First impression

[Wodin]

Loved CMx1 esp CMBB..but this beats it hands down..get yourself all of Aris mods.

[altipueri]

I once used the analogy of learning to drive stick shift. The first couple attempts you think "This is no fun at all!" You're convinced that something must be terribly wrong with the car for you to be having such troubles. But after a little practice you're upshifting with the best of them, the auto's handling like a race car and you never want to go back to an boring old automatic transmission again.

I love automatic transmissions. I don't understand why anybody wants a manual one. And I have the fastest campervan in the west.

[PhilM]

I think what got me hooked was actually the big battalion (or larger) sized battles. They take so much time to play but it's usually so worth it. With the bigger battles, some of the little awkward things in the game get lost in the chaos, and I get amazed that such a big battle can actually be somewhat realistically simulated right down to the individual rifleman on the little computer sitting on my lap.

I agree with the (my) bold bit above: easier both to work around and if necessary ignore oddities on e.g. LOS and penetration / kill outcomes if they are one small part of a bigger battle. Can be a turn off if you have only a few units and one of them gets screwed!

Although only a relative newcomer to it myself, I would also recommend H2H play as opposed to v the AI. You get much more realistic reactions to and interactions with whatever you do yourself: much more compelling. Sure someone will take you through a PBEM game to start you off. (Me, if you like!)

[McAuliffe]

Sorry, but in my opinion CMBN is the edition of missed opportunities. Granted that CMX1 was limited because of an engine developed in the nineties, it did pretty good job, compared to it's capacities. CMX2 pretended to be much more advanced, graphic- and simulation wise, but gameplay wise it was for me in many aspects a step back or status quo at least. Clearly developers have tried to appease the real time playing masses, but this hybrid version has many short comings when it comes to turn play. Not even talking about the strain it puts on your hardware.

You are condemned to play company sized battles in back garden sized fields. Anything bigger becomes laborious, tedious and risky. I admit that CMBN is the only game, I will fire up from time to time, but really?...I cannot bother anymore to waste time on setting up a couple of platoons to find out after 10 minutes the system hangs. Frankly, contrary to all comments, I see no improvement over the patches, I expected better and feel disappointed. I hope they will get it together on the next engine though, because of course - despite all the short comings - the subject and formula has much potential.

[c3k]

Did someone mention "flares"?

Anyhow, the comment about CMx2 being akin to a stick shift and CMx1 being an automatic is spot on. Once you learn a stick, it's awesome. Until then, it's a chore. However, in heavy, bumper to bumper, rush hour traffic, a stick is something I'd rather not have to use.

Some CMx2 games are daunting. At 8 p.m., tired from work, that first turn or three of a 2 hour, large assault battle, seems too much. (The stick shift at rush hour.) However, after the first few turns (especially the very first), the game "flows". It creates a rhythm, opportunities, and openings. Getting past that first hump is often the only obstacle. Then, the next night at 8 p.m. you can hardly wait to boot up the game and continue the fight.

My .02.

Ken

[Fuser]

Did someone mention "flares"?

Anyhow, the comment about CMx2 being akin to a stick shift and CMx1 being an automatic is spot on. Once you learn a stick, it's awesome. Until then, it's a chore. However, in heavy, bumper to bumper, rush hour traffic, a stick is something I'd rather not have to use.

Some CMx2 games are daunting. At 8 p.m., tired from work, that first turn or three of a 2 hour, large assault battle, seems too much. (The stick shift at rush hour.) However, after the first few turns (especially the very first), the game "flows". It creates a rhythm, opportunities, and openings. Getting past that first hump is often the only obstacle. Then, the next night at 8 p.m. you can hardly wait to boot up the game and continue the fight.

My .02.

Ken

Exactly my thought.

[YankeeDog]

I think a big mistake a lot of new players and players moving over from CMx1 make in CMBN is trying to do too much too quickly. IME, the pace of CMBN play is a *lot* slower than CMx1 (and realistically so, IMHO), especially if you play on Elite or Iron, where spotting and C2 rules are stricter.

Once you understand this, larger battles aren't quite so daunting. Setup still takes a long time, but turns go faster because usually only a portion of your force is really active at any given time.

So fights up to reinforced battalion-sized engagements are definitely doable in CMBN. I myself prefer smaller fights, mostly due to real-life time restrictions, but I have played and enjoyed larger battles when the rest of my life gives me enough time to play and enjoy them.

