Posted: Fri Jun 29, 2012 9:43 pm Post subject: Re: CC5 vs CC3
Hopefully that will be my last for you until you start preparing to argue about anything.
Quote:
Coming from somebody who tried to suggest Khimki was 37km from the Kremlin, when it is de facto 20km on google maps nearly half that, really gives you the substance to call anyone a bullshitter (not mentioning bayonets).
You are so stupid troll that doesn't understand that modern highways were not existing that time and all the bridges would be blown up.
You are so stupid troll that you are so bullshiteater that you don't understand you ate so much shit.
You are just so stupid troll and please stop using my name in your posts - i tried, i failed, you useless :)
Actually, i've met alot of trolls but they were either lacking knowledge or were too optimistic - you are just too dumb.
Anway, now you are the only person I know with negative reputation at CCS - refer to (1) plz.
Posted: Fri Jun 29, 2012 9:52 pm Post subject: Re: CC5 vs CC3
Quote:
Hopefully that will be my last for you
Tsar syndrome again? You sound like the bad boss in a James bond movie.
Quote:
Anway, now you are the only person I know with negative reputation at CCS - refer to (1) plz.
You don't know me and like I said before refer yourself and your dirty mouth to your own references.
Quote:
You are so stupid troll that doesn't understand that modern highways were not existing that time and all the bridges would be blown up.
A direct route from Khimki measured point to point is LESS than 20km, via road it is 20km, roads are rarely straight, basic geography and you can call anyone dumb?
Quote:
Actually, i've met alot of trolls but they were either lacking knowledge or were too optimistic - you are just too dumb.
Look in the mirror!
Quote:
You are so stupid troll that you are so bullshiteater that you don't understand you ate so much shit.
You are just so stupid troll and please stop using my name in your posts - i tried, i failed, you useless
Erm it is you who keep refering to me (after dgfreds post, remember?), it was you who gave me negative votes, it is you who keep throwing insults at me. Don't be a sore loser and wash your bloody mouth out.
Last edited by acebars on Fri Jun 29, 2012 10:07 pm; edited 2 times in total
Posted: Fri Jun 29, 2012 10:00 pm Post subject: Re: CC5 vs CC3
Quote:
A direct route from Khimki measured point to point is LESS than 20km, via road it is 20km, roads are rarely straight, basic geography (I am tempted to call you a retard now for not realising this).
you are just retard. you don't understand shit.
there were no direct routes from Khimkin to Kremlin in 1941 - eat shit like you like to do.
Posted: Fri Jun 29, 2012 10:04 pm Post subject: Re: CC5 vs CC3
Quote:
you are just retard. you don't understand shit.
there were no direct routes from Khimkin to Kremlin in 1941 - eat shit like you like to do.
I repeat point to point Khimki-Kremlin is less than 20km, basic geography.
Quote:
you are useless troll and good bye.
No more replies to stupid troll from me.
The Tsar has had enough of this upstart revolution threatening his regime of lies and bullshit and leaves in a filthy mouthed name calling tantrum, very mature. Good riddens.
Posted: Sat Jun 30, 2012 8:27 am Post subject: Re: CC5 vs CC3
Hello Acebars / Ubertroll and welcome to CCS
I have played both and prefer CC5, why? because it was more fun. The first GC I played in CC5 was in 2001 and it was gripping, my BG's advancing across the map being counterattacked form the south. I didn't realise at first you cant use MOVE FAST all the time, I learned that lesson soon!
-CC3 is historical, CC5 is ahistorical, a company cannot change the course of a war.
Neither CC3 nor CC5 is historical...neither starts or ends up with the same result as history, neither should they...they are games played in safe first world countries by gamers in their underwear like me
-In CC5 divisions are represented as 2-3 companies.
Yes! Also the maps are NOT continuous, it is a sector of a larger area that the regiment occupies. This is the "abstaction" that allows the game to be played with only 15 units representing the forces in a small part of a larger area
No a regiment is a regiment, you just dont play a battle with the entire regiment as this would be ridiculous. The force pools account for the rest of the regiment.
-Tanks that could not at the time be paradropped in fact can be behind enemy lines in CC5, they cannot in CC2.
