GrogHeads Forum

Digital Gaming => Computer Gaming => Topic started by: Bletchley_Geek on April 09, 2014, 07:13:30 PM

Title: Honestly Comparing Battlefront's Combat Mission 2.0 with Graviteam's Tactics
Post by: Bletchley_Geek on April 09, 2014, 07:13:30 PM
I do love Combat Mission and I also like a fair bit Graviteam's Tactics. And I realize that I can't find anywhere a honest assessment of the pros and cons of each system, which I think it would go a long way to expose both systems to fans of each other. We're not comparing cars, but we're not comparing apples to oranges either.

In another thread, Dolan50 claimed that "a lot of disinformation is posted about Graviteam in these forums" and that it was pointless to explain the improvement and changes in Graviteam's Tactics over the years.

While I do agree to some extent with this "disinformation" story, I wonder to what extend is due to the 'fans' of GTOS coming in "defense" of GTOS, styling themselves a bit like Polish Winged Hussars charging with their spears into a mob of Turk eunuchs and janissaires. That's not a very constructive attitude, which I think doesn't help at all Graviteam efforts.

I'll kickstart the discussion myself, and with the kind of moderation we have here, I think the thread will stay on topic and civil. The only suggestion I'd make is that we restrict ourselves to what we get "out of the box". Both Graviteam and Battlefront are small companies, who have built their engines from scratch (including the graphic engine). I will keep editing this post including the observations of others (which I'll verify myself with my copy of GTOS).

Game Engine & Scale

Scale & Level of Command and Control

Both games use a 1:1 representation for both infantrymen and vehicles. The Units - that is, what the player can give orders to - in GTOS consist of Squads, Sections and single vehicles, and in CMx2 we have Squads, Sections, Vehicles and 'teams'. Teams in CMx2 aren't organic, but rather ad-hoc dynamic detachments of squads created by the user for an specific purpose or task (like detaching the guys with AT weapons, or scouting), breaking up into assault and covering elements, or a 'free-form' splitting, useful to increase squad frontage and setup formations. In GTOS, one is given an extensive list of postures and formations, which make up - and do much more - than the 'free-form' splitting in CMx2.

Neither CM nor GTOS include the possibility of specifying specific battle drills to units. SOP's can be achieved by combining 'primitive' commands available in both systems (I need to work out an specific example of achieving the same thing in CMx2 and GTOS), or by using 'higher level' pre-cooked commands like "Hunt".

In the screenshot below you can see a Soviet platoon marching in Echelon formation (with the right flank refused)

http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=247599825 (http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=247599825)

This is achieved by issuing Move (with the one single file and column modifiers activated) commands to each squad in turn, waiting for about 20-30 secs before issuing the command to the next squad. GTOS "ready made" formations are line (skirmish line), column and "free" (which means the AI does whatever it fancies). GTOS has a "Pause" command, but it doesn't work as I expect (or at all) when one queues several commands to the same unit. Issuing Target Arcs to the squads does not have the same effect as in CM when units finish their move orders (from a different run on the same QB, but having deployed the Soviets in a different position)

http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=247630931 (http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=247630931)

above there's the stance a squad adopts when finishing its order, with a target arc (having been given). If you want your troops to hit the ground, you have to queue a Defend command after the Move command. Always (but perhaps one of the commands you can from the pop-up menu you bring the space bar does implements that).

In CM things are slightly different. If you don't specify what happens at the end of an order, units also go into a "waiting" state, getting sometimes in cover, sometimes not, and trying to keep eyes 360 degrees around them. I usually want to avoid this - and always when units move in formation - by issuing target arcs, like here

http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=247649506 (http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=247649506)

This works quite well - for me - when attacking with infantry and moving in bounds

http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=247649539 (http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=247649539)

like in the picture above. Note the use of pause and the Target Arc at the end of the move order. Sixty seconds later, the first element in the bound is almost deployed as I wanted

http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=247649766 (http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=247649766)

while the second is starting to overtake it.

GTOS offers the possibility of issuing platoon and "group" level orders. For instance, you can give orders to a combination of infantry and vehicles, and will be coordinated by the AI. Combat Mission also allows a cruder form of "group" level orders, basically by replicating the command issued to each unit in the force. Coordination in CM is entirely left to the player to be worked out.

Graphics, Sound & UI

Graphics

GTOS graphics in action (thanks, RyanE):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3zFs_cdQ8Fo (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3zFs_cdQ8Fo)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C43_JwtEQqc (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C43_JwtEQqc)

CMRT graphics in action (thanks again, RyanE):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hd8bG8PB-LQ (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hd8bG8PB-LQ)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JMPNA6n7w6A (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JMPNA6n7w6A)

GTOS graphics and animations are both hardcore - it's disturbing to see men on fire yelling and waving their arms with little flames licking their limbs, or the gaping open mouths of the dead - and hyperrealistic - lighting in night battles GTOS is simply amazingly well done. Infantrymen in GTOS are depicted as both billboards and models, depending on the distance of the camera to the soldiers, which is a sign of a highly sophisticated graphics engine, capable of adjusting the level of detail dynamically to maximize framerate. Graphics in Combat Mission 3.0 follow a more "impressionistic" style, with a highly saturated palette in CMBN and a more subdued lighting in CMRT. CMRT graphics engine is clearly not on the same league as that of GTOS with respect to exploiting hardware capabilities.

For instance, dynamic lighting in CM is limited to explosions and burning vehicles, while in GTOS we have headlights on tanks,  flares, etc. Shadows in CM have always been problematic: CM struggles with the spotty support of OpenGL by major hardware vendors (both AMD and NVIDIA have a less than stellar record on that), and also because most shadowing algorithms out there assume that the camera will be restricted to certain angles, distances and lighting conditions. Shadows in GTOS vary between the detailed for trees - one can tell the silhouette of the tree projected on the ground - and more or less anthropomorphic "blobs" for infantry (depends on the quality settings).

Graviteam graphics engine is much more customizable than that of Battlefront, who offer you five different global settings for textures and models, as well as simple binary on/off options for shadows and specific shader sets to achieve certain effects like self-shadowing. GTOS is also able to dynamically adjust quality as well as "time compression" - that is, the number of simulation time steps per second - so that it matches your maximum attainable FPS, something that CM can't do and shows in the bigger battles. I'll be adding all of this.

On the other hand, CM is cross-platform and GTOS isn't: Combat Mission works on MacOS X as a native application, and unless the MacOS X system isn't "homebrew", graphics hardware is limited to whatever Apple decides to ship with each computer. This entails some hard restrictions on what can and cannot be done graphics-wise.

Sound

Sound in GTOS is serviceable: you get explosions, cries of dying men, and soldiers chit chat a bit a long the lines of Rome Total War II (dude, get that spear outta my face). Vehicle engine sounds are realistic: one can tell apart a Matilda from a Bren Carrier from a T-34. Nonetheless, some sounds trigger in uncanny situations. For instance, you can have selected an infantry squad with the camera several hundred meters over the map, and you'll get a very loud - at random times and sometimes startling - coughing coming out of your headphones.

Sound quality in CM was similar - it has been found lacking in CMBN, and some HD mods exist - but in CMRT they have been notably improved. Weapons, explosions and heavy projectiles have a particularly meaty "texture". Sound is also auralized to some extent: as you move the camera around the map you can notice how the phase of the incoming sound changes. Soldiers chit chat is also adequate and more circumspect than in GTOS - no loud coughing in the middle in the night while infiltrating through known enemy positions. Also, if one moves the camera sufficiently away from the battlefield, engine, soldiers and gunfire noises intensity decreases in a intuitive way. I think it can be said that paying attention to what you're hearing can make a difference in CM regarding intel (if you have a fine ear and you can tell apart the engine of a Panther from that of a Marder).

Artificial Intelligence (Friendly and Enemy)

GTOS

As I wrote above, GTOS allows to give orders by platoons or to a selected group of units. My experiences in the past haven't been very pleasant with this facilities, but the comments in the thread made look again and harder at what GTOS could do. In the picture below, you'll see an on-going platoon-level attack on German fortified positions

http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=247983362 (http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=247983362)

One can see how GTOS AI has established something that totally looks like a base of fire consisting of the Platoon organic MG and mortar sections, while the infantry squads (inverted T's) are maneuvering against the flank of the German positions (the blue dots) using a covered approach. The maneuver keeps developing until all the squads can fire on the Germans

http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=247983491 (http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=247983491)

Unfortunately, the Germans are too much for one single Soviet platoon

http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=247983592 (http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=247983592)

especially when the former are occupying positions like this

http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=247983642 (http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=247983642)

and eventually some of the men break down, walking towards enemy lines

http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=247983918 (http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=247983918)

Note how his mate isn't engaging the Germans with his weapon: it looks to me that the soldier AI is deciding whether or not to imitate the Squad leader.

Scope

Regarding time and space, Combat Mission covers entire theaters over several months - 4 months in CMBN, 10 months in CMFI and 3 months with CMRT - modeling the seasonal weather (for instance, CMBN covers the June to September 1944 period, so weather conditions covered are what can be expected in Summer and Early Autumn in Northwestern Europe, in CMFI, winter conditions are modeled as the game covers the winter of 1943-44). Supplied scenarios and campaigns focus on very specific events, leaving to users to cover further ground with a functional scenario and map editor capable of representing a great variety of possible locations in the theater covered by the game (yet not in an exhaustive way, there are some limitations. Initial - base game releases - though, do not cover all the forces involved in the fighting in that theater, focusing on particular branches (for instance, in both CMBN and CMRT, the only services initially available were the German Heer, in CMFI one had Heer and Luftwaffe - Hermann Goering Panzer Division - troops). The set of available formations is extended with further (paid) modules (or DLC).

