Welcome to Close Combat Series
  Login or Register Home  ·  Downloads  ·  Forums  ·  Combat Camera  ·  Help  

  Survey
Do incapacitations count as a soldier's kills?

Yes
No



Results
Polls

Votes 1179
Comments: 1

  Shout Box!!

Only registered users can shout. Please login or create an account.

  Main Menu
Articles & News  
    Help
    Player`s News
    Site News
    Multiplayer
    Terrain Challenge
    Boot Camp
Community  
    Forums
    Downloads
    Combat Camera
    MOOXE @ Youtube
    Statistics
Members  
    Private Messages
    Your Account
    Logout

  Donations
Anonymous - $25.00
08/15/2022

Anonymous - $25.00
08/15/2022

Anonymous - $25.00
12/18/2021

Anonymous - $100.00
11/08/2021

Anonymous - $15.00
04/09/2021

Anonymous - $100.00
04/05/2021

Anonymous - $20.00
02/20/2021

Anonymous - $10.00
12/29/2020

Anonymous - $1.00
11/06/2020

ZAPPI4 - $20.00
10/10/2020

Find our site useful? Make a small donation to show your support.



Search for at
Close Combat Series Advanced Search


Goto page : Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next
 Author
Message
 
acebars

Rep: -6.7
votes: 2


PostPosted: Wed Jun 20, 2012 4:48 pm Post subject: Re: CC5 vs CC3 Reply with quote

US_Brake wrote:
I share ArmeeGruppeSud's points. CC3 has always been better than CC5.


2nd this + 5 other friends of mine 2nd it as well!

CC3 has always been better than CC5 and CC4!

The last two are nauseatingly boring!

Stwa wrote:
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.  Laughing


It should work on W7, I recall playing it on W7 but dont take my word for it. You should really get COI, its good and easy to mod!

Quote:
I remember being so frustrated about these all-seeing-all-killing god almighty tanks that in the end I hardly used infantry - which really sucked and wasn't any fun for me at all. Actually I almost run over some Germans with my M4 because I couldn't spot them:o And this is great - now having tanks doesn't mean you have to win easily.


You wouldn't get away with that in Close Combat 3, my engineer squads would flame your tanks crispy or my german squads would faust you. Very Happy
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
southern_land

Rep: 155.2
votes: 14


PostPosted: Thu Jun 21, 2012 7:24 am Post subject: Re: CC5 vs CC3 Reply with quote

Stwa wrote (View Post):
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.


maybe some on the left of the strat maps as by the time the Allies reach there the germans are pretty tattered generally
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
 
AT_Stalky

Rep: 27.4
votes: 10


PostPosted: Fri Jun 22, 2012 10:01 am Post subject: Re: CC5 vs CC3 Reply with quote

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
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
 
acebars

Rep: -6.7
votes: 2


PostPosted: Fri Jun 22, 2012 12:17 pm Post subject: Re: CC5 vs CC3 Reply with quote

AT_Stalky wrote (View Post):
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


It must be that 40% of Close Combat players are american, because I can't see any other reason for wanting to play CC5!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
ArmeeGruppeSud

Rep: 9.5
votes: 7


PostPosted: Sat Jun 23, 2012 12:32 am Post subject: Re: CC5 vs CC3 Reply with quote

acebars wrote (View Post):
It must be that 40% of Close Combat players are american, because I can't see any other reason for wanting to play CC5!
Thats a good point and probably has some bearing on the statistics.

Part of CC3's appeal is that it attracts genuine WW2 history buffs because 60-70% of European WW2 was fought on the East front.
2 out of 3 German soldiers died on Die Ost Front.
CC3 players want to experience simulated ww2 combat command in the battles that actually happenned, in the historical order they happenned, its fun.

Whereas CC4/CC5 attract ahistorical players who attempt to attain ahistorical results

Regardless of the "American factor, CC3 is a better war game than CC5 for the dozen or so reasons mentioned in posts by US_Brake,Tejszd, and myself.

CC3 involves more closecombat time (none wasted looking at stratmap)

Not saying there's no fun with the whole stratmap thing.
Obviously there is (Or CC5 would be totally dead).

Never played MMCC3, but i'm sure it would have been better than CC5   Very Happy   Laughing   Wink   Cool

CHEERS

AGS

.


