Soooo... terrible confession here -- I've never played Combat Mission. (...if my access to grogheads is hereby revoked, I will understand :'()
I have a sudden compulsion to give it a try, though. Wondering what folks think the best of the current WW2 offerings is? Battle for Normandy? Fortress Italy? Other modules e.g. Market Garden or Gustav Line?
Advice appreciated. (And please, no talk of BF's DRM here -- none -- I just want thoughts on the games themselves). thx much --
Why not try one of their first iterations? Barbarossa to Berlin is excellent and cheap
I'd say give the demo a try first and foremost and see if the game system clicks with you before diving deeper in. I loved the original 3 Combat Mission games but I do not care for the new system at all. I wish I did as I enjoy some of the screenshots and AARs I read but the core game system just doesn't work for me at all.
I know the original CM is renowned, Asid, but no way I can play games as outdated as Barbarossa to Berlin at this point. "Good Old Games" is a concept I just can't get behind -- too much state-of-the-art gaming goodness available these days --
Maybe the demo is worth a shot. Because I never played the original CM, I won't have any preconceived notions of what the newer games are missing (...ignorance is bliss, sometimes).
Are the Fortress Italy modules more advanced than the (older?) Battle for Normandy? Or are all the ww2 offerings on 'engine 2.0' now, and all of a piece?
i think the demo is at 2 but not the most upto date 2
I have CMBN the Commonwealth forces and Market Garden modules.
I am an avid fan of the game (already preordered Red Thunder). The mechanics are very much different form the original game. I think it plays realistically to the degree that anything that is a game can model the chaos of war. That being said the demos are a good start but I think the flavor for me lies in the more offbeat battles seen with Commonwealth and Market Garden modules.
The biggest draw for me lately has been playing PBEM games I am currently doing a scenario one with a fellow grog Tuna on the Commonwealth module that is a hypothetical giant tank battle on the Western Front. Its been a fun cat and mouse game so far and playing against another human has many more advantages than playing the AI. If you can I would take any experience you have playing solo on the demo with a grain of salt (the games AI is good but not great esp in the attack) and try and get into a PBEM game. You will learn a lot more of what the game offers the first time a damn enemy tank blasts away at you doing a shoot and scoot from behind a boacage.
Con
Thanks for the feedback, fellas. Downloading the Fortress Italy demo as I write.
Not sure why I'm such a latecomer to Combat Mission. I've loved Achtung Panzer from the day it came out. And got a lot of enjoyment from the Panzer Command games, although I find them too rough around the edges (and time consuming) to play anymore. Theatre of War and sequels were good if flawed games, IMO. Maybe I just can't wait any longer for Mius Front to come out. Need new WW2 fix now...
My advice for you is to play in Realtime mode. :)
Quote from: sandman2575 on March 19, 2014, 07:08:03 PM
Thanks for the feedback, fellas. Downloading the Fortress Italy demo as I write.
Not sure why I'm such a latecomer to Combat Mission. I've loved Achtung Panzer from the day it came out. And got a lot of enjoyment from the Panzer Command games, although I find them too rough around the edges (and time consuming) to play anymore. Theatre of War and sequels were good if flawed games, IMO. Maybe I just can't wait any longer for Mius Front to come out. Need new WW2 fix now...
This one is actually my favorite.
I'm not sure why as the Italy campaign is -for me- the least interesting campaign of a war that I don't find interesting to begin with...but something about it just clicked for me. They are all great games so you can't miss.
I cannot agree with you more about the "good old games" thing. A lot of it is nastalgia. The modern iterations of CM is light years ahead if Barbarossa to Berlin in everyway (for me anyway). No reason to go back at all. Plus the graphics...bad for the time, will make you sterile on a big monitor
Quote from: sandman2575 on March 19, 2014, 07:08:03 PM
Thanks for the feedback, fellas. Downloading the Fortress Italy demo as I write.
Not sure why I'm such a latecomer to Combat Mission. I've loved Achtung Panzer from the day it came out. And got a lot of enjoyment from the Panzer Command games, although I find them too rough around the edges (and time consuming) to play anymore. Theatre of War and sequels were good if flawed games, IMO. Maybe I just can't wait any longer for Mius Front to come out. Need new WW2 fix now...
Good choice, if you have to choose. I tend to like more CMFI (and Gustav Line) because of the very varied equipment, forces and scenarios. You also get winter modelled, which further adds to the variety.