GTOS covers specific battles and operations, so the geographic scope of the game is more limited, yet the battle areas included in the maps are extensive and quite sufficient to cover well the operation being portrayed. Weather conditions modeled correspond with those of the historical operation. TOEs in GTOS tend to be comprehensive: every force that took part in the operation or battle will be available, as well as the most common (and some pretty uncommon, generally speaking) vehicles historically available to the formations involved in the battle or operation. GTOS base game offered two operations playable by either side, and further operations can be obtained by purchasing additional DLC (which also extend the weather conditions simulated and the formations and TOE's available).

Documentation

Miscellaneous

Customer Support & Product Life-Cycle

Patching

Graviteam patching schedule is quite regular, with a major patch with bug fixes and new features being released every three or four months. The patching procedure, however, isn't as automated as we've grown used to, as patches come broken into two components: a 'patching' application and the actual content (code, textures, models, etc.). It's indeed harder than the click-click-click installation procedures, but not an impossible task. A further hoop one needs to jump through is that the order in which patched content is loaded matters yet it is documented here

http://gravitac.shoutwiki.com/wiki/Installing_updates_and_modifications

Based on posts by Andrey on Graviteam's forums, they're going to overhaul this with the upcoming Mius Front game so it's based on "Windows Extensions" (NOTE: anybody knows what does Andrey mean by this?). However, GTOS is on Steam, which makes this irrelevant.

Battlefront patching schedule is tied to particular releases: with 'maintenance' patches coming shortly after a release to either address issues particular to that release, as well as bug fixes, and the odd new feature, for other games in the family. For instance, when Market Garden came out, we got a patch for CMFI as well. Battlefront patching scheme is of the click-click-click variety, but patches aren't always comprehensive. For instance, the 2.0 upgrade/patch didn't bundle the 1.10 patch for CMBN, so you can get weird happenings like missing animations (the Marder crew 'doing isometrics' thing, for instance). On the other hand, this is clearly explained on Battlefront's site, with BFC customer support actively addressing complaints and doubts.
Title: Re: Honestly Comparing Battlefront's Combat Mission 2.0 with Graviteam's Tactics
Post by: Toonces on April 09, 2014, 07:30:35 PM
I own both, but I haven't spent a whole lot of time with either.  I'm certainly not a fanboi of one over the other.

With respect to them both, I find that I prefer the graphics in GT, but the UI baffles me.  CM is more intuitive.

My opinion of course.
Title: Re: Honestly Comparing Battlefront's Combat Mission 2.0 with Graviteam's Tactics
Post by: RyanE on April 09, 2014, 07:33:03 PM
I thought AP had formations...not SOPs, but combined with covered arcs, it can come close.
Title: Re: Honestly Comparing Battlefront's Combat Mission 2.0 with Graviteam's Tactics
Post by: Michael Dorosh on April 09, 2014, 07:37:14 PM
I see you still have stuff to add to the OP, but since one of your early comments is about patching progress, I'll chime in with my axes. Though I'm not sure any of the patching stuff is all that useful to this thread - I don't know a whole lot about the Graviteam games and would be interested in appraisal of the other, meatier stuff like gameplay from those with direct comparisons. As an example, see the Platform Comparison I posted on my own website that KP did regarding a CM vs. PzC comparison.

http://tacticalwargamer.com/articles/platform/pck_vs_cmbb.htm

But to add two cents to the patch discussion, BFC has also shown a willingness to declare "enough" and move on. Patches were definitely finite for CMX1, and both technical and "other" fixes were left on the table while the team went on to other projects. As I recall, this include an anti-tank gun exploit in the "technical" category, while other stuff included the wrong bmps for British/Canadian tank crew icons loading (they were switched in CMAK), wrong SMGs for the Italian theatre - very minor stuff that was nonetheless identified early on in the release cycle but for whatever reason the design team elected not to address it. And when I say address, I don't mean fix necessarily, but there was never any acknowledgement on the forum, either, even to say "thanks for identifying these issues, but we won't have the time or resources to do that."

That was circa 2004 and I would like to think the customer service aspect has changed appreciably since then. The rationale at the time was that they were gearing up for CMX2 - which in the event debuted in 2007.  It remains what we shall see once further patches to older titles in the CM line are impossible. At present, I believe game engines 1.0 and 2.0 are still supported and even Touch just got some kind of update as well. I may be conflating titles and engines. I would not be surprised to learn that the expectation in future is that if you have an older title (CM:SF, CM:BN, etc.) you will have to upgrade to the 3.0 engine to benefit from further patches. Are they even considering further work on the 1.0 and 2.0 engines? Or for that matter, are there matters outstanding, as there had been with the CMX1 engine?

I do understand that there is a real need to move on at some point. I thought it was handled poorly at the conclusion of CMX1, perhaps more in the language used to address the fan community than in the actual message.
Title: Re: Honestly Comparing Battlefront's Combat Mission 2.0 with Graviteam's Tactics
Post by: Bletchley_Geek on April 09, 2014, 07:40:05 PM
Quote from: RyanE on April 09, 2014, 07:33:03 PM
I thought AP had formations...not SOPs, but combined with covered arcs, it can come close.

Yeah, you're right - I need to rework that bit.
Title: Re: Honestly Comparing Battlefront's Combat Mission 2.0 with Graviteam's Tactics
Post by: Bletchley_Geek on April 09, 2014, 07:51:10 PM
Quote from: Michael Dorosh on April 09, 2014, 07:37:14 PM
I see you still have stuff to add to the OP, but since one of your early comments is about patching progress, I'll chime in with my axes. Though I'm not sure any of the patching stuff is all that useful to this thread - I don't know a whole lot about the Graviteam games and would be interested in appraisal of the other, meatier stuff like gameplay from those with direct comparisons. As an example, see the Platform Comparison I posted on my own website that KP did regarding a CM vs. PzC comparison.

http://tacticalwargamer.com/articles/platform/pck_vs_cmbb.htm

But to add two cents to the patch discussion, BFC has also shown a willingness to declare "enough" and move on. Patches were definitely finite for CMX1, and both technical and "other" fixes were left on the table while the team went on to other projects. As I recall, this include an anti-tank gun exploit in the "technical" category, while other stuff included the wrong bmps for British/Canadian tank crew icons loading (they were switched in CMAK), wrong SMGs for the Italian theatre - very minor stuff that was nonetheless identified early on in the release cycle but for whatever reason the design team elected not to address it. And when I say address, I don't mean fix necessarily, but there was never any acknowledgement on the forum, either, even to say "thanks for identifying these issues, but we won't have the time or resources to do that."

That was circa 2004 and I would like to think the customer service aspect has changed appreciably since then. The rationale at the time was that they were gearing up for CMX2 - which in the event debuted in 2007.  It remains what we shall see once further patches to older titles in the CM line are impossible. At present, I believe game engines 1.0 and 2.0 are still supported and even Touch just got some kind of update as well. I may be conflating titles and engines. I would not be surprised to learn that the expectation in future is that if you have an older title (CM:SF, CM:BN, etc.) you will have to upgrade to the 3.0 engine to benefit from further patches. Are they even considering further work on the 1.0 and 2.0 engines? Or for that matter, are there matters outstanding, as there had been with the CMX1 engine?

I do understand that there is a real need to move on at some point. I thought it was handled poorly at the conclusion of CMX1, perhaps more in the language used to address the fan community than in the actual message.

Patching is relevant as it denotes what one can expect in terms of long-term support by the developers and what's the life cycle of the products. I do think that's quite a relevant topic to consider when it comes to spend $$$ in stuff: regardless of them being games, operating systems or fridges.

I'll add some notes on Battlefront's policy, which is not the traditional scheme of releasing one 'game' (major revision of the engine), along with scenario packs and a more or less regular stream of patches. Battlefront decided to monetize major engine updates, and that is indeed quite different from the 'traditional' scheme. We're not talking here about different 'engines' - as in Source vs. Unreal vs. CryEngine - Michael, but rather iterations over the same engine, that enhance and extend an existing technological framework (graphics, simulation, etc.).
Title: Re: Honestly Comparing Battlefront's Combat Mission 2.0 with Graviteam's Tactics
Post by: RyanE on April 09, 2014, 07:56:24 PM
Maybe start with a graphical comparison...I know its hard with different machines and settings, but still worth a look...

AP

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3zFs_cdQ8Fo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C43_JwtEQqc

CMRT

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hd8bG8PB-LQ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JMPNA6n7w6A

My personal opinion is that infantry animations are better in AP, but not a big deal to me.

AP seems a lot grittier and real from a graphics standpoint.  CM has always looked too clean and bright.

One area that shows CM's maturity is they have spent some effort in making modding more flexible from a graphics standpoint.  All the videos above are stock.
Title: Re: Honestly Comparing Battlefront's Combat Mission 2.0 with Graviteam's Tactics
Post by: RyanE on April 09, 2014, 08:04:34 PM
Another point about Graviteam is that all the releases up to this point work together.  You can have BT-7s fighting Centurions or M-60s.  That model is changing though with the next release.

That also brings up cost...I have spent $40 total for the entire AP collection.  That is a bunch of maps, units, campaigns, etc.  I think it is 6-7 releases.  They cover East Front WW2, Russia vs China 1960's (somewhat limited), Angola in the 80's, Russia vs Iran 1980's, and I am sure I am missing  one.

CM has a lot more maps, scenarios, and a great map/scenario builder.  That is regardless of the game you buy.  CM is a lot more sandbox that AP in that regard.  CM2 covers Italy WW2, France WW2, now East Front 1944.  I don't right now count CMSF.  Its a good game but pales in comparison to other CM games and AP from a function feature standpoint.

