Battlefield Academy 2 vs CM 2

[acctingman1969]

To anyone who has played both games (CM2 and BA 2) am I going to really suffer a lot of "realism" by choosing BA2 over CM2?

 

I like BA2 for it's easier modding (although I do not mod myself) and it's turn based combat, but CM2 graphics looks so much nicer than the cartoonish graphics BA2 has.

 

After playing a self made CM2 game, does the game tally up losses? For instance, if there were 20 German PIII in the game and 14 were killed, will the game keep track of individual losses?

 

Thanks

[Apocal]

After playing a self made CM2 game, does the game tally up losses? For instance, if there were 20 German PIII in the game and 14 were killed, will the game keep track of individual losses?

 

Thanks

 

Yes.

 

[carcer]

I was pretty heavy into the BA1 and BA2 games for a while since they play on my laptop but personally feel like combat mission will always win in terms of realism. BA2 is fun in its own right much like the old school talonsoft games but casualties are only counted as whole units like squad or vehicle. The TOE is also extremely abstract in the way every rifle squad is the same strength in terms of firepower and manpower. BA2 is still a nice game for a light tactical that requires less hardware to play.

[acctingman1969]

Thank you Apocal

[womble]

To anyone who has played both games (CM2 and BA 2) am I going to really suffer a lot of "realism" by choosing BA2 over CM2?...CM2 graphics looks so much nicer than the cartoonish graphics BA2 has.

In terms of graphics, CM is an order of magnitude better than BA2. Modding of the textures used in CM can improve on that considerably if your rig is up to it (one of the reasons BFC's skins aren't better is because additional texture detail imposes a memory overhead).

 

But in terms of actual realistic gameplay, CMx2 is several orders of magnitude more real. Every bullet and shell is tracked on its ballistic trajectory. Every individual trooper starts with his own Motivation, Experience and Leadership scores, which might vary a bit from the "average" of the squad or team he's actually part of, and their morale states are all individually tracked. Every polygon of every vehicle model has its own armour rating, including the quality and material it's made of, and the interactions between penetrators and armour are dependent on actual 3D angle of impact, type, size and velocity of penetrator and how that interacts with the armour qualities of exactly where the ballistic trajectory intersects the polygons of the target's 3D model. Cover and concealment are not simple "bonuses" for being in a square of a particular terrain.*

 

And most of all, your troops and your opponents troops all act at once, rather than you resolving the action of a given element and then moving on to the next, and then moving on to your opponent's turn when you're done. WeGo or RT, while the timer is running, all orders and tactical reactions by the TacAI are happening simultaneously, all spotting is happening (as continuously as it can be reasonably made to) simultaneously.

 

BA is much easier to get your head round, being a much simpler game, at a higher scale (more like CMx1, but even CMx1 was more finely grained). Much easier to pick up a game and play, but any CM title is more realistic. BA is pretty much "beer-and-pretzels" gaming.

 

 

* This is not an exhaustive list of the level of detail of the CMx2 games.

Edited March 27, 2015 by womble

[Kieme(ITA)]

Didn't know about this BA2, anyway I wouldn't pick it up in favor of CM2 games, that's for sure.

 

And the comparison seems to me would fit the old CM1 games more than anything else...

[Bud Backer]

I have Battle Academy 1 and the assorted campaigns and maps for it, all on my iPad. I like the game, it's simple, but not lacking in tactical detail. It won't have the detailed modelling that CM does, but I think that's not a fair comparison. BA is more like a fairly quick paced turn based board game like Panzer Leader, CM is more detailed but slower to play. Both have their advantages.

[Pak40]

In terms of graphics, CM is an order of magnitude better than BA2. Modding of the textures used in CM can improve on that considerably if your rig is up to it (one of the reasons BFC's skins aren't better is because additional texture detail imposes a memory overhead).

 

But in terms of actual realistic gameplay, CMx2 is several orders of magnitude more real. Every bullet and shell is tracked on its ballistic trajectory. Every individual trooper starts with his own Motivation, Experience and Leadership scores, which might vary a bit from the "average" of the squad or team he's actually part of, and their morale states are all individually tracked. Every polygon of every vehicle model has its own armour rating, including the quality and material it's made of, and the interactions between penetrators and armour are dependent on actual 3D angle of impact, type, size and velocity of penetrator and how that interacts with the armour qualities of exactly where the ballistic trajectory intersects the polygons of the target's 3D model. Cover and concealment are not simple "bonuses" for being in a square of a particular terrain.*

 

And most of all, your troops and your opponents troops all act at once, rather than you resolving the action of a given element and then moving on to the next, and then moving on to your opponent's turn when you're done. WeGo or RT, while the timer is running, all orders and tactical reactions by the TacAI are happening simultaneously, all spotting is happening (as continuously as it can be reasonably made to) simultaneously.

