Posted: Thu Jun 28, 2012 2:38 pm Post subject: Re: CC5 vs CC3
OK, just one more
@ AT_ags_Stalker
Lets talk about realism
You criticise CC3 for its Requisition points system.....
This is where CC3 totally phecies all over CC5
Lets have a hypothetical (i know you like them )
During a battle, the troops you deploy, the 15 units are shot to pieces, but none are wiped out.
Each squad has 1 or 2 men left, all your tanks are very severely damaged, but not lost.
In CC5 you go back to your force pool, and swap them for new teams.
The shot to pieces units go back into the force pool where they miraculously automatically become 100% brand new units
Whats have you lost
NOTHING
You have exactly the same force strength as the day before and you have suffered no loss/penalty for throwing away so many lives etc
You may have gained some ground on the maps, your opponent had much fewer casualties, but lost 5 complete teams, so his loss is actually much greater, is that fair?
In CC3, every loss of life will cost you and all the damage your tanks cop will cost you
Now surely you must see that this is both a fairer and a more realistic penalty for frivolous leadership
Of course my Stalker will find a side issue to make some disagreement and avoid the real issue
Hey Ace.
I understand you like CC3. I don't understand your ripping CC5 so hard tho. Each obviously has it's fans and others that just don't care to play it when they can play the other (or any kind of game instead).
I have played them all, including H2H in CC2 and CC5 for a long time. I really think if you took some time to dl some of the mods for CC5- like for instance GJS, TRSM, Utah, Battle of Berlin, Stalingrad, Der Kessel, and some others that catch your eye you may even grow fond of the game. Plus as Stalky mentioned you can play h2h if you like... and make gentlemen's rules to make each game/op/campaign as 'realistic' as possible.
I personally play vs the AI probably 85% of the time now because of RL time constraints... and the 'decisions' the AI makes both strategically/tactically/picking units/always will just blow your mind sometimes and almost ruin it for you. I have learned to live with it somewhat... but it always happens. It is hard to find someone in your time zone with the same ideas/time/etc to hook up and play with... but it sure is fun if you can. If not, your gonna have to have a good imagination to play any War game IMO.
Maybe look at the Bge/Div mix in the Allied BGs and the Rgt/etc/Div German BGs at the start of your Operation/Campaign as the troops at hand for immediate battle with their 'reserves' in the pool as most units would not commit every available unit to a battle in an area (map) from moment one. For instance you know you began the campaign with 5 Cromwells... had 3 in the opening battle and lost 2. Do you save your 'points' (remaining Cromwells) or use them now? Do you just hold on a few more turns, thin out the opponent, then bring them on later? Etc?
I have complaints with every one of the the CC games... but if I don't like one enough, I just play the other .
Don't pick on acebars
He did not start this CC5 v CC3 war
if you kindly read the 1st post, you will plainly see that this feud was started by a CC5 fan who picked a fight.
We CC3 fans are just standing up against unfair criticism
If the CC5ers can't take it, then they should not dish it out
In CC5 you go back to your force pool, and swap them for new teams. The shot to pieces units go back into the force pool where they miraculously automatically become 100% brand new units Whats have you lost NOTHING
Wrong. In a well constructed GC almost every team counts. Especially quality teams. Any CC5 GC player can tell you that.
Even better why don’t you try what you just suggested and see how that would play out in a CC5 GC?
You may have gained some ground on the maps, your opponent had much fewer casualties, but lost 5 complete teams, so his loss is actually much greater, is that fair?
Well, mate that’s called a “pyrrhus victory” and yes its possible to have such victorys in a CC5 game, but that will bite the “victorious” side later on. (Thus why we call that....)
This “pyrrhus victory-tactics” is often used in CC5 GC, especially by the more experience players who know how to use that to draw the opponent into something that will cause his defeat later on. Its a matter of skill and experiance only, noobs should not try that at first.
Mmmm thinking of it, isn’t that how many fights in real life has been won and lost? Is that bad when that can be simulated in a game?
Hey Ace.
I understand you like CC3. I don't understand your ripping CC5 so hard tho. Each obviously has it's fans and others that just don't care to play it when they can play the other (or any kind of game instead).
