Red Devils Posted August 6, 2000 Share Posted August 6, 2000 IMO, both are good games, but CM is better. I can't argue which is more enjoyable. I hear that the next CC will cover the Utah Beach and beyond campaign. I am curious if anyone who played CC in the past will now pass on CC5 because of CM? Your opinions? I think that the two compliment eachother well, but I don't know how much I will enjoy another CC after CM. ------------------ I'm sorry, we haven't the facilities to take all of you prisoner. Was there anything else? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flipper Posted August 6, 2000 Share Posted August 6, 2000 more than likely for the reason you might not expect either they steadfastly refuse to make the map's bigger even the third party map's are not that big alot of tank duel's took place at ranges exceeding 1000 meter's so when games of cc start they inevibetly turn into a quick draw shooting match's..oh an the artillery is awesome in cmbo it's just a more releastic simulation of combat don't get me wrong thou cc is a wild agame especially with all the third party stuff floating around this is where BTS is going to play cacth-up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Commissar Posted August 7, 2000 Share Posted August 7, 2000 Well, I must be honest: when I played the Alpha demo of CM (this is the old demo, with all the graphic glitches, not the one up now) I was also playing CC3:RF Upon d/ling the Alpha CM demo and playing it, I was turned off by the awkward camera movement, the many graphical glitches, and how slow the game ran on my PC (this was a Pent 2 333, now I have a AMD 650 which runs the game great). All in all, I didn't enjoy CM much based on the Alpha demo. I longed for a CC in full 3d, but it seemed this would not happen since CC's devs stuck strictly to the 2d engine. When the new demo of CM came out however, i decided to give it one more shot. By then, I had played CC as both Russians and Germans. In the end it degenerated down to a tank vs. tank match, with infatry not even able to leave a scratch on the heavy monsters most of the time and thus playing a small role in the fighting. This time, with all the improvements I saw in this demo, I really got into it. I liked it a lot, and right now saving up for the full game when it's finally back in stock CM is definately more balanced, and unlike in CC infantry actually manage to take out those evil evil tanks when they get cocky and come too close ------------------ ...Every position, every meter of Soviet soil must be defended to the last drop of blood..." - Segment from Order 227 "Not a step back" [This message has been edited by The Commissar (edited 08-06-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Pillar Posted August 7, 2000 Share Posted August 7, 2000 I threw both CD's at each other and it appears both have too much armour and too little firepower. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Aitken Posted August 7, 2000 Share Posted August 7, 2000 Combat Mission is three-dimensional. Reality is three-dimensional. Game over. David Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lipperd98 Posted August 7, 2000 Share Posted August 7, 2000 Yeh guy`s I have all the closecombats.When I bought CC4 I was highly dissappointed in it,It really turn me off on the CC sieres.I think BTS knows there is alot of dissappointed people on the CC sieres(CC4)BTS will just keep getting better and better and they`ll try to listen too what us hardcore war gamers want!!Way to go!!! BTS!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pascal DI FOLCO Posted August 7, 2000 Share Posted August 7, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Red Devils: IMO, both are good games, but CM is better. I can't argue which is more enjoyable. I hear that the next CC will cover the Utah Beach and beyond campaign. I am curious if anyone who played CC in the past will now pass on CC5 because of CM? Your opinions? I think that the two compliment eachother well, but I don't know how much I will enjoy another CC after CM. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> CM is definitely muche better . I didn't really enjoy CC1, had a great time on CC2 (Market Garden), bought CC3 and was disappointed : not much new features, a Campaign system much less interesting than in CC2, and above all a pitiful AI (I've seen defenders leaving their trenches just to dance in the middle of tank shellings...). So I passed CC4. In addition I do not like real-time, it kills any attempt at THINKING a game if there are more than a handful of units. For CC it meant that it was only playable with very low troop density relative to the maps size : the "Stalingrad Factory " scenarios are laughable, with 2 football teams battling for the building ! So CM is the king ! ------------------ PDF Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdl Posted August 8, 2000 Share Posted August 8, 2000 I found the CC series frustrating. I had to have them as soon as they came out. I have II and III.I don't think I'll play them anymore. But I probably will play SPWAW again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Herr Oberst Posted August 8, 2000 Share Posted August 8, 2000 Hell, I passed on CC4 and played the CM demo while waiting for the CM release, and I own tons of stuff from Atomic et al (from Utah Beach on up through CC3). No contest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDF Posted August 8, 2000 Share Posted August 8, 2000 LipperD98, I am curious why didn't you like CC4? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Airborne Posted August 8, 2000 Share Posted August 8, 2000 I don't think these games should even be compared to each other. Obviously, they span the same time period and are tactical but that's about it. I have CC1 and 2. I really tried to like them, but wasn't happy with the interface. I haven't played them in a long while, and now, I definately won't. CM blows them away......I love armour, but this game really lets you play infantry --as infantry were used. Just my thoughts---------Chris ------------------ Land Soft--Kill Quiet Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ubermac Posted August 8, 2000 Share Posted August 8, 2000 K first this...i think the CC series were very good, i spend months climbing the ladder and had a great time doing so. But now CC's master has arrived, CC cannot come close (close..heh) to CM's realism and i think any wargamer who isnt after realism should stick to Command & Conquer. As for CC4, the engine is the best of the CC series, so it had the potential to be the best CC in the row, but it wasn't..why? Because you didn't have the oportunity to buy units...this might seem a minor glitch to some of you out there, but in fact it takes out a lot of the tactics that made say CC2 such a joy to play! Then CC5....why oh why should i go for CC5? I haven't seen or heard much about it, but let's face it..it's going to be the CC4 engine with a few tweaks in units...at least that's what i'm expecting. I'll keep my money in my piggy-bank and save it for CM2 instead ------------------ And remember kids....dressing up like Hitler in school, is NOT cool! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deadmarsh Posted August 8, 2000 Share Posted August 8, 2000 Both are good games when played H2H, however, CM is a much better game versus the AI than CC...overall, CM is a better tactical wargame by far than the CC Series... Where CM really shines is in H2H play versus CC...truthfully, these games need human competition to really make them come to life. AI is just too limited to challenge a real 'hardcore' for any length of time. My recommendation -- find a good wargamer and have at it; you won't be disappointed... Dead Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KScott Posted August 8, 2000 Share Posted August 8, 2000 I AM a huge cc fan and i am still waiting for the commming of cc5, but i must say that combat mission blows the cc series out of the water..or foxhole! I Just got my game a week ago and all i can say is....WOW! kirk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HankWWIIOnline Posted August 8, 2000 Share Posted August 8, 2000 I've bought every CC game. I was a CC whore. Couldn't get enough of 'em. I liked CC4 for the strategic element, but in all the CC's the AI sucks! It is horrible, especially on offense. CC2 is by far the best though, with CC4 right behind it. Unfortunately for the CC series, CM has come...which is where I hoped the CC series was headed. Alas, CC5 will be the same thing. I have to give credit to CC for all the years I've played it, and all the enjoyment. But... There's a new King in town. Sorry Close Combat...I'll always remember you. ------------------ College Football approaches... www.getfanatical.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eggman5151 Posted August 8, 2000 Share Posted August 8, 2000 i played some CC4 recently while waiting for my CMBO to arrive. I had previously played CC2 and 3. CMBO is definitley a mroe accurate simulation of battle with far superior AI than CC. Where I think CMBO needs to improve to be able to move more gamers from CC to CMBO: - graphics, CC is much nicer looking - UI, CC is much more polished, CMBO is pretty rough around the edges, and also breaks some conventions with other similar games (ESC key action, no CTRL-# grouping, etc) - campaigns, while CC is pretty lame with it's campaigns they are somewhat interesting to play and CMBO could be really interesting with a campaign engine - real time... this is debatable as the detail of CMBO would be hard to be effective with in real time, however real time is a lot of fun just my $0.02 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Von Brizee Posted August 8, 2000 Share Posted August 8, 2000 CM is much better against the AI. I find it lots of fun to play CC head to head just because we can get down to playing. PBEM is okay but I kind of want to sit down and "play" if you know what I mean Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cward Posted August 8, 2000 Share Posted August 8, 2000 Personally I cant see how you can compare these two other the fact that they are a PC game and are based around WWII I love CM, Think its great, am enjoying it.. Wish it had a long campaign generator, but that is a niggling little thing.. I loved CC , (not so much the last one, didnt like the tactical map garbage) had lots of fun, enjoyed playing them, and were all worth the money. I realize that they are not an accurate representation of actual combat as the maps were just too damned small.. I loved Steel Panthers, and had to send out for a new one after wearing the CD out from removing it from the drive between games. I loved the Novastar and user made scenarios.. great fun.. I loved Secret Weapons of the Luftwaffe.. Coming up in a Gothe Flying wing at top speed and tearing up a B-17 formation in one swoop! WOW THREE IN ONE PASS! I love FireFight! Great little pocket game.. No scenario editor though.. And Squad leader for the Apple II! It came with a grid map and grease pencils! Way cool man! one map though.. boring! and TAC (Tactical Armor Command) for the apple II, GREAT GAME! I loved to chase his tanks around the 3X4 hex map. he would blow the turret off but I would still circle around him.. Oh and of course COMBAT, I hated it when he took the red tank. and the one where the bullets bounce off the walls.. And what idiot thought that big stupid plane could take on those three little fighters! What do these have in common? almost nothing.. so why even try to discuss there relative merits.. they are just games.. How in the hell can you even compare them... Either you think they suck or they dont.. Most of all, I look at a game to see.. Did I get my $45 worth? Usually no, but for CC, CM, etc I did.. so they are pretty good.. Oh and for the Civ2 WWII stuff? why does it seem that winning in these depends most on how fast you can build rail lines? (especially the russians) [This message has been edited by cward (edited 08-08-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chupacabra Posted August 8, 2000 Share Posted August 8, 2000 I played all 4 CC games heavily, and now can't really see going back. If CC5 is relatively inexpensive I might pick it up, but it's not a priority buy. CC's engine was good in its time, but compared to CM, it doesn't feel right. And of course, CM blows CC away in the realism department. Before CC, I was interested in WW2, but not in wargames per se, and CC (2 especially)more than anything else proved to me that wargames (whether or not you consider CC a "real" wargame is another matter) didn't have to be clunky tabletop things with reams of statistics. CC got me into wargames, and for that, I'll always be fond of the series, but in terms of what I'll play in the future, it doesn't hold anything for me. ------------------ Soy super bien, soy super super bien, soy bien bien super bien bien bien super super. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chupacabra Posted August 8, 2000 Share Posted August 8, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> - graphics, CC is much nicer looking <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I disagree, although that's a matter of personal choice. CC has the advantage of painted maps, but CM's 3D engine blows CC's graphics all to hell, IMO. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> - real time... this is debatable as the detail of CMBO would be hard to be effective with in real time, however real time is a lot of fun <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I don't think this is even an option for CM. ------------------ Soy super bien, soy super super bien, soy bien bien super bien bien bien super super. [This message has been edited by Chupacabra (edited 08-08-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morthomme Posted August 8, 2000 Share Posted August 8, 2000 This not the same game so no reason to oppose that game. this only my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts