[Stwa]

Sometime after I got CCMT, I really wanted to get COI.

I had bought CC5 back in 2000 and I couldn't agree more with Sud's first few points about the CC5 Campaign. I try to play a campaign or an operation and there were many maps were there was never a battle, not one.

But, I thought to myself, I would wait for WAR, and then WAR was crap.

Then, I thought to myself, I would wait for TLD, and then TLD was crap.

Then, I thought to myself, I would wait for LSA, and then LSA was crap.

So now, I am worried that if I get COI, it wont run right on W7. Oh, I am sure it will run right on your W7, just not on mine.  

[zoober]

Let's be honest guys - all CC games are great and it's only a matter of personal preferences to say which one is better than other. I got CC3, 4 & 5 and like them all and can't really decide which one is my favorite. On the other hand, of course non of them is perfect either - all have some flaws and bugs. But it's been so many years since these games were released and no one has made anything that would beat or even come close to them. And that's just the best proof of how good these games are:)

[Stwa]

OK,

I will play along.

Since Matrix decided to institute public beta testing as an integral component to the production of thier line of CC games (starting around the time of WAR), the quality of the games at their initial release have led me to believe that the games might be crap, relative to other games in the series.

The re-release of the re-releases, and on-going reliance upon public beta testing hasn't done much to make me zip out the plasctic and pick one of these titles.

It is really a time issue, more than a money issue.

But this topic is about CC3 v CC5. So in that sense, I might extend the comparison to COI and TLD, if anyone is willing.

[southern_land]

[Stwa]

Point accepted, but I am wondering if I am thinking there were just some maps in the CC5 GC, that just would never come up. Anyway, I haven't really tried a complete GC in a long time.

[acebars]

[southern_land]

[AT_Stalky]

This link below leads to a Poll that gives a more ”unbiased” quantitative answer to the question asked in the topic.

http://www.closecombatseries.net/CCS/modules.php?name=Surveys&op=results&pollID=35
 
But from a personal preference view, one can’t care less what other people favour. My taste, your taste, are subjective..  Lucky we have both CC3 and CC5, (and CCMT for Stwa, and CC4 to Platoon_Michaels)!

As a side note, what I don’t understand is why PITF do not have both types of Strategy systems. I mean, how hard can it be to have a selection either “CC5 strategy map” or “linear CC3 style strategy”…. The same maps can be used…

/S

[acebars]

[ArmeeGruppeSud]

[AT_Stalky]

[AT_Stalky]

My belief why CC5 has more “fans” than CC3 is to be found in the strategy layer.
The same strategy layer AGS finds just boring and time wasting.  

I will not slash CC3 system as I understand that that system in its simplistic way has its appeal and it focus on the lower commanders job in a war. And I do believe it works rather good as such.

However, the CC5 system offers more diverse interaction with its macro and multiple micro level views of the war. That obviously (and statistically proven) has its appeal to so many CC-players…

The combination of the strategy layer and the tactical layers objectives is the strength in the CC5 system. In a CC5 GC game, the VL are or low importance, they are just nominal in its nature. The importance in a CC5 GC is the real value, as in taking the right exits/entry’s and combine that tactical layer objectives with the overall strategy layer objectives… This is a strong side of the CC5 strategy layer, that offers REAL value objectives in the tactical fight.  

The CC5 player do not get that attached to his troops, as he may command some 25+ BG/Battalions, (maybe some 25 000 men). In that way he don’t care about little private soldier in the same way as a CC3 player cares about his small BG who he is so attached to. If, like in CC5 one command 25K troops one can’t know all soldiers names, and care about each man, it’s another scale and a macro view.    What is best, it’s simply preference nothing else.

Fighting on all maps is of no value of its own. Think about it… Any commander would have preferences and trying to avoid fight in a terrain his troops has a comparative disadvantage. The CC5 player will not enter maps with troops that are not suited for the map or the job at hand, this is a part of what makes CC5 so cool to so many.
CC5 = matching BGs with maps, and the job at hand taken the opponents BG into account.
He will match the BG types with the map terrain type and the job they need to do. Or if he hav not the right BG at hand, he will use (delay/carefull) tactics and play accordingly until he can swop out the ill suited BG to a BG that matches the requirements. Or not enter that map at all, just side pass it if possible and surround it… This is as in real life operations, a challenge, and adds value to the CC5 player…

The linear CC3 strategy system can’t do this, there the linear composition instead offers different situations pre GIVEN to the players, and they just have no say and thought how best to overcome the landscape.  

