Jump to content
Johnlondon125

Is there anything that comes close to the CM games?

Recommended Posts

I've been on the fence for years (literally) at this point, hoping that something with more modern controls/UI/graphics would come along, but so far nothing has even come close to the tactical control and scale of CM. The new Close Combat looks neat, but just doesn't seem to have the same feel. 

Is there anything on the horizon for battlefront I should be waiting for? Or should I just shut up and buy?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ummm....don't think your going to get an in-depth discussion of Battlefront competitors on thee Battlefront FORUM.  You should ask your question on a non-publisher forum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

On the contrary, I'm looking for opinions from people who enjoy the CM series. Not everyone does. (also, I've tried that, 0 results 😂)

My suspicion is that there really aren't any CM competitors, no one has really been able to match the depth and gameplay provided. 

Edited by Johnlondon125

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I would say from a scale standpoint, the Graviteam games.  They are different approach to the exact same tactical problems.   Steel Beasts come close, especially recently.  The biggest differences is that Garviteam's tactical battle are real-time, as well as Steel Beasts being built as a combined arms simulator and modern time frame only.

But if you only look at WEGO, there isn't much out there.

 

Edit:  The reason I pick those two is the commitment to simulation-level realism.  With lot of work and configuring, you could throw ARAM 2 or 3 in here.  But to get it to work, you have to really know it well.  Other games like Men of War and Company of Heroes are fun to play, but have some significant realism issues.

Edited by Thewood1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
7 minutes ago, Thewood1 said:

I would say from a scale standpoint, the Graviteam games.  They are different approach to the exact same tactical problems.   Steel Beasts come close, especially recently.  The biggest differences is that Garviteam's tactical battle are real-time, as well as Steel Beasts being built as a combined arms simulator and modern time frame only.

But if you only look at WEGO, there isn't much out there.

Thank you for the suggestion, I've tried the Gaviteam games, but I really dislike the lack of control I have. It all seems very nebulous. I'll make an order, and sometimes the units will do it, sometimes they won't, but it just doesn't feel good (for me). While it probably is a good "army general" simulator, I'm looking for smaller scale both in engagement size and control (like CM offers). 

Edited by Johnlondon125

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I understand your questions correctly; I too have found no other game which captures a low level tactical battlefield gaming experience that comes anywhere close to the Combat Mission games.  As far as future evolution for Battlefront games, while people talk about the "next thing after" the current CMx2 application code, I doubt anything like the imagined CMx3 will be commercially available for the next five years or so.

So, if you don't care for the Graviteam Tactics offerings or Matrix Games "Armoured Brigade", a purchase of any Battlefront CMx2 game will provide you several years of best available WW2 and later tactical war-gaming.  (In other words, "Just shut up and buy, my friend!"  You won't ever regret it . . . . 😁)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Johnlondon125 said:

On the contrary, I'm looking for opinions from people who enjoy the CM series. Not everyone does. (also, I've tried that, 0 results 😂)

My suspicion is that there really aren't any CM competitors, no one has really been able to match the depth and gameplay provided. 

As a data point and personal opinion, no. This is it 😁  I’ve looked at some of those others and beyond just gameplay there is also no real flexibility. The editor in CM is pretty powerful, you can create almost anything you want. As an example in CMSF2 I was able to recreate the formations for the 1st recon as described in generation kill. I can’t thing of any game in this genre that would allow me to do that and build maps, a scenario or even a campaign from it. Not at this scale anyway and you get wego.

To be honest I mostly look at other games that may provide options for an operational layer for CM not anything that would be a direct competitor.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well realistic command and control was not one of your criteria for not selecting something.  That is actually where Graviteam shines.  CM has great morale and experience capabilities, but compared to Steel Beasts and Graviteam, it is somewhat simplistic in C&C.  Graviteam and SB might not be as fun as giving every single unit almost instantaneous orders, but they can be played with a C&C capability that starts to show how difficult it is to manage a unit in combat.

So as I list potential competitors, is this going to be a thread where you shoot down every potential competitor until you come to the point where you feel validation for buying CM.

So lets right to it...