I have played them all, including H2H in CC2 and CC5 for a long time. I really think if you took some time to dl some of the mods for CC5- like for instance GJS, TRSM, Utah, Battle of Berlin, Stalingrad, Der Kessel, and some others that catch your eye you may even grow fond of the game. Plus as Stalky mentioned you can play h2h if you like... and make gentlemen's rules to make each game/op/campaign as 'realistic' as possible.
I personally play vs the AI probably 85% of the time now because of RL time constraints... and the 'decisions' the AI makes both strategically/tactically/picking units/always will just blow your mind sometimes and almost ruin it for you. I have learned to live with it somewhat... but it always happens. It is hard to find someone in your time zone with the same ideas/time/etc to hook up and play with... but it sure is fun if you can. If not, your gonna have to have a good imagination to play any War game IMO.
Maybe look at the Bge/Div mix in the Allied BGs and the Rgt/etc/Div German BGs at the start of your Operation/Campaign as the troops at hand for immediate battle with their 'reserves' in the pool as most units would not commit every available unit to a battle in an area (map) from moment one. For instance you know you began the campaign with 5 Cromwells... had 3 in the opening battle and lost 2. Do you save your 'points' (remaining Cromwells) or use them now? Do you just hold on a few more turns, thin out the opponent, then bring them on later? Etc?
I have complaints with every one of the the CC games... but if I don't like one enough, I just play the other .
Don't pick on acebars
He did not start this CC5 v CC3 war
if you kindly read the 1st post, you will plainly see that this feud was started by a CC5 fan who picked a fight.
We CC3 fans are just standing up against unfair criticism
If the CC5ers can't take it, then they should not dish it out
CHEERS
AGS
Thanks... but I've read every post. I think the critism is flowing both ways.
Posted: Thu Jun 28, 2012 7:40 pm Post subject: Re: CC5 vs CC3
Acebars,
Ok, I got bored with you, do yourself a favor next time, start reading on topic you want to argue about - you really look like looser and bullshitter..(1) - will be our reference number.
Quote:
No I said that they were relatively weaker. Do you understand what that means? It means 1 German against 20 Americans is stronger than 2 Germans against 55 Americans.
what's wrong with you? can't stand your own words?
Only 1 the weakest division faced the British and Canadians.(c)acebars - do you understand what that means?
Quote:
Where did you get that notion? The only thing I accept is that they still had a lot of countryside to get to the Kremlin and not the laughable 17km of city you claim Moscow to be then.
worse for you, refer to (1)
Khimki was 8km away from the city border. From Khimki it was 17km until Kremlin wall towers and 37km until Kremlin itself.
and that's how Moscow looked like in 1941:
Quote:
No, wiki and Antony Beevor's D-Day landing book, maybe you should read it.
By the end of D-Day, some 23,250 troops had safely landed on the beach, along with 1,700 vehicles(c)wiki - start reading what is written and not what you want to read - where is number of combat troops?
and btw recommendation of Beevor alone shows your level of knowledges.
Quote:
No, tankettes and universal carriers do not count as tanks. No stuart to my knowledge ever took part in a para drop.
refer to (1) - both Tetrarch I and Tetrarch ICS were tanks.
Quote:
I repeat I had several tanks fly in from the sky before the beach had even been taken!
that are your problems. don't use that many drugs and you will stop see flying tanks.
Quote:
Err for example US and US supplied units? By the end some had received Garands with and without bayonets, and some had discarded them in favour of combat knives.
refer to (1) - Garands were supplied to troops with bayonets till it was in production, same for M14 and M16.
Quote:
Like I said I'm not going to do your job of reading up the facts, why don't you find a late war german infantry manual, there is no mention of ever favouring fixing bayonets as a tactic, it is infact meant to be avoided.
refer to (1), read what is written by the people who knows - i've listed armies that used that as a main infantry tactics.
Quote:
Well I'm not sure what they've been teaching you in Russia, but its common historical knowledge that the Kalashnikov machine gun doctrine after the war was based on the mass human wave tactic employed by the Soviets during the war, except for the assault rifle was meant to replace the original sub-machine gun idea, that was the theory at least. Perhaps Kalashnikov got it wrong they were actually meant to fix bayonet?
refer to (1), you are so amateur....can't even comment this crazy shit.