Balancing out CM's editors is AP's operational level.  You basically fight the operational maneuver battle then go into the tactical battle and actually fight it out.  It is very cool and well executed.
Title: Re: Honestly Comparing Battlefront's Combat Mission 2.0 with Graviteam's Tactics
Post by: Michael Dorosh on April 09, 2014, 08:08:56 PM
Quote from: Bletchley_Geek on April 09, 2014, 07:51:10 PM

Patching is relevant

Sorry, my wording came off as harsher than intended. I agree completely, but seemed at first blush almost worthy of its own discussion. However, I forget this is not a "CM" forum exclusively or even a "tactical games" forum, but rather an all-encompassing "Computer Wargaming" forum so it probably well that we do our best to squeeze all these interesting discussions into this thread. :) My apologies.  :-X
Title: Re: Honestly Comparing Battlefront's Combat Mission 2.0 with Graviteam's Tactics
Post by: mikeck on April 09, 2014, 08:10:01 PM
I find that Combat Mission had a more intuitive AI and offers a bit more detailed control over your unit's behavior. AP has much better graphics, a strategic level allowing you to choose what units attack where/refuel/resupply and is - for me- more immersive. My only complaints with AP is the patching and odd UI. I suppose your fAvorite will depend on what you want out of the game.
Title: Re: Honestly Comparing Battlefront's Combat Mission 2.0 with Graviteam's Tactics
Post by: Bletchley_Geek on April 09, 2014, 08:24:08 PM
Quote from: RyanE on April 09, 2014, 07:56:24 PM
Maybe start with a graphical comparison...I know its hard with different machines and settings, but still worth a look...

AP

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3zFs_cdQ8Fo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C43_JwtEQqc

CMRT

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hd8bG8PB-LQ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JMPNA6n7w6A

My personal opinion is that infantry animations are better in AP, but not a big deal to me.

AP seems a lot grittier and real from a graphics standpoint.  CM has always looked too clean and bright.

One area that shows CM's maturity is they have spent some effort in making modding more flexible from a graphics standpoint.  All the videos above are stock.

Thanks for that Ryan, I've included the videos and some comments along these lines.

I got a question though: How are shadows in GTOS? I have the Volokonovka DLC, and I'd say that there aren't any shadows at all, or they're very subtle. I mean, after three years playing the games I don't have a recollection of shadows at all (but I'd say that trees and houses do have shadows, but not soldiers and vehicles).
Title: Re: Honestly Comparing Battlefront's Combat Mission 2.0 with Graviteam's Tactics
Post by: Bletchley_Geek on April 09, 2014, 08:25:21 PM
Quote from: Michael Dorosh on April 09, 2014, 08:08:56 PM
Quote from: Bletchley_Geek on April 09, 2014, 07:51:10 PM

Patching is relevant

Sorry, my wording came off as harsher than intended. I agree completely, but seemed at first blush almost worthy of its own discussion. However, I forget this is not a "CM" forum exclusively or even a "tactical games" forum, but rather an all-encompassing "Computer Wargaming" forum so it probably well that we do our best to squeeze all these interesting discussions into this thread. :) My apologies.  :-X

Don't worry, Michael. I tend to forget that as well :-)

I'm looking to your PanzerCommand vs. Barbarossa To Berlin comparison, as it's very well structured along other lines.
Title: Re: Honestly Comparing Battlefront's Combat Mission 2.0 with Graviteam's Tactics
Post by: RyanE on April 09, 2014, 08:32:19 PM
Shadows are optional.  There are a huge number of graphics options.  In fact, there are so many, its easy to get overwhelmed by them.  You could easily set some combination of options that would make any part of the game look like crap.  The documentation of the options is OK, but sometimes hard to understand.

That brings up another point...tool tips.  They are all over the place and incredibly helpful once you get past some language issues.
Title: Re: Honestly Comparing Battlefront's Combat Mission 2.0 with Graviteam's Tactics
Post by: Bletchley_Geek on April 09, 2014, 08:36:24 PM
Quote from: RyanE on April 09, 2014, 08:32:19 PM
Shadows are optional.  There are a huge number of graphics options.  In fact, there are so many, its easy to get overwhelmed by them.  You could easily set some combination of options that would make any part of the game look like crap.  The documentation of the options is OK, but sometimes hard to understand.

That brings up another point...tool tips.  They are all over the place and incredibly helpful once you get past some language issues.

I wouldn't be surprised that I've been playing without shadows all these years and never noticed that they were OFF. Will take a look at them tonight when I'm back at home.

The 'language issues' thing is something that will be discussed in length. CM comes with full UI translations to several major languages (and the Spanish one is pretty good, I am a Spanish native speaker). This is not the case in GTOS. I think that CM translations are either made by beta-testers or external volunteers, which goes a long way to explain the variety and the quality of the translations. Can anybody confirm that?
Title: Re: Honestly Comparing Battlefront's Combat Mission 2.0 with Graviteam's Tactics
Post by: RyanE on April 09, 2014, 08:44:11 PM
Volunteers used to do CM1, but I think a lot of them are full employees now.
Title: Re: Honestly Comparing Battlefront's Combat Mission 2.0 with Graviteam's Tactics
Post by: Bletchley_Geek on April 09, 2014, 08:46:03 PM
Quote from: RyanE on April 09, 2014, 08:44:11 PM
Volunteers used to do CM1, but I think a lot of them are full employees now.

Well, I think I know who's the Spanish translator, and I'd say he's not an employee. Fernando does the uniforms, for sure.
Title: Re: Honestly Comparing Battlefront's Combat Mission 2.0 with Graviteam's Tactics
Post by: RyanE on April 09, 2014, 08:53:07 PM
Note the words "a lot"...hence not all.
Title: Re: Honestly Comparing Battlefront's Combat Mission 2.0 with Graviteam's Tactics
Post by: Dolan50 on April 09, 2014, 10:42:12 PM
QuoteI got a question though: How are shadows in GTOS? I have the Volokonovka DLC, and I'd say that there aren't any shadows at all, or they're very subtle. I mean, after three years playing the games I don't have a recollection of shadows at all (but I'd say that trees and houses do have shadows, but not soldiers and vehicles).

This can be fixed in the graphic options(video and performance) by turning off simple shaders(2.04) and turning on shaders(2.08).

The Summer maps are very hard on frame rate performance especially if the grass settings are on high and the smoke and tracers are set to maximum too.
Weather also plays a role in shading, such as cloudy,rain,storm or fog which tends to mute the shading. The volokonovka campaign takes place during rainy and over cast weather(You can change the weather options for QBs).

Unless you have a very good graphics card its best to tone down most of the graphics options, especially if a lot of units are involved in a battle.
I generally use simple shaders,high grass  and tone the smoke and tracers to lowest setting.
Even at the lowest setting the smoke/dust and tracers are still very good.

It's very important that if you turn simple shaders on to turn shading off(you can't have both at the same setting or the game won't run properly, it has to be one or the other).

If you run into problems after experimenting with the graphic settings there is a little cog wheel at the bottom of the game settings options that you can click on and the game will automatically adjust quality and performance to your system.
Still, a good amount of tweeking to your settings will be necessary to get the best out of your system depending on how large your battles are and what kind of graphics you would like to see in the game.

I spend most of my time playing QBs with reinforced platoon to company sized elements so as to get the most out of the graphics this game has to offer without effecting the frame rate too much.
Title: Re: Honestly Comparing Battlefront's Combat Mission 2.0 with Graviteam's Tactics
Post by: Dolan50 on April 09, 2014, 11:16:09 PM
QuoteCM has a lot more maps

GTOS has large maps that usually weigh in at about 100 Square Kilometers per map, with 9 maps(If you have all the DLCs) you're looking at about 900 average CM size  maps without that cut off border edge of the world effect that always drove me nuts. All battles take place on a 3x3 km area and in quick battles you can choose from a variety of different map areas to fight on from Russian villages,desert,tropical savanna,Eurasian grassy hills or Ukrainian steppe during winter,summer or spring by choosing any 3x3 area you like(smaller battle maps if you use the borders to cut them down to 2x3 or 2x2 SqKm).

Lately I've been playing some QBs with the afghan/Russian modern forces from shield of the prophet on the Zhalanashkol69 map(Chinese/Russian border) because I like the terrain better(not a big fan of the desert map of Afghanistan in shield of the prophet) to simulate the 1980s battles in Afghanistan between these two opposing forces.
The oob in the QB editor gives you very good mix to tailor your forces however you please to simulate any type of battle you can think of, limited only by your imagination.
Title: Re: Honestly Comparing Battlefront's Combat Mission 2.0 with Graviteam's Tactics
Post by: Bletchley_Geek on April 09, 2014, 11:31:14 PM
Thanks for the comments, Dolan. I do remember playing around with the shaders settings and running into trouble.

Graviteam graphics engine is much more customizable than that of Battlefront, who offer you six? different global settings for textures and models, as well as simple binary on/off options for shadows and specific shader sets to achieve certain effects like self-shadowing. GTOS is also able to dynamically adjust quality as well as "time compression" - that is, the number of simulation time steps per second - so that it matches your maximum attainable FPS, something that CM can't do and shows in the bigger battles. I'll be adding all of this.

Regarding maps etc.: that will go under the "Scope" section.

Indeed, GTOS maps are excellently made and extremely accurate, as well as quite big. But if I want, say, to play something like the battles on the river Chir - just a couple  months before Operation Star - I'm out of luck (or I have to strain my imagination). In CMRT, I can make a battle in Slutsk, in Tukums, on the approaches to Memel or somewhere in the Danube valley. Combat Mission now allows maps of up to 16 square kilometers, as well, so while you still have the 'Flat Earth' vibe, you really don't need to run into 'invisible forcefields' as in GTOS. Of course, the degree of accuracy to which one can cover a specific region in Combat Mission isn't quite the same as you get on Graviteam's maps. No mapping tools - as far as I know - are included with GTOS (which probably works with some GIS format).
Title: Re: Honestly Comparing Battlefront's Combat Mission 2.0 with Graviteam's Tactics
Post by: Dolan50 on April 09, 2014, 11:48:01 PM
If you can prove to Andrey that you have some map modding skill he will grant you access to the map tools that are used by them.
He said He gave permission to 6 different modders but only one has ever produced a map(Shilovo).

