Considering the number of posters here I am really surprised that GT:MF doesn't have a bigger following. IMO the game is light years ahead of the popular Combat Mission X2 in almost every aspect except possibly infantry actions. Is it because it is East Front? The UI? I'm not sure. The maps are huge, the graphics are great, the tactics are sound.
What is it? I was a huge CM guy back in the day and, quite honestly,once I tried Op. Star, I never went back. I've tried, but it is just not on the same level imo.
mo reb
Past discussion here which may have some useful info...
http://grogheads.com/forums/index.php?topic=9462.0
For me, couple reasons.....I am not a big fan of the Eastern Front and I do find the UI difficult to understand, although I likely have not put a ton of effort into it based on not being thrilled by the material.
Yeah. I'm familiar with that thread. Thanks. Its almost relegated to patch news from Asid which is great but I was curious to the question.
I would absolutely love if they would do some West Front stuff, and have suggested it in the past, but it seems they have no desire to do so.
As far as the UI, I believe it to be very fast and quite complete. With a few clicks you can make a movement with waypoints that your units will move to a location stealthy on their stomachs in a column formation, spread out for a charge and then attack using smoke as a screen in a random line etc. I rather like the wheel they use and consider it quite fast and efficient.
From a UI perspective, my concerns are more outside the gameplay section, just setting up engagements and that stuff...just never clicked with me. Inside the game, it seemed OK. I did buy MF, but ended up returning it but not saying its a bad game, just not for me.
I understand. Appreciate the answer. Setting up before the battle is my least favorite part. I'm always worried about my starting position and I feel like I spend too much time pre battle. One of the things I do like is that with the battle size, often times there are good maneuver combat options although it seemed as there were certainly more in OPStar.
Definitely different strokes for different folks. I'm more of a counter pusher but consider GT my favorite computer game since OPStar.
I tried the first iteration of the game system (name escapes me) and had a lot of trouble figuring out the interface. The theater is no problem as I'm crazy about Russian front games. I haven't gone back since because apparently they haven't been able to cover any urban fighting very well, or at all, with the system. If I'm wrong about that, I'd be thrilled to hear it.
It was Achtung Panzer: Kharkov 1943 but I never played it. The interface is much improved even over OpStar.
As far as urban fighting, well the games center around some small to medium sized villages with the intervening ground between them being the most common battlefield. Units will enter buildings and fight from them when given the defense command near the structures but the player can't actually pick which soldiers enter which house. Squads seem to enter a few houses at once and set up a parameter. In some ways it acts like Command Ops with a general order given and the AI handles some of the specifics. IMO it works well with cutting down some of the micromanagement. Maybe one day they will dedicate some resources to the infantry model and some more commands that would depict urban battles more but it seems that their focus is on larger pitched battles covering a large area.
One of the great things is during the course of a campaign many times you fight over terrain where a battle has already happened prior and all of the damage and shellholes and trenches are still present.
The weather is also excellent. The day can start out dry and clear and a storm will actually blow in with the wind picking up, the sun blotting out and rain coming in. The vehicles get wet as does the terrain during the course of a single battle.
I actually prefer the winter battles of OpStar and hope they add some to Mius Front engine. You may want to give it another go as OStar goes on sale for very cheap. I shelved the game early from frustration but am so glad I picked it up again because I am absolutely flabbergasted at how realistic the combat can be.
Look how big the maps are. That shot traveled from the soviet barrel, crossed the field, missed the Tiger and carried on several hundred meters behind the target. Great shot tracking physics. Ricochets are modeled and can hit other units or travel off the map. This should be posted in the other thread and not in this new one asking other gamers what I did, but I do love it.
(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.akamai.steamusercontent.com%2Fugc%2F315621401167849250%2F32D90C8B04F62A4CAB41AA7E240C502CF8491043%2F&hash=a7852871e145ecc3ea43dbf6281e71ea463253e3)
I love everything about the game EXCEPT-AS USUAL NOWADAYS- ...no damn manual. The newer one had a menu but it's just a key showing icons and what they mean. NOTHING explains how I do something or why I would want to. But once you mude through it, the game shines. It isy go-to modern (semi?) tactical combat game. Better graphics that any of them with the same ballistic and damage calculations in Battlefront games.