Preferences nothing else.

[acebars]

CC2 strategy system is better imo than CC5 and the best in the series imo.

I agree I like the whole idea of a flexible stategy map, like CC4 and CC5.

But personally find the strategy execution of these last installments is simply woeful, movement phase and battle phase included. For example: There are these odd and strange reinforcement pool rules as well as units spontaneously disbanding after losing battles only to spawn a day later on a supply point 5 sectors behind lines.

Personally find the whole thing a shambles and cannot see how in practice or in an actual war a strategy map would look anything like they do in CCIV or CCV. In Close Combat 2 I can see realistically how the campaign looked and was fought and what the effects of winning/losing a battle are on the whole strategy and Close Combat 3 resembles very well the ebb and flow of reinforcements as a front line operational commander. CC4 and 5 do none of these the strategy map may as well be a war in a fantasy world, not a realistic sim portrayal that close combat is meant to be.

Perhaps Close Combat IV and V should have taken a little more example from Hearts of Iron 2 when coming to the strategy map. e.g. when a unit is beaten it must retreat or is encircled etc. and not just vanish into thin air. Perhaps this is the over dependence on single battle groups in one sector and not being able to have mutliple battle groups on the map.

CCMT made great strides in this direction being able to have 5 battle groups on each side. Perhaps this could be incorporated with stacking battle groups in future cc strategy games.

Yes CC4 and CC5 incorporate a strategy map not seen before in the close combat series, but they do this very badly, woefully imo. Obviously rushed through with no thought and a load of crappy strategy map rules to bridge the lack of innovation gap. Like a Hollywood remake of a classic movie, its bigger, has better visual graphics, a badly sewn together script, storyline, plot and terrible acting.

[AT_Stalky]

Yeh, I can see what you mean to a degree.
But think about it. In real life, a BG that has been overrun how did the soldiers and units react in them situations? They scattered into individuals or small gropes that tried there best to go back behind there own line. They are not easy to stop, there are countless situations like that in WW2, they just walk through other units… scared, shocked and demoralized. Tick tack, time.. What happened when they got back behind there own line? They was guided to reassembly places and reformed. IE: The BG disappears as a big unit into thin air and are scattered into small unseen unusable units until they are reassembled again to a big visible  and usable BG.   CC5 = mimic that rather good.

Lets say a unit was disbanded at St mare Eglise, its 10 Km back to the beach.
Carentan to beach is 20+ Km. Valognes is 50 Km from the beach. A man easy walks 50 Km a day if rested and 22-25 Km a day after a 10 day march. By motor vehicle the same distances are just… minutes..  
Though the resembling should maybe be seen in a symbolic way. I would argue that the penalty should be higher in terms of losses if disbanded.
As a side note, for a well made GC, especially in the early stages, a disband of a unit may be very very very hard to overcome. Loosing (disbanded) BGs the first days in Reg or GJS is…. It don’t help one bit that it reappears again the next morning, for the defender its many rounds before it can block the attacker again.. For the Assaulter it’s also very very bad, as he misses out on the early days easy gain ground opportunities….  

The strategy map in CC5 for fills a propose, it adds the operational dimension to the CC game and as such, it removes the nominal values of the tactical games, and replace them with real values.
The innovation in CC4 & CC5 is thus that it replaces the nominal and unrealistic VLs as targets and replace em with real values, but only IF one can see the big picture, thus the link between the operational level and the tactical level in CC5. For if someone can see that, they do see the beauty of the CC5 strategy map AND what it adds to the tactical game!!! And maybe that’s the reason why the CC5 strategy map is so popular.

[ArmeeGruppeSud]

[AT_Stalky]

[zoober]

This discussion is starting to look like kids spat over apples and oranges - which are better, does anyone know? Can anyone tell?

AT_Stalky summed it up already: Preferences nothing else.

But AGS if you wanna continue... be my quest and tell me: what's the difference between CC3 and CC4/CC5 from the tactical point of view? To me, none whatsoever. And now, what's the difference from the strategic point of view? Doesn't strat map of CC4/CC5 offer more choices for the players? I think it does. And it's something that CC3 is missing. But doesn't it mean it's better/worse game? To me it's only different - that's all.

[Stwa]

[acebars]

[AT_Stalky]