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
 
AT_Stalky

Rep: 27.4
votes: 10


PostPosted: Mon Jun 25, 2012 10:07 am Post subject: Re: CC5 vs CC3 Reply with quote

This debate should have ended at page 2. Though..


ArmeeGruppeSud wrote (View Post):
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


ArmeeGruppeSud wrote (View Post):
@ Stalky My response was entirely logical. ,.

Did I say your argumentation was sad, low and childish! Yes, I did…
Are you suggesting that I should rephrase that to:

“Well though out, high level and mature argumentation”?

ArmeeGruppeSud wrote (View Post):
Watch out for AT_STALKY, he will try and pin you down on side issues i.e. the Americn content of CC5 players

AGS, mate. You’re the one together with acebars who brought up the US-effect- “side issue” explaining the CC5 preference. Frech up yer memory at page 2. please. (see posts made: Fri Jun 22, 2012 2:16 pm & Sat Jun 23, 2012 2:31 am). Actually, you’re the ONLY one who are still at that US-side issue, and keep coming back to it again and again. and probable will again...

ArmeeGruppeSud wrote (View Post):
This is a diversionary tactic so he can stay off the real topic, because he knows CC3 is better  

I have no idea how many times I said it in this thread alone. For you my old friend, I say it one more time: I don’t believe one can say CC5 is a better game than CC3, or vice versa, its about preferences..

ArmeeGruppeSud wrote (View Post):
 Dima (a LEVEL 9 TROLL) & AT_STALKY (a LEVEL 6 TROLLl)


Intresting. Do you have that trollster list in a excel file, or is it in yer head only?  
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
 
ArmeeGruppeSud

Rep: 9.5
votes: 7


PostPosted: Mon Jun 25, 2012 11:07 am Post subject: Re: CC5 vs CC3 Reply with quote

Dima wrote (View Post):
1) it is linear and has tiny maps that offer frontal assault tactics most of time!!
CC2 had tiny maps, CC3 began with medium sized maps and now has many huge maps included in my DOF Campaigns

Dima wrote (View Post):
2) it had so huge success after CC2 that Atomic moved to CC4-5 with stratmap and non linear GC!!
CC5's associated bugs, malfunctions, problems, crashes, and various other dificulties led to the demise and end of Atomic's previously successful CLOSE COMBAT series  Sad

Yes CC3 was HUGELY Successful

There has never been such a huge online H2H community since CC3's heyday

It seems that CC5 killed the Glory days of online CC which was achieved through CC3

Dima wrote (View Post):
3) it has incredible invisible ATGs - so cool!!
Realy?

What are you crying about mister Sooky-La-La

Let me explain some basic truths to you.

Both Tanks and AT guns have firepower as their main superpower

Tanks have mobility and armour protection as their other inherant superpowers

The only superpower that AT guns have to protect them against tanks is their ability for concealment (you call it invisibility).

If AT guns were as visible as tanks, they would be utterly useless.

AT guns are easily hidden, because, unlike tanks, they are small, they are narrow with low profiles, which enables them to be easily consealed (invisible)

So there is a sound argument why AT guns should not be easily seen.

Now to prove to you that AT guns are not invisible in CC3 and their concealment superpower does not give them an unfair advantage over tanks in CC3.

The statistics from a CC3 campaign are conclusive evidence against ATgun invisibility in CC3.

If ATguns were truly invisible/undetectable in CC3, then there would be more tanks destroyed than ATguns.



There are a total of 116 tanks destroyed and 247 guns destroyed in this CC3 campaign, so far.

If ATguns were invisible/undetectable in CC3, then why did the tanks destroy so many ATguns whilst losing so few tanks?

The above CC3 Campaign Debrief Screen statistics also give a much more historically accurate reflection of comparitive tank/gun loss ratios than CC5

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  Razz

Dima, a true historical accuraccy enthusiast, who is committed to historical accuraccy, would of course know that true historical statistics of battle losses always show 2-4 times as many gun losses as tank losses............

Dima wrote (View Post):
5) infantry suppression work really great - soldiers get unsuppressed when enemy team charges them!!
Yes, i am sure when an infantry squad charges your position, you would just sit there and wait for the bayonet in your gut  Rolling Eyes


Dima wrote (View Post):
7) it doesn't represent real units like battalion size BGs in CC4-5

Of course it does not represent a battalion sized unit  Rolling Eyes
CC3 represents a company sized unit, with a company sized group of soldiers on the battlefield.
Its not realistic  Rolling Eyes  like CC5 where you have a company sized group of soldiers representing a regiment  :roll:

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: Mon Jun 25, 2012 12:23 pm Post subject: Re: CC5 vs CC3 Reply with quote

ArmeeGruppeSud wrote (View Post):
The above CC3 Campaign Debrief Screen statistics also give a much more historically accurate reflection of comparitive tank/gun loss ratios than CC5.


