What is with the propoganda at BF???

[Sgt Barker]

Would you care to explain why CMSF is not Combat Mission? To me, it looks a lot like Combat Mission with individual soldiers and better graphics.

What makes a game? Three things:

1) Content
Strictly speaking the content will always differ between games, else why write the second one. But content also aptly describes the breadth, depth and scope, and here is where SF is most evidently not CM.

CM is best described as a toolbox, a system in which one can build pretty much anything. SF is a shallow, narrow and limited scope product in comparison.

2) Implementation
This includes presentation, scale, and game play.

SF is the same scale as CM. Presentation is pretty much the same. It’s in game play that it is so different. WEGO is CM, RT is not. At this point (no matter what’s said about first releases, patches, etc), the game is nothing like CM in its AI, ability to command troops, path finding, etc, either. The RT/faux-WEGO system in SF and the completely different AI so changes game play that the games have distinctly different implementations.

3) User Interface
SF is distinctly different from CM. It is a new interface. (As befits a Real Time game.)

It’s obvious why the changes were made, why SF is a new game. BF simply can’t make enough money with CM. There’s too much value, too much replay potential, in the three CM games. The SF business model purposefully hobbles the customer’s ability to ‘do more’ with the product, in order to create a market for add ons. The move to RT is also market driven – it’s what games do now. Those changes – nerfing the depth, change to RT and the accompanying changes to interface and game play - make SF a distinct product and not CM.