Quote:
Most laughable notion that armies fixed bayonets as a main tactic in World War 2. Please stop taking the piss.
refer to (1) - that's how these armies were trained to attack.
Quote:
Resorting to petty statements about someone's knowledge while yourself showing ignorance, straw man arguments and not answering/avoiding/derailing the actual discussion is weak.
haha, funny, i've just understood why why this discussion is weak for you - you don't understand anything lol
and yes, refer to (1) and go your way.
Posted: Thu Jun 28, 2012 9:17 pm Post subject: Re: CC5 vs CC3
Quote:
Thanks... but I've read every post. Wink I think the critism is flowing both ways.
Yep, but the insults are only flowing from one direction, it seems that the otherside has to resort to insults when they run out of ways to defend CC5 in a debate.
Acebars,Ok, I got bored with you, do yourself a favor next time, start reading on topic you want to argue about - you really look like looser and bullshitter..(1) - will be our reference number.
You're bored of me? Then why did you write a whole page essay with added photographs? "Ok, I got bored with you" who are you to get bored with anybody anyway? You seem to be suffering from Russian Tsar syndrome and your arrogance is offensive.
Quote:
what's wrong with you? can't stand your own words? Only 1 the weakest division faced the British and Canadians.(c)acebars - do you understand what that means?
You asked me why they were the weakest and I explained to you that they had relatively more troops against them, they may have actually been stronger as a unit but I can't be arsed to waste my time looking it up, stop trying to pick little things up and blow them out of proportion and the only person with linguistic problems and a foul mouth seems to be you.
I quote myself again when this point was embryonic:
Quote:
I was under the impression (if I recall correctly) that the 716th had more Ost truppen than the 709th which also had them, this and the fact they were mostly facing the combined forces of the British and Canadians meant the Allies there had an easier time than elsewhere, perhaps they were comparitively weaker.
Quote:
Khimki was 8km away from the city border. From Khimki it was 17km until Kremlin wall towers and 37km until Kremlin itself.and that's how Moscow looked like in 1941:
37km again bullshit, type in Khimki to the Kremlin in google maps it is de facto 20km by road.
Thats a nice photo of the city centre, looks like the size of any other large city centre in Europe at the time. The top down map proves what? That Moscow had a city centre? That top down photo isn't even a 3km radius (you can check this again by comparing it to google maps) ? The outskirts of Moscow suburbs are now connected to Khimki do you logically think that Moscow hasn't grown since 1941? No, I prefer to accept the historical accounts and researches of historians who all acknowledged that the Germans closest point was some 20km away from the Kremlin and that they were still in rural Russia they had not yet reached the suburbs.
Or are you suggesting that they had reached the suburbs? Total bollocks either way.
Quote:
By the end of D-Day, some 23,250 troops had safely landed on the beach, along with 1,700 vehicles(c)wiki - start reading what is written and not what you want to read - where is number of combat troops?
Yes because the allies correctly calculated that they should send thousands of chefs and clergymen on the 1st day of the landings to break out of the beach head.
Quote:
and btw recommendation of Beevor alone shows your level of knowledges.
Really what because we can all count on post-war Russian historians who were totally unbiased? Or perhaps you know better than a professional historian?
Quote:
refer to (1) - both Tetrarch I and Tetrarch ICS were tanks.
The difference is academic those "light tanks" are nothing more than tankettes, they certainly performed as such and I'm not going to get bogged down in an argument over semantics. Besides, the argument was over Stuarts landing in Parachutes or Gliders.
Quote:
that are your problems. don't use that many drugs and you will stop see flying tanks.
You're totally unable to give a decent explanation or argument, so you have to resort to insults.
Quote:
refer to (1) - Garands were supplied to troops with bayonets till it was in production, same for M14 and M16.
Bayonets are still produced along side weapons today! That doesn't mean they all got issued or weren't discarded, the US army was not as rigid logistically or discipline wise as it is now. The bayonet has evolved into a combat knife which is what many double as today and they look nothing like a WW1-WW2 bayonet. Like I said before they are like ones appendix, we all have one but it is rarely if ever used,
Quote:
refer to (1), read what is written by the people who knows - i've listed armies that used that as a main infantry tactics.
