Close Combat Series :: View topic - Historical Accuracy or Game Play?

Historical Accuracy or Game Play?

through

Forum FAQ

[^/[Print]\]

Close Combat Series -> The Mess

Historical Accuracy or Game Play?

I like the game to be Historically Accurate

62%

[ 31 ]

I care more about Game Play

38%

[ 19 ]

Total Votes : 50

#1: Historical Accuracy or Game Play? Author: platoon_michael, Location: Right behind you

Posted: Sun Jul 17, 2011 10:39 am
—
How much emphasis do you put on either one?
And why?

#2: Re: Historical Accuracy or Game Play? Author: ErwinSp,

Posted: Sun Jul 17, 2011 11:05 am
—
I prefer game play with historical basis.

#3: Re: Historical Accuracy or Game Play? Author: US_Brake, Location: USA

Posted: Sun Jul 17, 2011 7:43 pm
—
For a game: Historical Accuracy is pointless if the Game Play sucks.

For a Simulator: Historical Accuracy is everything.

CC series has acheived both good game play and historical accuracy.

#4: Re: Historical Accuracy or Game Play? Author: kweniston, Location: Netherlands

Posted: Sun Jul 17, 2011 8:16 pm
—
As historically correct as possible, without sacrificing gameplay/balance.

#5: Re: Historical Accuracy or Game Play? Author: pagskier,

Posted: Sun Jul 17, 2011 11:40 pm
—
I voted for historical accuracy, even if I`m not a historian.

But it is quite important, as it makes the gameplay feel usualy real, as it fits what you readed or heard about the battles.
Then play with the actual tactical/strategic reality as a commander, trying to not do the same mistakes and do the same exploits!

Then choosing the right battles, makes the gameplay really fun!
I also like some fictionnal scenrarios, but I don't like em as much usually.

#6: Re: Historical Accuracy or Game Play? Author: Tejszd, Location: Canada

Posted: Mon Jul 18, 2011 12:29 am
—
I voted historical.

If the actual battle/campaign wasn't evenly balanced that is okay. I usually try to play the losing side and or attacker to try to do better than was historically done. If playing H2H the weaker player can play the winning side or sliders can be used to change the strengths of the two sides (in CC5 this is usaully just the quantity and quality of units but in the re-releases this can include support; air, artillery/mortars and supply drops).

#7: Re: Historical Accuracy or Game Play? Author: Cathartes,

Posted: Mon Jul 18, 2011 12:35 am
—
I don't believe you can avoid a certain balance due to the limitations of the game engine. There are real limits to the historical reality you can simulate in this game. The variable chance outcomes built into the engine at different levels will defeat even the most exhaustively researched and disciplined attempts to simulate precise armor values and gun penetration values in the data.

#8: Re: Historical Accuracy or Game Play? Author: southern_land,

Posted: Mon Jul 18, 2011 4:18 am
—
Game play with a side order of Historical accuracy

#9: Re: Historical Accuracy or Game Play? Author: MajorFrank,

Posted: Wed Aug 03, 2011 10:52 am
—
I vote historical but I also hope for a good gameplay. CC has a lot both IMO. It's sad how many RT strategies these days go for flashy graphics but don't put as much emphasis on game play etc. CC is IMO still the game in terms of historical accuracy and intuitive game play.

Was going to make a new thread but might as well ask in this one, what would you say is the most historically accurate CC game/mod/battle/campaign? The one where the unit sizes, placement on the map, the map itself etc. are closest to historical reality?

#10: Re: Historical Accuracy or Game Play? Author: pvt_Grunt, Location: Melbourne, Australia

Posted: Thu Aug 04, 2011 8:42 am
—
It depends on the battle, for a Berlin theatre realistic force polls would be ridiculous, the Rusians would win every time. For Battle of France or Africa historical would work well.
For weapons and vehicle data, historical (real) is best

#11: Re: Historical Accuracy or Game Play? Author: ArmeeGruppeSud,

Posted: Thu Aug 04, 2011 10:42 am
—
hmmmm

I guess i lean toward historical accuracy.

It was the historical innaccuracies in CC3 that 1st prompted me to start modding
(more JS2s than T34/85s was the 1st thing that annoyed me)

For the DOF mod, i tried to make it as historically accurate as possible, only occaisionally compromising for gameplay.

This applied to vehicle availabilities and their technical data.
The infantry teams makeup and availability leant to playability.
Weapons availability leant to Historical, but their technical data had to fit to gameplay.

Balancing the 2 factors was a complex task, and i was never satisfied. i still have completed data for a 3rd release waiting for me to gather motivation to face the huge task of completing the rebuilds of 3 sets of 48 Camp Ops. Organising a sound file with more available sound slots Wink

And other ideas i want to include.

But the task is so daunting Shocked

+ i need help with stuff i have not dabbled with......... Confused

cheers

AGS

_______________

#12: Re: Historical Accuracy or Game Play? Author: ArmeeGruppeSud,

Posted: Thu Aug 25, 2011 5:35 am
—
G'day fellow CCers

Recently, because i am a congenial person, i began answerring questions regarding DOF posed by nikin.
http://www.closecombatseries.net/CCS/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&t=9146
Unfortunately, it is impossible to satisfy this #@%*@#! (censored). Rolling Eyes

It is impossible with less than 10,000 words to explain all the factors that limit the level of historical accuracy you can install into the CC3 PC game

If i had made every detail of the game as historically accurate as is technically possible, i would have ended up with a game which, at minimum, nobody would ever want to play, or at worst, was totally unplayable!

Mad

Grrrrrr at the frustration of banging my head against a wall!!!!

You cannot explain the difficulties of modding to a hard headed #@%*@# (nikin), who has never taken on this momentous task.

nikin's most legitimate complaint is about the inclusion of a 12.8cm L/61 K40 field cannon, which i included for a number of reasons (in no particular order)
(A) The existence of a 12.8cm field gun was assumed because there was one in the West Front Mod (though it was called 128mm FH K-44 (L/54) (which turns out to be totally mythical)
(B) have found data on the net about the 12.8cm L/61 K40's armour pentration (apart from that, the only record i can find about it now is its mounting in the Steuer Emil T.D. of which only 2 were built)
(C) it provided a balance for game play in that both sides had similar support firepower
Russian 107mm gun, German 105mm gun, Russian 122mm gun, German 128mm gun, Russian 152mm gun and German 150mm gun.

Unless somebody can come up with evidence of the 12.8cm K-40 L/61 being deployed in a field gun carriage, i shall remodel it as a 15cm K-18 L/55, in DOF3, just so i can ram it up nikin's nose Razz

ahhhhhhhhhhhhh

i feel better now Very Happy

cheeers AGS

_________

#13: Re: Historical Accuracy or Game Play? Author: pvt_Grunt, Location: Melbourne, Australia

Posted: Thu Aug 25, 2011 9:55 am
—

ArmeeGruppeSud wrote (View Post):

ahhhhhhhhhhhhh

i feel better now Very Happy

_________

Breathe, South Australian, breathe - slowly now....breeeeaaaaaathe

Okay, now that you're calm - this proves my point, historical accuracy in a game is impossible. There are always compromises, fudges and sometimes just plain factual errors.

There is also the HUGE problem of defining "Accuracy" As none of us were there in Kursk we are reading other peoples records of events. These records dont always agree either. Ammo loads, weapons carried, armour quality all changed continously during the war.

It's a game we play have fun, do your best with the data you have, admit that you cant get it right 100% of the time (the original game didnt come close either!)

#14: Re: Historical Accuracy or Game Play? Author: Pzt_Kevin_dtn, Location: USA

Posted: Sat Aug 27, 2011 11:47 am
—
I think we all want as much historical accuracy as we can get but it must be balanced against game play. Let's take mortars into consideration. Its obvious that mortars had a minimum range that more oftern than not would require them to be somewhere off the (cc) field of battle. But since we're only taking a snapshot of a much larger battlefield as a whole the mortar range has to be tweaked downward to allow it to be on the small size battlefield being used. Some would argue this runs contrary to historical accuracy and place a minimum range that basically negates the use of the mortar team in game play. Give us balance baby....

#15: Re: Historical Accuracy or Game Play? Author: Dima,

Posted: Sat Aug 27, 2011 12:15 pm
—
I believe that historical balance is the best balance, that's why my goal was to make GJS 4.4 TRSM as historically accurate as CC5 can afford and i believe i've achived that Very Happy

.

AGS, i suggest you ignore that guy as he is real troll Wink

(if you have questions about EF, just drop me PM).

#16: Re: Historical Accuracy or Game Play? Author: Therion,

Posted: Sat Aug 27, 2011 3:40 pm
—
Generally, I prefer completely fantastic scenarios using fantastic hardware which try to be realistic (are logical, don't break laws of physics, etc.).

The main problem with historical accuracy is that the presence of the player, his way of doing things, etc. is inherently ahistorical.

#17: Re: Historical Accuracy or Game Play? Author: RedScorpion, Location: Neverland

Posted: Sat Aug 27, 2011 4:21 pm
—

Dima wrote (View Post):

I believe that historical balance is the best balance, that's why my goal was to make GJS 4.4 TRSM as historically accurate as CC5 can afford and i believe i've achived that Very Happy

.

AGS, i suggest you ignore that guy as he is real troll Wink

(if you have questions about EF, just drop me PM).

(Hello Dima, its been a while!)

I'd like to say that there really need not be a conflict between game play and balance. The game play is rather enhanced by the perpetual transformation of power on both sides. Deploy, battle groups, fuel or no fuel - all of these changing factors in grand campaigns are a big part in the longevity of the game; I am sure I would not still have been as interested in CC if it had just been about single battle meeting engagements with equal number of tanks, etc. (Ok, a rough simplification but you get the idea.) The fact that things always keep changing on the battle field creates the value of CC.

So clearly I believe historical accuracy to be of high importance, not only because it would feel weird playing a Normandy mod where e.g. Germans have air supremacy or Hitler contra factually having deployed his two panzer divisons (most us are history buffs to some degree why this has importance in itself anyway), but because the historical assymmetry gives CC its unresistable flavour.

Finally I dont think it really matters if Germans "cant" win a campaign over 26 days, doing well as Germans should count as a stalemate, at least as far as I am concerned.

#18: Re: Historical Accuracy or Game Play? Author: platoon_michael, Location: Right behind you

Posted: Wed Sep 05, 2012 4:35 pm
—
I agree with the Weapons aspect for Historical Accuracy but what about Force Pools?

Do you automatically assume that during your GC a Infantry BG in game would not have any supporting units such as Half-tracks and Tanks?

And when editing a BG such as Peiper do you force the players had at a certain Date and automatically remove his Panthers and replace them with Half-tracks?

#19: Re: Historical Accuracy or Game Play? Author: tigercub, Location: charters towers

Posted: Thu Sep 06, 2012 5:28 am
—

Pzt_Kevin_dtn wrote (View Post):

I think we all want as much historical accuracy as we can get but it must be balanced against game play. Let's take mortars into consideration. Its obvious that mortars had a minimum range that more oftern than not would require them to be somewhere off the (cc) field of battle. But since we're only taking a snapshot of a much larger battlefield as a whole the mortar range has to be tweaked downward to allow it to be on the small size battlefield being used. Some would argue this runs contrary to historical accuracy and place a minimum range that basically negates the use of the mortar team in game play. Give us balance baby....

historical accuracy as much as practical but there are some things...that just dont work right like mortars

I have Banged on about mortar range many times in differant forums for the size and types of battles we are playing a reduction in min range is fine ...one of the few areas i dont mind given up historical accuracy ...but firing them at open top AC/HT is going too far thats why any thing i mod i try to make them less of a killer of AC/HT they were not used in that way.

tiger

#20: Re: Historical Accuracy or Game Play? Author: Sapa,

Posted: Thu Sep 06, 2012 3:42 pm
—
Historical..and not putting IS-3 into Close Combat The Russian Front Wink

#21: Re: Historical Accuracy or Game Play? Author: platoon_michael, Location: Right behind you

Posted: Fri Sep 07, 2012 2:42 am
—
@tigercub

I think you'll find the Mortars to be much more to your liking.

#22: Re: Historical Accuracy or Game Play? Author: tigercub, Location: charters towers

Posted: Fri Sep 07, 2012 4:29 am
—

platoon_michael wrote (View Post):

@tigercub

I think you'll find the Mortars to be much more to your liking.

? sorry i dont know what u mean!

Dima in the TRSM mod made the Mortars duel and less accurate more like how they were used...after all they are not AT guns and was not used to fire apon vechicles normaly.

Tiger

#23: Re: Historical Accuracy or Game Play? Author: johnsilver, Location: Florida

Posted: Sat Sep 08, 2012 12:41 pm
—

platoon_michael wrote (View Post):

I agree with the Weapons aspect for Historical Accuracy but what about Force Pools?

Do you automatically assume that during your GC a Infantry BG in game would not have any supporting units such as Half-tracks and Tanks?

And when editing a BG such as Peiper do you force the players had at a certain Date and automatically remove his Panthers and replace them with Half-tracks?

Since this has to do with "your" Vetbob, 2 different answers.. Of course want something actual units and close, but exact to where it actually ruins gameplay.. Towing the line in keeping historical units at say Place "A" when they should have been, only because they were actually there for the sake of historical accuracy? **NO**

I think you have done a good job (so far) of units and actively pulling them out, or forcing to use certain vehicles/units on a certain day is not a good idea, or it isn't to me at least. Using the experience bar can adjust strength and think you and Selded mentioned the possibility of a plugin at some later possible date to modify some aspects also.

Anyway.. Just my 2c Platoon. Smile

#24: Re: Historical Accuracy or Game Play? Author: TheImperatorKnight,

Posted: Tue Sep 11, 2012 8:04 pm
—
First time poster here. Overall, I voted for historical accuracy.

Why? It always gets to me when I find an element in a game that is blatantly not accurate at all, but was left in for gameplay purposes. As Tigercub mentioned, the mortars leave a lot to be desired and are one of the big gripes I have with the series. If they can't get them right, don't leave them in.