Flashburn and Krabb were working on a Tunisian map for a campaign, but gave up for awhile because they are only 2 people and it would take more people with other talents to create the American/British units and German tropical uniforms.

Flashburn said the map is basically done minus the Tunisian style buildings and He may just release it to share with the community minus all the other stuff He would have liked to have added.
I think the map would work well with the modern forces and asked that He release it whenever he gets a chance to finish it.
I think it would be a nice addition to my QBs.

Here's a link showing some screenshots of the map.
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3244519
Title: Re: Honestly Comparing Battlefront's Combat Mission 2.0 with Graviteam's Tactics
Post by: jomni on April 10, 2014, 01:16:31 AM
Graviteam Tactics has an Operational turn-based layer in the campaign. Combat mission is a series of linked (branching) scenarios.

Haven't seen dense urban environments in GT. Can you go in buildings?
Title: Re: Honestly Comparing Battlefront's Combat Mission 2.0 with Graviteam's Tactics
Post by: RyanE on April 10, 2014, 05:02:24 AM
I would go so far as to say that AP is really two games.  An operational game of manuevering larger units into contact.  Then a tactical game of fighting out those engagements at the CM-level.  The operational level isn't as detailed as some other focused operational games, but its close and you don't have to fight out the tactical battles.  You can let the AI resolve it.

I usually play CM hotseat.  I really miss it in AP and that is usually what brings my AP sessions to a stop.  CM's AI is just not up to the task at the maneuver level.  Maybe with new triggers, that will change a little, but even with all the improvements in QBs, its a crap shoot to get a good QB.  On the other hand, I have yet to get tired of AP's AI.  It is still somewhat predictable, but I have found it much more able to adjust to circumstances than CM's AI.  I don't know how many times I have played SP in CM only to find I did something the scenario designer didn't expect and completely threw off the AI plan's timing.  At that point, you might as well quit.
Title: Re: Honestly Comparing Battlefront's Combat Mission 2.0 with Graviteam's Tactics
Post by: RyanE on April 10, 2014, 05:17:10 AM
The other thing that keeps me coming back to AP is all the tools available to the player in the tactical battles.

A unit list with active clicking
messages on events for units
mini-map
jump to actions automatically when something happens
tool tips on hovering over keys
A great encyclopedia with cool penetration charts
time acceleration
formations
FPS counter
command radius and lines (CM has gotten the lines back)
post battle review and analysis
Basic SOPs for units on how they move and react to the enemy

CM on the other hand, while missing a lot of the little player aids above has some HUGE advantages...

A full map editor - learning curve is steep, but new maps are coming out constantly, even if no where near what we saw in CM1
A full scenario editor - While more difficult to use than CM1, it is still one of the best out there
Full recording of action
Wego with hotseat
A more rapid product release cadence
Better documentation and forum activity

In the end, AP is better simulation of the squad-level combat.  It's focused and provides a better playing experience for the actual action.  But CM is the best, hands down, for community, flexibility, extensiblity, and breadth if you look at the entire CM2 product line.  What is frustrating is that BFC could have put in come of player aids above and really helped the player out.  They continue to refuse to based more on philosophical reasons if you believe what Steve at BFC says.
Title: Re: Honestly Comparing Battlefront's Combat Mission 2.0 with Graviteam's Tactics
Post by: ArizonaTank on April 10, 2014, 05:21:36 AM
Graphics and shadows are all interesting, but how do the games play when put up against the template of historical tactics?  That is more important to me.  CM holds up very well...  Unfortunately, I haven't played enough of Graviteam's stuff to really comment.   


Title: Re: Honestly Comparing Battlefront's Combat Mission 2.0 with Graviteam's Tactics
Post by: RyanE on April 10, 2014, 05:40:41 AM
I find at the tactical level, AP is better than CM.  I find the infantry especially behave and react more as I would expect.  The one area AP is better to me is when things are heading south in a firefight, reaction to failing morale and reaction to suppression seems better.

I'll point out that these are all subjective assessments, but it is the feeling I get watching both.
Title: Re: Honestly Comparing Battlefront's Combat Mission 2.0 with Graviteam's Tactics
Post by: Bletchley_Geek on April 10, 2014, 06:51:03 AM
Quote from: ArizonaTank on April 10, 2014, 05:21:36 AM
Graphics and shadows are all interesting, but how do the games play when put up against the template of historical tactics?  That is more important to me.  CM holds up very well...  Unfortunately, I haven't played enough of Graviteam's stuff to really comment.   

Noted. That's actually for me the crux of the matter. Graphics could be 2D like Command Ops with counters for units, or tiny sprites as in Steel Panthers, Close Combat, or Armoured Brigade. Historical tactics were the way they were because of terrain, equipment, organisation and "doctrine" - which is not the same as it is for the Catholic Church. The more technical aspects are easier to compare, but superficial.

I am working on getting screenshots for stuff like maneuvering with a platoon. I also need to figure out how ShadowPlay works, and capture some videos. GTOS doesn't allow you to build scenarios like CM, which makes hard to compare particular situations.

That's going to take a few days ☺
Title: Re: Honestly Comparing Battlefront's Combat Mission 2.0 with Graviteam's Tactics
Post by: RyanE on April 10, 2014, 07:22:23 AM
About the only way you can do it is create a QB in AP, then recreate it in CM.  It would be tough the other way around.
Title: Re: Honestly Comparing Battlefront's Combat Mission 2.0 with Graviteam's Tactics
Post by: RyanE on April 10, 2014, 07:31:22 AM
One area that CM handles better than AP is built up areas.  I get a lot of lag in areas with more than few buildings in AP.  I don't remember if AP even supports multiple levels.  There is so little built up area in AP, you don't encounter it much. 

Also, I don't think you can split squads into teams in AP.

But that does bring up a fundamental difference in the games...spotting and action spots.  CM's biggest engine weakness is the 8m action spots.  It leads to weird spotting issues and the forced nerfing of HE attacks to compensate for clustering of soldiers.  AP's spotting routines seem a lot more believable and do not have all the weird outliers that you see in CM.  At least once a battle in large battles, I have some issue with my tank not seeing another tank at less than 50m directly in front.  I have never had that issue in AP.
Title: Re: Honestly Comparing Battlefront's Combat Mission 2.0 with Graviteam's Tactics
Post by: Dolan50 on April 10, 2014, 08:18:10 AM
QuoteAlso, I don't think you can split squads into teams in AP.

AP is now called GT:Graviteam Tactics.
The name was changed after Graviteam started to self publish this game.

GTOS:Graviteam Tactics Operation Star is the current version of this game that is very similar to AP but updated with new engines and UI and the next version with a newer engine and UI will be called GTMF:Graviteam Tactics Mius Front.

GTMF will basically be a different game that will not be compatible with GTOS but I think in the future a lot of the stuff from GTOS will be ported over to GTMF the same way The modern stuff from SABOW was ported into GTOS.

GTMF will feature a large summer map of the Mius river area and from what I understand the 1st 2 DLCs for this game will be a Summer 43 battle near Kharkov featuring the GrossDeutschland division and introduction of the Panther tank plus another DLC about the battle Nomonhan between the Russians and Japanese in Mongolia in 1939.

AP or APK(Achtung Panzer Kharkov) is usually used when describing the older inferior version of this game that was published by Paradox and I think they still hold the copyright to it.
Title: Re: Honestly Comparing Battlefront's Combat Mission 2.0 with Graviteam's Tactics
Post by: Redirected on April 10, 2014, 09:06:49 AM
Haven't played anything but the AP or APK demo and that was short lived and long ago.  Are there new demos?
Title: Re: Honestly Comparing Battlefront's Combat Mission 2.0 with Graviteam's Tactics
Post by: Dolan50 on April 10, 2014, 09:21:54 AM
The new demo is the same 5 turn Russian campaign that is in the current version of the core game game.

http://www.graviteam.ua/help/download-patches.html
•NEW Demo (October, 30 2012)

For anyone interested in the demo make sure you get the English version as there is a Russian version here also.
Title: Re: Honestly Comparing Battlefront's Combat Mission 2.0 with Graviteam's Tactics
Post by: MengJiao on April 10, 2014, 09:23:51 AM
Quote from: Redirected on April 10, 2014, 09:06:49 AM
Haven't played anything but the AP or APK demo and that was short lived and long ago.  Are there new demos?

  I would just get some of the games and play them.  I've played a few and they are quite interesting.  I do prefer CMxx, but the Graviteam stuff is very worthwhile.  I would say this is really a matter of taste and there are not many rational reasons for preferring CMxx to Graviteam.
Title: Re: Honestly Comparing Battlefront's Combat Mission 2.0 with Graviteam's Tactics
Post by: Redirected on April 10, 2014, 09:30:46 AM
Thanks, I will check it out this weekend. 
Title: Re: Honestly Comparing Battlefront's Combat Mission 2.0 with Graviteam's Tactics
Post by: Tuna on April 10, 2014, 09:39:58 AM
Multiplayer  8)
Title: Re: Honestly Comparing Battlefront's Combat Mission 2.0 with Graviteam's Tactics
Post by: MengJiao on April 10, 2014, 09:50:24 AM
Quote from: Tuna on April 10, 2014, 09:39:58 AM
Multiplayer  8)

  Yes and numbers of troops that can be in a particular action.
Title: Re: Honestly Comparing Battlefront's Combat Mission 2.0 with Graviteam's Tactics
Post by: bayonetbrant on April 10, 2014, 12:04:14 PM
Quote from: MengJiao on April 10, 2014, 09:23:51 AMthis is really a matter of taste and there are not many rational reasons for preferring CMxx to Graviteam.