Graphics aren't everything but they do make it more immersive when tank rounds are hitting your tank and sending sparks every were until there is finally a penetration. Ten tank keeps going so you think you ok. The it's on fire leaking burning oil as it goes...still chugging along. A close look reveals everyone in he tank is dead and it's just in gear. VERY IMMERSIVE. My favorite is the artillery graphics. They actually look like shells hitting dirt and detonating...not giant fireball flashes.
Mechanically and graphically it is better than any other. Factor in a simplistic but adequate operational level for campaigns and it's a winner.
I think more people don't play it because of the lack of documentation as well as a counterintuitive UI and times
Quote from: mikeck on September 17, 2016, 10:53:34 PM
I love everything about the game EXCEPT-AS USUAL NOWADAYS- ...no damn manual. The newer one had a menu but it's just a key showing icons and what they mean. NOTHING explains how I do something or why I would want to. But once you mude through it, the game shines. It isy go-to modern (semi?) tactical combat game. Better graphics that any of them with the same ballistic and damage calculations in Battlefront games.
Graphics aren't everything but they do make it more immersive when tank rounds are hitting your tank and sending sparks every were until there is finally a penetration. Ten tank keeps going so you think you ok. The it's on fire leaking burning oil as it goes...still chugging along. A close look reveals everyone in he tank is dead and it's just in gear. VERY IMMERSIVE. My favorite is the artillery graphics. They actually look like shells hitting dirt and detonating...not giant fireball flashes.
Mechanically and graphically it is better than any other. Factor in a simplistic but adequate operational level for campaigns and it's a winner.
I think more people don't play it because of the lack of documentation as well as a counterintuitive UI and times
I can't argue about the documentation. I'm a manual fanatic. So much so that I got permission from Harry Rowland of World in Flames to hyperlink every rule reference throughout the RaW rule book and offer it to the public. As a player I later Hyperlinked the Matrix versions 3 rule books and combined them into a single document of 720 pages with full hyperlinked Table of Contents, every link and 2 full indexes. It took me several months and contain many thousands of hyperlinks. Heck, I never even learned how to play. So yes, Manuals are important.
I own Kharkov and Operation Star...As others have said, the game play itself is not bad, but the UI is exceptionally poor.......so much so that i havent wanted to try their newer game.
I own OP star... Much like many of the wargames in my collection I haven't figured out the system. You tube vids are usually the best way i learn but it's hard to sit through then with TBS wargames on a grand scale.
I'm finally starting to get DC: case blue. Not great by any means but finally starting to figure things out a bit.
Guess I'm just getting a bit ADHD at my old age.
I have them all - but yes - would be the interface for me and a lack of manual to clearly explain things. Artillery support for example - still no idea how it works.
When comparing it to CM - somehow Graviteam seems just a little more visceral - which I like - but CM is way easier to figure out then this game. It may be not the interface just a complete lack of explanation.
I also prefer CM as it just seems OOB is clearer - still cant quite figure out how it works in Graviteam.
Of course there is the strategy layer - which I would love CM to have - but to be honest I am no nearer figuring that out than I am the tactical layer - so have really seen it enough to appreciate.
I generally fire it up now and then with a determination to figure it out. Get frustrated after an hour and then fire up CM.
One gameplay aspect though will always make me choose CM over Graviteam is the fidelity of control you have over squad placement. If I want a platoon to form up against a fence line I want to be able to get them to do that. Graviteam just doesn't have that level of control. I like the game but its a fight.
So I am at the other end of the scale to you - there are all kinds of things CM gives me - including all the things you suggest are better in Graviteam - that Graviteam doesn't.
I f I just took one point - to me the maps are the least appealing thing about Graviteam - they all seem to be wide open places with gently rolling hills and a couple of villages. The simple versatility of the CM games with regards to maps (take a look at the Arnhem bridge map for example) is leaps and bounds over the Graviteam game. Fine - you have graphics then enable tanks to leave tread marks in the ground - but give me the sheer variety and fidelity of the CM maps any day over a few non important graphical effect.
