Posted: Fri Jul 06, 2012 5:04 am Post subject: Re: CC5 vs CC3
Here is another enhancement in LSA over CC3 and CC5 when setting up a single battle;
2 to 4 BG's can be used
Entry VL's can be random or set to specific VL's (this allows entry top, bottom or either side on a map). Note: CCMT is still better for single battle map entry setup
Points can be set per BG
Night or turn 1 to 5 can be set as the battle start time
Posted: Fri Jul 06, 2012 11:05 am Post subject: Re: CC5 vs CC3
Had I known we were going to debate other game systems, I would have jumped into the discussion sooner.
Why trouble yourselves with all the fantasy campaign layers, that only seem to satisfy the purists, or nebulous point systems and blatantly problematic TOE's that the AI will never understand.
Posted: Fri Jul 06, 2012 10:03 pm Post subject: Re: CC5 vs CC3
Quote:
Why trouble yourselves with all the fantasy campaign layers, that only seem to satisfy the purists, or nebulous point systems and blatantly problematic TOE's that the AI will never understand.
Instead just arm yourself with 15 king tigers like CCMT would allow for.
Personally think CCMT has potential but was a bit of a failed project, and it is only really entertaining imo during multiplayer.
As for...
Quote:
nebulous point systems
The point system so far in CC3 is the most true to life accurate system of how an army works in any of the CCs so far, as I've logically described before.
Posted: Sat Jul 07, 2012 12:00 am Post subject: Re: CC5 vs CC3
Instead just arm yourself with 15 king tigers like CCMT would allow for.
Better yet, arm the AI with 15 King tigers and test your skill and imagination.
Dont stop there, give the AI a dozen air strikes, and a some off-map artillery support, and see if your zooka squads can take out the Tigers.
The only person I ever considered as a good MP opponent was Church, and I really just did not have the time. Now days he spends most of his time at WW2 Online, me thinks.
I just love single player CCMT, and I recommend it for all. Even the WW2 mods are a blast.
Why is there continued interest in CC3 when CC5 is available with multiple mods operating under the CC5 format. Is it strictly the interest in the eastern front? Do people feel the AI is better? Is it easier to mod?
Well i think it is about time to review, summarize the main, critical, significant, pertinant points in this debate so far.
2) a wide range of equipment is available as the game covers many years which allows for some neat options in that a battle/operation maker can control what is available (rarity)
It was the soldier personal stats that realy got me hooked with CC1!
During a DOF CC3 H2H Campaign, one SS soldat, Schuss, began his career as a buck private during Fall Blau (early in 1942)
Eventually Schuss , after a distinguished career, including 8 promotions, met his demise on Prokhorovka Ridge as Hauptman Schuss, when his Kommand Panther was fatally struck by a bazooka rocket.
In CC5, that could never happen
Legendary CC Heroes, i will never forget their names, Schuss, Frieder, and so many other legendary sprites in my CC Campaigns
Please also note that, just like in the real historical statistics, the amount of artillery losses is much higher than that of AFV losses (actually double).
This is what WW2 stats should look like!
15
. CC3 has more detailed Battle, Operation and Campaign Debriefs screens
19
In CC3 you have a lot more choices as to what you can deploy on the battlefield
20
CC3 gives you the opportunity to play during many different time periods throughout WW2
21
CC3 better simulates a real command than CC5
Quote:
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
22
CC3 Has larger standard sprite graphics, then it has a ZOOM too
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.
Doesn't strat map of CC4/CC5 offer more choices for the players? I think it does.
4
. Just to prove that i am truly objective in this debate, i will now put forward what i think is the most significant aspect that CC5 has over CC3
In CC5 a company is likely to have just one type of AFV in battle (which was common in WW2)
e.g. 4 PzIVs, or 4 PzIIIs, or 4 StuGs, or 4 T34s, or 4 Shermans, rather than the eklectic forces that are often seen in CC3 battles. Though this can be adjusted in CC3 mods, or, in player agreed rules (a factor that CC3 never normally needs, but is a nescesary evil in CC5).
In CC5 there is virtually no soldier history, because a unit may be shot up a bit, so you put it back in force pool (where it is immediately automatically put back to full strength with no loss/liability/penalty) and when you reacquisition it, all the names are new and the original soldiers' combat histories are lost.
About the only teams that ever seem to build much statistics are mortar teams (boring).
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.
[8] An unrealistic command simulation (multiple identity disorder)
Quote:
5) it doesn't represent a real command at all, because it is a fantasy world where you are a Fieldmarshall commanding several regiments and you are also several battalion commanders and dozens of company commanders as well. You are not at all in touch with your men because you are sufferring with multiple identity disorder, so realistic
Quote:
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.
[9]
Ahistorical Campaign (Non-Linear Campaign )
[10]
CC5 also has weirdly innacurate, unrealistic statistics in its debrief screens
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
So damaged in 1 stat, destroyed in another stat, but actually still available and in perfect condition for use later
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
So even tanks not lost, get counted as lost
CC5 stats will break Stwa's BS metre
Posted: Sun Jul 15, 2012 2:22 pm Post subject: Re: CC5 vs CC3
Been a bit quiet here lately.
Just discovered more bullshit by the oppostion namely that "bayonets were used as a main infantry tactic during WW2"
Weapons actually innovated during WW2 on both sides did not prioritize a bayonet.
For example I just discovered the Gewehr 43 had no bayonet fixture, the germans were quite able to provide a fixture but it was considered not a necessity.
Conclusion of this debate CC3 logically and factually wins hands down over CC5 which has to use BS arguments to win.
Posted: Tue Jul 17, 2012 10:14 am Post subject: Re: CC5 vs CC3
Well, I actually decided to give a try to CC3:RR H2H GC to see if maybe I had forgotten something good in CC3. I didn't .
Now I am 100% sure that CC5 is a huge evolution in comparison to CC3 even on tactical level as:
Suppress doesn't work as in CC5 - you can set HMG, mortar, couple of rifle squads and couple of tanks/guns firing at enemy gun and it will still fire at you reliably, of cause same for your guns vs enemy targets.
Scouting doesn't work as in CC5 - my 4exp/4morale scouts couldn't spot ATG at 20m that was firing at them with rifles and gun. Needless to say ATG has spotted them sneaking in high grass and killed.
Smoke doesn't work as in CC5 - small arms reliaibly kill sneaking infantry behind a smoke screen.
Leadership doesn't work in CC3 as intended - 4exp/4morale teams with Independent Action in description start to rout if they are not next to the commander and they see enemy nearby, without enemy beeing shooting at them.
Infantry combat is just one big joke in comparison to CC5.
These engine (?) bugs multiplied by crappy RR data (is it mainly from stock CC3?) and awful map coding makes CC3:RR unplayable for me after I have experience playing good CC5 mods. Although in early 2000s I thought it was pretty much good but everything is known in comparison .
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!
Hey, this one i like 
.
