CM Normandy > TOW2

[phil stanbridge]

Just a thought - with the release of the new CM Normandy game, wont this in essence make the TOW game redundant? I can't work out where TOW will fit into all this. Personally, I prefer the CM franchise over TOW, but wont both games will be similar in terms of scale and ambition?

With CMBB and CMAK they were on a different level, with huge engagements and massive maps, but with the scaling down of the new games I can see fewer and fewer differences.

Edit, sorry if this seems like the wrong place - but with the Normandy bone I thought it was relevant.

[flamingknives]

All the CM games are designed to be at the same scale. With the CMX1 engine, computers have become so much more powerful that they can handle the larger battles.

[Other Means]

I've just got a new video card. I can run "Battlegroup Attacks!" with everything maxed out and no drop in framerate.

Not saying I'll be able to run "To the Volgo again" but I can certainly see me playing normal CM1 size maps/unit densities etc.

As to where TOW will sit...I don't think that's a problem. Some people like TOW, some like CM. I don't think that will change.

[phil stanbridge]

All the CM games are designed to be at the same scale. With the CMX1 engine, computers have become so much more powerful that they can handle the larger battles.

I slightly disagree with this. I seem to recall Battlefront saying that the new CM games will be based on a much smaller scale due to the 1:1 representation of troops.

What is the largest engagement you can have in SF currently? I've played a couple of the British scenarios and they are definitely on the large side but I guess due to their very nature everything seems 'scaled down'? Maybe it's just me.

[phil stanbridge]

I've just got a new video card. I can run "Battlegroup Attacks!" with everything maxed out and no drop in framerate.

Not saying I'll be able to run "To the Volgo again" but I can certainly see me playing normal CM1 size maps/unit densities etc.

As to where TOW will sit...I don't think that's a problem. Some people like TOW, some like CM. I don't think that will change.

I've played that scenario and I loved it! It almost felt like 'old' combat mission if you know what I mean.

I tried both TOW demos and I must admit they held my interest for a short while but they seem a little clumsy in comparison to CM - almost like CM is meant to be the 'premium' product but I still can't place TOW.

[Sergei]

Theatre of War is not really the same genre (or sub-genre) as Combat Mission. They may look the same, sure, and briefly even feel the same. But TOW's inspiration is more in Close Combat, ie. arcadish and not very high brow, while Combat Mission has closest relatives in Advanced Squad Leader or Steel Panthers type, more "mature" games. They're not miles apart, but they're not real substitutes to each other either.

[Paper Tiger]

What is the largest engagement you can have in SF currently?

If your computer is up to it, you can manage a single Battalion in CMSF. I believe there are a few missions in the CMSF campaigns where you get a full US Stryker or Marines (YIKES!!!) battalion to play with. That's why I haven't played any of them yet.

However, if you want to play with battalions, you would be better playng the game WEGO and not Real Time. To be honest, if you're playing WEGO and your computers red hot, why stop at a Battalion...

My own personal comfort zone is around 2 companies in Real Time. More than that and it's too much to manage.

[Apocal]

A reinforced company is about my maximum in real time. Even then I'm really only running a platoon of troops and one or two vehicles at a time.

As for scale, I can't recall any statement by BF (not to say they didn't make one, just I don't remember seeing it) saying that they'd scaled it down, I think the nature of the forces involved does it for you. How many Syrians would you need to make a Combined Arms Battalion sweat?

[phil stanbridge]

What is the largest engagement you can have in SF currently?

If your computer is up to it, you can manage a single Battalion in CMSF. I believe there are a few missions in the CMSF campaigns where you get a full US Stryker or Marines (YIKES!!!) battalion to play with. That's why I haven't played any of them yet.

However, if you want to play with battalions, you would be better playng the game WEGO and not Real Time. To be honest, if you're playing WEGO and your computers red hot, why stop at a Battalion...

My own personal comfort zone is around 2 companies in Real Time. More than that and it's too much to manage.

That's interesting. I have a pretty good setup here, but I thought CMSF limits the size of the engagements?

[Apocal]

That's interesting. I have a pretty good setup here, but I thought CMSF limits the size of the engagements?

Map size is limited by crashes and a 4km x 4km hardcoded max size, time is restricted by hardcoded limits, units though? I just added five battalions to a map, no problem except my framerate is lower than whale poo.

[phil stanbridge]

Map size is limited by crashes and a 4km x 4km hardcoded max size, time is restricted by hardcoded limits, units though? I just added five battalions to a map, no problem except my framerate is lower than whale poo.

lol. Okay that's excellent.

