Theatre of War 2 vs. CM Normandy

[Sybma]

Hi guys,

I do play all Theatre of versions up to the latest version Caen. Kind of newby with Combat Mission (Normandy) however. This game seems very promising but what makes it different from ToW2?

Best regards,

Harold

[SlowMotion]

As far as I know Theatre of War games don't have WEGO, which some people think is the best playing mode of CM games. When using that mode, it doesn't matter how quickly you give orders to your units. So when the map is big and there are lots of units you can still play it. In some RTS games things become unplayable once you have enough units. If you want to find out how this works, you can try the demo of CMSF that has modern units, but the basic idea of how things work should be the same as in CM:BN.

[Redjac]

Wego feels like turn based, while you sit back and watch the resolution of your moves take place simultaneously with the opponent. Its much more accurate and rewarding than the real time games like TOW or close combat, IMO. But slower. Much much better for handling large scale battles, (like a company minus). Personally I never liked the way the turns were phased in Panzer Command, but that is a good game too and wego.

[Sergei]

Hi guys,

I do play all Theatre of versions up to the latest version Caen. Kind of newby with Combat Mission (Normandy) however. This game seems very promising but what makes it different from ToW2?

Best regards,

Harold

This is an interesting question, and as I haven't played the latest games in the TOW series I'm not entirely sure of how to compare them. They have many similarities, but also many differences across the table.

For one thing, in TOW you (can) control individual soldiers, whereas in CM they are always bound to some sort of team or section, and the section is part of a platoon which is part of a company which belongs to a battalion. TO&E is simulated and it's not sufficient to just have a friendly commander within command radius, a unit has to have a command link to their own higher ups.

In TOW campaigns you use points to optimize your core force, while in CM campaigns you have what you are given, eg. if in a given battle the US had only M5 Stuarts, the player couldn't switch them into M10 Tank Destroyers (Quick Battles allow to choose whatever you want, however).

Combat Mission strives for realism and historicality perhaps more than TOW, so that it's somewhere halfway between a game and a simulation. TOW also has many simulational elements, but it is more like the Close Combat series in the overall tone.

[Jaws]

ToW2 is a nice game but has limited maps and units. Also ToW2 is an RTS trying to come close to WW2 and I think they did a good job.

But where ToW2 stops with details, flexibility to create content and realism CM:BN starts. Its a very in-depth game made for WW2 enthusiast people who want play is real as it gets. So if you like WW2, are not a click fest player and want to try to play historic realistic scenario's.. you came to the right spot.

[scottie]

TOW = point and click fest IMO.

CM = real world tactical simulation.

all IMO.

[Chad Harrison]

As far as I can tell, the CM games are the only tactical games out there that strive to exactly represent accurate and real TO&E's on the battlefield. Period. I have never found another game that does so - and thats why I like the CM games so much.

Take ToW. You certainly have very well represented weapons, guns, tanks, uniforms and such. But how these are organized is simply 'hey I have three T-34's and 55 soldiers'. Its not 'I have 2 depleted Medium tank platoons supporting two rifle companies with an attached section of machine guns'. To be able to double click in the CM editor and suddenly have a very accurately represented American Rifle Battalion is worth buying the game alone in my opinion.

I only played the original ToW, so this may have changed since then. But again, if for no other reason, CM stands above the rest simply because it has a *real* TOE/ORBAT system whereas every other tactical game out there hints at it.

Not to mention WEGO. RTS does nothing for me. But WEGO is a way of life

Chad

[gunnersman]

I've played ToW. I have not played ToW2. I even had the opportunity to help play test ToW. From what I can tell the creators seem to put alot more effort in appearances and effects than in CMx2. I didnt really get much of the "experience" as I do from the CMx2 series. They put alot of detail into the game though, such as pieces flying off of a tank when it is hit, any soldier or tank crewman manning another tank or crew served weapon. It's all very interesting and the "wow" factor is high. But the real time only element was difficult for me. And because of that the battles were hard to follow. There is too much micromanagement and too little to help the player follow what is going on IMHO. That equals not much fun for me.

The CMx2 series has some similarities to ToW. But a big difference is CMx2 is "WeGo". WeGo is bascially turn based but events play out in front of you in 60 second increments. You plot your orders, press "Go", and the orders are carried out (or attempted to be carried out) for 60 seconds. After that 60 seconds time freezes (so to speak) and you make decisions based on the last 60 seconds on how you want to proceed with the next 60 seconds. Rinse. Repeat.

