Best Combat Mission (ww2) currently?

[Bletchley_Geek]

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.

[jomni]

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.

[solops]

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?

[SgtRock]

jomni, love the video but,  that's a hell of way to get rid of squirrels! ;D

[Con]

That is the new Iranian Drone program.....

[Staggerwing]

<snicker>

[Elvis]

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

[Michael Dorosh]

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.

[Redirected]

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?

[Rayfer]

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.

[Sir Slash]

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)

[Redirected]

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.

[Redwolf]

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.

[jomni]

Don't forget Achtung Panzer is also a viable alternative for those who prefer CM-style real time.