What combat mission game is the best for someone who has never played a combat mission before.

[Grandskintman]

I've always really enjoyed strategy games whether its modern or world war 2. I'd like the extra challenge of a combat mission game but I don't know which one to go for. Which one will be the best for a beginner to learn and enjoy.

[Ridaz]

On 6/27/2022 at 2:16 AM, Grandskintman said:

I've always really enjoyed strategy games whether its modern or world war 2. I'd like the extra challenge of a combat mission game but I don't know which one to go for. Which one will be the best for a beginner to learn and enjoy.

Some would say Combat Mission Battle for Normandy because it has the best value in terms of content/price ratio. WW2 is also easier to understand with shorter range guns than other modern titles meaning most of the time you will be able to identify where the shots are coming from and don't have to face devastating ATGM shots from 4 KM away.

My first combat mission and computer wargame I ever played was Combat Mission Black Sea and it led me to eventually found my own blog The Avid Wargamer and to promote computer wargaming to larger audience. 

My suggestion is to download the few demos across the games and try it out yourselves to see which ones appeal to you the most. Maybe start with Battle for Normandy for WW2 and Black Sea for modern settings.

[chuckdyke]

On 6/27/2022 at 2:16 AM, Grandskintman said:

Which one will be the best for a beginner to learn and enjoy.

It depends on personal preference. I like Final Blitzkrieg and Red Thunder for the simple reason I can use AFV's as transport. They operate from Game Engine 4 so it doesn't make all that much difference. To enjoy don't shy away from the higher difficulty settings. I don't find playing Iron difficult at all. The choice is yours. Playing the AI is a challenge if you never played before. It is your TacAI versus the AI so don't go too much into macro managing. Do what you do in real life, and you won't go much wrong. In real life you don't use a moving tool such as a LOS or LOF tool. 

[WimO]

Each game has its own merit but certainly at this point in time, CMBN appears to have by far the most content both in terms of modules (Commonwealth Forces, Market Garden, The Great Swan, additional Vehicles) and player's mods and scenarios numbering in the thousands of new graphics and hundreds of scenarios.

When it comes to challenge, yes WWII would be easier than moderns and scenario design contributes a lot in terms of challenge and here mileage may vary.

[Artkin]

Personal preference. But I would say CMFI, CMFB are the weakest titles. 

If I was you I would buy the titles with the most scenarios/maps made for it. 

[Monty's Mighty Moustache]

@Artkinwhat is it about CMFI that you don't like? I see this a lot, it seems to be unpopular but I can't for the life of me figure out why. With the expansions it covers the most time (1943 to end of war), has the most nations (I think) and has all kinds of terrain to fight over and weather to fight in. It's one of my favourites.

MMM

[Ridaz]

24 minutes ago, Monty's Mighty Moustache said:

@Artkinwhat is it about CMFI that you don't like? I see this a lot, it seems to be unpopular but I can't for the life of me figure out why. With the expansions it covers the most time (1943 to end of war), has the most nations (I think) and has all kinds of terrain to fight over and weather to fight in. It's one of my favourites.

MMM

I would like to know this as well. CMFI have been on my wish list for a very long time and almost bought it last month. 
 

thai is the first I heard of someone not liking it. 

[Artkin]

CMFI is good if you like small scale infantry actions. The terrain is very diverse and the maps are some of the best; If you like this sort of content.

Personally I view every CM title as an expansion for the rest of my games. I port the maps between games. So I play CMCW maps in CMBS for instance.

I like the maps but they are just not big enough.

The game also doesn't run as fast as the others, but give it a break, it was the 3rd CMx2 title.

The expansion nations seem bare. But they probably didn't issue a ton of equipment.

In my opinion not much was new. It was a lot of small unit action scenarios that made the game and it's expansions worth it. Also the Monte Cassino maps.

As you said @Monty's Mighty Moustache, it is a very flexible title and I have used it to play North Africa more times than I have Italy. :)

Edited June 28, 2022 by Artkin

[Grey_Fox]

On 6/26/2022 at 7:16 PM, Grandskintman said:

I've always really enjoyed strategy games whether its modern or world war 2. I'd like the extra challenge of a combat mission game but I don't know which one to go for. Which one will be the best for a beginner to learn and enjoy.

The usual rule of thumb is the time period or theatre that interests you most.

[Vacillator]

37 minutes ago, Grey_Fox said:

The usual rule of thumb is the time period or theatre that interests you most.

Agreed, I went for Red Thunder first as that is my usual thing (although I'd like the timeframe extended to early East Front as well).  Then CMBN (possibily the best to start with for sheer content as said above).  Then FI, then FB. 