It is true, though that the CMx1 can potentially go much larger than CMx2 -- I can recall some CMx1 titles, particularly in CMBB, that put most of a regiment on the map. I don't think something this large is really practical in CMx2, even if your computer is powerful enough to handle it.

However, IMHO the verisimilitude really began to break down in larger sized battles in CMx1. Borg spotting in particular leads to some really unrealistic results when, e.g., a scout team spots an enemy unit, and instantly another unit from an entirely different battalion over a km away can see that enemy as well.

[sburke]

Did somebody say Temple to Mars?

[z1812]

Since I started playing CMx2 I have only gone back to CMx1 a few times. Like others there are some aspects of CMx1 that I hope will be included with the new generations of Combat Mission.

I remember enjoying the following.

Flame Throwers and burning buildings.

The Hull Down Command.

Do you remember the little playing card symbols that denoted special abilities like stealthiness?

And of course the ability to completely cherry pick your forces for a QB.

I liked the random map generator as well. But I presume Battlefront traded convenience for higher fidelity which must be one of those difficult decisions to make as software developers.

To me this game is head and shoulders above any tactical wargame currently available.

I think if CMx2 was not developed then I would still think the same of CMx1.

[Jock Tamson]

I have bought nearly all the CMx2 titles.

I realise - and accept - that I will only get the full experience if I play H2H but, when I get in from work and have an hour or so, I am more likely to play something like WALB which feels less clunky and offers a fun - and varied - experience against the AI.

I would trade all the Real Time and a fair chunk of the graphics in CMx2 for a better/more dynamic single player experience. Real Time against the AI feels like a cheat to me, and tends to make the nature of most good single player missions - carefully sited AT guns and defensive lines - even more obvious and a bit of a grind.

[Vanir Ausf B]

What is "WALB"?

[Placebo]

I remember enjoying the following.

Flame Throwers and burning buildings.

The Hull Down Command.

Do you remember the little playing card symbols that denoted special abilities like stealthiness?

I do miss these 3, but still the overall game is so much improved over CM1.

My main gripe with CMSF was the lack of random battle maps, but i have realised that was the sacrifice that had to be made to get the maps and AI plans we have today.

I think the real gem of the CM2 engine is the detail of the individual duels, on a one to one level (watching every grenade and burst of gunfire), and at the same time controlling combined armed battle groups at a tactical level. No other game comes close.

[Wodin]

Well I'm WEGO only and though it has the odd feature\command missing that would help with WEGO it make sup for in other areas. As for the game hanging I've never had an issue.

In my humble opinion BF already have "got it together" and I look forward to every upgrade knowing that each step is a step towards the ultimate tactical wargame.

Sorry, but in my opinion CMBN is the edition of missed opportunities. Granted that CMX1 was limited because of an engine developed in the nineties, it did pretty good job, compared to it's capacities. CMX2 pretended to be much more advanced, graphic- and simulation wise, but gameplay wise it was for me in many aspects a step back or status quo at least. Clearly developers have tried to appease the real time playing masses, but this hybrid version has many short comings when it comes to turn play. Not even talking about the strain it puts on your hardware.

You are condemned to play company sized battles in back garden sized fields. Anything bigger becomes laborious, tedious and risky. I admit that CMBN is the only game, I will fire up from time to time, but really?...I cannot bother anymore to waste time on setting up a couple of platoons to find out after 10 minutes the system hangs. Frankly, contrary to all comments, I see no improvement over the patches, I expected better and feel disappointed. I hope they will get it together on the next engine though, because of course - despite all the short comings - the subject and formula has much potential.

[Michael Emrys]

Flame Throwers and burning buildings.

Haven't really missed those, but I am sure I will welcome their return.

The Hull Down Command.

I never used that all that much. Same for Shoot and Scoot. Sounded great in theory, but trying to get them to work satisfactorily wasn't worth the effort. I do better now utilizing other sets of commands to achieve the same end.

Do you remember the little playing card symbols that denoted special abilities like stealthiness?

Yeah, and I always thought the choice of symbols was a little silly. I did like special abilities though and would like to see their return.

And of course the ability to completely cherry pick your forces for a QB.

Seems like I can do that now using a combination of force editing, specialist teams, and individual vehicles.

