No its not. The argument about the myth is whether or not they may or may not have seen the Kremlin.
Dima wrote:
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?
Moscow was anything but a modern city (it is even debatable whether it is a modern city today given its economic disparities), it certainly wasn't the megapolis sprawl that it is today, the recon unit that made it the closest stopped at Khimki which was then still a rural town and in no way connected to Moscow city as a whole. In other words 8km away they had not even reached the suburbs before being ordered to stop.
Dima wrote:
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.
Not really it was quite possible if one leading unit of a division had performed well, it still would have been difficult and very unlikely, but CC3 does simulate the possibilities without it being complete fantasy imo all that is missing is a suburb map in between, alas 5 maps is the maxium in CC3, and it still wouldn't have had an outcome on the war as the Soviets had been planning a counteroffensive long before those 2 weeks.
Dima wrote:
you better read somewhere when did they make breakouts and how many men and war materials did they land by then.
Pot calling the kettle black you better read about the Normandy landings, I have read about the Normandy landings and like I said 23,500 combat troops not chefs or clergy men landed in one day on Utah beach.
Dima wrote:
sure you've played CC5? could you prove that in CC5 there are only 2-5 companies per division?
Yep I'm playing it now and you can prove it just by starting the Grand campaign in CC5, day 1. 709th Static Infantry Division at Utah is represented by 3 companies, 2 actually at the beaches and one behind which fights the US airborne. The 91st Air Landing Division an Elite Division is represented by only 2 Companies which fight the US airborne troops, need I go on?
I also noted I'm able to requisition a Stuart as a US Airborne unit far behind the beach landings! (I'm playing as veteran btw) Lol, thats really realistic I wonder how many parachutes that took, maybe they put seperate parts into gliders and built it on the spot? More utter bullshit in CC5.
Dima wrote:
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
709.ID and 716.ID had 3 Ost-Bataillone each. Again why do you say 716.ID was the weakest?
I was under the impression (if I recall correctly) that the 716th had more Ost truppen than the 709th which also had them, this and the fact they were mostly facing the combined forces of the British and Canadians meant the Allies there had an easier time than elsewhere, perhaps they were comparitively weaker, I am now reading about Vietnam it was a while since I read about the D-Day and the Western Front.
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 ...
If your “side issue” is such a “non issue”, then why do you keep bringing it up
Posted: Wed Jun 27, 2012 3:50 pm Post subject: Re: CC5 vs CC3
Quote:
Now please excuse me, please do tell
Whats with the CC3 Stangrad screenshot?
i bet Stwa puzzled everyone with this .
Quote:
Btw, there were never any StuG-III-Gs in Stalingrad, Dima?
well, the production started in December 1942 so i doubt it - looks like their babtism of fire was at Kharkov.
late production F8 with 50+30mm armor were in Stalingrad AFAIK.
Posted: Wed Jun 27, 2012 4:45 pm Post subject: Re: CC5 vs CC3
Quote:
No its not. The argument about the myth is whether or not they may or may not have seen the Kremlin.Moscow was anything but a modern city (it is even debatable whether it is a modern city today given its economic disparities), it certainly wasn't the megapolis sprawl that it is today, the recon unit that made it the closest stopped at Khimki which was then still a rural town and in no way connected to Moscow city as a whole. In other words 8km away they had not even reached the suburbs before being ordered to stop.
you said that yourself, Khimki station was 17-19km from Kremlin. 8km myth came from P.Carell, and of cause it was impossible to see Kremlin even from that range.
and yes, Moscow was a modern city in 1941 and, although i don't like it, it is a modern city today.
Quote:
Pot calling the kettle black you better read about the Normandy landings, I have read about the Normandy landings and like I said 23,500 combat troops not chefs or clergy men landed in one day on Utah beach.
ok let's count,
4th ID landed at Utah beach that had about ~6-8K combat troops, then we have 2 Tk Battalions (~500-700men), elements of 4th Cavalry (~200-300men), 1 TD Bat (~200men), so whom else did you add to get 23,500 of combat troops landed at Utah beach on June 6?