Yep except for you are a century behind WW2, along with cavalry charges, they happened in WW2 but they were not the proscribed doctrine, bayonet charges were dropped as doctrine after WW1 and cavalry charges before that.
Quote:
refer to (1), you are so amateur....can't even comment this crazy shit.
Again resorting to insults because you are unable to explain the blatant logic presented to you. So you are saying that Kalashnikov actually got it wrong, he should have designed a new bayonet instead of the AK-47 for human waves?
Quote:
refer to (1) - that's how these armies were trained to attack.
Every army is trained to use bayonets, it is not the main fighting doctrine and hasn't been since World War 1
Quote:
you really look like looser and bullshitter....(1) - will be our reference number.
So, so far we have ascertained that you are arrogant, uncooth and immature, and when you are unable to provide a logical and factual argument you resort to lies and insults and at best misinterpret and/or cling to pathetic points for one-upmanship.
Quote:
haha, funny, i've just understood why why this discussion is weak for you - you don't understand anything lol
The only joke is you and your Boratesque arguments. Refer to (1) yourself.
Posted: Fri Jun 29, 2012 3:17 am Post subject: Re: CC5 vs CC3
The SHIT is getting real deep in this thread
I cant bring myself to read each post entirely, but I was trying to find at least one line that was definitive for me at least.
they can either lose or win on points like any other game, (i.e. football, basketball, etc), who ever has highest score wins, Duh!
Now, everyone with an IQ of less than 100, will totally fucking understand, right[slaps forehead]
The point system is effectively the importance/military resource availabity you have as a unit of receiving reinforcements at that time. So for example if you are due on an offensive you have more points or importance as a unit to pick more teams from a pool. When Germany is losing the war it has less military resources available and hence less points. The point system is effectively a reinforcement potential much like an army in real life.
CC3 is not the first game to try to explain away what their nebulous point system actually means. Besides, earlier posts suggested THESE points were in fact just POINTS, like in a football or basketball game.
But now, we are told points mean importance or reinforcement potential or military resources.
WTF
these
Definition
ADJECTIVE
1. plural of "this": the form of "this" used before a plural noun or with a multiple referent
" (pron) These are the people I was telling you about."
" (adj) These delays, along with the paperwork, can be costly for banks."
[ Old English þæs, þ?s, plural of þes (see this) ]
Fucking Morons
Last edited by Stwa on Fri Jun 29, 2012 3:44 am; edited 1 time in total
Posted: Fri Jun 29, 2012 3:23 am Post subject: Re: CC5 vs CC3
Yep, but the insults are only flowing from one direction, it seems that the otherside has to resort to insults when they run out of ways to defend CC5 in a debate.
Last edited by Stwa on Fri Jun 29, 2012 3:41 am; edited 1 time in total
Posted: Fri Jun 29, 2012 3:25 am Post subject: Re: CC5 vs CC3
So, so far we have ascertained that you are arrogant, uncooth and immature, and when you are unable to provide a logical and factual argument you resort to lies and insults and at best misinterpret and/or cling to pathetic points for one-upmanship
Last edited by Stwa on Fri Jun 29, 2012 3:42 am; edited 1 time in total
Posted: Fri Jun 29, 2012 3:26 am Post subject: Re: CC5 vs CC3
In other words the importance of that unit is low due to an offensive elsewhere so in CC3 points are low, tanks and artillery are available in the force pool as the war material is available to the US army but you do not have the points to be able to afford them until later or in a later operation.*
How you can portray this in a video game other than using a system like CC3 employs? Instead in CC5 US forces after the Tet Offensive all have hundreds of units of reserves and replenish them instantly, just nonsense.
So how the concept of reinforcement potentials against military resources at the time is a nebulous concept to you is beyond me, its about as nebulous as the real situation in a real life army.
*I corrected this part after other posts had already been made.
Last edited by Stwa on Fri Jun 29, 2012 3:49 am; edited 1 time in total
Posted: Fri Jun 29, 2012 3:27 am Post subject: Re: CC5 vs CC3
You've yet to actually show me how I don't understand the CC5 game mechanics, all you do is deliberately misinterpret, make presumptions, never answer the question and make some illogical arguments? You can't argue by making bullshit up.