I liked the random map generator as well. But I presume Battlefront traded convenience for higher fidelity which must be one of those difficult decisions to make as software developers.

I think it was a no brainer based on what BFC has said about random generator incompatibility with how maps are made...or something to that effect. I have missed it too, but I have to admit that a lot of those randomly generated maps were definitely wonky. Sometimes I would have to go through two or three before I got one I wanted to play on, and even that one was likely to have incongruities. I will always miss the ability to cook up a map on the spot, but as our map designers acquire more experience and skills the maps get more and more interesting to play on and begin to look more and more like real terrain.

Michael

[Doug Williams]

I have bought nearly all the CMx2 titles.

I realise - and accept - that I will only get the full experience if I play H2H but, when I get in from work and have an hour or so, I am more likely to play something like WALB which feels less clunky and offers a fun - and varied - experience against the AI.

I would trade all the Real Time and a fair chunk of the graphics in CMx2 for a better/more dynamic single player experience. Real Time against the AI feels like a cheat to me, and tends to make the nature of most good single player missions - carefully sited AT guns and defensive lines - even more obvious and a bit of a grind.

You are missing the best aspect of CM if you don't play H2H, IMO. And I mean PBEM, not real time. I usually have four or five PBEMs going. When I get home from work, it helps me to unwind to sit down and do my turns. Takes maybe an hour. I like opponents who can do a turn a day, more on weekends.

After playing PBEM for a while, the AI seems boring and predictable, and I only play the AI when I don't have any PBEM turns waiting.

[Jock Tamson]

What is "WALB"?

Wargame Air Land Battle

[Childress]

Flame Throwers and burning buildings.

'Fire' is on the to-do list. But the implementation is considerably more daunting in CM2. First, the underlying terrain is several magnitudes more complex. And fire needs to 'spread' - or not- modified by the weather, the time of year, the theater and wind. And units will need additional coding to know they need to abandon a burning structure. In CM1 building damage was explicitly depicted with incremental '*' or '**' symbols. One suspects this on-map info will return with CM3. However it turns out, BF won't go about it in a half-*ssed manner. You can take that to the bank.

[umlaut]

In my view the first thing you have to do in order to make a satisfactory transition from CM1 to CM2 is to accept that CM2 is not merely CM1 with better graphics. It is an entirely new game - built on many of the same principles as CM1.

I wasn´t very keen on CM2 myself - untill I accepted that. Now I couldn´t dream of going back.

In my view one of the greatest diffences is the scale: In CM1 I would usually play with something like batallion sized forces, whereas in CM2 it is generally more like company size.

In CM1 I would never play a battle without armored forces. Now I do it a lot, because infantry battles are so much better represented compared to CM1. In fact, after I played George MC´s brilliant - but huuuuge and armor heavy - Wittmann´s Demise scenario (it seems George hasn´t yet discovered that CM2 can handle smaller battles ) I really needed to play a small infantry skirmish.

I really like the small battles within the battle where a couple of squads are engaged on close quarters fighting over a farmyard - or a panzerscreck team tries to sneak up on a Sherman. These little fights are in my view much more interesting in CM2.

My advice to you would be to begin with small or tiny scenarios - and wait with the larger ones untill you´re comfortable with the new game engine.

Enjoy - I´m sure you will, eventually

[SlowMotion]

In my humble opinion BF already have "got it together" and I look forward to every upgrade knowing that each step is a step towards the ultimate tactical wargame.

Same here. There are maybe 3 things from CMx1 I'd still like to see added to CMx2. The only real problems IMO are some strange things that have to do with LOS/LOF - area fire and such. But mostly things work very well and all the future improvements will just make things better.

Actually it will be interesting to see what kind of new features we'll see in future games. THings that would take current play experience to clearly new level - like AI triggers.

[A Canadian Cat]

You are condemned to play company sized battles in back garden sized fields. Anything bigger becomes laborious, tedious and risky. I admit that CMBN is the only game, I will fire up from time to time, but really?...I cannot bother anymore to waste time on setting up a couple of platoons to find out after 10 minutes the system hangs.

The game is very demanding of hardware. But you can play really big battles. I have a battle going with battalion of infantry and a battalion of Armour (OK I started with a battalion) reinforced with a couple more companies. And I can play it fine on my so so hardware. The thing is with larger maps and more units you can get to a place where the game chokes. But you can get performance back by dialing back the graphics settings.