[Vergeltungswaffe]

CM = Chess

TOW = Checkers

[Dietrich]

On the question of CMx2 versus ToW:

I get the impression a lot of people saw the initial info on CMSF and said/thought: "Modern-day warfare? Syria? Are they kidding?" and then pretty much haven't been heard from since. Thus I can visualize how plenty of folks will come sauntering back to the realm of CM(x2) and breezily proclaim: "Well, BFC, we're glad you've finally come to your senses and made a real Combat Mission game...."

For the record, I too balked when I found out a next-gen CM game had been made but that it was modern-day and in the Middle East, but when I actually played CMSF I found I rather liked it, and I've grown to greatly appreciate it. And I'm very much looking forward to CM:N and the various WW2 CMx2 games.

On the question of CMx2/CMSF scale:

I prefer playing real-time because it feels more immersive and immediate, but my ability to handle forces equivalent to more than a reinforced company is correspondingly limited. Sure, it's great to wield half an MEU's worth of troops and vehicles in a single battle, but I find that with any of a fair number of scenarios, the number of troops is much greater than one would find in an area that size. I think making the map big enough to fit the forces in a battle (or adjusting the size of the force to fit the map) is part of good scenario design.

That said, sometimes there's a big, well-designed map, but with the force I'm alloted, I'm left wondering if the scenario designer really intended for me to be able to accomplish the mission. For example, "Armoured Assault" has a big, well-made map, but even with two platoons of Challengers and two of mechanised infantry (aboard Warriors) and Harrier CAS, I could't help but think: "How am I supposed to achieve the objectives with this relatively small force?" As a test, I replaced the Challengers with a platoon of M1A1 FEPs and an entire company of Marines aboard AAVs, along with two Harriers and two AH-1Ws for air support and the usual mortar allotment, but even then it was a real challenge to achieve the objectives while minizing casualties. (A single SPG-9 knocked out two of my Abrams! Thankfully, all four crew of one of those tanks survived.)

[Battlefront.com]

All CM games, from CMBO through anything we make with CMx2, is optimized for a Battalion or so. Obviously when playing RealTime it becomes more difficult to manage forces of more than 2 companies, but the game itself doesn't care about that. I mean, some WeGoers think RealTime with anything larger than a platoon is impossible to play

Map size has always been hard coded. Over time we'll increase the size beyond 4k x 4k as technology allows. Game time is currently capped at 4 HOURS, which should be sufficient. Forces are unlimited, but most computers can't handle too many vehicle heavy companies. Which is a big difference between WW2 and Modern... most of the Modern forces have integrated transport while most of the WW2 forces don't. Polygons galore for those Modern forces

As to the original question about TOW and CM, I agree that the two games are separate from each other. TOW didn't kill off CMx1 any more than CMx2 will kill off TOW. They are different game systems.

Steve

[MeatEtr]

CM = Chess

TOW = Checkers

Simple and to the point and I couldn't agree more.

Although there's no way to prove it, I'd be willing to bet that most CMers brushed aside the ToW series for obvious reasons. Two distinct groups translates to no competition. But in ToWs defense, it is easily the most realistic WWII RTS game out there and boy there are alot of them.

ToW series = more Mtn. Dew jacked up RTS-like crowd

CM1+2 = slower bengay cerebral thinking crowd

[phil stanbridge]

On the question of CMx2 versus ToW:

I get the impression a lot of people saw the initial info on CMSF and said/thought: "Modern-day warfare? Syria? Are they kidding?" and then pretty much haven't been heard from since. Thus I can visualize how plenty of folks will come sauntering back to the realm of CM(x2) and breezily proclaim: "Well, BFC, we're glad you've finally come to your senses and made a real Combat Mission game...."

I absolutely agree with you here. I was the same until a week ago. For some reason, I tried the game for a third time, with the latest patch and the British module and really liked it. I have no idea what made it click. Beforehand I found the interface somewhat clunky and although there is certainly a lot more lag than with the previous games that is progress for you. I am actually enjoying aspects of SF moreso than CMAK/CMBB, although WWII is my favourite theatre.

I also completely agree with reference to the difficulty levels in SF. Is it hard as nails or what? I am definitely struggling. I guess I chucked myself in at the deep end mind you - I played one of the larger British scenarios almost immediately and I decided to restart part way through. Them again, and again. Now I'm over half way but I just can't work out how you are supposed to win with such a limited force.

[Other Means]

Beforehand I found the interface somewhat clunky...

Have you seen this? De-clunks the interface for a lot of old CM1 users.