Quote:
Yep I'm playing it now and you can prove it just by starting the Grand campaign in CC5, day 1. 709th Static Infantry Division at Utah is represented by 3 companies, 2 actually at the beaches and one behind which fights the US airborne. The 91st Air Landing Division an Elite Division is represented by only 2 Companies which fight the US airborne troops, need I go on?
well, yeah, I agree that Atomic did alot of mistakes, releasing CC3 was one of them .
check Utah mod, there you will have 6 battalion sized BGs representing 709.ID and 6 battalions for 91.LLD, btw it was far from beeing elite - actually it was raised in 1944 and was not fully combat ready by D-Day ;)
Quote:
I also noted I'm able to requisition a Stuart as a US Airborne unit far behind the beach landings! (I'm playing as veteran btw) Lol, thats really realistic I wonder how many parachutes that took, maybe they put seperate parts into gliders and built it on the spot? More utter bullshit in CC5
actually squadron of 4th Cav did reach the Paras on June 6 and was supporting them with their 37mm and MGs.
so tell us about more CC5 bullshit .
Quote:
I was under the impression (if I recall correctly) that the 716th had more Ost truppen than the 709th which also had them, this and the fact they were mostly facing the combined forces of the British and Canadians meant the Allies there had an easier time than elsewhere,
Utah landing took a toll of 200 US servicemen - no other beach had such smooth landing.
and as for easy landing of Canucks against 716.ID, google for Juno .
you said that yourself, Khimki station was 17-19km from Kremlin. 8km myth came from P.Carell, and of cause it was impossible to see Kremlin even from that range.
and yes, Moscow was a modern city in 1941 and, although i don't like it, it is a modern city today.
Whatever the case, Khimki was a rural town then, far from the Moscow suburbs.
Moscow was not a modern city, a modern city implies that all its residents had modern amenities at the time, like for example basic sanitation and extensive sewage systems which outside the very city centre Moscow simply did not exist even up to a decade after the war. Modern cities in Europe at the time were for example London, Paris, Berlin, Budapest (which had modernised first in the whole of continental Europe in the late 19th Century) as far East I would say as Warsaw (which was modernised by English architects in the late 19th Century). Due to the purges in the countryside etc. and forced relocation Moscow had grown rapidly in terms of millions and despite efforts to house everyone (which were largely succesful) many of these buildings lacked basic sanitation = not a modern city.
Off topic: This argument can be extended today, by modern standards Moscow is anything but today, income disparities make huge gaps between those in poverty and the rich. Cities that are Megapolises and not modern imo are for example Mexico city, Sao Paulo, Shenzhen, Moscow, New Delhi.
Modern implies Hong Kong, Paris, London, New York etc. where poor people don't die from hunger.
Quote:
ok let's count,
4th ID landed at Utah beach that had about ~6-8K combat troops, then we have 2 Tk Battalions (~500-700men), elements of 4th Cavalry (~200-300men), 1 TD Bat (~200men), so whom else did you add to get 23,500 of combat troops landed at Utah beach on June 6?
23,500 Combat troops landed on Utah beach, I'm not going to debate it with you pick up a history book.
Quote:
actually squadron of 4th Cav did reach the Paras on June 6 and was supporting them with their 37mm and MGs.
so tell us about more CC5 bullshit .
Really can you explain why a stuart managed to get dropped 3-4 sectors away from the Beach landings? A few battlegroups get them. An unacceptable excuse to what is bullshit. WW2 tanks flying through the air with parachutes.
Quote:
Utah landing took a toll of 200 US servicemen - no other beach had such smooth landing.
and as for easy landing of Canucks against 716.ID, google for Juno .
I happen to know that Utah was the easiest landing I never said that the Brits/Canadians had it the easiest I said that as whole they had it relatively easier than the US forces i.e. Omaha beach. Yes they got hit at Juno hard, nothing compared to the US losses. Please stop with the misintepretations and strawman arguments, just pick up a history book, I have already and can't really be bothered to keep refering to it on your behalf.
Quote:
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.