Well argued AGS.

Lets logically test your argument:
Lets say that I play a CC3 GC, and I would not picked a single tank.. Then I would not have lost a single tank either.. So then the Germans tank losses in east front would have been exactly “0”, zero… And how realistic would that have been?
Conclusion, the losses are a factor of the troops selected.

Reset the argument.
Lest say that I pic exact ratios of troops, and my opponent do the same. Will the losses really be the historical ratios? Would that imply that the player skill and tactics have no meaning in CC3?
Conclusion: loss ratios are a factor of the 2 players individual skill and there relative comparative advantages.

Conclusion: your (well presented) argument has no relevance and no explanatory power on the realism of a CC3 GC.

Lets move on:



ArmeeGruppeSud wrote (View Post):
For proof, i give you the Campaign Debrief Screen from the Dima v AT_STALKY TRSM H2H AAR:.


ArmeeGruppeSud wrote (View Post):
PLEASE NOTE CC5's TOTALLY UNREALISTIC TANK/GUN LOSS RATIO.


ArmeeGruppeSud wrote (View Post):
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  Razz .


The reason why your argument fails here are basically the same as the CC3 GC argument above.

To add to this, one may also acknowledge that another reason why you have the ratios here in THIS CC5 GC is because of the German 27 battalions, vs the 54 allied battalions. The forces are totally available to the commanders in CC5, they are not in CC3.
The force pools should mimic the real thing, at best. But it’s not an re-enactments battle we are playing in CC5… It’s not a war documentary of the operation we are trying to mimic.
How the CC5 commander chose to use all them resources and WHERE is his own and only his own decision. The commander is also a “victim” of his own ability as well as the opponents abilities. This means that one will not have the same loss ratios against any other opponent..

/S


Last edited by AT_Stalky on Mon Jun 25, 2012 12:36 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
 
ArmeeGruppeSud

Rep: 9.5
votes: 7


PostPosted: Mon Jun 25, 2012 12:35 pm Post subject: Re: CC5 vs CC3 Reply with quote

AT_Stalky wrote (View Post):
This debate should have ended at page 2. Though..
Yes it should have ended on page 2, but sadly, you had to drag it into page 3 with your obessession on the US side issue


This post began page 3
AT_Stalky wrote (View Post):
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.... ..



AT_Stalky wrote (View Post):
AGS, mate. You’re the one together with acebars who brought up the US-effect- “side issue” explaining the CC5 preference. Frech up yer memory at page 2. please. (see posts made: Fri Jun 22, 2012 2:16 pm & Sat Jun 23, 2012 2:31 am).

AT_Stalky wrote (View Post):
Actually, you’re the ONLY one who are still at that US-side issue, and keep coming back to it again and again. and probable will again...

LOOK HERE
Regarding the US player % side issue, i gave it just one lonely little sentence
ArmeeGruppeSud wrote (View Post):
Thats a good point and probably has some bearing on the statistics.

Then, it was AT_STALKY who inflated it into a massive side issue by devoting entire post of long winded dribbling argument to this side issue in this post
AT_Stalky wrote (View Post):
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
SO there you have it, acebars and i briefly mentioned it, it was AT_STALKY who escalated a minor point into a massive side isssue

AT_STALKY have you always been this way?

Making mountains out of molehills?

AT_Stalky wrote (View Post):
I have no idea how many times I said it in this thread alone. For you my old friend, I say it one more time: I don’t believe one can say CC5 is a better game than CC3, or vice versa, its about preferences..
And yet again, i will agree with you that the reason more people play CC5 is just a preference thing.
It is clearly not because CC5 is a better game than CC3 (because it isn't).

If you have no desire to argue that CC5 is better than CC3, WTF R U doing in this thread?

The thread is called CC5 v CC3 after all  Idea

AT_Stalky wrote (View Post):
IIntresting. Do you have that trollster list in a excel file, or is it in yer head only?  
Nah, i got that info from www.trollregistar.com

CHEERS

AGS

P.S. I do love you Stalky ol' chum and i hope we meet in the afterlife.


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: Mon Jun 25, 2012 12:50 pm Post subject: Re: CC5 vs CC3 Reply with quote

Everyone except you ended the “US- side issue” long ago mate, acebars droped it direct and has not mentioned it again, it was nothing there to debate after considering how ppl play CC5. ..

ArmeeGruppeSud wrote (View Post):
long winded dribbling argument to this side issue in this post


Yes, the long endless post …  sad are they not.