I play them all, but at the moment mostly BN as I have some lovely PBEM opponents, followed by RT.

[WimO]

In terms of scenario content I have the following in my collection:

CMBN: 321 scenarios and 30 campaigns.

CMRT: 239 scenarios and 24 campaigns.

CMFI: 146 scenarios and 19 campaigns.

CMFB: 95 scenarios and 11 campaigns.

All of the foregoing can have more free-standing scenarios if you unpack their respective campaigns.

There are a dozen or so more scenarios for CMBN than I have listed, but I have deleted from my collection those that were not to my liking. I cannot comment on the playability of most except those in CMBN, as I have not played most except CMBN.

Why I like or dislike each?

I like CMBN for the closeness, i.e. bocage of the French countryside that adds to suspense and mystery. The terrain for my own birth-country, the Netherlands, is flatter, but most of the Market Garden scenarios are relatively terrain full.

I like CMRT for the variety of terrain types which include the ability for large armour engagements in the wide open.

I like CMFB for the great maps except that the terrain is rather congested.

I have not played CMFI much at all and that is only because I got obsessively caught up in creating stuff for CMBN, not because of any identified dislike.

 

[Vacillator]

24 minutes ago, WimO said:

Why I like or dislike each?

Well said Wim.  And I'd add that the additional scenarios and campaigns by people like your good self (and content by people like @George MC of course ) make a big difference.  And I don't mean to belittle the original content or the additional stuff for other titles.

For me, starting again I would go BN then RT if I was enjoying myself (which I would be).

[Vinnart]

My advice is Italy - CMFI. It has good variety of terrain, and is easier than hedgerow fighting for a noob as in CMBN. It runs the smoothest graphically IMO too.

I think the Soviets of CMRT are a bit harder for new player to get the hang of compared to western forces.

Haven't played much CMFB since testing it way back, but terrain and units may be a bit less forgiving than CMFI.

Would recommend any WW2 for noob over any modern warfare title like CMCW or more recent time frame. Modern is deadlier, and less forgiving than WW2 combat.

Great thing about Battlefront is there is a FREE demo of each game one can try before they buy. I highly recommend any new player try a demo so they understand they are not buying Men of War or any other more "gamey" type game. CM is the real deal that takes some time to understand the depth of it, and how to master it.

Edited June 28, 2022 by Vinnart

[Vacillator]

1 hour ago, Vinnart said:

CMFI. It has good variety of terrain, and is easier than hedgerow fighting for a noob as in CMBN. It runs the smoothest graphically IMO too.

That's a fair point, hedgerow fighting can be hell (did someone already say that ?).  I'm playing a hedgerow H2H just now so enough said.

Graphically CMFI does however (in my experience) have the worst 'jaggy' shadows issue though, perhaps the lovely sunny climate combined with low sun at certain times of day?

Edited June 28, 2022 by Vacillator

[Vinnart]

Also, if you are new I HIGHLY recommend you watch Usually Hapless's Combat Mission Basics series on youtube. Hap does a great job explaining things in an easy to follow manner. Start here -

 

[Ultradave]

7 hours ago, Grey_Fox said:

The usual rule of thumb is the time period or theatre that interests you most.

This is the best advice!  The theater/time period that interests you the most is the one you'll have the most fun with.

You'll get hooked and buy them all eventually anyway though! 

Dave

[Ithikial_AU]

CMFI Base Game is probably the easiest for a newbie given:

- Less prevalence of automatic weapons.

- More open terrain/longer range engagements. (Put a newbie through Normandy Hedgerow country and they may run away! )

- Less handheld AT weaponry to worry about.

 

Encourage them to inch their way forward in the timeline as the weapons and force composition changes into late war. Learning curve the same has the historical soldiers had to deal with. Unless they are a modern era buff... yeah IMO modern era titles are a horrible introduction for a complete newbie unfamiliar with the CM basics. Faster paced action, crazy spotting abilities relative to WW2, lopsided force compositions (more CMSF2) etc may leave a bad taste for some wargamers.

[landser]

Normandy.

[Monty's Mighty Moustache]

23 hours ago, Artkin said:

CMFI is good if you like small scale infantry actions. The terrain is very diverse and the maps are some of the best; If you like this sort of content.

Personally I view every CM title as an expansion for the rest of my games. I port the maps between games. So I play CMCW maps in CMBS for instance.

I like the maps but they are just not big enough.

The game also doesn't run as fast as the others, but give it a break, it was the 3rd CMx2 title.

The expansion nations seem bare. But they probably didn't issue a ton of equipment.

In my opinion not much was new. It was a lot of small unit action scenarios that made the game and it's expansions worth it. Also the Monte Cassino maps.

