|
Centurian42 -> RE: Which game can this be compared to? (11/18/2018 12:27:35 AM)
|
So far I have compared it a lot to Combat Mission and Command Ops (in terms of scale it does seem to be right in between those two games).
By way of comparison with Combat Mission. The larger scale means that certain aspects of the fighting need to be a bit more abstract or granular or else they would fry our processors. Which means there are several categories of realism in which Combat Mission is far superior, but that superiority comes at the cost of being unable to represent truly massive engagements. For example, Combat Mission models each individual infantryman much more finely, as well as vehicle crew members, and the status of a number of separate vehicle systems. One thing Combat Mission does better which I don't think is really scale dependent is in nested levels of organization and command. For example, in AB you can add companies or platoons to your force roster. In CM you can have an infantry battalion which is made up of several companies each of which are made up of several platoons each of which are made up of several squads each of which can be broken into teams (all of which have historically accurate tables of organization and equipment). Armored Brigade on the other hand handles indirect fire support much better than Combat Mission (although CM probably does spotting better than AB, and gives you the option of a linear barrage as opposed to an area barrage). The ability to more finely select the number of guns, type of ammo, duration of a barrage, and to repeat fire missions makes Armored Brigade's handling of artillery support far superior to Combat Mission's (a claim I never though I'd make, it's good to see realism in games continuing to progress). Add to that the fact that Armored Brigade's air support actually shows up on map and the more realistic handling of helicopters make Armored Brigade's fire support system the best I've ever seen in any game so far. AB also has a vastly better dynamic AI than CM. CM's AI is somewhat capable, but overall it is pretty dependent on the scenario designer (it is conceivable that an outstanding scenario designer could craft a CM scenario in which the AI behaved better than the AB AI, but it seems pretty unlikely).
By way of comparison with Command Ops. I would say that Command Ops definitely has a much better dynamic AI. And, again, Command Ops benefits greatly from having a nested organizational structure (companies are inside of battalions, which are themselves inside regiments, which are inside brigades etc...). Armored Brigade's advantages over Command Ops are basically the inverse of its disadvantages compared to Combat Mission. Because it is representing warfare on a smaller scale than CO it doesn't need to make as many abstractions and can actually directly account for more factors (it can represent individual tanks and infantry squads).
|
|
|
|
