Combat Mission VS Wartime Command

[Don Maddox]

Anyone care to compare how these two titles might stack up against each other? Wartime Command looks to be set at a slightly smaller tactical representation than Combat Mission. It's also a full RTS instead of simultaneous resolution, however, Codemasters is saying they are implementing some uinque pause commands in the interface in order to be able to stop the game and issue orders.

Wartime Command certainly has a huge leg up in the graphics department. They're also claiming that every map in the initial release has been put together from digital data, WW2 photos, or vintage topographic maps. That's cool.

Wartime Command preview: http://www.warfarehq.com/previews/wartime_command.shtml

[KG_Jag]

The only way that we will really know is to play at least the demo of Wartime Command. Many of us had high hopes for GI Combat (created by the Close Combat folks--or at least some of them), but those were soon dashed after trying to play that mess, even after applying multiple patches.

[Palantir]

If anyone does test this PLEASE post an evaluation!

[KG_Cloghaun]

I don't believe you can play a tactical real time war game in 3D effectively. They can post all the cool screen shots in the world but until they perfect a user friendly interface, forget it.
I was duped into buying GI Combat and that game was horrible. Considering all the hype it got months before it was released and the fact that some of the creators worked with Close Combat, I thought it might be good...wrong. That's old news ofcourse. Now Eric Young is trying to sell "Squad Assualt" to war gamers, which is basically the game he always wanted to make but couldn't with GIC.
I just don't see these kind of games working.
Just imagine CM for a moment. When playing a PBEM game, depending how big the scenario is, how long does it take you to look a map, terrain, distances to target, elevations, unit cohesion, ammo, etc, etc.
Now imagine doing that in real time...
The pause feature may work, but then, that would make the game alot like CM wouldn't it? All I see is eye candy right now. I doubt they will make the game accurately reflect actual combat units like in CM.

-just my 2 cents

[KG_Jag]

While I'm willing to be surprised, I think Frank (KG_C) had it just about right in the last post. To make RTS work, you need a great interface and probably a very small number of units on an equally small map with limited terrain variances.

But you have to do more than make it work. You have to make it fun to play. The CM series does that with the we-go system. Maybe I'm just too old and too much of a board gamer in my upbringing, but anything close to a click fest game does not hold alot of appeal for me.

Another thing the CM series does very well is to replicate the critical interrelated balance of combined arms. Frank and I are each, in our own way, dealing with an imbalance with regard to at least one leg of the triad, in our respective sides late in a very interesting CMBB PBEM match. Capturing the essence realistic combined arms application on the battlefield is important and something at which few tactical games excel.

[Lurker]

I have to agree with the last two posts on RTS games. I'm just surprised that more game companies haven't jump on the CM band wagon with similar type systems. So far CM is the ultimate in realism for that scope.

[[nzn]]

Many ppl i asked said that this type of playing is dull and unrealistic :(
Go persuade. The majority loves the so called real-time.

[Lurker]

When I think of rts I think of AOE and command and conquer type games. Lots of fun but pretty silly in terms of realsim.
I suppose one could create a realistic rts game on CMs scale but how is one expected to duplicate the myriad individual viewpoints on a battlefield simultaneously? I think it will quickly degrade into a frantic click match.
Is there a demo available yet?