I've played them both and the greatest difference is in the setting, whether you like the closer type of hedgerow combat or the more open field of Italy. CMFI has a lot of mountain scenarios and they can be brutally tough but also has the Italians for a very different kind of army experience. The earlier era battles have a little more simplicity to them but aren't necessarily easier though you'll probably be more familiar with the later weapons of CMBN if you try CMFI first. Both are great and definitely start on the easy difficulity level until you win a fight or two.
Quote from: jomni on March 19, 2014, 07:52:47 PM
My advice for you is to play in Realtime mode. :)
Shush :P
Quote from: jomni on March 19, 2014, 07:52:47 PM
My advice for you is to play in Realtime mode. :)
In realtime, CM is a lot like Achtung Panzer in many ways. Which is good.
On the other hand, I was traumatized into realtime back when CMSF came out and i can't go back to WEGO.
I'm not playing any CM until CMRT comes out though. I am in East Front hell except for breif looks at ARMAIII for comic relief.
And I will be making A BIG EXCEPTION for Hannibal Goes To Rome II, seriously.
CMBN Demo is still the 1.0 version of CM2
CMFI Demo is the 2.0 version of CM2
CMRT Demo (when available) - will be the 3.0 version of CM2
Play the existing demos until the CMRT demo is released then decide.
Just a word of thanks to Boggit for his cool review of CM Market Garden. Look forward to reading the rest.
Spending some time last night with the Fortress Italy demo, I have to say this game exposes my shortcomings as a tactical commander in ways that Graviteam Tactics and Theatre of War never did. It really makes you pay for mistakes and sloppy execution. I'll never abandon GTOS because I do think it's a completely fantastic and unique game, but I may now be becoming a convert to Combat Mission as well...
Yeah, CMFI demo is probably the 'latest' tech available in a demo. It has a fun scenario with replay value also.
But, as far as a purchase jump in point? I would wait till CMRT comes out. You will then be at the latest tech level in product. Also, it seems the AFV and formations will be plentiful for a 'Family Starter'. $55.00
Otherwise, getting CMBN+2.0+MG is OK but you would be spending more money and will then have to upgrade to 3.0 at a later date.
Quote from: Sir Slash on March 19, 2014, 10:22:06 PM
I've played them both and the greatest difference is in the setting, whether you like the closer type of hedgerow combat or the more open field of Italy. CMFI has a lot of mountain scenarios and they can be brutally tough but also has the Italians for a very different kind of army experience. The earlier era battles have a little more simplicity to them but aren't necessarily easier though you'll probably be more familiar with the later weapons of CMBN if you try CMFI first. Both are great and definitely start on the easy difficulity level until you win a fight or two.
Definitely. +1 :)
Quote from: sandman2575 on March 21, 2014, 10:00:39 AM
Just a word of thanks to Boggit for his cool review of CM Market Garden. Look forward to reading the rest.
Spending some time last night with the Fortress Italy demo, I have to say this game exposes my shortcomings as a tactical commander in ways that Graviteam Tactics and Theatre of War never did. It really makes you pay for mistakes and sloppy execution. I'll never abandon GTOS because I do think it's a completely fantastic and unique game, but I may now be becoming a convert to Combat Mission as well...
You're very welcome. I'm glad you're enjoying it. It makes all the effort worthwhile. :)
Like you I have all the GTOS, and ToW stuff as well as CM. I share your enjoyment of GTOS too.
All I'd observe is that whilst the scale is the same, the gameplay between CM and GTOS has quite a different flavour. Both are extremely good, but it's like trying to choose between a good red, and a good white wine. I find the CM interface considerably easier to use though, and usually end up scratching my tactical itch with CM.
One thing that would enhance CM, I think would be the "operational" element seen in GTOS. GTOS could also learn from CM giving the ability to split squads.
