Out of Eight writes: "Sometimes I get preview beta versions of games, and one of those games was Combat Mission Shock Force. While I was doing the preview, I messed around with the map editor and created some maps that actually made it into the release. They weren't very good and the developers cleaned up and improved them a lot. Consequently, when I gave the finished product an 8/8, I caught some slack because I was now "one of the scenario designers," which, I suppose, is technically true but a bit misleading. Now that we have that explanation out of the way, we can now talk about Combat Mission Shock Force: Marines (the colon has migrated), the first in a series of planned expansions (or modules, as they like to be called) for Combat Mission: Shock Force. Do the Marines bring the goods?"
The Good:
+Lengthy new campaign
+A number of stand-alone scenarios
The Not So Good:
-Marines aren't terribly different and the subtle changes don't impact the gameplay
-General bug fixes and improvements will be included in a free patch anyway
Combat Mission: Shock Force 2 aims to invigorate the strategy genre - does the addition of DLC bolster the combat sim? JDR gets out the camo gear for today's review.
GamingShogun.com writes: "Battlefront made a surprise announcement today stating that the final expansion to their Combat Mission Shock Force military simulation, NATO, has been released for sale at their official website. NATO features three new..."
Tacticular Cancer writes: "A little while ago I reviewed the Marines expansion for Combat Mission: Shock Force. While it was a solid expansion with some fun new units and an interesting branching campaign, it didn't really add anything new to the core game. Now Battlefront have released their second expansion called British Forces and I'm ready to take another look."
referencing/promoting a site that actually has "cancer" in it's name. Call me quasy, but that's simply beyond the pale.
