ToW vs. CMx2?

[Loaf]

I don't want to drag this forum off topic by talking about the wrong game, but now that it's out I am curious to know what you guys think of Theatre of War vs what you expect and/or want from Shock Force.

I am one of those guys who is more interested in WWII than modern combat, and I wasn't as put off by the "no building entry" aspect of ToW as some were - I figure that most WWII battles did not involve buildings much anyhow. I anticipated that ToW would be my large-scale battle replacement for Combat Mission, and Shock Force (plus any future CMx2 variants) would be the small-scale, urban combat partner game. I understand the point the Battlefront guys make that if you are going to reduce the level of abstraction in a wargame you have to narrow its scope, and I have no problem with that.

Anyhow, I was playing the ToW demo this evening and I dunno... I am not sure it has the Right Stuff. I know that the Battlefront guys overhauled it to make it more realistic, but to me it seems gamey. My complaints are pretty much the usual stuff - infantry seems useless, cover and concealment are lacking... Plus I just have trouble figuring out who has LOS to who, who is shooting at who, why is my tank driving all over the place... Etc.

Maybe I haven't given it a fair chance yet, but right now I could see myself playing CMBB in preference to ToW. I was enthralled with CM from the first 5 minutes I played it! I must say that despite my WWII bias, right now I feel a lot more keen to play a REAL Battlefront game of any kind than I do to play ToW...

So... What do you guys think? Is ToW good enough to be the next-generation "big battle" twin to CMx2, or will we still be playing CMBB and CMAK as a companion to CMx2 for years to come?

[Dr. Zoidberg]

I agree completely with the things you've mentioned. Basically, when I had finished playing, my impression was.. "Wow, I could've been playing CMBB instead"

That seems a bit harsh, I admit. ToW is a decent game..

If I spend more time familiarizing myself with it and turn a blind eye to many annoying aspects (like putting that MG34 near the top of the hill only to find out I can't move it the rest of the way..) then I would no doubt enjoy it more.

But it isn't Combat Mission (and obviously it is not intended to be). When I finish a session of CMSF I don't want to think I could've been playing CMBB instead. I want to think about when I'll play CMSF again. CMBB might enter my thought processes at some point, but to think "Damn, can't wait for the WW2 release."

[ April 20, 2007, 08:42 PM: Message edited by: Dr. Zoidberg ]

[Murock]

I completely agree with the both of you. Playing the ToW demo really didn’t feel to right. I think the main problem that I notice is the real time aspect compared to the turn based in combat mission. I just didn’t feel like I was able to control all my troops. I felt disorganized and it turned me away from the game completely. I love rewinding the battle turn in CM to see every detail of combat. It felt like I was pausing the game every couple of minutes just to get orders out. I think shock force will be a good game, but I know I will still be returning to the cmx1 series. I just hope they make a ww2 game on the cmx2 engine.

[Sixxkiller]

CM has a real time component just like TOW. If you play on the highest setting you WILL NOT BE ABLE TO ISSUE ORDERS WHILE PAUSED. CM also has a turn based option. CMx2 will be doing a WWII module soon enough. Let them get the game out before they get the WWII stuff to you guys.

Another thing you need to realize is tow wasnt designed from the ground up by BFC, they just improved it. CMSF is.

CMSF is also based around mech inf principles, so infantry does matter I would think.

One last thing, has BFC ever let you guys down? Isnt CM the standard for wargames? Dont think they would start making crap after 3 games, remember they make games they want to play and if you hand them money, they keep making them.

[civdiv]

Apples and oranges.

civdiv

[PFMM]

I haven't tried the Theater of War Demo yet, but I think the biggest stink Combat Mission players will raise is the reduction in scale. Combat Mission is battalions with platoon manuever, the next incarnation looks to be Company with team manuever.

At this rate we will be playing Computer Ambush again.

Bleh.

[C'Rogers]

Combat Mission is battalions with platoon manuever, the next incarnation looks to be Company with team manuever.

Though when they designed CM:BO I believe the understanding was for them it was suppose to be a company level game. I imagine people will be playing CM:SF in battalion play in no time.

Well except for me as I still play CM company level.

[Lt Bull]

I completely agree with what has been said here about ToW, CMSF and regular CM.

So... What do you guys think? Is ToW good enough to be the next-generation "big battle" twin to CMx2, or will we still be playing CMBB and CMAK as a companion to CMx2 for years to come?

One thing I don't understand is what makes players/game designers think an RTS format could ever allow a player to sensibly manage, control, plan and execute with any level of satisfaction any "big battle" type game of the size and scope CM currently can handle or that somehow the RTS format of game somehow represents some kind of evolutionary game design panacea or apex towards which all games like CM will (and must) gravitate towards. ToW seems to have been born of this "delusion". RTS style games have their place, but for CM scope/level/depth/detail kind of games, forget it!

Wow, I could've been playing CMBB instead

Exactly what I thought. I just feel more involved and get more satisfaction from dedicating time and effort to playing CM.

I think the biggest stink Combat Mission players will raise is the reduction in scale. Combat Mission is battalions with platoon manuever, the next incarnation looks to be Company with team manuever.

Agree. Mandating the player must control each soldier makes me worried about the practical gameplay implications of simulating large battles (greater than company) like in CM. Perhaps this is not the design intent. If it isn't, when will we ever see a true CM successor?

I can't see myself NOT playing CMBB or CMAK anytime soon. Although admitedly I wasn't thrilled about the modern day setting, I have been impressed with what I have seen and read and look forward to CMSF and hope it is as good a game as what our faithful CM trios were. My real concern is whether the new CM engine will ever allow us to simulte the range, scale and scope of CM battles we have become so acustom to and fond of.

