Honestly Comparing Battlefront's Combat Mission 2.0 with Graviteam's Tactics

[Bletchley_Geek]

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.

[RyanE]

Note the words "a lot"...hence not all.

[Dolan50]

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).

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.

[Dolan50]

CM 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.

[Bletchley_Geek]

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).

[Dolan50]

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

[jomni]

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?

[RyanE]

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.

[RyanE]

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.

[ArizonaTank]

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.   

[RyanE]

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.

[Bletchley_Geek]

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 ☺

[RyanE]

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.

[RyanE]

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.

[Dolan50]

Also, 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.