|
thewood1 -> RE: PzcK vs CMBB (4/15/2008 3:35:14 PM)
|
Here is a comparison of CMBB and PCK I did at gamesquad forums:
"OK, I've been playing for a couple of days and here is my feeling on PCK compared to CMBB and who should buy it. (keep in mind, I am still a noob to PCK and may have missed some things.)
Buy PCK if:
1) you are just plain tired of CMBB. There are people who have burned themselves out on CMBB after six years.
2) you like Steel Panthers-like campaigns that include promotions, medals, gaining experience, etc., no matter how unrealistic it may seem.
3) You really have always wanted ASL in 3D. That is the feel I get from PCK.
4) You think using real world armor data is too much or complicated and you want simpler to understand armor ratings. The words I keep hearing about PCK is it is probability-based armor combat. To me that isn't any different than the armor ratings in ASL. I think a lot of the people saying that don't realize CM used empirical, theoretical, and probability in its calculations.
5) You want the game to be completely moddable. Man, you got that.
6) You have never liked Steve or BFC's attitude towards its fans. OTOH, Erik is very outgoing and willing to act on suggestions. But it is early and JasonC hasn't shown up yet on the Matrix forums. Also, I think a lot of people have dismissed CM out of hand because of their dislike of the forums and developers.
7) You need random campaigns
8) You like handling the details, like ammo selection, stance, etc.
9) you want platoon orders with formations, stance, etc.
10) you want a HUD that includes event lists and unit lists (something CMer's have been screaming about for years)
11) you see future potential, including ongoing technical updates and support. BFC still somewhat supports CMBB, but they are not putting a penny into it since they see CM2 eventually being in this space. (edit)
Stick with CM if you want
1) a map editor and random map builder
2) a larger variety of units
3) a more engineering-oriented armor model
4) One developer controlled database that provides consistency, but prohibits modding
5) A much more fleshed out infantry model that takes into account a lot more factors and provides better support weapon models
6) Ammo tracking that forces conservation of ammo
7) flexible command delays, not static, regardless of year or situation
8) a much larger scenario development community (could eventually be moot)
9) a TacAI that handles a lot of stuff like ammo selection and unit preservation in action phase
10) a less complicated turn structure
11) hotseat play
12) operations that cover mutiple battles on the same map. For a tactical game, this is probably more realistic, but can be considered less immersive and fun.
13) unlimited map sizes
Overall PCK is fun and enjoyable. Unlike ToW and EYSA, it does not make want to go back and fire up CMBB after a game. As it stands right now, it is less than CMBB. But is starting out only a little behind it nad has so much more opportunity to grow. BFC has clearly stated CMBB is going no where, so PCK has no choice but to be the successor. In the end CMBB, IMO as a tactical combat wargame, has a better core engine. But PCK has an engine that is only slightly inferior, but is wrapped with so many other features that CMBB will never have, I think I will stick with it. I am not retiring CMBB. For now, if I want to see how a company of Soviet Gaurds can hold out against a company of Germen Pioneers on a hand built historical map, I will use CMBB. If I want to get that company of Gaurds through a series of battles from 1942 to 1944, PCK is the way to go."
|
|
|
|
