Let's face it... In CM you are dropped in right in range of most of the weapons on the board. There is almost no planning. SB lets you do some recon, form a plan, and maneuver. You don't have to use a 4x4 map in SB. In fact, you can use a large map and restrict it to a smaller area. But you have the option and the game can handle it if you want to do it. I have seen SB scenarios where you only control one part of the entire larger blue force and the AI handles flanks. The AI can be scripted by a designer with an immense amount of options to react to things happening around the map.
It took me a long time to change how I built scenarios from CM to SB. I was so used to having units start in range and the firefights starting within minutes. In SB, you have the freedom to not do that. I can't count the number of CM scenarios I have played where either starting forces or reinforcements enter the board in battle or even in the middle of an enemy formation.
I'd say blame the scenario designers rather than the game. For World War II weapons, 4km isn't battle range. I think 1km would be pushing it, certainly in western Europe. (Desert and Russian steppe are exceptions, and neither theatre has been covered yet.) You may have a point for CMSF2, but that might just speak more to the fact the engine is less suited for modern warfare than its bread and butter.
The point of CM was never to have a large recon and operations planning element - it's really the wrong scale for that, especially given the limitations of the C2 links. It's designed to let you fight a battalion. Most battalions had extremely limited recon capabilities (a British battalion in Normandy had a single platoon of scouts and snipers).
Sounds like the criticism is that CM isn't more like TacOps. I'd suggest to get that experience...you play TacOps. :-)
Recent Posts
.