Yes they tried to simulate the ground forces meeting and reinforcing the paratroops by changing the forcepools after a few days. But, if you dont reach the airbourne troops by that day, you still get the tanks. As was said this is compensated for by a player rule. Not the best, something in the game to know if a AB is connected to ground troops would be better.
-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.
CC3 takes place over many years, CC5 is many days so it needs a different system. Production of units and material available is irrelavent as they were already on the planes and boats!
-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 fresh units are waiting behind lines, why go into battle with depleted units? In CC3, units with injuries carry them for months / years unless rested.
-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)
NO, the map where the battle is fought is only a small part of the sector on the strat map. The units are not trailing them around, they are in the sector. You need to change your thinking from CC3's battles which seem to represent a mixed Kampfgruppe(mixed SS / Heer and FJ troops - really?) of various units fighting their way to Moscow to the CC5 version where the units represent a small section of a larger force (force pool).
I still enjoy CC5 over CC3 - this is a subjective opinion, no point arguing! The start map adds so much to the game I cant go back to CC3.
Hello pvt_Grunt, thank you ! Well this accusation seems dependent on which side you are on, and has been the oppositions last resort to not answering points logically or factually.
Neither CC3 nor CC5 is historical...neither starts or ends up with the same result as history, neither should they...they are games played in safe first world countries by gamers in their underwear like me
Well I'd argue the result is always the same in CC3 the defeat of Germany, no? The close combat series originally was meant to be a historic combat simulator, I personally believe CC2 got this spot on, CC3 also did very well and well then we come to CC5 (Off topic: There are actually many players in 2nd world countries (for example Russia) and also 3rd world continents like Africa (I actually played a guy in South Africa, who knows he may have had to play real life close combat in his underwear! )).
-In CC5 divisions are represented as 2-3 companies.
Yes! Also the maps are NOT continuous, it is a sector of a larger area that the regiment occupies. This is the "abstaction" that allows the game to be played with only 15 units representing the forces in a small part of a larger area
Personally don't find this very plausible, regiments fight as regiments, I think its really apologising for a blatant flaw in the game. In CC3 you make part of the front line hence the movement is linear and I always presupposed I was being flanked by other units/companies of my regiment etc. This brings up another concept flaw in CC5, there is no concept of a front line, instead when you attack a map you just arrive as a blob in one area and then you fight it out until you from that blob or the other blob control the whole map, this is irrespective if the side of the map you are controlling actually backs onto a massive opponent force, so CC5 is in fact a cellular strategy game with instances of a frontline.
No a regiment is a regiment, you just dont play a battle with the entire regiment as this would be ridiculous. The force pools account for the rest of the regiment.
Well its only ridiculous because the makers tried to press the Close combat engine into a strategy game requiring regimental size and division size units not companies. Regiments fight as regiments and the disposition of their companies according to the front line, it is simply ridiculous to think that 80+% of the fighting force of a regiment trailed behind. The germans certainly could not afford such luxuries being heavily outnumbered.
CC3 takes place over many years, CC5 is many days so it needs a different system. Production of units and material available is irrelavent as they were already on the planes and boats!
The argument stills stands, a commander still cannot and for intelligence reasons would not know what his future reinforcements will be accurately, he could know roughly he will have many tanks, no artillery and air support for example. It is the duty of high command to distribute reinforcements army and then division down, no commander had a trail of hundreds of exactly calculated reinforcements. A commander knows what his force is and his immediate reserves are and the force pool cannot be justified as reserves as it is many times larger than the company actually fighting, neither can it be justified as a reinforcement pool for the whole division as it is specific to only that unit.
Quote:
The fresh units are waiting behind lines, why go into battle with depleted units? In CC3, units with injuries carry them for months / years unless rested.
The argument still stands, they are in no way accounted for as being wounded and I can never again requisition that team with that wounded soldier. The fact that teams still 2/3 intact are completely replenished to no detriment is also not accounted for.
Quote:
NO, the map where the battle is fought is only a small part of the sector on the strat map. The units are not trailing them around, they are in the sector..... Of various units fighting their way to Moscow to the CC5 version where the units represent a small section of a larger force (force pool).