The CM game concept (innovative use of WEGO turnbased system, attention to deatils, excellent use of abstractions, TacAI, PBEM etc) was a major step forward in many respects and dealt with the many limitations of virtually all RTS game systems (most relevant beign the Close Combat series): and that is to realistically simulate tactical battles involving many individual units on large maps that would otherwise be impossible for a player to sensibly and intelligently manage had it all been in the regular "real time" game format.

This is why ToW or any other RTS will never be the "next big thing" if you are talking about a CM usurper.

Lt Bull

[Mace]

Originally posted by PFMM:

I haven't tried the Theater of War Demo yet, but I think the biggest stink Combat Mission players will raise is the reduction in scale.

Not if they realize that ToW and CM are not the same thing.

As civdiv said, apples and oranges.

[Moon]

Mace is right. We're not catering to the CM players with every game we release, and TOW is a different thing entirely. If you check it out expecting CMx1 with better graphics, no doubt that you will be disappointed.

In some aspects TOW is way superior to CM (not only the graphics), in others, such as realism, it's not. But it is made for a different target group, somewhat younger (as can be seen on the forum there, hehe), and for generally a wider mass market appeal, and I think it does very well to span a bridge between the usual RTS crowd and the wargame crowd.

Think Close Combat 3D. If you do that, you'll like the game.

Martin

[InvaderCanuck]

I agree completely.

When I was just a teenager I found the close combat games. I loved them. I played the hell out of them.

Later on I found Combat Mission. I thought to myself "excellent, a 3d Close Combat, I did some reading and found out it used some weird turn based system. I was skeptical. So I tried the demo and I HATED it.

About a year later, I had that familiar itch to scratch so I decided I would try it again, this time I knew what to expect, not a fully real time game. I loved it and I have been hooked on CM since CMBB.

This is very similar to Close Combat. It is lighter, quicker paced and enjoyable. It is not hardcore, but it is fun.

Would I prefer to be playing CM:SF right now? Absolutely ;p This is interesting to play with in the meantime. Especially considering I can never find people to play TC/IP CM with.

[patboy]

I don't know what CMSF could do in the next but I can say ToW isn't the game awaited by the CM community, personally I don't like the most ToW graphics, they are less good than CM units total redo by some modders.

I think the best way for the future is the touch of CM realism and tactical level with a touch of CMC strategical level with good visual effects.

Ah and an accessible folder for graphic & sound improvments.

Pat

[Lt Bull]

Originally posted by InvaderCanuck:

Especially considering I can never find people to play TC/IP CM with.

Hey InvaderCanuck...if you contact me within the next few hrs by email we can try a TCP/IP game. I just happen to be up for one rigt now.

Lt Bull

[Cpl Steiner]

I wasn't going to buy TOW but in a moment of weakness I clicked the pre-order button and this morning I've been having a bash at it.

Having played the full game this morning I can agree with a lot of the negative comments above. When I first played CM (CMBO), even though the graphics and numbers of polygons was way inferior to TOW, I was immediately sucked in to the game. I wanted to learn more about it and play it better. Having played TOW this morning I have a distinctly underwhelmed feeling and can't see me keeping it on my hard-drive for very long. If CM can be compared to boardgames like "Squad Leader" then TOW is more like playing with toy soldiers!

[Cpl Steiner]

Sorry, my edit of the above post turned into a new post somehow.

Post deleted.

[Dr. Zoidberg]

Originally posted by Moon:

Think Close Combat 3D. If you do that, you'll like the game.

Martin

Then I hope Close Combat is never produced in 3D. I quite enjoy CC and am one of those somewhat younger players.

But I can easily just change "Wow, I could've been playing CMBB instead" to "Wow, I could've been playing CC3 instead" and it has the same effect.

Okay. I will be quiet, I think I have established that ToW is not the game for me. If you guys get a trickle of cash coming from this, great!

[civdiv]

Dr,

Did you buy the new CC that Matrix did? What are your thoughts? I was interested but the price was a bit steep for basically a modded re-release.

civdiv

[Dr. Zoidberg]

Originally posted by civdiv:

Dr,

Did you buy the new CC that Matrix did? What are your thoughts? I was interested but the price was a bit steep for basically a modded re-release.

civdiv

I was heavily addicted to CC3 MP campaigns with a friend of mine, but neither of us can fork over the cash for Cross of Iron.

I agree that it doesn't really look like it's worth the price of admission, if you have CC3.

[Thomm]

I do not understand the negative spin about ToW!

For me it blows CC out of the water sky high!

Although comparisons with CM are dangerous, I would say that it surpasses CM in many major aspects!!

Just consider the encircling movement of the Panzer IIIs in the Defense training mission: yes, maybe it is scripted, but it is scarily beautiful so!

Also, the moments when you order a soldier to pick up an anti-tank rifle from a fallen comrade, or order soldiers to man a deserted gun ... instant classics!

Best regards,

Thomm

[MikeyD]

We're going to see the same syndrome when CMSF comes out I'm sure. Instead of judging the game in front of them alot of people will be comparing it to the fantasy ultimate wargame lodged in their frontal cortex. And what could compare favorably to that?

[Sixxkiller]

Ya people dont like change. A lot of the folks here are probably going to scream bloody murder having to run Strykers into ambush zones when they realize they wont stand up like a Jagdtiger.

But I think for some, they will learn to be better at using proven tactics that they could get away from in CMx1. I imagine a M1A2 isnt going to miss you more than once if at all in your shiny dead T-72 or straight to hell BMP. And I imagine it will work both ways when you turn your side to a T-72 hiding out of sight on a hill somewhere.

But comparing a game to CMSF is silly. Its whats under the hood that will count, and I think from the screens, CMSF looks just fine thank you.