Best Combat Mission (ww2) currently?

[Redirected]

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.

[Boggit]

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 :)

[Boggit]

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)

[Michael Dorosh]

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.

[Boggit]

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.

[sandman2575]

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.

[Father Ted]

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...

[Boggit]

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.

[Boggit]

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.

[Sir Slash]

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.

[Boggit]

Devil's Decent for CMBN was a classic.

Outstanding, Sir! 8) +1

[Michael Dorosh]

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.

[sandman2575]

Here is a link to the AAR featuring the hybrid John Tiller/CombatMission system:

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.

[Elvis]

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.

[Michael Dorosh]

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.