But that being said, game play is important. That's why I'm a big fan of cc2 and cc3. IMHO, they have a good balance between accuracy and gameplay.

#25: Re: Historical Accuracy or Game Play? Author: Dima,

Posted: Tue Sep 11, 2012 8:10 pm
—

Quote:

But that being said, game play is important. That's why I'm a big fan of cc2 and cc3. IMHO, they have a good balance between accuracy and gameplay.

CC2 and CC3 are probably the least historical versions of CC....

#26: Re: Historical Accuracy or Game Play? Author: TheImperatorKnight,

Posted: Tue Sep 11, 2012 9:30 pm
—

Dima wrote (View Post):

Quote:

But that being said, game play is important. That's why I'm a big fan of cc2 and cc3. IMHO, they have a good balance between accuracy and gameplay.

CC2 and CC3 are probably the least historical versions of CC....

Really? Why do you think that?

#27: Re: Historical Accuracy or Game Play? Author: johnsilver, Location: Florida

Posted: Wed Sep 12, 2012 6:46 am
—

Dima wrote (View Post):

Quote:

But that being said, game play is important. That's why I'm a big fan of cc2 and cc3. IMHO, they have a good balance between accuracy and gameplay.

CC2 and CC3 are probably the least historical versions of CC....

Fans of those 2 versions have also in the past had the largest (and most vocal) amount of people hollering about historical accuracy as well.. Go Figure Rolling Eyes

#28: Re: Historical Accuracy or Game Play? Author: Dima,

Posted: Wed Sep 12, 2012 6:47 am
—

Quote:

Really? Why do you think that?

yes, very poor research overall.
i believe CC4 and CC5 although having big problems also had way better research in comparison.

#29: Re: Historical Accuracy or Game Play? Author: tigercub, Location: charters towers

Posted: Wed Sep 12, 2012 6:53 am
—
just made to get it to the people...and make a buck..

Tiger

#30: Re: Historical Accuracy or Game Play? Author: TheImperatorKnight,

Posted: Wed Sep 12, 2012 9:53 am
—
I don't understand why say CC5 has more historical accuracy to CC2. And I don't understand the "poor research" element Dima mentioned. Can someone please explain these points to me?

#31: Re: Historical Accuracy or Game Play? Author: ArmeeGruppeSud,

Posted: Fri Sep 14, 2012 1:00 pm
—

TheImperatorKnight wrote (View Post):

That's why I'm a big fan of cc2 and cc3. IMHO, they have a good balance between accuracy and gameplay.

. You got that right TheImperatorKnight

Dima wrote (View Post):

CC2 and CC3 are probably the least historical versions of CC

TheImperatorKnight wrote (View Post):

Really? Why do you think that?

Very good question TheImperatorKnight, especially considering that:

CC5 is the most Ahistorical version of CC Wink

ArmeeGruppeSud wrote (View Post):

Ahistorical Campaign

+ an Ahistorical command Rolling Eyes

ArmeeGruppeSud wrote (View Post):

An unrealistic command simulation

CHEERS

AGS

#32: Re: Historical Accuracy or Game Play? Author: TheImperatorKnight,

Posted: Sat Sep 15, 2012 10:21 am
—
My thoughts exactly, AGS. Still waiting for someone to say why CC5 is more historically accurate...

#33: Re: Historical Accuracy or Game Play? Author: Dima,

Posted: Sat Sep 15, 2012 11:36 am
—

Quote:

My thoughts exactly, AGS. Still waiting for someone to say why CC5 is more historically accurate...

battle maps, units involved and their TOE is way more historical accurate than CC3 (which IMO is beyond good and bad history-wise). That was a base that helped community to have some very accurate mods simulating single operations in high details.

all the mods trying to make CC3 more historical accurate have not been able to fix (for 14 years already) all the historical mistakes that were in vanilla CC3 (while introducing more and more new mistakes) - but that's probably due to poor research overall and lack of knowledge of the EF.

#34: Re: Historical Accuracy or Game Play? Author: TheImperatorKnight,

Posted: Sat Sep 15, 2012 6:24 pm
—

Dima wrote (View Post):

Quote:

My thoughts exactly, AGS. Still waiting for someone to say why CC5 is more historically accurate...

I don't know why you think the battle maps in CC3 aren't very historically accurate. Can you be more specific? The only one I can think of is the Moscow map - which they included for gameplay reasons, I assume. And yes, perhaps the units in CC5 were very accurate, but those in CC3 seem pretty accurate too. Again, can you be more specific?

Quote:

all the mods trying to make CC3 more historical accurate have not been able to fix (for 14 years already) all the historical mistakes that were in vanilla CC3 (while introducing more and more new mistakes) - but that's probably due to poor research overall and lack of knowledge of the EF.

What mistakes exactly? Can you provide some examples? So far, all you've said is there were mistakes and it's not historically accurate. But I'd like to know specifically what mistakes in vanilla you're referring too.

#35: Re: Historical Accuracy or Game Play? Author: Dima,

Posted: Sat Sep 15, 2012 7:23 pm
—

Quote:

just out of the top of my head:
Kursk area doesn't have steppes - it has fields and a lot of forests.
Vistula area doesn't have high ground at the East bank - either walls on both sides (East Prussia) or highly elevated western bank (Poland).

Quote:

And yes, perhaps the units in CC5 were very accurate, but those in CC3 seem pretty accurate too. Again, can you be more specific?

units in CC5 were not very accurate - they were accurate in comparison to CC3.
CC3 units are, as I pointed before, beyond good and bad.

Quote:

just some examples: Cossack/Siberian infantry, KV-2 in 1942, BS-3 in 1943, SU-152 in 1943, 45/76mm penetrating PzIIIH with frontal hits in 1941, 10men RA squads vs 7men german squads, etc ,etc.

#36: Re: Historical Accuracy or Game Play? Author: TheImperatorKnight,

Posted: Sat Sep 15, 2012 8:46 pm
—

Quote:

My geography of both the entire Kursk area or the entire Vistula river (it's a long river) isn't that good, if I'm honest. But you're telling me there isn't at least one forest/woods in the Kursk area? And there isn't a single piece of high ground anywhere along the East bank of the Vistula?

Quote:

just some examples: Cossack/Siberian infantry, KV-2 in 1942, BS-3 in 1943, SU-152 in 1943, 45/76mm penetrating PzIIIH with frontal hits in 1941, 10men RA squads vs 7men german squads, etc ,etc.

I'm not sure what you're refering to on some of these, but SU-152's were issued in 1943, so that's alright. KV-2's were still in use in 1942, although I admit they should be accessible earlier (probably changed for gameplay reasons). And as far as the squad sizes are concerned, that was most likely a gameplay consideration, given the limited amount of unit slots. The Russians had more troops historically, and I guess they were trying to represent this.

Tbh, I'm more of a CC2 man, so apologies on not being 100% on all this. But having read many books on the Eastern Front, I can say that CC3 does a pretty good job of representing what it was like on the Eastern Front, regardless of the issues you mentioned. And in comparison to CC5, I believe it's just as accurate, if not more so. It definately makes for better game play anyway.

#37: Re: Historical Accuracy or Game Play? Author: Dima,

Posted: Sat Sep 15, 2012 9:06 pm
—

Quote:

did you read my post? No steppes at Kursk. Now look at CC3 Kursk maps.

About Vistula, if you think that single elevation point can be representative (as CC3 shows that) than I can't argue with you.

Quote:

I'm not sure what you're refering to on some of these, but SU-152's were issued in 1943, so that's alright

well, actually i was wrong here, sorry.

Quote:

KV-2's were still in use in 1942, although I admit they should be accessible earlier (probably changed for gameplay reasons).

they are accessible in 1941.
No KV-2 was available by January 1942.

Quote:

And as far as the squad sizes are concerned, that was most likely a gameplay consideration, given the limited amount of unit slots. The Russians had more troops historically, and I guess they were trying to represent this.

f.e. in June 1941 the RA didn;t have more troops than the Germans while the German squad had 10men and RA squad had 11men.
since 1942, the RA squad was 9men, while the German squad was still 10men....
IIRC USSR commited 34mlns at GPW, Germany commited 23mlns so the difference was not that high...

Quote:

Tbh, I'm more of a CC2 man, so apologies on not being 100% on all this. But having read many books on the Eastern Front, I can say that CC3 does a pretty good job of representing what it was like on the Eastern Front, regardless of the issues you mentioned.

CC3 is actually just a bunch of EF myths...
I've played CC2 since the release and always H2H, even lost one campaign gathering SS-tropps at Arnhem for too long...and now i can tell you with 100% - it sucks historically.

Quote:

And in comparison to CC5, I believe it's just as accurate, if not more so. It definately makes for better game play anyway.

please point where CC5 was so historically inaccurate as CC3?
anyway, while thinking about your posts I have come to conclusion that after hard-core CC2, CC3 is way better game play wise, as Counter Strike against Ghost Recon - arcade vs tactics. And probably there was a lot of requests for that in 1998 to have arcade WW2 H2H fighting and they made CC3...was a good move that time...
but what we can see no other CC did follow it as CC4 was even more hard core than CC2...

Anyway, if you want to continue this argument, please show examples where CC5 was less historically accurate than CC2/3....

#38: Re: Historical Accuracy or Game Play? Author: TheImperatorKnight,

Posted: Sat Sep 15, 2012 11:27 pm
—

Dima wrote (View Post):

did you read my post? No steppes at Kursk. Now look at CC3 Kursk maps.

About Vistula, if you think that single elevation point can be representative (as CC3 shows that) than I can't argue with you.

Apologies, I misread. And I do agree actually, it makes more sense for there to be a stepp map.

Quote:

KV-2's were still in use in 1942, although I admit they should be accessible earlier (probably changed for gameplay reasons).

they are accessible in 1941.
No KV-2 was available by January 1942.

Ah, I'm going to have to go check that.

Quote:

Yes, the Russians in 1941 didn't have all their troops on the front, but the Russians consecutively had twice as many men in the field each year from 1943 onwards and certainly outnumbered the Germans in 1942. You said the difference isn't that high, but considering the difference in men in the squad is only 2 or 3 men, it's not that different either.

Quote:

No, sorry I can call you on this one. For the battles in Operation Market Garden that CC2 represents, it does a very good job. Yes, they left out Grave and the breakout of 30 Corps etc, but the way it handles the Arnhem relief Operation and the supply problems... Even the timing of the Polish drops and the German counter-strikes are done well. Compared to the LSA remake at least (which sucks horribly), the maps in CC2 are top-notch game play wise and very accurate to the aerial photographs of the time.

I was actually going to do my dissertation on Operation Market Garden (but didn't in the end). Why? Because I've read that many books on the subject. With all that I've read, there's only three things that CC2 falls short on. The mortars. The fact that you can't do an attack accross Arnhem Bridge from the South (as done historically). And that there's not enough troops in the field - every building at Arnhem Bridge map for example was occupied by the paras, but there's no way you can do that in game. Otherwise, it's sound.

Quote:

And in comparison to CC5, I believe it's just as accurate, if not more so. It definately makes for better game play anyway.

Alright. Apart from the obvious game play issues that CC5 has, here's a few off the top of my head:

1. the BG's represent formations that are too-large to make sense in context.
2. unlike CC2, half the battles take place on a grand total of about 10 maps.
3. You take it in turns to move and fight. Really? That's accurate is it?

And the big one - it only represents part of the overall Normandy invasion. Despite being called 'Invasion Normandy', No British, No Canadians... not even all the Americans are involved! At least in CC2, the major combatants were included. To be called 'Invasion Normandy' is wrong, and anyone picking up the game who didn't know history would get the impression that the Normandy invasion was entirely because of the USA.

At least CC2/CC3 get the fundamentals right. CC3 can do a good representation of the Eastern Front, but CC5 can't even represent one Operation??? The only reason they designed CC5 as they did was because of the strategic map. If it weren't for that, they'd have gotten rid of half the boring maps they put in and included the other beaches. It's a shame they didn't.

I'd like to discuss the gameplay issues with CC5, but I'm going on holiday tomorrow, so you'll have to wait 2 weeks for that privilege Razz

#39: Re: Historical Accuracy or Game Play? Author: Dima,

Posted: Sun Sep 16, 2012 12:24 am
—

Quote:

Apologies, I misread. And I do agree actually, it makes more sense for there to be a stepp map.

you sure are reading what I posted - NO STEPPES AT KURSK.

Quote:

Yes, the Russians in 1941 didn't have all their troops on the front,but the Russians consecutively had twice as many men in the field each year from 1943 onwards and certainly outnumbered the Germans in 1942. You said the difference isn't that high, but considering the difference in men in the squad is only 2 or 3 men, it's not that different either.

Could you please prove that?

Quote:

Ok, just an example they had Hetzer(ft), JagdTigers and Sherman 105mm there....

Quote:

1. the BG's represent formations that are too-large to make sense in context

How come Battalion is too large for a BG?

Quote:

2. unlike CC2, half the battles take place on a grand total of about 10 maps.

Looks like you've played CC5 only vs AI....

Quote:

3. You take it in turns to move and fight. Really? That's accurate is it?

Of cause it is.....

Quote:

And the big one - it only represents part of the overall Normandy invasion. Despite being called 'Invasion Normandy', No British, No Canadians... not even all the Americans are involved! At least in CC2, the major combatants were included. To be called 'Invasion Normandy' is wrong, and anyone picking up the game who didn't know history would get the impression that the Normandy invasion was entirely because of the USA

I will quote myself:

Quote:

yes we have GJS and other operations in details in CC5.

Quote:

At least CC2/CC3 get the fundamentals right. CC3 can do a good representation of the Eastern Front, but CC5 can't even represent one Operation??? The only reason they designed CC5 as they did was because of the strategic map. If it weren't for that, they'd have gotten rid of half the boring maps they put in and included the other beaches. It's a shame they didn't.

Once again:

Quote:

I'd like to discuss the gameplay issues with CC5, but I'm going on holiday tomorrow, so you'll have to wait 2 weeks for that privilege

I believe it is my last reply to you if you won't strat proving your points...