Horse for courses I guess.
Quote from: Zulu1966 on September 18, 2016, 08:57:02 AM
[...]
I generally fire it up now and then with a determination to figure it out. Get frustrated after an hour and then fire up CM.
[...]
this!
Quote from: mikeck on September 17, 2016, 10:53:34 PM
I love everything about the game EXCEPT-AS USUAL NOWADAYS- ...no damn manual. The newer one had a menu but it's just a key showing icons and what they mean. NOTHING explains how I do something or why I would want to. But once you mude through it, the game shines. It isy go-to modern (semi?) tactical combat game. Better graphics that any of them with the same ballistic and damage calculations in Battlefront games.
Graphics aren't everything but they do make it more immersive when tank rounds are hitting your tank and sending sparks every were until there is finally a penetration. Ten tank keeps going so you think you ok. The it's on fire leaking burning oil as it goes...still chugging along. A close look reveals everyone in he tank is dead and it's just in gear. VERY IMMERSIVE. My favorite is the artillery graphics. They actually look like shells hitting dirt and detonating...not giant fireball flashes.
Mechanically and graphically it is better than any other. Factor in a simplistic but adequate operational level for campaigns and it's a winner.
I think more people don't play it because of the lack of documentation as well as a counterintuitive UI and times
A game released nowadays without a manual? Inconceivable!. If there is any game that needs a beefy manual this is it. I have almost bought it several times but always back off because of the {apparent}difficult learning curve.
I like the graviteams better than CM, with some big caveats...
No map maker...They are big maps but get repetitive after a while
Full real-time, although pause-able with orders so goes a long way towards being similar to wego
Interface is difficult to learn
I think that the last one is caused by detailed orders, if you want to use them...formations, ammo, posture/stance of infantry, radio comms, etc. It has to cover so many detailed orders that the UI becomes difficult to grasp.
Quote from: RyanE on September 18, 2016, 11:35:59 AM
I like the graviteams better than CM, with some big caveats...
No map maker...They are big maps but get repetitive after a while
Full real-time, although pause-able with orders so goes a long way towards being similar to wego
Interface is difficult to learn
I think that the last one is caused by detailed orders, if you want to use them...formations, ammo, posture/stance of infantry, radio comms, etc. It has to cover so many detailed orders that the UI becomes difficult to grasp.
I've always liked the Graviteam games. The thing is there are just so many interesting games out there these days, that when I find a perfectly good game, I say "Hey, that's good. Maybe someday I'll be in the mood to play it again." Meanwhile, I seem to spend most of my gaming time finding slightly odd games and trying to enjoy them. A few years ago the Graviteam games seemed slightly odd to me. Now they seem just plain fine.
So it would seem that much of it has to do with the lack of documentation and not a few with the UI. They are a Ukrainian/Russian developer so imo, some of the things they do and the way they go about achieving them seems odd to this Westerner. And the language barrier doesnt help when dealing with a sometimes 'stubborn' developer. Andrey knows what direction he wants the series to go and suggestions had better be viable.
It was sort of wrong for me to compare CM with GT for the simple reason that they both are trying to achieve different things even if they do seem similar. GT focuses on campaigns where a huge amount of detail is given to historical OOB's and painstakingly researched and accurate maps of the historical areas involved. They are very rigid in making sure the correct pieces and availability are adhered to.
And CM seems to be more scenario based and uses the editor as a sandbox. Not to say that some of the scenarios arent historical, just that that isn't a deciding factor if they make it into the game.
Another big plus for CM is the multiplayer capabilities whereas GT is single player only. For now. GT does come with a battle editor, but it is too rigid in its execution to make a huge variety of conflicts. This is one area I wish they would dedicate some more resources to, but again, it's not their focus.
