Posts: 42
Joined: 3/17/2002 From: Hong Kong SAR Status: offline
Did anyone played the new Combat Mission 2 B2B? It is praised to be the MOST REALISTIC WW2 SIMULATION!!! But is that true? Could anyone give an account of this? I have tried the demo, when compared to SPWAW, it has better visual effect, much engaging, more commands for individuals, and the AI seems to be smarter. But I still love SPWAW because of the widely covered battlefield.(CMBB just set in Eastfront), and the real big scale of the battle...Still, I can't wait to play CMBB.
Personally I think that the 'Missions' are just too small in scope... It's like, what's the point in playing a Combat Missions mission? Might as well play Medal of Honor: ALlied Assault or Return to Castle Wolfenstein if you want small-unit action.
Posts: 1808
Joined: 11/2/2000 From: West Palm Beach, FL USA Status: offline
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Vetkin [B]I don't like the Combat Missions games...
Personally I think that the 'Missions' are just too small in scope... It's like, what's the point in playing a Combat Missions mission? Might as well play Medal of Honor: ALlied Assault or Return to Castle Wolfenstein if you want small-unit action. [/B][/QUOTE]
I agree. I tried Medal of Honor: Allied Assault and totally exhausted it's possibilities within a week. (But I did have fun with the first-person shooter aspect.)
I own CMBO and have ordered CMBB, but I also am a diehard SPWAW player. the two game systems are completely different and mutually exclusive. You can enjoy both without guilt.
I have Combat Mission's demos on the hard drive for those times I am out their in file sharing land (always willing to give free demos new avenues), but CM is just not the sort of scale of game I like in my case.
I tried to play CMBB, and found my system would not run it.
So any that don't have a kickin video situation happening, might find they ain't about to appraise it any time soon.
I was able to play an earlier CM, but they must have taken the game even further.
_____________________________
I LIKE that my life bothers them, Why should I be the only one bothered by it eh.
Well put, Vetkin! I couldn't get into either of the CM games or Sudden Strike.
As far as first person WW2 games go, try out 'Day of Defeat', nothing compares to it. Outstanding!
adam
Comparing SpWaW and CM is something I wouldnt do but.... If I could only have one Id take CM simply for the fact that its "newer".
Now I just gota come up with the 40 bucks to order it... I only buy one game a month and for october it was Unreal Tourny 2003.....and for November it will be Grand Theft Auto 4.......maybe December....
I play both SPWaW and CM. I'll definitely buy CM:BB too when it hits the stores here. I like the SPWaW because of it's diversity and scale...and CM because of it's excellent AI and playability. But..it's like comparing apples and oranges :).
Posts: 984
Joined: 10/6/2000 From: college station, tx usa Status: offline
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Saviola [B]Did anyone played the new Combat Mission 2 B2B? It is praised to be the MOST REALISTIC WW2 SIMULATION!!! But is that true? Could anyone give an account of this? I have tried the demo, when compared to SPWAW, it has better visual effect, much engaging, more commands for individuals, and the AI seems to be smarter. But I still love SPWAW because of the widely covered battlefield.(CMBB just set in Eastfront), and the real big scale of the battle...Still, I can't wait to play CMBB.
Still, SPWAW is the best! [/B][/QUOTE]
I gave the demo a try, and had serious doubts when in the tutorial German 37mm at guns were knocking out t34's from the front. Then I tried one of the other scenarios and PzIII's were knocking out KV1S's. I gave up on it then. If it allows that sort of result then the basic armor combat model must be flawed.
Not to mention that the maps are positively claustrophobic. I translated the tutorial to a SPWAW scenario and it takes place in about 7x8 hexes. No real manuevering, just move up and blast away. thanks, John.
Although I will probably buy CMBB by Christmas I think SPWAW has sevaral advantages and it will always have a place on my HD. IMHO the most important are;
1. The large number of areas involved (Europe North Africa and the Pacific, etc) as oppoesed to CMBB East Front.
2. Detail of unit make up and size of battlefield.
And this is the biggest since I am into team type multiplayer games where I have to edit maps create the areas fighting erupts, editing units maps, etc,
3. Ectizens' Map Thing, Fred Chandla's Map Editor. In essense all the add'ons that allow each of us to build without much limitation.
4. All the things that are part of SPWAW I didn't mention in 1-3.
I wouldn´t go and compare SPWAW with the Combat Mission games, they´re too different! None of each would make me stop playing the other game!;)
I just bought CMBB yesterday and was surprised in several ways: First..it runs fairly smooth on my below minimum hardware requirements home PC (P2-300 with 128MB Ram and 16MB Voodoo 3 2000 graphics and DX8) and second,...graphics aren´t that much improved compared to CMBO as I had expected! :eek: But I think at last it´s what lets the game run on my machine! Apparently many basic graphics (Gras fe. ) were left to low res and this way open for modding like in CMBO! Also there´re many options to configure graphic details so it shouldn´t be too difficult to find satisfactory game speed!
I´ve not yet found time to go through much of the game, but I honestly can say I like it!;) ..it probably will draw more time from my SPWAW and Panzer Elite projects away than I wish..:rolleyes: :D
As it seems when Combat Leader is finally released, I need to abandon sleep and private life completely! :eek: :D
I tried the Panzer Elite demo, and the graphics look "ok".
I had someone just hand me a copy of Panzer Commander (store was ditching it on me think it was a returned non sellable item). It runs "ok" but the graphics are messed up (needs investigation).
All in all, I think, that games that have graphics at this level are just to much for my meager computer video capacity (which being an 8 meg on board thing ain't much).
I think by and large I will be playing boring turn based games a great deal more than anything else.
Been finding copies of the Panzer general lineage as well as enjoying the demo of Strategic Command over at Battlefront.
They are very computer friendly, and essentially what I want in a wargame.
Anything more, is like putting a layer of icing ontop of a layer of icing. Eventually there is just way to much icing and not enough cake eh.
Me thinks CMBB might have to much frosting for my needs.
_____________________________
I LIKE that my life bothers them, Why should I be the only one bothered by it eh.
Posts: 209
Joined: 6/6/2000 From: Saint Arnoult en Yvelines FRANCE Status: offline
I have tested the demo and it seems that CMBB does address my main complaints about CMBO (flat rubble you can see through, no indirect fire for on-map SPA, no command chain for vehicules, infantry walking past newly discovered enemy without reacting, too small maps).
I don't think the armor penetration model is very bad - even in SPWAW a 37mm can disable a T34 at point-blank range - but I do remember some bad surprises in my early battles because the fighting in CMBO usually happens at very short range and never at max range... Also I started to achieve anything significant only when I stopped playing it like I play spwaw - these are indeed different worlds.
Anyway I suppose that if you like CMBO you will like CMBB and if you don't like CMBO you won't like CMBB unless you did not like CMBO only because of by the above-mentioned defaults.