#40: Re: Historical Accuracy or Game Play? Author: ArmeeGruppeSud,

Posted: Sun Sep 16, 2012 1:12 am
—

Dima wrote (View Post):

SNAP !!!

Dima wrote (View Post):

CHOMP !!

Dima wrote (View Post):

MUNCH !

MAN I WISH THE FISH WOULD BITE THIS HARD DOWN AT THE JETTY!!

Sorry Dima, i got to admit i trolled you a li'l' bit Wink

as they say:

"Paybacks are a bitch"

Very Happy

CHEERS

AGS

#41: Re: Historical Accuracy or Game Play? Author: Dima,

Posted: Sun Sep 16, 2012 7:48 am
—
So TheImperatorKnight is your alter-ego?

#42: Re: Historical Accuracy or Game Play? Author: TheImperatorKnight,

Posted: Sun Sep 16, 2012 8:03 am
—

Dima wrote (View Post):

Looks like you've played CC5 only vs AI....

I think this is the main difference between us tbh. Single-player, CC2 and CC3 are miles ahead of CC5 - but CC5 has superior multiplayer. And I would argue multiplayer is necessary for CC5 because the single player is broken. It's the same with LSA. The AI sucks so bad, it's not worth 'fighting' a 45 minute battle just to find out it deployed one squad in this corner, one squad over on the other side of the map... Battles vs AI in CC2 and CC3 last 10 minutes, and are a lot more intense.

And no, I've not played CC5 multiplayer. And no, I don't pay CC5 that often either. Coincidence? Probably. For me, the battles take far too long to wage, and I can't help but think that the strategic map takes away from the fact that this series is called 'Close Combat' - not 'strategic modern warfare meets Risk'. The developers clearly wanted CC5 to appeal to the multiplayer market, at the expense of the single player game, and because of that they split the community.

Quote:

I believe it is my last reply to you if you won't strat proving your points...

I could dig out my books, but tbh, it's probably not worth it. We're just going round in circles. At the end of the day, it boils down to single player vs multiplayer, and it's down to a personal decision as to which is favourable.

#43: Re: Historical Accuracy or Game Play? Author: Dima,

Posted: Sun Sep 16, 2012 2:35 pm
—

Quote:

MAN I WISH THE FISH WOULD BITE THIS HARD DOWN AT THE JETTY!!
Sorry Dima, i got to admit i trolled you a li'l' bit
as they say:
"Paybacks are a bitch"

mate, please don't force me to post a "historical" review of CC3 mod...

#44: Re: Historical Accuracy or Game Play? Author: Dima,

Posted: Sun Sep 16, 2012 2:39 pm
—

Quote:

And no, I've not played CC5 multiplayer. And no, I don't pay CC5 that often either. Coincidence? Probably. For me, the battles take far too long to wage, and I can't help but think that the strategic map takes away from the fact that this series is called 'Close Combat' - not 'strategic modern warfare meets Risk'. The developers clearly wanted CC5 to appeal to the multiplayer market, at the expense of the single player game, and because of that they split the community.

i've not been playing CC vs AI since 1998 or so...but they say pzjager's mod CC5:Der Kessel is a hell vs AI.

Quote:

you have should done it before making such bold statements...
but I agree about MP vs SP - but IMO CC is not meant to be played vs AI, so who cares about SP?
f.e. in my mods I don't care at all...

#45: Re: Historical Accuracy or Game Play? Author: johnsilver, Location: Florida

Posted: Mon Sep 17, 2012 6:52 am
—

Quote:

but IMO CC is not meant to be played vs AI, so who cares about SP?
f.e. in my mods I don't care at all..

The AI in some mods is not bad and cannot agree with CC being "meant" for H2H. When i 1st got into CC, H2H was where was at only also with CC3 mainly at the MS room when there was regularly 40+ people there, but then a game came out that (IMO) had many things exactly like CC offered and was better H2H in Combat Mission and many of us who played only that way ventured to it.

CC was (and is) to me at least, far better vs the AI than CM and why (in my case) came back all these years later and several mod makers have made the ones have played since then even better.. WAR, TLD, CC4 and 4.

js

#46: Re: Historical Accuracy or Game Play? Author: Antony_nz,

Posted: Fri Sep 06, 2013 9:51 am
—
TheImperatorKnight is very active and passionate about close combat. I wonder why he never fucking posted again?

#47: Re: Historical Accuracy or Game Play? Author: tigercub, Location: charters towers

Posted: Fri Sep 06, 2013 12:32 pm
—

Antony_nz wrote (View Post):

TheImperatorKnight is very active and passionate about close combat. I wonder why he never fucking posted again?

lol

#48: Re: Historical Accuracy or Game Play? Author: TheImperatorKnight,

Posted: Fri Sep 06, 2013 9:55 pm
—

Antony_nz wrote (View Post):

TheImperatorKnight is very active and passionate about close combat. I wonder why he never fucking posted again?

What do you mean? Here? On this forum? I've posted a reasonable amount on this forum recently... despite being busy on youtube.

If you meant why I didn't carry on posting in this topic, it's because I ended up moving house in November 2012 (and had no internet for two months) and then I forgot about it.

#49: Re: Historical Accuracy or Game Play? Author: tigercub, Location: charters towers

Posted: Sat Sep 07, 2013 3:45 am
—
its good you came back on that! Knight

Tigercub

#50: Re: Historical Accuracy or Game Play? Author: TheImperatorKnight,

Posted: Sat Sep 07, 2013 12:42 pm
—
Maybe. But the only reason I said anything was because Anthony_nz sent me a PM entitled "Fucking cunt.." because he disagreed with my comments here. I won't entertain him with a reply to that.

I'll admit that I was wrong on a few points. I'm man enough to own up to my mistakes. However, I still play a lot of CC2, even more so than any other CC game. And I know why that is: The GAMEPLAY is fantastic.

#51: Re: Historical Accuracy or Game Play? Author: Stwa,

Posted: Sun Sep 08, 2013 2:26 pm
—
YAWN Exclamation

I vote for gameplay.

Too bad the re-releases didn't make that their focus. There is always a percentage chance that you can't complete a campaign or tactical battle because of the same-old show stopping bugs.

And, as a general rule, it is bad form to reveal to the public the contents of any PM. Just my opinion. Remember, at least at this site, mooxe is an adminstrator, and he can also function as the NSA if necessary. Laughing

As another general rule, there are about a half-dozen highly educated EF experts at the site. I am not one of them. But, slinging EF BS, just because its EF, is usally not a winner, if you know what I mean.

Single Player, Single Battle, is not viable using CC4, CC5, WAR, TLD, LSA, and PITF. The community needs to make a collective 110% effort to ressurect MP.

These same games, were (and are to this day), considered more historically accurate, because you can roughly approximate the TOEs for the forces involved in the game. That being said, things do break down somewhat as there is an 8 man team maximum.

The AI (the part that makes command decisions) CAN NEVER even closely approximate a Human Player. That being said, using smaller maps, and fewer victory locations, REDUCES the number of required command decisions of the DEFENDER.

#52: Re: Historical Accuracy or Game Play? Author: Antony_nz,

Posted: Sun Sep 08, 2013 2:58 pm
—

TheImperatorKnight wrote (View Post):

Maybe. But the only reason I said anything was because Anthony_nz sent me a PM entitled Im an idiot

I'll admit that I was wrong on a few points. I'm man enough to own up to my mistakes. .

Sorry about that. I should not of made a post here. Or sent you a PM. And the name of the message was foul and offensive.

I also didn't make my self clear because i was angry and in a rush.

You have miss understood me (my fualt) I stupidly felt you were being unfairly treated on the thread. It seemed to me you were making fair points, and other people on this thread were sort of trolling you. And being overly vague with there response.

Thats all..

I thought i was supporting you. Not bashing you. Instead i just made a complete ass of my self. (for the hundreth time.. Rolling Eyes

I like your youtube Channel BTW.

^^^^ Thanks for going on topic.
How about the unforgivable uniforms of CC5. I think that takes the cake.

#53: Re: Historical Accuracy or Game Play? Author: TheImperatorKnight,

Posted: Sun Sep 08, 2013 5:07 pm
—

Antony_nz wrote (View Post):

TheImperatorKnight wrote (View Post):

Maybe. But the only reason I said anything was because Anthony_nz sent me a PM entitled Im an idiot

I'll admit that I was wrong on a few points. I'm man enough to own up to my mistakes. .

I like your youtube Channel BTW.

^^^^ Thanks for going on topic.
How about the unforgivable uniforms of CC5. I think that takes the cake.

If this is the case, then I'm happy to forget about it Smile

I see what you did, and I get what you were trying to do (in hindsight), although you didn't make yourself clear at the time and it appeared that you were bashing me. Now I understand, and I'm glad I have you backing me up. So no hard feelings, Antony Very Happy

As far as this forum goes, they're not exactly the most friendly bunch (some are - and those that have helped me, I greatly appreciate). But like you said, if you disagree with them, they won't take no quarter. And unfortunately, I disagree with them. A lot. Let me give you an example:

I'm going to admit something now. CC5 was the second game in the series I picked up. (I now own 6 cc games I think, and have played a couple more.) But I've never completed the vanilla campaign of CC5. I've tried. God knows I've tried. But I get so bored, so so bored. And I know why. The inadequate strategic map. The large-ish maps. The boring maps. Battles take ages. The poor AI. The crashes to desktop during multiplayer. That stupid starting music that drives you insane if you listen to it for more than five seconds... doo do do, doo do do, doo do do dodoo do do, aaarrggghh!

If I can't complete the game, then I don't care how accurate the units are or how historic the game is. The problem is the gameplay.

Exclamation

Now Anthony, let this be an example to you. The vultures are circling, and they're about to rip me to shreds for daring to talk down of their beloved CC5 Laughing

Stwa wrote:

And, as a general rule, it is bad form to reveal to the public the contents of any PM. Just my opinion. Remember, at least at this site, mooxe is an adminstrator, and he can also function as the NSA if necessary.

I wouldn't have done under normal circumstances. If people want to send me PMs telling me I'm wrong in a nice way (think I'm opening pandora's box here lol) then that's fine.

Also, I'm no "expert" on the Eastern Front, although I have read a lot of books. CC3 was ok. They sacrificed HA for gameplay, and that's fine by me. It made for a fun game, even though infantry were rendered useless due to all the tanks you could take. It was very fun though, and it wasn't a chore to play like some of the huge-tactical-maps-and-poor-strategic-map games.

Stwa wrote:

Single Player, Single Battle, is not viable using CC4, CC5, WAR, TLD, LSA, and PITF. The community needs to make a collective 110% effort to ressurect MP.

And that's the problem. If CC single player isn't viable - then why bother keeping single player in the games? You may as well get rid of it! I mean, it's hardly worth keeping it in if you're having 21 units fighting over maps that are 40 miles wide against an AI that clearly can't cope. But be warned, if you take it away, a lot of people will wash their hands of the series. I'm not going to sit there playing an online campaign over direct IP with all the problems you have connecting, maintaining the horrid connection, rebooting the game when it crashes, things like internet going down or opponents not being able to play when you can etc etc.

I've been asked to do campaigns online by people here. And maybe one day I'll try it. But there's no way I'm committing to anything right now with the current system - or my current schedule. (Although, if anyone wants to play a PitF Campaign I may take you up on that sometime in the future when I get some free time.)

Stwa wrote:

These same games, were (and are to this day), considered more historically accurate, because you can roughly approximate the TOEs for the forces involved in the game. That being said, things do break down somewhat as there is an 8 man team maximum.

The AI (the part that makes command decisions) CAN NEVER even closely approximate a Human Player. That being said, using smaller maps, and fewer victory locations, REDUCES the number of required command decisions of the DEFENDER.

One thing I always disliked about CC2 was the fact that I had ~40 guys on Arnhem Bridge, whereas in real life there were 750 Brits. Every building on that map was occupied by British troops. And I, as the player, am sat there in maybe 10 of them.

Then you look at the bigger maps in the later games. You still command ~40 guys, but now the battlefield is huge. They get lost. The combat is no longer CLOSE. Apart from the fact that the series should be renamed Distant Combat, where's the historic accuracy in that? Ok, the units are more historic, sure. But hold on, if there wasn't enough troops in the field before, how is this more accurate?

Answer: it's not Wink

Smaller maps are necessary. NOT JUST FOR THE AI. But for more accuracy and better gameplay, both single-player and multiplayer. And for those who say "it's all about moving, flanking, maneuver" - you could still do that in CC2 or CC3! The difference is that the battles last 10 minutes and are a lot more intense.

#54: Re: Historical Accuracy or Game Play? Author: mooxe,

Posted: Sun Sep 08, 2013 5:33 pm
—

Quote:

haha... the mini-NSA.

Maps do need to be smaller. They map size is out of control now. The largest maps in CC5 were about as big as I could stand them being. I am pretty sure the average map size of CC3/4/5 are all very similair Knight. I haven't read through this whole thread but have any of the map makers weighed in on map size vs game play? They are the ones responsible for making these giant murals. Speak up!

#55: Re: Historical Accuracy or Game Play? Author: johnsilver, Location: Florida

Posted: Mon Sep 09, 2013 12:12 am
—

Quote:

even though infantry were rendered useless due to all the tanks you could take.

Granted, memory is pretty bad and nearly a decade since H2H play, but I recall the German 75mm and 88's, though few doing a sweet job vs the Russian hordes of armor.

Quote:

And, as a general rule, it is bad form to reveal to the public the contents of any PM. Just my opinion

Ahh STWA.. You should wear a Blue Helmet here.. The peacemaker..

#56: Re: Historical Accuracy or Game Play? Author: Stwa,

Posted: Wed Sep 11, 2013 12:15 am
—
If CC single player isn't viable - then why bother keeping single player in the games? You may as well get rid of it! I mean, it's hardly worth keeping it in if you're having 21 units fighting over maps that are 40 miles wide against an AI that clearly can't cope. -TIK

Because, the developers wanted players to have a means to hone basic skills, before moving on to human opponents.