Er bullshit, some armies didn't even supply bayonets with certain rifled weapons towards the end of World War 2. Of all armies the ones probably doing the most fixing of bayonets were the Russians because only they could sustain the horrific losses required to get into close quarters and even the Soviet "deep operations" strategy was designed to have mass russian hordes wielding submachine guns not rifled bayonets. German doctrine specifically hinged on the MG34/MG42 to keep Russian infantry out of close range and was specifically against close quarters fighting.
Bayonet charges against a suppressed force is a World War 1 concept, by the end of World War 2 it was largely obsolete. It is still a left over that remains today in many Armies. Its like a caecal appendix, we all have one but its very rarely used if ever. So sorry I call absolute bullshit on that one.
Posted: Wed Jun 27, 2012 7:31 pm Post subject: Re: CC5 vs CC3
Quote:
Whatever the case, Khimki was a rural town then, far from the Moscow suburbs.
good that you accept that it was still too far from Kremlin when they reached Khimki.
Quote:
23,500 Combat troops landed on Utah beach, I'm not going to debate it with you pick up a history book.
well thanks for clarification - looks like the only search you can make is open wiki... and even there they don't say about 23,500 combat troops but the overall number of men landed at Utah beach on June 6.
Quote:
Really can you explain why a stuart managed to get dropped 3-4 sectors away from the Beach landings?
i repeat, B troop of 4th Cav landed at Utah beach and reached Paras at St.Mere Eglise by afternoon with their vehicles.
Quote:
A few battlegroups get them. An unacceptable excuse to what is bullshit. WW2 tanks flying through the air with parachutes.
that is mistake of Atomic again - they have been doing alot of mistakes in historical details in all their game, including CC3 which had too many of them. Hopefully modders, like AGS, do fix them .
and SURPRISE!!! the brit Paras did land tanks with their gliders in Norm .
Quote:
I happen to know that Utah was the easiest landing I never said that the Brits/Canadians had it the easiest I said that as whole they had it relatively easier than the US forces i.e. Omaha beach.
you did say 716.ID was the weakest.
Quote:
Yes they got hit at Juno hard, nothing compared to the US losses
so maybe you can give us casualty numbers of GJS sectors and Utah/Omaha for comparison? ;)
Quote:
Please stop with the misintepretations and strawman arguments, just pick up a history book, I have already and can't really be bothered to keep refering to it on your behalf.
i don't even need to open the book to see how deep your knowledges are .
Quote:
Er bullshit, some armies didn't even supply bayonets with certain rifled weapons towards the end of World War 2.
example please..
Quote:
Of all armies the ones probably doing the most fixing of bayonets were the Russians because only they could sustain the horrific losses required to get into close quarters
open my eyes please - what is the total number of RA irretrivable casualties and how does it compare to the German irrretrivable casualties?
Quote:
even the Soviet "deep operations" strategy was designed to have mass russian hordes wielding submachine guns not rifled bayonets.
ahha! another historical breakthrough, like the nature of Blitzkrieg?
please tell us who was wielding SMGs in RA?
Quote:
German doctrine specifically hinged on the MG34/MG42 to keep Russian infantry out of close range and was specifically against close quarters fighting.
i bet they used different infantry doctrine against the allies, right?
Quote:
Bayonet charges against a suppressed force is a World War 1 concept, by the end of World War 2 it was largely obsolete.
and probably that's why it was the main infantry tactics of the CW Armies, USA, JEA and RA to mention some.
Quote:
So sorry I call absolute bullshit on that one.
no problems, it just proves your deep knowledges .
Really can you explain why a stuart managed to get dropped 3-4 sectors away from the Beach landings? A few battlegroups get them. An unacceptable excuse to what is bullshit. WW2 tanks flying through the air with parachutes. .
Well, im not gone slash CC3s way to pick units even though its unrealistic. Its a game mecanics after all.
But it’s cool that you fined it unrealistic that CC5 has tanks available in the force pool for the AB units from day one. Most of us who played CC5 GC did not picked the tanks in the first battles. The house rule was that one was allowed to use the tanks ONLY when the AB unit was linked to the beach. This is modeble by the way, so its "fixed".