There is a real time option in CMx2.

CMx2 does not have the level of unit detail and damage detail as ToW has. But that's fine with me.

One thing I always liked about CMSF (and CMBO/BB/AK for that matter) are the tracer bullets from small arms are waaay over modeled. Instead of every 5 bullets being a tracer...every bullet is a tracer. And bright! It makes it easier to follow the battle that way.

The tracers are very realistic in ToW. Which means they are subdued and not as bright. In fact ToW always struck me as having alot of emphasis of accuracy in general. Maybe too much. Which takes away from the fun for me. Some like that. But not me.

[Jonny(FGM)]

In fact ToW always struck me as having alot of emphasis of accuracy in general. Maybe too much. Which takes away from the fun for me. Some like that. But not me.

I presume you mean just visual accuracy?

[eniced73]

I think gunner is referring to gunner accuracy. TOW seemed to have too much of a one shot one kill aspect to it. I doubt he meant as in the vehicle models being to accurate.

TOW does incorporate a 'pause' button that you can freeze the action and then scan the field and issue orders. But there is no rewind function to allow you to see what the heck happened to half your force as you look at the other half. The damage modelling is pretty cool though. I only played the first two so I am not 100% sure on the other changes that were made.

These are two different beasts of games (CM engine compared to TOW). I enjoy both but have seen people that hate one and love the other. I dont agree that TOW is a 'clickfest' game. I think of the old command and conquer games when I hear that and would not classify it in the same category. Now 'Men of War' is another similar game to TOW but again after playing both I think they are not in the same category either. Matter of what your gaming style is when it comes down to it.

[gibsonm]

Following based on a brief play of ToW (before I recovered the disc space and binned it).

ToW lets you climb in a use whatever you want.

Unskilled Russian peasant discovers abandoned Panther, no worries just climb in and drive off and shoot (no need to be able to read German, let alone be trained on the thing).

Click fest.

Graphics were weird. There seemed to be a zone around the vehicle so if you drove near something (say a tree or a wall) but didn’t touch it, it would still fall down.

Looked pretty but seemed a classic “style over substance“ approach.

[Sakai007]

As some here may know, I am a rabid CM fan, and have every CM product made with the exception of the British module for CMSF. I have also purchased TOW2 Kursk with the Caen expansion for christmas and have played that a ton lately after getting fired up from the CM: BN forums. I say that TOW is great, but you can't really compare it to CM: BN. They are two different games after two different things. TOW allows you to select which round your main gun will fire, and what kind of grenades you want individual soldier to throw. The TacAI in CM does all of these things, so you can focus on where you place your troops. Now, the damage model in TOW is amazing, really, and with detailed armor hits on you can see exactly where a shell went, and what it did when it got there, beautiful. Pausing is a way of life in TOW, as it is in CMx2 playing real time, so the only thing I can say is at least CM has the option of being turn based, TOW does not. And lastly, it is a way of life to capture enemy weapons in TOW, and this is not true to real life, so it is not true to CM. There is a whole thread about it around here somewhere, but it can get you fragged by blue on blue faster then anything else in the real world. These are my thoughts, flame on...

PS - Gibsonm is right in many respects, but I disagree with is being 100% click-fest. If you want to play it like a traditional RTS you can, but if you chose to put more thought into it, it will reward you for such. And as he said, a ruskie peasant climbs into a Panther and drives off.............sounds like the start of a bad joke to me, lololol

[eniced73]

Symba,

download and play CMSF. Will give you a 'sort of' idea of what the game style will be like. You can then at least see the difference for yourself. I would recommend keeping an eye on it and then buying it if you liked the old CM series or even the PC series.

[Petrus58]

As some here may know, I am a rabid CM fan, and have every CM product made with the exception of the British module for CMSF. I have also purchased TOW2 Kursk with the Caen expansion for christmas and have played that a ton lately after getting fired up from the CM: BN forums. I say that TOW is great, but you can't really compare it to CM: BN. They are two different games after two different things. TOW allows you to select which round your main gun will fire, and what kind of grenades you want individual soldier to throw. The TacAI in CM does all of these things, so you can focus on where you place your troops. Now, the damage model in TOW is amazing, really, and with detailed armor hits on you can see exactly where a shell went, and what it did when it got there, beautiful. Pausing is a way of life in TOW, as it is in CMx2 playing real time, so the only thing I can say is at least CM has the option of being turn based, TOW does not. And lastly, it is a way of life to capture enemy weapons in TOW, and this is not true to real life, so it is not true to CM. There is a whole thread about it around here somewhere, but it can get you fragged by blue on blue faster then anything else in the real world. These are my thoughts, flame on...

