C4nt3r Posted July 13, 2017 Share Posted July 13, 2017 Hi, I'm thinking to buy one CM to start. I like Modern war, then BS is the natural selection, but I like WW2 too much too, and Normandy has a lot of content created, and a good deal to have it complete. This comes to my question. Compared to others, checking at http://www.thefewgoodmen.com/tsd3/ I don't see too much quantity of scenarions and so on compared to BN, I understand BN is 4 years older, but FB is newer and has more content too. There are some reason for this? Regards. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slysniper Posted July 13, 2017 Share Posted July 13, 2017 Look, if you want content, then no matter how you want to look at it. CMBN is the game for now, plus everyone that plays this game plays that if you are looking to play against others at some point. If you are want to experience combat on the modern battlefield, then CMBS is your game, no, not much content. But you can create your own match ups, there is also the quick battle creator and only you will determine how limited it is. I personally enjoy cmbs much more than I can explain and this is from someone that has played these type of games forever. But the truth is, you need both, because having both will show you how much combat has changed in the last 80 years. Only you can decide , neither choice is wrong 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kettler Posted July 13, 2017 Share Posted July 13, 2017 C4nt3r, Welcome aboard! Simple question (answer without thinking)--Modern or WW II? What you get will be where your heart lies, and that's what you should buy, presuming you can afford but one game. If your wallet can take additional punishment, and you plump for CMBN, might I strongly recommend you get the Big Bundle which has ALL the Modules and the Vehicle Pack, too? You save $55 this way, almost the price of the base game! A super deal at $105.00! Most of us here paid for each Module as it came out, likewise Vehicle Pack and Upgrades. Yours would be 4.0 already, saving you two Upgrades from the last major build of the game. CMBS for you would be 4.0 already, and a Battle Pack has been introduced for $10. A Module is pending, too. No matter what choice you make, it's by definition good and wise!. Demos for both games are current, and I recommend you download and play them if you somehow still haven't decided! Regards, John Kettler 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C4nt3r Posted July 13, 2017 Author Share Posted July 13, 2017 (edited) @John Kettler " Modern or WW II? " Well, this is one of the main problems, I like both. I can buy both, but I don't want to buy both, right now and at the same time. First I want to dig into gameplay, multiplayer and so on, and time will say. I guess any option is good, I'm sure, I just don't want problems with lack of scenarios, lack of multiplayer or something like this. As I said in spanish community. I know that probably I will have both (and all at the end) but I don't know if go to the "safe way" and get CMBN (content, players etc..) first, and later CMBS, or go directly with CMBS, this way, If I don't like at all the game, initial investment is cheaper. My OP question anyway, was I don't totally understand why seems like CMBS lacks content against other titles. Maybe the simple answer is the correct, it's just WW2 is prefered by players. EDITED:: And yes, I have both demos (engine 3 I think) and taking a look Edited July 13, 2017 by C4nt3r forgot to add about demos 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted July 13, 2017 Share Posted July 13, 2017 1 hour ago, C4nt3r said: My OP question anyway, was I don't totally understand why seems like CMBS lacks content against other titles. Maybe the simple answer is the correct, it's just WW2 is prefered by players. Another possibility is that the private individuals who create content for the games feel less secure in their knowledge of modern warfare compared to the WW II era. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C4nt3r Posted July 13, 2017 Author Share Posted July 13, 2017 Well, I decided to go first with CMBN, but I think will not pass too much time until I get CMBS 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kettler Posted July 13, 2017 Share Posted July 13, 2017 (edited) C4nt3r, The major reason there's so little content for CMBS is that, in relative terms, it was released yesterday. CMBN's initial release date was May 17, 2011, whereas CMBS was released January 30, 2015. CMFI wasn't released, from what I can tell, until early June of 2012, meaning CMBN was the only CMx2 WW II game there was for an entire year, not to mention that by the time CMFI came out, CMBN already had the CW Module available, too, further expanding possibilities for our dedicated non-BFC scenario creators, map builders, uniform, sound, building and terrain modders as well. I believe Michael Emrys has also made an important point about familiarity with subject matter and the attendant comfort. The reality is that most of us here, from what I can tell, weren't/aren't all that up to speed on Modern warfare, whereas most of us are heavily steeped in WW II and most likely played the very first CM, CMx1's CMBO, which covered from D-Day to VE Day. If you're used to playing WW II games, CMBS is somewhat akin to being dropped into a sizzling skillet, for things happen so fast and with simply tremendous hit and kill rates, you can lose a big chunk of your force in a matter of minutes. In fact, when I was just screwing around with a tiny CMBS QB (there being no Demo then), I lost something like 40% of my force in 2-3 minutes--to a mixed group of Abrams and Bradley's moving at a good clip, no less--while my guys were static. The experience was so overwhelming I wondered whether I'd really screwed up and pre-ordered a game I simply couldn't play. This was abig deal to me, because my economy was minuscule. The reality is this: On average, during WW II, it took an average of 17 rounds to hit a fully exposed tank at 1500 meters. This is an official US Army number. In CMBS, if it's an Abrams with a Veteran crew shooting, that number is more like one (1) round. But that's not the half of it. I've had a Veteran Abrams with no Spot roll out of woods directly in front of two (2) T-90s also with Veteran crews at a range of ~750 meters. Per the Combat Regulations, they were buttoned, as was my tank. I killed the first tank with one round in four (4) seconds. Thought that was insane, but current and former Abrams crewmen said the numbers was entirely credible! A few seconds later, ERA stopped the first hit on the other T-90, but it died almost immediately thereafter from the follow-up shot. Neither Russian tank got off a shot, either Further, killing US shots were delivered before visual and IR blocking smoke could be deployed effectively. Unless you've got overwhelming firepower, WW II tactics will get your force massacred in seconds. You have to learn a whole mew approach to warfare in order to fight effectively in CMBS. I shudder to think what it's like playing this in Real Time Mode. Regards, John Kettler Edited July 13, 2017 by John Kettler 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C4nt3r Posted July 13, 2017 Author Share Posted July 13, 2017 Thanks for your comment. I know I will buy it, and I think it will be soon. 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.