lot less in your face looking... another substantial benefit Cc5 enjoys over cc3 Very Happy

#184: Re: CC5 vs CC3 Author: Stwa,

Posted: Fri Jul 20, 2012 5:54 am
—
Hi,

But which ones, if you noticed there are laser green horizonatal bars all over the display.

The ones I am most worried about are the horizontal bars on the team display(monitor), where the team names are.

Can you turn these off?

In CCMT, these bars (the ones in the team display) change colors as the unit loses strength. They go red, then black, when the team is all KIA.

I am worried CC3, has adopted a 16 (laser) color standard for these bars.

Also, like CC4, CCMT uses little colored crosses (NOT laser green bars) for the team icon displays that can appear next to the teams on the main map.

#185: Re: CC5 vs CC3 Author: ArmeeGruppeSud,

Posted: Fri Jul 20, 2012 1:32 pm
—
@ Stwa

You can turn off the bars above the squads/vehicles in options as SL told you

and if you dont want to see the green of the teams display monitor, then turn the team display monitor off,
A by using F7 (or F5)

or by clicking the right hand end of team display monitor
then all that will be on screen is the battle (this is how i like it)
I will reopen team display monitor only when needed

F6 toggles minimap i think

CHEERS

AGS

.

#186: Re: CC5 vs CC3 Author: Stwa,

Posted: Fri Jul 20, 2012 8:24 pm
—
OIC,

So, to get rid of the laser green altogether, you must hide the team display. I get it.

But, I use the team display to locate units, especially when the team display indicates a team is in trouble.

This becomes much more important, when you are using the scale soldiers. I am thinking the 7.66 pixel types.

Without it, I would have to scan the map for the teams. And the smaller soldiers can actually blend in with the terrain, so they are hard to locate.

Or, I would have to be constantly turning the team display off, then on, when I wanted to monitor the health of the teams, so I wouldn't really be using it as a monitor per se.

CCMT doesn't use these wacko colors, so I am glad for that.

Anyway, about the significance of the COI screenshot that I put up several times in this thread. It was this screenshot mostly, and some others, over at Matrix, that has kept me from getting the game (COI). As I get older, I have found that I am very picky when it comes to computer games, and I can reject them based on appearance alone.

But another question.

Is CCMT really CC3 based? When atomic made CCM, did they really start with CC3, or CC5?

Was CCMT actually made from CCM?

#187: Re: CC5 vs CC3 Author: Tejszd, Location: Canada

Posted: Fri Jul 20, 2012 9:14 pm
—
CCMT was based on CCM from what I heard but had to have the marine stuff removed.

Same question though can be asked about CCM was it based on CC3 or CC5?

You might be able to tell by listing CC3 and CC5 only features to see which CCMT has more from....

#188: Re: CC5 vs CC3 Author: Stwa,

Posted: Sat Jul 21, 2012 3:09 am
—
Silly Marines. Exclamation

For me, one of the great joys of CCMT, is its UI. So, you can see why I was somewhat perterbed when Matrix decided to not polish it off, and left numerous glitches like the slider button animations, de-brief and soldier screen alignments, and other various goofies.

But still overall, I like the UI more than any other game in CC. The ingame screen I really like and it adds a lot of enjoyment to the game.

Apart from the light (perhaps laser) blue I introduced as a mod (for the weapon icons), I really like the appearance of CCMT.

#189: Re: CC5 vs CC3 Author: ArmeeGruppeSud,

Posted: Sat Jul 21, 2012 4:55 pm
—

Stwa wrote (View Post):

CCMT really CC3 based? When atomic made CCM, did they really start with CC3, or CC5?

Well, that depends on wether CCMT simulates a commander with a multiple identity disorder, or if it simulates a realistic command Wink

Last edited by ArmeeGruppeSud on Sat Jul 21, 2012 5:05 pm; edited 1 time in total

#190: Re: CC5 vs CC3 Author: ArmeeGruppeSud,

Posted: Sat Jul 21, 2012 5:02 pm
—

Stwa wrote (View Post):

So, to get rid of the laser green altogether, you must hide the team display. I get it.

But, I use the team display to locate units, especially when the team display indicates a team is in trouble.

This becomes much more important, when you are using the scale soldiers. I am thinking the 7.66 pixel types.

Without it, I would have to scan the map for the teams. And the smaller soldiers can actually blend in with the terrain, so they are hard to locate.

Or, I would have to be constantly turning the team display off, then on, when I wanted to monitor the health of the teams, so I wouldn't really be using it as a monitor per se.

No problem, you can link 10 of your teams to your numerical keys.
If i were you, i would link the 10 teams you were most likely to lose track of.
Tanks are not hard to find and mortar teams and guns usually stay where u put them.
You just need to remember which numbers are which teams.
If you use it regularly, its easy, especially if you have a regular system, ie
Command Teams 1-3, Scouts/MGs 4&5, Infantry 6-9 and Sniper 0 (tank, mortars & guns unlinked)

Also, even without the Team Display bar, the messages still appear, and if a message appears saying a team is in trouble, just click mouse on message and your battle screen takes you straight to that team Very Happy

CHEERS

AGS

.