[Moon]

To comment on the original point regarding CM and TOW/TOW2: it's actually a little unfair if you ask me, and factually incorrect to be honest, to classify TOW2 as more arcade than CM. It's not. Some of the stuff that TOW does in terms of penetration calculations, to-hit calculations, and other physics in the game, in fact surpass what CM is going.

But TOW's focus as a game is different than CM, and this makes the two difficult to compare (and also means that they complement each other much more than they compete). TOW borrows certain aspects from Close Combat such as the character development for your individual soldiers for example, and therefore is more likely to appeal to a different type of player than CM. But I don't think it's necessarily any less realistic in its simulation.

[eniced73]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vergeltungswaffe

CM = Chess

TOW = Checkers

Simple and to the point and I couldn't agree more.

Could not disagree more. More like comparing checkers to chinese checkers.

I would get away from calling TOW a "RTS" game. When that is stated I think more of Command and Conquer or Men of War. Mass produce units and then roll over your opponent. TOW is far from this.

Some of the stuff that TOW does in terms of penetration calculations, to-hit calculations, and other physics in the game, in fact surpass what CM is going.

As Moon stated above TOW has alot more going on than what the one time lookers think. If you buy the game and play through the campaigns you will understand. I have been playing both games since they have been released and agree that they are different but they are more alike than what you think.

This argument can be compared to the old-timers playing combat mission vs. the old-timers playing close combat. It is all preference on what you like. I think the hard core CM players will stick to CM and really dont play TOW anyhow so this will not really put TOW in its grave or vise versa. TOW has its own small following and will remain beside CM.

[Pvt. Ryan]

At least TOW has unit formations!

[derbiber]

What is the "correct" or "intended" way of playing RT battles against AI? Do you guys pause and give orders or can you really handle that in real "RT"?

I´m new to this game and I think RT with pause feels right for me, because I can´t move many units with complex commands simultaneously...

Of course I understand that RT H2H is something different...

what is the best way to play this game in general?

thx

[Palladium]

I've been trying to gain the habit of giving orders in RT, but often end up pausing at least a couple times in a scenario.

When planning an attack in RT, the 'pause' quick command is your friend. You can give a complex plan of attack with multiple waypoints and then have entire companies carry them out simultaneously, unit-by-unit. This way you plan things out while units wait in cover, then assault all at once.

Another thing, just because you can micromanage the fight and keep a blazing-fast tempo doesn't mean you must. Sometimes you can gain a superior position and let the enemy come to you. When I first started playing this game, one of my major faults was that I sent units charging into CQB when I could have pounded the enemy position with automatic fire for a good long while first. I also thought the seven minutes it took to call in artillery was painfully long.

If you examine AARs from combat units, or stories from recent history, phrases like "after another hour of hard fighting..." or "the position held out for 30 minutes before air support arrived" keep coming up. CM:SF proceeds rather faster than this, but not hugely faster.

[Stoppelhopser]

I am an old Close Combat player and still don't get comfortable with TOW.

It's an amazing piece of software, and I like the vehicle combat system in it.

After the super patch impressive editing tools were given out for free and a while ago additional content was given out for free.

It should be the ww2 gamers dream and have a huge following ... but...

What I don't get on with is handling individual soldiers and their habits. Add the AI and the "gamyness". And I'm not the only one. Good old CM often allows kind of real world tactics to succeed and can be played intuitively by many people not understanding all the key strokes.

Not a modern gamer I still like CMSF real time more, especially since I bought the British and Marine bundle.

I don't hate TOW and hope to have another go at it when I have explored CMSF more. But its not keeping me occupied like eg ancient Close Combat II Arnhem did. Have purposely uninstalled it as I know once I start it up its compulsive to stop the allies. Despite crude graphics and being 10 years old.

[Thomm]

When I played the ToW 1 demo, I filed the game under "piece of art", but I could not bring myself to buy the full game because of the ridiculous difficulty of the missions and the fact, that my laptop probably would not even run the game properly. I assume the ToW 2 demo would not even start on my laptop (I never tried.)

Best regards,

Thomm

[Apocalypse 31]

ToW1 pathfinding was enough to make me un-install the game and never look back. Talk about a pain in the butt!

I downloaded ToW2 with very low hopes, but was surprised.

My biggest gripes with the game

1) NO SQUADS...??? Whats up with that?

2) Lack of missions, lack of units. I was actually SHOCKED at how few units were in ToW2

However, I do enjoy the realistic engagements, the attention to detail in the models and the terrain is great.

CMSF has Strykers, enough said.