Posted: Fri Jun 29, 2012 4:09 am Post subject: Re: CC5 vs CC3
That you have to resort to naming me a "troll and a waste of time" clearly shows you are unable to form a constructive argument irrespective of prejudice towards me (and I've heard enough already) to the points I have raised in CC5 and CC3, its simply a cop out and shows to me you are not capable of actually defending CC5 without having to resort to pathetic arguments like calling me a troll or questioning my experience or what I'm doing in this forum
Posted: Fri Jun 29, 2012 9:52 am Post subject: Re: CC5 vs CC3
Stwa seems you have a pretty faulty BS meter, it seems to be detecting the user .
I have so far been called a loser, a bullshitter, a troll, an amateur, a waste of time, a drug addict, an ignorant and a moron to name but a few, would you like to indicate to me just where I or the CC3 side have been name calling in such a manner? Or does your BS meter react to that as well.
Quote:
In other words the importance of that unit is low due to an offensive elsewhere so in CC3 points are low, tanks and artillery are available in the force pool as the war material is available to the US army but you do not have the points to be able to afford them until later or in a later operation.*
How you can portray this in a video game other than using a system like CC3 employs? Instead in CC5 US forces after the Tet Offensive all have hundreds of units of reserves and replenish them instantly, just nonsense.
So how the concept of reinforcement potentials against military resources at the time is a nebulous concept to you is beyond me, its about as nebulous as the real situation in a real life army.
*I corrected this part after other posts had already been made.
Quote:
You've yet to actually show me how I don't understand the CC5 game mechanics, all you do is deliberately misinterpret, make presumptions, never answer the question and make some illogical arguments? You can't argue by making bullshit up.
How are any of the points above BS, it seems the only thing you can't call BS on is when google maps shows the proof damn clearly. Clarify all your arguments rather than just labelling them BS, which is again a great way to argue seems you too are lining yourself up with the maturity crowd. I can too dissect everyone's posts and label them BS to, wouldn't that be fun?
Recently in CC5 my Stuart with a 37mm knocked out a Mark IIIJ in one shot head on.
Likewise my 81mm mortar knocked out a MarkIID with an indirect shot that fell beside it.
I personally doubt both the above were possible, but I may be wrong, can't see how a late war Mark III with updated armour would be knocked out frontally by a 37mm gun.
Likewise I can't see how a 8cm mortar round with no design for penetrating armour would knock out a Mark II by falling beside it.
On the AT argument, I personally find AT guns are far too easy to detect in CC5, likewise AT guns are super sensitive to mortar fire blowing up pretty much instantly, I find this difficult to be plausible.
During a battle, the troops you deploy, the 15 units are shot to pieces, but none are wiped out. Each squad has 1 or 2 men left, all your tanks are very severely damaged, but not lost.
In CC5 you go back to your force pool, and swap them for new teams. The shot to pieces units go back into the force pool where they miraculously automatically become 100% brand new units
You may have gained some ground on the maps, your opponent had much fewer casualties, but lost 5 complete teams, so his loss is actually much greater, is that fair?
Wrong. In a well constructed GC almost every team counts. Especially quality teams. Any CC5 GC player can tell you that.
...........Well, mate that’s called a “pyrrhus victory” and yes its possible to have such victorys in a CC5 game, but that will bite the “victorious” side later on. (Thus why we call that....)
This “pyrrhus victory-tactics” is often used in CC5 GC, especially by the more experience players who know how to use that to draw the opponent into something that will cause his defeat later on. Its a matter of skill and experiance only, noobs should not try that at first.
Yo guys, I'm really happy for you, I'ma let you finish, but CC2 has one of the best AI of all time!
Won't argue with you.
That seems to be a well established consensus.
Though some do suggest that the AI only performs better in CC2 because of it's smaller maps.
That theory does carry some weight, especially when considering, that if the better AI performance was because of better AI programming, then why was the CC2 AI programming not used in later CCs?
Only somebody with intimate knowledge of the AI programming of the various CC versions could answer that, i guess.
Lets hope, if it was better AI programming in CC2, that CC2's AI programming will be included in PITF
CHEERS
AGS
P.S. With that Passion for CC2, maybe you could follow your clansman and start a thread called:
"CC2 v CC4", i'm sure Platoon_Michael would oblige
Posted: Fri Jun 29, 2012 3:36 pm Post subject: Re: CC5 vs CC3
Quote:
I understand you like CC3. I don't understand your ripping CC5 so hard tho. Each obviously has it's fans and others that just don't care to play it when they can play the other (or any kind of game instead).
