Convince me that I should buy it instead of CBN
Moderator: rickier65
RE: Convince me that I should buy it instead of CBN
If you liked CMSF, get CMBN...if you liked CMBB, get PCO...If you liked both, get both.
RE: Convince me that I should buy it instead of CBN
The big flaw of CM:N is the the lack of a combat log.
RE: Convince me that I should buy it instead of CBN
ORIGINAL: henri51
I have the demo of both games, and both are good. Now which one to buy? Sure I could buy both (and maybe I will eventually). But why should I buy this one first? [&:]
OK, one reason is the hateful Battlefront copy protection system apparently designed to offend only legitimate users. But aside from that...
Henri
I seriously do not understand the reasoning behind some of these game companies DRM/Activation schemes. It really does turn me off from a company to realize that they do things like that even if they "think" it is a fairly open system and that they have went out of their way to not overly burden their customers.
How many people TRULY steal wargames?
KurtC in the WITE PBEM module.
RE: Convince me that I should buy it instead of CBN
ORIGINAL: Mad Russian
ORIGINAL: RedCharlie65
I wouldn't take Mad Russians opinion on the game too seriously, he has a vested interest in selling this game
I would hope that my posts about PCO are realistic; and not just a "sales pitch" as you infer. We answer all questions honestly here. He asked and I told him my opinion.
and is known for his dislike of BF. [:)]
I recommend that gamers buy CMBN all the time. My dislikes are not about their games. Hopefully, I would be known for far more things than my "dislike of BF".
I dislike their products so much I have more than 90 scenarios at The Scenario Depot II for CMBB and CMAK.
Good Hunting.
MR
I for one appreciate all the helpful info your provide. Never have gotten the impression you are 'sales pitching'. Also appreciate the respect shown toward the posters here. I have both CMBN and PCO. Have to say I've been rather surprised at the poor customer support shown on the battlefront forum. And, as others have mentioned, the DRM system for CMBN really sucks.[:@]
RE: Convince me that I should buy it instead of CBN
CMx2 is more of an arcade game than PzC:O. It sacrifices a lot to achieve visuals, and CMBN certainly does not exceed CMBB or CMAK for functionality or gameplay. It just *looks* prettier.
The soldiers do not really use the terrain like real soldiers and there are problems with getting them in LOS/LOF because of the grid system they use. In hedgerow country this gets insane. I've had Panzerschrek teams that can't fire, because the soldier is the only one that has LOF while the anti-tank 'man' is in the wrong spot -- all within a single grid. You'll find your ambushes falling to pieces because of subtleties in the LOS/LOF system.
The system is also mismatched between the 1:1 and the abstraction. Essentially, squads have enormous amounts of firepower available in terms of small arms without being appropriately penalized for concentrating due to the generous bonuses they get against area fire effects. You can often win any CMx2 scenario by concentrating all your forces and overwhelming anything they come across with small arms fire.
There is also no such thing as a covered fire position in CMx2. Any unit that is firing is vulnerable to fire as much as you can see their body exposed. Men can't go prone against cover, but have to kneel, making them more vulnerable to small arms than normal (which only aggravates the problems already) and makes automatic weapons like LMGs difficult to control.
Foxholes and trenches have been added, but they can't be placed wherever you like. They have to be in the center of a grid, and since terrain like hedges and walls align along the edge of a grid, means you can't have infantry dug in along lines oriented to cover or concealment. Your men also can't see past the terrain, since they are too far behind it to get a view. Foxholes have problems because they're stuck in square formations of four, which means the back foxholes won't have the same LOF as the front foxholes. (No you can't control orientation.) The effect of this is that you only benefit from entrenchment in open terrain along the axis of fire.
In addition, they've made all hedges (not just "bocage") into significant positions by adding terrain elevation lips to those features, making attacker cover unrealistically available and melding concealment with cover in ways worse than they already did in the original series. (that is, "exposure")
PzC:O sticks to abstraction which aims at getting the results right straight out of the gate. Nothing is sacrificed for visuals. It is much more aligned with the design philosophy that inspired and was borrowed by the old CM series from ASL. In my opinion, it is more realistic with respect to the results you get, but suffers from over-generous cover abstractions (just like CMx1 did) and so player input and player decisions matter less. Light infantry tactics aren't viable in PzC:O and typical line tactics work without too much regard for terrain.