RIP

http://www.closecombatseries.net/CCS/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&t=10576
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
AT_Stalky

Rep: 27.4
votes: 10


PostPosted: Sat Jun 23, 2012 9:27 am Post subject: Re: CC5 vs CC3 Reply with quote

acebars wrote (View Post):
It must be that 40% of Close Combat players are american, because I can't see any other reason for wanting to play CC5!


ArmeeGruppeSud wrote (View Post):
Thats a good point and probably has some bearing on the statistics..


I doubt that explain the CC5 strategy system preference.

Just some observations:
In ~2002 the CC5 stock game (US vs Germany) was suffering form overplaying, the users declined in rapid phase the game room was very empty. The CC5 stock decline continued up to GJS was released. There was a massive return to the game… And GJS is not US vs Germany...
Conclusion, none or very few played the stock game by then. People played mods and has been since.

Lets look at the mods that actually are played, and see what image they depict of the so called American effect on CC5 preference:

Thee most popular CC5 game is GJS, its UK vs GE…. That’s not US…
Second most popular is Stalingrad By Dima/Manoi its GE vs Russ… That’s not US…  

Battle of Berlin is popular its Ge vs Russ  That’s not US…
Then we gave PJs 3 East front mods, they are popular:
Stalingrad DK that’s GE vs Russ. That’s not US…
Stalingrad DKDK that’s GE vs Russ. That’s not US…
Stalingrad OC that’s GE vs Russ. That’s not US…

Karelia I & II are popular, that’s Finland vs Russ. That’s not US…
Tali mod, thats Finland vs Russ. That’s not US…
Winter war is Finland vs Russ. That’s not US…
And Remis Battle of the Scheldt, thats GE vs UK/Canada . That’s not US…

Spain civil war that´s Firefox vs terciooriamendi. They are a part of us.…
Meuse is played, and its GE vs Frensh. That’s not US…
Africa 1940 its ? GE/Ital vs UK. That’s not US…
Africa Elalamain that’s GE vs UK. That’s not US…  

Red Storm Rising, that’s NATO vs Russ.  

Then we have the US based mods:
Okinawa, US vs Japs
Bloody Omaha is… well.. not finished.. but its GE vs US..

A second observation, the CC5 “game room” has the most players in European time zone, not American. Conclusion…?

Im from Sweden and that’s Europe, why would I prefer East front? In fact I don’t..

/S


Last edited by AT_Stalky on Sat Jun 23, 2012 10:24 am; edited 2 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
 
AT_Stalky

Rep: 27.4
votes: 10


PostPosted: Sat Jun 23, 2012 10:05 am Post subject: Re: CC5 vs CC3 Reply with quote

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.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
 
acebars

Rep: -6.7
votes: 2


PostPosted: Sat Jun 23, 2012 11:03 am Post subject: Re: CC5 vs CC3 Reply with quote

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.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
AT_Stalky

Rep: 27.4
votes: 10


PostPosted: Sat Jun 23, 2012 11:38 am Post subject: Re: CC5 vs CC3 Reply with quote

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.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
 
ArmeeGruppeSud

Rep: 9.5
votes: 7


PostPosted: Sat Jun 23, 2012 1:59 pm Post subject: Re: CC5 vs CC3 Reply with quote

AT_Stalky wrote (View Post):
In ~2002 the CC5 stock game (US vs Germany) was suffering form overplaying, the users declined in rapid phase the game room was very empty. The CC5 stock decline continued up to GJS was released. There was a massive return to the game… And GJS is not US vs Germany...
Conclusion, none or very few played the stock game by then. People played mods and has been since.
OK, first, i only said:
ArmeeGruppeSud wrote (View Post):
some bearing on the statistics

Never said that it was THE REASON
CC5 would have sold well in the US because of the whole: The US won WW2 in Normandy bit  Rolling Eyes
You make a good point how CC5 was revived by the mods
It lost interest because it was a crappy game, but the mods revived it.
Yes, the CC5 eastern theatre mods definately helped CC5's popularity
You can thank CC3 for enlightenning the CC players to where most of European WW2 was realy fought

AT_Stalky wrote (View Post):
A second observation, the CC5 “game room” has the most players in European time zone, not American. Conclusion…?
OH!

WOW!