If you like Fortress Italy, then give some serious thought to the Gustav Line expansion. I have done reviews on both CMFI, and CMFI:GL if that is any help to you... :)
http://grogheads.com/?p=1454#more-1454
http://grogheads.com/?p=2671#more-2671
As a newbie to CM, getting the experience to play well takes a fair bit of time. I thoroughly recommend Jeffrey Paulding's excellent Combat Mission 101 series 8) to get you going:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZ6dDlqye9Q
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zHm6FDh1738
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HI4MNt-BtBM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fQgFnIW3VtE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XFc6ge53jZQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zvoKNVDNtVI
(It's all good stuff even for veteran players)
Quote from: Boggit on March 21, 2014, 10:37:16 AM
Quote from: Sir Slash on March 19, 2014, 10:22:06 PM
I've played them both and the greatest difference is in the setting, whether you like the closer type of hedgerow combat or the more open field of Italy. CMFI has a lot of mountain scenarios and they can be brutally tough but also has the Italians for a very different kind of army experience. The earlier era battles have a little more simplicity to them but aren't necessarily easier though you'll probably be more familiar with the later weapons of CMBN if you try CMFI first. Both are great and definitely start on the easy difficulity level until you win a fight or two.
Definitely. +1 :)
There is also nothing stopping anyone from building mountain maps in CM:BN for use in quick battles or third party scenarios. Or Dutch-type terrain in CM:FI. The map editors are fully functional in either case - only a couple of key terrain types peculiar to either theatre are absent from each other's palette. This is one of the great strengths of the game. I have given many other games a pass - refused to buy them - simply because it was impossible to build free-form maps in them. To my mind, as imperfect as the editor is, the ability to create maps in CM may be one of the greatest selling points of the game.
Quote from: Michael Dorosh on March 21, 2014, 11:15:13 AM
Quote from: Boggit on March 21, 2014, 10:37:16 AM
Quote from: Sir Slash on March 19, 2014, 10:22:06 PM
I've played them both and the greatest difference is in the setting, whether you like the closer type of hedgerow combat or the more open field of Italy. CMFI has a lot of mountain scenarios and they can be brutally tough but also has the Italians for a very different kind of army experience. The earlier era battles have a little more simplicity to them but aren't necessarily easier though you'll probably be more familiar with the later weapons of CMBN if you try CMFI first. Both are great and definitely start on the easy difficulity level until you win a fight or two.
Definitely. +1 :)
There is also nothing stopping anyone from building mountain maps in CM:BN for use in quick battles or third party scenarios. Or Dutch-type terrain in CM:FI. The map editors are fully functional in either case - only a couple of key terrain types peculiar to either theatre are absent from each other's palette. This is one of the great strengths of the game. I have given many other games a pass - refused to buy them - simply because it was impossible to build free-form maps in them. To my mind, as imperfect as the editor is, the ability to create maps in CM may be one of the greatest selling points of the game.
Very true, and you have that from an excellent mod and scenario designer. 8) Check out Michael's cool stuff on the Battlefront repository.
Greatly appreciate all this advice -- thanks!
No question that GTOS and CM are not 'either/or' options -- seems if you enjoy one you will likely enjoy the other. Like you say, Boggit, GTOS's operational layer is one thing that sets it apart from CM. I think Graviteam has done an amazing job integrating the operational and tactical elements. (I've noticed some players at the BF forum have found a way to integrate the John Tiller games to provide an operational layer to CM - !! -- talk about modding!) Just from an immersion level, one wishes CM had a continuous landscape to the horizon, rather than the 'cube' battlefield sitting atop a generic background (as Panzer Command did) -- visually that is just dreadful, but nitpicking here.
I'm going through some of the YouTube tutorials now (...slow day at the office today 8). One thing CM definitely has over GTOS is the precision of control it gives for infantry and for coordinating infantry with armor etc. Infantry combat still feels like a bit of an afterthought in GTOS (although it is waaaay better than Panzer Command or Theatre of War), so the way CM gives you so much flexibility -- esp. with ability to stack commands and waypoints -- is a bit of a revelation to me.
Quote from: jomni on March 19, 2014, 07:52:47 PM
My advice for you is to play in Realtime mode. :)
Did you take this advice Sandman? One of things I loved from the outset of my CM experience was WEGO - to me it's part of what makes it such a great franchise. So I'd be interested to hear if your experience so far is with WEGO or Realtime...
Quote from: sandman2575 on March 21, 2014, 01:04:10 PM
Greatly appreciate all this advice -- thanks!
No question that GTOS and CM are not 'either/or' options -- seems if you enjoy one you will likely enjoy the other. Like you say, Boggit, GTOS's operational layer is one thing that sets it apart from CM. I think Graviteam has done an amazing job integrating the operational and tactical elements. (I've noticed some players at the BF forum have found a way to integrate the John Tiller games to provide an operational layer to CM - !! -- talk about modding!) Just from an immersion level, one wishes CM had a continuous landscape to the horizon, rather than the 'cube' battlefield sitting atop a generic background (as Panzer Command did) -- visually that is just dreadful, but nitpicking here.
I'm going through some of the YouTube tutorials now (...slow day at the office today 8). One thing CM definitely has over GTOS is the precision of control it gives for infantry and for coordinating infantry with armor etc. Infantry combat still feels like a bit of an afterthought in GTOS (although it is waaaay better than Panzer Command or Theatre of War), so the way CM gives you so much flexibility -- esp. with ability to stack commands and waypoints -- is a bit of a revelation to me.
Glad you found my post helpful. Jeffrey Paulding is really good with his 101 series. 8) Can you post the link for the John Tiller games link to CM - that will be interesting to see how they're done it.
Quote from: Father Ted on March 21, 2014, 02:56:53 PM
Quote from: jomni on March 19, 2014, 07:52:47 PM
My advice for you is to play in Realtime mode. :)
Did you take this advice Sandman? One of things I loved from the outset of my CM experience was WEGO - to me it's part of what makes it such a great franchise. So I'd be interested to hear if your experience so far is with WEGO or Realtime...
I think realtime works well for the smaller battles. I find with the larger ones it's harder to keep track of things using realtime. Usually I play WEGO like you, and analyse the turn from different angles, which you can't do with realtime. There is a lot to be said for the reactivity, and pace of the game in realtime, but like I say it can be hard keeping track.
I'll echo the recommendation to try out the user made scenarios at the Battlefront site. Some are excellent and there's a nice variety of sizes and solo/ head to head to choose from. Devil's Decent for CMBN was a classic.
Quote from: Sir Slash on March 21, 2014, 10:23:26 PM
Devil's Decent for CMBN was a classic.
Outstanding, Sir! 8) +1
Quote from: Boggit on March 21, 2014, 08:03:12 PM
I think realtime works well for the smaller battles. I find with the larger ones it's harder to keep track of things using realtime. Usually I play WEGO like you, and analyse the turn from different angles, which you can't do with realtime. There is a lot to be said for the reactivity, and pace of the game in realtime, but like I say it can be hard keeping track.
I used to use real time mainly to test scenarios, until the Scenario Author mode came out, and I realized it was easier just to blast through in turn-based, while watching the AI do its thing in 'accelerated time' with the fast forward. You are correct that real time is easier to manage in smaller scenarios, but I still find it a chore for the reason you indicate - particularly figuring out who is taking fire, and from where. Some observers say this is a good simulation of "fog of war", but I never agreed with that proposition. When a unit takes casualties, it is usually going to be at least dimly aware at the very least that it is being shot at. It is much easier to manage in turn-based play where you can slow things down, rewind, and get one's bearings.
Even in turn-based, it is relatively easy to miss key elements if one is not careful - for example, I recently downloaded the "Wrong Tool for the Job" scenario from the Repository. (Minor spoiler alert ahead). I received a couple of AFVs as reinforcements, and the designer put them on different roads. I got the message that my reinforcements arrived, but I only noticed one of them. The other one simply sat on the other road until the end of the game - I was too involved in running everything else until the end of the battle to see it. (end spoiler)
I thought Panzer Command's overhead map was a nice attempt to further address some of these problems, though in honesty I found that tricky as well. The worst was when the map would simply jump to units in contact leaving you to try and sort out from the map and 3-D world where you were and have to orient yourself.
Here is a link to the AAR featuring the hybrid John Tiller/CombatMission system:
http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=110516 (http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=110516)
Fair to say it's not something the casual player will be using anytime soon, but a really interesting experiment.
I'm torn between Real Time and WEGO. I like WEGO in theory but in practice find it kind of clumsy and time consuming (it was in Panzer Command, or at least i always felt it was the case). So I've been playing Real Time -- although I'm pausing so often that I start to feel like I'm cheating. So not sure what the right approach to CM is for me yet.
I went ahead and bought the CMBN "big bundle" ... And true to form, have spent more time modding it than playing it so far -- mostly with Aris's landscape and unit textures, which improve the game visually pretty dramatically.
I really wish there were an OOB tree for your forces that you could access in game. It would just really help clarify C&C if there were some easily accessible, overall OOB schematic you could refer to.