Change the 3D Model Quality and 3D Texture Quality. I would love to play the game with these settings all the way up by my hardware just cannot handle that. If you have these settings set the Better pick Balanced instead. If you already have them on Balanced choose Faster. Keep dialing it back until your machine can handle it. I would rather have smooth camera motion and no crashes than a beautiful image.

[womble]

McAuliffe said:

Sorry, but in my opinion CMBN is the edition of missed opportunities.

I'm curious. What opportunities do you think were missed?

CMX2 pretended to be much more advanced, graphic- and simulation wise...

Erm, it does just a tad bit more than pretend to be much more advanced "graphic- and simulation-wise". Sure, the graphics aren't anything to make a FPS major-league title player very impressed at first sight, but they're orders of magnitude better than the graphics in x1, and the simulation is likewise more detailed; I don't have a real way of comparing the old with the new but there are at least ten times as many variables considered in modelling a single tank shot in the x2 engine as there were in x1.

...but gameplay wise it was for me in many aspects a step back or status quo at least...

What aspects of the gameplay are backward steps, in your opinion?

[quoite]Clearly developers have tried to appease the real time playing masses...

[Collingwood]

Some CMx2 games are daunting. At 8 p.m., tired from work, that first turn or three of a 2 hour, large assault battle, seems too much. (The stick shift at rush hour.) However, after the first few turns (especially the very first), the game "flows". It creates a rhythm, opportunities, and openings. Getting past that first hump is often the only obstacle. Then, the next night at 8 p.m. you can hardly wait to boot up the game and continue the fight.

Exactly my experience Ken. For this reason I keep a stash of 1st and 2nd turn saves, if I'm feeling lazy I fire one of them up. Admittedly I've already fought the battle, but if enough time has passed I can't quite remember where all the enemy forces were disposed and I try a different approach.

[MikeyD]

CM seems to suffer from a lot of bipolar complaints. Its both too tedious to fight large battles and it chokes on huge maps and multiple battalions. Individual blades of grass aren't well enough rendered and you lose game detail when playing 30 feet off the ground. If people just played the game that's in front of them instead of comparing it to the fantasy game in their heads they'd be much happier. Its rather like comparing your significant other to whoever the latest photoshopped swimsuit cover model is. Unrealistic comparisons to an impossible unreachable ideal does nobody any good.

[Humbug]

It may not be perfect, but there's still nothing else that I'm aware of with equal or better fidelity than CM. Achtung Panzer isn't bad, but the infantry part is really simplified and kind of silly. Close Combat is also very simplified. I don't know about Wargame since I haven't played it but from what I've seen it also seems to be more simple in nature. If these games are the wide brush that you use to paint a wall with, then CM is the smaller brush used for more delicate work. Nothing wrong with either of them, just used for different things. I just haven't been able to find another strategy game with the same amount of detail and fidelity as CM. Same reason why I fly in DCS over War Thunder. They're both good games, but I prefer the detail of the former.

Battlefront may not be perfect either, but who is? At least they actually communicate with us and implement features we suggest if they're valid. I'm not exactly spoiled with that sort of thing.

(All of the above are my personal opinions and should not be interpreted as anything else.)

[Wodin]

Yes it can take ages to finish a scenario and weeks to get through a campaign (I play in WEGO) there really is nothing that comes close to compare it too. It's well ahead of the competition in terms of gameplay and realism. It's no where near perfect but every small step it takes going forward with each patch\upgrade and module is a step closer to perfection. Knowing the game is only going to get better year in year out is a great feeling and what would we have to look forward too if the game was feature complete or wasn't going to be worked on any more? Infact if this game hadn't been made many here would be desperate for a game like it..even those who have alot of complaints and issues with it would I reckon rather have this than anything else out there. Graviteam tactics comes in second and if CMx2 was only in real time it would be my go to tactical wargame. GT has the looks but fails in more important areas and no matter what the developers say it does have some pretty painful issues. For me once CMx2 it hits the East front I very much doubt I will be itching for a new tactical wargame. CM will have pretty much all I want. Warts and all it fulfills my desire for tactical warfare. It's tense, frustrating, lethal, punishing, exciting and taxing and I couldn't be without it. Thank god we have Battlefront.