CM1 vs CM2 - question

[Freyr Oakenshield]

What's the difference between CM1 and 2?

I know that graphics are better and so on, but I'm rather asking about more serious changes concerning e.g. gameplay, game rules, the game engine (I don't mean graphics here), etc...

Edited June 19, 2020 by Freyr Oakenshield

[Erwin]

CM2 is virtually a completely new game compared to CM1 - while sharing a similar graphical interface and gameplay.  CM1 is much simpler and more like a fun game.  CM2 has a more sophisticated engine, is much more complex and is more like a detailed simulation.  CM2 is much more detailed/granular and has a much better AI opponent.  A smaller CM2 scenario with a company or two may well take longer to play than a much larger CM1 scenario that may field a regiment. 

If one is familiar with playing CM1, the CM2 UI will be familiar and getting into CM2 will be easy.  However, becoming good at playing CM2 is much harder.

Suggest you d/l and lay some of the free CM2 demos as that is the easiest way to compare b4 buying.

 

Edited June 19, 2020 by Erwin

[StieliAlpha]

To support Erwin: Yep, CM1 was quite much a “game”, while CM2 tries to be (and very many ways is) a serious simulation.

I cannot fully agree that it is easy to change from CM1 to CM2. Some of my friends gave up in despair. That was, however, in the old days, when CM2 was “less refined”. 

As Erwin indicates, the frustration level can be quite high. Trying the demos is certainly a good advise.

[Erwin]

4 hours ago, StieliAlpha said:

Some of my friends gave up in despair. That was, however, in the old days, when CM2 was “less refined”.

If you are talking about CMSF in 2007, yes it was so buggy, I gave up on it as well.  2 years later with updates etc. I tried it again and it became my favorite.

[StieliAlpha]

2 hours ago, Erwin said:

If you are talking about CMSF in 2007, yes it was so buggy, I gave up on it as well.  2 years later with updates etc. I tried it again and it became my favorite.

Yes and no.

I gave up on CMSF and got hooked only later, when CMBN came out.

But I, indeed, have two friends, who did not manage the transition from CM1 to CMBN.

[Scrat]

I think CMx1 is a 3d wargame and CMx2 is a simulation. I still play CMx1 but I never really liked CMx2. As Erwin have said, play a CMx2 demo is a good idea.

[Ultradave]

SF2 is a HUGE improvement over the original SF. Everything received a thorough going over (scenarios, campaigns, TOE), plus updates of game engine.

As others have said, the demos will tell you. The demos for the most part are well thought out in themselves and are fun. I haven't played any in a while, but I do remember both the FB and FI demos in particular are 3 scenario campaigns. With these you get a good feel for what it's like to play the game. 

One thing I don't think others have mentioned - there is a massive amount of user created content for all the titles - scenarios, campaigns, uniform, vehicle and terrain mods, which all add a lot of atmosphere (dusty/muddy/snowy vehicles, worn uniforms and equipment, more detailed terrain, semi-transparent trees - all sorts of things, all free to download). 

Do try the demos. Can't go wrong downloading them all and seeing what appeals to you.

Dave

[mjkerner]

If you like tactical WWII and Modern warfare (you know what I mean), get CMx2. Plain and simple. Anything less, and your friends and family will mock you unmercifully. Maybe even cast aspersions on your genderhood!

 

I think Ultradave assumed you meant CM Shock Force 2 vs Shock Force 1, as I did before re-reading your post. Get it,  along with all the other titles, or there will be that genderhood question lurking in the back of your mind for eternity.