Fabs
Posts: 444
Joined: 6/5/2000 From: London, U.K. Status: offline
|
I have only started playing CM and I have to say that I find it hard to switch from SPWAW to CM.
Graphically I prefer SPWAW, which represents an advanced state for two dimensional representation, where CM's 3D graphics are still very raw and "unreal" in many ways.
Surely, this can only improve, although the challenge when trying to create the impression of "being there" is far greater to achieve good visual results.
Potentially, it should eventually surpass the SPWAW bi-dimensional model, but I do not think that it does that in its present form.
I dislike the "three men to a squad, one man to a team" approach, and the squares grid. All those colored lines are also off-putting, especially at the lower zoom levels!
The interface feels a lot like the "Close Combat" one, but the "stop-go" approach works better.
The changing view is the hardest thing to get used to. I often get lost foating in the space around the map.
The fact that it limits itself to North-West Europe is a major drawback.
I also failed miserably to get my first home-made scenario to work, and can't work out why (having lost the instructions book does not help!).
Having said all this, I feel that the two games arer different enough to warrant sticking to it for a while. If I can get used to it, it will satisfy a different aspect of my wargaming appetite.
My verdict is that the CM team has a lot of work to do to deliver the promise of their system. If they do that, it will be an excellent vehicle for a more intimate wargaming experience, at Company - Platoon commander level.
------------------
Fabs
[This message has been edited by Fabs (edited September 11, 2000).]
[This message has been edited by Fabs (edited September 11, 2000).]
_____________________________
Fabs
|