I've been asked to do campaigns online by people here. And maybe one day I'll try it. But there's no way I'm committing to anything right now with the current system - or my current schedule. -TIK

Ah yes, as the gaming community ages, some (but not all), decide to become responsible, engaging in activities such as job employment, marriage, child rearing, and the like. Campaign games which require scores of 30 minute battles, fall to the wayside. I too never finished a CC5 campaign, in Single Player.

Then you look at the bigger maps in the later games. You still command ~40 guys, but now the battlefield is huge. They get lost. The combat is no longer CLOSE. Apart from the fact that the series should be renamed Distant Combat, where's the historic accuracy in that? Ok, the units are more historic, sure. But hold on, if there wasn't enough troops in the field before, how is this more accurate? -TIK

Large maps have done their part to diminish the overall CC experience. Despite mooxe's recent appeal for the responsible parties to "stand up", they are not going to do that. As I have said before, its all in the record now, nothing can be turned back.

Smaller maps are necessary. NOT JUST FOR THE AI. But for more accuracy and better gameplay, both single-player and multiplayer. And for those who say "it's all about moving, flanking, maneuver" - you could still do that in CC2 or CC3! The difference is that the battles last 10 minutes and are a lot more intense. -TIK

Fortunately, you can make smaller maps from larger maps. I did that with all the CCM maps, and it made a big difference. For example, you could make every LSA map smaller, and Redo the BTD's with fewer victory locations. And, Nomanda Firefox's LSA mod eliminated many of the non-essential maps altogether.

Usually, I just feel sorry for the developers. A few months ago, some forumite, suggested that I play GJS for LSA. I found this somewhat remarkable, since at the time it wasn't clear to me that ANY campaign in LSA could actually be completed. Laughing

So yea, I vote for gameplay. Idea

#57: Re: Historical Accuracy or Game Play? Author: TheImperatorKnight,

Posted: Fri Sep 13, 2013 9:56 am
—

Stwa wrote (View Post):

Ah yes, as the gaming community ages, some (but not all), decide to become responsible, engaging in activities such as job employment, marriage, child rearing, and the like. Campaign games which require scores of 30 minute battles, fall to the wayside. I too never finished a CC5 campaign, in Single Player.

I'm wondering how many people did ever finish a CC5 campaign. I bet for a lot of people it was maybe once... if ever.

Stwa wrote (View Post):

Large maps have done their part to diminish the overall CC experience. Despite mooxe's recent appeal for the responsible parties to "stand up", they are not going to do that. As I have said before, its all in the record now, nothing can be turned back.

Why did they decide to go for such big maps in the first place? I mean CC5 maps were big enough, but they look tiny compared to some of the ones we're getting now. This just must be a "Texas" mentality of "Bigger is Better", when it's definitely not the case. It makes me wonder if the developers actually play these games themselves on a regular basis, because if they did, they'd realise the error of their ways.

#58: Re: Historical Accuracy or Game Play? Author: dgfred, Location: N.C., USA

Posted: Fri Sep 13, 2013 4:36 pm
—
Hey Knight. I believe you can turn that music off before you start Wink

#59: Re: Historical Accuracy or Game Play? Author: TheImperatorKnight,

Posted: Fri Sep 13, 2013 8:21 pm
—

dgfred wrote (View Post):

Hey Knight. I believe you can turn that music off before you start Wink

Thank god! Laughing

#60: Re: Historical Accuracy or Game Play? Author: Schmal_Turm,

Posted: Sat Sep 14, 2013 9:19 pm
—
I particularly enjoy these discussions about the merits, and unfortunately, demerits of the CC gaming system, and I generally agree with most of the complaints leveled. Trying to finish a campaign, with all the time consumed in the process can be quite taxing. I have decided because of a number of factors that no turn should be longer than 15-20 minutes. Anything longer and my men are having to throw their empty weapons at the enemy. I am still trying to access the wisdom of the applied use of the morale factor in determining the stop of the turn. Many times after the enemy forces were beaten morally the VLs that were given up were not to my advantage to try to defend and with a little more time I could have taken a more strategic location.

I am wondering if part of the reason there isn't much H2H is because a number of the players are somewhat intimidated by playing against an opponent other than the AI. I know now that since I have had the chance to play innumerable games against the AI that I have honed my techniques so that I would feel more confident playing H2H. Just getting ATGs to survive very long was a chore in itself. Since I nearly always play as the Germans I am then the underdog and so being fairly conservative in my attacks is a given. I have never really felt confident in a reckless attack my technique of standoff distance for the German tanks and guns is the same as was actually used, at least with the heavier guns. I remember someone asking for advice some time back on tactics at this site and no one to my knowledge offered any. (I did decide to send a PM to acquaint him with one of my better tactics.) I even gave a particular technique that I came up with for the use of flamethrowers to my brother who didn't know of it and he uses them all the time. It seems to me that many players would rather not give up their tactics so as to have the advantage over their opponent.

#61: Re: Historical Accuracy or Game Play? Author: TheImperatorKnight,

Posted: Sun Sep 15, 2013 11:25 pm
—

Schmal_Turm wrote (View Post):

I particularly enjoy these discussions about the merits, and unfortunately, demerits of the CC gaming system, and I generally agree with most of the complaints leveled. Trying to finish a campaign, with all the time consumed in the process can be quite taxing. I have decided because of a number of factors that no turn should be longer than 15-20 minutes. Anything longer and my men are having to throw their empty weapons at the enemy. I am still trying to access the wisdom of the applied use of the morale factor in determining the stop of the turn. Many times after the enemy forces were beaten morally the VLs that were given up were not to my advantage to try to defend and with a little more time I could have taken a more strategic location.

Would it not be better to have a smaller map? Battles on small maps don't last more than 15-20 minutes, you'll have a better AI to fight against, there won't be the VL problem you mentioned, and your men won't run out of ammo. Wink

Schmal_Turm wrote (View Post):

I am wondering if part of the reason there isn't much H2H is because a number of the players are somewhat intimidated by playing against an opponent other than the AI. I know now that since I have had the chance to play innumerable games against the AI that I have honed my techniques so that I would feel more confident playing H2H. Just getting ATGs to survive very long was a chore in itself. Since I nearly always play as the Germans I am then the underdog and so being fairly conservative in my attacks is a given. I have never really felt confident in a reckless attack my technique of standoff distance for the German tanks and guns is the same as was actually used, at least with the heavier guns.

I think they're intimidated. Not just because other players will be better than the AI, but also because this isn't a casual game. It takes a while to get used to the fact that your men don't have health bars, or can't see the enemy that's firing at them, or that your men don't always kill what they're firing at.

I'll be honest, it took me a while to get used to this game - then again, I picked up CC2 when I was 11! Still, this isn't an easy series to get into, so it's no wonder people get intimidated by the idea of going online against a human opponent.

Schmal_Turm wrote (View Post):

I remember someone asking for advice some time back on tactics at this site and no one to my knowledge offered any. (I did decide to send a PM to acquaint him with one of my better tactics.) I even gave a particular technique that I came up with for the use of flamethrowers to my brother who didn't know of it and he uses them all the time. It seems to me that many players would rather not give up their tactics so as to have the advantage over their opponent.

Yes and this is a stupid attitude to have. It hurts the community by forcing every player to learn everything from scratch. If we all pooled our knowledge, imagine how much better we could all be at these games!

Also, I think that the reason people don't give out their tactics is because these games are so complicated it's almost impossible to give a set of tactics that are good to use. What works in one battle, on one map, may not work against the same opponent again, and definitely not on a different map. And then, even if you used the same tactic on the same map against a new opponent, it may not bring you victory. It was Sun Tzu who said "Do not repeat the tactics which have gained you one victory, but let your methods be regulated by the infinite variety of circumstances."

How can you teach someone to be ready for an infinite variety of circumstances?
Sad

#62: Re: Historical Accuracy or Game Play? Author: Schmal_Turm,

Posted: Wed Sep 18, 2013 3:25 am
—
TIK

By tactics I mean the things that don't really change as they are techniques using individual weapons that I have found over many years of playing and countless number of games over the last few years that have worked particularly well again and again against the AI. Without actually being tried against a human opponent I still believe that they would hold me in good stead. The reason I can say this is because the results can be counted on to be about the same each time.

The tactics I think you are referring to have to do as Moltke stated as one of his principles of war: "No plan ever survives first contact with the enemy." Being able to operate on the cuff and not lose your nerve in the process, those are the tactics that are so hard to teach and can probably be learned only by experience.

As far as the balance of realism vs playability: If you want playability, there is always World of Tanks.

#63: Re: Historical Accuracy or Game Play? Author: TheImperatorKnight,

Posted: Wed Sep 18, 2013 3:34 pm
—
Schmal_Turm

I see. In that case, I'd be interested to hear an example of a tactic that works for you. Would you be willing to share one?

And, if you feel like testing out your tactics against a (multiplayer-newbie) human opponent, I'd be willing to be target practice Wink

#64: Re: Historical Accuracy or Game Play? Author: nikin,

Posted: Wed Sep 18, 2013 8:48 pm
—
Are you interested in tactics?
99.95% did not use even the basic principles of game.
So I do not dream to find a worthy opponent...

Cheers, nikin

#65: Re: Historical Accuracy or Game Play? Author: TheImperatorKnight,

Posted: Wed Sep 18, 2013 9:29 pm
—

nikin wrote (View Post):

Are you interested in tactics?
99.95% did not use even the basic principles of game.
So I do not dream to find a worthy opponent...

Cheers, nikin

Yes I am interested in tactics. I'm interested in learning tactics so that I can teach/coach others to learn and enjoy these games, since I think that will benefit a lot of people.

Basic principles of game? You mean, using cover and understanding morale? Or do you mean something else?

#66: Re: Historical Accuracy or Game Play? Author: Antony_nz,

Posted: Fri Sep 20, 2013 9:04 am
—

nikin wrote (View Post):

So I do not dream to find a worthy opponent...

Cheers, nikin

Yea right Nickn. You know full well i kicked you ass on game ranger the other day.

#67: Re: Historical Accuracy or Game Play? Author: Pzt_Crackwise, Location: Switzerland

Posted: Fri Sep 20, 2013 10:42 am
—
For those who are interested in multiplayer tactics, an invaluable source is the PZT clan's tactical guide for GJS. You can find the guide in pdf format in this link on CCS: Close Combat Series: PZT Tactical Guide

#68: Re: Historical Accuracy or Game Play? Author: TheImperatorKnight,

Posted: Fri Sep 20, 2013 2:34 pm
—

Pzt_Crackwise wrote (View Post):

For those who are interested in multiplayer tactics, an invaluable source is the PZT clan's tactical guide for GJS. You can find the guide in pdf format in this link on CCS: Close Combat Series: PZT Tactical Guide

Fantastic! It's things like that which was what I was talking about. So thanks.

Still though, I'd like to hear more tactics from Nikin or some of the other "Great" players.

#69: Re: Historical Accuracy or Game Play? Author: mooxe,

Posted: Fri Sep 20, 2013 4:46 pm
—
http://www.closecombatseries.net/CCS/modules.php?name=News&file=categories&op=newindex&catid=7

This was a feature I keep going at very irregular intervals. Also available from top left of the website.

#70: Re: Historical Accuracy or Game Play? Author: Dima,

Posted: Sun Sep 22, 2013 2:44 am
—
TIK,

that Pzt guide is a good step to start with for a noobie, like you.

Basing on your utube and posts you are so noob that I believe neither Nikin nor other "great players" will even think wasting time playing you.

cheers!

#71: Re: Historical Accuracy or Game Play? Author: mooxe,

Posted: Sun Sep 22, 2013 3:10 am
—
geez, did I miss something?

#72: Re: Historical Accuracy or Game Play? Author: Schmal_Turm,

Posted: Sun Sep 22, 2013 3:31 am
—
Well Dima, along with all the great ideas the guide also mentions looking at the enemy OB. With that anyone can tailor make their own OB for any battle anywhere. Too bad the different armies didn't have that option, many battles would have went much better for the individual commanders. Some of you complain about not having enough of a challenge. Well, every game I play now I make it a point NOT TO LOOK AT THE ENEMY OB as I figure the fog of war should make that aspect of the game a hands off factor. I try to gauge what I might come up against by identifying the unit as an armored, combined, or an infantry group. Of course, in some battles I might not even know that much. Anything more than that makes for less realism and just playing to win at all costs. Makes for much more interesting and challenging gaming. Also makes it more likely a person would have a more combined arms team. I also don't understand the turning off the trees as cover. So many of the gamers want realism, and then they resort to options such as that?

I think, also Dima, that that was a most insulting thing to say to TIK. But then I noticed that you seem to like to throw hand grenades from time to time.

#73: Re: Historical Accuracy or Game Play? Author: Stwa,

Posted: Sun Sep 22, 2013 3:31 am
—

mooxe wrote (View Post):

geez, did I miss something?

Yup, you are not getting any younger, that's for sure. Laughing

#74: Re: Historical Accuracy or Game Play? Author: Stwa,

Posted: Sun Sep 22, 2013 3:55 am
—
TIK,

Yes from the videos, it does seem that you are quite the NOOB. Exclamation

So, this short tactical guide, should help take your gameplay to the next level. Idea

YES, YES, there are pictures. Exclamation

The Rambo Tactic

#75: Re: Historical Accuracy or Game Play? Author: TheImperatorKnight,

Posted: Sun Sep 22, 2013 1:36 pm
—

mooxe wrote:

geez, did I miss something?

No, they're right. I'm a noob when it comes to multiplayer. Plus, with the exception of PitF, I'm not that good at playing on big open maps. But I recognise my limits and I'm working to correct them atm.

newbeeD wrote:

Basing on your utube and posts you are so noob that I believe neither Nikin nor other "great players" will even think wasting time playing you.

I did quite well in this one - http://youtu.be/foGK92QVZck I was outnumbered 4 to 1 in tanks and won decisively.

Schmal_Turm wrote:

I think, also Dima, that that was a most insulting thing to say to TIK.

