CMBB vs Close Combat

[Da Beginna]

Oh, yes the CC series is great. Especially when tanks are turning around helplessly in circles.

And I like the infantry running THROUGH concrete walls. Oh, and the campain is terrific. If you aren't a total idiot you will win every battle only to play the same map over and over again.

To be honest - I have CC3 + 4 + 5 and I enjoyed them. They are cheap to buy and are fun, on a beer'n'prezel level. Afterall, if go for realism and a mature simulation CM is your choice. If you wanna game, for lunch break or so CC is a good choice, too.

Place your (huge) 88 AT in a building and see the King Tiger round bouncing of again & again (happend in CC3) from a T34 (early model). This spoils the game for me...

...but I like the efficient snipers (Gewehr 43, yummy!), the teriffic mods (France 40!) ...

anyhow - IT IS NOT AN ALTERNATIVE. I changed from it when CMBO came out.

Aber - jedem das seine.

[ December 18, 2002, 09:31 AM: Message edited by: Da Beginna ]

[Pascal DI FOLCO]

Originally posted by Thin Red Line:

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

As you are a Frenchman in Turkey, I really wonder what you prefer !

And yes, the coolest CC was CC2 from far, I was huuuuugely disappointed by CC3, got CC4 free in a mag and installed/play 2 missions/uninstalled.. Never tried the last

[Pak40]

Kingpin,

The so called "Campaign Mode" in CC3 is nothing more than a bunch of operations strung together to seem like a campaign. The operations within a "campaign" have abosolutely no relation to each other. Also, the time elasped between the campaigns is so long that you should recieve fresh reinforcements after completing one of the operations, but you don't - you're stuck with the same injured units from the previous operation that took place months before. HORRIBLE!!!!

I could have desisgned a game better than this!

FYI - A true campaign mode should have battles that are all strung together or related in some way. For example, CC2:ABTF had a wonderful campaign system where all battles and operations were fighting for a single cause. The CC3 Campaign, on the other hand, was way out of scale for it's tactical battle scale. How could a Barbarossa battle that took place in 1941 possibly be linked to a Kursk battle in 1943? These are two very different Campaigns that took place on the East Front, but Atomic Games is trying to mash them into one single Campaign. It doesn't make sense nor does it feel like there's any continuity in the game.

Eric Young, a former Atomic employee, was a major designer of most of the CC series. Even he has admitted that CC3 was the worst of the series. In fact, I think he called it a "pure crap". Eric Young Quote

[ December 18, 2002, 10:36 AM: Message edited by: Pak40 ]

[Terrapin]

I can't believe this poster hasn't bought GI: Combat. It's a 3D Close Combat, by the same programmers. How can you go wrong?

[Pak40]

One more bad thing about CC3 when compared to CMBB:

Which game better represents the tank battles that took place on the Russian Steppes: CC3 with it's whopping 500 meter wide maps or CMBB with it's 6km by 9km map size?

no brainer. CMBB is clearly the better choice.

[Mikelas]

I personally enjoyed the Talonsoft games on the east and west fronts more than the CC games, altho I enjoyed those also. But when CCBO game out, it was like, WOW...this is the one I was always hoping for.

It is ok for different people to enjoy things differently.

Have fun always tho.

Mike

[Panzer Leader]

Originally posted by Mikelas:

I personally enjoyed the Talonsoft games on the east and west fronts more than the CC games, altho I enjoyed those also. But when CCBO game out, it was like, WOW...this is the one I was always hoping for.

It is ok for different people to enjoy things differently.

Have fun always tho.

Mike

Exactly. EF/WF and SP:WaW were my games before CM. Gosh, look at that, they're all turn-based. Huh.

[Terrapin]

Originally posted by Pak40:

Which game better represents the tank battles that took place on the Russian Steppes: CC3 with it's whopping 500 meter wide maps or CMBB with it's 6km by 9km map size?

This is one of the things that impressed me the most, and one of the things that has caused me the biggest "adjustment period".

I'm used to T34's being able to take out nearly every German tank I put them up against, because the ranges were tiny.

On my first operation, on the second battle, I placed my T34 tank line (5 tanks) about 900 meters away from a Tiger II, a few Panthers, and just expected to give as good as I got and to come out pretty well.

Battle starts, I see a line of smoke puffs and loud booms, one after another. BOOM! BOOM! BOOM! in quick rapid-fire succession. I then heard ripping metal in the same rapid-fire succession. All my tanks gone in 15 seconds. It was AWESOME to watch!

No other game can match that!

[CMplayer]

Originally posted by KingPin:

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.

The answer is that the capabilities of every unit are explained in the info window that you can open if you click on the unit and hit the return key. There you will find more data than you could ever wish for.

If you need info on units before you start a game, in order to choose, go into the scenario editor, choose the unit, then go into the map editor. Find the unit and click on it there. You can get the info window that way.

Remember that by adjusting the date in the parameters section, you can bring up units that are only available at certain times.

[ December 18, 2002, 11:06 AM: Message edited by: CMplayer ]

[CMplayer]

Originally posted by KingPin:

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.

Because in war, missions often are time dependant. If you take the hill, but it's too late to use it as an OP to support another planned attack, then you took it TOO LATE. That means YOU LOSE. There are only about 1,000,000 other reasons why you should have to accomplish something within a certain timeframe.