To summarize, I think CMBN gives the gamer more to do and allows his inputs to matter more, but those inputs are mostly geared around gaming the system itself and don't lend themselves to reality, whereas the PzC:O system will give you more realistic overall results but can come across as a battle resolution system rather than a game.
PzC:O also has soooo much more content, in terms of scenarios and campaigns and units... And the customization options are enticing if you're into that sort of tweaking.
PzC:O is what I wish CMx2 had been originally.
The soldiers do not really use the terrain like real soldiers and there are problems with getting them in LOS/LOF because of the grid system they use. In hedgerow country this gets insane. I've had Panzerschrek teams that can't fire, because the soldier is the only one that has LOF while the anti-tank 'man' is in the wrong spot -- all within a single grid. You'll find your ambushes falling to pieces because of subtleties in the LOS/LOF system.
The system is also mismatched between the 1:1 and the abstraction. Essentially, squads have enormous amounts of firepower available in terms of small arms without being appropriately penalized for concentrating due to the generous bonuses they get against area fire effects. You can often win any CMx2 scenario by concentrating all your forces and overwhelming anything they come across with small arms fire.
There is also no such thing as a covered fire position in CMx2. Any unit that is firing is vulnerable to fire as much as you can see their body exposed. Men can't go prone against cover, but have to kneel, making them more vulnerable to small arms than normal (which only aggravates the problems already) and makes automatic weapons like LMGs difficult to control.
Foxholes and trenches have been added, but they can't be placed wherever you like. They have to be in the center of a grid, and since terrain like hedges and walls align along the edge of a grid, means you can't have infantry dug in along lines oriented to cover or concealment. Your men also can't see past the terrain, since they are too far behind it to get a view. Foxholes have problems because they're stuck in square formations of four, which means the back foxholes won't have the same LOF as the front foxholes. (No you can't control orientation.) The effect of this is that you only benefit from entrenchment in open terrain along the axis of fire.
In addition, they've made all hedges (not just "bocage") into significant positions by adding terrain elevation lips to those features, making attacker cover unrealistically available and melding concealment with cover in ways worse than they already did in the original series. (that is, "exposure")
PzC:O sticks to abstraction which aims at getting the results right straight out of the gate. Nothing is sacrificed for visuals. It is much more aligned with the design philosophy that inspired and was borrowed by the old CM series from ASL. In my opinion, it is more realistic with respect to the results you get, but suffers from over-generous cover abstractions (just like CMx1 did) and so player input and player decisions matter less. Light infantry tactics aren't viable in PzC:O and typical line tactics work without too much regard for terrain.
To summarize, I think CMBN gives the gamer more to do and allows his inputs to matter more, but those inputs are mostly geared around gaming the system itself and don't lend themselves to reality, whereas the PzC:O system will give you more realistic overall results but can come across as a battle resolution system rather than a game.
PzC:O also has soooo much more content, in terms of scenarios and campaigns and units... And the customization options are enticing if you're into that sort of tweaking.
PzC:O is what I wish CMx2 had been originally.
-
OttoVonBlotto
- Posts: 273
- Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2008 10:44 pm
RE: Convince me that I should buy it instead of CBN
If you have played both the demos don't listen to anyone else convince yourself and get both.[;)]
"Personal isn't the same as important"
-
Prince of Eckmühl
- Posts: 2459
- Joined: Sun Jun 25, 2006 4:37 pm
- Location: Texas
RE: Convince me that I should buy it instead of CBN
I hope that it doesn't have to be an either/or, but if your finances are such that you can only buy one...
It really comes down to what style of play that you prefer, WEGO or real-time.
If you like the first generation of Combat Mission games, then it's hard to believe that you wouldn't also enjoy Panzer Command. In that same vane, if you disliked CMSF (for any host of reasons), you're probably not gonna like the Normandy game (even though this release is vastly more refined than its predecessor).
