So which should I buy? Shock Force or Steel Beasts Pro PE?

[Cadmium77]

Shock Force has the edge in graphics and the infantry is 3d not sprites like SBPPE

Steel Beasts seems to allow for the larger grouping of forces up to the batallion level, but I'm not sure about SF

Steel Beasts is reputed to have superior AI to SFCM

I'm totally unsure which one has the more realistic map system for command overview.

Steel Beasts is a lot more money that's for sure.

Steel BEasts comes with a lot more documentation and seems more "real" a more serious simulator of modern warfare. It almost appears to me to be a living textbook on modern war. I'm not so sure about SFCM. This is important to me because I like to justify my gaming by reasoning that I'm studying something that will give me a greater insight into current strategic and political developments in the world by playing a sim/game. Black Shark DCS is definitely on my list this year.

SBPPE seems to have a more mature and serious online presence with a lot of active duty armour guys honing their craft.

So what's your verdict on my choice...I'm obviously leaning to SB, but my mind is open...$120 is a lot of money to drop on a game and if SFCM does pretty much the same thing as SB then why fork out all those resources that could be better spent somewhere else, like the massage parlour on a Sunday afternoon...

[ June 09, 2008, 08:54 AM: Message edited by: Cadmium77 ]

[Thomm]

Aren't these two rather different kinds of games?!

Anyway, I read that it is possible to grab CM:SF for a very low price if you look around for it, so you may be well able to get both.

Best regards,

Thomm

[Bil Hardenberger]

I would get both games if I were you. Both are excellent.

I might even be willing to sell you my copy of Steel Beast Pro PE which could save you some money. I just don't have the time to devote to it that it deserves...

E-mail me if interested.

Bil

[gibsonm]

If you want to be an AFV crewman (in one of I think three of four vehicles - e.g. M1 gunner) and not too interested in Infantry then I’d go for SB Pro PE.

SB Pro PE is a cut down version of SB Pro which is basically an AFV crew trainer and higher level sim.

The number and type of vehicles you can crew is driven by military customers paying to have “their” vehicle included.

Infantry are pretty much just targets at the moment (that can still kill you) but I don’t think you will see a more general sim until / if they bring out SB 2 (their dumbed down, but more chromed, consumer version).

If you want a more general experience where you can direct Infantry too, then I’d say CM:SF.

I too have both and enjoy both but they are aimed at different areas.

[ParaBellum]

Cadmium, you are aware of the fact that SB Pro PE is a tank/afv simulation while CM:SF is a tactical wargame? Apples and oranges? :confused:

For the record: I own both, and IMO few games are as much fun as SB Pro PE online with a bunch of guys.

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request

[Topo]

Not comparable games, too much differents.

I have and i love both.

saluti.

[Nasder]

I have both and they can be compared much like stated above "apples and oranges". They are both war based. Both are tactical (in different ways). Very shallow comparisons. But that's about as close as you can get with comparing the two.

Steel beasts can be played "like" shock force but without the same type of depth or options. What I mean with this is, you could do all battles in map-view and ordering everyone around, check in on them and micromanage the units. But even so, it's no where near CMSF. But it does not try to be a strategy game, it's a tank simulator down to it's very core.

If you want a tactical strategy game, then Shock Force is for you. If you want a tanksimulator then Steel Beasts is for you.

In the end, the choice is up to you. I can't say that one is better than the other. They are both great games/simulators. Sadly there's no demo for Steel Beasts Pro PE for you to try. But don't buy it if you're after a strategy game because it's not, it's a tank simulator.

[z1812]

Hi Cadmium77,

I would advise that you buy both. I do not think you would be disappointed by either game.

I have both and find each quite enjoyable.

Regards John

[markh]

Hi Cadmium77

Like most of the other people posting I too have both games and enjoy them both. However, I would disagree with some of the comments in some of the posts. Steel Beasts Pro PE is BOTH a tank sim as well as a good tactical strategy game. I mainly use Steel Beasts Pro PE as a third person tactical strategy game, and in that sense it has strengths and weaknesses as compared with CMSF.

In terms of weakness, Steel Beasts Pro PE does not present infantry nearly as well as CMSF (the video presentation of the infantry is poor - and building entry is quite abstract). However, the AI is very capable, as are the weapons that are modelled. If you do not respect the infantry capabilities you will soon find yourself surrounded by your disabled tanks and AFVs.