[CMplayer]

Originally posted by KingPin:

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

CMBB has both. They are managed by human beings rather than by the computer. So you actually have to make friends with people in order to use these functions. I know that may sound difficult, having to interact with humans and all, but it can be done.

[CMplayer]

Originally posted by KingPin:

.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.

I too would like a little corpse marker for every casualty. But it's not a problem to figure out the casualties. The thing is, to do so, you have to understand the interface. That might be asking a bit too much...

[CMplayer]

Originally posted by KingPin:

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

There ARE difficulty settings. You can set handicaps two different ways: giving the enemy a force size bonus (or reduction) or giving the enemy an experience bonus.

[Terrapin]

Originally posted by KingPin:

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.

I guess it's too late to tell him you can change the limit to nearly anything you would like in the Scenario editor, right?

[CMplayer]

Originally posted by KingPin:

I actually played it [CC] for more than 30 minutes straight without getting pissed off or totally bored.

Maybe that says more about your level of intelligence and attention span than about CMBB.

[CMplayer]

Originally posted by Terrapin:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by KingPin:

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.

I guess it's too late to tell him you can change the limit to nearly anything you would like in the Scenario editor, right? </font>

[Sardaukar]

Actually, CC2 was/is still a damn good game. Rare AFVs and lack of artillery support in airborne operations does hide the deficiences that become imminent in CC3. CC3...well, let's say that CC series are damn bad tank games.

Cheers,

M.S.

[Terrapin]

Originally posted by CMplayer:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by KingPin:

I actually played it [CC] for more than 30 minutes straight without getting pissed off or totally bored.

Maybe that says more about your level of intelligence and attention span than about CMBB.</font>

[Terrapin]

My favorite part of CC3 were the AI controlled Nashorns that would drunkenly lead the urban assault down a congested street. Bumping into buildings for a while, before some combination of HMG/LMG/ATR/ATG/T34/Infantry/Hamster took it out.

[ December 18, 2002, 11:27 AM: Message edited by: Terrapin ]

[CMplayer]

Originally posted by Sardaukar:

Actually, CC2 was/is still a damn good game. Rare AFVs and lack of artillery support in airborne operations does hide the deficiences that become imminent in CC3. CC3...well, let's say that CC series are damn bad tank games.

Agreed that CC2 is pretty good. I played the heck out of it, for, like, way more than 30 minutes without getting pissed off, showing my teeth, or being bored.

[Paddington]

Think about cc "ai" and you will know that cc series maybe arent that good kingpin said...

Tanks drive into buildings and turns around on the streets like madmans...

And if your not a complete newbie you WILL win every battle on the first try...

-----------------------------------------------

And the post is "a bit" stupid, do you think we wana know you love cc?, do you?

Of course I mean no offense whit this post, as allways

-Paddington The Bear

[Terrapin]

In addition, CMBB has randomized Quick Battle's while you are stuck with stock scenario in every CC I've played. Maybe they changed that in CC4 or 5 I never played those.

[Jack Carr]

This thread has peaked my curiousity about Close Combat. One thing caught my eye on the original post. The original post mentions that Combat Mission is more historically accurate than Close Combat.

I guess before I really make a purchase perhaps some of you that have experience with Close Combat can tell me, "How is Close Combat NOT historically accurate"?

Thanks to all of you who respond to my post.

I hate to spend money on software and find out its garbage.

Oh....one other thing, Combat Mission is the greatest game I have ever played. After the release of CMBO and CMBB if I wanted to play war games that are historically inaccurate I play X-COM.

[LightningWar]

I had to reply to this one hehe

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.

They dont have to "stop". Sure in between turns they wont be moving. But that is the game

.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.

You dont until the very end. You think Patton, Rommel, and Monty knew what the enemy had or what the casualties were? I can see it right now. Pattons rolls up in his jeep. Sir we are looking at about 1.5 German companies routed or wiped form the map. Patton busts out his handy unit selection lists. Determines. Hehe that silly German commnader has squandered 450 points. "Men" he yells "Give them hell. We have a 450 point lead on them!"

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.

Even I agree CMBB has some goody into music. Sounds like "The Wizard of Oz" on a bad day

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.

ROTFLMAO! Ya sure you were just about to make your move 40 turns in. But ended with a "Total Defeat" hehehe.

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

CMBB players are a different genre. They dont think having a Tiger tank for kill an entire Soviet infantry dvision is very realistic.

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.

Does it really matter when Close Combat is a quasi realistic RTS of WWII? I guess you learn by doing a little research. It is all about learning the game.

I got all 3 close combats for 30$ when the third one came out.

Well that should tell you something

LW

[ December 18, 2002, 11:55 AM: Message edited by: LightningWar ]

[Directive#21]

I am so proud that you guys didn't turn this into a flame fest...must be the holiday cheer

And whats with the objectivity...I expected lots of comments like "CM is the greatest and all others games suck!"

I really do miss campaign play! The role playing aspect that allows you command an organization over time while managing your resources would make Player vs. AI so much better! I can only dream because the powers that be don't consider campaigns a big enough demand do dedicate the time and resources.

Maybe they should hire another programmer to work on a strategic layer. Somehow I think the real issue here is a degree of pretentiousness. I think BTS wants to be the best tactical simulator period. Oh well....

[ December 18, 2002, 12:00 PM: Message edited by: Directive#21 ]