A big man takes offense. A bigger man accepts the truth.
All I can say is I'm improving as a CC player though, and one day in the distant future I'll take Dima on and show him the error of his ways ;)

And in the mean time, my goal is to get people playing CC, enjoying CC, and improving/coaching them to improve as players, whilst learning from my mistakes too. And if only a noob can do that, so be it.

Stwa wrote:

Haha! The worst thing is when replying to you, I don't know if I'm using enough smilies Question

:idea:

But seriously though, yes I've used that tactic before. I got destroyed by someone using that tactic, so started using it myself. However, I've also learnt recently (thanks to Ivan) that it sucks massively and I won't be using it again.

That being said, I'm looking for tips on how to cross open ground with infantry-only armies against dug-in MG42s and mortars. Does anyone have any tips? I'm fine when I have tanks, but can't do it with only infantry Sad

thanks in advance

#76: Re: Historical Accuracy or Game Play? Author: Stwa,

Posted: Sun Sep 22, 2013 3:31 pm
—
That being said, I'm looking for tips on how to cross open ground with infantry-only armies against dug-in MG42s and mortars. Does anyone have any tips? -TIK

Hey, just asking that question proves what kind of NOOB you have become. Shocked

There are two options. HUMAN waves or ZOMBIE waves. Take your pick.

#77: Re: Historical Accuracy or Game Play? Author: TheImperatorKnight,

Posted: Sun Sep 22, 2013 3:49 pm
—
Funny. Don't see any MG42s in that picture Wink

Anyone else going to improve on Stwa's amazingly unhelpful advice?

#78: Re: Historical Accuracy or Game Play? Author: mooxe,

Posted: Sun Sep 22, 2013 3:52 pm
—
The usual things. Smoke and suppression.

Or avoid that route completely and go around.

#79: Re: Historical Accuracy or Game Play? Author: Stwa,

Posted: Sun Sep 22, 2013 4:08 pm
—

TheImperatorKnight wrote (View Post):

Funny. Don't see any MG42s in that picture Wink

Anyone else going to improve on Stwa's amazingly unhelpful advice?

OIC, a wise guy. Confused

Then I STRONGLY suggest you check out this introduction to multiplayer gaming. Hence the title "NOOBS Need Not Apply". It also has two articles from Stwa's Precise Tactics - an essential collection of tactics for gamers, and a COMPLETE rundown on every possible "Single Player" gaming mode.

PS - start on Page 2. Platoon Michael used up the first page attempting to hijack the thread. Laughing

Noobs Need Not Apply

Last edited by Stwa on Sun Sep 22, 2013 4:39 pm; edited 3 times in total

#80: Re: Historical Accuracy or Game Play? Author: TheImperatorKnight,

Posted: Sun Sep 22, 2013 4:09 pm
—

mooxe wrote (View Post):

The usual things. Smoke and suppression.

Or avoid that route completely and go around.

Thanks mooxe. +1 for the avoid and go around.

See. Why couldn't I have gotten an answer like this first? Why did I have to get shot down in flames before I got a sensible answer? Imagine if you were a new player to the series and got a response like this. What a great impression it gives!

#81: Re: Historical Accuracy or Game Play? Author: Stwa,

Posted: Sun Sep 22, 2013 4:27 pm
—
Wow, you really do need help. I would have never known.

But in my last son's high school locker room there was lots of signage. But the two largest signs, were

DO NOT FUMBLE the Football. (well thats the cleaned up version) and ...

DO NOT GO AROUND Them. GO Through Them. (that is also the cleaned up version)

Go around if you want, but it might not be the best way to ... well you get the idea, I hope. Laughing

#82: Re: Historical Accuracy or Game Play? Author: Stwa,

Posted: Sun Sep 22, 2013 5:05 pm
—

TheImperatorKnight wrote (View Post):

Imagine if you were a new player to the series and got a response like this. What a great impression it gives!

There is a old saying

You can lead a horse to water but you cant make him drink. Trust me, mooxe is web site administrator, what could he possible know about tactics...

Here is your last chance. Monster Banzai charges at Yomitan Airfield against plenty of machine guns in open ground and the Americans defend with 15 teams, but GOT WIPED, every time.

Yomitan Airfield Banzai

Last edited by Stwa on Sun Sep 22, 2013 5:12 pm; edited 1 time in total

#83: Re: Historical Accuracy or Game Play? Author: TheImperatorKnight,

Posted: Sun Sep 22, 2013 5:11 pm
—

Stwa wrote (View Post):

Wow, you really do need help. I would have never known.

But in my last son's high school locker room there was lots of signage. But the two largest signs, were

If any new player is reading this, ignore what Stwa's saying. He's wrong.

Here's why -

Football is not war. What works on a football pitch, doesn't work in war.

Look at the Battle of Cannae. The Romans tried to "go through" the Carthaginian lines, resulting in the single biggest defeat in the Ancient world.
Look at the Battle for France 1940. The Germans didn't "go through" the Maginot Line, they went around it.
Look at Rommel. His greatest victories came when he went around the enemy, rather than going through them.
Look at WW1. The huge numbers of men lost just because they were forced to attack an enemy in well fortified positions.
Look at Gettysburg. This is what you get when you decide to "go through them".

Don't attack an enemy in a well fortified position over open ground. Go around them.

#84: Re: Historical Accuracy or Game Play? Author: Stwa,

Posted: Sun Sep 22, 2013 5:32 pm
—
That being said, I'm looking for tips on how to cross open ground with infantry-only armies against dug-in MG42s and mortars. Does anyone have any tips? -TIK

I don't recall you mentioning fortifications. Just some machine guns and mortars, maybe in a trench or something. Laughing

I can tell you think so highly of yourself, that you havent researched the threads I linked in the prior posts.

Here we decide to attack with giant solders and they literally obliterated the American platoon.

#85: Re: Historical Accuracy or Game Play? Author: TheImperatorKnight,

Posted: Sun Sep 22, 2013 6:33 pm
—
Stwa, I don't think highly of myself. I'm not an amazing player. I make mistakes. I lose battles. And I also don't mind admitting any of that.

The problem is that a few people here - you included - think that you're all amazing, and go around arrogantly claiming you are. Such an attitude doesn't do yourself any favours and only promotes a bigheaded and selfish attitude towards other players. The impression I'm getting is that noone's willing to help each other because when they ask for help they get trolled. Worse, the advice they're given is wrong.

Where's the proof? Above.

#86: Re: Historical Accuracy or Game Play? Author: Stwa,

Posted: Sun Sep 22, 2013 7:34 pm
—
Maybe you are just not on my wavelength. Idea

I don't EVER recall saying to ANYONE, that I was some beeg time MULTIPLAYER. Find ONE POST where I say that. So it's you that are trolling me.

Perhaps you should stop call everyone ARROGANT for starters. And it is possible, that there is no such thing as WRONG advise. If you like the advise, then fine, but just take anything with a grain of salt.

And I thought you said you where in to small maps. The problem with big maps, and they are getting bigger every release, is that you can go around. I can point you to other threads about that subject, but why bother.

Kick back, relax, and try to have some fun, that's what I am going to do.

#87: Re: Historical Accuracy or Game Play? Author: mooxe,

Posted: Sun Sep 22, 2013 8:06 pm
—
Whats this thread about again?

#88: Re: Historical Accuracy or Game Play? Author: Stwa,

Posted: Sun Sep 22, 2013 8:24 pm
—
The poor Germans, many teams sandwiched between the hanger and the hedgerow. Many of them crawled into the hanger to get away. Laughing

So how about it. Is it good gameplay. Question

Is it realistic. I mean historical, or histerical. Question

#89: Re: Historical Accuracy or Game Play? Author: Stwa,

Posted: Sun Sep 22, 2013 8:28 pm
—

mooxe wrote (View Post):

Whats this thread about again?

Some of the forumites were asking questions about tactics. And making claims about their multiplayer prowess. Far from the original topic.

I am showing some pics of exremely realistic game play. And I would like to forumites to comment on these, if they feel so inclined.

#90: Re: Historical Accuracy or Game Play? Author: Pzt_Crackwise, Location: Switzerland

Posted: Sun Sep 22, 2013 8:30 pm
—
TIK, Stwa possesses a strange type of humor which I also have a hard time trying to understand. So, don't let him troll you.

Apart from that, about your question: If it is a short distance to the MG positions block the line of sight with lots of mortar-smoke rounds, supress the hell out of the MG position; then you can hope to succesfully charge. If the distance is large, then just try to avoid the direct route and circumvent it, use the bushes, other buildings etc. for cover. But better, really read that Pzt guide, because it mentions all these tactical aspects.

Welcome to multiplayer CC gaming! It is a whole new world, cannot even be compared to the single player game. It is like chess, you need to try to guess your opponent's moves, try to trick him, do some feint moves, surprise him etc. That's what is great about CC multiplayer games.

And yeah, this thread was originally about something else. So TIK, you can open a new thread for your questions regarding multiplayer. Or read some existing threads on multiplayer tactics.

#91: Re: Historical Accuracy or Game Play? Author: TheImperatorKnight,

Posted: Sun Sep 22, 2013 10:29 pm
—
Thank you Pzt_Crackwise, I'll take your advice and be on my way. No more thread-hijacking for me Wink

#92: Re: Historical Accuracy or Game Play? Author: Stwa,

Posted: Sun Sep 22, 2013 10:37 pm
—
OK,

I am gonna finish my battle. Two more pics. I love this kind of action. I find it almost theraputic. Laughing

Notice how I skillfully used the east-west hedgerow, but could also claim that I was traversing open ground. Shocked

Notice the hanger was just a liability to the Germans, since I could use it to mask off one side of the their position.

I also really, really like, On-Call support. Not all Mass Rambo events work out. Some of the ones in Okinawa didn't, even after a few hundred rounds from the artillery. Laughing

So, does anyone want to comment on the outstanding gameplay of this last battle. I definately had fun.

#93: Re: Historical Accuracy or Game Play? Author: nikin,

Posted: Tue Sep 24, 2013 5:04 pm
—

Pzt_Crackwise wrote (View Post):

TIK, Stwa possesses a strange type of humor which I also have a hard time trying to understand. So, don't let him troll you.

My feeling Stwa is - it's a cross between a troll and an offtopic spam robot. I guess I would not mind a script that hides all his posts - i'm tired to use mouse wheel.

Cheers, nikin

#94: Re: Historical Accuracy or Game Play? Author: Stwa,

Posted: Tue Sep 24, 2013 11:37 pm
—

nikin wrote (View Post):

My feeling Stwa is - it's a cross between a troll and an offtopic spam robot. I guess I would not mind a script that hides all his posts - i'm tired to use mouse wheel.

Oh mon dieu. Exclamation

Je ne suis pas un troll. Et je croyais que tu étais mon ami. Crying or Very sad

#95: Re: Historical Accuracy or Game Play? Author: Stwa,

Posted: Tue Sep 24, 2013 11:50 pm
—
That being said, I'm looking for tips on how to cross open ground with infantry-only armies against dug-in MG42s and mortars. Does anyone have any tips? -TIK

Notice there is NO mention of FOTIFICATIONS. Exclamation

Nevertheless, I will submit a battle, where the Germans get a understrength rifle company, 3 MG teams, and two 81mm mortar teams. They also get a ridge to defend, with a castle (a fortification). Exclamation

There are plenty of GOOD and useful tactics used in this battle. Can you see them?

The battle represents GREAT gameplay. Totally fun.

But is it historical. Maybe.

#96: Re: Historical Accuracy or Game Play? Author: Stwa,

Posted: Tue Sep 24, 2013 11:59 pm
—
This thread has the usual list of suspects, you can find any any CC forum thread dating back to games inception. The short list includes:

Multiplayer Bigots. Shocked

NOOBS, masquarading as NEW USERS, who have NO clue regarding tactics. Laughing

Regional wannabe EXPERTS that declare any attempt you make at an order of battle to be NOT HISTORICAL. Laughing

#97: Re: Historical Accuracy or Game Play? Author: Stwa,

Posted: Wed Sep 25, 2013 12:08 am
—
Its funny how the TROLLS, NOOBS, and MULTIPLAYER BIGOTS are quick to label anyone who disagrees with them a TROLL. Laughing

Sense of humor, has been totally removed from the equation. This is serious tactics for serious tacticians. Outrageous. Exclamation

#98: Re: Historical Accuracy or Game Play? Author: Stwa,

Posted: Wed Sep 25, 2013 12:21 am
—
The NOOBS would have us all believe that flank marching around the entire enemy position is a tactic that should be supported by a game that sponsors SQUAD level combat. Question

Flank marches require larger maps, and the community can ONLY envision this tactic to rememedy any tough situation on the battlefield. NO other tactics are comtemplated or developed. Hence, we NOW have huge maps for every new release. Question

#99: Re: Historical Accuracy or Game Play? Author: mooxe,

Posted: Wed Sep 25, 2013 12:23 am
—
I think I know who the troll is.......

#100: Re: Historical Accuracy or Game Play? Author: Stwa,

Posted: Wed Sep 25, 2013 12:26 am
—
The battle I have presented is great gameplay. It does NOT seem realistic to me.

I am not sure if it is historical. I have no idea if there was such a place as Riviere with a castle, and if there was, I am not sure if this is what the country side looked like.

Also, for the most part, I use the same basic teams that came with CC5. I am sure someone here can deem them NOT historical or accurate.

And what about the combat. Is it accurate?

Last edited by Stwa on Wed Sep 25, 2013 2:01 pm; edited 1 time in total

#101: Re: Historical Accuracy or Game Play? Author: nikin,

Posted: Wed Sep 25, 2013 9:14 am
—

Stwa wrote (View Post):

Its funny how the TROLLS, NOOBS, and MULTIPLAYER BIGOTS are quick to label anyone who disagrees with them a TROLL. Laughing

Sense of humor, has been totally removed from the equation. This is serious tactics for serious tacticians. Outrageous. Exclamation

I like clever trolls and good humor. But you frankly dull.
When I scroll your posts - I constantly have an association with a roll of toilet paper.

