CMSF VS TOW?

[Destraex]

So who likes CMSF better than TOW. Considering CMSF was supposed to be the savior of CM fans

Pros and Cons Gents

[bruce90]

I have not been very impressed with CM2 graphics wise since I saw the first videos.To me it looked like CMAK II.Now in my opinion ToW is graphically stunning,so much so that I wish that Battlefront would concentrate their undoubted genius on it and make it up to the standard of gameplay that CM2 will have because we all know that this is what ToW is lacking.Personally I think that an upgraded ToW would make it unnecessary for a WWII module in CM2.Having said that I fully intend to buy CM2 as I think we all should to support Battlefront.

[MikoyanPT]

Well, ToW has better graphics and eye candy, more units, and i really like their damage model.

And it has a easier interface to use and play.

And it allows for individualy give orders to soldiers inside a squad.

But it seriously lacks a custom battle generator were you can make your own engagements with the units available.

The campaign missions are boring, based on massive numbers of enemy forces. And the victory conditions in the scenarios have serious problems.

CM:SF has a more interesting gameplay regarding objectives, that can be individually set for each side, urban combat with floor to floor fighting, and allows for more tactical choices.

It still has major bugs and its custom battle generator is still flawed.

But with some bug squishing and a polished quick battle mode it will be tacticaly superior to ToW.

In conclusion, a real time strategy gamer will get into ToW really fast, specialy if they add a custom battle sistem and better suported multiplayer.

Someone more interested in tactics in a more old school wargame will like more CM:SF, specially when it´s custom battle sistem becames better.

And it can be played real time or turn based.

Of course modern war and second war settings have major differences in gameplay.

So be advised, many CM1 players that called ToW crap, will call CM:SF crap, because evolution doesn´t stop in time, CM:SF is more fast paced and fun than the earlier CM, and it isn´t WWII.

[monkeezgob]

CMSF wihout dount. It has some problems that need ironing out (but BFC will get there), and the graphics are not as pretty as TOW. But (and it's a big but) the scenarios included are not like the TOW, scripted, 'a puzzle to be solved' approach, they have variety, re-playability and require a sound and realistic approach to tactics. (granted some of this still need ironing out)

But I prefer it mainly because of the editor. It's immensley powerful and incredibly easy to use. Far more so than TOW. More custom missions have already appeared within a week of CMSF release than have appeared so far with TOW. That gives the title a massive adavantage is extending its shelf life.

[Thomm]

What I like more about ToW at the moment is that it is a good storyteller! By that I mean things like the penetration markers on the tanks, how intense it is to watch individual soldiers in action (them being selectable individually), the stats for each soldier in the end ... so that you could write a short story about the battle from all these pieces of information.

ToW certainly goes all the way with respect to modelling individual soldiers, with highly precise LOS calculations and movement possibilities, etc. I appreciate that!

Best regards,

Thomm

[Destraex]

I thought that CMSF was every bit as scripted as TOW... I think it even says so in the manual IIRC

I don't think either game has an "adaptive AI" that will change tactics mid game without a trigger being hit

Tow is certainly prettier and has a lot more variety as you would expect from the different timeframe.

TOW has most things that CMSF has.... TOW just needs a little more love I think.

Close Combat offcourse will let you create any map as far as I am aware and the AI will take time to create generate its own pathing and understanding. Did CM1 engine do that aswell or was it scripted?

[SlapHappy]

Surprisingly enough, I think TOW (so far) has some things over CMSF. I didn't think that would be the case once I had the chance to compare both games.

To be fair, I think Steve and Co. got it right, but there just isn't the tactical matchup equalities in a US vs. ME game like there is in a WWII era simulation. So the reality is there, but the reality is that an ME nation like Syria just can't stand up to a US force with advanced technologies like the Abrams MBT and the Javelin missile system (not to mention the lavish artillery and air support systems). Sure, you can kind of sort it out within the scoring system, but then it becomes a game of minimizing casualties.

And, IMO, the TACAI has nothing over TOW at the moment. Chances are good, though, that CMSF will get a more extravagant "polish job" because this one is really Battlefront's baby.

Oh, one more thing, overall modability of TOW is better and that's not likely to change even in the long run.

To be honest, though, the BEST game is most likely to be the second title (WWII) based on the CMX2 engine once most of the bugs get worked out. How long we are looking at that to materialize is anyone's guess.

[Destraex]

To be honest I think based on the demo I will end up buying both as I love the change in theatre and time that CMSF represents.

We know that Battlefront are already working on an expansion with possibly marines and coop play so I would not hold your breath for a new ww2 game. I would estimate at least two years if not more before we see another CMx2 game and it may not even be ww2. Afterall ww1 and other

On the other hand we have TOW here and now

[SlapHappy]

Well, the good thing is we have a choice of two different games....and I've got them both! Heh heh.

[pad152]

I must say at this point and time I think TOW is the better game!

Walls in TOW block LOS/LOF, in Shock Force units see and shoot through walls.

Infantry in TOW will stand up and get out of the way of on comming tanks and vehicles, in Shock Force they just lay there to get run over without injury. This really kind of kills the realism factor and just looks down right silly.

Tanks and vehicles can run half way through each other with no damage, making them look like something out of the transformers movie, in TOW they don't. Another thing that kills the realism in Shock Force and looks silly.

I think the editor in Shock Force is better and easier to use, I can't say if the AI is any better yet.

I like the building combat in Shock Force. I wish TOW had this.

I'm still suprise that there are no mortar squads in Shock Force just like TOW.

I wish TOW had Quick Battle generator but Quick Battles are so broken in Shock Force it's a moot point.

I like the graphics of TOW when vehicles are hit and knocked out alot better than Shock Force. The damage model is more detailed in Shock Force but, you just wouldn't know it from the graphics. in fact I-candy graphics in Shock Force are pretty minimal for a 2nd gen game and not that much improved from earlier Combat Mission games.

I wish TOW had ammo and weapon carriers, I really like this feature in Shock Force, where troops can go back to a vechicle and pick up addition weapons and/or more ammo.

You know when a crew member is hit in TOW in Shock Force you just get a gray dot, very lame. I wish Shock Force handled crew members more like TOW!

Neither game allows entrench/fortified positions for AT Guns/AA Guns/Infantry, trenches only work some what for infantry.

Yes TOW still needs more improvement but, it's still ahead of the unfinished Shock Force.

[Reichenberg]

Very interesting points you all bring up here. Maybe it would sound different on the CM:SF forum and everybody posting here is a bit biased towards ToW to begin with......

I have neither bought CM:SF yet nor have I played the demo - but from what I read I have not missed to much yet. I just hope that both Battlefront and 1c are working as strong in improving their games as Battlefront did with CMx1. Then ToW and CM:SF will be improved much over what we have right now, at least in their hopefully coming sequel.

And sure - CM has to make its way back to WW2

Uwe

[ShiftZ]

Gents I just have to pipe up on this one.

I like ToW. I like CMSF. But to be perfectly honest I've been knee deep in Steel Beasts Professional PE for the last two months and it wins hands down over both.

Graphicly it lacks a little but not by much and the simulation of "war" crushes both of the new games. If you enjoy war sims and I think you all do then SB Pro PE is your game.

Trust me here guys, it's a little pricey but it's worth every dollar.

[pad152]

Isn't SB Pro PE like $125??? That's more than TOW+CMSF together.

[ShiftZ]

Yep. $125.00. You even get a dongle that you need to plug into a free USB port to be able to play the game, something about protecting the title or some such.

I'm not trying to diss either Tow or CMSF, these two games are awesome and very close in game play and visuals but they are limited.

The scope of SB Pro is massive and you can fight it out in any enviroment in all seasons. Each armoured unit has the ability to have upto three players operating it; driver, gunner and TC.

I could be wrong about this but with some of the multiplayer games that could potentialy mean like dozens of people playing at one time. Also it's all patched up with lots of mods for the models and maps/scenerios galore.

And all of this plays out under the umbrella of US tank tactics as it is used today. The tutorials are long and a "must do" in order to play the game without being lost and killed. I just can't say enough. Rumor has it that eSim will be bringing out a new title in the series for 08.

It's a golden age of games for people like me who dig this stuff. It's worth the money IMHO.

[Freeboy]

but is it now only modern.. that is steal beasts?

My issue with mcsf is the era, I want /need ww2 action... or a great napolean civil war engine... my 2cents worth

[vin2007]

Shiftz i agree i got steel beats pro about 6 months ago and it roxs although pricey its worth it, Only problem i had is that esim only accept credit cards but luckily enough i managed to pick it up on ebay and you dont see many of these floating around for sale so i consider myself very lucky. I have lost all confidence in TOW which looked a game with great potential unfortunatly the replayability side of the game has been left out and not included so it leaves you with a handful of missions. Im not sure if this will be addressed in a patch/expansion i know there is talk of the multiplayer being looked at but my guess is that the single player will be left as it is which basicly means game DEAD in my opinion. A random battle generator not being present in TOW made me decide that i will not be buying combat mission shock force as i was extremly dissapointed in TOW.

Next two games i will buy, Football manager 2008, War Leaders looks good from what ive seen.

[ShiftZ]

Oh ****, Van Halen playin..SB callin...hit the ground runnin..

[FinnN]

SBPro looks great and I've almost bought it a couple of times, but a modern setting combined with crude representation of the infantry side of things puts it outside of my interests. From what I read the infantry side is due for polishing and when then that happens I might buy it but I'm in no rush with no WW2 ever likely. I only bought CMSF because a WW2 module is coming.

