Historical Accuracy or Game Play? | ||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
Total Votes : 50 |
platoon_michael wrote (View Post): |
@tigercub
I think you'll find the Mortars to be much more to your liking. |
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? |
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. |
Dima wrote (View Post): | ||
CC2 and CC3 are probably the least historical versions of CC.... |
Dima wrote (View Post): | ||
CC2 and CC3 are probably the least historical versions of CC.... |
Quote: |
Really? Why do you think that? |
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. |
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? |
ArmeeGruppeSud wrote (View Post): |
Ahistorical Campaign |
ArmeeGruppeSud wrote (View Post): |
An unrealistic command simulation |
Quote: |
My thoughts exactly, AGS. Still waiting for someone to say why CC5 is more historically accurate... |
Dima wrote (View Post): | ||
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. |
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.
|
Quote: |
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. |
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? |
Quote: |
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. |
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: |
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. |
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: |
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 |
Quote: |
KV-2's were still in use in 1942, although I admit they should be accessible earlier (probably changed for gameplay reasons). |
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. |
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. |
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. |
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. |
Quote: | ||
they are accessible in 1941. No KV-2 was available by January 1942. |
Quote: | ||
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: | ||
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: | ||
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.... |
Quote: |
Apologies, I misread. And I do agree actually, it makes more sense for there to be a stepp map. |
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. |
Quote: |
1. the BG's represent formations that are too-large to make sense in context |
Quote: |
2. unlike CC2, half the battles take place on a grand total of about 10 maps. |
Quote: |
3. You take it in turns to move and fight. Really? That's accurate is it? |
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 |
Quote: |
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. |
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. |
Quote: |
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 |
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 |
Dima wrote (View Post): |
SNAP !!! |
Dima wrote (View Post): |
CHOMP !! |
Dima wrote (View Post): |
MUNCH ! |
output generated using printer-friendly topic mod. All times are GMT