#191: Re: CC5 vs CC3 Author: Stwa,

Posted: Sun Jul 22, 2012 2:17 am
—

ArmeeGruppeSud wrote (View Post):

Stwa wrote (View Post):

CHEERS

AGS

.

Hi,

That all sounds like a beeg hassle to me. Sometimes I click on the messages, but me thinks, you are just ignoring my desire to use the team display.

Please remember, I have been playing CC for a long time same as you, and over that time, I have discoverd that I like to use the team display. I have used and tried most of the options in the tactical game, and the team display is my preference.

So, hiding the team display is not a very good option for moi.

I can understand, why CC3 guys, such as yourself, will go to any length to not use the team display. That is why I uploaded the screenie. If I had to stare at all that laser green throughout the entire battle, I would NOT enjoy the aesthetics at all.

Perhaps, the laser green can be modified into other not so laser colors. But I don't keep up with the COI mods, so I wouldn't know.

Apart from the team display, I think the overall look of COI is just not for me. I am not the first one at this site to express this disapointment.

Like I said before, I have introduced a bright (laser) color into the CCMT team display, but for some reason it doesn't bug me like the laser green COI team display.

It is hard to believe that all this will someday be replaced by a 3d engine. This is what makes CC/CCMT such an incredible war game.

#192: Re: CC5 vs CC3 Author: Stwa,

Posted: Sun Jul 22, 2012 5:59 am
—
Maybe a lot of players can live without the team display, but for me, it keeps you well informed of the status of all teams at a glance.

#193: Re: CC5 vs CC3 Author: Stwa,

Posted: Sun Jul 22, 2012 7:28 am
—
I also seem to think that CCM/CCMT started life as CC3 based.

On reason, is the Resource DLL file, which contains dialog boxes that would seem to be only applicable to CC3.

In addition, there is the occasional vehicle gaggle or advanced spinny disease, when 3 or more vehicles somehow come close to one another.

As Dima mentioned, leadership is very particular in CC3 and also in CCMT.

But who knows, I am only guessing.

But if CCMT, really has its origins in CC3, it is just one more reason for moi to not consider a license of CC3/COI. I guess I could say I already have CC3 with a team display that I like.

The team monitor is useful in situations like Fox Red below, where you want to be sure everyone is still moving up and over the cliff. A small amount of enemy fire, and the teams will take defensive postions at the top. (not what you want)

Without tank support, this map is very tough, and the Germans have a few infantry guns to help repulse any attack. Also, having the trenches set back from the cliff is just murder.

#194: Re: CC5 vs CC3 Author: Stwa,

Posted: Sun Aug 12, 2012 12:11 am
—
Other evidience that CCMT might indeed be CC3 based, is the game files themselves. I know several of the guys checked these out with a hex editor, and apart from additonal space for OP-ORDER text, the files are remarkably similar to CC3.

Now obviously, CCMT brings other tactical features that CC3 does not have, so I suppose any other improvements might have been incorporated as well. Like some improvements from CC4 or CC5.

But, I keep remembering Dima's previous post, and me thinks smoke in CCMT, and visibility too, seems to conform to Dima's observations.

So, with all that in mind, if CCMT is in fact CC3 based, then considering the tactical game alone, I would have to say CCMT is better than CC5. In so doing, I might be saying that CC3 (the tactical game), is better than CC5. IMHO, of course.

After I got CCMT, I kept CC5 on my system for several years, and I would (from time to time), go back and play a single battle or two, just as a sanity check, and so I could compare the battles to what I was seeing in CCMT. And every time, I would conclude CCMT was better by a mile.

#195: Re: CC5 vs CC3 Author: Dima,

Posted: Sun Aug 12, 2012 9:33 am
—
Stwa,

CC4-5-CCM-CCMT = CC3 based but very much simplified and CC3 is CC2 based...

Btw in CC2 there is a check in data if units can ride vehicles or not - reminds something?

CC3 has the best data IMO, shame no CC3 modder had enough knowledge (historical) to use it fully Smile

.

CC4-CC5-CCMT has very simplified data in comparison to CC3 but still very effective Wink

#196: Re: CC5 vs CC3 Author: Stwa,

Posted: Sun Aug 12, 2012 8:51 pm
—
Hi Dima,

I understand what you are saying but I am still wondering.

I get the sense that Close Combat games are not borne from a single code line per se.

Each game is perhaps a clone of a previous game, but then a developer could add functionality from any of the other, presumabley tested titles.

Regarding the data files, it seems to me, that all CC titles after CC3, contain the same data elements. Just some games don't use all of these data elements, as each data workbook attempts to indicate the unused elements.

I might suggest the following pathways to the CCMT code line main body and features.

CC1-CC2-CC3-COI-CCMT. (Game files, including data, sounds, voices, effects, and the resource DLL indicate CC3 origin) This lineage must borrow code from CCM.

CC1-CC2-CC3-CCM-CCMT. (Dima has already noted several key tactical issues that may indicate CC3 origin) This lineage may borrow code from COI.

CC1-CC2-CC3-CC4-CC5-CCM-CCMT (I don't have CCM, but I don't see much evidence of CC4 and CC5 in the data files or feature of CCMT)

Close Combat Series -> Close Combat 5: Invasion Normandy

output generated using printer-friendly topic mod. All times are GMT

Page 1 of 1