But when you react against that (modeble) detail in CC5, how come that you don’t react against the point system in CC3?
What Company commander in the east front had a requisition point account from where he purchased units? Where was the Wehrmacht super markets located? Buy a tank or two, buy some guns, and buy that cool infantry team... ?? … I cant remember, was it even possible to buy FJ and SS!!!
Brrr.... the images that comes to my mind when a CC3 Wehrmacht Company commander get that Visa card and go on a shopping tripp… Theres just something here that feels so... unrealistic?
But, perhaps one should not forget that it’s a …. game..
wehrmart (kopia).jpg
Description:
Filesize:
155.26 KB
Viewed:
8946 Time(s)
Last edited by AT_Stalky on Wed Jun 27, 2012 8:56 pm; edited 1 time in total
Posted: Wed Jun 27, 2012 8:54 pm Post subject: Re: CC5 vs CC3
Quote:
you did say 716.ID was the weakest.
No I said that they were relatively weaker. Do you understand what that means? It means 1 German against 20 Americans is stronger than 2 Germans against 55 Americans.
Quote:
good that you accept that it was still too far from Kremlin when they reached Khimki.
Where did you get that notion? The only thing I accept is that they still had a lot of countryside to get to the Kremlin and not the laughable 17km of city you claim Moscow to be then.
Quote:
well thanks for clarification - looks like the only search you can make is open wiki... and even there they don't say about 23,500 combat troops but the overall number of men landed at Utah beach on June 6.
No, wiki and Antony Beevor's D-Day landing book, maybe you should read it.
Quote:
nd SURPRISE!!! the brit Paras did land tanks with their gliders in Norm Wink.
No, tankettes and universal carriers do not count as tanks. No stuart to my knowledge ever took part in a para drop.
Quote:
i repeat, B troop of 4th Cav landed at Utah beach and reached Paras at St.Mere Eglise by afternoon with their vehicles.
I repeat I had several tanks fly in from the sky before the beach had even been taken!
Quote:
Er bullshit, some armies didn't even supply bayonets with certain rifled weapons towards the end of World War 2.
example please..
Err for example US and US supplied units? By the end some had received Garands with and without bayonets, and some had discarded them in favour of combat knives.
Quote:
open my eyes please - what is the total number of RA irretrivable casualties and how does it compare to the German irrretrivable casualties?
Like I said I'm not going to do your job of reading up the facts, why don't you find a late war german infantry manual, there is no mention of ever favouring fixing bayonets as a tactic, it is infact meant to be avoided.
Quote:
ahha! another historical breakthrough, like the nature of Blitzkrieg? please tell us who was wielding SMGs in RA?
Well I'm not sure what they've been teaching you in Russia, but its common historical knowledge that the Kalashnikov machine gun doctrine after the war was based on the mass human wave tactic employed by the Soviets during the war, except for the assault rifle was meant to replace the original sub-machine gun idea, that was the theory at least. Perhaps Kalashnikov got it wrong they were actually meant to fix bayonet?
Quote:
and probably that's why it was the main infantry tactics of the CW Armies, USA, JEA and RA to mention some.
Most laughable notion that armies fixed bayonets as a main tactic in World War 2. Please stop taking the piss.
Quote:
no problems, it just proves your deep knowledges Smile.
Resorting to petty statements about someone's knowledge while yourself showing ignorance, straw man arguments and not answering/avoiding/derailing the actual discussion is weak.
Quote:
But when you react against that detail in CC5, how come that you don’t react against the point system in CC3?
What Company commander in the east front had a requisition point account from where he purchased units? Where was the Wehrmacht –Mart super markets located? Buy a tank or two, buy some guns, and buy that cool infantry team... ?? … I cant remember, was it even possible to buy FJ and SS!!!
I think its an excellent way to depict reinforcements in Close Combat and other war games (i.e. Combat Mission). If I have a massive reinforcement pool like in CC5 why don't I just field everything? Also the reinforcement pool gives no indication of the availability of units at that particular time it just has a set values, so you have "x" teams and thats it, never has a conflict been such, never can a unit exactly calculate what its future reinforcements are or not, even in an accurate build up such as the US troop buildup in Vietnam could commanders and units say exactly how many or what type of tank they'd receive in a certain month.