Thank you for the "MULTIPLAYER BIGOTS". It is honorable, the other part is still in the sandbox.

Cheers, nikin

#102: Re: Historical Accuracy or Game Play? Author: TheImperatorKnight,

Posted: Wed Sep 25, 2013 10:01 am
—
Historical Accuracy or Gameplay? Wink

#103: Re: Historical Accuracy or Game Play? Author: Stwa,

Posted: Wed Sep 25, 2013 11:43 am
—

TheImperatorKnight wrote (View Post):

Historical Accuracy or Gameplay? Wink

Me thinks this is precisely the point. There are several kinds of historical accuracy in CC, but prehaps this means the accuracy associated with the combat itself.

So, we can use the Close Combat Marines Workbook, and take a look at the section regarding the Infanty Assault and compare what is described by the Marines to the battles I described above. Idea

SO, is the combat ACCURATE OR NOT.

Maybe the historical [combat] accuracy of the game is about to take a hit. Ya think. Question

Last edited by Stwa on Wed Sep 25, 2013 1:44 pm; edited 1 time in total

#104: Re: Historical Accuracy or Game Play? Author: Stwa,

Posted: Wed Sep 25, 2013 12:04 pm
—
Long, unsupported assaults across open ground are deadly. A single enemy soldier with an automatic rifle can destroy a squad crossing 100 meters of open ground. Assault for short distances, from broken terrain, against weak or well-suppressed enemy positions, under the protection of suppressive fire and obscuration. -CCM Workbook

At Riviere, the Germans fielded 60 total combatants, while the Americans fielded 92. So, were the Germans weak comparatively. Question

The assault was deadly. The Americans lost over half their force. But so did the Germans.

Thre was no suppresive fire, except the self-supporting kind, and no obscuration (like smoke).

Nevertheless, the Americans reached the ridge without difficulty.

The Americans had the element of surprise, since they instantly beamed onto the battlefield and started running toward the German position.

They did not suffer much loss of morale, or fatique for the long run to the ridge, and in fact this movement was unrealistic and swift.

What moral and fatique that was experienced during the sprint to the Germans was recovered in a very short period of time.

#105: Re: Historical Accuracy or Game Play? Author: Stwa,

Posted: Wed Sep 25, 2013 12:35 pm
—
The enemy, unaware of your intentions, is slow to react. Short assaults from nearby assault positions surprise the enemy. -CCM Workbook

It's the CC AI, so you can bet your last paycheck it is TOTALLY unaware of the Human Player's intentions.

And in both battles, the AI was dreadfully slow to react. At Riviere, the Americans had reached the middle of the map before the Germans started firing at them.

It would be hard to imagine that the AI actually registers any kind of surprise, other than perhaps some reaction to the quantity of attackers now present and running toward them.

Short or long assaults don't seem to apply in these situations, since fatigue is quickly recaptured and the enemy holds its fire, or considers itself out of range until the attackers get close.

It is entirely possible that the CC5 data set is the real culprit here.

#106: Re: Historical Accuracy or Game Play? Author: Stwa,

Posted: Wed Sep 25, 2013 12:57 pm
—
Long assaults exhaust your men, leaving them vulnerable when you enter the enemy’s position. Long assaults expose you to increasing enemy observation and fire. The enemy has time to react with reinforcements and supporting arms. -CCM Workbook

But the Americans didn't suffer much fatique, and they were not vulnerable. When arriving at the VLs they simply hit the dirt and started firing immediately.

The Germans did have time react, but foolishly sent reinforcements (from the North end of the ridge) to the castle, ON THEIR BELLIES. Laughing

#107: Re: Historical Accuracy or Game Play? Author: Stwa,

Posted: Wed Sep 25, 2013 1:08 pm
—
Assault only with obscuration. Smoke grenades and mortar smoke save lives. Every assault should be obscured by darkness, fog, or smoke to reduce the enemy’s ability to see and react. Obscuration reduces casualties and increases the morale of the assaulting force. -CCM Workbook

As mentioned earlier, the enemy was already slow to see and react. The combination of the AI and the CC5 data, eliminated the requirement for smoke.

When designing the battle, I made sure each Amercan unit had the highest morale and experience possible.

#108: Re: Historical Accuracy or Game Play? Author: Ivan_Zaitzev,

Posted: Wed Sep 25, 2013 1:20 pm
—
So you where playing against the AI, in a battle designed by yourself. TIK was talking about a battle against a human opponent in the maps provided by the game or mods.
Also, a couple of mortar rounds would have destroyed your men in that situation, specially the 12cm, or maybe an artillery or mortar barrage.

#109: Re: Historical Accuracy or Game Play? Author: Stwa,

Posted: Wed Sep 25, 2013 1:20 pm
—
Assault only against small, lightly armed, demoralized, or well-suppressed positions. Avoid mutually supporting positions. -CCM Workbook

The Americans had the highest training and experience possible, the Germans had poor training and experience.

The Americans greatly outnumbered the Germans.

So, what can we conclude, insofar as the Infantry Assault. Is the combat in CC historically accurate. Question

#110: Re: Historical Accuracy or Game Play? Author: Stwa,

Posted: Wed Sep 25, 2013 1:37 pm
—

Ivan_Zaitzev wrote (View Post):

So you where playing against the AI, in a battle designed by yourself. TIK was talking about a battle against a human opponent in the maps provided by the game or mods.

Are you sure any of that would make a big difference. Question

Because this request [of TIK] for ideas for an Infantry Assault, was at the bottom of his post, which was at the bottom of page 5, and I believe he was partially responding to my suggestion that he try the Rambo Tactic, which was the prior post.

There was no mention of multiplayer/single player. No mention of pre-designed battle, etc.

Based on the battles I have presented compared to the CCM Workbook, is the combat in the game accurate or not. Question

#111: Re: Historical Accuracy or Game Play? Author: Ivan_Zaitzev,

Posted: Wed Sep 25, 2013 2:28 pm
—
Playing against the AI and a Human opponent is completely different.
You have there a tailor made map for this assault in that the victory locations are exactly where you need them. If you had more victory locations, spread through the map, the enemy would have to spread their forces and while you are mass assaulting that hill, he would be 1) firing at your running forces from a lot of different positions with direct and indirect fire, 2) realizing what you are doing, he would rush your undefended VL cutting you from your supply lines.
Also, you might even find that hill empty because he retreated, denying your victory for low morale and leaving you with a depleted force in an empty hill.

#112: Re: Historical Accuracy or Game Play? Author: Stwa,

Posted: Wed Sep 25, 2013 2:35 pm
—

Ivan_Zaitzev wrote (View Post):

Playing against the AI and a Human opponent is completely different.

Yes, of course. But based on the battle I presented and based on the CCM Workbook, does the combat seem accurate to you. Question

Could it be that CC5 data, albeit in CCMT, does NOT portray combat accurately at all. Question

Also, maybe you were not aware, but when the Marines trained with CCM, there were NO VLs at all.

Here is their mission guide for the Infantry Assault module, which is very different from what has been shown or discussed up to now.

#113: Re: Historical Accuracy or Game Play? Author: TheImperatorKnight,

Posted: Wed Sep 25, 2013 7:48 pm
—
@Stwa.

I agree with Ivan. You've given us a biased scenario that favours a mass assault across open ground against the AI.

And although I didn't specify, I was requesting tactics that could be applicable to both the AI and a human opponent so everyone could benefit.

You know what, I'm going to open another thread about this rather than disrupt this thread anymore.

#114: Re: Historical Accuracy or Game Play? Author: Dima,

Posted: Wed Sep 25, 2013 8:09 pm
—
TIK,

the best guide for you http://www.closecombatseries.net/CCS/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&t=5130 Smile

#115: Re: Historical Accuracy or Game Play? Author: Stwa,

Posted: Thu Sep 26, 2013 7:40 am
—
I agree with Ivan. You've given us a biased scenario that favours a mass assault across open ground against the AI. And although I didn't specify, I was requesting tactics that could be applicable to both the AI and a human opponent so everyone could benefit. You know what, I'm going to open another thread about this rather than disrupt this thread anymore. -TIK

Okay, but the leetle soldiers are going to run too fast in that thread too. Laughing

Why bother with MP, as you (and I) have said before, no one is really doing MP.

And how could the scenario be biased when it met YOUR specifications. Wink

#116: Re: Historical Accuracy or Game Play? Author: TheImperatorKnight,

Posted: Thu Sep 26, 2013 9:17 am
—
Although few people are playing MP, if a tactic works for MP it'll work in SP. Plus, the idea is to help people be more confident in moving on from SP to MP. If they're confident with their tactics, all they'll have to do is get over the crashes, bugs, freezes and terrible connection problems of all the games (with the notable exception of PitF which connects like a dream) and they'll play more MP.

#117: Re: Historical Accuracy or Game Play? Author: Antony_nz,

Posted: Thu Sep 26, 2013 2:22 pm
—
Haha this thread.
Keep going stwa! Give him some more.

And i still have one more question!

#118: Re: Historical Accuracy or Game Play? Author: Stwa,

Posted: Thu Sep 26, 2013 2:53 pm
—
Well, he wants to go do multiplayer. Who am I to stop him. Question

But, as my example battles have shown. The best way to rout the enemy off the map, is to run like hell to their position, and shoot them from 10 meters away. Laughing

The battles take about 5 minutes on average, and are great when you have limited time for a game.

I figure the 7.7 (I use the 9.5s) soldiers are moving (fast) in excess of 25 MPH (in gorund scale) on my system.

And you ALWAYS have one more question. Laughing

#119: Re: Historical Accuracy or Game Play? Author: Stwa,

Posted: Thu Sep 26, 2013 3:35 pm
—
But for the remainder of the community, just be aware that Rambo Events aren't for everyone.

Don't try this at home, remember we are proffessionals. Laughing

#120: Re: Historical Accuracy or Game Play? Author: TheImperatorKnight,

Posted: Thu Sep 26, 2013 7:27 pm
—
1. Buy PitF
2. Try that tactic as the Americans vs MG42s.
3. Blame Stwa for the defeat

Stwa. Are you the reason no one plays CCMT?

#121: Re: Historical Accuracy or Game Play? Author: Dima,

Posted: Thu Sep 26, 2013 8:06 pm
—

TheImperatorKnight wrote (View Post):

1. Buy PitF
2. Try that tactic as the Americans vs MG42s.
3. Blame Stwa for the defeat
Stwa. Are you the reason no one plays CCMT?

ahh, no promotion for unsupported platrforms? Wink

#122: Re: Historical Accuracy or Game Play? Author: TheImperatorKnight,

Posted: Thu Sep 26, 2013 8:25 pm
—

Dima wrote (View Post):

TheImperatorKnight wrote (View Post):

1. Buy PitF
2. Try that tactic as the Americans vs MG42s.
3. Blame Stwa for the defeat
Stwa. Are you the reason no one plays CCMT?

ahh, no promotion for unsupported platrforms? Wink

I guess you don't have PitF?

#123: Re: Historical Accuracy or Game Play? Author: Dima,

Posted: Thu Sep 26, 2013 10:17 pm
—

TheImperatorKnight wrote (View Post):

Dima wrote (View Post):

TheImperatorKnight wrote (View Post):

1. Buy PitF
2. Try that tactic as the Americans vs MG42s.
3. Blame Stwa for the defeat
Stwa. Are you the reason no one plays CCMT?

ahh, no promotion for unsupported platrforms? Wink

I guess you don't have PitF?

bad guess

#124: Re: Historical Accuracy or Game Play? Author: Stwa,

Posted: Fri Sep 27, 2013 2:00 am
—
You know what, I'm going to open another thread about this rather than disrupt this thread anymore. -TheImperatorKnight

So, I guess you lied. Idea

Here you are again, doing what you do best - TROLLING. Laughing

And since you are here again, answer this basic question.

Based on the battles I presented and what is stated in the CCM Workbook, is the combat accurate or NOT. Question

#125: Re: Historical Accuracy or Game Play? Author: Stwa,

Posted: Fri Sep 27, 2013 2:52 am
—
Attention NOOBS for a very important announcement

The WW2 mod for CCMT I am using was made by Senior Drill. It is called CC5 in CCMT, and is available for free at the Matrix Site for downlaod. So if you see anything peculiar, blame Senior Drill not moi.

But WTF, really, don't blame him either. Idea

Soldiers run much slower in REG CCMT. Shaun Wallace was very proud of that detail.

I love CCMT. It is simply the best CC game ever, and I would implore all NOOBS to consider a purchase.

#126: Re: Historical Accuracy or Game Play? Author: Antony_nz,

Posted: Fri Sep 27, 2013 9:18 am
—

Stwa wrote (View Post):

Soldiers run much slower in REG CCMT. Shaun Wallace was very proud of that detail. .

Why is is that?

Stwa wrote (View Post):

I love CCMT. It is simply the best CC game ever, and I would implore all NOOBS to consider a purchase

May i ask why that is? Im thinking of buying some of the new Close Combats.
Added: I have seen a video on youtube. It looks like the same fundamental game.

#127: Re: Historical Accuracy or Game Play? Author: Stwa,

Posted: Fri Sep 27, 2013 9:37 am
—
OK, but I thought you were CSO, or do I have you confused with someone else?

I just know about the soldier thing from some of his posts. I didn't know him personally.

But the foot soldiers in CCMT overall could be heavier, body armor, light machine guns, double armed guys that carry a Javelin or SRAW, but also an M4. And I believe he thought the slower speads much more realistic. On big maps, it makes you really wan't to put them in a APC, otherwise it takes forever for them to go from one place to another.

But, on my system, if you don't black-line the soldiers, or use the smaller soldier mods, they are smaller (fewer pixels), and therefore they move faster.

Then, if you replace the CCMT EXE file with the one that came with CC2 Redux (a FREE download from Matrix), it speeds the soldiers back up some, because (I think), it was meant for WW2 actually.

If you have some other ideas on this, please share.

#128: Re: Historical Accuracy or Game Play? Author: Stwa,

Posted: Fri Sep 27, 2013 9:49 am
—
CCMT is fundamentally the same game as the others in the series.