Well this is exactly what we are hammering at, the units simply aren't in the sector they are only seen if you put them in the company for action, likewise they are not a real force pool they are not shared with other units in that division they simply trail around with that and specifically for that company until you select them for action, again I doubt the germans could have afforded such a luxury being heavily outnumbered.
Quote:
You need to change your thinking from CC3's battles which seem to represent a mixed Kampfgruppe(mixed SS / Heer and FJ troops - really?
Units were in fact sometimes mixed for example in the Italy campaign, even an FJ regiment could have several companies of wehrmacht supporting it* and nearly every wehrmacht squad in italy had 1-2 SS troops in it. I thought this was nicely hinted at in CC3 as the higher ranking you are the more potential you have to control or have put under your control varied units.
Quote:
I still enjoy CC5 over CC3 - this is a subjective opinion, no point arguing! The start map adds so much to the game I cant go back to CC3.
We prefer to think of this as a preference, but that de facto CC3 is a better game. :wink:
*FJ units were actually the purest of all the German units in Italy, I edited this after other posts had been made for clarification.
Last edited by acebars on Sat Jun 30, 2012 2:25 pm; edited 3 times in total
no, that picture shows only:
1) that you were taking more ATGs than tanx in your battles.
2) there are too few tanks available in these operations shown in the picture which confirms limitations of CC3 where one has to use only single reinforced company throughout all operations.
WRONG M8
No, it proves more ATGs were being destroyed each battle.
There could have been more tanks which swamped the ATG defenses and wiped them out
If i was taking more INVISIBLE AT guns into the battles, then tank losses would be even much higher because they dont stand a chance against INVISIBLE ATguns!
The Reason for so many ATgun casualties in the statistics is that the ATguns were NOT INVISIBLE ENOUGH!
Yes, we had to buy a lot of ATguns because the tanks kept destroying them because of their lack of invisibility
Quote:
For proof, i give you the Campaign Debrief Screen from the Dima v AT_STALKY TRSM H2H AAR:
PLEASE NOTE CC5's TOTALLY UNREALISTIC TANK/GUN LOSS RATIO 412 tanks v 93 guns
There is now further proof of why CC3 is a far better wargame, because its statistical results depicts far more accurately a reflection of historical battle losses statistics in the results
no, you just proved:
1) that with good tactics ATGs can be effective against tanx without making them unrealistically invisible like it was in CC3.
2) that GJS sector was heavy on tanks which is historically represented in TRSM .
IF, you are right, and GJS is just an exception in CC5, then you would definately be able to show that in that in the other CC5 mods that the tank/gun ratio was reversed.......... (and without photoshopping CC5 GC CDS screenshots).
So, iirc, pretty much all CC5 GC CDS screenshots that i have seen, in all the various CC5 mods, show similar ratios.
Willl you now tell me that CC5 modders have banded together and decided that they will all only make mods of battles in sectors which are "tank heavy"?
no, you just proved: .............................................
2) that GJS sector was heavy on tanks which is historically represented in TRSM .
Just thought i would do some research, on your behalf Dima, to try to support your belief that it was just the GJS sector of Normandy was TANK HEAVY v ATGs in CC5 mods
Screenshot from your CC5 UTAH sector GC has 172 tanks v 66 guns destroyed after 6 days
Nearly 3 Tanks per Gun
yes, really, even small caliber ATGs like pak36 and M37 were to be spotted and engaged by tanks at 500m...........so yes, invisible ATGs are unrealistic and ahistorical and that's why they were fixed in CC4-5.
Just out of curiosity...........
This CC3 anomily of invisible ATGs.. that was later cured in a CC4/CC5......
Was it in the Data Base files, or the exe
(not a rhetorical question)
If it was in the data base files, then it would be easily edited out of existence in CC3 by a modder
Personally, i dont find ATGs to be much of a problem, they are easily enough located and destroyed.
Maybe i accidentally fixed the problem in DOF, if not, i still dont understand your complaint
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.
Yes and neither should they be, it is a game, if you want to finish with the same or near ratios what is the point of playing? .
The point of playing is to simulate the responsability, the pressure, the thrill, of commanding a WW2 unit during WW2 battles
Which of course, CC3 does better!
