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

#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

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 5 of 9