We're talking about Combat Mission - rationality went out the window as soon as the discussion opened.

So far this thread has stayed fairly clean and calm, so let's please keep it that way :)
Title: Re: Honestly Comparing Battlefront's Combat Mission 2.0 with Graviteam's Tactics
Post by: Rayfer on April 10, 2014, 12:11:49 PM
Quote from: bayonetbrant on April 10, 2014, 12:04:14 PM
Quote from: MengJiao on April 10, 2014, 09:23:51 AMthis is really a matter of taste and there are not many rational reasons for preferring CMxx to Graviteam.

We're talking about Combat Mission - rationality went out the window as soon as the discussion opened.

So far this thread has stayed fairly clean and calm, so let's please keep it that way :)

+1   Both of these games have been on my radar for awhile, it is refreshing and helpful to see this sort of exchange rather than the emotional personal attacks that have ruined other threads.
Title: Re: Honestly Comparing Battlefront's Combat Mission 2.0 with Graviteam's Tactics
Post by: RyanE on April 10, 2014, 01:11:04 PM
A thread over at BFC reminded me of one nice little feature in AP.  Wire communications.  It is modeled...down to the level of having to send out signalmen to repair broken comms.  Not that interesting except when it is.  It makes you take some real world things into consdieration.
Title: Re: Honestly Comparing Battlefront's Combat Mission 2.0 with Graviteam's Tactics
Post by: Con on April 10, 2014, 01:24:20 PM
I played the hell out of AP Kharkov and a lot of Operation Star when they came out.  This discussion is like trying to decide if you like Tequila or Whisky

They both get you hammered if you drink to much and we are lucky to live in a world where we can decide which Eastern Front game we want to play (and which booze to get lit up on).

For me the edge goes to CM because of the multiplayer and mods/engaged community.  I like all the tools and visuals of AP and while I feel it plays accurately in my opinion the very reality of the game is what makes it less engaging for me.  Those huge maps, trying to manage many units moving around in many different places while action can be unfolding in one corner and your troops routing in another.  Its always just a bit exhausting for me to play AP.  I actually prefer the simpler scope of CM and challenge of playing another human.

Con
Title: Re: Honestly Comparing Battlefront's Combat Mission 2.0 with Graviteam's Tactics
Post by: Redwolf on April 10, 2014, 02:07:39 PM
So how does Tactics really differ from the Kharkov thing?
Title: Re: Honestly Comparing Battlefront's Combat Mission 2.0 with Graviteam's Tactics
Post by: Redirected on April 10, 2014, 02:30:02 PM
Quote from: RyanE on April 10, 2014, 01:11:04 PM
A thread over at BFC reminded me of one nice little feature in AP.  Wire communications.  It is modeled...down to the level of having to send out signalmen to repair broken comms.  Not that interesting except when it is.  It makes you take some real world things into consdieration.

A pet peeve of mine also.  Not sure if military guys bother with these anymore but we did in the 80s.  LP and OP duty.

From reading WWII accounts, it seemed commo guys worked non-stop across europe and other battlefields keeping the wire unbroken.  Also, command posts should be modeled.  Are they in AP?
Title: Re: Honestly Comparing Battlefront's Combat Mission 2.0 with Graviteam's Tactics
Post by: RyanE on April 10, 2014, 02:54:36 PM
I think they are modeled from the standpoint that that is where a commander is and a radio/phone.  It's usually in a trench/bunker on defense.
Title: Re: Honestly Comparing Battlefront's Combat Mission 2.0 with Graviteam's Tactics
Post by: MengJiao on April 10, 2014, 02:55:39 PM
Quote from: Rayfer on April 10, 2014, 12:11:49 PM
Quote from: bayonetbrant on April 10, 2014, 12:04:14 PM
Quote from: MengJiao on April 10, 2014, 09:23:51 AMthis is really a matter of taste and there are not many rational reasons for preferring CMxx to Graviteam.

We're talking about Combat Mission - rationality went out the window as soon as the discussion opened.

So far this thread has stayed fairly clean and calm, so let's please keep it that way :)

+1   Both of these games have been on my radar for awhile, it is refreshing and helpful to see this sort of exchange rather than the emotional personal attacks that have ruined other threads.

  I wasn't saying that irrational reasons are bad reasons or that there are no rational reasons -- BUT I think the Graviteam stuff is interesting and worth some time.  I do prefer CM, but I would be the first to admit (indeed let me do it right now) that there are a lot of very good games that are not my cup of tea (for example ASL or Skyrim or Crusader Kings II or CMANO) and a lot of not-quite-so-obviously-good games that I have liked a lot (ATS for example or PQ-17 or certain Bohemia Interactive games about Mars or Island Carrier things).  Graviteam kind of reminds me of my feelings about Crusader Kings II: there was a lot there, and it was pretty interesting, but in the end, I just never quite got caught up in it.
Title: Re: Honestly Comparing Battlefront's Combat Mission 2.0 with Graviteam's Tactics
Post by: Bletchley_Geek on April 10, 2014, 05:57:56 PM
Quote from: Redirected on April 10, 2014, 02:30:02 PM
Quote from: RyanE on April 10, 2014, 01:11:04 PM
A thread over at BFC reminded me of one nice little feature in AP.  Wire communications.  It is modeled...down to the level of having to send out signalmen to repair broken comms.  Not that interesting except when it is.  It makes you take some real world things into consdieration.

A pet peeve of mine also.  Not sure if military guys bother with these anymore but we did in the 80s.  LP and OP duty.

From reading WWII accounts, it seemed commo guys worked non-stop across europe and other battlefields keeping the wire unbroken.  Also, command posts should be modeled.  Are they in AP?

I am seeing those messages all the time, but I have a hard time making sense out of it. First, what it does enable the "wire communications link" to have been established? The obvious is that it would allow the unit in comms to spot for artillery, but I don't see the 'FO' button activating when the link has been established. Second, on what basis are those links established? I am seeing squads and platoons establishing a wire link while in the attack and under fire. That's a bit at odds with what one would expect to be possible when establishing a field phone network. Third, when in the defense, those links take as little as five minutes to be established between units separated by distances over 500 meters.

Indeed, there are "wire links" in the game, but I wonder whether we're meeting here another further issue with translating a term from Russian into some seriously broken English.
Title: Re: Honestly Comparing Battlefront's Combat Mission 2.0 with Graviteam's Tactics
Post by: Bletchley_Geek on April 10, 2014, 06:04:03 PM
Quote from: Con on April 10, 2014, 01:24:20 PM
I played the hell out of AP Kharkov and a lot of Operation Star when they came out.  This discussion is like trying to decide if you like Tequila or Whisky

Well, the point of creating the thread isn't to decide which game is better or not. That's up for the readers to decide, on the basis of a blow by blow comparison (when possible). If someone likes both - for different reasons - all the power to them.

Regarding tequila vs. whisky. Unfortunately, I know that if I have a shot of tequila it's 100% guaranteed I'll be needing to throw up at some point during the night. Whisky is fine during the night, my problem comes the morning after: the hangover I get is terrible. Vodka - especially the "hairy cow" Polish one - works for me pretty well :)
Title: Re: Honestly Comparing Battlefront's Combat Mission 2.0 with Graviteam's Tactics
Post by: Dolan50 on April 10, 2014, 06:32:50 PM
The commo link guys do best if you leave them under AI control and they will automatically establish commo links to your various HQs(Batt.,Co. or Pla. and support weapon leaders) and on-board indirect artillery assets.
If your units are entrenched and on the defense commo links will already be established to all main HQs.

The main reason for establishing these links is so that the various HQ units can pass info back and forth quickly concerning enemy spottings to bring in more accurate indirect fire be it MGs, mortars or inf guns on the enemy and to also make it easier to relay orders so it will not be as long of a delay between issuing orders and waiting for them to get carried out.

You can still issue orders to units that aren't wire linked or have radios or in voice range and the leaders have a limited amount of flares but the flares may not always be seen and the units may not respond and you will have to wait a certain amount of time for an abstracted runner to relay the command to the units.
Title: Re: Honestly Comparing Battlefront's Combat Mission 2.0 with Graviteam's Tactics
Post by: Bletchley_Geek on April 10, 2014, 06:47:44 PM
Quote from: Dolan50 on April 10, 2014, 06:32:50 PM
The commo link guys do best if you leave them under AI control and they will automatically establish commo links to your various HQs(Batt.,Co. or Pla. and support weapon leaders) and on-board indirect artillery assets.
If your units are entrenched and on the defense commo links will already be established to all main HQs.

Okay

Quote
The main reason for establishing these links is so that the various HQ units can pass info back and forth quickly concerning enemy spottings to bring in more accurate indirect fire be it MGs, mortars or inf guns on the enemy and to also make it easier to relay orders so it will not be as long of a delay between issuing orders and waiting for them to get carried out.

So there is an actual orders delay... will you be surprised if I told you that I was never sure that was actually the case? Sometimes units carry over orders instantly, and sometimes not, and I have never been really able to tell why is that the reason (distance to the Platoon commander when the unit is a squad?). Regarding spotting et al: I don't see anything like the kind of relative spotting that Combat Mission has. Or at least, I can't tell from the UI what are units aware of, and what not (as I can with Combat Mission). Is there some UI switch/configuration that reflects what each unit knows about its environments?

