Theatre of War 2 vs. CM Normandy

[gibsonm]

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?

Well I’m not a Gunner (we who can move and shoot tend to look down on them ).

But again I’m not familiar with the Battle lengths in ToW (as I say I loaded ver 1.0, got the screen to display the right way up, played two battles and deleted it) but if its say 30min and what 10mins in they capture this and then have to use it on an advancing / counter attacking / whatever enemy they might well get a round or two off.

But the “trial and error” phase is the live engagement (again not at some calm training location). I can’t see a tank crew happily sit there and watch rounds land in very locations and let them “get the hang of it” before they fire a HE round back or just drive over it.

MG’s fine, but once you move up to truly “crew served” weapons I think its a bit of a long bow to think they can do anything much after 10 minutes “on the job” training under fire.

[phil stanbridge]

I like both games - they are fun in equal measures. As long as you look at the TOW series through rose tinted glasses most people like what they see.

I quite like the TOW series because it offers a different type of gameplay from CM. It's also 'prettier' in many respects even if it isn't based upon the same scale. It's not as accurate as the CM series under any cirumstances, even though it tries a little too hard IMO. For example, every man in the squad is named and you can mixro-manage every soldier individually. It reminds me very much of a 'polished' Close Combat. CM is actually catching up in this respect now, and that will be interesting to see how it feels in a WWII theatre once again. You can also choose which round to take out that tank, or when to use that rifle grenade, whereas this is more automated in CM. But then there's daft things, like not being able to unbutton that tank, and laser-guided tank machine guns that can fire accurately at 1000 yards. But overall, TOW is a pretty nice franchise. It will be interesting to see how TOW Korea pans out with it's new found versatility.

[sand digger]

TOW is in some ways a great game but there are a couple of aspects that spoilt it for me. Firstly, all the defensive works (trenches etc) were fixed, if you were defending they were the only defences available. To make it worse they were often poorly located. Secondly, if you decided to move some of your defending forces to alternative locations or use a mobile defence the game could not be finished, the attacking AI would simply stop the action. So defensively its very scripted, play by numbers. After you work it out the challenge is lost and it all becomes a bit pointless.

But some aspects of it are great. The detail is amazing, the comprehensive graphics add to the spectacle, it has a very realistic look and feel and the help is very good.

[Destraex1]

I liked the veteran inits and the individual unit markings on all of the tanks.... great detail.

Another great thing about it is that it deals with rare theatres and armies like africa and the italian army campaign. the american army in tunisia.

I have caen and will have to play that next

[LJFHutch]

TOW = point and click fest IMO.

CM = real world tactical simulation.

all IMO.

Pretty much how I felt too. I got bored with ToW very quickly and while I don't play CM all that much I can always come back and love it every time

[AslakH]

Old people shouldn't play RTS.

Too much going on. Also, they shouldn't watch the commercials. They'll bust a nut just looking at all the colors.

I digress.

"WeGo" is so 1993. I don't get the "if it ain't realistic, I don't play it! Click fest!", and then playing WeGo because they can't react quickly enough or just want to cheat (you old'uns know what I mean! Following the rocket to find the source, etc). RTS is the future.

ToW was OK. ToW2 was also OK. ToW2: Kursk was the straw that broke the camels back for me. Too many spotting issues, snag-bugs and the gameplay was sub-par.

CM is the only RTS/TBS game I play right now. It simply is the best of its kind. And the only, apart from APK1943 (which isn't nearly as good and is only similar to CMx2).

[Erwin]

"Old people shouldn't play RTS."

I have an awful feeling I agree with you. I get a headache and stress playing RTS for more than a few minutes these days.

[AslakH]

Oh, I forgot, ToW2 doesn't have better effects.

Play CMSF after playing ToW2, and you'll see.

I love how the smoke lingers in CMSF. I can almost smell the fumes. ^^

[Bertram]

RTS is only inherently more realistic if you limit the decisions in the game to the decisions a real person would have to made in that position - and then stick to that position.

We (gamers) never do (except maybe in single person shooters), so the conclusion that RTS is the future - due to it being more realistic - is in my opinion flawed. It might be the future, but then it is because the gamers in the future like the quick reaction type game, not because it better stimulates reality.

A compagny commander does *not* run around the battlefield reaction as much as possible to real time events, and directing individual squads, forward observers and verhicles. He plans the battle in advance (preferable at least the previous day) and bites his nails as it unfolds. He then (especially in WWII communication circumstances) has the choice to stay back and try to influence (occasionally over the next hours) the battle as a whole, or to get involved close up and risk losing the big picture - reducing his effectiveness to that of a squad commander (although with at first a better idea of the broader picture).