As you said @Monty's Mighty Moustache, it is a very flexible title and I have used it to play North Africa more times than I have Italy.

Fair points, and I am certainly not trying to change anyone's mind, people like different things  Curiosity satiated.

It does strike me thought that one could level a lot of those arguments at Normandy too: small QB maps (for the most part), better suited to infantry-centric battles due to bocage etc yet it's the biggest seller and certainly gets a lot of love.

MMM

[Artkin]

Just now, Monty's Mighty Moustache said:

Fair points, and I am certainly not trying to change anyone's mind, people like different things  Curiosity satiated.

It does strike me thought that one could level a lot of those arguments at Normandy too: small QB maps (for the most part), better suited to infantry-centric battles due to bocage etc yet it's the biggest seller and certainly gets a lot of love.

MMM

But CMBN has a ton of larger scenarios too. 

I agree CMBN is the best buy in terms of content. It has an insane amount of scenarios and maps of various sizes. The game even comes with quite a few master maps. I think FI had 2 masters and only a few larger maps. 

 

I always like having lots of room (Not useless farmland) to operate. I like being able to manuever and surround my defenders as the attacker. Walking forward into defenses is lame.

[danfrodo]

Great points by all.  Yeah, Hapless videos are a must!  I've been playing from 6 or 7 years now and still learn things from those.  Playing the era you are most interested in is also great advice.  

CMBN has incredible content, lots of different type of fights.  From infantry-centric airborne to big tank battles.  Those panther tanks firing from Bourgebous ridge at my poor shermans -- what a fight! 

I never thought of it before but the points made for CMFI are also very good.  Less complicated fighting in some ways, graphics are nice (the hedgerows in BN can be a little slow to refresh, not a game stopper or anything terrible), good variety of units & situations.  

CMFB is a blast but a new person might find the mud rather frustrating -- we all do .  But mud was a huge factor in the bulge terrain, so it's gotta be there.  There's lots of fights where the ground is nicely frozen but in real life and in FB there's lots of mud.  When your tank gets stuck it's always a good reason for an expletive.  

I looooove CMRT but I wouldn't start there unless that's your favorite front.

The modern titles are great, though CMSF2 is, I think, easier than CMBS, and has a lot of great variety & content.

But you will probably notice that WW2 folks own all the WW2 titles, which you will probably do once you get hooked.  I was WW2 only for years then got CMSF2 & CMBS.  And now the big problem is that I don't have enough time to play all the content I have.  There's dozens & dozens of scenarios I still haven't touched and a bunch of campaigns also.  You really get your money's worth w these games, you'll spend many many many happy hours and still not get through all the battles provided.  So just get one and get going!  Life is short!

[Vinnart]

Personally, I prefer smaller more thoughtful unit scenarios of a company size or less rather than the larger ones. The platoon size ones are fun to take advantage of the small size sometimes to do a straight up real time game with no pausing which plays much differently than WEGO, but still play most of. Unlike other RTS games CM can still be a challenge to stay on top of playing that way with just that size, but it's fun to change it up now and then. The great thing is the series just has so much content of variety anyone should be able to find something that is to their different taste.

For learning the game I still think CMFI is the most forgiving as an introduction to CM, but as the others say once your hooked you will want to have all the games. Even though they all share the same engine they all have a certain feel to each of them. Also, once your hooked I warn you will likely end up a lifer like so many here. Been playing pretty much nothing but CM going on almost 20yrs now. I try other game but.....

 

[Simcoe]

Plenty of great answers here. Go with what time and place that you're into but Battle for Normandy is objectively the best module to start with. 

Hedgerow fighting takes away the complexities of reading terrain. It also has the best training campaign and road to Montebourg is a great intro to the series. You can watch Usually Hapless do every mission.

[Bubba883XL]

On 6/26/2022 at 7:16 PM, Grandskintman said:

I've always really enjoyed strategy games whether its modern or world war 2. I'd like the extra challenge of a combat mission game but I don't know which one to go for. Which one will be the best for a beginner to learn and enjoy.

what war theatre or time period do you enjoy the most? is pretty much the only question to answer really...always find these sort of questions silly....but hey ho...

[Erwin]

While others have mentioned the WW2 games, a beginner may consider CMSF.  The challenge for new players with the WW2 games is that mistakes are costly and one can lose (and possibly get depressed) and have to restart the game very easily after committing only one or two errors. 

When playing CMSF Blue vs Red (Syrians) one nearly always has massive fire superiority and the main challenge is to win with minimal or no casualties.  It may still be hard to win given those victory parameters, but at least the Blue players generally takes few casualties and always has a lot of units left to overcome errors and still learn tactics... and have a good time.