 

BA is much easier to get your head round, being a much simpler game, at a higher scale (more like CMx1, but even CMx1 was more finely grained). Much easier to pick up a game and play, but any CM title is more realistic. BA is pretty much "beer-and-pretzels" gaming.

 

 

* This is not an exhaustive list of the level of detail of the CMx2 games.

 

don't forget relative spotting. The game tracks each unit's spotting individually. No Borg style collective BS.

[Duckman]

In fairness to BA it does some things really well for a game of its type, like fog of war and suppression. Overall it reminds me of the later Close Combat games, ie basically realistic but with Borg spotting and some silly over the top units like onboard rocket artillery.

If CM is a no-compromises indie film then BA is a one of the better Hollywood war movies, you could say.

[Kieme(ITA)]

Wait a second....

 

Who's the Hollywood star?

 

BA2:

 

CMRT:

Edited April 12, 2015 by Kieme(ITA)

[acctingman1969]

I've decided to get the CMx2 series of games. I'll take the steep learning curve...this game looks just.....breath taking.

[Childress]

But Battlefield Academy features a slick, in-house multiplayer server that's linked to an online ranking system. One suspects that's a huge draw.

[womble]

I've decided to get the CMx2 series of games. I'll take the steep learning curve...this game looks just.....breath taking.

Good choice! (Well, that's not an unexpected reaction, I'm sure... )

 

It will repay climbing the learning cliff in spades. There are a growing number of helpful resources out there, from the Armchair General guides to tactics and BilH's tactical problems, but I can't recommend reading the manual highly enough.

[John Kettler]

acctingman1969,

 

I know of no other games which have the virtually unlimited gaming even a single CM title provides. Did you know we've still got people who've been playing CMx1 CMBO since it became available 2000 and that the game is still selling to this day? Not that I'm encouraging such behavior, but you theoretically could get any CM title and play it for years, living in CM bliss thereafter. Of course, you'd probably want to rethink that plan when miniature holodeck tech becomes available and BFC begins releasing CM (You are there and bring fresh undies!) titles to take full advantage of the True 3-D™ Combat Engine and amazingly popular Combat Environment Adjunct™, which supplies authentic battlefield experiences by such means as ice water dumped down your collar, searing heat, unforgettable smells, immersion foot, as well as hunger and thirst tabs. Still, you have to start somewhere, and I feel safe in asserting the only buyer's remorse you'll experience is knowing you might've been playing sooner and not having all the titles you want!

 

(Kieme(ITA),

 

That BA2 screenshot reminds me of a pic of one of those FOW battles with miniatures, except the vehicles are vastly worse, and the infantry significantly so. Not even close to TOW (and I don't mean the missile), which had all sort of great features and looked fun, but had no Mac version, so I couldn't try it out. That StuG III isn't much bigger than a clown car. The CMRT assault shot is great, though I believe the SU-76s would be trailing the infantry by around 200 meters, doctrinally speaking. In any event, a telling comparison!

 

Regards,

 

John Kettler

Edited April 14, 2015 by John Kettler

[Duckman]

Wait a second....

 

Who's the Hollywood star?

 

Haha, fair point even if I think you got the underlying message. :-)

 

In fariness to BA nobody plays it zoomed in like that, and the cutscenes that look like 1970s war comics are superb. But yeah, CM does have amazing graphics for a niche game.

[Pak40]

(Kieme(ITA),

 

That BA2 screenshot reminds me of a pic of one of those FOW battles with miniatures, except the vehicles are vastly worse, and the infantry significantly so. Not even close to TOW (and I don't mean the missile), which had all sort of great features and looked fun, but had no Mac version, so I couldn't try it out. That StuG III isn't much bigger than a clown car. The CMRT assault shot is great, though I believe the SU-76s would be trailing the infantry by around 200 meters, doctrinally speaking. In any event, a telling comparison!

 

Regards,

 

John Kettler

 

The BA2 screenshot reminds me of Spaceballs the movie