Trying to decide whether to buy........

[Percival]

Trying to decide between CMBS or CMFB, unfortunately I can't afford both at once, but wish I could because they both look great. One factor that may influence me is map sizes in CMBS so I was hoping someone could give me a broad idea of how big the maps are. I'm not so keen on the "knife fight in telephone box" type scenario on a small map. Is there much scope for manoeuvre on the bigger maps? Are there any maps on which heavy weapons are at maximum or out of range? Demo maps seem quite small. Any advice will be much appreciated.

[Kinophile]

There's large maps in all the CMX2 series, I believe. Its a function of the Editor, which can reasonably handle up to, I think 5km x 5 km. Not sure exactly, but large enough.

The scenarios in CMBS are, I believe, oriented to longer ranges than the WW2 series (s/o smarter then me can confirm y/n).

Personally, I find the difference is in lethality - in CMBS being seen pretty much means being killed. This makes the battles far more merciless of lazy commanders. Like me .

[Erwin]

If you are a beginner the WW2 CM titles have a much easier learning curve.  In CMBS, you could have your force destroyed b4 you understand what is happening.

[Percival]

Thanks guys, that's helpful. I'm not a beginner, have been around since CMSF 1.0, but I'm well out of practice! I found the answer on map sizes in the manual for the CMBS demo, it's a max of 8km x 8km, which isn't at all bad. I see that's double what it used to be (bravo Battlefront). I think I may have to get both because I just can't decide. I tell myself this is a small company that deserves support: and as an old friend of mine used to say "there are no pockets in a shroud".

[Sgt.Squarehead]

Sounds like you have been well & truly bitten by the CM bug, might as well just buy both of 'em now.....You'll buy 'em all eventually, one way or the other, just like the rest of us did. 

Edited September 12, 2018 by Sgt.Squarehead

[DerKommissar]

5 hours ago, Percival said:

Thanks guys, that's helpful. I'm not a beginner, have been around since CMSF 1.0, but I'm well out of practice! I found the answer on map sizes in the manual for the CMBS demo, it's a max of 8km x 8km, which isn't at all bad. I see that's double what it used to be (bravo Battlefront). I think I may have to get both because I just can't decide. I tell myself this is a small company that deserves support: and as an old friend of mine used to say "there are no pockets in a shroud".

Welcome back!

In my, entirely subjective opinion, BS maps *feel* smaller. Advances in optics and weaponry resulted in much longer engagement ranges. 1km in BN is medium range, 1km in BS is battlesight range. BS also tends to bring more units into the fold. So it feels like 10 guys fighting with pikes in an elevator. Modern warfare is lightning fast. Engagements last a fraction of a time that WW2 ones did.

Getting both is a great idea. It's like two different types of games. Whenever I get too comfortable in WW2, I go into Modern titles and vice versa. Compare them and see which era you like the most. I own every CM2 -- I still can't decide which is better.

[Percival]

...and now I do have both of them and certainly not regretting it so far. Also there's CMSF2 just over the horizon.....fortunately I've got all the CMSF1 modules so not painful financially. Now all I need is the time to play it all.

[Artkin]

8 by 8 km!? Where can I find this heaven on earth? 

Edited September 12, 2018 by Artkin

[sburke]

19 hours ago, Percival said:

Thanks guys, that's helpful. I'm not a beginner, have been around since CMSF 1.0, but I'm well out of practice! I found the answer on map sizes in the manual for the CMBS demo, it's a max of 8km x 8km, which isn't at all bad. I see that's double what it used to be (bravo Battlefront). I think I may have to get both because I just can't decide. I tell myself this is a small company that deserves support: and as an old friend of mine used to say "there are no pockets in a shroud".

That isn't accurate.  The map length on any side can not exceed 8 km, but BOTH sides can't be 8 km.  The largest square map is about 4.5 x 4.5 I think.  If one side is 8m I think the other is limited to 1 km.

[A Canadian Cat]

I keep wondering about this so I fired up the game. If you want 8km on one side you can make it 2.3km wide. And you cannot get to 4.5km squared you can get 4km by 4.5km. I made this table setting one side to 8km (maxes out) and then getting the max width. Then I reduced the depth by 500m ish at a time and maxed out the width again. If you continue you get the opposite numbers until you get to a width of 8000m and a depth of 2320.

So the longest you can get is 8km with a width of 2.3km and the max area you can get is 18.6km^2 at 2.6km by 7km. That's 1860 hectares BTW.

OK, OK what the heck is a hectare - in acres that would be 4596 acres.

[Kinophile]

That single post should be stickied in the Mods forum..

[MOS:96B2P]

26 minutes ago, IanL said:

I made this table

+1.  Nice.  Thank you for making this. 

Edit to add:  One hectare = almost 2.5 acres.  (2.47 I think)  

Edited September 13, 2018 by MOS:96B2P

[Erwin]

Yes, thank you.  Useful.

[Sgt.Squarehead]

On ‎9‎/‎13‎/‎2018 at 12:19 AM, Percival said:

...and now I do have both of them and certainly not regretting it so far.

See.....It happens to us all.