Opinions on Normandy vs CMSF

[abneo3sierra]

As a Battlefront fan who purchased the CM-x1 games, then the CMSF games..I have not yet found something BFC makes that I have not enjoyed. Here, what I am asking for, is if anyone has played both CMSF and CM-Normandy..who may have any "selling points" for Normandy vs CMSF. For example..is it more easily to be immersed in ? Graphics better? Game run smoother?

With mostly limited playing time, I guess what I am basically asking, is this.."Other than a different era in time, what is different between these games?"

Any and all comments will be appreciated.

[Ranger33]

I can definitely say that the game looks quite a bit better, and performs better as well. As far as immersion, I guess that depends on how much you like WW2.

In basic functionality, it's very much the same. In the actual gameplay, it's quite a bit different. The opposing sides are much more evenly matched, there are generally more troops on the field, the strategies must be adjusted accordingly.

I highly recommend the demo, the scenarios in it give you a really good feel for the game. They are all about medium in size, but there are much larger and smaller scenarios available, depending on what you like.

[Rambler]

Ranger pretty much nailed it. I would also add that the battlefield is a little more forgiving in CMBN than it is in CMSF.

[wombat_of_war]

in shockforce i found the lethality of the battlefield scary to say the least. tanks taken out at long range with ATGM's, needing to take a fortified urban area but required to do it with next to no casualties. yet when you do spot an enemy all hell breaks loose when everything opens up on them from.

CMBN on the other hand i find as others have mentioned things are more forgiving, battles tend to be more even with the US forces outgunned in some cases by superior german equipment.

its weird for me, i should like CMBN more, i loved the first games, i like the historical aspect, yet shockforce i find it easier to get into for a reason i cant identify

[Hessian deserter]

Extreme difference in terrain open Desert vs. Bocage....The range and velocity of the RPG!!That can take out a modern tank with one shot,amazing. No Toyota/Izuzu pick up trucks. Being a ww2 fan I dream that maybe by 2014 BFC will treat us to a new CMAK/Med. WE know they can do the desert terrain well from the CMSF series.

[abneo3sierra]

Thanks everyone for the awesome replies...now you made me have to get this one lol.

[Mord]

Well, one selling point would be the historical setting of CMBN as opposed to the Fictional setting of CMSF with all it's A-Stan/Iraq overtones...depending on which you prefer. CMBN also has a lot more new stuff, bridges, on map mortars and AT guns, water, rain, more and varied animations, especially in the death department, light and heavy forest and some other stuff.

A major, game play/style difference would be the lethality equation...in CMSF tank battles are pretty much one shot affairs...the guy with the quickest trigger scores the kill (depending). The ranges are greater and small arms and AT assets can reach out and touch you in ways that hurt. CMBN there's a lot more tit for tat. Nice tank exchanges and the like.

LOL Had to edit...you already own CMSF!

Anyway...you won't be disappointed...This game rocks and if you like CMSF and you liked CMX1...welcome to the holy grail of WWII.

Mord.

[SelfLoadingRifle]

CMSF with all three modules added wins hands down over CMN when it comes to sheer diversity. It is also streets ahead of CMN when it comes to the number and variety of quality user manufactured scenarios that have been posted on the net.

HOWEVER... I expect CMN to make up the lost ground fast in both categories when the Commonwealth module is finally released.

SLR

[Brindlewolf]

Got to agree that CMSF is more immersive with all the modules and mod content,compared to CMBN but it is early days.CMBN will be awesome once a few more modules are added to the mix.Once the next module comes out,i'll be heading back to CMBN.Saying that there are quite a few epic scenarios and campaigns available in the repository for CMBN.

[Sergei]

CMBN vs. CMSF? Well it's quite obvious that a Sherman stands no change against a T-72...

[noob]

What i like about CMBN as opposed to CMSF is that in CMBN SMG's and HMG's are less numerous so they have to be used more carefully and looked after, when i play i always split my squads into assault teams to divide the Thompsons and MP40's from the BAR or MG42's as they operate more effectively at different ranges, this conforms to the logic of design which i find an excellent rule of thumb when deploying troops, the SMG's teams are something to behold in close terrain, i've seen one MP40 supress a whole squad, and don't get me talking about the MP44 or BAR rifle, those weapons are a treasured resource as they are a one man wrecking crew, whereas troops in CMSF usually have mainly assault rifles so the infantry v infantry combat is less nuanced.

[Sixxkiller]

CMSF is the best simulation of combat that BFC has ever done. It's by no means as pretty as CMBN and for some of you, the theater and era of combat isnt what you are into, but if you missed it, well I feel sorry that you did. The sheer number of weapons systems is staggering and getting them all basically right and balanced within the game was truly a work of art. I dont think BFC will ever do a module as good as NATO was either. Just my opinion (but I am right)

[MikeyD]

I disliked bocage fighting back in CMBO days and I still sort'a dislike bocage fighting now. That swings the the favorability ranking more towards modern war CMSF (which I love). But of course CN:BN isn't all small fields ringed by bocage. In those instances where you've got some elbow room the title's a joy.