I've gone back and forth. When playing for fun I was almost exclusively playing real time. With all the WW2 titles it has been WeGo. I haven't been able to put my finger on why I've changed but it may be that in CMSF, if a vehicle was hit then it was knocked out...for the most part. With the WW2 there is value in replaying it for the dramatic aspect, if nothing else.
Quote from: sandman2575 on March 23, 2014, 12:37:13 PM
I really wish there were an OOB tree for your forces that you could access in game. It would just really help clarify C&C if there were some easily accessible, overall OOB schematic you could refer to.
This is even more acute in the campaigns, where one has a "Core Unit" to advance through a series of linked scenarios. I hope they include such a feature in a future iteration, as it would aid the immersion factor.
Quote from: Michael Dorosh on March 23, 2014, 11:12:24 AM
I used to use real time mainly to test scenarios, until the Scenario Author mode came out, and I realized it was easier just to blast through in turn-based, while watching the AI do its thing in 'accelerated time' with the fast forward. You are correct that real time is easier to manage in smaller scenarios, but I still find it a chore for the reason you indicate - particularly figuring out who is taking fire, and from where. Some observers say this is a good simulation of "fog of war", but I never agreed with that proposition. When a unit takes casualties, it is usually going to be at least dimly aware at the very least that it is being shot at. It is much easier to manage in turn-based play where you can slow things down, rewind, and get one's bearings.
I'd totally love that the suppression meter was 'directional' - giving an indication of the general direction of incoming fires. The current system - that hides some incoming 'lazer beams' while showing other - is a bit inconvenient.
I like real time because you need to baby sit your troops so that they don't run into their deaths.
CMx1 had terrain abstraction to help them survive. Now that actual cover is needed, and bullet trajectory is simulated, the tactical AI can't cope.
I have had CMAK and CMBB for a long time, but never played them. I am getting the urge and I wondered if there are any recommendations as to which one. Are they still worth paying?
jomni, love the video but, that's a hell of way to get rid of squirrels! ;D
That is the new Iranian Drone program.....
<snicker>
Quote from: solops on March 23, 2014, 07:47:44 PM
I have had CMAK and CMBB for a long time, but never played them. I am getting the urge and I wondered if there are any recommendations as to which one. Are they still worth paying?
CMBB. The desert stuff never interested me much. YMMV
Quote from: solops on March 23, 2014, 07:47:44 PM
I have had CMAK and CMBB for a long time, but never played them. I am getting the urge and I wondered if there are any recommendations as to which one. Are they still worth paying?
CMAK was poorly named as it included Italy for the period 1943-45 as well as North Africa. With some key equipment types absent, you could get a reasonable simulation of Northwest Europe out of CMAK also (I believe stuff like the M18 Hellcat, M26 Pershing, and other late war armour for the British and Germans). But just about everything you would want was in, and if you modded the Italian terrain to look like NW Europe - relatively simple to do then given the number of artists working - you had a great approximation. The only other major missing component was bocage terrain/Culin hedgerow devices, though these were crudely modelled in CM:BO . I would argue even the new game engine didn't really get bocage fighting right though CM:BN has improved some areas such as better modeling of the Culin equipment and the use of explosives on hedgerows.
It's a matter of taste which theatre appeals to you, the Eastern Front or the Western Front, but both games have about the same value. CM:BB lets you fight in steppe, which is much like the desert while CMAK has either desert or continental terrain. CMAK did have the advantage of some other engine upgrades - the only one that comes to mind is multi-turreted tanks (i.e. M3 Lee/Grant), though they didn't fully perform independently - Russian multi-turret tanks are not modelled as the engine had not progressed to that point yet. No T-28 landships. Otherwise, each game also has about a half dozen nationalities. The ones in CMBB are much more diverse in terms of equipment (Italian, Hungarian, Finns, Romanians, Germans, Russians) and some even switch sides during the war, as they did historically. You also get a limited palette of captured armour in CMBB. The ones in CMAK are more homogenous, as the French, South Africans, New Zealanders, Poles, Australians and Canadians all tend to use either British or American equipment. But the minor Axis partners in CMBB tend also to be more limited in capabilities - which can also be more fun. Early war armour shootouts have more suspense as there are fewer one shot, one kill engagements. CM:BB also started the "death clock" modelling of armour hits where you wouldn't know if a penetration resulted in a kill right away.
