Hello All,
I'm thinking about buying this. I like Combat Mission very much but tend to play on the 1 minute turns basis rather than real time, because I like to be able to rewind and see things from different spots on the battlefield.
How are you all getting on with armored brigade, is it as good/better than Combat Mission?
Cheers
This compared to Combat Mission
-
exsonic01
- Posts: 1133
- Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2016 6:45 pm
- Location: Somewhere deep in appalachian valley in PA
RE: This compared to Combat Mission
I played several CMx2 series, CMBS, CMSF, CMRT, and CMFB. and I can say AB is good enough.
AB can depict much larger scale from much larger map. But AB abstracted lot more details than CM (for example, tile size is bigger in AB than CMx2 engine). To make the game playable in regiment ~ brigade scale, such abstraction for AB is inevitable IMO.
Cold war background of AB is the right spot where CMx2 series never tried, and I know many folks in CM forum wanted cold war contents based on CMx2 or next CM engine, and I wished too. So, as a CM player, this game really fills the gap of cold war nicely. But I do wish if AB depicts the modern and WW2 in the future, or at least support moders to create WW2 or modern war contents, by provide the model/script for various modern weapon types and features (for example, EW, hardkill or softkill APS, 3rd gen thermal sight, millimeter wave guidance, smart arty, top-attack ATGM and etc...)
From my opinion, one clear merit of AB when compared to CM is the wide time scale. 1965 ~ 1991 is quite a wide range of time frame, and the game can be totally different even with the same faction at the same place. This gives fresh experience, at least to me. Playing Fulda in 1965, 1977, and 1991 are very different. For the people who says "modern battlefield is too brutal to enjoy, there's nothing to enjoy because everything blows up within a minute", try 1965 ~ 1975 era games. During 1960s and early 1970s, guns & missiles were not that accurate neither deadly, you can get enough feeling of WW2 battles.
AB can be played by full real time (pausable), or semi-turn based. Difference from CM is, you can control your units during the turn in AB. Of course you can manage speed slower or faster.
And because of top view style simple graphic, it is easier to mod a new vehicles or map when compared to CM games.
One drawback of AB to CM is, AB don't have PBEM neither any form of MP option yet. It is in dev's plan, but there are a lot of other priorities for them, and implementing MP in game requires good amount of manpower and budget, so I guess this will be far future plan for AB. I really wish if they introduce PBEM MP at least. They could use Matrix/Slitherine PBEM server, just like FPC-RS or Gary Grigsby series.
All in all, I would say, if you were fan of Close Combat or Combat Mission, you will enjoy AB, and you will learn fast, because those games are similar in many ways.
AB can depict much larger scale from much larger map. But AB abstracted lot more details than CM (for example, tile size is bigger in AB than CMx2 engine). To make the game playable in regiment ~ brigade scale, such abstraction for AB is inevitable IMO.
Cold war background of AB is the right spot where CMx2 series never tried, and I know many folks in CM forum wanted cold war contents based on CMx2 or next CM engine, and I wished too. So, as a CM player, this game really fills the gap of cold war nicely. But I do wish if AB depicts the modern and WW2 in the future, or at least support moders to create WW2 or modern war contents, by provide the model/script for various modern weapon types and features (for example, EW, hardkill or softkill APS, 3rd gen thermal sight, millimeter wave guidance, smart arty, top-attack ATGM and etc...)
From my opinion, one clear merit of AB when compared to CM is the wide time scale. 1965 ~ 1991 is quite a wide range of time frame, and the game can be totally different even with the same faction at the same place. This gives fresh experience, at least to me. Playing Fulda in 1965, 1977, and 1991 are very different. For the people who says "modern battlefield is too brutal to enjoy, there's nothing to enjoy because everything blows up within a minute", try 1965 ~ 1975 era games. During 1960s and early 1970s, guns & missiles were not that accurate neither deadly, you can get enough feeling of WW2 battles.
AB can be played by full real time (pausable), or semi-turn based. Difference from CM is, you can control your units during the turn in AB. Of course you can manage speed slower or faster.
And because of top view style simple graphic, it is easier to mod a new vehicles or map when compared to CM games.
One drawback of AB to CM is, AB don't have PBEM neither any form of MP option yet. It is in dev's plan, but there are a lot of other priorities for them, and implementing MP in game requires good amount of manpower and budget, so I guess this will be far future plan for AB. I really wish if they introduce PBEM MP at least. They could use Matrix/Slitherine PBEM server, just like FPC-RS or Gary Grigsby series.
All in all, I would say, if you were fan of Close Combat or Combat Mission, you will enjoy AB, and you will learn fast, because those games are similar in many ways.
RE: This compared to Combat Mission
I am also an avid CM player and can second most of what was already explained.
