CMBB vs Close Combat

[KingPin]

Hey Dudes

Now that i have had CMBB for 3 weeks, I have decided that Close Combat 3:The Eastern Front is better and more FUN than CMBB. CMBB is definently more historically accurate than Close Combat but who cares, so fuhgetabatit.

Close Combat is better because.....

:eek: 1.ACTUALLY has a Campaign mode, case closed

:eek: 2.You can manage your resources from battle to battle

3.On a personal opinion I F**king hate turn based games but CMBB is still ok. Close Combat is totally more fun constantly ordering your troops and not having them stop evry 60 seconds.

.The corpses stay on the map during the battle in Close Combat. How the hell do you know what you and your enemys casualties are.

5.Better opening music. CMBB's music blows. Close Combat actually has a intro movie. not everyone knows exactly what the hell is going on, so give us an intro and tell us.

6.why the hell is there a limited amount of turns. out of nowhere i could finally be making serious progress and then it ends and says total defeat.

7.you are expected to be an Erwin Rommel in CMBB. Its cool how real it is, but please some dificulty settings.

8.The Close Combat instruction manual explains the abilitys of each tank,gun,unit in the game. How the hell do tou know which unit is best.

other than that CMBB's manual is awesome but its still missing vital information.

On a positive I actually like CMBB's Graphics and sound well done for a small company. Leagues above Close Combat by Microsoft.Cheers.for the record I do think CMBB is ok. But Close Combat was 100X more fun. you can say all the great things you want about CMBB, but Close Combat was more fun. I actually played it for more than 30 minutes straight without getting pissed off or totally bored.

[CavalryMan]

Mike pull up your Deck Chair! I have the beer and this should a fun one to watch :cool:

[Soddball]

Fair enough. It looks as though CM:BB wasn't for you - and it isn't for everyone, as you've found out.

CM:BB is fun but not, I think, in the way you were hoping.

I also know what you mean about the dozens of different units, it can get confusing (and still is for me)

[phil stanbridge]

Hmmm. Comparing Close Combat to CMBB is like comparing an apple to an orange - They are both games based on the Russian Front, but both are miles apart. Agreed that the CC series is/was fun, until SSI took over.

[ December 18, 2002, 05:15 AM: Message edited by: phil stanbridge ]

[Thomm]

Originally posted by KingPin:

But Close Combat was 100X more fun. you can say all the great things you want about CMBB, but Close Combat was more fun.

You are absolutely right. Close Combat WAS more fun (mind the past tense), and I have played it to death over the years! CMBB is all fresh and new, and, therefore, it IS more fun (mind the present tense). Unfortunately there is no successor for Close Combat, so the dinosaur simply became extinct.

Close Combat is pure art, by the way, and art has to be judged differently than ordinary wargames ...

Regards,

Thomm

[KingPin]

I forgot to mention Close Combat is hella cheaper. Especially for if you Canadian. I payed $80 for CMBB. I got all 3 close combats for 30$ when the third one came out.

Heres a currency conversion for non Canadians.

NHL 2003 was $45

WarCraft 3 $45

Medal of Honour $40

[Soddball]

I get the feeling you are disappointed by our responses - are we not enraged and disgusted enough for you?

If you were hoping to get lots of aggressive responses, that was very naughty. Stop trying to bait.

[Ozzieboy]

Close Combat was fun yes, but CC2 was way better than CC3!

[KG ThorsHammer]

I played cc3 when it first came out and continued on with cc4 and cc5 (altogether about 5 years!).

Close combat is definately a fun game, and the campaigns are fun, but as you said,CM is definately more historical. The graphics are amazing, and I enjoy commanding LOTS of units. It may be turn based, but the action takes place simutaniously. I also wish there was a campaign feature, but you can create a huge map and make multi day operations.

[First Mate Detrius]

I'm a bit suprised that none of the CM fanatics have jumped on this one

But first off...I wouldnt dream of comparing those two games.

The realism level and technical accuraccy is not comparable. CM rules this one.

But you had a few nice points for making CM more "sellable" to the whole market...and these are things I miss myself

Close Combat is better because.....

1.ACTUALLY has a Campaign mode, case closed

2.You can manage your resources from battle to battle

...

6.why the hell is there a limited amount of turns. out of nowhere i could finally be making serious progress and then it ends and says total defeat.

7.you are expected to be an Erwin Rommel in CMBB. Its cool how real it is, but please some dificulty settings.

He's got a few points if CM should be a hit in the "Mass Market".

