perrya Posted November 29, 2000 Share Posted November 29, 2000 When comparing both excellant games, both offer a lot to a wargamer. Both should be in a wargamers library. Both are realistic and fun to play. CC has better overall graphics, but CM is fresh in its approach. I would like to see a east front CM, or maybe a Crete CM. What do you think? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coralsaw Posted November 29, 2000 Share Posted November 29, 2000 Welcome to the forum Perrya! - CM2 will deal with the East Front, so you're right on the money there. ETA unknown. - Searching through the forum for previous answers to the same question helps even more. - CM, IMO and probably the forum's, is not comparable. CM is a simulator, CC just a game. You can really learn real life tactics while playing CM. Not the case with CC. CC's AI is scripted, CM's is not. - As far as the CM graphics, try some of the new mod textures from various CMers. They really add to the game a lot. You won't find the hand drawn maps of CC of course, but you will create your own. Not comparable. Being biased, I would say, CM kicks ar$e! But I won't... ------------------ I feel like I'm standing in front of the monkey cage at the zoo. - HiramS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest kking199 Posted November 29, 2000 Share Posted November 29, 2000 I just removed all evidence of CC from my HD... , I LOVED CC:ABTF still have an affinity for the Firefly because of that game. I will give one definite PLUS to CC, the tracking of each individual within the squad and game. I realize at this time that would be difficult with CM. I mean at the most with CC you could have what... around 120 men (on one side) in any battle. Compared to CM where with just one(1) American Rifle company you would have 174 men, not to mention in 3D. I get the willies thinking about in a few years that EVERY man will be represented in CM... man of man! I have no intention of playing/buying CC5 but I will always have fond memories of CC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nitsud42 Posted November 29, 2000 Share Posted November 29, 2000 I too really liked CC (well 1 & 2, 3 sort of). I have not bought CC4 yet, and probably wont until it hits the bargin bin for 9.99! Same for CC5. CM has ruined me and my life! I cant stand to be away from it for more than a few hours! I am starting to dream about these battles! I HAVE BEEN ASSIMILATED! (I do love it so!) Long Live BTS! Thanks for such a great game! ------------------ Are you gonna pull them pistols? Or whistle Dixie? --- Josey Wales Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest wwb_99 Posted November 29, 2000 Share Posted November 29, 2000 I will have to say that CC shines in infantry only engagements, even if it is nowhere near CM. The most realistic way to play CC is with inftantry half sqauds & LMG/BAR teams (with two teams and an LMG/BAR representing one infantry squad). But throw in armor and the mix is off. ------------------ Before battle, my digital soldiers turn to me and say, Ave, Caesar! Morituri te salatimus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Col Deadmarsh Posted November 29, 2000 Share Posted November 29, 2000 Why is it that every time there's a CC thread I feel I need to post? Anyway, I'd just like to say that you guys are right; CC shines during infantry battles. The individual soldier is well represented and I think that's what I liked the most about CC2. In CC3, they took that away some. For some reason, it didn't have the same feeling and I still can't put my finger on it. In CC2, I could see each soldier clearly too which helped. The maps of CC3 and beyond are darker, less cartoonish but I still like the CC2 ones the best because it provided for better gameplay. Okay, I'm stopping. I could go on forever. Just wanted to praise CC2 again this week for the many wasted hours of my life. ------------------ Youth is wasted on the young. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maximus Posted November 29, 2000 Share Posted November 29, 2000 Well as Colonel_Deadmarsh said, "Why is it that everytime a CC thread is brought up, I have to post?" Well, I can't believe that CC and CM keep getting compared like this. If you like stupid scripted AI, then play CC. If you like a capable AI that will kick your ass from time to time, play CM. I noticed a big difference in tank AI today while playing Villers Boccage-Tiger! The Brit tanks were way more aggressive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sniperscope Posted November 29, 2000 Share Posted November 29, 2000 Sorry, but I have to agree with Maximus. For me the games have nothing in common other than the fact both are about WW2. My copy of CC is a beer coaster, period. sniperscope ------------------ <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>When CM arrived, all other land based war games became crap. sniperscope<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest wwb_99 Posted November 29, 2000 Share Posted November 29, 2000 Sniperscope, You need to qualify that quote some. All tactical, land based wargames became crap. CM does not address operational or strategic scales. WWB ------------------ Before battle, my digital soldiers turn to me and say, Ave, Caesar! Morituri te salutamus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darwin Posted November 30, 2000 Share Posted November 30, 2000 I miss the CC2 style AAR showing each units kills and giving medals to uberunits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Los Posted November 30, 2000 Share Posted November 30, 2000 Hey there Crete fan, we'll be getting around to that come CM3! Los Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Limbo Posted November 30, 2000 Share Posted November 30, 2000 ------------------- Coralsaw writes: CM, IMO and probably the forum's, is not comparable. CM is a simulator, CC just a game. You can really learn real life tactics while playing CM. Not the case with CC. CC's AI is scripted, CM's is not. ---------------------- Coralsaw, this statement is simply ridiculous. Both are comparable WWII land combat simulations with each system having its strengths and weaknesses. While both CM’s operational and tactical AI are both quite superior to CC, that does not make CC a mere “game,” especially if you play against a real live human opponent (so as to negate the weak operational AI). In fact, if you want to simulate very small combats consisting of only a few infantry platoons then CC clearly blows away CM which doesn’t really model the individual soldier on the map. On this level, CM is the mere “game.” Let’s also not forget that CC2 and above also model 3d terrain—you just can’t see it very well with the 2d only view (you must rely on shadows and the LOS tool to get a good feel for the terrain). Many have said that CC is only 2d but that is simply not true. Now having said this, I do wish to admit that I much prefer CM over CC. Limbo [This message has been edited by Limbo (edited 11-29-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Madmatt Posted November 30, 2000 Share Posted November 30, 2000 Hi guys. First off, thanks for keeping this so civil, but we have seen dozens of such threads turn flamey very quickly so I am going to lock this one up. BOTH games can co-exist just fine but there are inherent design issues which separate the two games. It is not a simple apples to apples comparison, nor is that fair to either game. Of course I don't see any Combat Mission reviews that start off by telling the reader to buy Close Combat instead even though the opposite occurred recently! Madmatt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts