How does this Combat Mission game compare?

[hellas1]

Hi all,

I just bought Theater of War and enjoy it.

I was wondering about this "Combat Mission" series title and the past titles as well.

From what I understand the past titles used to be IT for 3d WWII strategy games. I looked at them and found the graphics abysmal compared to games today. I don't know what other games they might be compared to today if any

Please, could you comment on the current status of this title and past installations of the game as well?

Thank you,

hellas1

[hoolaman]

I don't know what you mean by "past installations".

CMSF is a fine game, with graphics that definitely hold their own against more modern games, some of the vehicle models are very very impressive if you crank the detail. The terrain is a bit less detailed than say TOW because 1 it is set in the desert, and 2 the high fidelity of the game calculations means that a lot of fancy bits would make the simulation way too complex.

The game engine for the earlier games is now more than ten years old and development for them has ceased. If you get over the graphics (which are not that bad) and think of them like a tabletop miniature board or something there is a mind-blowing game series awaiting you.

I don't know what to tell you though. If you hated the original games, CMSF is not all that different in gameplay, and some of the graphical elements are similar too. Download the demo and see for yourself.

[Paper Tiger]

As hoolaman said, the graphics in the first three CM games are way out of date now. They were never cutting edge even in their day but boy, were they good wargames. I still play the occassional game of CMBB even with the crappy graphics because the gameplay is so good and my imagination can do the rest for me.

CMSF is a completely NEW game engine and, once again, it's graphics are not state of the art but I have to say that I think they're still really good. Check out a couple of my screenshots to see what the game is capable of when you run it at the highest settings. That's wahat it looks like when it runs on my rig which isn't THAT hot.

You are very fortunate to be discovering CMSF at this point in it's development as it is now a very polished product and has already exceeded all MY expectations. It really wasn't very pretty when it first came out so don't place too much importance of games reviews that were puiblished 9-12 months ago. Yes, the game deserved some of those poor reviews but it certainly doesn't NOW.

It's also about toi get even better. Sometime in the next couple of months BFC will release the first of a number of modules planned for this game which will give both sides much needed new equipment as well as further enhancements to the TAC AI, the AI that governs how both sides units behave when they are following thier orders.

The only possible reason I could think of that may turn you off the game is that it's set in the desert and designed primarily to be played as the US side against the Syrians. But the designers have allowed us to create missions, campaigns where you can play Red v Red. Or in TOW terms, Russian v Russian. This makes for a more interesting game in my opinion. Modern era combat is wickedly cool.

[Dirtweasle]

Visually CMSF looks great.

Sadly, IMHO, it is not nearly as fun to play as CMx1. The reasons why or why not are long and varied. That horse is long ago beaten to death.

[Field Marshal Blücher]

Well, personally I can't play CMx1 games. I don't think it's the graphics that give me problems either; I play really old games with terrible graphics a lot. But to me it does feel different. I say that if you think the CM:SF setting is interesting then it's worth checking out.

If you don't think it's interesting, then don't buy the game. This to me seems to be the biggest sticking point. The game, simply by being realistic, is not balanced for open warfare for the most part (unless you play Syrian vs Syrian). It's asymmetrical warfare, which is very different from World War II, so it doesn't play at all like a World War II game.

[monkeezgob]

Having played both, I'd say you can't really compare the two.

Theatre of war looks pretty, but (in my opinion) it is a real time stragey game, where the emphasis is on deploying your resources in a way that will beat the programmed puzzle in that scenario. It's also hampered by the lack of essential elemnets such as the deployment of smoke and the ability to enter buildings.

CMSF is a wargame, where the use of sound strategy and tactics is required. Apples and Pears stuff. Like people have said, download the demo and see for yourself.

[Elmar Bijlsma]

Hi Hellas1, looking for something to tide you over till Empire TW gets released?

ToW is certainly a whole lot of fun and pretty accurate, it does have a distinct RTS feel to it. Combat Mission is well worth exploring if you are looking for a bit more slow (though I wouldn't call it boring!) and realistic in the way it plays.

I can still heartily recommend CMBB and CMAK as the best two games on East and Mediterranean WW2. As you have noted, they ain't the prettiest. There's a fair few graphical mods that improve on vanilla a fair bit, but its an old engine, so don't expect too much. Graphics are, shall we say, functional?

CMSF, after a bumpy start, has really shaped up nicely. But the pacing of modern combat isn't like WW2. Modern weaponry punishes even the slightest mistake severely making combat quite unforgiving. This may limit your enjoyment. However if you've got an interest in modern warfare, it is a must.

Anyway, try the demos, it's well worth your time.