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

[Bletchley_Geek]

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 :)

[Dolan50]

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.

[Bletchley_Geek]

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

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.

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.

[Dolan50]

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.

[Bletchley_Geek]

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.

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.

[Dolan50]

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.

[jomni]

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.

[Bletchley_Geek]

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Bletchley_Geek]

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.

[RyanE]

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.

[Bletchley_Geek]

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.

[RyanE]

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.

[Dolan50]

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 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.

[Dolan50]

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.

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.

[RyanE]

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.