Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: henri51

I have the demo of both games, and both are good. Now which one to buy?

quote:

XP - sp3
Pentiun 3.20GHz
3.25 GB of RAM
NVIDIA GeForce 8800GT - 512 MB
1920 x 1200

quote:

ORIGINAL: Richie61

I have both games and both are worth the hard earned cash IMHO.

Only down side I see in PCO is it runs slow and has low fps on my XP machine.   I even have to turn down stuff to get a 30 fps game.

quote:

XP - sp3
Pentiun 3.20GHz
3.25 GB of RAM
NVIDIA GeForce 8800GT - 512 MB
1920 x 1200

Now CMBN runs fast and with everything on.....

But PCO runs 60 fps with everything on when I use my Win 7 machine

Basically, you need to buy both as stated above

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mad Russian

Let's see...where to start?

Depends on what you're basic interests are.

If you want more than just a few vehicle models covering the summer months in a restricted area, go with PCO.

You want a game that will play on an older machine got with POC.

You want the entire inventory of vehicles from 1941 through 1945 go with PCO.

You want platoon oriented combat go with PCO.

You want WeGo that's fine tuned for multiple gaming styles go with PCO.

You want variable turn speeds and sequencing ability, go with PCO.

You want platoon based unit orders, go with PCO.

You want a map maker that used Google Earth satellite imagery to create maps, go with PCO.

You want support from a development team that asks for, and implements, your ideas about improvements for the game,  go with PCO.

You want the ability to mod any part of the game that moves, has sound or has graphics representation, go with PCO.

You want expansions that are coming between now and the next installment in the series, go with PCO.

You want an extremely detailed armored combat model with supporting combat models for artillery, infantry and close air support, go with PCO.

You want more content for your money, go with PCO.

You want anything else, go with CMBN.

Good Hunting.

MR

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mad Russian

quote:

ORIGINAL: Richie61

I have both games and both are worth the hard earned cash IMHO.

Only down side I see in PCO is it runs slow and has low fps on my XP machine.   I even have to turn down stuff to get a 30 fps game.

quote:

XP - sp3
Pentiun 3.20GHz
3.25 GB of RAM
NVIDIA GeForce 8800GT - 512 MB
1920 x 1200

Now CMBN runs fast and with everything on.....

But PCO runs 60 fps with everything on when I use my Win 7 machine

Basically, you need to buy both as stated above

Is your Windows 7 machine multi-core?

Good Hunting.

MR

quote:

ORIGINAL: Richie61

I have both games and both are worth the hard earned cash IMHO.

<snip>

quote:

ORIGINAL: RedCharlie65

@Henri51

My own opinion is that you wait for some independent reviews to come out on PCO. Read the AARs which are coming out now on PCO, continue to play the demo. How does it feel to you? How does CMBN feel to you? I wouldn't take Mad Russians opinion on the game too seriously, he has a vested interest in selling this game and is known for his dislike of BF. As for diablo1, well...LOL he's just diablo1. Both are good in many areas, better than the other in some areas. I myself am probably going to get both, I already have CMBN and am still deciding on PCO. Very close to PCO though, it is the infantry model which gives me pause. Eric's new tutorial video titled "Boot Camp" has pushed me in the direction of forgiving the infantry model limitations. Just take your time to decide, there really is no need to hurry and spend your money....correct?

quote:

ORIGINAL: RedCharlie65

I wouldn't take Mad Russians opinion on the game too seriously, he has a vested interest in selling this game

quote:


and is known for his dislike of BF.

quote:

ORIGINAL: henri51

I have the demo of both games, and both are good. Now which one to buy? Sure I could buy both (and maybe I will eventually). But why should I buy this one first?

OK, one reason is the hateful Battlefront copy protection system apparently designed to offend only legitimate users. But aside from that...

Henri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mad Russian

quote:

ORIGINAL: RedCharlie65

I wouldn't take Mad Russians opinion on the game too seriously, he has a vested interest in selling this game

I would hope that my posts about PCO are realistic; and not just a "sales pitch" as you infer. We answer all questions honestly here. He asked and I told him my opinion.

quote:


and is known for his dislike of BF.

I recommend that gamers buy CMBN all the time. My dislikes are not about their games. Hopefully, I would be known for far more things than my "dislike of BF".

I dislike their products so much I have more than 90 scenarios at The Scenario Depot II for CMBB and CMAK.

Good Hunting.

MR

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pillar

CMx2 is more of an arcade game than PzC:O.  It sacrifices a lot to achieve visuals, and CMBN certainly does not exceed CMBB or CMAK for functionality or gameplay.  It just *looks* prettier.

The soldiers do not really use the terrain like real soldiers and there are problems with getting them in LOS/LOF because of the grid system they use.  In hedgerow country this gets insane.  I've had Panzerschrek teams that can't fire, because the soldier is the only one that has LOF while the anti-tank 'man' is in the wrong spot -- all within a single grid.  You'll find your ambushes falling to pieces because of subtleties in the LOS/LOF system. 

The system is also mismatched between the 1:1 and the abstraction.  Essentially, squads have enormous amounts of firepower available in terms of small arms without being appropriately penalized for concentrating due to the generous bonuses they get against area fire effects.  You can often win any CMx2 scenario by concentrating all your forces and overwhelming anything they come across with small arms fire. 

There is also no such thing as a covered fire position in CMx2.  Any unit that is firing is vulnerable to fire as much as you can see their body exposed.  Men can't go prone against cover, but have to kneel, making them more vulnerable to small arms than normal (which only aggravates the problems already) and makes automatic weapons like LMGs difficult to control. 

Foxholes and trenches have been added, but they can't be placed wherever you like.  They have to be in the center of a grid, and since terrain like hedges and walls align along the edge of a grid, means you can't have infantry dug in along lines oriented to cover or concealment.  Your men also can't see past the terrain, since they are too far behind it to get a view. Foxholes have problems because they're stuck in square formations of four, which means the back foxholes won't have the same LOF as the front foxholes. (No you can't control orientation.)   The effect of this is that you only benefit from entrenchment in open terrain along the axis of fire. 

In addition, they've made all hedges (not just "bocage") into significant positions by adding terrain elevation lips to those features, making attacker cover unrealistically available and melding concealment with cover in ways worse than they already did in the original series.  (that is, "exposure")

PzC:O sticks to abstraction which aims at getting the results right straight out of the gate.  Nothing is sacrificed for visuals.  It is much more aligned with the design philosophy that inspired and was borrowed by the old CM series from ASL.  In my opinion, it is more realistic with respect to the results you get, but suffers from over-generous cover abstractions (just like CMx1 did) and so player input and player decisions matter less.  Light infantry tactics aren't viable in PzC:O and typical line tactics work without too much regard for terrain. 

To summarize, I think CMBN gives the gamer more to do and allows his inputs to matter more, but those inputs are mostly geared around gaming the system itself and don't lend themselves to reality, whereas the PzC:O system will give you more realistic overall results but can come across as a battle resolution system rather than a game.

PzC:O also has soooo much more content, in terms of scenarios and campaigns and units... And the customization options are enticing if you're into that sort of tweaking.

PzC:O is what I wish CMx2 had been originally.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ssnake51
Have to say I've been rather surprised at the poor customer support shown on the battlefront forum. And, as others have mentioned, the DRM system for CMBN really sucks.

quote:

ORIGINAL: RedCharlie65

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ssnake51
Have to say I've been rather surprised at the poor customer support shown on the battlefront forum. And, as others have mentioned, the DRM system for CMBN really sucks.

Bullshit.