Regarding the increased accuracy: it will be hard to see how much of a difference it makes, but I will try. Yet I'd need before to understand well how this Operation Star C2 system works - the manual is just maddeningly unclear.

Quote
You can still issue orders to units that aren't wire linked or have radios or in voice range and the leaders have a limited amount of flares but the flares may not always be seen and the units may not respond and you will have to wait a certain amount of time for an abstracted runner to relay the command to the units.

Is this explained clearly in English somewhere? I know about the GTOS wiki - posted a link to it in the OP - but I can't find anything about this topic anywhere.
Title: Re: Honestly Comparing Battlefront's Combat Mission 2.0 with Graviteam's Tactics
Post by: Dolan50 on April 10, 2014, 07:21:05 PM
A lot of this stuff was brought up in past discussions with Andrey on the Graviteam forum and never made it into the manual or WIKI,there are a few tool tips but mainly this game is a trial and error learn as you go and observe affair.

None of the developers speak English and rely on Google translator to convey the mechanics of the game on the forum, it can be very frustrating in the beginning but as you become more familiar with the game and its mechanics the logic behind the madness  becomes more clear and is actually  pretty straight forward.

This is a very deep game requiring a lot of time and effort to master even the basics, but once you delve deeper into it you come to realize that these guys did not make a simple arcade game for the masses and come to appreciate the amount of effort that went into the game to realistically simulate this type of combat at the Pla., Co. and Batt. command level.

In a way I'm actually glad there isn't an extensive rules manual because it was the rules lawyers in ASL that ruined that game for me and turned the game into a college study course than an actual game and I spent more time referencing the rules manuals than playing the game.

Graviteam has invented a game that doesn't require you to micro manage every single aspect of the game and if you want you can sit back and issue some simple commands and the AI will do the rest, not something I'd recommend but it helps knowing the AI is fairly decent enough to do the simple stuff while you concentrate on the more important things like support assets,complex manuevers or just watching the battle play out in all its graphic splendor.
Title: Re: Honestly Comparing Battlefront's Combat Mission 2.0 with Graviteam's Tactics
Post by: Bletchley_Geek on April 10, 2014, 07:43:49 PM
Quote from: Dolan50 on April 10, 2014, 07:21:05 PM
A lot of this stuff was brought up in past discussions with Andrey on the Graviteam forum and never made it into the manual or WIKI,there are a few tool tips but mainly this game is a trial and error learn as you go and observe affair.

None of the developers speak English and rely on Google translator to convey the mechanics of the game on the forum, it can be very frustrating in the beginning but as you become more familiar with the game and its mechanics the logic behind the madness  becomes more clear and is actually  pretty straight forward.

This is a very deep game requiring a lot of time and effort to master even the basics, but once you delve deeper into it you come to realize that these guys did not make a simple arcade game for the masses and come to appreciate the amount of effort that went into the game to realistically simulate this type of combat at the Pla., Co. and Batt. command level.

In a way I'm actually glad there isn't an extensive rules manual because it was the rules lawyers in ASL that ruined that game for me and turned the game into a college study course than an actual game and I spent more time referencing the rules manuals than playing the game.

I appreciate where those thoughts come from, but I am not wondering about the "rules" I am wondering about the "processes". We do not need to know exactly what is going on under the hood down to each discrete step in the simulation. That came with ASL, because as you know well, you had to run the simulation by hand, so each step needs to be spelled out so it can be carried over dutifully by the players. What people actually need when playing a deep simulation like this, is a clear, high-level, functional, explanation of what's going on: for instance, how morale degrades as units get under fire or suffer casualties, and to what extent and in under which circumstances, command and control helps to keep units together and focused on the mission the player set. That enables the player to understand what is going on and to relate the outcomes he observes in the simulation to the decisions he made.

Having Google Translate as the interface with the devs isn't really very helpful. I am surprised that there isn't a bilingual individual in the community, capable of bridging the language barrier.

Quote
Graviteam has invented a game that doesn't require you to micro manage every single aspect of the game and if you want you can sit back and issue some simple commands and the AI will do the rest, not something I'd recommend but it helps knowing the AI is fairly decent enough to do the simple stuff while you concentrate on the more important things like support assets,complex manuevers or just watching the battle play out in all its graphic splendor.

My experiences with the Platoon-level AI date to early 2012, and I found it plainly infuriating. It was doing some really dumb sh*t and I had no way to override it, unless I issued commands to each individual squad. I need to try that again, with all the latest patches. Regarding complex maneuvers. What I understand for 'complex' maneuvers might be different, but if I want my forces to move in echelon, or in vee formation, I have to issue those commands manually, to each squad. That isn't different from what it is in Combat Mission. The Pause command still baffles me - and that's an essential tool for coordination in the battlefield. What GTOS offers - in terms of friendly AI - appeared to me to be a far cry from what you get in Command Ops. How close is to those standards set by Command Ops, is something that I need to check.

I am very wary of such appraisals in simulator heavy games as they usually go along broken mechanics and useless AI and UI: "Yeah, that machine gun was overran when it shouldn't, but you know, isn't it pretty to see these men dying while the trees are rocked by the wind?". Indeed, some of the scenes in GTOS are well worth a haiku. But I like the intellectual challenge in war games, when I feel lyrical I play a game like Banished.
Title: Re: Honestly Comparing Battlefront's Combat Mission 2.0 with Graviteam's Tactics
Post by: Dolan50 on April 10, 2014, 08:17:00 PM
Andrey mentioned once that if you give him an unlimited amount of cash and 100 years to develope the AI and make sure that everyone owns a super computer that can handle and process all the individual personality traits of every single soldier that he will make the AI that everyone wants.

Right now the AI for most games is no where near this desired level, so to make the game more fair to the AI He went with implementing more command and control and fog of war measures for the gods eye individual player.
Sure,the micro managers aren't happy with this idea, but the game isn't meant for them.

A lot of players have expressed a desire to see MP added to this series but Andrey is convinced that only 10% would actually use it and it wouldn't be profitable enough to pay for itself.
Steam is a step in the right direction for this game and hopefully a publisher will see this game on there and think there is merit in a MP aspect to this series and finance that project. I'm not holding my breath though and it really isn't that important to me since I enjoy creating my own QB scenarios that cater to my own wishes and desires.

This is the game I always wanted and I've yet to find a developer that meets all my personal standards in this type of game the same way Graviteam does.
Title: Re: Honestly Comparing Battlefront's Combat Mission 2.0 with Graviteam's Tactics
Post by: jomni on April 10, 2014, 08:22:53 PM
Quote from: Dolan50 on April 10, 2014, 07:21:05 PM

Graviteam has invented a game that doesn't require you to micro manage every single aspect of the game and if you want you can sit back and issue some simple commands and the AI will do the rest, not something I'd recommend but it helps knowing the AI is fairly decent enough to do the simple stuff while you concentrate on the more important things like support assets,complex manuevers or just watching the battle play out in all its graphic splendor.

Agree. I do a lot of baby sitting (giving detailed orders, changing them every minute) in CM because I find that the AI is lacking. Having your units handle themselves well in GT as they do in real life is a good commander simulation. But you don't need a lot of details and control at the specific squad level that CM shows in all its glory. CM is detail porn and is very fun to watch. GT may come across as bland and to those who are unaware of the details wrongly consider it as RTS.

I have come to the conclusion that though the game scale is similar, GT is a good simulation at the commander's perspective. It is tactical in a general sense but has operational considerations (cohesiveness of larger formations). Focus is the commander.

CM is more of a simulation of detailed squad tactics since you have more control of this aspect. Nuances in higher level command is not simulated (you have Full control of every squad in the map). Focus is the individual squad.

I believe any serious wargamer should have both these games as they are really serving different purposes.
Title: Re: Honestly Comparing Battlefront's Combat Mission 2.0 with Graviteam's Tactics
Post by: Bletchley_Geek on April 10, 2014, 08:36:29 PM
Quote from: Dolan50 on April 10, 2014, 08:17:00 PM
Andrey mentioned once that if you give him an unlimited amount of cash and 100 years to develope the AI and make sure that everyone owns a super computer that can handle and process all the individual personality traits of every single soldier that he will make the AI that everyone wants.

Sorry Dolan, but that is bullshit and I did indeed let Andrey know that on Graviteam's forums. AI in Command Ops didn't take 100 years nor billions of dollars to develop. I made an analogy with FIFA games and it does stand. Andrey told me that "what nobody can say that an  AI is playing wrong or right". If I get a soccer game and I see the AI playing oblivious of offsides, outs of bonds or when is it Okay to get the ball with the hands, then the AI is playing badly. In tactics there are no rules as in soccer, but there are some principles - mostly common sense things - which have been with us since the times of Sun-Tzu or Temistocles.

Quote
Right now the AI for most games is no where near this desired level, so to make the game more fair to the AI He went with implementing more command and control and fog of war measures for the gods eye individual player.
Sure,the micro managers aren't happy with this idea, but the game isn't meant for them.

To be honest, Combat Mission command and control and fog of war is very brutal and one of the hallmarks of the system (they just don't have command delays, which aren't something that make sense by default on the context of a game when one can give orders to squads and platoons). GTOS AI might well be more useful than that of Combat Mission, but Combat Mission at least allows you to override it (most of the time) or to "orient" it towards what's relevant and what's not (which is the key thing for having a functional AI in a game). I am finding a hard time in GTOS figuring out how to guide the AI in a way that I get from it outcomes.

Also, this "micro-managers are evil" song tends to be part of the borked mechanics and useless AI/UI cover-up tactics toolbox I've seen employed by many developers over the years. The reasonable thing is to acknowledge the limitations in the AI and provide the player with the ability to override it. But still, games with superior AI will provide a benchmark of sorts.

