Inferior to CMBB

[coffeeis4closers]

This game, while good, is inferior to CMBB, despite the new graphics. CMBB covered 4 years of warfare, had TONS of different armies, and randomly generated quick battle maps. 10+ years after CMBB we have a three month time period, barely any armies, and set quick battle maps that become stale very, very fast. Red Thunder is a good game, sure, but it is nowhere near as good as CMBB was relative to the competition in 2002. 

[MikeyD]

And Pong was better than CMBB.

[Vanir Ausf B]

CMBB runs at about one frame per second on my CM laptop so I don't have any choice.

[Blazing 88's]

And Pong was better than CMBB.

Only Hockey Pong was...

Edited May 24, 2015 by Blazing 88's

[PIATpunk]

Battlezone rulez

[LukeFF]

This game, while good, is inferior to CMBB, despite the new graphics. CMBB covered 4 years of warfare, had TONS of different armies, and randomly generated quick battle maps. 10+ years after CMBB we have a three month time period, barely any armies, and set quick battle maps that become stale very, very fast. Red Thunder is a good game, sure, but it is nowhere near as good as CMBB was relative to the competition in 2002. 

 

That's nice, now run along.

[JasonC]

I've played 4 scenarios of CMBB so far this weekend.  I last played CMRT last November.  The OP has a point. 

It isn't actually the QBs and time frame that make the difference for me, it is the game play and scale.

I freely admit that CMRT is more realistic and that it is visually much more immersive.

 

But the level of micromanagement needed to play it right makes it feel like a sergeant's level game, in which I am primarily focused on the tasking and decisions within one squad at a time.  With a platoon a comfortable total force and a single company leaning toward giant feeling.  The realistic fire is dangerous enough, moreover, that large portions of the fight "go static" pretty quickly, since staying in good cover and firing is often the right thing for most units to do, at that point.

By comparison, CMBB feels like a company commander's game.  It moves along quickly, the decision each game turn are managable but interesting, etc.

 

I freely acknowledge that people with other play priorities, or just a lot better at CMRT, may find it more enjoyable.  I just don't.  I'd love to have CMBB gameplay with updated graphics - wouldn't even need single man depiction.  But that's just not where we are.  In the meantime, I still consider CMBB the best tactical computer wargame ever made.

 

One man's opinion...

[sburke]

The OP simply forgot to include IMHO.

For some people he is absolutely right. For others he is absolutely wrong. The really cool thing is we have both. CMRT was never going to be a cmx2 upgrade of CMBB.

I would agree with the overall direction of JasonC's comments, maybe not all the particulars but enough.

The question to the op is well, what is your point? Just to express an opinion? As to CMRT and CMBB and comparisons to the competition, imho there was no real competition to either product so it is kind of a moot point.

Personally I really liked/ loved CMBB. But I do far prefer CMRT and have deleted all my cmx1 games. I just can't go back.

Edited May 24, 2015 by sburke

[Alderman]

I believe he's right , CMBB has more of the kind of depth that wargamers like  lets face it who wouldn't want to play the opening moves of operation Barbarossa using the CMRT engine ( graphics haven't been that important if you look at proper wargames other the years) .

Edited May 24, 2015 by Alderman

[Fizou]

Alderman, and we will in due time. If one feels CMx1 is superior to CMx2 just keep playing CMx1. 

[Alderman]

and along with me I will take the wonderful terrain mods and the excellent mikeyd mods with me  , while I what for a berlin pack or Stalingrad pack for CMRT

[Melchior]

I believe he's right , CMBB has more of the kind of depth that wargamers like  lets face it who wouldn't want to play the opening moves of operation Barbarossa using the CMRT engine ( graphics haven't been that important if you look at proper wargames other the years) .

I'm not convinced graphics have ever been as important as some people claim they are. Look at the explosive success of Minecraft. Hell the GTA games never looked good in their day and they killed the charts.

Amateurs design for looks, pros design for play.

Edited May 24, 2015 by CaptHawkeye

[PanzerMike]

I could never go back to CMx1, great as it was. I do however agree with some posters, that the x2 engine shines with (max) Company sized battles. Bigger than that is a bit too much for me. But some devour those monster battles. I am glad we have choice. 

 

That said, there is no game on the market that outperforms CM at what it does.

 

All in IMHO.

