General Grievous Posted July 22, 2015 Share Posted July 22, 2015 I only own the original Combat Mission: Beyond Overlord, but it looks like Battlefront has had many new releases of Combat Mission since then, including this Battle for Normandy. What major innovations have changed in these newer versions, besides improved graphics? I barely have mastered the original and found it rather difficult to succeed at, but not sure if this was my fault or because the game was designed to be difficult. Is Beyond Normandy more intuitive or does it have better gameplay or some reason that would make it a must-buy for a Beyond Overlord owner? Thanks in advance for your comments. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sburke Posted July 22, 2015 Share Posted July 22, 2015 there is a free demo, you really ought to try that as we could fill pages and pages here on the differences. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IronCat60 Posted July 22, 2015 Share Posted July 22, 2015 As Carl Sagan was fond of saying. "billions and billions". 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Placebo Posted July 22, 2015 Share Posted July 22, 2015 Well worth the upgrade in my opinion. As Sburke said the demo will tell you far more than this thread will in 1/10th of the time. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PanzerMike Posted July 22, 2015 Share Posted July 22, 2015 The list is endless. CMBN is so much better IMHO. I loved CMBO, but it had it's day. Play the demo and see for yourself. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slysniper Posted July 22, 2015 Share Posted July 22, 2015 I think you will find by playing the demo, the two games do not play alike either. So the game tactics you used in CMX1 might not work well, in CMX2. I found myself quickly having to learn to change my play style because of how the game now functions. So expect a new steep learning curb to be able to play the CMX2 game. The good news with that is, It is actually a more realistic approach that is needed to be good at. So understanding sound tactical level aspects of combat can help when trying to play the game. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sfhand Posted July 22, 2015 Share Posted July 22, 2015 As others have mentioned, CMBN is an improvement over CMBO in too many ways to list. Therefore, my unique contribution to the thread will be to suggest you play the demo! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barkhorn1x Posted July 22, 2015 Share Posted July 22, 2015 As others have mentioned, CMBN is an improvement over CMBO in too many ways to list. Therefore, my unique contribution to the thread will be to suggest you play the demo! Agreed, and my unqiue contribution is to second sfhand's contribution - PLAY the demo! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
womble Posted July 27, 2015 Share Posted July 27, 2015 Much of the difference can be summarised in one word though: detail. Vehicle armour is modelled per pixel. Personnel are modelled as individual soldiers for spotting, firing and casualties (there's no "aggregate" firepower stat). The ground scale is more detailed: a single 8m Action Square can have something like a dozen different interacting features that affect LOS and LOF. The OOBs are more detailed. C2 is more detailed. And this can all be seen in the demo. But read the manual first, because the demo is a demo, not a tutorial, and if you don't know what you're getting into you might just throw your hands up in horror at the things that happen. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
user1000 Posted July 27, 2015 Share Posted July 27, 2015 (edited) I'm still having an absolute blast with the CM:BO Quick mission generator and randomizer Edited July 27, 2015 by user1000 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrisND Posted July 27, 2015 Share Posted July 27, 2015 Much of the difference can be summarised in one word though: detail. Vehicle armour is modelled per pixel. Per polygon, actually. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
womble Posted July 27, 2015 Share Posted July 27, 2015 Per polygon, actually. Gah. Got my terminology wrong. Hey ho. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pak40 Posted July 29, 2015 Share Posted July 29, 2015 Much of the difference can be summarised in one word though: detail. Vehicle armour is modelled per pixel. Personnel are modelled as individual soldiers for spotting, firing and casualties (there's no "aggregate" firepower stat). The ground scale is more detailed: a single 8m Action Square can have something like a dozen different interacting features that affect LOS and LOF. The OOBs are more detailed. C2 is more detailed. And this can all be seen in the demo. But read the manual first, because the demo is a demo, not a tutorial, and if you don't know what you're getting into you might just throw your hands up in horror at the things that happen. Ditto about the manual. More detail with less abstraction also brings more complexity. Besides the Demo there are tons of YouTube clips he can watch, especially the Armchair General tutorials . These will give him a good idea of the detail, capability, and ambiance of the game without having to worry about commands and controls. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.