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). |
Quote: |
Hopefully that will be my last for you |
Quote: |
Anway, now you are the only person I know with negative reputation at CCS - refer to (1) plz. |
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. |
Quote: |
Actually, i've met alot of trolls but they were either lacking knowledge or were too optimistic - you are just too dumb. |
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 |
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). |
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. |
Quote: |
you are useless troll and good bye.
No more replies to stupid troll from me. |
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. |
acebars wrote (View Post): |
-CC3 is historical, CC5 is ahistorical, a company cannot change the course of a war. |
acebars wrote (View Post): |
-In CC5 divisions are represented as 2-3 companies. |
acebars wrote (View Post): |
-In CC5 a Regimemt is represented by a company. |
acebars wrote (View Post): |
-Historical/Realistic ratios of losses are incorrect in CC5, far too much Armour to AT losses. |
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. |
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. |
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. |
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) |
pvt_Grunt wrote (View Post): |
Hello Acebars / Ubertroll and welcome to CCS |
pvt_Grunt wrote (View Post): | ||
Yes this is strange. |
pvt_Grunt wrote (View Post): |
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 |
Quote: | ||
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 |
Quote: | ||
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. |
Quote: | ||
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): |
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! |
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. |
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). |
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? |
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. |
Dima wrote (View Post): |
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 |
Dima wrote (View Post): |
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 . |
Dima wrote (View Post): |
no, you just proved: .............................................
2) that GJS sector was heavy on tanks which is historically represented in TRSM . |
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 |
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. |
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. |
bs_meter_618.JPG | ||
Description: |
|
|
Filesize: | 7.55 KB | |
Viewed: | 9922 Time(s) | |
pvt_Grunt wrote (View Post): |
(waiting for AGS to fire...... ) |
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. |
pvt_Grunt wrote (View Post): |
CC3 takes place over many years, CC5 is many days so it needs a different system. |
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? . |
ArmeeGruppeSud wrote (View Post): |
Research has proved, in regard to Tank/Gun loss ratios, that TRSM is the MOST UNREALISTIC CC5 mod yet! . |
Quote: |
Shame on you AGS. |
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? |
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…. ….. |
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): |
AT_Stalky wrote (View Post): | ||||
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. |
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 ) |
acebars wrote (View Post): |
How about those AT gun statistics to back up your armoured losses comparison. |
Quote: |
I have understood what makes you tick and what mission you’re at here. Congratulations you have succeeded. |
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. |
Quote: |
And that the fight is not the same as 4 years of fighting in the East front… |
Quote: |
Did you not understand that? I have understood what makes you tick and what mission you’re at here. |
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. |
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) . |
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... |
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. |
ArmeeGruppeSud wrote (View Post): |
Troop selection is ENTIRELY DEPENDENT on what you have to select from. |
ArmeeGruppeSud wrote (View Post): |
German material losses in Normandy being about 1500 tanks and 3500 guns, which is a credible ratio. |
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. |
AT_Stalky wrote (View Post): |
Yeh. Exact. Thats why CC5... |
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... |
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. |
output generated using printer-friendly topic mod. All times are GMT