How does this compare to Combat Mission games?

[Gunn]

Combat Mission games have some really good simulation, but due to their older engine tech, they run pretty sub-par on modern hardware. How does this compare to that series?

[**********]

Since no one has responded here's my pennyworth. I've played nearly all the CM2 series (BF versions, my Steam time will show minimal for all)

It runs far more fluidly than the CM series, albeit the graphics details far less. If you've ever exploded a CM archive to have a peak inside at the textures you will see the detail in the faces, the uniform textures etc. The AB2 models and textures are far more basic but still highly usable.
If you're a graphics obsessive who must view combat up close for highly detailed screenshots or can't live without modern photo-realistic graphics then you will be disappointed. If you don't think CM's dated looks are a problem then you will likely be fine. I can play AB2 on this laptop without any stuttering or chugging using either the integrated AMD graphics or the Nvidia GPU. CM series has a problem with AMD GPUs and even on Nvidia needs some generous use of Alt-T (show trunks only/no trees) when moving around the map, particularly if it's forested. Large numbers of trees or units can be a problem with that engine.

Screenshots from the airborne landing in Scripted Mission 2 - Machine: Laptop AMD Ryzen 5 7535HS, RTX 4050, Map detail 7, Aniso 16x.

https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=3451026754

https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=3451028108

https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=3451028268

https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=3451028377

[brotherofbuff]

I been comparing these two series obsessively before I pull the trigger on buying 2.

First off Armored Brigade scale is way more larger. Second Armored Brigade has helicopters, Combat Mission doesn't which ruins the authenticity for me on modern time periods.

Armored Brigade is way more moddable. People out there on the first game making Vietnam and WW2 scenarios.

Combat Mission infantry is way more movable which makes them perform more realistic infantry maneuvers but Armored Brigade infantry argent a push over and have anti tank arsenal and will duck and cover too. Just cant control them individually.

Combat Mission can make more realistic character models of individual historic units. I don't think Armored Brigade larger scale will have this unless modders become more crafty.

[Radegast]

CM is hugely about micromanagement. CM2 lacks a tun of mechanics and features from CM1 (C2 chain, complex morale...)

AB(2) is like a child of combat mission and close combat. I like more autonomy of the units.

Since i got into Graviteam tactics I cannot force myself back into CM2, but both games have their highlights...

[brotherofbuff]

Originally posted by Radegast:

CM is hugely about micromanagement. CM2 lacks a tun of mechanics and features from CM1 (C2 chain, complex morale...)

AB(2) is like a child of combat mission and close combat. I like more autonomy of the units.

Since i got into Graviteam tactics I cannot force myself back into CM2, but both games have their highlights...

Still cant figure out how to play Graviteam. Probably the strategic stuff i find the most confusing. When playing skirmish type missions I can figure out but all the other stuff has such bad UI.

[Gunn]

Originally posted by Radegast:

CM is hugely about micromanagement. CM2 lacks a tun of mechanics and features from CM1 (C2 chain, complex morale...)

AB(2) is like a child of combat mission and close combat. I like more autonomy of the units.

Since i got into Graviteam tactics I cannot force myself back into CM2, but both games have their highlights...

Wait....what is CM2? I was talking about the "Combat Mission" series of games.

[brotherofbuff]

Originally posted by Gunn:

Originally posted by Radegast:

CM is hugely about micromanagement. CM2 lacks a tun of mechanics and features from CM1 (C2 chain, complex morale...)

AB(2) is like a child of combat mission and close combat. I like more autonomy of the units.

Since i got into Graviteam tactics I cannot force myself back into CM2, but both games have their highlights...

Wait....what is CM2? I was talking about the "Combat Mission" series of games.

CM 2 means Combat Mission 2 engine. The latest engine

[Gunn]

Originally posted by brotherofbuff:

Originally posted by Gunn:

Wait....what is CM2? I was talking about the "Combat Mission" series of games.

CM 2 means Combat Mission 2 engine. The latest engine

Ah, very well. Thank you for the clarification!

[brotherofbuff]

sure, CM is the old ones on GOG, CMx1 is Shockforce 1 and I think another ww2 games and Afghanistan. I dont think those are avaible.

CMx2 are the latest ones you can buy on steam.

[Radegast]

The strategic issue on GT is the best and a lot of players just issue orders on the beginning of the tactical battle and pass everything on the AI (only macromanagement).

Its easy to win one fight/combat. But sustain your units for 24/48h is quite different.

Manage reimforcements, supply of ammo, fuell, refill squads, plan properly defense/assault on a big big battlefield, heavy weapons support.... than your perfect defense line blow by the assault in the morning fog with visibility to 100m...

[Radegast]

Combat mission beyond Overlord dates back to 1999 and had deeper mechanics, than refresh series by Normandy.

[brotherofbuff]

I really don't see much deeper mechanics on original CM. Just slightly different. On WEGO I prefer original CM but real time I enjoy CMx2 lot more. Harder to do tight flanks with CMx2 WEGO. I enjoy both for different reasons.

GT still extremely difficult to understand strategic stuff cause of the UI.

[Radegast]

Are you kidding? In the old CM you have to hold the units under Commander nod of C2, or the units would independently left Battlefield or wont conduct any order. Better simulating combat (i take CM2 situation, when one soldier can kill whole squad for the glitch in the engine), deeper morale system.... infantry combat is totaly different.

Micromanaging whole movement where EACH meter is the difference between life and death (on the scale where one combat takes whole day, weekend) made me switch and try for GT. Not to mention detailed behavior of the heavy weapons, vehicles, where CM is just nothing than abstract...

[KajFlo]

Originally posted by brotherofbuff:

sure, CM is the old ones on GOG, CMx1 is Shockforce 1 and I think another ww2 games and Afghanistan. I dont think those are avaible.

CMx2 are the latest ones you can buy on steam.

CMx1 means all old engine games before the release of Shock Force. CMx2 means all games with the new engine (that is used to this day) from the original Shock Force up to Cold War. Shock Force and Shock Force 2 both are CMx2 games but of course Shock Force 2 runs on a newer engine version.

[zhligw]

Originally posted by brotherofbuff:

sure, CM is the old ones on GOG, CMx1 is Shockforce 1 and I think another ww2 games and Afghanistan. I dont think those are avaible.

CMx2 are the latest ones you can buy on steam.

Wrong
CMBB and CMBO, CMAK these are CM 1. Great games. classic, with deep simulation and always make your own battles that play out with so much realistic detail that you will actually lose if you don't know precisely what you are doing.

[brotherofbuff]

Originally posted by zhligw:

Originally posted by brotherofbuff:

sure, CM is the old ones on GOG, CMx1 is Shockforce 1 and I think another ww2 games and Afghanistan. I dont think those are avaible.

CMx2 are the latest ones you can buy on steam.

Wrong
CMBB and CMBO, CMAK these are CM 1. Great games. classic, with deep simulation and always make your own battles that play out with so much realistic detail that you will actually lose if you don't know precisely what you are doing.

ya someone corrected me already. got it confused cause I was trying to distinguish shock force 1 , Aghanistan and shockforce 2 and later games . Thought they were different engines.