ArmeeGruppeSud wrote (View Post):
 If you have no desire to argue that CC5 is better than CC3, WTF R U doing in this thread? The thread is called CC5 v CC3 after all  Idea .


As in many things there are not just two sides of an issue, it may be three or more.
So, 1) some seem to argue that CC3 is “better”, 2) some other argues that CC5 is “better”, and 3) I argues that non is the better.. They are just different and there quality’s are subjective in nature.
May I not argue that for you? LOL
Must I pick a side?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
 
acebars

Rep: -6.7
votes: 2


PostPosted: Mon Jun 25, 2012 4:15 pm Post subject: Re: CC5 vs CC3 Reply with quote

I couldn't help but getting involved again its too exciting.

Agree completely with AGS about the strawman arguments there's been a lot of those flying around, also writing "lol" is not an argument its about as retarded as using "um" in a sentence.

Quote:
Quote:
wannabes try to capture Kremlin in CC3!

Oh Dima     you are getting so desperate to win a point lol Yes, there is that one map


The penny only dropped last night that Dima is Russian so from a nationalistic perspective such a notion as fighting in Moscow is unacceptable in a video game, quote "wannabes try to capture the Kremlin".

It should be noted that German recon units were 8km away and could see the Kremlin and that the closest Panzer division 17km, they had not continued because they had been ordered to halt, however in theory it would have been quite possible for a succesful company (small battalion) to lead a pincer and once a line had been broken to lead a brigade and then division through to attack the rear, this is the very nature of the Blitzkrieg doctrine.

That said a company/small battalion would still not have altered the course of the war as the Russian counter-offensive on the 5th of December forced the Germans to withdraw. A battalion unless a special forces unit (like the precursor to the SAS in North Africa) could not and would not have an effect on the outcome of World War 2 it is simply too small a unit.

So Close Combat 3 quite clearly deals with the variance of what could have happened realistically in the situation as a commander and not the fantasy that a battalion could change the course of WW2.

This brings us to CC5, where
Quote:
27 battalions, vs the 54 allied battalions. The forces are totally available to the commanders in CC5, they are not in CC3.


I'd like to point out that whole US regiments stormed the beaches of normandy not companies or small battalions.

Lets take the Germans who fielded a total of 14 divisions in the Normandy invasion (I do not count the last 1 division that took part) a total of around 380,000 men.

4-6 (lets say 4) battalions = 1 Regiment/Brigade
3 Regiments/Brigades on a low average = 1 Division

So the minimum battalions let alone companies they fielded was at least 4 X 3 X 14 = 168 battalions.

(4 divisions in the actually landings in Normandy, 3 adjacent and immediately involved , 4 futher armoured division within a week, 3 further armoured divisions after 21 days having refitted at Coutances (south west Normandy).)

So again I call bullshit on the strategy element of CC5, you are fighting a pretend Normandy Strategy map with 27 small battalions (Allied total strength 1,332,000 btw  Very Happy ) with fantasy retreating and supply point settings. Its just total bullshit.

Anyone talking about any realistic element in CC5 is just talking out of their arse, it was fought by division and regiments and not by companies.

So you can pretend to play the Normandy landings but its nothing like it, whereas CC3 is an accurate historical simulator of war on the Eastern front.

Btw I still believe a majority of CC5 players are from the US. That is an excellent flow chart AGS, however I can't comprehend how CC2 is on a par with CC4  Embarassed

I believe the lost sheep must return to the fold.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
AT_Stalky

Rep: 27.4
votes: 10


PostPosted: Mon Jun 25, 2012 7:03 pm Post subject: Re: CC5 vs CC3 Reply with quote

acebars wrote (View Post):
I couldn't help but getting involved again its too exciting.

Agree completely with AGS about the strawman arguments there's been a lot of those flying around, also writing "lol" is not an argument its about as retarded as using "um" in a sentence.

Quote:
Quote:
wannabes try to capture Kremlin in CC3!

Oh Dima     you are getting so desperate to win a point lol Yes, there is that one map


The penny only dropped last night that Dima is Russian so from a nationalistic perspective such a notion as fighting in Moscow is unacceptable in a video game, quote "wannabes try to capture the Kremlin".

It should be noted that German recon units were 8km away and could see the Kremlin and that the closest Panzer division 17km, they had not continued because they had been ordered to halt, however in theory it would have been quite possible for a succesful company (small battalion) to lead a pincer and once a line had been broken to lead a brigade and then division through to attack the rear, this is the very nature of the Blitzkrieg doctrine.

