Probert Posted April 1, 2004 Share Posted April 1, 2004 I have played a little CMBO I have played alot of CMBB battles and operations. What is different in the gameplay of CMAk, other than forces and locations? Is there anyhting I should be looking out for as far as the AI or anything else/ 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lars Posted April 1, 2004 Share Posted April 1, 2004 The only major thing I've noticed so far is dust clouds blocking LOS. Very cool. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redwolf Posted April 1, 2004 Share Posted April 1, 2004 Dust clouds in certain terrain/whether indicate where enemy armor is and also limit visibility after HE and sometimes smallarms fire. All the super-slow turn rate have been improved in CMAK. Bog rates seem to have improved (not entirely sure). There is no command delay penality like the Russians had before 1/1944 and there is no extra-slow artillery. Scenarios also improved, IMHO, because of the more symmetric forces. I think it is very difficult to make a goo CMBB scenario, it is easier with the more even capabilities in CMAK. There seem to be a workaround/hack in effect for the borg spotting problem in that units firing on a friendly unit are not always indicated with the red line/yellow line and other friendly units don't target the shooter until such a line appears. I didn't investigate this too much. The only thing newly broken is that Quickbattles are basically realism-broken because of the artillery pricing. The Allies has less access to decent or heavy artillery, practially none in TCP/IP interesting point ranges, but the Germans do. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted April 1, 2004 Share Posted April 1, 2004 CMAK appears to have a lower occurance of 'end-game-before-done' when low on ammo than CMBB does, and the squads are less likely to fight to the death (higher surrender rate). I gues the Med was kinder-and gentler than the Eastern front And the gun penetration numbers have been slightly tweaked in places in order to keep up with advances in research (aka Rexford). Dust has already been mentioned, but it can't be stressed enough. It makes a BIG difference. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sanok Posted April 2, 2004 Share Posted April 2, 2004 Aside from the ridiculous prices of Allied arty in QBs and the dust/LOS/FO bug, is CMAK a better game than CMBB? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jussi Köhler Posted April 2, 2004 Share Posted April 2, 2004 Originally posted by Sanok: Aside from the ridiculous prices of Allied arty in QBs and the dust/LOS/FO bug, is CMAK a better game than CMBB? Yes, a bit. To the casual gamer though the biggest difference is in the setting. No more vast steppes of Ukraine, just the vast deserts of northern Africa... I like it more, but just a bit. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redwolf Posted April 2, 2004 Share Posted April 2, 2004 Originally posted by Sanok: Aside from the ridiculous prices of Allied arty in QBs and the dust/LOS/FO bug, is CMAK a better game than CMBB? Far better, IMHO. I really hated the additional delay feature (turn rate, bog rate, artillery, russians pre-1944), coward monster tanks. The arty bug is in Also, that the 76mm Russian tank can cannot penetrate a 80mm StuG front might not be based on reality from what we know now and the Pak40 shredding everything including IS-2 might neither. CMAK is better both from fixes and from the fact that it plays in a more symmetrical war and is hence in an easier to model environment. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GreenAsJade Posted April 2, 2004 Share Posted April 2, 2004 Infantry seem to behave more sensibly, in general. Could be just my imagination. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slappy Posted April 2, 2004 Share Posted April 2, 2004 Probably not your imagination. Infantry are just as easy to spook, but seem to cower more in place instead of running around like decapitated chickens. They are also a bit easier to capture. Overall, the engine changes are far more modest than the BO to BB changes. I mainly play in Italy and like the return of allied units and trees, long missed since CMBO. I find the unit mixes and matchups between the forces a little more balanced and more interesting and I like the tactical challenges on the peninsula more than the open armor warfare of the steppes/desert. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted April 2, 2004 Share Posted April 2, 2004 And for the scenario designer, the map editor constructs pretty convincing looking mountains (mountains from the CMBB editor look a bit clunky). 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sanok Posted April 4, 2004 Share Posted April 4, 2004 Originally posted by Slappy: I mainly play in Italy and like the return of allied units and trees, long missed since CMBO. I find the unit mixes and matchups between the forces a little more balanced and more interesting and I like the tactical challenges on the peninsula more than the open armor warfare of the steppes/desert. This is probably the main thing I would like about AK over BB. Even though BB has a lot of improvements over BO, I actually like BO better. I also think it's actually more fun to play than BB. My birthday is coming in May. I'll need to drop some hints to my sons. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.