CC3 correctly depicts reinforcements, which are based on availability for refit which is the pool of units in that sector/division and are those available to the Commander at the time. The point system is effectively the importance/military resource availabity you have as a unit of receiving reinforcements at that time. So for example if you are due on an offensive you have more points or importance as a unit to pick more teams from a pool. When Germany is losing the war it has less military resources available and hence less points. The point system is effectively a reinforcement potential much like an army in real life.
In another light its quite possible that a force receives a lot of importance in its mission and all available military resources pushed towards it thus receiving a lot of points, but if the quality of reinforcements however is poor this is reflected in the force pool because these are the only units available to that Division at the time, an excellent example of this would be a scenario of fighting around Berlin where German armies were still at large and received all reinforcements possible but military material was less available. This would be completely undoable in the CC5 engine.
The system in CC3 is very similar to how armies have worked for centuries, for example a commander can request more tanks, mortars, reinforcements or whatever and depending on the avalibility of military resources and the importance of that unit at the time is either granted these units or not. Instead in CC5 a commander is told exactly you have x amount of tanks y amount of mortarx and z amount of infantry, which is simply not realistic and total bullshit.
Last edited by acebars on Wed Jun 27, 2012 10:21 pm; edited 1 time in total
Posted: Wed Jun 27, 2012 9:20 pm Post subject: Re: CC5 vs CC3
The point system is effectively the importance/military resource availabity you have as a unit of receiving reinforcements at that time. So for example if you are due on an offensive you have more points or importance as a unit to pick more teams from a pool. When Germany is losing the war it has less military resources available and hence less points. The point system is effectively a reinforcement potential much like an army in real life.
CC3 is not the first game to try to explain away what their nebulous point system actually means. Besides, earlier posts suggested these points were in fact just POINTS, like in a football or basketball game.
But now, we are told points mean importance or reinforcement potential or military resources.
CC3 is not the first game to try to explain away what their nebulous point system actually means. Besides, earlier posts suggested these points were in fact just POINTS, like in a football or basketball game. But now, we are told points mean importance or reinforcement potential or military resources.
WTF
Well how else are you going to depict something that is not rigidly set or settable in any army? How is it nebulous?
An actual discussion between a US colonel and a US general in Vietnam may have looked like this in real life:
Colonel: "Due to our recent losses after the Tet offensive, I require replacement tanks as well as extra reserve artillery to bolster my defense if I'm to hold here"
General: "I'm afraid other sectors were hit worse, besides Westmoreland needs all the armor & artillery he can get against Hue, I can reinforce some of your infantry losses but you're just going to have make do with what you've got until we get the situation under control"
In other words the importance of that unit is low due to an offensive elsewhere so in CC3 points are low, tanks and artillery are available in the force pool as the war material is available to the US army but you do not have the points to be able to afford them until later or in a later operation.*
How you can portray this in a video game other than using a system like CC3 employs? Instead in CC5 US forces after the Tet Offensive all have hundreds of units of reserves and replenish them instantly, just nonsense.
So how the concept of reinforcement potentials against military resources at the time is a nebulous concept to you is beyond me, its about as nebulous as the real situation in a real life army.
*I corrected this part after other posts had already been made.
Last edited by acebars on Thu Jun 28, 2012 11:01 am; edited 5 times in total
Also the reinforcement pool gives no indication of the availability of units at that particular time it just has a set values, so you have "x" teams and thats it, .
You have not played CC5, or understood it have you?
The force pool is the battalion directly combat ready troops that are under his command. A battalion commander definitely know the amount of available troops BEFOR the battle, and that what CC5 mimics.
never has a conflict been such, never can a unit exactly calculate what its future reinforcements are or not, .
hm, future reinforcements? A CC5 battalion is the troops at hand. Future reinforcements, would then be the allied reinforcements option, where he can reinforce the whole battalion one time. And the CC5 player has no idea how the force pool will look when reinforcing it. As each day may have different units and different numbers of units… So, you wrong again. You have not played CC5 have you? Or is it that you don’t get it?