Quote
A lot of players have expressed a desire to see MP added to this series but Andrey is convinced that only 10% would actually use it and it wouldn't be profitable enough to pay for itself.
Steam is a step in the right direction for this game and hopefully a publisher will see this game on there and think there is merit in a MP aspect to this series and finance that project. I'm not holding my breath though and it really isn't that important to me since I enjoy creating my own QB scenarios that cater to my own wishes and desires.

I think it would be good that Andrey is convinced of the opposite. I can imagine that bringing MP into such a complex engine, whose architecture was laid to provide for a single-player tank simulator experience, might well be not feasible given the resources available. But a healthy MP community usually goes hand in hand with a long and healthy shelf life.

Quote
This is the game I always wanted and I've yet to find a developer that meets all my personal standards in this type of game the same way Graviteam does.

I'm fine with you loving GTOS, Dolan. But that's hardly something intrinsic to GTOS: it is something you're projecting into GTOS.
Title: Re: Honestly Comparing Battlefront's Combat Mission 2.0 with Graviteam's Tactics
Post by: Bletchley_Geek on April 10, 2014, 08:44:17 PM
Quote from: jomni on April 10, 2014, 08:22:53 PM
Quote from: Dolan50 on April 10, 2014, 07:21:05 PM

Graviteam has invented a game that doesn't require you to micro manage every single aspect of the game and if you want you can sit back and issue some simple commands and the AI will do the rest, not something I'd recommend but it helps knowing the AI is fairly decent enough to do the simple stuff while you concentrate on the more important things like support assets,complex manuevers or just watching the battle play out in all its graphic splendor.

Agree. I do a lot of baby sitting (giving detailed orders, changing them every minute) in CM because I find that the AI is lacking. Having your units handle themselves well in GT as they do in real life is a good commander simulation. But you don't need a lot of details and control at the specific squad level that CM shows in all its glory. CM is detail porn and is very fun to watch. GT may come across as bland and to those who are unaware of the details wrongly consider it as RTS.

I have come to the conclusion that though the game scale is similar, GT is a good simulation at the commander's perspective. It is tactical in a general sense but has operational considerations (cohesiveness of larger formations). Focus is the commander.

CM is more of a simulation of detailed squad tactics since you have more control of this aspect. Nuances in higher level command is not simulated (you have Full control of every squad in the map). Focus is the individual squad.

I believe any serious wargamer should have both these games as they are really serving different purposes.

I do see the intent in capturing the 'commander's perspective' in GTOS, but I do think it falls short the mark in many aspects. The operational layer in GTOS is indeed more convincing thant that of Close Combat, there's a fatigue model and also a supply model, but it's far from being a operational combat portrayal that can be taken seriously. Troop concentrations - you can have up to 4 infantry platoons in a 1 square kilometer area - and movement capabilities - 1 kilometer over two hours over a 'square' with plenty of roads, really?- are a bit off.
Title: Re: Honestly Comparing Battlefront's Combat Mission 2.0 with Graviteam's Tactics
Post by: RyanE on April 10, 2014, 08:54:22 PM
So let me give you real-world issues with AP in terms of what a cold hard B***T it is to work with.  I have a new laptop and am reinstalling.    Most of the DLCs were on my backup HD, except the polygon update and the 1969 DLC.  I tried downloading the polygon update from Graviteam website..18 hours.  I tried downloading the 1969 DLC from GamersGate...12 hours.

Nothing is easy with install this stuff.  It turns me off every time I change computers.  Not only does it tale forever, but the patching process is so inconsistent and the installs are not consistent.  I want to scream every time I have to do this.

Yeah, this is simple.  btw, Andry comes across as delusional in his logic at times.
Title: Re: Honestly Comparing Battlefront's Combat Mission 2.0 with Graviteam's Tactics
Post by: Bletchley_Geek on April 10, 2014, 09:01:44 PM
Quote from: RyanE on April 10, 2014, 08:54:22 PM
Nothing is easy with install this stuff.  It turns me off every time I change computers.  Not only does it tale forever, but the patching process is so inconsistent and the installs are not consistent.  I want to scream every time I have to do this.

The link to the wiki I posted on the opening post has helped me a lot to get over the frustration at trying to guess what was wrong. But indeed, Gamersgate delivery cannot be avoided.
Title: Re: Honestly Comparing Battlefront's Combat Mission 2.0 with Graviteam's Tactics
Post by: RyanE on April 10, 2014, 09:07:47 PM
And to top it all off, the patch for one of the DLCs seems to only be available on Graviteam's site and I get a freaking 404 error.  These guys can't be trusted to run this operation.  They seriously need some a COO of some kind.
Title: Re: Honestly Comparing Battlefront's Combat Mission 2.0 with Graviteam's Tactics
Post by: Dolan50 on April 10, 2014, 09:09:12 PM
QuoteI have come to the conclusion that though the game scale is similar, GT is a good simulation at the commander's perspective. It is tactical in a general sense but has operational considerations (cohesiveness of larger formations). Focus is the commander.

CM is more of a simulation of detailed squad tactics since you have more control of this aspect. Nuances in higher level command is not simulated (you have Full control of every squad in the map). Focus is the individual squad.

I agree,
These are 2 different games.

Do you want to be every squad and section leader in a battle or do you want to be a platoon,company or battalion commander that only influences the leaders under his command.

Graviteam is moving away from the micro aspects to a more macro gaming experience.
Most the DLCs are now focusing on larger and larger battles with more units and greater density per SqKm, sort of like Wargame Air Land Battle.
Micro managing would become a tedious chore.

I'm on the fence here concerning this decision by Graviteam.
These types of battles require you to move your camera higher and higher into the sky to manage all your forces which takes away from what I enjoy most which is getting down to ground level and in the dirt with the Platoon and Company commander.

I'm not interested in what every single soldier is doing on the battlefield but I like to keep the camera at ground level as much as possible to take advantage of all the great graphical details this game has to offer while still maintaining effective control of all the support assets assigned to these leaders.

I've come to the same conclusion that these two games really cater to two different types of players.
If you like micro managing then CM is most likely your cup of tea if you want something more grand tactical Graviteam is leaning more in that direction and will probably suit your desires better.
Title: Re: Honestly Comparing Battlefront's Combat Mission 2.0 with Graviteam's Tactics
Post by: Dolan50 on April 10, 2014, 09:20:15 PM
QuoteSo let me give you real-world issues with AP in terms of what a cold hard B***T it is to work with.  I have a new laptop and am reinstalling.    Most of the DLCs were on my backup HD, except the polygon update and the 1969 DLC.  I tried downloading the polygon update from Graviteam website..18 hours.  I tried downloading the 1969 DLC from GamersGate...12 hours.

I've never experienced any of these problems and I have a 2 year old laptop I play this game on.
The polygon is a pretty large file but it took me about 45mins and I bought the 1969 DLC a few weeks ago with blue coins when it was 75% off and it took me 15 mins.
There really isn't a lot of content in that DLC except a map and a few company sized units.

I know Flashburn said He was having problems with GG today on the Graviteam forum so this sounds like something new with GG.
Title: Re: Honestly Comparing Battlefront's Combat Mission 2.0 with Graviteam's Tactics
Post by: RyanE on April 10, 2014, 09:31:03 PM
I have had to download the 1969 DLC a few times.  Each time I have done it, it has taken forever.  GG told me its because Graviteam refuses to rebuild the DLC with a GG installer and so it has to run off the Graviteam website.

You can all you want about never having these issues, but there are people scattered all over the web...Matrix, here, Graviteam, SimHQ, etc who have had install issues.  It is just a royal pain and frankly, I am tired of it.  I go through this every time I get a new laptop.  I have given up.  I don't want to waste any more of my gaming time doing this.  I like AP better as a tactical game over CM, but not enough to make me go through this again.
Title: Re: Honestly Comparing Battlefront's Combat Mission 2.0 with Graviteam's Tactics
Post by: Con on April 10, 2014, 09:34:32 PM
I downloaded APOS and the hires texture pack from Gamersgate today.  There were some strange slowdowns (including trouble loading gamersgate screens) but I got everything including patches and additional content in about 1 hour

Con
Title: Re: Honestly Comparing Battlefront's Combat Mission 2.0 with Graviteam's Tactics
Post by: RyanE on April 10, 2014, 09:37:51 PM
I am sitting here looking at the 1969 PLC and it says 18 hours...has said that for an hour.  I downloaded the latest patch in about 5 minutes.  It has been like this since I bought that DLC.

Also, why is there no sticky on the Graviteam forums on patch order.  I know its in the Wiki somewhere, but its still not easy to find.  I would think that with all the know confusion, they would make that front and center on their forums.
Title: Re: Honestly Comparing Battlefront's Combat Mission 2.0 with Graviteam's Tactics
Post by: Dolan50 on April 10, 2014, 09:46:44 PM
(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.shoutwiki.com%2Fw%2Fimages%2Fgravitac%2F0%2F0f%2FUpdater.png&hash=8d2f87e9885a19d00452c030c17765e2735e0dde)
correct order of updates.
http://gravitac.shoutwiki.com/wiki/Installing_updates_and_modifications
Title: Re: Honestly Comparing Battlefront's Combat Mission 2.0 with Graviteam's Tactics
Post by: RyanE on April 10, 2014, 09:57:56 PM
But why is that not the first thing a new player sees?  Why do I have to go digging around the web for it?  I think that speaks a lot for where the products are going.

Graviteam continues to make excuses about why the patching process is so non-standard.  Yet they fail to do the most simple things to make it easier.
Title: Re: Honestly Comparing Battlefront's Combat Mission 2.0 with Graviteam's Tactics
Post by: Dolan50 on April 10, 2014, 10:16:13 PM
Quote from: RyanE on April 10, 2014, 09:57:56 PM
But why is that not the first thing a new player sees?  Why do I have to go digging around the web for it?  I think that speaks a lot for where the products are going.