And I miss some of these things myself

I'm sure that a campaign mode and realism settings would satisfy more "users".

Just a hint in case any of the programmers are interested in making a few million bucks...

[Firefly]

Never really cared for CC much (I tried 2 and 3), I think there weren't enough units for my tastes and the unit icons were always too small for my, admittedly poor, eyesight. I preferred the Steel Panthers series until CMBO came along.

[Ales Dvorak]

Originally posted by KingPin:

:eek: 1.ACTUALLY has a Campaign mode, case closed

:eek: 2.You can manage your resources from battle to battle

But.....in CMBB you can upgrade weapon.

[Pascal DI FOLCO]

Kingpin,

a) This has been discussed to death when CMBO came out

your arguments are lame : "I actually played it for more than 30 minutes straight without getting pissed off or totally bored."

Did you ever read a book ?

c) Bye

[JunoReactor]

Originally posted by Pascal DI FOLCO:

Did you ever read a book ?

At least he can tell "Erwin" from "Rommel".

[kmead]

Trolls! There's Trolls in the dungeon!!! (Faints to the floor.)

[ December 18, 2002, 06:44 AM: Message edited by: kmead ]

[aka_tom_w]

CMBB and CMBO were released for the MAC and The PC at the SAME TIME!!! Thats it is a big factor for me.

These are the VERY BEST combat simulations I have evered played!!

(That is because they are historically accurate)

-tom w

[MG-42]

Hi,

I was (am) a massive fan of the Close Combat series but for me CM:BB is a more mature, dinner jacket and bow tie kind of experience.

That said there is no reason why both cannot live side by side in perfect harmony (q for a song ) and it's futile and un-neccessary to get into a "my game is better than your game" kind of debate.

Both are great games but comparing the age and unfortunate dwindling support for Close Combat to the rise and rise and newly founded mainstream acceptance of CM:BB I know which i'm going to be dedicating the most time to.

Just my 2[insert your native currency in here] worth

Regards

MG-42

[Bruno Weiss]

Hi Mom! I'll be home for the Holidays.

[Thin Red Line]

The difference beetween Close Combat and Combat Mission is the same as the difference beetween porn and real sex.

[Francesco]

Campaign?

yest CC3 has a "campaign"... but do you really think that it is worth of calling it so? Did you notice that the first months of war are condensed into three (3!) maps?

Did you notice also how many vehicles and weapons are displayed in CC3 and in CMBB? Did you see how many maps there are in CC3?

They may look better, but after a fight or two you knoe them so well that there will be no more fun in playing them!

[K_Tiger]

The real thing was CC2 and the Campaign system is unmatched.

The thrill, to hold off the XXX Korps, fall back to get more and better equipment or on better positions was real great.

But to say, CMBB is better due to more Vehikles, is the same like a IL2 player comes here and start to laugh about the CM grafik!

There was a time, i liked also games like Ascendancy. Colonisation of the space, but allways i get my hand on a game with a good strategical system, gives me allways crap on the fighting level, and games with superb Fights like CM are .....

"Hallo Mutti".....take my .2€

[The_Capt]

I STAND ALONGSIDE MAJ KONG!!

[Martin Rapier]

Originally posted by K_Tiger:

The real thing was CC2 and the Campaign system is unmatched.

The thrill, to hold off the XXX Korps, fall back to get more and better equipment or on better positions was real great.

Agreed, to my mind CC2 was one of the finest computer wargames ever produced, despite the dumb AI, points based unit purchase etc etc mainly because of the scripted campaign.

The higher level resource allocation issues worked very well but you also had decent tactical engagements on (for the time) very pretty maps, which were at least mercifully brief due to it being RTS(most of the time). Of all the CC series, CC2 is one I still actually play from time to time, whereas the change in the way forces were allocated in CC3 onwards meant the Grand Campaigns were no challenge at all, even playing 'iron man' (max difficulty and taking the default deployment). CC5 was probably the worst in this regard, at least in CC4 you couldn't cherry pick the units which made up your battlegroups. They are all OK against a human of course.

I find that CC2 can still provide a challenge vs the AI, even if it does involve taking on half a dozen Panthers with a handful of US paratroops and a bazooka!

Cheers

Martin

[MadDog0606]

I liked the Close Combat series of games (up to the Battle of the Bulge one). The only thing I disliked was the dancing tanks.

Oh, and because I seem to play way to many games, what is the difference between porn and real sex?

[MikeT]

Atomic Games out of business, BTS still going strong.

Case Closed.

MikeT