That said a company/small battalion would still not have altered the course of the war as the Russian counter-offensive on the 5th of December forced the Germans to withdraw. A battalion unless a special forces unit (like the precursor to the SAS in North Africa) could not and would not have an effect on the outcome of World War 2 it is simply too small a unit.

So Close Combat 3 quite clearly deals with the variance of what could have happened realistically in the situation as a commander and not the fantasy that a battalion could change the course of WW2.

This brings us to CC5, where
Quote:
27 battalions, vs the 54 allied battalions. The forces are totally available to the commanders in CC5, they are not in CC3.


I'd like to point out that whole US regiments stormed the beaches of normandy not companies or small battalions.

Lets take the Germans who fielded a total of 14 divisions in the Normandy invasion (I do not count the last 1 division that took part) a total of around 380,000 men.

4-6 (lets say 4) battalions = 1 Regiment/Brigade
3 Regiments/Brigades on a low average = 1 Division

So the minimum battalions let alone companies they fielded was at least 4 X 3 X 14 = 168 battalions.

(4 divisions in the actually landings in Normandy, 3 adjacent and immediately involved , 4 futher armoured division within a week, 3 further armoured divisions after 21 days having refitted at Coutances (south west Normandy).)

So again I call bullshit on the strategy element of CC5, you are fighting a pretend Normandy Strategy map with 27 small battalions (Allied total strength 1,332,000 btw  Very Happy ) with fantasy retreating and supply point settings. Its just total bullshit.

Anyone talking about any realistic element in CC5 is just talking out of their arse, it was fought by division and regiments and not by companies.

So you can pretend to play the Normandy landings but its nothing like it, whereas CC3 is an accurate historical simulator of war on the Eastern front.

Btw I still believe a majority of CC5 players are from the US. That is an excellent flow chart AGS, however I can't comprehend how CC2 is on a par with CC4  Embarassed

I believe the lost sheep must return to the fold.


There is a scale in the CC5 tactical side, the fight is represented by 15 teams.  


acebars wrote (View Post):
Lets take the Germans who fielded a total of 14 divisions in the Normandy invasion (I do not count the last 1 division that took part) a total of around 380,000 men.


acebars wrote (View Post):
So the minimum battalions let alone companies they fielded was at least 4 X 3 X 14 = 168 battalions.



You know, let me explain some basics for you:

1)The CC5 game only covers the Utah beach landing…. Not the WHOLE Normandy landing…
2)And its timeframe is 6 of June up to the 30 of June. Not the WHOLE Normandy campaign.
3)In the CC5-regular game the Germans BGs are regiments with attachments..
4)And yes, one can have 5 different amounts of troops depending on preference and how hard one want the operation to be.
5) a CC5 BG is made up by fighting men only. There are no GHQ personal, nor the artillery personal or the of map Flak personal in the CC5 games. You can’t fine the priests nor supply personel…. Nor medics, or medic dogs. Etc

acebars wrote (View Post):
So again I call bullshit on the strategy element of CC5, you are fighting a pretend Normandy Strategy map with 27 small battalions (Allied total strength 1,332,000 btw  ) with fantasy retreating and supply point settings.


Nopz, we are not pretending we are fighting the Normandy Campaign, we are pretending that we fight the Utah beach and that sector.
acebars wrote (View Post):
Its just total bullshit.


Have you really played CC5? I mean, how in gods name did you miss that CC5 was only the Utah beach landing?



acebars wrote (View Post):
(4 divisions in the actually landings in Normandy, 3 adjacent and immediately involved , 4 futher armoured division within a week, 3 further armoured divisions after 21 days having refitted at Coutances (south west Normandy).)


Yeh, they landed on the 5 beaches in Normandy, BUT the only problem is that CC5 don’t cover the whole NORMANDY landing, it ONLY covers the one beach, the Utah sector.


acebars wrote (View Post):
Anyone talking about any realistic element in CC5 is just talking out of their arse,


Yeh, we don’t want to form too many sentences with that body opening, just look at the mess it has delivered so far.  ..
What will come next?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
 
Dima

Rep: 87.3
votes: 16


PostPosted: Mon Jun 25, 2012 9:06 pm Post subject: Re: CC5 vs CC3 Reply with quote

Quote:
Dima (a LEVEL 9 TROLL)) & AT_STALKY (a LEVEL 6 TROLLl)

and when they are together in same thread with AGS they perform crazy multiclass combo boosting their TROLL level by at least 10 levels Wink.