Graviteam continues to make excuses about why the patching process is so non-standard.  Yet they fail to do the most simple things to make it easier.

Don't know,
They seem to be more interested in developing then marketing.












Title: Re: Honestly Comparing Battlefront's Combat Mission 2.0 with Graviteam's Tactics
Post by: jomni on April 10, 2014, 11:03:12 PM
Quote from: RyanE on April 10, 2014, 09:31:03 PM
I have had to download the 1969 DLC a few times.  Each time I have done it, it has taken forever.  GG told me its because Graviteam refuses to rebuild the DLC with a GG installer and so it has to run off the Graviteam website.

You can all you want about never having these issues, but there are people scattered all over the web...Matrix, here, Graviteam, SimHQ, etc who have had install issues.  It is just a royal pain and frankly, I am tired of it.  I go through this every time I get a new laptop.  I have given up.  I don't want to waste any more of my gaming time doing this.  I like AP better as a tactical game over CM, but not enough to make me go through this again.

That is why their move into Steam is appealing if they can get their act right by making it up to date as their own non-steam version.
Title: Re: Honestly Comparing Battlefront's Combat Mission 2.0 with Graviteam's Tactics
Post by: Bletchley_Geek on April 11, 2014, 02:48:06 AM
Opening post updated.
Title: Re: Honestly Comparing Battlefront's Combat Mission 2.0 with Graviteam's Tactics
Post by: RyanE on April 11, 2014, 07:07:06 AM
Actually thinking about it...Graviteam is not much different when it comes to providing info to their customers.  There is a specific patch order for CM2 games as well.  It is actually hard to find.  CMSF and CMBN are now up on their knowledge base, but wouldn't it be so much simpler to just have a stick in the tech forum?  CMFI doesn't even have the order documented anywhere.  I think its CMFI, 1.10/1.11, and then Gustav.  I know there is a patch in the middle there somewhere, but BFC seems to keep it a secret.

BFC has been asked to put up a FAQ many times.  But they seem to like answering the sales questions over and over.
Title: Re: Honestly Comparing Battlefront's Combat Mission 2.0 with Graviteam's Tactics
Post by: RyanE on April 11, 2014, 07:10:35 AM
I also started thinking of the whole OpenGL and graphics question.  I am beginning to have doubts that BFC is at top of their game on graphics.  They have always used the OpenGL support from AMD and Nvidia as an excuse.  But my IL2 setup is OpenGL on the same PC and I have no issues with it.  So what are they doing that's different.
Title: Re: Honestly Comparing Battlefront's Combat Mission 2.0 with Graviteam's Tactics
Post by: Bletchley_Geek on April 11, 2014, 07:19:11 AM
Quote from: RyanE on April 11, 2014, 07:10:35 AM
I also started thinking of the whole OpenGL and graphics question.  I am beginning to have doubts that BFC is at top of their game on graphics.  They have always used the OpenGL support from AMD and Nvidia as an excuse.  But my IL2 setup is OpenGL on the same PC and I have no issues with it.  So what are they doing that's different.

Does IL-2 run on a Mac natively? As I wrote, that conveys some limitations on what you can expect to be provided by the user hardware. It does indeed  set a lower common denominator. Managing Open GL extensions can be a bit frustrating, especially across different platforms.
Title: Re: Honestly Comparing Battlefront's Combat Mission 2.0 with Graviteam's Tactics
Post by: Bletchley_Geek on April 11, 2014, 07:25:26 AM
Quote from: RyanE on April 11, 2014, 07:07:06 AM
Actually thinking about it...Graviteam is not much different when it comes to providing info to their customers.  There is a specific patch order for CM2 games as well.  It is actually hard to find.  CMSF and CMBN are now up on their knowledge base, but wouldn't it be so much simpler to just have a stick in the tech forum?  CMFI doesn't even have the order documented anywhere.  I think its CMFI, 1.10/1.11, and then Gustav.  I know there is a patch in the middle there somewhere, but BFC seems to keep it a secret.

BFC has been asked to put up a FAQ many times.  But they seem to like answering the sales questions over and over.

They are hosting this on their servers, using their procedures. It's not info you have to go and get from a third party. So panning out customer support by BFC at the same level as that of Graviteam is doing violence to the facts, sticky post in the tech forums or not.
Title: Re: Honestly Comparing Battlefront's Combat Mission 2.0 with Graviteam's Tactics
Post by: RyanE on April 11, 2014, 08:53:00 AM
Its not about where the patches are hosted.  And BFC only started hosting their own patches a little while ago.  IIRC some of the CMSF patches are still hosted in off places. 

But its about putting up the info on the patch procedure.  I just had to reinstall CMFI after a false DRM kick out.  I could find no where on BFC's site that there was a middle step between CMFI and CM Gustav.  So my install was all screwed up.  Its only because I had a hazy memory of seeing the issue talked about on the forum a year ago.  What is the harm in making that a stick somewhere.

I'll piss and moan about both companies equally, but nothing cheeses me off more than companies making it difficult for their customers for little reason.  Both have been and are guilty of that.  Its not like I am insisting BFC only develop in Directx...just put a friggin sticky up about what patches you need.  Its not even in the readme.
Title: Re: Honestly Comparing Battlefront's Combat Mission 2.0 with Graviteam's Tactics
Post by: Bletchley_Geek on April 11, 2014, 09:00:33 AM
Hmmm, something doesn't register, Ryan. The 1.12 patch for CMFI description is quite clear:

QuoteCombat Mission: Fortress Italy v1.12 patch (PC/Mac)    PDF    Print    E-mail
Tuesday, 26 November 2013
The v1.12 patch provides a large number of improvements and fixes, including generally improved graphics, FPS and quality improvements, and better support for faster video cards, as well as bridge navigation corrections. The patch is all-inclusive and also includes the improvements from previous patches, such as dozens and dozens of revised QuickBattle maps, new improved shaders, textures and more!

That's direct from the CMFI product page:

http://www.battlefront.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=blogcategory&id=302&Itemid=515

do you mean that you actually needed the 1.01 patch before installing GL on top of CMFI? No matter how you read the above, it's quite clear to me that you don't need any previous patches.
Title: Re: Honestly Comparing Battlefront's Combat Mission 2.0 with Graviteam's Tactics
Post by: RyanE on April 11, 2014, 09:36:18 AM
1.12 came out after Gustav.  Its when installing Gustav you have to have a middling patch...1.10 or 1.11.  It was not listed anywhere.    Its not in the Gustav readme but the help desk pointed me to it.
Title: Re: Honestly Comparing Battlefront's Combat Mission 2.0 with Graviteam's Tactics
Post by: RyanE on April 11, 2014, 09:51:09 AM
So even if its in the readme, why not have a short FAQ on it?  Who does it hurt.  That question is obviously a good one.  Look how many people end up patching in the wrong order.  Again, there is probably a post a month with that issue.  What possible harm can it do to have  something like that in the forum.  Instead, they'll leave the release of CM Touch 1.50 up for three months.

And graviteam is no better.  They keep pointing to the wiki, that someone else developed.  And even then you have to scratch around for it.  And for a good amount of time it was outdated.

Both of these are simple customer service things.  Its not coding, its not some big maintenance nightmare, its not setting up a commercial website.  Its a simple post. 
Title: Re: Honestly Comparing Battlefront's Combat Mission 2.0 with Graviteam's Tactics
Post by: Bletchley_Geek on April 11, 2014, 10:42:08 AM
Updated the opening post with an example of GTOS AI carrying a platoon-level attack on its own.
Title: Re: Honestly Comparing Battlefront's Combat Mission 2.0 with Graviteam's Tactics
Post by: Boggit on April 11, 2014, 03:29:43 PM
Quote from: jomni on April 10, 2014, 08:22:53 PM
Quote from: Dolan50 on April 10, 2014, 07:21:05 PM

Graviteam has invented a game that doesn't require you to micro manage every single aspect of the game and if you want you can sit back and issue some simple commands and the AI will do the rest, not something I'd recommend but it helps knowing the AI is fairly decent enough to do the simple stuff while you concentrate on the more important things like support assets,complex manuevers or just watching the battle play out in all its graphic splendor.
+1

Agree. I do a lot of baby sitting (giving detailed orders, changing them every minute) in CM because I find that the AI is lacking. Having your units handle themselves well in GT as they do in real life is a good commander simulation. But you don't need a lot of details and control at the specific squad level that CM shows in all its glory. CM is detail porn and is very fun to watch. GT may come across as bland and to those who are unaware of the details wrongly consider it as RTS.

I have come to the conclusion that though the game scale is similar, GT is a good simulation at the commander's perspective. It is tactical in a general sense but has operational considerations (cohesiveness of larger formations). Focus is the commander.

CM is more of a simulation of detailed squad tactics since you have more control of this aspect. Nuances in higher level command is not simulated (you have Full control of every squad in the map). Focus is the individual squad.

I believe any serious wargamer should have both these games as they are really serving different purposes.
Title: Re: Honestly Comparing Battlefront's Combat Mission 2.0 with Graviteam's Tactics
Post by: Nefaro on April 11, 2014, 05:35:38 PM
Quote from: jomni on April 10, 2014, 01:16:31 AM
Graviteam Tactics has an Operational turn-based layer in the campaign. Combat mission is a series of linked (branching) scenarios.


GT's integrated campaign system helps make it feel more alive and each battle relevant. 

When I played the CMs (all of them up to CMBN & Commonwealth), I'd play a scenario or two and not feel much invested in the experience as a whole.  I think the campaign is just as fun, if not more, than the tactical battles in such multi-layered games (to include others like the Total War series).  It adds much enjoyment to the whole.