As to whether the original games are worth playing, it depends on what kind of player you are and what kind of computer you have. If you can get the game to run and don't mind the more abstract nature of the game, the original series games can still provide a challenge and are supported by some fan sites. Notable are The Proving Grounds and The Scenario Depot II which still house a number of third party scenarios, and reviews, to enhance your experience of the original games. The engine also has some advantages over the new engine, notably random map generators for the Quick Battles and a Tac AI which will run battles "on the fly" even on free form maps, as opposed to the new engine which requires AI programming by a human scenario designer. (Note the Tac AI has been criticized for predictability and odd behaviour, like leading attacks with mortar and HQ units.)
The new game engine has a number of improvements in fidelity to detail, though the engine is still catching up to the original in terms of features. Version 3.0, which will debut with Red Thunder, will introduce flamethrowers and the ability for infantry to ride on top of tanks for example.
Quote from: solops on March 23, 2014, 07:47:44 PM
I have had CMAK and CMBB for a long time, but never played them. I am getting the urge and I wondered if there are any recommendations as to which one. Are they still worth paying?
Just wondering...why would you buy CMAK if you never played CMBB? Since you have CMAK, why not play it and compare it to the CMFI demo?
Quote from: Redirected on March 24, 2014, 10:46:10 AM
Quote from: solops on March 23, 2014, 07:47:44 PM
I have had CMAK and CMBB for a long time, but never played them. I am getting the urge and I wondered if there are any recommendations as to which one. Are they still worth paying?
Just wondering...why would you buy CMAK if you never played CMBB? Since you have CMAK, why not play it and compare it to the CMFI demo?
And if I remember correctly, CMAK has a pretty good tutorial that walks you through all sorts of aspects of the game and gives you a feel for how it operates.
I just had an interesting thing occur. A King Tiger tank engages an M-10 at 400 meters and the 88mm AP shot hits the front of the M-10's open-topped turret, passes through it, out the back of the turret and into a Sherman tank 15 meters behind the M-10. The M-10 was destroyed but the Sherman only had a "Partial Penetration" but the crew was stunned long enough that a second round knocked it out. Not quite 2 tanks with one shot but maybe one-and-a-half. Anybody else seen anything like this? 8)
Quote from: Sir Slash on March 24, 2014, 01:38:34 PM
I just had an interesting thing occur. A King Tiger tank engages an M-10 at 400 meters and the 88mm AP shot hits the front of the M-10's open-topped turret, passes through it, out the back of the turret and into a Sherman tank 15 meters behind the M-10. The M-10 was destroyed but the Sherman only had a "Partial Penetration" but the crew was stunned long enough that a second round knocked it out. Not quite 2 tanks with one shot but maybe one-and-a-half. Anybody else seen anything like this? 8)
Yes, the game seems to model AP rounds penetrating one armored target and possibly something else if it goes through the first target. Unfortunately, it does not model AP rounds penetrating trees. Very strange.
CMx1 versus CMx2 is still a hot topic.
CMx1 wasn't perfect. I particularly didn't like the pessimations around some movements. The turn rates of vehicles and guns don't even remote match what we see in actual WW2 movies, and guns do not have a different turn rate between pivoting and rotating the carriage modeled (assault guns do). The game has a variety of bugs and misfeatures that makes ambushes fail. The probabilities for the standing ambusher to hit and destroy compared to how the victim can target and hit the ambushers are just out of whack. Plus CMx1 had these really annoying command delays. They aren't a bad feature but they have been implemented in a way too simple manner. Trenches work badly and the MG fix was oversimplified.
Now in CMx2 we have these crazy action spot mechanics that means that unless you have a PhH in action spotonomy you will always have guys in positions where they cannot fire or in front of cover (as opposed to taking cover which common wisdom says works better behind the obstacle). Most of the CMx1 pessimations are present but thankfully not the command delay in its old form.
Overall I'd say going with CMx2 is better at this point because BFC is actively cleaning the game up. At a rate that makes a glacier look like an 88 shell, but they do (e.g. the MG fix), and they backport the fixes to the older games (at a price but a fair price).
Plus with the exception of Panzer Command they are pretty much the only game in town so unless they actively offend you it might be a good idea to throw some money in their general direction.
Don't forget Achtung Panzer is also a viable alternative for those who prefer CM-style real time.