Sorry guys, have been having a severe hangover for the whole day - will be back with you tomorrow Smile.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
acebars

Rep: -6.7
votes: 2


PostPosted: Mon Jun 25, 2012 9:14 pm Post subject: Re: CC5 vs CC3 Reply with quote

Quote:
You know, let me explain some basics for you:

1)The CC5 game only covers the Utah beach landing…. Not the WHOLE Normandy landing…
2)And its timeframe is 6 of June up to the 30 of June. Not the WHOLE Normandy campaign.
3)In the CC5-regular game the Germans BGs are regiments with attachments..
4)And yes, one can have 5 different amounts of troops depending on preference and how hard one want the operation to be.
5) a CC5 BG is made up by fighting men only. There are no GHQ personal, nor the artillery personal or the of map Flak personal in the CC5 games. You can’t fine the priests nor supply personel…. Nor medics, or medic dogs. Etc


No, no let me explain the basics to you the total german divisions I quoted were those who saw action within the month you mention in the Normandy Landings as a whole, they are not to do with the Normandy breakout afterward which you refer to as the campaign and a many of them featured on the American scene up to Cherbourg.

3 whole divisions with several regiments and battalions faced the American landings, the 709th Static Infantry Division at Utah and 352nd Infantry Division at Omaha, as well as the 91st Air Landing Division which faced the US Airborne troops. Only 1 the weakest division faced the British and Canadians. In CC5 these divisions are represented by a couple of companies, very realistic! and no a BG in CC5 cannot legitimately represent a regiment, a regiments soldiers of around 1000 men are counted as fighting soldiers not as cooks and priests.

A whole Division landed at Utah not 2 piddly companies! 23,500 men landed in one day on Utah and I'm not even mentioning the adjacent german divisions that took part later.

CC5 strategy is bullshit, sorry but it is really.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Dima

Rep: 87.3
votes: 16


PostPosted: Mon Jun 25, 2012 9:31 pm Post subject: Re: CC5 vs CC3 Reply with quote

Quote:
3 whole divisions with several regiments and battalions faced the American landings, the 709th Static Infantry Division at Utah and 352nd Infantry Division at Omaha, as well as the 91st Air Landing Division which faced the US Airborne troops.

you can add 1 716.ID battalion in Isigny, 243.ID at the west shore and GHQ units as well and yes, they all (battalions) are in Utah mod for CC5.

Quote:
Only 1 the weakest division faced the British and Canadians.

i don't know why you think 716.ID was weaker than 709.ID but yeah, plus 21.Pz, 12.SS-Pz and 346.ID that were in closest vicinity and in combat by June 7th.
and yes, all their battalions that were in combat in June are in TRSM.

Quote:
In CC5 these divisions are represented by a couple of companies, very realistic!

check above Wink.

Quote:
and no a BG in CC5 cannot legitimately represent a regiment, a regiments soldiers of around 1000 men are counted as fighting soldiers not as cooks and priests

why not? there are 2-5 battalion sized BGs per each german regiment (as they all had different organization there) in CC5.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
AT_Stalky

Rep: 27.4
votes: 10


PostPosted: Mon Jun 25, 2012 9:33 pm Post subject: Re: CC5 vs CC3 Reply with quote

acebars wrote (View Post):
Quote:
You know, let me explain some basics for you:

1)The CC5 game only covers the Utah beach landing…. Not the WHOLE Normandy landing…
2)And its timeframe is 6 of June up to the 30 of June. Not the WHOLE Normandy campaign.
3)In the CC5-regular game the Germans BGs are regiments with attachments..
4)And yes, one can have 5 different amounts of troops depending on preference and how hard one want the operation to be.
5) a CC5 BG is made up by fighting men only. There are no GHQ personal, nor the artillery personal or the of map Flak personal in the CC5 games. You can’t fine the priests nor supply personel…. Nor medics, or medic dogs. Etc


No, no let me explain the basics to you the total german divisions I quoted were those who saw action within the month you mention in the Normandy Landings as a whole, they are not to do with the Normandy breakout afterward which you refer to as the campaign and a many of them featured on the American scene up to Cherbourg.

3 whole divisions with several regiments and battalions faced the American landings, the 709th Static Infantry Division at Utah and 352nd Infantry Division at Omaha, as well as the 91st Air Landing Division which faced the US Airborne troops. Only 1 the weakest division faced the British and Canadians. In CC5 these divisions are represented by a couple of companies, very realistic! and no a BG in CC5 cannot legitimately represent a regiment, a regiments soldiers of around 1000 men are counted as fighting soldiers not as cooks and priests.

A whole Division landed at Utah not 2 piddly companies! 23,500 men landed in one day on Utah and I'm not even mentioning the adjacent german divisions that took part later.

CC5 strategy is bullshit, sorry but it is really.



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.


acebars wrote (View Post):
My observations which without trying to brag have been pretty accurate so far, are that most of the flag waving CC5 players 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.



acebars wrote (View Post):
 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.


acebars wrote (View Post):
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?



Read your own quotes above.

After all the bald talk and blaha talk, it turns out that you don’t even know the basic of CC5…
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
 
Dima

Rep: 87.3
votes: 16


PostPosted: Mon Jun 25, 2012 9:36 pm Post subject: Re: CC5 vs CC3 Reply with quote

Quote:
23,500 men landed in one day on Utah

if you calculate the number of "combat soldiers" among them you will be very surprised IMO Wink
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Stwa

Rep: 308.9
votes: 16


PostPosted: Tue Jun 26, 2012 6:42 am Post subject: Re: CC5 vs CC3 Reply with quote

The SHIT is getting real deep in this thread  Exclamation

I cant bring myself to read each post entirely, but I was trying to find at least one line that was definitive for me at least.  Arrow

they can either lose or win on points like any other game, (i.e. football, basketball, etc), who ever has highest score wins, Duh!


Now, everyone with an IQ of less than 100, will totally fucking understand, right  Idea  Laughing [slaps forehead]
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
acebars

Rep: -6.7
votes: 2


PostPosted: Tue Jun 26, 2012 10:30 am Post subject: Re: CC5 vs CC3 Reply with quote

AT_Stalky wrote (View Post):

Read your own quotes above.

After all the bald talk and blaha talk, it turns out that you don’t even know the basic of CC5…


Really how so? You've yet to explain this or counter any of the arguments I put forward with a concrete reply? AGS mentioned straw man arguments and derailment? Completed the grand campaign on both sides at least twice and had limited multi experience as mentioned before, it was 3 years ago, maybe its was such a boring experience that I forced myself to forget.

Quote:
if you calculate the number of "combat soldiers" among them you will be very surprised IMO Wink


Really? So what the Allied beach landings and subsequent breakouts were made by Chef and Priest batallions?

Quote:
why not? there are 2-5 battalion sized BGs per each german regiment (as they all had different organization there) in CC5.


No there are 2-5 companies per division in CC5!

Quote:
i don't know why you think 716.ID was weaker than 709.


Because it was made up of the most ost truppen, this is off topic anyhow.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
ArmeeGruppeSud

Rep: 9.5
votes: 7


PostPosted: Tue Jun 26, 2012 1:11 pm Post subject: Re: CC5 vs CC3 Reply with quote

Stwa wrote (View Post):
The SHIT is getting real deep in this thread  Exclamation ]

.                        It surely is

At least there is some activity happenning in the CCS forum

Gives the punters something to read that they can have a giggle at  Very Happy

Stwa wrote (View Post):
I cant bring myself to read each post entirely
Nor can i because of time constraints  Sad


BTW.......  nice boots  Razz

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
 
ArmeeGruppeSud

Rep: 9.5
votes: 7


PostPosted: Tue Jun 26, 2012 1:11 pm Post subject: Re: CC5 vs CC3 Reply with quote

AT_Stalky wrote (View Post):
Well argued AGS.

.              Sarcasm?


AT_Stalky wrote (View Post):
Lets logically test your argument:.
. This is gonna be good  Very Happy

AT_Stalky wrote (View Post):
Lets say that I play a CC3 GC, and I would not picked a single tank.. Then I would not have lost a single tank either.. So then the Germans tank losses in east front would have been exactly “0”, zero… And how realistic would that have been?
Conclusion, the losses are a factor of the troops selected.

Ok, what happened to logically testing my argument?

Guess that idea just went out the window, eh?

OK, lets look at the failed logic of AT_STALKY's attempt at refutation:

1st The Campaign was played, not to create statistics, like your hypothetical example, the Campaign was played to win!
The statistics resulted from a genuine CC GC with both sides playing to win.
If AT_STALKY was silly enough never to requistion a tank, he would lose the campagin very badly.

2ndly
AT_Stalky wrote (View Post):
Lets say that I play a CC3 GC, and I would not picked a single tank.. Then I would not have lost a single tank either.. So then the Germans tank losses in east front would have been exactly “0”, zero…
.   You think?

Obviously you did'nt.

My stats, as quoted were for combined German & Russian Tank and ATgun losses.

What about your opponent?

Your opponent probably requisitioned 100+ tanks during the campaign and the Russians utterly defeated AT_STALKY

Unless you refused to destroy any of them so that you lost every single operation, there still would have been Tanks losses

Or did you pay your opponent not to requisition any tanks for the entire GC just so that you could fabricate statistics.

Regarding AT_STALKY's argument in trying to refute me, if it was a horse, the vet would have shot it dead because it was so lame  Razz

One must ask, what is AT_STALKY trying to prove?