Playing we-go simulates better the planning, and inserts the player intelligent as a substitute for the limited AI of the lower level decision making. It does have the flaw of to good general knowledge and to much coordination.

Playing RT simulates better the pressure under combat at the lower, close tactical, level. It still has the flaw of to much general knowledge, but the coordination suffers due to time constraints. Unfortunatly so does the substtution of player intelligence for the lacking AI.

Both have pro and cons, depending on the kind of battle and the size. And in the end it is a matter of preverence and enjoyment of the player.

[Praetori]

Old people shouldn't play RTS.

Too much going on. Also, they shouldn't watch the commercials. They'll bust a nut just looking at all the colors.

I digress.

"WeGo" is so 1993. I don't get the "if it ain't realistic, I don't play it! Click fest!", and then playing WeGo because they can't react quickly enough or just want to cheat (you old'uns know what I mean! Following the rocket to find the source, etc). RTS is the future.

Battle of minds or battle of reflexes. Chess on one end and Quake on the other.

Wargames, Tactical or Operational doesn't benefit much from RTS speedyness, while faster paced games like R.U.S.E doesn't benefit much from realistic armor penetration, C2, ammo, realistic arty and so forth.

Two different kinds of fun, and IMO two completely different entertainment systems (games like RUSE and CM share nothing except that they portray similar models and settings). TOW are inbetween traditional RTS (ala Starcraft) and Combat Mission.

[Erwin]

"you old'uns know what I mean! Following the rocket to find the source, etc..." Heh.

In modern warfare I would think the pixeltruppen have more eyes than just the player's and would probably see the smoke of a launch easier.

Also, I saw a documentary that was a couple years old showing technology that can determine within a second or so exactly which direction and how far away a show was taken, so it could bring down accurate fire on that spot within seconds. So, I assume my guys have that capability!

[DaveyJJ]

Both have pro and cons, depending on the kind of battle and the size. And in the end it is a matter of preverence and enjoyment of the player.

This is it.

For me, personally, I prefer WeGo to real-time RTS. Maybe it's my age now, but even in my past I've never managed to handle even the first RTS strategy games that came out.

World of Warcraft I, Age of Empires, StarCraft, Age of Mythology, Company of Heroes, etc. Couldn't wrap my head around having to be everywhere at all times making snap decisions about what to produce or build, who to attack, etc. Felt to robotic and thoughtless to me. The only RTS strategy game I came close to liking and being able to handle the pace of was Rise of Nations.

I have always preferred the WeGo system that CMBO introduced to war gamers. Next best thing to hex-based traditional war games like Combat Commander series (by GMT) in my mind. It allows me to plan, think, order and then watch, review, study and learn from my mistakes and successes. Over and over. Sure it's not like a real battle, but for this old man, it works perfectly.

But one man's fish is another man's poisson after all.

[HintJ]

RTS's can be a great training tool, but only if the AI acts realistically human. YOU GO HERE-YOU GO HERE-YOU GO HERE-CLICK-CLICK-CLICK-REAL PEOPLE GET PISSED OFF!!!

I mentioned in another thread that I work in an industry (trucking) where I have dispatchers "commanding" 50 or more trucks in a RTS, of sorts. And it is the younger guys that run the load boards like Command and Conquer, and their drivers quit all the time, running up turnover costs! It is the experienced older guys that think a little more that are far more valuable to me.

I'd rather have a middle-aged (but intelligent) military veteran dispatching, than a hyperactive recent college grad.

The best dispatcher I know is in his 50's, and according to him, a good dispatcher "knows where the problem areas are [i think maybe NYC, or big cities in general], and focus on what's happening there." He knows when people are burning out, and he gets them out of bad areas. His doesn't babysit the guys in Kansas--drivers must have good AI!

At some point, I believe the military will have microchips in every soldier's gear (or body), and there will be someone sitting at a computer screen, trying to direct everything in real-time, and it will be the wiser/older men that are the best at it, because there is always a human element.

Until, of course, robots are doing the fighting, then we will have lots to worry about!

edit--sorry, off topic, I think TOW2 is pretty fun, but not even really comparable to CM games--achtung panzer kharkov is a little closer but it's better than TOW2

[dan/california]

And most truck drivers can obey traffic signals, pixeltruppen not so much yet.

[Destraex1]

hintj I would ask where then the AI that makes combat mission shock force better than TOW2 is?

[Praetori]

hintj I would ask where then the AI that makes combat mission shock force better than TOW2 is?