One thing to add is that AB currently comes with three stock campaigns and a campaign generator. Other than a short desription the stock campaigns come with zero background and narrative provided, something that I really miss coming from the CM games with its stock and user-made campaigns providing quality briefings and background information always wanting me to know what will happen next.
The campaign generator comes with alot of options and you can define the area of operations and axis of attack on yourself. This is pretty great and must be a dream come true for wargames that love dynamic campaign generation. Something I missed alot in dynamic campaign generators of games like WINSPMBT or WINSPWW2.
While the dynamic campaign generator theoretically offers endless replayability, its nature - at least for me - results often in the exact opposite. The battles feel quiet generic and while the map and units may change the battles still feel very identical. I thus decided to limit myself to short campaigns or single-scnerarios in order not to "burn out" on a campaign or AB after 2 battles. Its basically comparable to playing a series of CM generated quick-battles but having a core-force system and having a connected map. It is definitely a very different experience compared to the scripted/dynamic hybrid system that the hand-crafted CM campaigns offer. However this isn´t exclusively an AB concern as all dynamic generator focused games (Graviteam has the same issue for me) come with similar freedoms/limitations and it is often a question of player preference.
Nevertheless I can recommend AB to every CM player.
One thing to add is that AB currently comes with three stock campaigns and a campaign generator. Other than a short desription the stock campaigns come with zero background and narrative provided, something that I really miss coming from the CM games with its stock and user-made campaigns providing quality briefings and background information always wanting me to know what will happen next.
The campaign generator comes with alot of options and you can define the area of operations and axis of attack on yourself. This is pretty great and must be a dream come true for wargames that love dynamic campaign generation. Something I missed alot in dynamic campaign generators of games like WINSPMBT or WINSPWW2.
While the dynamic campaign generator theoretically offers endless replayability, its nature - at least for me - results often in the exact opposite. The battles feel quiet generic and while the map and units may change the battles still feel very identical. I thus decided to limit myself to short campaigns or single-scnerarios in order not to "burn out" on a campaign or AB after 2 battles. Its basically comparable to playing a series of CM generated quick-battles but having a core-force system and having a connected map. It is definitely a very different experience compared to the scripted/dynamic hybrid system that the hand-crafted CM campaigns offer. However this isn´t exclusively an AB concern as all dynamic generator focused games (Graviteam has the same issue for me) come with similar freedoms/limitations and it is often a question of player preference.
Nevertheless I can recommend AB to every CM player.
RE: This compared to Combat Mission
Thanks for the info guys, I'll give it a go 
RE: This compared to Combat Mission
The others forgot to mention that its not possible to rewind in "turn-based" mode, rendering it quiet a useless feature.
-
Bivoj_MatrixForum
- Posts: 46
- Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2010 10:14 am
RE: This compared to Combat Mission
I know you are already hooked in, but just my 2 cents:
The game has a huge potential, but it is far less mature in comparison to CC or CM. The game is in its infancy and has many issues or conversational concepts (like one-unit-per-tile; tiles are something very unfamiliar in CM or CC). CC and CM are good old games: polished, improved, patched, etc. CM in its third major release version (besides tens or even hundreds of small patches), CC had around 10 stand-alone games and big overhaul (The Bloody First) ahead.
Btw. I also like the "turn based" WEGO option in CM and rewind to any important (or particularly nice to view) moment in the "turn".
The game has a huge potential, but it is far less mature in comparison to CC or CM. The game is in its infancy and has many issues or conversational concepts (like one-unit-per-tile; tiles are something very unfamiliar in CM or CC). CC and CM are good old games: polished, improved, patched, etc. CM in its third major release version (besides tens or even hundreds of small patches), CC had around 10 stand-alone games and big overhaul (The Bloody First) ahead.
Btw. I also like the "turn based" WEGO option in CM and rewind to any important (or particularly nice to view) moment in the "turn".
RE: This compared to Combat Mission
CM is also using the grid system as well as the Graviteam series of games which were not mentioned before, just it is smaller.
RE: This compared to Combat Mission
ORIGINAL: JamesHunt
One thing to add is that AB currently comes with three stock campaigns and a campaign generator. Other than a short desription the stock campaigns come with zero background and narrative provided, something that I really miss coming from the CM games with its stock and user-made campaigns providing quality briefings and background information always wanting me to know what will happen next.
+1
-
Bivoj_MatrixForum
- Posts: 46
- Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2010 10:14 am
RE: This compared to Combat Mission
ORIGINAL: varangy
CM is also using the grid system as well as the Graviteam series of games which were not mentioned before, just it is smaller.
So it is very successful implementation of tiles, because I have not noticed them after several years playing CM. (maybe there were recognisable in the first "version" of CM; it so long, that I do not recall the memories...)
