Historical Accuracy or Game Play?
Select messages from
 # through # Forum FAQ
[/[Print]\]
Goto page : 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next  :| |:
Close Combat Series -> The Mess
Historical Accuracy or Game Play?
I like the game to be Historically Accurate
62%
 62%  [ 31 ]
I care more about Game Play
38%
 38%  [ 19 ]
Total Votes : 50

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

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

cheers

AGS

_______________
#12: Re: Historical Accuracy or Game Play? Author: ArmeeGruppeSud,  PostPosted: 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 PostPosted: 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 PostPosted: 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,  PostPosted: 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,  PostPosted: 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 PostPosted: 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 PostPosted: 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 PostPosted: 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,  PostPosted: Thu Sep 06, 2012 3:42 pm
    —
Historical..and not putting IS-3 into Close Combat The Russian Front Wink
Close Combat Series -> The Mess


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

Goto page : 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next  :| |:
Page 1 of 9