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

#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!

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 4 of 9