The system in CC3 is very similar to how armies have worked for centuries, for example a commander can request more tanks, mortars, reinforcements or whatever and depending on the avalibility of military resources and the importance of that unit at the time is either granted these units or not..
Ehh, a German whermacht company commander requests some SS units, and some FJ units. And some cool tanks, or flame SPW, what more?… To whom does he do that, OKW, OKH or direct to the Wher-Mart store?
A Company commander talks to the battalion commander only. I doubt he can give him what he asks for, and if he requests what is available in the CC3 pool, he may instead get some weeks R&R, as the battalion commander most probable will think the CP commander has got some serious delusions, perhaps shell shock, or battle fatigue with some grandiose Napoleonic tendencies.
You just fantasising are you not? Making up things as you debates?
Posted: Wed Jun 27, 2012 10:11 pm Post subject: Re: CC5 vs CC3
Quote:
The force pool is the battalion directly combat ready troops that are under his command. A battalion commander definitely know the amount of available troops BEFOR the battle, and that what CC5 mimics.
No a commander knows what his reserves are, this is something usually defined by the commander (again you can rest/reserve troops in CC3 but not CC5) and he knows what his potential reinforcements are, he doesn't have a horde of 50-100 units walking around behind him ready to reinforce him, its not the Cannon Fodder SNES game.
Quote:
As each day may have different units and different numbers of units… So, you wrong again. You have not played CC5 have you? Or is it that you don’t get it?
Bullshit, reinforcements stay the same in BG you have a horde of reinforcements marching around with you, why can't I field the 50 or so units I am carrying around with me? A commander cannot possibly know what the force pool is, its not his job and I doubt any commander in any army is told in detail what the make up of the forces are as it would be a serious intelligence flaw if he was captured! This and the force pool is ever changing, a fixed horde doesn't walk around after him, it is the job of the high command to allocate reinforcements to armies and then divisions down, you don't have companies walking around with a trail of reinforcements.
Quote:
A Company commander talks to the battalion commander only. I doubt he can give him what he asks for, and if he requests what is available in the CC3 pool, he may instead get some weeks R&R, as the battalion commander most probable will think the CP commander has got some serious delusions, perhaps shell shock, or battle fatigue with some grandiose Napoleonic tendencies.
You just fantasising are you not? Making up things as you debates?
German units were often mixed, usually the SS imposing itself on the Wehrmacht, for example in nearly every Wehrmacht squad in Italy (except for the Fallschirmjagers) there was 1-2 SS troops and Regiments often fought as mixed battalions with SS, Wehrmacht and Fallschirmjagers squads throughout the defensive campaign. Its explained quite nicely in CC3 as the higher ranking you are the more of these troops you get, higher ranking commanders have more units under their command and therefore more likely to have had mixed troops under their command, its a step towards the realistic situation at the time.
Quote:
You have not played CC5, or understood it have you?
Stop the bullshit and start debating seriously, image below.
Last edited by acebars on Wed Jun 27, 2012 10:34 pm; edited 1 time in total
it was 3 years ago [I played CC5], maybe its was such a boring experience that I forced myself to forget. .
Yeh, it was so long ago you so you believed that CC5 was the whole Normandy campaign. When in fact its just one beach… The Utah beach..
FYI, I have not played regular CC5 since GJS came out, and that was like 9? years ago. Funny how you have forgot the BASICS about CC5, and I have not..
You arguing and making so many mistakes about the CC5 game mechanics that either your suffering from some brain memory disorder, or you have not understood how it functions, or you just a forum troll.
For someone who’s just been a member of this community for 2 weeks, and the way you argues, points to a troll.
Posted: Wed Jun 27, 2012 10:51 pm Post subject: Re: CC5 vs CC3
Quote:
Yeh, it was so long ago you believed that CC5 was the whole Normandy campaign. When in fact its just one beach… The Utah beach..