IMO, the developers came to a fork in the road very early on in the design of all three game engines. In the case of PC and CM1, a decision was made to build the game around WEGO. In the case of CM2, BF went with RT. And I'd submit that this fundamental difference in design philosophy colored EVERY other aspect of the games that eventually emerged.
Yes, I know that CM2 can be played WEGO, but I'm not sure that it does so as elegantly as either PC or CM1.
Apart from that, CM1/PCO are much more "complete" than any of the CM2 games, as the supply of weapons and vehicles is vastly more comprehensive. There's some disagreement as to how easy to use the editors are in PCO (relative to CM2), but they appear to be more accessible than those for CM1. And unlike CM1 or CM2, PCO is highly open to modification by anyone who has an interest in doing so.
I own all the games that I mention above, and enjoy playing each in spite of their several differences.
It really comes down to what style of play that you prefer, WEGO or real-time.
If you like the first generation of Combat Mission games, then it's hard to believe that you wouldn't also enjoy Panzer Command. In that same vane, if you disliked CMSF (for any host of reasons), you're probably not gonna like the Normandy game (even though this release is vastly more refined than its predecessor).
IMO, the developers came to a fork in the road very early on in the design of all three game engines. In the case of PC and CM1, a decision was made to build the game around WEGO. In the case of CM2, BF went with RT. And I'd submit that this fundamental difference in design philosophy colored EVERY other aspect of the games that eventually emerged.
Yes, I know that CM2 can be played WEGO, but I'm not sure that it does so as elegantly as either PC or CM1.
Apart from that, CM1/PCO are much more "complete" than any of the CM2 games, as the supply of weapons and vehicles is vastly more comprehensive. There's some disagreement as to how easy to use the editors are in PCO (relative to CM2), but they appear to be more accessible than those for CM1. And unlike CM1 or CM2, PCO is highly open to modification by anyone who has an interest in doing so.
I own all the games that I mention above, and enjoy playing each in spite of their several differences.
Government is the opiate of the masses.
-
Enigma6584
- Posts: 306
- Joined: Thu Sep 23, 2010 1:44 am
RE: Convince me that I should buy it instead of CBN
ORIGINAL: Pillar
CMx2 is more of an arcade game than PzC:O. It sacrifices a lot to achieve visuals, and CMBN certainly does not exceed CMBB or CMAK for functionality or gameplay. It just *looks* prettier.
The soldiers do not really use the terrain like real soldiers and there are problems with getting them in LOS/LOF because of the grid system they use. In hedgerow country this gets insane. I've had Panzerschrek teams that can't fire, because the soldier is the only one that has LOF while the anti-tank 'man' is in the wrong spot -- all within a single grid. You'll find your ambushes falling to pieces because of subtleties in the LOS/LOF system.
The system is also mismatched between the 1:1 and the abstraction. Essentially, squads have enormous amounts of firepower available in terms of small arms without being appropriately penalized for concentrating due to the generous bonuses they get against area fire effects. You can often win any CMx2 scenario by concentrating all your forces and overwhelming anything they come across with small arms fire.
There is also no such thing as a covered fire position in CMx2. Any unit that is firing is vulnerable to fire as much as you can see their body exposed. Men can't go prone against cover, but have to kneel, making them more vulnerable to small arms than normal (which only aggravates the problems already) and makes automatic weapons like LMGs difficult to control.
Foxholes and trenches have been added, but they can't be placed wherever you like. They have to be in the center of a grid, and since terrain like hedges and walls align along the edge of a grid, means you can't have infantry dug in along lines oriented to cover or concealment. Your men also can't see past the terrain, since they are too far behind it to get a view. Foxholes have problems because they're stuck in square formations of four, which means the back foxholes won't have the same LOF as the front foxholes. (No you can't control orientation.) The effect of this is that you only benefit from entrenchment in open terrain along the axis of fire.
In addition, they've made all hedges (not just "bocage") into significant positions by adding terrain elevation lips to those features, making attacker cover unrealistically available and melding concealment with cover in ways worse than they already did in the original series. (that is, "exposure")
PzC:O sticks to abstraction which aims at getting the results right straight out of the gate. Nothing is sacrificed for visuals. It is much more aligned with the design philosophy that inspired and was borrowed by the old CM series from ASL. In my opinion, it is more realistic with respect to the results you get, but suffers from over-generous cover abstractions (just like CMx1 did) and so player input and player decisions matter less. Light infantry tactics aren't viable in PzC:O and typical line tactics work without too much regard for terrain.
