Posted: Tue Jul 03, 2012 10:44 am Post subject: Re: CC5 vs CC3
Quote:
No, it proves more ATGs were being destroyed each battle.
Yes, and there are 2 main reasons for that:
1) You were taking more ATGs than AVFs in battle.
2) ATGs couldn’t deal with AVFs employed in battle (like 3,7cm vs KV or 76mm vs Tiger).
Quote:
There could have been more tanks which swamped the ATG defenses and wiped them out
Or could not if it was (just examples):
1) Early war and there were PzII/III vs 76mm or T26/BT vs 3,7cm.
2) Late was and there were PzIII/IV vs 85mm or T34/KV vs 8,8cm.
In both examples shown above, tank losses will be heavier than ATG losses.
Quote:
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!
No, if you were taking KV vs 3,7cm (Tiger vs 76mm) early war or IS-2 vs 7,5cm (KT vs 76mm) late war.
In such scenarios no matter how INVISIBLE ATGs are they won’t be able to penetrate frontal armor of these AVFs so AVFs and supporting units will have enough time to spot muzzle smoke and deal with INVISIBLE ATGs.
Quote:
The Reason for so many ATgun casualties in the statistics is that the ATguns were NOT INVISIBLE ENOUGH!
Or the ATG tactics was flawed or ATGs couldn’t deal with enemy AVFs (check above) or you were just taking statistically more ATGs than AVFs in battles .
Quote:
Yes, we had to buy a lot of ATguns because the tanks kept destroying them because of their lack of invisibility
Or maybe because they are cheaper than AVFs and it you keep having enough points of for 1 AVF and 3 ATGs or for 2 AVFs so you were choosing to have more AT weapons to stop advance of your opponent?
Quote:
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"?
It is obvious now that you just don’t know that in CC5 all the AVFs that got destroyed, damaged, immobilized or taken in battle when your BG is cut and out of fuel, are listed in destroyed tanks column for the total losses. So basically if your BG is cut and you take 5 AVFs in battle and they don’t have fuel from start all 5 of them will be listed as damaged in battle debriefing screen and destroyed in operation debriefing screen while all of them remains in your roster
.
Same for ATGs, but obviously AVFs got more often damaged than ATGs .
Quote:
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
Yes, m8, don’t worry you are not the first I met who fails in making correct conclusion out of information massive available. Mainly that happens due to biased carelessness or lack of basic knowledge on topic one is trying to research :P
Quote:
Screenshot from your CC5 UTAH sector GC has 172 tanks v 66 guns destroyed after 6 days
Nearly 3 Tanks per Gun
German losses: 47 AVFs vs 47 ATGs – everything is clear here IMO, the Germans mainly use ATGs and SPGs (counted as AVFs) to counter the US advance.
US losses: 125 AVFs vs 19 ATGs – here we can see that the US commander heavily replies on AVFs to break through the German lines fast and that’s why there are a lot of damaged, immobilized and destroyed AVFs listed under Armor losses. He doesn’t use ATGs much as there are not many German AVFs available.
And that’s June 1944 where most of infantry teams have solid AT weapons capable of at least immobilizing AVF (they are listed under total Armor losses, yes ), not mentioning RzPB, GzB and PzF.
Soviet losses: 44 AVF vs 53 ATGs – again the Soviets are in defense using a lot of ATGs as they lack number of AVFs to counter the German advance.
German losses: 109 AVFs vs 21 ATGs – and again we can see that the German side tries to utilize its number superiority in AVF numbers and breach the opponent defense but taken a lot of KO, damages and immobilizations in such hard battle terrain as modern city.
And yes, that’s September 1942 and most of infantry teams lack AT capability but there are a lot of ATRs that can damage/immobilize AVFs.
What conclusion can we make out of these examples generously shown by AGS?
1) If there is historical forces employed in GC where one side attacks than this side will generally loose more AVFs than ATGs as damaged/immobilized/KO as usually he has more AVFs in his Tank units to attack enemy infantry units with.
2) If there is historical forces employed in GC where one side in defense with mainly infantry units few supporting tank units than this side will generally loose more or pretty same number of ATGs in comparison to AVFs.
3) If there is operation that balances number of AVFs for both sides than the proportion of losses AVFvsATG is pretty same for both sides.
Quote:
Well, your TRSM GC had a Tank/Gun loss ratios of more than 4 tanks per Gun
Yes, the other mods seem to show a less unrealistic (Wont say more realistic) Tank/Guns loss ratios than TRSM
Research has proved, in regard to Tank/Gun loss ratios, that TRSM is the MOST UNREALISTIC CC5 mod yet!
M8, your research has proven that you need to spend some time learning how to make researches .
TRSM simulates GJS sector, where unlike other Normandy sectors or Stalingrad, the defender has very good number of AVFs to counter attackers AVFs as !!!surprise!!! WW2 showed that AVF is the best AT weapon .
Now let’s see:
German losses: 207 AVF vs 41 ATG.
UK/Can losses: 205 AVF vs 52 ATG.
Game wise: I have a lot of BGs cut off, so each time I go in battle with 4-5 immobilized AVFs that increase total number of Armor losses in GC Debrief screen – is it realistic to fight with immobilized tanks when the enemy cut your supply lines?