I know one of two players who are firmly conviinced CM:Afghanistan is the best title they've ever done.

[c3k]

Obviously, the best would be to play CMBN but allow me to use CMSF Marine squads against my PBEM oppo's. And an Abrams or two.

[Ranger33]

Obviously, the best would be to play CMBN but allow me to use CMSF Marine squads against my PBEM oppo's. And an Abrams or two.

You forgot the Javelins. Can't leave home without them.

CMSF, with all the modules, is indeed a great, fully fleshed out game. There are just so many different units and scenarios. I still haven't beat all those campaigns people created (just went browsing through the repository, and found like half a dozen more than I knew existed). Just looking at where CMSF was at release to where it is now, makes me really excited for where CMBN will be this time next year.

[phil stanbridge]

CMSF is totally amazing. It's diverse as well as immersive. But Normandy is an incredible piece of work too. I can't help feel that SF is just that tiny bit more polished as it stands. There certainly appear to be less complaints abouts SF now, than there is regards Normandy. But I guess this is par for the course. I'm sure when we see forthcoming modules and new patches with new content (fire, etc etc ) things will balance out.

[hoolaman]

I think CMSF is more fun, and certainly more unique. Those ATGMs can be awesomely fun, especially when you only have one roll of the dice to get a hit on a superior force.

Part of the problem is that I (like BFC I suppose) had well burned out on CMx1 WWII by the time CMSF came out and fundamentally we have gotten a prettier, but less user friendly and less comprehensive remake of CMBO, so CMBN already seemed like it had been done before. I expect when the rest of the game arrives in module form there will be much more to hold my interest.

[Frankster65]

CMSF is totally amazing. It's diverse as well as immersive. But Normandy is an incredible piece of work too. I can't help feel that SF is just that tiny bit more polished as it stands. There certainly appear to be less complaints abouts SF now, than there is regards Normandy. But I guess this is par for the course. I'm sure when we see forthcoming modules and new patches with new content (fire, etc etc ) things will balance out.

Yep, what he said...

One of the biggest differences I'd say about CMSF is the absolute power and lethality of the basic infantry squads as compared to CMBN infantry squads. You have fewer troops making up a squad in CMSF but the types of weapons, both primary automatic rifles which give larger volumes of fire and the secondary weapons like antitank tubes make such a huge difference in leathality. Javelins are amazing to use and watch in game. Such high tech weaponry makes you utilize different tactics compared to what you might do with a CMBN infantry squad or platoon.

Of course this is not exclusive to infantry weapons and TO&Es, just looking at all the equipment on a modern battletank or Stryker (which is simulated in the game) and compare them to a Sherman or M3 half track...makes for interesting battles.

[Lets_All_Fight]

CMSF is the best simulation of combat that BFC has ever done. It's by no means as pretty as CMBN and for some of you, the theater and era of combat isnt what you are into, but if you missed it, well I feel sorry that you did. The sheer number of weapons systems is staggering and getting them all basically right and balanced within the game was truly a work of art. I dont think BFC will ever do a module as good as NATO was either. Just my opinion (but I am right)

+1.

I love BN. I think it's a brilliant game and I will be playing it for years. But I still prefer SF. I think it's an outstanding title that never got the love or respect that it deserved from a lot of people for a whole bunch of reasons - some good, some not. I'm still playing it heavily in PBEM while I have yet to get involved in a BN match up. All three of the modules were superb and the scenario making got better and better with each release.

You know why else I like it? There is nothing else out there remotely like it. Nothing. No other game I have scratches that itch I have for modern combat. When It was first announced I, like a lot of people thought, 'well, where's the fun going to be in that?' Boy - was I wrong.

[MeatEtr]

Although makes for good conversation, but seems a bit premature for direct comparison. Since, as already pointed out, CMBN is only 7 months old and CMSF has the benefits of being over 4 years old, having all modules and loads of scenarios/mods.

But judging by the popularity of WWII and rate of release of user-made scenarios/mods. It's safe to say the CMBN family will easily overtake CMSF in the user-made scenarios/mods category. Also if BFs track record is anything to go by, then the CMBN modules should at the least match the breadth and quality of the CMSF modules.

I'd say the number one selling point should simply be what's preferred, modern warfare or WWII.

I will say this though, I like CMSF much more then I thought I would.

[abneo3sierra]

Wow, thank everyone for the opinions!

I still remember when the switch was made, from WW2 to modern,how many people were disappointed in that, myself included. I have purchased Normandy now, and yes, it is beautiful. I compare it I guess to building a house. At the beginning you need so many blueprints, so much effort into the "study" aspect..while once you have the foundation laid, it is simply a matter of continuing. Great job BFC. And I think the proof is in the familiar names here, some of which I recognize from my first ventures on this board in the "CMBB" days.