[snarre]

only thing what i missing from CMBB to Red thunder is operation game mode 

[Macisle]

I'm having the opposite experience from the OP. I never got into CMBB much, but CMRT has become my home base for CM. I've always been a western front guy, but after taking some time off of WWII for CMBS, I find myself spending more and more time with CMRT (alas, I can't seem to go back to modern now, though I had lots of fun with CMBS for the first few months).

 

I also find that I'm enjoying battalion-sized engagements in CMRT, while I found them overwhelming in CMBB. And, I'm a micro guy. I usually play as Soviets and I love regular ('44) infantry . It's great to be able to split a squad into dedicated LMG, rifle, and SMG teams. I spend lots of time at eye level and watch the replays many, many times. I usually keep a third of whatever I have as a reserve and switch out units that have taken too much punishment or are low on ammo. I like having all that manpower, though much of it is held back and/or hidden for much of the scenario.

 

I can't imagine going back to CMx1. I've long since deleted my install files for those. CMRT is waaaay deeper than CMBB in the actual gameplay. It just isn't as wide in the scope of its content.

Edited May 24, 2015 by Macisle

[Nidan1]

Its interesting to read that a lot of players are still into the old CMx1 CMBB rather than the new updated engine of CMRT.

 

I too really enjoyed CMBB, but alas it will no longer load on my PC and I'm not paying for a fix for that at this point. It is a matter of personal choice however, not that one game is superior to the other. They both have their pluses and minuses, and in their time they have both proven to be war simulation winners. 

[JasonC]

Macisle, re battalion scale engagements being overwhelming in CMBB but readily playable in CMRT, because you can split down to 2-3 man units - um, sure. We believe you. We really do. Sliced bread and everything. We are also really, really stupid.

[weapon2010]

 "Inferior to CMBB"?, I think that's kind of silly, If you like it better, great,go for it,play it all day long and post how much you love it, they are both excellent games, however they are drastically different in many ways.I love the evolving upgrades,packs, and additions to CMRT and the entire game system.With CMBB,your done , nothing is around the corner.But Im sure they will say "it doesn't need anything". Anyway, enjoy CMBB,its an awesome game.I just think the CMBB "old guards" are missing out on a ton of cool stuff in the CMX2 engine.

[Holman]

Different games.

 

CMBB allows larger battles and includes a greater variety of units, but it's all done at a much more abstract level.  CMRT happens on a smaller scale but with much more granularity.  This applies to everything in the game:  vehicle modeling, landscape, ballistics, and especially AI.

 

Just look at an infantry squad in each game, for example.  In CMBB the squad is a blob with hit points.  In CMRT it's modeled as individual men behaving individually.

[kevinkin]

CMBO introduction of 3D/wego places the system in wargaming's hall of fame. I was into that from the demo days. But that's 15years ago and CM is still ahead of any competition that I know of. I can see folks questioning the nut and bolts of the newergranular system or the playability of large OBBs, but that's what we do in this hobby. It's all meant to provide feedback. Ifthe original intention was to claim you got more for the buck with CMBB so be it. Today, greater depth can be achieved with

inexpensive processing power and I think that's what most wargamers would like BF to concentrate on - not breadth.

Kevin

[Squatdog]

I find Berlin-Barbarossa plays much better than Red Thunder; which struggles to realistically model soldiers on a 1:1 basis.

 

The degree of abstraction in the original games actually added to the realism IMO. 

Edited May 25, 2015 by Squatdog

[Macisle]

Macisle, re battalion scale engagements being overwhelming in CMBB but readily playable in CMRT, because you can split down to 2-3 man units - um, sure. We believe you. We really do. Sliced bread and everything. We are also really, really stupid.

 

My current custom QB uses six companies of regular infantry, plus a company of tank riders, plus several companies of armor vs. a reinforced battalion of Panzergrenadiers, a platoon of Tigers, a platoon or two of PIVs, a company of AT guns and a MOTHERLOAD of German arty and TRPs.

 

It may become a scenario.

 

Some screens (armor is massed for a big assault to launch next turn. Hey, it's against the AI, so enemy arty behind the reverse slope is very unlikely):

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Macisle]

 

 

[DavidFields]

Agree with JasonC.

 

I can only presume that there is some corporate strategy which is moving the simulation in this way--such as trying to sell it to some military or other large entity.  I can't understand it otherwise.

[Macisle]

The previous example was on the extreme end of size and not many units were split yet. Below are some screens from what would be a typical battle size for me: 2-3 (2 here) companies of infantry and armor support in the 10-20 odd AFV range: All squads that are engaged are split.