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

Historical Accuracy or Game Play?

through

Forum FAQ

[^/[Print]\]
Goto page : Previous 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%

[ 31 ]

I care more about Game Play

38%

[ 19 ]

Total Votes : 50

#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?

Close Combat Series -> The Mess

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

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