CM - Differentiators are map-making,  morale and experience factors, large number of games, infantry model, very historical OOBs, WEGO, PBEM, diverse time periods

Graviteam - Differentiators are ops level and tactical level, realtime, historically accurate units and OOBs, accurate and detailed maps, realistic (for a game) command & control, infantry model

Steel Beasts - Differentiators  are that it can be played tactically or first person, military background of the game as a simulator, very diverse units, armor models, scripting system for planning, very powerful map maker, active multiplayer community for real-time matches, very good coop play

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, sburke said:

I can’t thing of any game in this genre that would allow me to do that and build maps, a scenario or even a campaign from it.

Again, its done with Steel Beasts every day.  On all counts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Thewood1 said:

Again, its done with Steel Beasts every day.  On all counts.

Yeah that one actually does looks pretty darn good.  If they had wego, i’d be on board. RTS for me is a stumbling point but the graphics and play are really nice.  Honestly if I was into rts I’d be all over that game.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
3 minutes ago, Johnlondon125 said:

Wow, this can happen?? I thought this stuff was die rolls...

Seeing is believing and why some of us are so addicted to wego, it is the only way to catch this stuff.  😁

Edited by sburke

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Johnlondon125 said:

Wow, this can happen?? I thought this stuff was die rolls...

Being the author of that video, I can confirm that yes it can happen. 😁

I’ll parrot others here by saying that Steel Beasts is similar in effect to CM, though there are some major differences. SB is primarily a training tool, a sim focused specifically on modern armored warfare. Further, it is meant to be played from the turret. Yes, you can order units around in a map, and it does have a robust mission editor, but it’s primary goal is different to that of CM. It’s fantastic at what it does, and it has a lot of overlap with CM, but I would argue that it is still fundamentally more different than similar. 

That said, it can go a long way to giving some context to what you see in the modern CM titles. Anyone who thinks the Abrams spotting ability is overmodeled in CM should play some Steel Beasts. When you’re able to read the belt buckle of an enemy infantryman at 2km while looking through the x50 magnification thermals on the M1A2 SEP, you start to understand why they act as they do in CM. 

My personal views of the Graviteam games are mixed at best. I really like the operational layer, and the diverse and varied conflicts covered (early war Eastern Front, Angola, etc) as well as some of the graphical effects (mud being thrown by tracks, ground deformation, light gore and destroyed vehicle models). However, I find the games to be extremely clunky. Some say this is actually a feature of the games, but I don’t buy it. The TacAI also leaves a lot to be desired for me, and I think CMs TacAI is far superior in every way. 90% of any given battle comes down to your unit deployment, whether you’re attacking or defending. If you give yourself a good setup, you’ll usually slaughter the enemy. The only real exception to this is when you’re blatantly outmatched, say as an infantry company going up against a horde of heavy tanks. Also, Graviteam lacks an editor which really hurts it in my opinion. 

To me, CM is the clear choice. That said though, there really isn’t any reason not to own and play both. 

Edited by IICptMillerII

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Johnlondon125 said:

Wow, this can happen??

The ability to watch and re-watch cool moments like that makes WEGO worth every penny of development time they dumped in it. That's one little moment in what's probably a 30 turn+ battle, so imagine ALL the other stuff that is going on during the fighting. CM is one of the very few game titles that actually affords you the means to enjoy ALL the graphics and not just the stuff you are focused on at a given moment.

I've said it a million times and I'll say it again. What is the friggin' point of having all these cool graphics when you can't enjoy them because you have to play the game at nose bleed altitude so you don't lose. It's idiotic and infuriating all at the same time. Anyway, CM doesn't do that. You'll see stuff so cool you'll want to alt-tab out so you can start a thread and tell everyone about it.

 

Mord.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, IICptMillerII said:

SB is primarily a training tool, a sim focused specifically on modern armored warfare. Further, it is meant to be played from the turret.

I disagree with that.  Over the last five years, a number of features have been added to make it more wargame-like.  I play SB weekly multiple times and haven't jumped in the turret or vehicle once.  I do all my orders at the unit level and from the menu.  SB's strength is coordinating all three arms and planning.  When you are given a scenario, you have to spend a lot of time planning for your subordinates.  That includes assigning multiple possible paths depending on enemy contact, fire support, reserves, recon, etc.

