You can't really compare the two. Steel Panthers has a similar range of timeframe, locations and functionality to ASL, and is topdown-only, UGOIGO and hex-based. Combat Mission is limited in timeframe (Sicily/Italy, Normandy, Market Garden, Bulge, Operation Bagration), and is 3D. Apart from Combat Mission being a more visceral experience, it allows the player to more closely match game tactics with historical tactics because there is less design-for-effect involved.Better than the Combat Mission series from Battlefront?! Maybe I need to take a gander...
It has been one of the best $39 purchase I have made. It's on sale I think for 5 or 10 off over at their site.Thank you. I might actually have to buy this game.
I do believe so. I tried CM a couple of times and its not my cup of tea. That game is more or less like Doom for WW2 folks. I am not into seeing the squads and tanks in 3D. I am more into playing a game like ASL or SPWW2 view (top down looking at a bunch of heads of squads and a top view of tanks, much like ASL).Better than the Combat Mission series from Battlefront?! Maybe I need to take a gander...
I would have said that Combat Mission is VERY much a computer implementation of ASL (though with 3D graphics). I believe (going way back here to the first versions of Combat Mission) that I read that a computer implementation of ASL was the original design intent. The player issues orders to individual squads and fairly accurately modeled vehicles and then one minute of game time plays out (very much mimicking the defensive fire mechanism of ASL). Whether it is one's cup of tea or not, Combat Mission is most certainly not a mindless "shooter" game (like Doom).That game is more or less like Doom for WW2 folks.
The lack of any realism in the modeling of most tanks would probably kill any enjoyment for you. I LOVE WoT, but only because it is a "tactically rich" game and I can suspend any notion of reality while playing. If you are bothered by the lack of felicity in the characteristics of any given tank, it would make you crazy.I found playing traditional wargames totally killed any interest in WoT due to the lack of infantry, towed guns and air power.
I didn't mean to state any opinion on this question, as I've never played SPWW2. I just wanted to get a more accurate assessment of Combat Mission on the record - except for the 3D perspective and the fact that all your forces simultaneously execute their orders, it's very ASL-like.I would still say that SPWW2 is much more of an implementation of ASL then CM.
I don't know how good the tank attributes are modelled in WoT, my guess would have been quite good or even excellent, it's just I am so used to and wedded to combined arms, the lack of same is what kills it for me. It's not like ASL doesn't in some cases have weakness in armour factor fidelity. My interest in and knowledge of naval combat is much shallower so WoWs would not have the same "turn off" factor. Both are quite beautiful games and I guess quite addictive, I could not fault them in that regard.The lack of any realism in the modeling of most tanks would probably kill any enjoyment for you. I LOVE WoT, but only because it is a "tactically rich" game and I can suspend any notion of reality while playing. If you are bothered by the lack of felicity in the characteristics of any given tank, it would make you crazy.
It's definitely a game and NOT a simulation. That being said, every tank in the game plays differently and requires different tactics in order to be successful.my guess would have been quite good or even excellent