PS - Gibsonm is right in many respects, but I disagree with is being 100% click-fest. If you want to play it like a traditional RTS you can, but if you chose to put more thought into it, it will reward you for such. And as he said, a ruskie peasant climbs into a Panther and drives off.............sounds like the start of a bad joke to me, lololol

This pretty much sums up my view on TOW2 as well. There is no way you can play it like a click-fest; if you do you'll lose very quickly. Also, although you can use captured vehicles rather too easily, there's not much point in just sticking any old Russian or German peasants in as they need the appropriate skills (driver, gunner, etc) to be of any use.

[gunnersman]

I presume you mean just visual accuracy?

Accuracy was probably a poor choice of words. When I mean to say is more in terms of the FoW of an unfolding battle. For instance; one of your tanks is destroyed but you didn't know it because your attention is at another end of the battle field where some other action is unfolding. That destroyed tank was a critical part of your plan. So your plan becomes unraveled very fast because of that destroyed tank and you have no clue. There is a message system that tells you these things...but it can get busy.

That's too much for me.

(Yes, yes I know. Allowing the plan to hinge on one unit was bad planning to begin with. But that's beside the point!)

CMx1 and x2 allows you to review a 60 second bit of the battle before moving on. Its not how a battle really happens, but it makes it "fun" for me.

[gunnersman]

This pretty much sums up my view on TOW2 as well. There is no way you can play it like a click-fest; if you do you'll lose very quickly. Also, although you can use captured vehicles rather too easily, there's not much point in just sticking any old Russian or German peasants in as they need the appropriate skills (driver, gunner, etc) to be of any use.

What they said.

[gibsonm]

Also, although you can use captured vehicles rather too easily, there's not much point in just sticking any old Russian or German peasants in as they need the appropriate skills (driver, gunner, etc) to be of any use.

So who do you put in?

Are there guys on the ToW battlefield (apart from the actual crews) with these skill sets somehow?

Anyway i’m sure a bunch of people love it.

I don’t, but it wasn’t a waste of money as based on the first episode I didn’t bother with the others.

[Sakai007]

So who do you put in?

Are there guys on the ToW battlefield (apart from the actual crews) with these skill sets somehow?

Anyway i’m sure a bunch of people love it.

I don’t, but it wasn’t a waste of money as based on the first episode I didn’t bother with the others.

As for others with the right skill sets, not really. If you have enough survivors from one of your own destroyed tanks then it can be done with a degree of, "may be possible" but more often then not the crew gets smoked when the tank does.

[gibsonm]

As for others with the right skill sets, not really. If you have enough survivors from one of your own destroyed tanks then it can be done with a degree of, "may be possible" but more often then not the crew gets smoked when the tank does.

Ah so a German crew from another Panther?

That makes sense.

Or do you mean say a surviving T-34 crew?

Not so credible.

[gunnersman]

This pretty much sums up my view on TOW2 as well. There is no way you can play it like a click-fest; if you do you'll lose very quickly. Also, although you can use captured vehicles rather too easily, there's not much point in just sticking any old Russian or German peasants in as they need the appropriate skills (driver, gunner, etc) to be of any use.

So who do you put in?

Are there guys on the ToW battlefield (apart from the actual crews) with these skill sets somehow?

Anyway i’m sure a bunch of people love it.

I don’t, but it wasn’t a waste of money as based on the first episode I didn’t bother with the others.

I think part of the draw to the game was that the player can adjust the skill sets of each soldier and tanker as the player would like. After each battle the player can choose who get's medals and who increases in skill for a given skill set (scouting, gunnery, driving, etc). I think it was an attempt to add some human experience to the game and make the player care about those under his command. But it was all pointless because half of them kept dying off after each mission.

Speaking of missions...

And then there were the campaigns. Each battle of the campaign seemed to have alot of time elapse in between. Weeks. The battle before really did not have any effect on the battle after. About the only thing each battle had in common were the soldiers, gun crews and tankers. The personalities were the same but the fact you could mix and match soldiers, gun crews, and tank crews as you pleased did not sit well with me.