But it has many more features than the other games, including PitF.

The only thing it lacks is a campaign game, which I think is the weakest link of the system, and therefore is not missed by moi.

But, if you don't like designing your own missions, or if you MUST have a campaign game, then don't get it because you won't be happy.

Also, remember that map size makes an incredible difference in how the AI reacts to things.

A 30x30 map has 4 time the area of a 15x15 map (ideal for WW2 battles). To make the AI foolishly move around and become visible in the WW2 games, the other CC games usually use 16 VLs.

So, for a 30x30 map (4 times the area), you would need 64 VLs to get the same behavior out of the AI. Only problem is there is still a 16 VL limit, in CCMT. And ... this is very important ... you still only have 15 teams for Single Player!

Any map larger than 25x25, should probably be reserved for multiplayer only.

So, I currently use 30x30 maps with CCMT and against the AI, he stays down, and it is a game of finding them, flushing them out of their hiding spots, and shooting them. It is very dangerous. It is not like a pitched battle at all.

Last edited by Stwa on Fri Sep 27, 2013 10:52 am; edited 1 time in total

#129: Re: Historical Accuracy or Game Play? Author: TheImperatorKnight,

Posted: Fri Sep 27, 2013 10:47 am
—

Stwa wrote (View Post):

You know what, I'm going to open another thread about this rather than disrupt this thread anymore. -TheImperatorKnight

So, I guess you lied. Idea

Here you are again, doing what you do best - TROLLING. Laughing

I did open a new thread to discuss tactics and strategies. Click here and please don't ruin that thread too.

Dima wrote:

bad guess

My bad. I thought everyone here was against getting PitF due to the MP no Direct IP "problem".

#130: Re: Historical Accuracy or Game Play? Author: Stwa,

Posted: Fri Sep 27, 2013 11:02 am
—
You know what, I'm going to open another thread about this rather than disrupt this thread anymore. -TheImperatorKnight

Back so soon! Yet ANOTHER disruption. Confused

Me thinks you just have a compulsion to troll. It must be an addiction for you.

#131: Re: Historical Accuracy or Game Play? Author: Stwa,

Posted: Fri Sep 27, 2013 11:21 am
—
My bad. I thought everyone here was against getting PitF due to the MP no Direct IP "problem". -TIK

BBBBBBZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZT [indicating wrong answer] Laughing

Nope, I could care less about direct IP connect. Laughing

I didn't get it because I was confused about The Foggy Gadget.

The Foggy Gadget

#132: Re: Historical Accuracy or Game Play? Author: Dima,

Posted: Fri Sep 27, 2013 11:34 am
—

Quote:

My bad. I thought everyone here was against getting PitF due to the MP no Direct IP "problem".

actually I was playing PitF since early beta....

Last edited by Dima on Fri Sep 27, 2013 7:31 pm; edited 1 time in total

#133: Re: Historical Accuracy or Game Play? Author: Stwa,

Posted: Fri Sep 27, 2013 11:50 am
—
Dima,

You gomered the quote thingy. Laughing

#134: Re: Historical Accuracy or Game Play? Author: TheImperatorKnight,

Posted: Fri Sep 27, 2013 7:28 pm
—

Stwa wrote (View Post):

My bad. I thought everyone here was against getting PitF due to the MP no Direct IP "problem". -TIK

BBBBBBZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZT [indicating wrong answer] Laughing

Nope, I could care less about direct IP connect. Laughing

I didn't get it because I was confused about The Foggy Gadget.

The Foggy Gadget

They've resolved that. There's a simple on/off switch in the options. You should get it for multiplayer (best CC multiplayer in my opinion) - but the single player is pretty bad due to AI not moving unless you attack it.

#135: Re: Historical Accuracy or Game Play? Author: TheImperatorKnight,

Posted: Fri Sep 27, 2013 7:28 pm
—

Dima wrote (View Post):

My bad. I thought everyone here was against getting PitF due to the MP no Direct IP "problem".[/quote]
actually I was playing PitF since early beta....[/quote]

Oh. You play it often? What do you think about it?

#136: Re: Historical Accuracy or Game Play? Author: Dima,

Posted: Fri Sep 27, 2013 7:35 pm
—

Quote:

Oh. You play it often? What do you think about it?

I don't play it anymore. Great potential but poor realisation.
TLD is the most finished CC version up to date.

#137: Re: Historical Accuracy or Game Play? Author: Stwa,

Posted: Fri Sep 27, 2013 8:09 pm
—
They've resolved that.[The Foggy Gadget] There's a simple on/off switch in the options. You should get it for multiplayer (best CC multiplayer in my opinion) - but the single player is pretty bad due to AI not moving unless you attack it. -TIK

Sorry, but I disagree about the Foggy Gadget. Had you taken the link I provided, you would have found out why.

The Foggy Gadget

Also, the condition of the AI not attacking on large maps was discussed by moi, on the previous page of this thread. Exclamation

Sooo, I gotta agree with Dima on TLD. Idea

ARE YOU READY TO RAMBOOOOOOOOOO Question

#138: Re: Historical Accuracy or Game Play? Author: TheImperatorKnight,

Posted: Fri Sep 27, 2013 8:26 pm
—

Dima wrote (View Post):

Quote:

Oh. You play it often? What do you think about it?

I don't play it anymore. Great potential but poor realisation.
TLD is the most finished CC version up to date.

Really? What things didn't you like about it?
Didn't buy TLD because I have CC5 and was disappointed by LSA so can't comment on that. But would prefer to play PitF over LSA any day.

#139: Re: Historical Accuracy or Game Play? Author: Stwa,

Posted: Mon Sep 30, 2013 11:17 pm
—
If any new player is reading this, ignore what Stwa's saying. He's wrong. Here's why - Football is not war. What works on a football pitch, doesn't work in war. -TIK

I wanted to respond to this a while ago and forgot all about it.

But, every coach I ever had, and I am sure most every coach my sons had, at some point in time described football as war.

There are lots of things in football that are analogous to war. For instance, football is game about deception. And war is all about deception.

I will spare everyone a complete dissertation, but I will suffice at just stating, perhaps it is an ethnicity thing. I am talking about American Football. Not the football were you dress up in cute shorts. Laughing

But regarding ethnicity, my family originated in East Texas, and every male child from that family for over 150 years attended Texas A & M University. I and my son are the only exceptions. I attended Baylor University instead. Most of those that attended A & M eventually experienced actual combat at some time in their lives.

Texas A & M War Hymn

Link

#140: Re: Historical Accuracy or Game Play? Author: TheImperatorKnight,

Posted: Tue Oct 01, 2013 9:31 pm
—
If you're compairing football (or Rugby as we call it's cousin in the UK) to ancient and medieval war, I'd say that's fine. But not modern war.

Try charging a bunch of blokes across a field, with machine guns firing at them... not a pretty sight!

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

#141: Re: Historical Accuracy or Game Play? Author: Stwa,

Posted: Wed Oct 02, 2013 5:12 am
—
Head on attacks are often encouraged in football. This tactic in war will get you into a lot of attritional battles that can only lead to unnecessary casualties. -TIK

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

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

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

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

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

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

Excellent Analysis of Pointe du Hoc Battle and Battlefield

Link

#142: Re: Historical Accuracy or Game Play? Author: Antony_nz,

Posted: Wed Oct 02, 2013 6:14 am
—

Stwa wrote (View Post):

[size=18][i][color=brown]. Not the football were you dress up in cute shorts. Laughing

]

Dress uP eh?

#143: Re: Historical Accuracy or Game Play? Author: TheImperatorKnight,

Posted: Wed Oct 02, 2013 11:37 am
—

Stwa wrote (View Post):

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

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

Ethnicity?? I just don't see how you can compare THIS sport to war.

If we compare football to war, and I was a leader of a football team, I'd send my men into the stands and outflank the enemy. I don't care about the rules (and why would I?), I only want to win and thus survive.

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

#144: Re: Historical Accuracy or Game Play? Author: Stwa,

Posted: Wed Oct 02, 2013 2:24 pm
—
Now you are just pretending to be stupid, while you troll.

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

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

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

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

Football as a Metaphor for War

Last edited by Stwa on Wed Oct 02, 2013 3:24 pm; edited 1 time in total

#145: Re: Historical Accuracy or Game Play? Author: Stwa,

Posted: Wed Oct 02, 2013 3:04 pm
—
Also, that's the point, as a commander you should always pick your battles. -TIK

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

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

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

#146: Re: Historical Accuracy or Game Play? Author: TTorpedo, Location: Portugal

Posted: Wed Oct 02, 2013 3:09 pm
—
gameplay as in a sandbox where all the physic laws are correct.

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

#147: Re: Historical Accuracy or Game Play? Author: TheImperatorKnight,

Posted: Wed Oct 02, 2013 3:59 pm
—

Stwa wrote (View Post):

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

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

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

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

I've seen the video. There was one sentence where someone said Rubber got everyone worked up like you do before a game of football. That was it. Whilst that was good for morale, that doesn't mean the battlefield ended up like a football match.

The only thing I can see with sport that remotely relates to modern war is the riots that happen after a game.

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

#148: Re: Historical Accuracy or Game Play? Author: Stwa,

Posted: Wed Oct 02, 2013 5:02 pm
—
I've seen the video. There was one sentence where someone said Rubber got everyone worked up like you do before a game of football. That was it. -TIK

BBBBBBBZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZT Exclamation

[indicating wrong answer]

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

And all that is beside the point anyway. Exclamation

YOU DO UNDERSTAND what a metaphor is, RIGHT. Question

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

Metaphor

#149: Re: Historical Accuracy or Game Play? Author: Stwa,

Posted: Wed Oct 02, 2013 5:52 pm
—
Be honest. How many games of CC have you had that ended up looking like a football game? For me - none. -TIK

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

#150: Re: Historical Accuracy or Game Play? Author: Stwa,

Posted: Wed Oct 02, 2013 7:21 pm
—
The function of football, soccer, basketball and other passion-sports in modern industrial society is the transference of boredom, frustration, anger and rage into socially acceptable forms of combat. A temporary subsitute for war; for nationalism; identification with something bigger than the self.
Edward Abbey

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

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

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

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

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

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

#151: Re: Historical Accuracy or Game Play? Author: platoon_michael, Location: Right behind you

Posted: Wed Oct 02, 2013 10:23 pm
—

Stwa wrote (View Post):

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

That applies to you as well,how embarrassing.
Even at the risk of having this thread moved to the Train-wrecks being a football fan since a young kid I have always concluded that Anyone! who compares football or any Sport for that matter to War is a complete dumb ass.

Uncomfortable silence inserted above.

#152: Re: Historical Accuracy or Game Play? Author: TheImperatorKnight,

Posted: Wed Oct 02, 2013 11:02 pm
—

Stwa wrote (View Post):

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

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

1. This thread is about Game Play vs Historical Accuracy
2. We're meant to be talking about Close Combat
3. So when I asked "How many games of CC have you had that ended up looking like a football game?" I was once again trying to get the thread back on topic.
4. Sadly, you're the one trolling.
5. Where do I troll?

platoon_michael wrote (View Post):

Stwa wrote (View Post):

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

Lol

I'm glad someone agrees

#153: Re: Historical Accuracy or Game Play? Author: mooxe,

Posted: Thu Oct 03, 2013 12:07 am
—
The EVE Online forums were absolutely terrible for every topic going off-topic and turning into flame wars. I never read those forums for that reason. Anytime a Dev posted, there was always a troll who would post "first" as the first reply. It usually went downhill from there. I would of liked to become more involved in that game, but the amount of trolls that were there made it impossible.

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

#154: Re: Historical Accuracy or Game Play? Author: platoon_michael, Location: Right behind you

Posted: Thu Oct 03, 2013 1:05 am
—
While I like Stwa's views on some things CC related he has been on quite the roll with over taking threads.

Sometimes you gotta call em the way you see em.

And if you don't agree with that,

He just down right had it coming.

#155: Re: Historical Accuracy or Game Play? Author: Gun_Pierson,

Posted: Tue Nov 19, 2013 10:36 pm
—

mooxe wrote (View Post):

Quote:

That's an interesting point you make as I think the bigger the map the better. If I use a Tiger I should be able to knock out a t-34 from a range of over 2km. It's another example of the delicate balance between historically correct or gameplay. For the east front, large plains maps may give the player a feel of the vast areas. On the other hand, Stalingrad and other city maps could be smaller. Because you can loose tons of soldiers in factory and building fighting. So a delicate balance is nescessary imo.

But I'm interested why you hate big maps?

#156: Re: Historical Accuracy or Game Play? Author: Schmal_Turm,

Posted: Wed Nov 20, 2013 6:55 am
—
I am not sure if this is still the thread for Realism vs Playability with all the side-tracking going on but here goes.

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

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

#157: Re: Historical Accuracy or Game Play? Author: Schmal_Turm,

Posted: Wed Nov 20, 2013 3:17 pm
—
Forgot to mention: I have had to literally pulverize a building to silence a unit that keeps firing, even after I have targeted it with a number of tank rounds. It would seem to me that a real life unit would decide to vacate to save their skins, or that my tank guns would have taken them out with a few rounds as it seems that the AI can generally eliminate my units in as little as two or three rounds -- even when they try to evade the incoming rounds. Something here is not quite right. I would expect that the sides would be treated the same but it seems that the AI is favored in situations such as that, as well as the artillery previously mentioned. My brother says that is to make it a challenge; I consider it cheating by the AI.

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

#158: Re: Historical Accuracy or Game Play? Author: Schmal_Turm,

Posted: Wed Jan 08, 2014 3:44 am
—
Since no one has even attempted to answer my question on the effective armor value on the Panther, I will give what I would consider the ultimate answer as it comes directly from the Office of the Ordnance Headquarters of the Third United States Army:

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

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

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

#159: Re: Historical Accuracy or Game Play? Author: mooxe,

Posted: Wed Jan 08, 2014 5:52 am
—

Gun_Pierson wrote (View Post):

Big maps are not close combat. The entire premise of the game was being locked into a small arena playing a fast paced game with people for chess pieces. There are some larger maps and that's fine. Any mod or rerelease that has a majority of large maps is no good. This game is not a simulation. Its really a huge shame that there's such a huge focus on shiney new maps when the real beef of this game is the unit data (gameplay!).