No I never believed it was the whole Normandy campaign, you deliberately misinterpreted this to try and use it as an argument.
Quote:
You arguing and making so many mistakes about the CC5 game mechanics that either your suffering from some brain memory disorder, or you have not understood how it functions, or you just a forum troll.
You've yet to actually show me how I don't understand the CC5 game mechanics, all you do is deliberately misinterpret, make presumptions, never answer the question and make some illogical arguments? You can't argue by making bullshit up.
Can you actually seriously counter any of my propositions without making things up such as "Yea you believed it was the whole Normandy campaign", how can you argue against someone who pretends to not understand and then makes up presumptions based on this? I am not arguing using any presumptions about you, I am strictly sticking to the facts, so please dispense with the straw man arguments.
Quote:
You’re a troll and a waste of time.
That you have to resort to naming me a "troll and a waste of time" clearly shows you are unable to form a constructive argument irrespective of prejudice towards me (and I've heard enough already) to the points I have raised in CC5 and CC3, its simply a cop out and shows to me you are not capable of actually defending CC5 without having to resort to pathetic arguments like calling me a troll or questioning my experience or what I'm doing in this forum i.e. stick to the discussion about the games and stop trying to derail it.
I can likewise start saying bulllshit like "oh you obviously don't remember CC3" or calling you a troll, but that is just bullshit and speculation, stick to the facts not bullshit.
Posted: Thu Jun 28, 2012 1:22 am Post subject: Re: CC5 vs CC3
Hey Ace.
I understand you like CC3. I don't understand your ripping CC5 so hard tho. Each obviously has it's fans and others that just don't care to play it when they can play the other (or any kind of game instead).
I have played them all, including H2H in CC2 and CC5 for a long time. I really think if you took some time to dl some of the mods for CC5- like for instance GJS, TRSM, Utah, Battle of Berlin, Stalingrad, Der Kessel, and some others that catch your eye you may even grow fond of the game. Plus as Stalky mentioned you can play h2h if you like... and make gentlemen's rules to make each game/op/campaign as 'realistic' as possible.
I personally play vs the AI probably 85% of the time now because of RL time constraints... and the 'decisions' the AI makes both strategically/tactically/picking units/always will just blow your mind sometimes and almost ruin it for you. I have learned to live with it somewhat... but it always happens. It is hard to find someone in your time zone with the same ideas/time/etc to hook up and play with... but it sure is fun if you can. If not, your gonna have to have a good imagination to play any War game IMO.
Maybe look at the Bge/Div mix in the Allied BGs and the Rgt/etc/Div German BGs at the start of your Operation/Campaign as the troops at hand for immediate battle with their 'reserves' in the pool as most units would not commit every available unit to a battle in an area (map) from moment one. For instance you know you began the campaign with 5 Cromwells... had 3 in the opening battle and lost 2. Do you save your 'points' (remaining Cromwells) or use them now? Do you just hold on a few more turns, thin out the opponent, then bring them on later? Etc?
I have complaints with every one of the the CC games... but if I don't like one enough, I just play the other .
Besides, earlier posts suggested these points were in fact just POINTS, like in a football or basketball game. ..But now, we are told points mean importance or reinforcement potential or military resources.
WTF
Now Stwa dont be a dweeb
The points refered to earlier wereCampaign Pointswhich are awarded to the player for winning operations Whoever gains the most Campaign Pointswins the Campaign, (like whoever score most wins sports game) DUH! (slaps hand against forehead)
Anybody, even those with less than 100 IQ, will know acebars was referring to Requisition Points,
not
Campaign Points
CHEERS
AGS
P.S. have not even had time to read all the posts since i last logged in,....... later
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You can download files in this forum
In August of 2004, Zappi, Homba, Bambam887, RedScorpion and MOOXE all pitched
in to create this Close Combat site. I would to thank all the people who have visited
and found this site to thier liking. I hope you had time to check out some
of the great Close Combat mods and our forums. I'd also like to thank
all the members of our volunteer staff that have helped over
the years, and all our users that contributed to this site!
]
Thats just so sad 
.