Hi dgfred, I'm only ripping into CC5 compared to CC3 to which it almost has no legs to stand on, I'm actually playing it again now (albeit single player) and its fairly boring, but if I really hated it I wouldn't be playing it, I have actually played the Stalingrad mod multiplayer and will probably play others in the future.
Hey Ace. Please give something besides the original CC5 regarding problems with wrong units, powerful mortars, other weapons, etc.
Ok dgfred fair enough wrong units, powerful mortars etc. are modifiable and hence should not be included in the debate. Likewise the fact that 2 companies of only some 100 soldiers landing on Utah beach can be forgotten about because CC5 can be modified by complete mod make overs etc. fair enough.
But I think there have been enough problems raised regarding the very core structure of CC5, which without rewriting and remaking the whole game cannot be changed.
Let me condense some of the points for you so far unanswered or logically explainable/debated by the opposition.
-In CC5 companies cannot retreat or fallback they simply vanish into thin air only to reappear 50-100 miles behind lines the next day.
-CC3 is historical, CC5 is ahistorical, a company cannot change the course of a war.
-In CC5 divisions are represented as 2-3 companies.
-In CC5 a Regimemt is represented by a company.
-Historical/Realistic ratios of losses are incorrect in CC5, far too much Armour to AT losses.
-Tanks that could not at the time be paradropped in fact can be behind enemy lines in CC5, they cannot in CC2.
-The reinforcement point system in CC3 is a realistic simulator of war material available vs priority of that unit that very well mimics real armies throughout the centuries, CC5 cannot do this.
-The reinforcement system in CC5 is unrealistic, units shot to pieces can be miraculously swapped around for a brand new team with 0 detriment to the force as as whole.
-The reinforcement system in CC5 is unrealistic, a unit shot to pieces but with 2/3 or more intact (something like that) is miraculously reinforced incurring 0 losses and of 0 detriment to the force as whole.
-The battlegroup system in CC5 is unrealistic, companies walk around with a trail of hundreds of reinforcements behind them with perfect information of how many reinforcements they have and will have, these reinforcements are not an army pool and cannot be shared with other units as a whole. (CC2 btw got this right)
These are just some of the points. I think you will find many of these are completely unfixable in CC5, without having to go back to playing CC3 a better game (or even CC2!).
Dima, no longer able to actually put a coherent argument (or sentence) together without name calling tantrums has had to resort to this last hopeless defence of calling people Trolls.
This is a weak way of avoiding answering the points or debating the defence of CC5 and is a trollism itself.
Let me do your job for you, there is one way CC5 is better than CC3, tanks can drive through objects and hedgerows and in the process clear them.
Other than that thanks for convincing someone who (if you read my earliest posts) was open to the question about CC5, that CC3 is a much better game.
As AGS put it, your only course of salvation is to break your CC5 discs and repent by converting to CC3!
Posted: Fri Jun 29, 2012 8:40 pm Post subject: Re: CC5 vs CC3
You got so bored of me you gave me some points! Thanks for the vote Dima, more insults + the pot calling the kettle black an act of desperation. What else are you going to resort to? I have stood by all my words and defended/conceded points, whereas as you have resorted to insults whenever you are pressed and unable to defend your position, this topped off with the audacity to call anybody else a troll.
Quote:
Khimki was 8km away from the city border. From Khimki it was 17km until Kremlin wall towers and 37km until Kremlin itself.
Coming from somebody who claimed Khimki was 37km from the Kremlin, when it is de facto 20km on google maps nearly half that by road , really gives you the substance to call anyone a bullshitter (not mentioning fixing bayonets as a main WW2 tactic).
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You can download files in this forum
In August of 2004, Zappi, Homba, Bambam887, RedScorpion and MOOXE all pitched
in to create this Close Combat site. I would to thank all the people who have visited
and found this site to thier liking. I hope you had time to check out some
of the great Close Combat mods and our forums. I'd also like to thank
all the members of our volunteer staff that have helped over
the years, and all our users that contributed to this site!
OK, just one more 
)