Les Grognards looks good, and there's a Napoleonic version of the Ageod ACW game (http://www.a-acw.com/) in the works. All I need now then is a decent Napoleonic naval game - managed to get AOSII working on my machine recently and I can't lose against the AI even on the hardest setting. As I'm not the reincarnation of Nelson something's wrong there. Ho hum.

I think ToW is going to go a long way through modding, but it isn't going to happen overnight. That includes some sort of random battle or quick battle generator. Assuming the add-on materialises then we may see some of the missing things smoke (well, I'm hoping anyway), enterable buildings, some sort of more advanced multiplayer and the like. Although I think multiplayer is important in a game, personally I'm much more interested in single player (and modding) and I suspect that for all its flaws ToW may have more potential in that area.

Have fun

Finn

[ShiftZ]

Without question Theatre of War is graphicly the best war sim of its type on the market.

I now understand why developers release games 75% complete. They can't possibly make a game that meets all of the expectations of all players so they put up a fourm and wait for the complaining. Smart move.

By the time all of the patches and mods have been released and the last of the bugs has been exterminated a lot of the CM players will be playing ToW.

I just wish the Devs would move quicker. Is it a money thing because I can help, I'll pay for any patches and or mods supplied by 1C.

P.S.

1C has to know that in order to make money they have to spend it. If 1C wants to make good profit on this game then start typin' and get those requested changes out and get them out fast. There's an entire community out here that will pay and support.

[ August 06, 2007, 11:22 AM: Message edited by: ShiftZ ]

[bruce90]

Good post!

[Smoke]

Second that! A lot to love about this game... just needs to some TLC.

[Reichenberg]

Good points ShiftZ - just do not forget that ToW is not the only game 1c is responsible of. And I guess they look first at the games they think have the most potential to make good money with.

It would be very interesting to see how many people of 1c actually work on ToW right now..... Unfortunately for ToW, it has a long way behind it. And I can not go around thinking that 1c is actually happy they got the game out finally at all - that they got at least a little bit of the money back they have invested over (probably) more than 5 years into ToW.

We can just hope that 1c can find as big a "money making potential" in ToW as we all see the "gameplay potential" in it. Only then we will get the support needed to make ToW a classic.

Uwe

[Thomm]

If anyone is bored, we can discuss the question "How would CM:SF fare against ToW if it was set in WW2?".

Best regards,

Thomm

[FinnN]

I think the two games would definitely be comparable.

For graphics, I think ToW has the better landscape and lighting (but by no means cutting edge any more) but CM:SF has much better unit 3D models (especially infantry). If 3D modding (or the developers do extra work) becomes possible I think ToW could match anything in CM:SF, but I don't think the same is true the other way around as (on my system at least). Flat lighting, very 'grid'/'box' like look, no detail outside the play area and punishing LOD distances make for a quite crude looking game at times. I also don't like the 2D graphics in CM:SF, whereas in ToW they're really nice.

I have very limited experience with CM:SF, but from what I can see so far (and previous experience with CM1 games) I think CM has a better control system and more varied orders to give out that make for a game requiring more thought, strategy and planning. I don't see that ever being possible to the same extent in ToW. At the moment individual AI in both games has problems, and I think both will get better if patched - but I think CM will benefit more than ToW from this due to the wider range of orders which will benefit.

In terms of scale, ToW seems to handle company sized actions pretty well and given sufficient horsepower could probably go a bit bigger but not much. I think with its current interface you'd be struggling to control your forces in CMSF if the scale (platoon in WW2 terms maybe?) was increased much. I think the CM2 engine would be good for things like commando raids or anti-partisan operations though. Personally I like company sized engagements or smaller, so I guess ToW would come out ahead for me there.

Finally, in terms of potential - I think CM:SF is likely to see more development by BFC than ToW is by 1C. But then again ToW is much more open to modding (even if this wasn't planned). As such if the add-on comes out and fixes the bigger holes (***smoke***, building entry, on-map mortars, multiplayer) I think ToW is the one most likely to give us the wide range of options we saw in the CM1 series.

So, as there's so many 'ifs', 'coulds' and 'maybes' in there for me I think it's next to impossible to really say which will be better - ToW + add on + mods or CM:SF. Certainly if both reach their full potential I think they're complimentary games both worthy of staying on the hard drive - CMSF for really small unit actions, and ToW for larger engagements.

Have fun

Finn

[vin2007]

I hope the add on for ToW isnt to long away.

Im also keeping my eye on War Leaders which is in development. From what i have read and seen on the screenshots it looks amazing.

http://uk.media.pc.ign.com/media/743/743604/img_2809399.html