To summarize, I think CMBN gives the gamer more to do and allows his inputs to matter more, but those inputs are mostly geared around gaming the system itself and don't lend themselves to reality, whereas the PzC:O system will give you more realistic overall results but can come across as a battle resolution system rather than a game.
PzC:O also has soooo much more content, in terms of scenarios and campaigns and units... And the customization options are enticing if you're into that sort of tweaking.
PzC:O is what I wish CMx2 had been originally.
I strongly disagree with this.[:-]
-
Enigma6584
- Posts: 306
- Joined: Thu Sep 23, 2010 1:44 am
RE: Convince me that I should buy it instead of CBN
ORIGINAL: Ssnake51
Have to say I've been rather surprised at the poor customer support shown on the battlefront forum. And, as others have mentioned, the DRM system for CMBN really sucks.[:@]
Bullshit.
RE: Convince me that I should buy it instead of CBN
ORIGINAL: RedCharlie65
ORIGINAL: Ssnake51
Have to say I've been rather surprised at the poor customer support shown on the battlefront forum. And, as others have mentioned, the DRM system for CMBN really sucks.[:@]
Bullshit.
Well said. I have to agree with RedCharlie here. Their both good even though I haven't bought PCO yet, but I will. You can't go wrong. If you can afford it buy both.
"It is well War is so terrible lest we grow fond of it." -
R. E. Lee
"War..god help me, I love it so." - G. Patton
R. E. Lee
"War..god help me, I love it so." - G. Patton
RE: Convince me that I should buy it instead of CBN
ORIGINAL: GBS
ORIGINAL: RedCharlie65
ORIGINAL: Ssnake51
Have to say I've been rather surprised at the poor customer support shown on the battlefront forum. And, as others have mentioned, the DRM system for CMBN really sucks.[:@]
Bullshit.
Well said. I have to agree with RedCharlie here. Their both good even though I haven't bought PCO yet, but I will. You can't go wrong. If you can afford it buy both.
Well I can afford both, but I don't like to pay twice for the same game...Second, I am not TOO crazy about this type of game (AT is more my style), and although I had all the original CM games, I did not get the last one because I don't much like modern tctical battles. I DO have the original Panzer Command, but did not play it much.
Anyway, I bit the bullet and bought PCO, and I will see later about CMN, the main deciding factor being the Eastern Front and the larger coverage.
Thanks to everyone, there is a lot of info for everyone on this thread for people on the fence.
BTW, although as I said I despise Battlefront's copy protection system, they HAVE been fairly understanding when I overshot the max numbers of copies due to changing computers (yes I have most games on 2 computers and I always forget when I change computers), and I have had no problems getting my games reactivated - but I hate having to send emails and begging for mercy[:'(]).
henri
RE: Convince me that I should buy it instead of CBN
Good luck henn,
Always have two computers. One real good to play games on and one good enough to call us up and post about it or for email.[:D]
Always have two computers. One real good to play games on and one good enough to call us up and post about it or for email.[:D]
All your Tanks are Belong to us!
panzer
panzer
RE: Convince me that I should buy it instead of CBN
ORIGINAL: henri51
ORIGINAL: GBS
ORIGINAL: RedCharlie65
Bullshit.
Well said. I have to agree with RedCharlie here. Their both good even though I haven't bought PCO yet, but I will. You can't go wrong. If you can afford it buy both.
Well I can afford both, but I don't like to pay twice for the same game...Second, I am not TOO crazy about this type of game (AT is more my style), and although I had all the original CM games, I did not get the last one because I don't much like modern tctical battles. I DO have the original Panzer Command, but did not play it much.
Anyway, I bit the bullet and bought PCO, and I will see later about CMN, the main deciding factor being the Eastern Front and the larger coverage.
Thanks to everyone, there is a lot of info for everyone on this thread for people on the fence.
