graphics: CMBN vs TOW

[eciesse]

I played TOW series waiting for CMBN. One thjing I liked of TOW, expecially TOW2, was graphics.. I find CMBN ok but not at that level. (I'm not talking about accuracy of details in equipment or veichle, I'm talking about general feeling and smoothness of graphic engine, grass, how buildings blend in the environment..)

Am I completely off?

After 10 years of waiting my expectations were higher than the reality..

[jcmil]

I tend to agree from a gfx perspective.

I think ToW does look better & I had higher expectations from viewing the CMBN screen shots. I played the 2 one after the other & the gfx just draw me right back into ToW. That said CMBN blows PC Ostfront away

I am playing with everything on Max in both games BTW. The upside is I have yet to see any lag or slow-downs in CMBN.

Eye candy is important to me personally but as long as the game-play is good I can wait/live with it.

However I am hoping that sometime there will be a DX11 texture pack or something. [CoH did a patch from DX9 -> DX10 so it's not impossible... ]

Has the modding community pushed the CMBN texture envelope yet I wonder?

[pcelt]

eciesse--I agree with you about the overall visual quality of TOW Kursk/Caen--but as a convincing combat simulation with credible and challenging fighting with and against AI units and for the huge variety of OOBs you can select and organize and for all the relistic command and control features which permeate the game --all of which leads to continued and varied challenges and game longevity---CMBN wins hands down.

I played and enjoyed at a certain level TOW games for a while and marvelled particularly at the visual quality--but attractive as they are, I dont think I am likely to return to them when the CMBN game for me provides a much more realistic,convincing and challenging WW2 military environment.

[Volodnikov]

There are certain things that are graphically better in Theatre of War, such as trenches, smoke, explosions, and grass, but other than that I prefer CMBN. There's something about the visuals in Theatre of War that puts me off. A lot of the topography seems unnatural and artificial, there aren't many distinct features or landmarks in the maps, the units and buildings seem very small in comparison to the terrain, and performance is somewhat poor on a decent machine.

[Vein]

The models in TOW, especially the infantry, was pants. The three things i DID prefer was the terrain that appeared to go on into the distance (rather than the flat board of CM), the damage showing on the vehicles and the dead bodies remaining in manned positions, and air support appearing on map.

But Combat Mission is for me far more immersive in every way despite these things.

[Sybma]

Pure on the graphics watch the recently released Men of War Assault Squad. Damage on houses, tanks, explosions. All great.

Totally different league both i love the multiplay.

[eciesse]

I agree with all of you. I do not plan on returning to TOW, and performance is better in CMBN, and TOEs are better in CMBN, and c2 is fantastic in CMBN.... But at least I' m not the only one that see a difference.. TOW2 graphics IS superior.. Said that I hope that subsequent mods and patches will help..

[Destraex1]

graphics in cmbn are acceptable to me. I had not hoped for more.

I am appreciating the engine and detail more. For me graphics have got to the stage where anything more is better but not necessary in a game.

[AstroCat]

Oh yes, by far TOW has the better graphics, as well the overall presentation has much more immersion for me. I love CMBN but it can definitely feel sterile at times and could use a major "flavor" graphics/UI upgrade that would in my opinion raise the game up to the next level.

[Destraex1]

for me TOW was much more sterile than CMBN by far. The terrain was always flat and invariably had well prepared defensive positions. It was like siege warfare on a plain.

The detail on the soldier models was certainly not better than CMBN.... the support for more advanced effects however was. Each mission in TOW was pretty much rail roaded and therefore sterile to me.

I have pretty much finished all of the TOW2 campaigns BTW. I did enjoy them, especially the desert one.

Also where are the community campaigns and missions.... the longevity?

[AstroCat]

I think CMBN is the better game overall for sure but I do wish BF had some more time to create a more immersive and user-friendly UI. Some more modern graphic and sound techniques would be very welcome as well. I know all the "reasons" the game doesn't have these things, but I am hopefully it could moving forward.

[Federico]

The only thing I miss about graphics on CM2 games is the wreckage of units when destroyed. Actually we only see smoke and flames or nothing when the do not burn.

About realism CMBN is by far the right choice.

S!

[pcelt]

One display feature I would like in CNBN which TOW does implement is the apparent continuation of the terrain from the battle area to the screen edge. It avoids this effect of battling on a terrain board with edges floating above the surrounding landscape and nor being part of it.

I dont know how difficult it is to implement such a " terrain continuation" feature but I think it would really improve the overall viewing and feeling of immersiveness.