HMMM,

 AT_Stalky notices CC players playing in European time zone more than AT_Stalky sees people playing in US Time zone
 AT_Stalky lives in Sweden
Conclusion = AT_Stalky notices more players in Euro time zone because, being in Europe, AT_Stalky spends most of his online CC time in European time zone because most US players wont come online until AT_Stalky is well asleep as they are 6-9 hours behind Swedish time.
Its no surprise that AT_Stalky does not play US people online often as AT_Stalky would have to either stay up till dawn playing or get up extremely early to play during US evening playtime  Razz


AT_Stalky wrote (View Post):
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.
Now how often when a BG is forced from a sector would that have actually happenned in REAL LIFE?

Maybe less than 1% of the time.

Most often, say 99% of the time, a unit (BG) would retreat/withdraw into a sector behind their previous position (erxactly as in CC3 & CC1).

Therefore, CC3 depicts REAL LIFE 98% better than CC5  Razz

CC3 ROCKS

CHEERS

AGS


RIP

http://www.closecombatseries.net/CCS/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&t=10576
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
AT_Stalky

Rep: 27.4
votes: 10


PostPosted: Sat Jun 23, 2012 2:57 pm Post subject: Re: CC5 vs CC3 Reply with quote

ArmeeGruppeSud wrote (View Post):
AT_Stalky wrote (View Post):
In ~2002 the CC5 stock game (US vs Germany) was suffering form overplaying, the users declined in rapid phase the game room was very empty. The CC5 stock decline continued up to GJS was released. There was a massive return to the game… And GJS is not US vs Germany...
Conclusion, none or very few played the stock game by then. People played mods and has been since.
OK, first, i only said:
ArmeeGruppeSud wrote (View Post):
some bearing on the statistics

Never said that it was THE REASON
CC5 would have sold well in the US because of the whole: The US won WW2 in Normandy bit  Rolling Eyes
You make a good point how CC5 was revived by the mods
It lost interest because it was a crappy game, but the mods revived it.
Yes, the CC5 eastern theatre mods definately helped CC5's popularity
You can thank CC3 for enlightenning the CC players to where most of European WW2 was realy fought

AT_Stalky wrote (View Post):
A second observation, the CC5 “game room” has the most players in European time zone, not American. Conclusion…?
OH!

WOW!

HMMM,

 AT_Stalky notices CC players playing in European time zone more than AT_Stalky sees people playing in US Time zone
 AT_Stalky lives in Sweden
Conclusion = AT_Stalky notices more players in Euro time zone because, being in Europe, AT_Stalky spends most of his online CC time in European time zone because most US players wont come online until AT_Stalky is well asleep as they are 6-9 hours behind Swedish time.
Its no surprise that AT_Stalky does not play US people online often as AT_Stalky would have to either stay up till dawn playing or get up extremely early to play during US evening playtime  Razz


AT_Stalky wrote (View Post):
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.
Now how often when a BG is forced from a sector would that have actually happenned in REAL LIFE?

Maybe less than 1% of the time.

Most often, say 99% of the time, a unit (BG) would retreat/withdraw into a sector behind their previous position (erxactly as in CC3 & CC1).

Therefore, CC3 depicts REAL LIFE 98% better than CC5  Razz

CC3 ROCKS

CHEERS

AGS


AGS, again a very sad type of argumentation.. But, if someone state that there was more CC5 players in the European time zone than in the American time zone, then what does that mean..? A hint mate, you interpretation was wrong.


And example of unit that is overrun, and “disappears”, Well, what directly comes to mind is winter in East 1941… How many battalions and division did that happen to? Finland summer 1944… How about Soviet forces in early Barbarossa?
I don’t argue that the CC5 disband function is perfect, but it does work. A better system would be an orderly retreat under certain circumstances, and a total mess and reform far behind the lines under other circumstances.
Yeh, and how often does a unit disband in a CC5 H2H GC game? Make a percent there.... ..
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
 
zoober

Rep: 1


PostPosted: Sat Jun 23, 2012 3:31 pm Post subject: Re: CC5 vs CC3 Reply with quote

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.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Stwa

Rep: 308.9
votes: 16


PostPosted: Sat Jun 23, 2012 3:41 pm Post subject: Re: CC5 vs CC3 Reply with quote

AT_Stalky wrote (View Post):
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)!


Over time I have discovered that players get different things out of CC. They also see and appreciate the game features in different ways, and at least as Single Players, they probably apply methods of play in differing ways as well. This is true, even amongst the few CCMT players I have met along the way.

It is the main reason, I try to stay in my CCMT cage (forum) for the most part. Far beit for me to go into another forum, and post critical remarks about that game. It is best to stay in the forums of the games you like, as a general rule.

That being said, its a no-brainer, when it comes to trying to understand why a lot of people like the historical campaigns that are presented in CC4, CC5, and the corresponding mods and re-releases.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
acebars

Rep: -6.7
votes: 2


PostPosted: Sat Jun 23, 2012 5:14 pm Post subject: Re: CC5 vs CC3 Reply with quote

Quote:
It is the main reason, I try to stay in my CCMT cage (forum) for the most part. Far beit for me to go into another forum, and post critical remarks about that game. It is best to stay in the forums of the games you like, as a general rule.


I've played all the games extensively with mods and without (except for the re-releases and CC1 which I've only played a little bit) so CC2, CC3, COI, CC4, CC5 and CCMT (only recently) respectively, so feel I am relatively qualified to give a balanced appraisal of the series.

I really tried to like CC4 and CC5, I've completed both grand campaigns playing both sides (more than once in some cases), and I was initially perplexed at how bad CC4 was considering the demo at the time was so good (similar verdict with CC5 later).

That said I'd rather not get into any bickering matches, because with everything in life there will be always the few or the many that prefer one thing to another given a choice and/or have differing opinions regardless of what the concensus considers to be "better".

Another thing that keeps cropping up with people who prefer CC5 is that more often than not they started with Close Combat V and/or IV with out any real proper experience of delving into the older games. Whereas I started with CC2 and worked my way up (and then back down again  Very Happy ) they will have started with IV or V and then later "tried" CC2 or CC3 or one of the crappy re-releases.

CC3/COI has a fast learning curve but a long experience curve, meaning you'll be quite able to play a game of CC3 after a few minutes, but you'll only be able to appreciate its intricacies after spending further time on it. These intracies are all but lost in CC4 and CC5 so if all you focused on was the (shaky) strategic element in CC5 you'd be disappointed by going back to CC3 which is a far more tactically robust and oriented game than CC4 or CC5.

My point and my argument is that strategic gameplay in CC4 and CC5 which imo is poor affects the tactical element of the game negatively, whereas CC3 is linear/operational with a little strategy its really a pure tactical game, which means somebody who was brought up on CC4 and CC5 would expect the strategic element and not appreciate or underappreciate the tactical element CC3 provides.

This argument also carries over to CC2 (which albeit has a weaker tactical game than CC3) where until replaying the campaigns individually recently I finally fully understood how the whole campaign worked, I doubt players from CC4 and CC5 would grasp the strategic element at all until seriously delving into the game and certainly many would quickly become frustrated.

This also gives some explanation of the poor reception of CCMT, which has absolutely 0 strategy in it but possibly the most advanced tactical Close Combat engine seen yet, albeit its still plagued by some of the ridiculous systems carried over from CC4/CC5 (i.e. the morale nonsense) and ghosts from CC2 in the form of poor vehicle path finding amongst others. Probably due to having no strategic, operational/linear gameplay and all the annoyances of the CC4/CC5 engine it fails to attract CC2/CC3 players and due to having no strategic element whatsoever falls on deaf ears with the CC4/CC5 crowd.

I would like to see CC5 players really delve into CC3/COI and at least finish the grand campaign on both sides, I know which way the tide would turn!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
AT_Stalky

Rep: 27.4
votes: 10


PostPosted: Sat Jun 23, 2012 6:24 pm Post subject: Re: CC5 vs CC3 Reply with quote

acebars wrote (View Post):
Another thing that keeps cropping up with people who prefer CC5 is that more often than not they started with Close Combat V and/or IV with out any real proper experience of delving into the older games. Whereas I started with CC2 and worked my way up (and then back down again  Very Happy ) they will have started with IV or V and then later "tried" CC2 or CC3 or one of the crappy re-releases.

Where did you get that statistics from?

I have only an impression of what most CC5ers started with… and that impression do not fully agree with your observation/statistics.

acebars wrote (View Post):
because with everything in life there will be always the few or the many that prefer one thing to another given a choice and/or have differing opinions regardless of what the concensus considers to be "better".

If a strong majorety would equal consensus, then there would be "consensus" that CC5 would be the best of the games debated here.
But, with qualitative meassures, a strong majoretys opinion dont really matters, that still dont equal that CC5 is the "better" game in general. It only means that more ppl prefers CC5 over CC3, or one may say CC5 is more popular than CC3...

Preferances.... thats all.

/Stalk
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
 
acebars

Rep: -6.7
votes: 2


PostPosted: Sat Jun 23, 2012 7:50 pm Post subject: Re: CC5 vs CC3 Reply with quote

Quote:
Where did you get that statistics from?

I have only an impression of what most CC5ers started with… and that impression do not fully agree with your observation/statistics.


Statistics are a bit of a null argument in forum discussions (and no I don't have any to present to you) as you will never have a 100% information statistic and no way of factoring variance of a given sample such as CCS forum players voting to non-CCS forum players not voting etc. (just one flaw example) at best they are indicators in this case, so so far one can only deduce that CC5, CC2 and CC3 are broadly played as much as each other in general from the stats.

My observations which without trying to brag have been pretty accurate so far, are that most of the flag waving CC5 players (and I assume players who started out with CC4 also) have not had a thorough experience with previous versions of close combat, they may only have tried CC3 before or after the CC4/CC5 experience and quickly returned to CC5.

Quote:
If a strong majorety would equal consensus, then there would be consensus that CC5 would be the best of the games debated here. But, with qualitative meassures, one can hardly say that. It dont matter how many more ppl prefering CC5 over CC3, that still dont equal that CC5 is the better game in general. Though one may say CC5 is more popular than CC3, or more ppl prefer CC5 over CC3..

Preferances.... thats all.


You've just regurgitated what I said and ended it with "preferences", I don't want this to deteriorate into a debate over semantics. Its not just a preference, a majority of people giving an opinion/judgement gives rise to a general concensus "de jure" but due to many of those people not having perfect information what the majority considers as the correct judgement may "de facto" be completely wrong. But I'm not going to jump down peoples throats for having a different opinion that was my point. There are repeated examples of this in history, for example the "de jure" judgement in 1970s that Japanese motorcycles were the most reliable in the world, when "de facto" italian motorcycles were, a little known fact to most motorcyclists, the Japanese had cheap aluminium cast engines and a good marketing scheme.

In this same vein, how many solid CC5 players solidly played CC3 before swapping over? I think you'll find many CC3 detractors all tried CC4 and CC5 thoroughly (like myself) and all have the same thing to say about it, I am saying that I believe de facto CC4/CC5 is pants and that in this case the de jure CC5 supporters are judging without perfect information that is all.

Out of interest, what is your history of playing CC, which one/s did you start off with and how much time did you spend on it/them?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Tejszd

Rep: 133.6
votes: 19


PostPosted: Sun Jun 24, 2012 2:47 am Post subject: Re: CC5 vs CC3 Reply with quote

Being trying to stay out of this but as a CC5/re-release fan....

The biggest complaint I have with CC3 compared to CC5 is the lack of control the player has on the strategic level. You will always win or lose the war based on the side you play and the only control you have is to move right or left between maps on an Operation.

Now not trying to start a CC5 vs re-release debate but an option was added where a BG can retreat on morale break if they hold an exit to a map they can move onto (the BG can not move the following turn). A BG only disbands/dissolves when it can not retreat as that is seen as bigger penalty....
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Dima

Rep: 87.3
votes: 16


PostPosted: Sun Jun 24, 2012 12:43 pm Post subject: Re: CC5 vs CC3 Reply with quote

Yeah, used to play alot of CC3 since the release.

CC3 rocks as:
1) it is linear and has tiny maps that offer frontal assault tactics most of time!
2) it had so huge success after CC2 that Atomic moved to CC4-5 with stratmap and non linear GC!
3) it has incredible invisible ATGs - so cool!
4) you play same maps again and again as there is no way to move to other maps until you finish those!
5) infantry suppression work really great - soldiers get unsuppressed when enemy team charges them!
6) it has awesome point system - so successful that Atomic moved to FPs in CC4-5!
7) it doesn't represent real units like battalion size BGs in CC4-5!
etc?

CC3 rox Wink
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Dima

Rep: 87.3
votes: 16


PostPosted: Sun Jun 24, 2012 12:44 pm Post subject: Re: CC5 vs CC3 Reply with quote

Re-releases suck mainly. TLD is better than CC5 nowadays Smile
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
ArmeeGruppeSud

Rep: 9.5
votes: 7


PostPosted: Sun Jun 24, 2012 2:01 pm Post subject: Re: CC5 vs CC3 Reply with quote

OMG!  Shocked

This thread has been too busy since i last looked  Confused

Would love to reply in depth but time constraints deny me such a pleasure

@ Stalky
My response was entirely logical. you asked for a conclusion,
AT_Stalky wrote (View Post):
A second observation, the CC5 “game room” has the most players in European time zone, not American. Conclusion…?