BTW, although as I said I despise Battlefront's copy protection system, they HAVE been fairly understanding when I overshot the max numbers of copies due to changing computers (yes I have most games on 2 computers and I always forget when I change computers), and I have had no problems getting my games reactivated - but I hate having to send emails and begging for mercy[:'(]).
henri
Hope you enjoy the game. They ae both very good and I don't think one can really go wrong with either, but I have been spending more time with PCO lately. Will be happier when Battlefront finally gets around to covering the Eastern Front which is my main interest.
The DRM for CMBN is even worse than on the old CM games. At least with their old system you could deactivate the product before uninstalling. Now you don't have that ability. If you need to unistall the game or make upgrades to your computer then you automatically use up one of your activations. Thought it should be noted that not all hardware changes will cost you an activation.
I build all my computers and try out a lot of hardware so am sure I'll be having to beg them to go over my activation limit. Not good.[:@]
RE: Convince me that I should buy it instead of CBN
Not at all.ORIGINAL: RedCharlie65
ORIGINAL: Ssnake51
Have to say I've been rather surprised at the poor customer support shown on the battlefront forum. And, as others have mentioned, the DRM system for CMBN really sucks.[:@]
Bullshit.
Steve really needs to take a course in customer satisfaction. And that's all I am going to say on the matter.
RE: Convince me that I should buy it instead of CBN
Both are good. I like CMBO's interface better, but I like PCO's settings and campaign system better.
RE: Convince me that I should buy it instead of CBN
I must be odder than I thought I was, because I have never had one single issue with BF or their DRM service. I have always had 2 plus computers running their games at one time.
Course I joined BF forums officially in 2003 and I am only on post #32 [:)]
Their forum is a lot different than here. [&:]
[/align]With most games now being "digital downloads", I have no issues with DRM. The companies now have to protect their product from the folks that have no problems with putting up
a link or passing out free copies to friends. It's a sad state out their at times.
Erik and crew have the best customer service bar than. [&o]
Course I joined BF forums officially in 2003 and I am only on post #32 [:)]
Their forum is a lot different than here. [&:]
[/align]With most games now being "digital downloads", I have no issues with DRM. The companies now have to protect their product from the folks that have no problems with putting up
a link or passing out free copies to friends. It's a sad state out their at times.
Erik and crew have the best customer service bar than. [&o]
To fight and conquer in all our battles is not supreme excellence; supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy's resistance without fighting.
Sun Tzu
Sun Tzu
RE: Convince me that I should buy it instead of CBN
ORIGINAL: Ssnake51
Not at all.ORIGINAL: RedCharlie65
ORIGINAL: Ssnake51
Have to say I've been rather surprised at the poor customer support shown on the battlefront forum. And, as others have mentioned, the DRM system for CMBN really sucks.[:@]
Bullshit.
Steve really needs to take a course in customer satisfaction. And that's all I am going to say on the matter.
I can't speak for others, but honestly, every time I needed technical support by BF.C (a couple of times the issue was about DRM), they responded kindly and quickly, solving the problem.
"No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country." Gen. George S. Patton
RE: Convince me that I should buy it instead of CBN
I have PCO and CMBN. They are each very good in their own way.
As for good customer service both Matrix and Battlefront have provided that to me over the years.
As for good customer service both Matrix and Battlefront have provided that to me over the years.
RE: Convince me that I should buy it instead of CBN
Anyway, I bit the bullet and bought PCO,
Hurray PC:O wins the pennant PC:O wins the pennant PC:O wins the pennant!
Great choice you won't be sorry. This one really is the most challenging and fun to play. CM:BN to me just doesn't even come close to what CMx1 brought us and just feels too much like one of those RTS games instead of a wargame based on its demo. Even the wego game doesn't have all the elements that made CMx1 so great.
X3:Universe of games rules them all!! Xtra coming soon X3:REBIRTH 4th qtr 2011 YAY!
RE: Convince me that I should buy it instead of CBN
CMBN is superb and in a class of it's own. Having said that, so is PCO. Both games are very enjoyable. And comparing them is completly useless. Every wargamer should support BOTH games.