If a squad of soldiers in CM notices hostiles within grenade range they start throwing. If they spot a tank they pick up the AT-4s. If a tank finds itself in a troublesome spot it fires smoke and goes into reverse, similar to what real soldiers do.

In TOW (which IS a great computer game IMO) the guys tend to die instead.

[HintJ]

hintj I would ask where then the AI that makes combat mission shock force better than TOW2 is?

I don't know--more likely TOW2 is better compared to Actung Panzer Karkov. In fact, I've only played the demo of TOW2, and I always want to load up APK afterwards. In APK, I've seen a T-34 crew panic, bail-out, and while running away, get gunned down by another T-34! Now that's some interesting A.I.

My rather off-topic response was more directed to many of the older member's prejudices against RTS.

[sand digger]

Playing the TOW2 demo does not qualify for the full experience and anyone who dismisses it as a 'clickfest' was playing a different game to me. I have already mentioned it's serious big picture shortcomings but then I don't get hung up on relatively minor detail that may be inaccurate, basically it plays OK within its limitations. Which is a whole lot more than many games can truthfully claim.

[HintJ]

Playing the TOW2 demo does not qualify for the full experience and anyone who dismisses it as a 'clickfest' was playing a different game to me. I have already mentioned it's serious big picture shortcomings but then I don't get hung up on relatively minor detail that may be inaccurate, basically it plays OK within its limitations. Which is a whole lot more than many games can truthfully claim.

Fair enough, but I never said TOW2 (in particular) is a clickfest. In fact, it looks like it should be a lot of fun; however, lack of a binocular/zoom view disappoints me, and the artificial feel of the spacing when moving squads does too.

Apparently, it meets some people's desire to control every man, rename them, smart-pause w/orders, etc. And it looks pretty cool, too.

[Paulverisor64]

Just out of curiousity I am wondering what degree of collaboration that Battlefront has between their similar projects. It would seem to me that a lot of work could be bypassed through sharing TOW and CM's 3d world. I do understand that infantry reacts different between the games in regards to whether you can or can't individually control units. It would seem however that map and vehicle sharing could eliminate a lot of costs and time in game developement, so that more time might be used in tweaking the behavior's within an environment.

Redirecting back to the original question: I personnally like CM's approach a little better than TOW's approach

1) They have WEGO

2) Control of squads vs being able to control all individuals

3) Not having to re-direct round type or decisions about what to do with ammo or different weapons.

However it is also nice (however not accurate) to be able to gain experience between scenarios. If push comes to shove I still prefer the approach CM takes.

I do like TOW and I have wondered several times why such a visually pleasing as well as realistically detailed game as TOW doesn't gather more of a following.

[gibsonm]

Caveat: I’ve only touched TOW 1.0.

It would seem however that map and vehicle sharing could eliminate a lot of costs and time in game developement, so that more time might be used in tweaking the behavior's within an environment.

Based on that experience (further coloured no doubt by having to mess around with setting files just to get the screen to display the “right” side up) I hope BFC never adopts TOWs vehicle modelling.

I couldn’t get over the swath a vehicle would cut (e.g. a vehicle driving past a building - with a sizeable 2m gap between it and the wall collapsed the building). It was like there was some zone around the vehicle and anything that encroached into that zone (didn’t have to touch the vehicle) be it wall, tree, building, whatever, collapsed. :confused:

[Gromit]

I could get over the swath a vehicle would cut (e.g. a vehicle driving past a building - with a sizeable 2m gap between it and the wall collapsed the building). It was like there was some zone around the vehicle and anything that encroached into that zone (didn’t have to touch the vehicle) be it wall, tree, building, whatever, collapsed. :confused:

Umm... yeah- I'd say that'd be a game-breaker for me too. Sort of takes you right out of your comfort zone, eh?

[gibsonm]

Not out of my comfort zone, just looked stupid and that plus editing setting files to sort out the screen and the “anybody can man anything“ approach meant I was pretty soon looking for the uninstaller and I’ve never gone back.

[Erik Springelkamp]

To be fair, I have had Hummers driving right through houses in CMSF occasionally, and soldiers walk through parts of the vehicles regularly. The latter doesn't really bother me, as it is only a visual glitch, but it does look strange in a video.

[gibsonm]

Yes (and I must say I don’t know if this was fixed in later versions) but at least in CM:SF everything remains intact.

The soldier or the vehicle still works and the building still stands so you can ignore it as a once off aberration.

In TOW the buildings, fences, wall, tress, etc. were flattened, they didn’t “pop back up” after the vehicle passed.

And these changes in terrain had real effects in terms of changes to LOS / LOF etc.