Last edited by mooxe on Wed Jan 08, 2014 5:56 am; edited 1 time in total

#160: Re: Historical Accuracy or Game Play? Author: mooxe,

Posted: Wed Jan 08, 2014 5:56 am
—
The definition of gameplay for me is a couple things. First its the ability to start a game with relatively equal odds of winning no matter what side I choose, vs AI or person. Secondly, its the ability to actually find a game online.

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

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

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

#161: Re: Historical Accuracy or Game Play? Author: pvt_Grunt, Location: Melbourne, Australia

Posted: Wed Jan 08, 2014 7:10 am
—
[quote="mooxe";p="72579"]

Gun_Pierson wrote (View Post):

Its really a huge shame that there's such a huge focus on shiney new maps when the real beef of this game is the unit data (gameplay!).

Well said, and I would add map coding (irrespective of the size] as critical to gameplay.

I do love them shiny new eye candy maps - but it should not be either/or, but both - good maps AND good data.

#162: Re: Historical Accuracy or Game Play? Author: Dima,

Posted: Wed Jan 08, 2014 10:29 am
—

Quote:

Since no one has even attempted to answer my question on the effective armor value on the Panther, I will give what I would consider the ultimate answer as it comes directly from the Office of the Ordnance Headquarters of the Third United States Army:
"The general characteristics of the frontal armor are: glacis plate 85mm (3.35 inches) at 55 degrees and nose plate 65mm (2.56 inches) at 55 degrees. Using an armor basis curve, the vertical equivalent of the glacis plate is 187mm (7.36 inches) and of the nose plate 139mm (5.47 inches)."

the effective armor value is really depending on a shell it is against.
f.e. against 17pdr APDS the effective armor of the Panther glacis will be more than 200mm while against 122mm APHE it will be less than 150mm.

Quote:

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

that is of course not true as any late war german tank armor could be perforated by 76mm and most of them by 75mm.

#163: Re: Historical Accuracy or Game Play? Author: Dima,

Posted: Wed Jan 08, 2014 10:30 am
—
mooxe,

Quote:

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

the most historical accurate CC mods are made for H2H Smile

#164: Re: Historical Accuracy or Game Play? Author: caruso, Location: Livorno

Posted: Wed Jan 08, 2014 11:45 am
—
I would say Historical Accuracy all life Smile

#165: Re: Historical Accuracy or Game Play? Author: Schmal_Turm,

Posted: Thu Jan 09, 2014 6:20 am
—
Dima,

You seem to have a special knowledge of the effects of the different shells on armor, and for all I know your figures could be fairly accurate. All I was trying to point out was that the Office of the Ordnance Headquarters of the Third United States Army was conducting tests on a few captured Panthers to see what it takes to crack the frontal armor. Obviously, the reports from the front were not good with the Shermans in dueling battles with the Panthers and Tigers. I had read that there were tests on captured Tigers from Tunisia back in 1943 and so they were well aware that there were problems with the 75mm gunned Shermans that far back. And yet because of the reasoning at the time that tanks were not to engage in duels with enemy tanks they were left under-gunned. Even when the 76mm gun was mounted in a number of the Shermans, many in the field, they were still inadequately armed as the guns mounted were a foot shorter than the field piece to make them fit into the turret. If what you are saying is true that the 75mm Shermans were able to penetrate the Panthers why was it that it was standard procedure for the German tank crews to especially target the British Fireflys? And why was there an urgent request to get the M26 Pershing into the European theater as soon as possible even though it would have arrived too late for any meaningful action?

#166: Re: Historical Accuracy or Game Play? Author: Dima,

Posted: Thu Jan 09, 2014 11:56 am
—
Schmal_Turm,

Quote:

You seem to have a special knowledge of the effects of the different shells on armor, and for all I know your figures could be fairly accurate.

well, your question was about effective armor values and I tried to show you that it totally depends on a shell it against.

Quote:

All I was trying to point out was that the Office of the Ordnance Headquarters of the Third United States Army was conducting tests on a few captured Panthers to see what it takes to crack the frontal armor.

I know that your quote refers to August 1944 Isigny tests. And these tests were only conducted to compare US 76mm and UK 17pdr guns so your quote:
"The general characteristics of the frontal armor are: glacis plate 85mm (3.35 inches) at 55 degrees and nose plate 65mm (2.56 inches) at 55 degrees. Using an armor basis curve, the vertical equivalent of the glacis plate is 187mm (7.36 inches) and of the nose plate 139mm (5.47 inches)."
refers to 76mm shells.

while in July 1944 US 1st Army conducted tests of various guns against captured Panthers and 90mm AA gun with M82 shell could penetrate Panther glacis at 600yds while that shell had normal penetration of 160mm@500yds@90deg so it's easy to see that the effective armor value of Panther glacis vs 90mm APC M82 was less than 160mm.

Quote:

Obviously, the reports from the front were not good with the Shermans in dueling battles with the Panthers and Tigers. I had read that there were tests on captured Tigers from Tunisia back in 1943 and so they were well aware that there were problems with the 75mm gunned Shermans that far back. And yet because of the reasoning at the time that tanks were not to engage in duels with enemy tanks they were left under-gunned.

that's actually because of the false conclusion that Panther was same type of tank as Tiger - the Heavy tank which was to reinforce other formation and could be met in rare occasions but the shock of Normandy was that Panther was the main medium tank in PzDs instead. That's why no M4A1(76) was landed in Normandy in June although there were plenty of them in the UK already.

Another problem of Normandy were the narrow lines of advance where Shermans couldn't use their advantage in maneuvrability but had to engage German tanks head on. That's when the reports started coming from the front units crying for up-gunned tanks. And the US officials made quick moves by sending M4A1(76) in July, the new 3-inch HVAP (by air!) for M10 in August and 90mm M36 in September.

But...after the US Army could break out of bocages and in plain valleys of France where Shermans could employ their speed and maneuvre the reports from units started to ask for....105mm Shermans as German tanks were very rare in comparison to ATG or bunkers.
And they recalled about Panther problem again only during Battle of the Bulge when they saw a huge number of German tanks once more.

Quote:

If what you are saying is true that the 75mm Shermans were able to penetrate the Panthers why was it that it was standard procedure for the German tank crews to especially target the British Fireflys?

75mm Shermans could pefrorate side and rear armor of Panther at up to 1.500yds.
Well, Firefly couldn't penetrate Panther glasic at more than 300yds, but it could penetrate 80mm armor of PzIV at 1.000+m while 75mm could make it at less than 200yds. So obviously one would engage the main threat first.

Quote:

And why was there an urgent request to get the M26 Pershing into the European theater as soon as possible even though it would have arrived too late for any meaningful action?

that was after the Bulge due to reason mentioned above.

#167: Re: Historical Accuracy or Game Play? Author: caruso, Location: Livorno

Posted: Thu Jan 09, 2014 2:21 pm
—
Obviousley, the Firefly had the 17 pounder. Which could penetrate panther glacis, as per test counducted in summer 1944, even at 400 yards. But sure, 200 yards was more suitable...

Last edited by caruso on Thu Jan 09, 2014 2:41 pm; edited 1 time in total

#168: Re: Historical Accuracy or Game Play? Author: Dima,

Posted: Thu Jan 09, 2014 2:40 pm
—

Quote:

Obviousley, the Firefly had the 17 pounder...

what should that mean? Smile

#169: Re: Historical Accuracy or Game Play? Author: caruso, Location: Livorno

Posted: Thu Jan 09, 2014 2:42 pm
—
was just to be more specific...

#170: Re: Historical Accuracy or Game Play? Author: Dima,

Posted: Thu Jan 09, 2014 2:51 pm
—

Quote:

Obviousley, the Firefly had the 17 pounder. Which could penetrate panther glacis, as per test counducted in summer 1944, even at 400 yards. But sure, 200 yards was more suitable...

To be more specific 17pdr with APC/APCBC ammo couldn't realiably penetrate Panther glasic at any distance - but it had a little chance for penetration at less than 300yds.
17pdr with APDS ammo should have been able to penetrate but during tests only 25% of hits penetrated at 400yds hence my previous post about effective armor value of Panther vs 17pdr APDS, not to mention drastically poor accuracy of APDS that time.

#171: Re: Historical Accuracy or Game Play? Author: caruso, Location: Livorno

Posted: Thu Jan 09, 2014 2:55 pm
—
Theorically it could be penetrated at 800 yds as well Smile

....but sure, 200 yds, and less, was let's say the best distance...

#172: Re: Historical Accuracy or Game Play? Author: Dima,

Posted: Thu Jan 09, 2014 3:02 pm
—

Quote:

Theorically it could be penetrated at 800 yds as well ....but sure, 200 yds, and less, was let's say the best distance...

once again, August 1944 Isigny tests showed that no 76mm ammunition but APDS could penetrate Panther glasic at 400yds.
well actually no standard 76mm ammunition could do it at 200yds either during tests Wink

#173: Re: Historical Accuracy or Game Play? Author: caruso, Location: Livorno

Posted: Thu Jan 09, 2014 3:04 pm
—
i wasn't talking about 76mm ammunition Smile

Ok, whatever...

#174: Re: Historical Accuracy or Game Play? Author: Dima,

Posted: Thu Jan 09, 2014 3:05 pm
—

caruso wrote (View Post):

i wasn't talking about 76mm ammunition Smile

Ok, whatever...

17pdr caliber is 76mm...

#175: Re: Historical Accuracy or Game Play? Author: caruso, Location: Livorno

Posted: Thu Jan 09, 2014 3:07 pm
—
i was obviousley talking about 17 pdr apds...

edit: 17 pounder is 76.2 mm Wink

Last edited by caruso on Thu Jan 09, 2014 8:52 pm; edited 2 times in total

#176: Re: Historical Accuracy or Game Play? Author: Schmal_Turm,

Posted: Thu Jan 09, 2014 4:20 pm
—
Dima,

Actually, I started this discussion in answer to one of the forum entries that was bemoaning the difficulty of penetrating the Panther from the front. So that is all I was referring to: defeating it from the front. If you were a Sherman tanker how do you think you would feel knowing that your gun was relatively ineffective against the Panther front, but oh, being told that you can defeat it by flanking it??? And ultimately, how many tanks are you willing to lose, as well as tankers, to take out one of those heavily armored German tanks? I am sure that would not give you much confidence. Since you mentioned the weak side armor; yes, the Wehrmacht was working to correct that problem with the Panther II. As I mentioned in a previous forum entry, any size gun was capable of disabling, if not destroying any tank if it is hit in the right spot.

#177: Re: Historical Accuracy or Game Play? Author: Dima,

Posted: Thu Jan 09, 2014 5:35 pm
—
Schmal_Turm,

Quote:

Actually, I started this discussion in answer to one of the forum entries that was bemoaning the difficulty of penetrating the Panther from the front. So that is all I was referring to: defeating it from the front. If you were a Sherman tanker how do you think you would feel knowing that your gun was relatively ineffective against the Panther front, but oh, being told that you can defeat it by flanking it???And ultimately, how many tanks are you willing to lose, as well as tankers, to take out one of those heavily armored German tanks?

then yes, only 17pdr, 3inch, 76mm and 90mm could penetrate Panther front in Normandy.

but tanks don't fight tanks in a vacuum - flanking and cutting off supplies were/are the main combat maneuvres.
Although the Germans concentrated huge amount of tanks in Normandy (~2250 including 655 Panthers), by the end of Normandy campaign the Germans lost approximately 1.500 AVFs (including Marders) as total writes off vs approximately 2.500 AVFs (including Stuarts and M10) as total writes off for the Allies despite the Allies were mainly in attack...

Quote:

Since you mentioned the weak side armor; yes, the Wehrmacht was working to correct that problem with the Panther II.

I believe the prototype of Panther II had 60mm side armor vs 50mm of Panther - doesn't look like a huge improvement Smile

#178: Re: Historical Accuracy or Game Play? Author: Schmal_Turm,

Posted: Thu Jan 09, 2014 7:07 pm
—
Dima,

Right! And many of those German loses were due to artillery and aircraft attacks, as well as you mentioned, the lack of fuel and thus you have given the answer to the problem of defeating the Panther and Tiger. And so maybe the CC gamers who lament having to battle them can take note that it takes a correct strategy. When I play as the Germans against the AI I have to consider that every time a tank gets tracked or otherwise damaged that it may not get repaired the next round and so that means I have one less tank to counter the large numbers of Allied tanks, both Russians and Anglos. The Germans always get a smaller number of tanks compared to the enemy, and until the advent of the larger caliber tank guns they had their own share of problems, especially against the Russian KVI.

I did enjoy being made aware of the figures you produced for the different shell penetrations. And you are right, the Germans were only increasing the Panther II side armor by 10mm, but you can only go so far to protect a tank anyway.

#179: Re: Historical Accuracy or Game Play? Author: johnsilver, Location: Florida

Posted: Thu Jan 09, 2014 7:24 pm
—
If there is a "feat" that is staggering, it is that no KT were knocked out as I recall from frontal shots during the war. Damaged? Yes, but not outright killed.

#180: Re: Historical Accuracy or Game Play? Author: Dima,

Posted: Thu Jan 09, 2014 7:41 pm
—
Schmal_Turm,

Quote:

And many of those German loses were due to artillery and aircraft attacks,

the AVF losses caused by aircrafts during WW2 are grossly exaggerated as f.e. in GJS sectors only 6% of Panthers, 2,5% of Tigers and 7% of PzIV were hit by air weapons as found out by the British investigations.

Quote:

And so maybe the CC gamers who lament having to battle them can take note that it takes a correct strategy.

absolutely agree.

Close Combat Series -> The Mess

output generated using printer-friendly topic mod. All times are GMT

Page 1 of 1