At any rate...back to the topic...you can't do any of this in CMx2.

As it should be.

[dan/california]

Ah so a German crew from another Panther?

That makes sense.

Or do you mean say a surviving T-34 crew?

Not so credible.

There is an excellent piece of science fiction by David Drake that touches on this subject. A group of insurgents steal the 25th century equivalent of an Abrams from a a dockyard where it it is waiting to be shipped off planet. Unfortunately they spend the next week losing their minds trying to figure out how to tell the computer to open the magazine for the main gun ammo. When they eventually get caught a tanker goes "oh, its this little button over here". Nothing is Simple when you just don't know where to start. Think about trying to drive a rental car from a brand you haven't driven.

[Sakai007]

Ah so a German crew from another Panther?

That makes sense.

Or do you mean say a surviving T-34 crew?

Not so credible.

Well, it is obviously possible in TOW2 to do both, since Infantry can do it. But, I am more apt to have an existing crew that bailed act as a sort of 'reserve' for the rest of my armor, so if a crew member from another tank is killed, I can call in one of these guys to take his place. Am I wrong in assuming that many WWII tanks had controls that would be at least operable for a tanker from another army? If I am way off, then by all means educate me.

[gibsonm]

Am I wrong in assuming that many WWII tanks had controls that would be at least operable for a tanker from another army? If I am way off, then by all means educate me.

Well it might work for the driver after a bit of trial and error.

But (without trying to go too far down the “Russian bashing” path) there’s a world of difference between the Soviet training of “push this button to start, pull this lever to turn, push this peddle to speed up and by the way we a chaining you in and if you are still alive in 2 weeks the training has worked” and then expecting this guy to:

1. Read the dials in German (he may not have even been able to read Russian).

2. Know how to maintain a complex petrol engine (compared to the diesel he had).

3. understand the steering arrangement (this is probably the easiest to figure out by trial and error).

Then the radio operator needs to figure out how the German radio works (given there probably wasn’t one in the Soviet vehicle) let alone do the frequencies match.

Then the gunner needs to:

1. Work out which ammunition is which (sure there’s now a standard NATO colour coding but in the 1940’s people didn’t write “HE” in seven different languages on the round).

2. How the sights work and which sight setting to use for which ammunition type.

3. How the turret moves (again probably achievable with trial and error).

The end result is a vehicle that in the ToW timescale would lurch, stall, etc. onto the field, fire rounds all over the place and if it did achieve a hit then it probably wouldn’t be effective.

Sure if the vehicle was taken away and trained on they’d be much better but that’s far different to ToW where a crew moves through the shot and shell of the battlefield, clambers inside, removes the bits of dead, etc., and then say to each other “now anybody got a clue what this button does?”.

I suspect the reason why the Germans used a lot of captured kit (apart from production levels not giving them enough of their own) was because if you are coming from a complex vehicle its far easier to learn how a simpler vehicle works compared to going the other way.

[Redjac]

Well, it is obviously possible in TOW2 to do both, since Infantry can do it. But, I am more apt to have an existing crew that bailed act as a sort of 'reserve' for the rest of my armor, so if a crew member from another tank is killed, I can call in one of these guys to take his place. Am I wrong in assuming that many WWII tanks had controls that would be at least operable for a tanker from another army? If I am way off, then by all means educate me.

in Tow2 you have to be a driver to drive. Infantry can't drive. If its your own vehicle a skill of 15 is required. If its an enemy tank a skill greater than 50, something like that.

[Sakai007]

all good points, and I really hadn't run through the chain of thought I would go through climbing into a WWII era tank and trying to operate it effectively. For the Soviet crewman it's like leaving his Cessna for a 747, and for the German it's like getting out of his 18-wheeler and getting into a Ford Festiva

I do find the use of captured field guns to seem reasonable enough though. That is another manual recommended strategy in TOW, the use of captured AT/Arty/Inf guns. I can surely see a reduced efficiency of the gun crews, but trial and error would allow them to put fire down range. Ur thoughts?

in Tow2 you have to be a driver to drive. Infantry can't drive. If its your own vehicle a skill of 15 is required. If its an enemy tank a skill greater than 50, something like that.

I had not actually used captured tanks as anything but emergency Arty, I figured they were immobilized, but perhaps this was the problem. lol