So i gave a logical conclusion. If logical = sad, then your comment is correct
AT_Stalky wrote (View Post):
But, if someone state that there was more CC5 players in the European time zone than in the American time zone, then what does that mean..?
By your response i must gather that you stay up all night online every night,  maybe  even 24/7 and carefully count the numbers of CC players online in both European and US timezones, therefore you know all these statistics with indisputable accuraccy  Question
Is that what you mean?
Or is that Europes greater 1st world population = larger number of CC players, that is probable.

zoober wrote (View Post):
This discussion is starting to look like kids spat over apples and oranges - which are better, does anyone know? Can anyone tell?
Yes it does  Very Happy
AT_Stalky loves to sparr with me  Confused

zoober wrote (View Post):
AT_Stalky summed it up already: Preferences nothing else.
Not liking to admit it, but AT_Stalky is 99% right there  Razz

zoober wrote (View Post):
But AGS if you wanna continue....
.           Not realy  Razz

zoober wrote (View Post):
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?
There are some tactical level differences, especially relating to exit/entry VLs

zoober wrote (View Post):
Doesn't strat map of CC4/CC5 offer more choices for the players? I think it does.
It gives little or no more choices re CLOSE COMBAT
zoober wrote (View Post):
And it's something that CC3 is missing
CC3 does not miss it at all.
Its a distraction from the CLOSE COMBAT that CC3 is not burdened with  Smile

zoober wrote (View Post):
But doesn't it mean it's better/worse game?
No, but it is the dozen or so reasons listed earlier that make CC3 a BETTER GAME.
Time constraints inhibit me from retyping them, you can read back.

Dima wrote (View Post):
Yeah, used to play alot of CC3 since the release.

CC3 rocks as:
1) it is linear and has tiny maps that offer frontal assault tactics most of time!
2) it had so huge success after CC2 that Atomic moved to CC4-5 with stratmap and non linear GC!
3) it has incredible invisible ATGs - so cool!
4) you play same maps again and again as there is no way to move to other maps until you finish those!
5) infantry suppression work really great - soldiers get unsuppressed when enemy team charges them!
6) it has awesome point system - so successful that Atomic moved to FPs in CC4-5!
7) it doesn't represent real units like battalion size BGs in CC4-5!
etc?

CC3 rox Wink
 Laughing    Laughing  Is that sarcasm?  or do you you call it irony?

CC5 rocks
1) it is ahistorical so wannabes can try to rewrite history with different outcomes  Wink
2) it had such a huge success that Atomic died!
3) you play same maps over and over again and again as there is no way to play more than 44 maps in a campaign.
It is more likely that you will play on less than 40 maps and may play one single maps 20 plus time zzzzzzz
4) it has awesome soldier history system - so successful that at end of campaign only mortar teams have any real history
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  Rolling Eyes
etc etc etc?
CC5 rox  Wink

Tejszd wrote (View Post):
Being trying to stay out of this....
That was wise
Tejszd wrote (View Post):
but
You blew it  Razz

Tejszd wrote (View Post):
The biggest complaint I have with CC3 compared to CC5 is the lack of control the player has on the strategic level. You will always win or lose the war based on the side you play and the only control you have is to move right or left between maps on an Operation.....
Well we dont need to play with history, we just wanna experience simulated Close Combat at company level command.
Its not right or left, its forward or back, a company commander has little other choice as he has other supporting companies on his left and right.



.

You can win battles in CC3


You can win operations in CC3


You can win Campaigns, based on points in CC3
.




No, you cannot win WW2 as Germans in CC3



But i have some shocking news for you those who use this point to criticise CC3














Even in CC5 you CANNOT WIN WW2 AS THE GERMANS, !







SO GET OVER IT!




So CC5 still has nothing over CC3 except fantasy and multiple personality disorder



CHEERS

AGS


.


RIP

http://www.closecombatseries.net/CCS/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&t=10576


Last edited by ArmeeGruppeSud on Mon Jun 25, 2012 12:11 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
 
Post new topicReply to topic printer-friendly view Close Combat Series Forum Index -> Close Combat 5: Invasion Normandy
Goto page : Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next


 
   
 


Jump to:  
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




Forums ©





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!