Why?
Because it simulates one command, being one officer, commanding one company
Commanding men that you know and have personally grown fond of as you nurture them, watching them gain experience, get promoted, men with names that you remember, names whom you grieve over/miss when they are gone
Not like CC5 where you suffer with a multiple identity disorder, as you bounce around making decisions at several command levels (ahistorical & unrealistic) as a General moving regiments, a Colonel moving battalions, a Major moving companies, and finally, the company commander moving squads.
You have lttle or no relationship with your sprites in CC5.
You may as well play Panzer General2, it is a better Strat game than CC5.
OK pvt_Grunt, i hope the shot across your bow will suffice
Be careful cobber, a guided missile IS "Locked on" to your midships
Research has proved, in regard to Tank/Gun loss ratios, that TRSM is the MOST UNREALISTIC CC5 mod yet! .
In the CC moding world one just don’t slash each others work like that. Work that has been done for the joy of one self and then shared with others so they can enjoy some fun and relaxation.
Shaking my head slowly…
--------------------------------------
Its been said in this thread so many times:
Loss ratios are due to troops select, and also player skill and doctines. If there is no tanks awalible one will not lose tanks etc...
CC3 playes out from 1941 up to 1945 in the EAST FRONT… In 1941 the Paks was basicly represented by the 37 mm Pak 36. Towed with hourses or a small car. Ok, was that so in 1944? What happened? A cool tank in 1941 was the Pz Mk III with a 37 mm or a short 50mm gun. What was a cool tank in summer of 1944…
How many Tank Destroyers was there in 1941? Why did the Germans change to self-propelled AT guns? How about close combat AT ability’s in 1941? Compared to summer 1944…. See what I mean? Things change… Take this into account and look at the open arias in east, and compare that to the close contact hedge landscape and build up arias in Normandy. Can you feel the difference? How about the material available to the UK in Normandy… Compare that to…
CC5 plays out over 25 days in June 1944.
Okay, lets look at wich German units that killed Allied tank in June 1944 in Normandy.
German Units credited with number of Allied tank kills in June 1944 (21 days):
No1 Killer unit of Allied tank was Germans Tanks, number of kills: 227 No2 Killer unit of Allied tank was Germans Stug/PzJägere, number of kills: 114 No3 Killer unit of Allied tank was Germans Close Combat AT weapons (Shrecks/Faust etc), number of kills: 108 No4 Killer unit of Allied tank was Germans Pak AT guns, number of kills: 84 No5 Killer unit of Allied tank was Germans Artillery, number of kills: 36 No6 Killer unit of Allied tank was Germans Flak guns, number of kills: 21
So lets see, of the 626 Allied tanks killed in June 1944 in Normandy only 84 was killed by German Pak AT guns, as in 13% of the Allied tank was killed by AT guns…. …..
So lets see, of the 626 Allied tanks killed in June 1944 in Normandy 542 was killed by any other unit with AT ability, as in 87% of the allied tank was killed with ANYTHING but a Pak AT gun.. …. …..
So lets see, of the 626 Allied tanks killed in June 1944 in Normandy 227 tanks was killed by German tanks,as in 36% of the allied tank was killed by a German tank…. …..
ect etc
That how tactical fights was in Normandy in June 1944.. The German weapon vs the allied tanks was German tanks and Stug’s, JPZ and self propelled AT guns, and also the close combat AT weapons (schreck/Faust) came handy in the hedge and build up arias in Normandy 1944.. The AT-guns and Flak guns played a sub ordinary role in the tactical fights in June 1944 Normandy … amongst the hedges, the build up arias, with the material available... And that’s what CC5 mimics...
Funny enough, that’s the same weapons we often chose’s when playing TRSM… Because…. they are available …… and they are …. effective… amongst ..... the .... hedges. .... u know .... in .... Normandy .. u know.... ..... in ....the ..... . summer ... of ..... 1944...
CC5 is not 4 years of fight in the East fronts open arias (1941-1945) .
Posted: Mon Jul 02, 2012 9:11 pm Post subject: Re: CC5 vs CC3
As I think of it, it’s so funny that Germans in CC5 don’t have air support.