Stalky has to rely heavily on his AVFs to make a progress and that’s why I KO/damage/immobilize a lot of his AVFs that listed under Armor losses in GC debrief screen.
History wise: example 12.SS-PzD had 35 ATGs and over 200 AVFs on June 6th 1944 – so what would 12.SS-PzD more likely to lose statistically as KO/damaged – AVF or ATG?
And yes 2 other Pz divisions there had pretty same ratio of AVF vs ATG in roster . And they are the main “players” for the Germans in TRSM. Btw the density of PzUnit per front km was higher in GJS than during Zitadelle.
Take in mind that 90% of ATGs in GJS sectors had 1 shot kill capability against 99% of the Allies AVFs, not mentioning good number of PzF, RPzB, GzB and other HHL .
So again, you conclusion is wrong and TRSM is the most realistic mod in CC (not only 5) as it offers detailed simulation of forces and equipment for both sides in GJS sector in June 1944.
Quote:
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)
Posted: Wed Jul 04, 2012 12:41 am Post subject: Re: CC5 vs CC3
You guys are great after all these years still hammering away at which game is better....I look forward to the next time this is debated in 5 years time :)
I like them both for different reasons, but have probably spent more time playing CCIII than V.
Posted: Wed Jul 04, 2012 9:17 am Post subject: Re: CC5 vs CC3
Quote:
Palestinians and Isrealis make Peace!!!
Iraqi Shiites and Sunni's join forces!!!
Northern Irish and Republicans unite!!!
And Australia finally allows immigration! (I actually happen to agree with Australia)
Quote:
I can see the headlines from the year 2016...
I can see a different headline, Close Combat VI comes out, an incredible new historical strategy game featuring a 3D down birds eye view, featuring all the benefits of CCMT, the best of CC3 + CC2 combined and the strategy map based on a HOI2 strategy engine.
-A limited force pool with the ability to allocate sector points to each BG and operational points as a whole (like in CC2) or likewise the possibility of a unit reinforcement pool for a whole division with units only available and updated on that day or left overs from previous days. (A revamp of the CC2 reinforcement system).
-15-30+ units per team, 5 teams available on each side (like in CCMT) and unit stacking on the strategy map.
-Preselected bombardement and limited during battle bombardement possibilities (CC3 + CCMT mixed)
-Strategy map includes possibilty of fleeing/withdrawing from a battle. (CC2/CC3)
-AT guns can be moved with vehicles or towed by infantry + horses and must flee off map with this method to be able to retain their guns uncaptured.
-Crews can be made to abandoned their vehicles/tanks/guns and also ordered back into them, other crews can also be ordered into them (this de facto happened in many battles).
-Captured tanks have a chance of being available in the force pool. (CC3 sort of does this but not really)
-Mounting of vehicles and digging in (like in CCMT).
-Possibility of neutrals who have either no disposition or are disposed to one side or another i.e. civilians caught in between fighting (this would enable you to have sympathetic to vietcong neutral villagers in a Vietnam mod for example who would normally be neutral but also have a very small chance of trying to join the fight independently as ad hocs, particularly useful in uprising mods).
There is so much more, I could go on.
I have a dream. That my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by what Close Combat game they play but because the game they play is the best in the Close Combat series. I have a dream today!
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?
Yeah, M8. As i have said in a previous post.
Read back if its something that is unclear. :wink:
Yes, and there are 2 main reasons for that:
1) You were taking more ATGs than AVFs in battle.
Not nescesarily, only if my opponent or i were defending would we have more Guns than AFVs
When my opponent, or i, were playing in an offensive operation, as the attacker, we would have more tanks than guns. Thats logical and tactically normal.
Yes, and there are 2 main reasons for that:
......................
2) ATGs couldn’t deal with AVFs employed in battle (like 3,7cm vs KV or 76mm vs Tiger).
No, this was not the case,
(A) it would be foolish to requisition inadequate guns to destroy the enemy tanks, so we did'nt.
(B)The guns were lost in greater numbers, primarily because of the fact that guns are far more vulnerable than AFVs
e.g.
Guns can be destroyed by all HE shells, whereas Tanks cannot (exception BIG HE shells)
Guns can be destoyed by light and medium mortars and hand grenades, whereas Tanks cannot
Hence, guns were destroyed in greater numbers because of their greater vulnerability
M8, your research has proven that you need to spend some time learning how to make researches
Your comment just shows that your rash judgment on my research is flawed.
Your comments, that inspired the research, implied that, because GJS was tank heavy sector (which i don't dispute) that other CC5 games may show statistical results that reflected the general historical tank/gun loss ratios which occured during WW2 (which, hisorically were usually between 1/5 and 1/10 )tank/gun).
But they didn't
Would you care to do some genuine research to prove me wrong?
Didn't think so
My conclusion, from the sound research, is that CC5 forcepools generally include more tanks than guns, am i right, or am i wrong?
History wise: example 12.SS-PzD had 35 ATGs and over 200 AVFs on June 6th 1944 – so what would 12.SS-PzD more likely to lose statistically as KO/damaged – AVF or ATG?
LOL
Of course, for your example, you use an ARMOURED DIVISION, which, OF COURSE, is TANK HEAVY!
Seriously, there were more infantry divisions in Normandy, and everywhere for that matter, than armoured divisions
Now imost of the heavy equipment in infantry divisions were guns, with little or no significant AFVs
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!
.
