New(!) CMAK review at The Wargamer

[Elmar Bijlsma]

Better late then never I guess but boy oh boy, that's pretty late.

It's really positive which is quite the achievement this long after release. But the review itself is poor, giving a very good feature list but little play impression which shouldn't have been too hard given the time it took.

Read it here: http://www.wargamer.com/

[ June 06, 2005, 05:46 AM: Message edited by: Elmar Bijlsma ]

[Dave H]

I'm a little disappointed to see the reviewer telling everyone they can play Indian troops. "Until the release of CMAK there have been precious few opportunities to wargame battles between the Commonwealth forces of Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and India against the Italians and Germans." My CD must have a glitch, because I have yet to find them. I'd better check again.

I was also disappointed to see the reviewer's comments about the lack of a campaign game. "The only thing that I find lacking in the Combat Mission series is the ability to form a core force that can be started as a green formation and built up over a series of operations in a way that allows the attributes of units to increase with survival and success in previous battles." BFC made it clear back with the original CM that their interest wasn't in a campaign game like Panzer General. I'd think by now the reviewer would stick to discussing the game they did make, not the imaginary game he may have wanted to play.

[The_Enigma]

After playing Combat Mission games for several years and talking to others who have played them, people are divided into two groups: those who don’t like the cartoon style figures and those who really like the graphics. I fall into the latter group

isnt there at least a third group, the peeps who play it for whatever reason reguardless what the graphics are like?

[Kingfish]

At the height of the WWII North African Campaign, Rommel the ‘Desert Fox’ and Field Marshal Viscount Montgomery confronted each other like two prize fighters at the besieged port city of Tobruk.

You have got to be kidding me.

[Elmar Bijlsma]

Heh, completely missed the inclusion of India according to the reviewer, though his list of theathers did catch my eye. "...in the Balkans, Mediterranean, North African and Italian theatres."

But his commments on a campaign mode are fair enough. It's THE feature most missed in the CM series and it is fair to comment on. Not that CMAK isn't uber-complete and all but that would've been the cherry on top.

[MikeyD]

"I'd think by now the reviewer would stick to discussing the game they did make, not the imaginary game he may have wanted to play."

Heh heh. Same goes for this forum!

Anyone who plays CM regularly would realise a core of 'green' forces probably wouldn't survive much more than three battles intact! Instead of building battle skills the poor little guys are more likely to come away with a bad case of PTSD! CM battles are - for the most part - nasty affairs.

[Elmar Bijlsma]

Have to disagree MikeyD. Ever tried RobO's campaigns? I have only played a couple of battles with it sofar but in my attempts to keep my loveable fellows alive I am way more careful. As a result combat is frequently less decisive and bloody as the average CM battle. Which are ridiculously bloody exactly because of the lack of a context for that battle. So... campaigns can be more fun AND more realistic (tactically atleast).

http://www.roqc.cdgroup.org/

[Dave H]

Originally posted by Kingfish:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />At the height of the WWII North African Campaign, Rommel the ‘Desert Fox’ and Field Marshal Viscount Montgomery confronted each other like two prize fighters at the besieged port city of Tobruk.

You have got to be kidding me.</font>

[Kingfish]

Dave,

Look at the quote again. Besieged port city of Tobruk. Since when did Monty and Rommel ever face off at Tobruk?

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Kingfish:

Dave,

Look at the quote again. Besieged port city of Tobruk. Since when did Monty and Rommel ever face off at Tobruk?

He also wasn't a Field Marshall or a Viscount at the time, but that's a little more excusable...

[simovitch]

Originally posted by Kingfish:

Dave,

Look at the quote again. Besieged port city of Tobruk. Since when did Monty and Rommel ever face off at Tobruk?

If I know my history from "25 years of wargaming" It was just before Rommel locked horns with Auchinleck at El Alamein .

[ June 06, 2005, 07:34 PM: Message edited by: simovitch ]

[Speedy]

Yeah I got a laugh out of that too, wasn't it about a year after the Tobruk siege that Montgomery took command.

[simovitch]

Originally posted by Speedy:

Yeah I got a laugh out of that too, wasn't it about a year after the Tobruk siege that Montgomery took command.

IIRC about 8 months after the siege was lifted at the end of Operation Crusader in early December 1941.

[Dave H]

Originally posted by Kingfish:

Dave,

Look at the quote again. Besieged port city of Tobruk. Since when did Monty and Rommel ever face off at Tobruk?

Shortly after Moses built his ark? GRARRGHRAARGH!!! Trick question! My sad lack of grogdom shines through once again. You mean the entire North African campaign wasn't Rommel versus Monty, mano a mano? I must banish myself to serve my penance someplace where I might actually know something, like maybe the Census Bureau web site. :eek: :eek:

[Wallybob]

No, we all know it was Patton versus Rommel. I saw the movie. Hollywood must be right, they tell us they are.