He is proving that he will argue with anything i write  Rolling Eyes

What is your point?

Are you trying to prove:

(A) that AT guns in CC3 are invisible and have an unfair advantage over tanks?

Or are you trying to prove:

(B) that the CC5 result statistics better reflect historical battle loss statistics than CC3

Or are you trying to prove:

(C) that AT_STALKY will argue with just about anything that AGS writes

There was little evidence for either A or B in your post, therefore, it can only be C


AT_Stalky wrote (View Post):
Lest say that I pic exact ratios of troops, and my opponent do the same. Will the losses really be the historical ratios? Would that imply that the player skill and tactics have no meaning in CC3?
This is another AT_Stalky sideshow argument which realy has NO BEARING on either of my arguments.

AT_Stalky wrote (View Post):
Conclusion: loss ratios are a factor of the 2 players individual skill and there relative comparative advantages.?
Is this lame argument an attempt to prove that the game in question has no bearing on the statistics the game delivers?

Your arguments totally failed to disprove anything.

You presented ZERO evidence, only a hypothetcal based on statistcal manipulation, not actual serious gameplay

Call the vet!

The reason why your arguments failed is because you simply ignored the evidence & facts and you concentrated on variables that have little relevance to the object of the argument.

Lets make this very easy, so that even people with IQs below 100 could understand.....

If you had game (A) that had tanks, but no AT/field Guns and game (B) that had both, which game's post battle result statistics would better reflect battle loss statistics from a war that included both tanks and AT/field Guns, A or B?
Just to make it easier for you, both sides are played by the AI with nobody making selections to manipulate the statistics.

Conlcusion: the game you play will ultimately affect the statistcal nature of the results.

Conclusion: your arguments had little relevance to the 2 points i was making in that post and did not refute one iota of my arguments.

CHEERS to you mister AT_AGS_STALKER

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
 
ArmeeGruppeSud

Rep: 9.5
votes: 7


PostPosted: Tue Jun 26, 2012 1:12 pm Post subject: Re: CC5 vs CC3 Reply with quote

AT_Stalky wrote (View Post):
Everyone except you ended the “US- side issue” long ago mate, acebars droped it direct and has not mentioned it again, it was nothing there to debate after considering how ppl play CC5. ..?

Everyone except you ended the “US- side issue on page2, it was you you restarted on page 3 and kept it going.

You posed questions to me, so i was required to answer......

Am i not allowed a right of reply?

Then you continued to draw focus on the side issue.
For me it should never have been escalated into an issue and would have been over long ago if you had not been so obsessed about it.

ArmeeGruppeSud wrote (View Post):
 If you have no desire to argue that CC5 is better than CC3, WTF R U doing in this thread? The thread is called CC5 v CC3 after all  Idea .
AT_Stalky wrote (View Post):
So, 1) some seem to argue that CC3 is “better”, 2) some other argues that CC5 is “better”, and 3) I argues that non is the better.. They are just different and there quality’s are subjective in nature..
For the third time, I agree with you that the reason more people play CC5 is all about preference, not that CC5 is a better game

AT_Stalky wrote (View Post):
May I not argue that for you? LOL
Must I pick a side?
No you dont have to pick a side

But you have......

You have chosen to be on any side that is opposed to mine  Wink   Razz

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: Tue Jun 26, 2012 2:08 pm Post subject: Re: CC5 vs CC3 Reply with quote

ArmeeGruppeSud wrote (View Post):
What is your point?


The loss ratios in any GC is not an unbiased measurement of realism. The loss ratios are also affected by many other factors. For example: 1) The troops selected, IE: if one don’t pick any tanks one will not lose any tanks. That’s an extreme example, but it should point to the conclusion that the troops selected by the players affect the loss ratios.
2) The loss ratios are also subject to the player’s individual skills. This should point to the conclusion that the players skills affect the loss ratios.


ArmeeGruppeSud wrote (View Post):
 the “US- side issue [....]  For me it should never have been escalated into an issue and would have been over long ago if you had not been so obsessed about it.  


It’s sad that this “side issue” has become an "issue" for you. But none here seem to be interested in debating a “non issue” with you. Perhaps because this "side issue" is a “non issue” thus no "issue" for us ...  
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
 
Dima

Rep: 87.3
votes: 16


PostPosted: Tue Jun 26, 2012 6:54 pm Post subject: Re: CC5 vs CC3 Reply with quote

AGS,

Quote:
There has never been such a huge online H2H community since CC3's heyday

i believe that it was due to several main factors:
1) CC3 had much better gameplay (game mechanics) than CC2 although CC2 was already a huge success.
2) That was a golden age of 56K modems that could nicely work with action packed CC3 battles instead of TBS wargames.
 
Quote:
It seems that CC5 killed the Glory days of online CC which was achieved through CC3

CC5 just couldn't compete with new multiplayer games when DSL/LAN became widespreaded.
Same for CC2/3/4.

Quote:
CC5's associated bugs, malfunctions, problems, crashes, and various other dificulties led to the demise and end of Atomic's previously successful CLOSE COMBAT series

if CC5 was/is so miserable why it is the most played online CC version even after 12 years since it was released?

Quote:
Realy?
What are you crying about mister Sooky-La-La
Let me explain some basic truths to you.
Both Tanks and AT guns have firepower as their main superpower
Tanks have mobility and armour protection as their other inherant superpowers
The only superpower that AT guns have to protect them against tanks is their ability for concealment (you call it invisibility).
If AT guns were as visible as tanks, they would be utterly useless.

yes, really, even small caliber ATGs like pak36 and M37 were to be spotted and engaged by tanks at 500m.
their ability for concealment is important as they have longer range of direct sight against tanx than tanx against them and could make first shots.
so yes, invisible ATGs are unrealistic and ahistorical and that's why they were fixed in CC4-5.

Quote:
Now to prove to you that AT guns are not invisible in CC3 and their concealment superpower does not give them an unfair advantage over tanks in CC3.
The statistics from a CC3 campaign are conclusive evidence against ATgun invisibility in CC3.
If ATguns were truly invisible/undetectable in CC3, then there would be more tanks destroyed than ATguns.
There are a total of 116 tanks destroyed and 247 guns destroyed in this CC3 campaign, so far.
If ATguns were invisible/undetectable in CC3, then why did the tanks destroy so many ATguns whilst losing so few tanks?

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.

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 Wink.

Quote:
Dima, a true historical accuraccy enthusiast, who is committed to historical accuraccy, would of course know that true historical statistics of battle losses always show 2-4 times as many gun losses as tank losses............

yes, Dima knows that historically guns were in larger numbers than tanx and it is obvious that statistically more ATGs could be lost than tanx.
Dima also knows that historically where ATGs were able to penetrate tanx at all combat ranges, tanx were lost in much greater numbers than those ATGs.

Quote:
Yes, i am sure when an infantry squad charges your position, you would just sit there and wait for the bayonet in your gut

you are wrong, that's why bayonet charge against static/suppressed enemy was the common combat infantry tactics for most of the armies.
so yes, infantry supression model is flawed in CC3 and was fixed in CC4 (2nd patch)-5.

Quote:
Its not realistic like CC5 where you have a company sized group of soldiers representing a regiment

that is of cause wrong as in CC5 player chooses a company sized group from battalion force pool (BG) to be in combat and it several BGs in their turn represent a regiment in good details.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Dima

Rep: 87.3
votes: 16


PostPosted: Tue Jun 26, 2012 8:22 pm Post subject: Re: CC5 vs CC3 Reply with quote

Acebars,

Quote:
The penny only dropped last night that Dima is Russian so from a nationalistic perspective such a notion as fighting in Moscow is unacceptable in a video game, quote "wannabes try to capture the Kremlin".

that was a reply to AGS's CC5 wannabees and nothing to do with nationalistic perspective.

Quote:
It should be noted that German recon units were 8km away and could see the Kremlin

that's a myth AFAIK.

Quote:
they had not continued because they had been ordered to halt, however in theory it would have been quite possible for a succesful company (small battalion) to lead a pincer and once a line had been broken to lead a brigade and then division through to attack the rear, this is the very nature of the Blitzkrieg doctrine.

do you understand what would it take to cross 17km inside the modern city that is prepared for defence and have adequate forces to defend it? Check how many kilometers did they cross in Stalingrad and how long did it take them?
and of cause the nature of Blitzkrieg doctrine was different.

Quote:
So Close Combat 3 quite clearly deals with the variance of what could have happened realistically in the situation as a commander and not the fantasy that a battalion could change the course of WW2.

in that situation that was a pure fantasy.

Quote:
Really? So what the Allied beach landings and subsequent breakouts were made by Chef and Priest batallions?

Priest battalions helped alot with their 105mm guns Wink.
you better read somewhere when did they make breakouts and how many men and war materials did they land by then.

Quote:
No there are 2-5 companies per division in CC5!

sure you've played CC5?
could you prove that in CC5 there are only 2-5 companies per division?

Quote:
Because it was made up of the most ost truppen, this is off topic anyhow.

most of the replies in this thread are off topic anyway Smile
709.ID and 716.ID had 3 Ost-Bataillone each. Again why do you say 716.ID was the weakest?
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!