Need advice on CM purchase

[PLM]

hi, i am a newbie. well, not even. i downloaded both Combat Mission 1 and 2 demos (i couldn't find a forum that was fer both games and on topic) and i lieked them very much. i heard of CM a lot but i never played them before. anyway i liek it n i know i at least wanna purchase CMBB but i'm not sure if i want to get the bundle pack with CMBO too. I like CMBB more cuz of the fire arcs and better graphics so i guess i'm wondering if CMBO is worth paying the extra 20 bucks for or should i just get CMBB ?? ? what does CMBO have that CMBB doesn't besides the different allies?

oh, btw. happy easter

/wuv

[ April 20, 2003, 12:34 PM: Message edited by: PLM ]

[Nolloff]

I believe it´s rather a question of how much spare time you have on your hands, especially with Afrika Korps available in Q4. CMBO is easier to learn, a little easier to master and exploit but I doubt you´ll have enough time to give sufficient attention to all these games this year unless you keep one to fill the gap to the next game. Nevertheless CMBO is a great game and a recommended purchase.

[Mud]

Some differences that come to mind:

CMBB gameplay has some significant differences that you may or may not like. For instance, machineguns and suppressive fire effects are a LOT more significant than they were in CMBO. Moving quickly lowers the amount of cover you receive more than before. MG fire rates even vary based on threat, if memory serves. SMGs burn their ammo much more quickly. All these changes mean that charging against an established defense fares far worse -- but if you LIKE the odd reckless overly aggressive game, you may want CMBO because you can't turn these changes off.

The artillery model also changed; delays vary considerably (high-level Soviet artillery assets, in particular, can have remarkably long delay times), but prepared strikes are allowed. VT artillery is much more scarce -- none for the Soviets IIRC, not sure for the Germans since I play 'em far less in QBs -- compared to the American artillery allotment (155mm VT on enemies caught in the open is nastier than a moose bite).

Western armored vehicles tend to be thinner -- the closest you get to the KVs might be the thick-skinned Churchill variants. At the shorter ranges in CMBO and with the older penetration model, AFVs tend to be much more lethal to each other. There's less of the "damn, what the heck do I do with PzIII vs KV-1 or T-34/76 versus PzVI at 1km away" situations.

Infantry anti-tank weapons available to the Western allies are much nicer than the Soviet ones -- PIATS, 'zooks, and rifle grenades versus Molotovs, grenade bundles (?), PTRS/PTRD AT rifles (decent against barely-armored self-propelled guns, halftracks and similar, lousy against the terrifying PzIII...) and RPG-43 (not the modern rocket-type weapon, but a hand-thrown anti-tank grenade)... and the lighter Soviet AT guns ain't nothing to write home about, either. The Soviets need to depend far more on their other AT assets, in particular their own AFVs. If you want to play a "desperate infantry defend against Panzers" sort of game, either American or British paras would probably be a good pick.

[Redwolf]

I think 20 bucks extra is well worth it.

CMBO has that huge MG issue and misses a few things that went into CMBB. On the other hand, I think that the CMBO features are much better implemented and while some of the new CMBB features work well, others work less well.

Having CMBO is also worth it just for exploring the equipment database to get a feelign what the western allied played with.

[PLM]

thanks fer the advice guys. whats with the MGs in CMBO? is it that they don't fire enough or something? i noticed in heated combat they were being really lazy in CMBO demo. :-\

i was impressed by the killing power of CMBB. on the Yelnia stare scen. in the demo i played hotseat as both sides and brought the Russian Battalion to a swamp ( i was bored..), then fired on them. i think one 10 man squad had liek 110 'kills'.

sounds liek i gotta spend almost half my birthday money on the bundle pack. anyone else have any thoughts? aahhhh crap...my sister wants to go for a walk. :mad:

[ April 20, 2003, 04:45 PM: Message edited by: PLM ]

[kmead]

I would strongly recomend the bundle. Both games have their strong suits, and depending on what you are up for either game can satisfy.

As you are apparently quite young (no offence meant), and these games are relatively expensive, if you are the type to get bored with a game in a few weeks you will likely never see the full value or learn the nuances of either one.

In any case, we would all like to have you as a member here and hope that whichever you choose you really enjoy the game.

[Mud]

Hmmm. I think you might be seeing differences for multiple reasons.

One is that for CMBB, the after-action report includes accurate per-unit casualties inflicted regardless of in-game fog-of-war settings. In CMBO, that information is still hidden even when the game's over. Therefore you might be seeing underreporting if you're comparing end-of-game results.

Second, machineguns in CMBB can suppress units in an area rather than just the specific squad / team / et al that they're targeting. I've read that it's basically a circle of suppression (rather than, say, a cone).

Third, the effects of pinning were increased in CMBB -- so squads are a lot more likely to be stalled by MG fire.

Fourth, the attacker generally needs to be moving, and while he's moving he's less protected by cover. This is much more so in CMBB than in CMBO, so advancing against MGs means you're simultaneously more vulnerable than before plus you're more likely to pin and stall when the MG does fire near you.

[PLM]

yes, i just turned 17 a week ago

well i find the tactical stuff interesting. the game looks pretty and there's really no better WWII war game than CM that i've ever found. I sorta like action games like Hidden & Dangerous 2 thats supposed to be coming out and Adventure stuff leik Indiana Jones and the Emperor's Tomb but i'm finding my computer (400mhz) is coming of age and the requirements for both those games i want are almost double what i have. So I'm looking for a game with specs in my range that will click on me and i'll be interested in it for a long enough period of time. I found TAlonsoft's CAmpaign games pretty fun (WWII turn-based games sorta liek a board game) and played them off and on for a long period of time. I'm hoping CM will be the same. only i wish CMBO was as pretty looking as CMBB...not that it's not pretty

[ April 20, 2003, 11:19 PM: Message edited by: PLM ]

[Firefly]

The graphics in CMBB are a lot better than those in CMBO, but their are a lot of mods around that improve the graphics of CMBO. You can't use the mods in the demo, but you can take a look at the screenshots at Combat Mission HQ for instance.

The are quite a few people here who played the old Talonsoft games, so you should feel at home here.

[Redwolf]

Originally posted by Mud:

Second, machineguns in CMBB can suppress units in an area rather than just the specific squad / team / et al that they're targeting. I've read that it's basically a circle of suppression (rather than, say, a cone).

Unfortunately it also appears to be an unconditional circle. In an area around the MG impact point movement is prohibited - even when the MG fires into open ground and the moving unit is in a trench, same effect as if the units was in the same terrain as the impact point.

Not sure this is clear, need an illustration?

[jdmorse]

CMBO can be gussied up very nicely with the large number of mods available. The 'somewhat' cheezy buildings for instance. Compare "panzertruppens' buildings or Gordon's armor mods. Works of art.

Think of CMBO as an imersive and involved 'demo' It is not as complicated as CMBB in regards to the use and employment of units and is a good training ground to build in. Also it does provide a 'fix' for the Western Theatre crowd.