I mean the loss ratios of Germans JU87 Stuka Tank-busters vs Tanks is just so unrealistic in CC5.
Should not CC5 Normandy have the same Tank-buster vs Tank loss ratios as they had in east front from 1941 to 1945..…
In Normandy beach summer of 1944, a German soldier gives a new recruit a basic lesson of air plains.
1. If you see a gray air plain its American.
2. If you see a green air plain its English.
3. If you dont see any air plain its German.
Hidden:
And yeh, that’s both sarcasm and irony mate.
Last edited by AT_Stalky on Mon Jul 02, 2012 10:38 pm; edited 1 time in total
Posted: Mon Jul 02, 2012 9:29 pm Post subject: Re: CC5 vs CC3
Quote:
Shame on you AGS.
Personally don't see what is wrong with criticism, it is in fact democratic and positive and should surely prompt improvement? (Or conversion back to CC3 )
Quote:
In 1941 the Paks was basicly represented by the 37 mm Pak 36. Towed with hourses or a small car. Ok, was that so in 1944? What happened? A cool tank in 1941 was the Pz Mk III with a 37 mm or a short 50mm gun. What was a cool tank in summer of 1944… How many Tank Destroyers was there in 1941? Why did the Germans change to self-propelled AT guns?
....How about close combat AT ability’s in 1941? Compared to summer 1944…. See what I mean?
I think you'll find that the Germans were still towing many of their AT guns with horses in 1944, and I doubt SP ever overtook the amount of AT guns available.
Quote:
So lets see, of the 626 Allied tanks killed in June 1944 in Normandy 227 tanks was killed by German tanks,as in 36% of the allied tank was killed by a German tank…. …..
I would be interested to know how many AT guns the Germans fielded compared to the tanks they fielded, + the losses of their AT guns vs their Tanks.
Likewise aren't the Allied tank vs tank losses you quote not mostly from Operation Goodwood and hence distinct from the rest of Normandy?
German Units credited with number of Allied tank kills in June 1944 (21 days):
The numbers I presented was from June 1944.
So the only problem is that Operation Goodwood starts 18 th of JULY…… You know like…. later… tick tack..
Basics …
Mate at least read Wiki article or something before reply. It works best that way, for everyone.
Please.
Nice try with the patronising response and the "basics" accusation. I've been working at the computer all day and only glossed over your post so sorry if I didn't note it was June only, besides I posed a question I didn't make a statement, my first genuine mistake is used as evidence of not knowing the basics etc. thats pretty low even for you Stalky, tut, tut. If someone mentions Goodwood and happens to know it was an armoured fence off in Normandy it presumes they know a little bit more than just basics. Please.
How about those AT gun statistics to back up your armoured losses comparison.
Personally don't see what is wrong with criticism, it is in fact democratic and positive and should surely prompt improvement? (Or conversion back to CC3 )
I have understood what makes you tick and what mission you’re at here. Congratulations you have succeeded.
How about those AT gun statistics to back up your armoured losses comparison.
Na, I have not presented any such numbers. I have presented figures that points to how the tactical fights was in Normandy in June 1944.
I have not presented figures from the whole campaign.
And that was not loss figures at all but actual credited kills. They are not the same as actual losses either…
The figures presented should thus only give the reader a sense of the characteristics of the June fights in Normandy. And that the fight is not the same as 4 years of fighting in the East front…
Did you not understand that? I have understood what makes you tick and what mission you’re at here.
And there’s a difference between tactical combat losses (you know like the losses one we have in Close Combat Games) and the aggregated overall losses.
So you would make a mistake taking the aggregated losses and believing they are tactical battle losses… They are not.
CC don’t count losses due to strafing, that’s not simulated in the CC-game losses. CC don’t count losses due to bombing, they are not counted in the CC-game losses. CC don’t count losses due to artillery used outside the actual tactical battle. CC don’t count losses when a unit withdraws and has no vehicle or horse to tow the material with. CC don’t count the losses that occur when a unit is surrounded and they give up… CC don’t count the losses that comes from a blown up bridge or destroyed road where the unit has to leave the material behind, they are not tactical losses. Etc etc… And that’s the reason I showed them figures, as they portrays the tactical….. and not the… see what I mean... no... I dint think so.
Close Combat only counts losses in the actual tactical fight.
Did you not understand that? I have understood what makes you tick and what mission you’re at here.
Posted: Tue Jul 03, 2012 8:48 am Post subject: Re: CC5 vs CC3
Quote:
I have understood what makes you tick and what mission you’re at here. Congratulations you have succeeded.
Well I'm not here to moan about what is really positive criticism or give negative points to anyone for criticising the obvious, which is childlish imo.
Quote:
Na, I have not presented any such numbers. I have presented figures that points to how the tactical fights was in Normandy in June 1944. I have not presented figures from the whole campaign.
Whats your point? I never said you presented such statistics, I asked if you could present those statistics specifically AT statistics, to back up your argument.
Quote:
And that the fight is not the same as 4 years of fighting in the East front…
This is arguably a fair point.
Quote:
Did you not understand that? I have understood what makes you tick and what mission you’re at here.
My mission here is to prove that de facto CC3 is a better game than CC5, and I'm not resorting to any underhand derailment tactics to prove this and you are not doing a very good job of factually and logically defending it without resorting to personal attacks.
Last edited by acebars on Tue Jul 03, 2012 8:51 am; edited 1 time in total
In the CC moding world one just don’t slash each others work like that. Work that has been done for the joy of one self and then shared with others so they can enjoy some fun and relaxation.
Oh Stalker
Seems you have no sense of humour at all thats so sad
Even Dima would have realised that i was just razzing him not genuinely attacking his work (shakes head)
Dima has earned my respect, as a man/modder who is passionate about historical accuracy,.... but you.......
Now about people criticizing a modder's work that has been done for the joy of oneself and then shared with others so they can enjoy some fun and relaxation, i know all about being a victim of that.
Nikin has ruthlessly criticised (slashed) my work on the DOF mod that i made.
DOF was made for my local friends and i to play, for our fun
DOF was realeased to the world wide CC community in gratitude for all the CC resources the CC community made available that made DOF possible.
So don't think you have any right to become all high and mighty claiming your undeserved high moral ground and attack my reputation.
In so doing, you had to lower your own reputation, but not just in points, but where it realy matters, in the eyes of the CC fans who read the forums
You should not be shaking your head, rather, you should be lowering your head in shame
Realy, you should not log on here after having had a bad day at work
CC3 playes out from 1941 up to 1945 in the EAST FRONT… In 1941 the Paks was basicly represented by the 37 mm Pak 36. Towed with hourses or a small car. Ok, was that so in 1944? What happened? A cool tank in 1941 was the Pz Mk III with a 37 mm or a short 50mm gun. What was a cool tank in summer of 1944…
How many Tank Destroyers was there in 1941? Why did the Germans change to self-propelled AT guns? How about close combat AT ability’s in 1941? Compared to summer 1944…. See what I mean? Things change… Take this into account and look at the open arias in east, and compare that to the close contact hedge landscape and build up arias in Normandy. Can you feel the difference? How about the material available to the UK in Normandy… Compare that to…
CC5 plays out over 25 days in June 1944.
Okay, lets look at wich German units that killed Allied tank in June 1944 in Normandy.
German Units credited with number of Allied tank kills in June 1944 (21 days):
No1 Killer unit of Allied tank was Germans Tanks, number of kills: 227 No2 Killer unit of Allied tank was Germans Stug/PzJägere, number of kills: 114 No3 Killer unit of Allied tank was Germans Close Combat AT weapons (Shrecks/Faust etc), number of kills: 108 No4 Killer unit of Allied tank was Germans Pak AT guns, number of kills: 84 No5 Killer unit of Allied tank was Germans Artillery, number of kills: 36 No6 Killer unit of Allied tank was Germans Flak guns, number of kills: 21
So lets see, of the 626 Allied tanks killed in June 1944 in Normandy only 84 was killed by German Pak AT guns, as in 13% of the Allied tank was killed by AT guns…. …..
So lets see, of the 626 Allied tanks killed in June 1944 in Normandy 542 was killed by any other unit with AT ability, as in 87% of the allied tank was killed with ANYTHING but a Pak AT gun.. …. …..
