This game or combat mission shock force 2

[Helljumper]

hello

so combat mission shock force 2 got available on steam as well. so i am wondering between close combat bloody first and shock force 2 which ins better??

close combat with the current version has gone in 3d rts as well. i understand that one game is based on ww2 and the other one is based on modern era.

i am asking from the perspective of a learning curve, graphics, AI and stability.

[Spud]

This has 6 players
https://steamcharts.com/app/811880

CM has 156 players
https://steamcharts.com/app/1369370

You decide.

[Kraznova]

CM is a much deeper learning curve. Graphics are arguably comparable, but I think CMSF2 slightly wins due to more detailed models. Close Combat has a more user friendly spotting system. AI is such a debate I'm not going to touch it. Combat Mission is more stable, I've never had a crash. If you want more of a beer and pretzels War Game, Close Combat wins. If you want deep strategy, Combat Mission.

[Helljumper]

Originally posted by Awakened Saxon:

This has 6 players
https://steamcharts.com/app/811880

CM has 156 players
https://steamcharts.com/app/1369370

You decide.

well both are singleplayer games mainly...so i am not bothered about player numbers.

[Helljumper]

Originally posted by gallaudetredneck:

CM is a much deeper learning curve. Graphics are arguably comparable, but I think CMSF2 slightly wins due to more detailed models. Close Combat has a more user friendly spotting system. AI is such a debate I'm not going to touch it. Combat Mission is more stable, I've never had a crash. If you want more of a beer and pretzels War Game, Close Combat wins. If you want deep strategy, Combat Mission.

so basically combat mission more detailed, stable and harder.

close combat less detailed but not harder.

[Hans Gruber]

Originally posted by Awakened Saxon:

This has 6 players
https://steamcharts.com/app/811880

CM has 156 players
https://steamcharts.com/app/1369370

You decide.

Oh wow, yes it's mostly SP but those numbers are damning.

[Randeno]

Looks like the Devs dropped the game off on the side of the road... CC TBF is like Biden running for President, looks good on paper but poorly implemented.

[Helljumper]

Originally posted by Randeno:

Looks like the Devs dropped the game off on the side of the road... CC TBF is like Biden running for President, looks good on paper but poorly implemented.

sigh... i guess i should wait and see if more content gets dropped for this game.. not in a hurry

[Hanomag]

Helljumper, buy it and play it to decide for yourself. You can refund it within an hour. TBF and CM are different games that shouldn't be compared. The graphical scale of CC makes it much easier to take everything in, in real-time, than any CM game.

[Case]

honestly CM

[ark1]

I have both. CM is much better for both SP and MP. Learning the CM system will also allow you to play all their other games based in other theatres and times (mostly WWII). Definitely worth learning in my opinion.

[-SIBERIANWOLF-]

but combat mission is also much more difficult to manage i hated it in black sea bam new mission and you get one million troops i had nearly one houre to give all units the first smart order so many ways to do it

its like cm is much bigger in some missions to a point i didnt like it but cool games both of them

[BHunterSEAL]

I vastly prefer Close Combat, while TBF feels like a fairly good 3D refresh of the series the latest CM release feels like a minor graphical upgrade to an engine that struggles in a few different areas. It's a bit more 'realistic' as far as fire support and other mechanics (mount / dismount, etc.) go, but isn't nearly as enjoyable to play.

Note that the 'campaigns' in CM are really just strings of unconnected scenarios, there is no progression in terms of a core force that gains experience and / or upgrades over time.

[Dbeves]

Originally posted by Max Saxon:

This has 6 players
https://steamcharts.com/app/811880

CM has 156 players
https://steamcharts.com/app/1369370

You decide.

Also - not relevant - can buy both these games from the supplier and never touch steam. CM has been out for years

[Richie Stardust]

Originally posted by BHunterSEAL:

I vastly prefer Close Combat, while TBF feels like a fairly good 3D refresh of the series the latest CM release feels like a minor graphical upgrade to an engine that struggles in a few different areas. It's a bit more 'realistic' as far as fire support and other mechanics (mount / dismount, etc.) go, but isn't nearly as enjoyable to play.

Note that the 'campaigns' in CM are really just strings of unconnected scenarios, there is no progression in terms of a core force that gains experience and / or upgrades over time.

Thanks for this answer steamfren. I was curious about persistence and units on the campaign. I love the way the SP campaigns play in Wargame AirLand and RedDragon, and I like the SteelDivision 2 Campaign. If TBF had something similar, like moving regiments/battalions/companies on a strategic map and positioning them for the battle map I would buy.