On the strength side, I find the game editor much easier to use (I prefer producing my own scenarios so this is important to me). There is a much greater variety of equipment (tanks, AFV, AT systems such as Javelins, Milans and Russions systems etc ...) to use. A much wider variety of national equipment - US, Russian, German, Australian, Swedish etc....

There are playable US, Euro and Russian helicopters (4 varieties I think). There is an infinite variety of terrain and the terrain graphics are actually quite good - in many ways I prefer the presentation to CMSF. The terrain variety includes European theatre as well as desert. You can even create tropical and sub-tropical terrains (including palm plantations and jungles). You can create European winter scenarios - snow, winter camo on vehicles and white cammo on infantry. There is water as part of the terrain - you can create lakes and rivers type scenarios.

Finally, there is a very active modding community that not only seems to re-skin vehicles, they are busy modding vehicles specs.

SB's publishers recently released a free beta version of the game (effectively a full new game with new features and vehicles)and they plan to do the same this summer.

In summary, I support and regularly play both CMSF and SB Pro PE and recommend you get both.

[Combatintman]

Cadmium 77

You say that your reasoning for buying a game is realating to something that will give you a greater insight into current strategic and political developments. If that is the case - buy neither. Both are tactical games.

[jjhouston]

Given the limited size of the maps in CMSF, armored tactics cannot really be simulated, there just simply isn't enough space to manuever. SB Pro draws out to about 4-5 kilometers so that the max effective ranges of tank main guns and ATGMs need to be considered. But the infantry, which are still represented by sprites, are functionally limited to serving as OP/LP's and anti-armor ambushes in slow-go terrain.

It seems that in CMSF, armor was added to complement the infantry, whereas in SB, the infantry was added to complement the armor.

My 'druthers tend toward SB; having been a Bradley crewman, I like to watch them move with their TOW launchers stowed.

[Chainsaw]

Originally posted by markh:

Finally, there is a very active modding community that not only seems to re-skin vehicles, they are busy modding vehicles specs.

No we dont, we only re-skin, you cant mod the vehicles specs... thats totally Esimgames side, Deja is learning me how to do 3D models for SBP but thats different from modd the vehicles.

(Im Kingtiger on SB.com Btw)

/Chain

[Other Means]

Originally posted by jjhouston:

Given the limited size of the maps in CMSF, armored tactics cannot really be simulated, there just simply isn't enough space to manuever. SB Pro draws out to about 4-5 kilometers so that the max effective ranges of tank main guns and ATGMs need to be considered. But the infantry, which are still represented by sprites, are functionally limited to serving as OP/LP's and anti-armor ambushes in slow-go terrain.

It seems that in CMSF, armor was added to complement the infantry, whereas in SB, the infantry was added to complement the armor.

My 'druthers tend toward SB; having been a Bradley crewman, I like to watch them move with their TOW launchers stowed.

I just made a 4k * 2.4k map in the editor. Hardly "limited" really, especially given tactical vs max ranges in most engagements.

[jjhouston]

Originally posted by Other Means:

I just made a 4k * 2.4k map in the editor. Hardly "limited" really, especially given tactical vs max ranges in most engagements.

Approx. max effective ATGM ranges & tank round penetration values:

AT-4a - 2000 meters

AT-4b - 2500 meters

AT-5 - 4000 meters

AT-6a - 5000 meters

AT-6b - 6000 meters

AT-6c - 7000 meters

Milan - 3000 meters

TOW 2 - 3700 meters

Reflecks 5000 meters

Svir 4000 meters

3BVM-17 125mm APFSDS 450mm penetration at 2000 meters

M829A2 120mm APFSDS-T 720mm penetration at 2000 meters

Assuming clear line of sight, on the map you've described, armored forces could lethally engage each other from the furthest map edges without any opportunity of manuever at all.

Tactical engagements in a desert environment have historically demonstrated the real threat of being at max ranges.

If by contrasting 'tactical' vs. 'max' ranges, you were referring to engagements in restricted terrain, then that seems to admit the point I was trying to make. In restricted terrain, armor would tend to be in a supporting role to the infantry. Which seems to me, how it was modelled in CM:SF -- the stars of the show aren't the tanks and heavy mech guys, but the Strykers.

@Chainsaw: "GaryOwen"