So lets see, of the 626 Allied tanks killed in June 1944 in Normandy 227 tanks was killed by German tanks,as in 36% of the allied tank was killed by a German tank…. …..
ect etc
That how tactical fights was in Normandy in June 1944.. The German weapon vs the allied tanks was German tanks and Stug’s, JPZ and self propelled AT guns, and also the close combat AT weapons (schreck/Faust) came handy in the hedge and build up arias in Normandy 1944.. The AT-guns and Flak guns played a sub ordinary role in the tactical fights in June 1944 Normandy … amongst the hedges, the build up arias, with the material available... And that’s what CC5 mimics...
Funny enough, that’s the same weapons we often chose’s when playing TRSM… Because…. they are available …… and they are …. effective… amongst ..... the .... hedges. .... u know .... in .... Normandy .. u know.... ..... in ....the ..... . summer ... of ..... 1944...
CC5 is not 4 years of fight in the East fronts open arias (1941-1945) .
OK
How your argument fails totally, in many respects.
(1a) You contend that because German tanks caused 36% allied tank losses compared to German ATguns 13%, thus German tanks should have higher losses compared to German PaK ATguns.
Ok, even if that was a sensible, coherant, realistic, or sane argument, 36/13 is less than 3 to 1
(1b)What if allied planes destroyed twice as many German tanks as the allied tanks did, then, using Stalky's logic, the allies must have lost twice as many planes as tanks?
That argument is so illogical, its ludicrous! (there is no smiley icon crazy enough).
(2) "Guns" in the CC losses statistics includes, not just AT guns, but also AA guns and all other non-self-propelled artillery (i.e. Howitzers, Heavy Mortars).
The fact that you argue AT guns and not Guns, makes this yet another of your "Strawman" arguments (Shakes head)
(3) For a serious, rational argument, regarding the ratio of Tank/Gun losses, it would have been wise, pertinent, sensible, logical (factors that elude Stalky when debating me) to have included statistics for Gun/artillery losses, not just tank losses
Having done some cursory research on Wehrmacht & SS Gun Losses in normandy, i found nothing definative, only a mention on Feldgrau.com re German material losses in Normandy being about 1500 tanks and 3500 guns, which is a credible ratio.
Loss ratios are due to troops select, and also player skill and doctines. If there is no tanks awalible one will not lose tanks etc...
Troop selection is ENTIRELY DEPENDENT on what you have to select from.
If a CC5 game has an average of 4 guns and 16 AFVs per BG, then even a child could work out that this will ultimately have GREAT effect on what a player CAN CHOOSE and ultimately have a massive influence on the likely Tank/gun loss ratio.
(dissclaimer, the above paragraph is merely a hypothetical, not an inference about TRSM, though i would be curious to know the full TRSM TOEs)
If there is no guns available, one will not lose guns etc
If there are few guns available, one can only lose a few guns etc
Ok, Stalky, stop stalking me and go find somebody who is intelectually challenged to debate with so that you may seem to win occaisionally.
You contend that because German tanks caused 36% allied tank losses compared to German ATguns 13%, thus German tanks should have higher losses compared to German PaK ATguns. Ok, even if that was a sensible, coherant, realistic, or sane argument, 36/13 is less than 3 to 1.
German material losses in Normandy being about 1500 tanks and 3500 guns, which is a credible ratio.
Yeh. Exact. Thats aggregated losses for the whole campaign, not tactical losses in June. And yeh, the lost guns are AT-Guns and Flak guns and Artillery guns, do they also include the naval guns lost?
Last edited by AT_Stalky on Tue Jul 03, 2012 9:44 am; edited 1 time in total
You contend that because German tanks caused 36% allied tank losses compared to German ATguns 13%, thus German tanks should have higher losses compared to German PaK ATguns. Ok, even if that was a sensible, coherant, realistic, or sane argument, 36/13 is less than 3 to 1.
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!
)
(Off topic: There are actually many players in 2nd world countries (for example Russia) and also 3rd world continents like Africa (I actually played a guy in South Africa, who knows he may have had to play real life close combat in his underwear! 
.JPG)
thats so sad 