RE: This compared to Combat Mission
ORIGINAL: Bivoj_MatrixForum
ORIGINAL: varangy
CM is also using the grid system as well as the Graviteam series of games which were not mentioned before, just it is smaller.
So it is very successful implementation of tiles, because I have not noticed them after several years playing CM. (maybe there were recognisable in the first "version" of CM; it so long, that I do not recall the memories...)
Yes it isn't that noticeable until you move a large squad and see the three tiles highlighted which it will end up occupying.
RE: This compared to Combat Mission
ORIGINAL: Bivoj_MatrixForum
ORIGINAL: varangy
CM is also using the grid system as well as the Graviteam series of games which were not mentioned before, just it is smaller.
So it is very successful implementation of tiles, because I have not noticed them after several years playing CM. (maybe there were recognisable in the first "version" of CM; it so long, that I do not recall the memories...)
So you also didn't read the manual [:D]
RE: This compared to Combat Mission
These days I try to avoid making comparisons to other games, but...
When it comes to the map design, the old Combat Mission games influenced AB a lot. I think they had terrain cells as large as 20x20 meters? Just like in our game, in screenshots you can easily see the 'straight' roads and large patches of terrain.
In the more recent CM games, I remember that there was quite a lot of turbulence in the community because of their grid system and cell sizes. They have probably improved it since then, but I'm not familiar with their progress.
Close Combat had the infamous 'tank dance', that was possibly related to the underlying grid. I'm reading this comment on Steam:
"Are all of these cases you're seeing a case where you have multiple vehicles in very close quarters? If they are so close that they run into each other, this can cause 'avoidance' turns that can be compounded by multiple vehicles all trying to do it at the same time, yes. For best results you want to keep some spacing (say 30m or more) between vehicles."
Steel Panthers had 50 meter hexes, and that game has influenced this game a lot.
In AB we have the 30x30 meter map cells. The way we use them allows us to have the very large maps. We decided to not hide the grid, because it's there in the background affecting gameplay anyway, and so made it clearly visible in the UI. The grid overlay can be disabled in the options.
ORIGINAL: Bivoj_MatrixForum
tiles are something very unfamiliar in CM or CC
ORIGINAL: Bivoj_MatrixForum
ORIGINAL: varangy
CM is also using the grid system as well as the Graviteam series of games which were not mentioned before, just it is smaller.
So it is very successful implementation of tiles, because I have not noticed them after several years playing CM. (maybe there were recognisable in the first "version" of CM; it so long, that I do not recall the memories...)
When it comes to the map design, the old Combat Mission games influenced AB a lot. I think they had terrain cells as large as 20x20 meters? Just like in our game, in screenshots you can easily see the 'straight' roads and large patches of terrain.
In the more recent CM games, I remember that there was quite a lot of turbulence in the community because of their grid system and cell sizes. They have probably improved it since then, but I'm not familiar with their progress.
Close Combat had the infamous 'tank dance', that was possibly related to the underlying grid. I'm reading this comment on Steam:
"Are all of these cases you're seeing a case where you have multiple vehicles in very close quarters? If they are so close that they run into each other, this can cause 'avoidance' turns that can be compounded by multiple vehicles all trying to do it at the same time, yes. For best results you want to keep some spacing (say 30m or more) between vehicles."
Steel Panthers had 50 meter hexes, and that game has influenced this game a lot.
In AB we have the 30x30 meter map cells. The way we use them allows us to have the very large maps. We decided to not hide the grid, because it's there in the background affecting gameplay anyway, and so made it clearly visible in the UI. The grid overlay can be disabled in the options.
Know thyself!
RE: This compared to Combat Mission
Interesting, i guess i knew about those games you mentioned using a grid but never really thought about it. Do all those games have the one unit per cell limitation?
Enjoy when you can, and endure when you must. ~Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
"Be Yourself; Everyone else is already taken" ~Oscar Wilde
*I'm in the Wargamer middle ground*
I don't buy all the wargames I want, I just buy more than I need.
"Be Yourself; Everyone else is already taken" ~Oscar Wilde
*I'm in the Wargamer middle ground*
I don't buy all the wargames I want, I just buy more than I need.
RE: This compared to Combat Mission
ORIGINAL: budd
Interesting, i guess i knew about those games you mentioned using a grid but never really thought about it. Do all those games have the one unit per cell limitation?
I don't know what these games have going on under the hood, but I think one reason why movement in other games can seem to be more flexible is that the unit movement grid and other layers have a smaller cell size than the terrain grid has, thus being more dense. It uses more memory and CPU, and this is probably why many of them have smaller maps than we have.
Know thyself!