CM's ability to do that is completely glossed over.  Fire support is simplistic (although gotten better) and unit control is almost unit by unit.  In SB, you can lay out a plan and watch it unfold completely, lay it out and only intervene in broad strokes, or manage individual units.  And if you like, you can sit in a turret and watch happen.  The best part is I can tell an AFV to go to that position and hold.  When it holds, it will adjust its position if I have told it to interdict a certain section.  Or I can tell it to only observe and report back.  I can set up perfect non-borg spotting, or a fully integrated battle network.  In CM, that is going to be complete micromanagement at the AFV/squad level.

Anyone who thinks it doesn't rival CM modern has not been keeping up in the last four years.  Is it a full on wargame like traditional wargamers want?  Probably not.  You can easily lose control of the battle from nnot paying attention to detail and rage quit.  But if your not just wanting to play miniatures in digital form, and experience chaos and frustration of managing a modern battle, I would choose SB over CM any day.  It still has weaknesses around infantry and foxholes, but CM has its own issues that can be pointed out.

Edited by Thewood1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Thewood1 said:

It still has weaknesses around infantry and foxholes, but CM has its own issues that can be pointed out.

Yep. As with any game CM has it’s limitations. Noting that for the OP is important for their decision making process.  SB sounds like it would scratch an itch for me.  Graviteam tactics not so much. Would SB replace CM for me? No, nor should it.  Different itch, different solution. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Thewood1 said:

I disagree with that.  Over the last five years, a number of features have been added to make it more wargame-like.  I play SB weekly multiple times and haven't jumped in the turret or vehicle once.  I do all my orders at the unit level and from the menu.  SB's strength is coordinating all three arms and planning.  When you are given a scenario, you have to spend a lot of time planning for your subordinates.  That includes assigning multiple possible paths depending on enemy contact, fire support, reserves, recon, etc.

Just because this is how you play the game does not change the fact that Steel Beasts is primarily an armored vehicle training simulator developed for various militaries around the world. All of those features are nice, and I use them as well. They are still secondary to the primary function of the sim, which is to teach young armor crewmen how to operate a certain vehicle. In fact, the way it is truly meant to be played is with a modeled controller of whatever vehicle is being trained on, such as the Abrams gunner joysticks. It is a professional training tool made commercially available. CM is the reverse, a commercially focused and driven simulator that in a few small cases is/has been used by professional militaries as a training aid. 

6 minutes ago, sburke said:

Yep. As with any game CM has it’s limitations. Noting that for the OP is important for their decision making process.  SB sounds like it would scratch an itch for me.  Graviteam tactics not so much. Would SB replace CM for me? No, nor should it.  Different itch, different solution.

Exactly. Both CM and SB are great at what they do. Its important to recognize that they set out to do fundamentally different things.

A more 1 to 1 comparison with CM is definitely the new Close Combat game that is supposed to be coming out soon. Both CC and CM are tactical ground simulators, with direct control of all individual units with little autonomy and set during WWII. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, IICptMillerII said:

A more 1 to 1 comparison with CM is definitely the new Close Combat

I watched some game play of that about a month ago...aaaaand I still hate CC. LOL. To each his own etc. etc. but GD I can't stand that franchise.

 

Mord.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I recently bought into SB motivated by the high resolution terrain, and a more realised simulation of infantry, UGVs and UAVs. That video they made featuring a Central African locale pretty much sold the new iteration to me.

If I had to compare, SB can play like TacOps but with a fully realised simulation behind that you can check yourself by jumping into vehicle stations. Still they need to simulate soft factors better,  scaling up the sim as they have means that more and more clever automation - with humans in the loop perhaps - is needed to provide a good red challenge.

Graviteam's come a long way since 2011. I only play CM with other humans these days,  and I find that the Ukranians' sometimes clunky and sometimes brilliant game offers to me a more interesting single player experience. Infantry models are not detailed as in CM, but they seem to have a system that determines casualties depending on the weight of fire on a given area, which I find quite acceptable if I want to see Regiment level action on my screen.

Edited by BletchleyGeek

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does anything come close to the CM games...??

I've been told Methamphetamine or Smack can be pretty habit-forming, but personally I didn't find them anything near as addictive as CM.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, RockinHarry said:

Neither competitor nor much comparable with CM games, but I like the possibilities of HPS Tigers Unleashed and Point of Attack 2.5 very much. B)

You have to be joking.  I might have missed the sarcasm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...