I agree the UI of GT seems complicated but with just a bit of time it becomes second nature and very efficient. What it lacks in finesse at a smaller scale, it shines with the tac ai taking over some of the heavy lifting as far as micromanagement is concerned. Units with an recon order will form up on their own, send out point men and advance stealthily all on their own to an objective. IMO, that is important when dealing with large number of troops.
I appreciate the replies. Keep them coming. Great forum. Wish I would have discovered it long ago.
Im graviteams biggest ho.
Honestly I love everything about the games except for the distinctly Russian horror UI.
After some 'work" learning the UI. I have OS and it''s got so much more than the combat mission series. I think they really simplified the UI for OP Star. I have read that Mius Front is even better regarding the UI.
They are excellent games and you're missing out if you haven't given it some time and they are always on sale, a lot less than the 50 plus for the CM series.
Wayne
Actually I don't see anything wrong with the UI. Though I started playing from Graviteam Tactics onwards (not the older titles). Or are people looking for more responsive micromanagement commands like in Combat Mission? But that's beyond the game's philosophical design. High level commands for movement, formation and Rules of Engagement are all you need. Thought it can be quite frustrating at times because you're not sure if your orders are being executed.
Quote from: jomni on September 19, 2016, 12:40:04 AM
Actually I don't see anything wrong with the UI. Though I started playing from Graviteam Tactics onwards (not the older titles). Or are people looking for more responsive micromanagement commands like in Combat Mission? But that's beyond the game's philosophical design. High level commands for movement, formation and Rules of Engagement are all you need. Thought it can be quite frustrating at times because you're not sure if your orders are being executed.
I just bought the DLC (Dawn of Blau). Thanks thread!
I'll take some photos if I see anything photogenic.
Agree with positive comments regarding the UI. Graviteam Tactics' UI is certainly unusual -- unlike anything you are likely to encounter in another game, entirely indiosyncratic and unique to GT -- but it's not 'bad' at all. As others have said, it's actually quite powerful and flexible once you figure it out. But no denying that it does require work to figure out. Documentation for these games is sparse and often only scratches the surface of what you need to figure out by trial and error.
Mius Front has made some very nice improvements to the UI as well, compared with Op. Star and last generation.
Quote from: Moreb on September 17, 2016, 07:36:15 PM
Considering the number of posters here I am really surprised that GT:MF doesn't have a bigger following. IMO the game is light years ahead of the popular Combat Mission X2 in almost every aspect except possibly infantry actions. Is it because it is East Front? The UI? I'm not sure. The maps are huge, the graphics are great, the tactics are sound.
What is it? I was a huge CM guy back in the day and, quite honestly,once I tried Op. Star, I never went back. I've tried, but it is just not on the same level imo.
I always go back and forth in my own mind about which is better, CMx2 or Graviteam Tactics? Mostly I just wish I could wave a magic wand and merge the best of both games into the perfect WW2 operational/tactical simulator.
Moreb -- I'm curious what you think about GT's handling of infantry. To me, this is one area -- maybe the *single* area -- where CM outshines GT by a lot. Not much has changed with Mius Front -- like Op. Star, Mius Front is really all about the AFVs. I find 'infantry only' battles in GT *really* dull and uninspired, whereas I can happily play infantry only scenarios in CM. GT gives you very little nuance with how you handle infantry. It often feels like 2 blobs of troops trading fire with eachother and dropping like flies. CM gives you a *lot* more leeway in handling infantry movements and tactics.
QuoteMoreb -- I'm curious what you think about GT's handling of infantry.
I look forward to this discussion but it's been a long day. This boy is whooped. Tomorrow.
First though I really agree that the best of both would be the er...um...best.
GT Graphics
CM Editor
GT Campaign
CM Multiplayer
GT Map Size
CM Infantry Behavior
GT Weather
CM Variety of Theaters
GT Funnies {Tracks falling off, Tank ammo stores exploding, Flares, Illumination rounds,Trenches, Airplanes, Destroyable terrain etc.)
CM Quick Battles
To name a few.
CM does fighting in built-up areas pretty well due to the infantry focus and more micro commands. Can you even go inside the structured in GT?
Both games does AFV battles in the open equally well though GT has the edge as the maps are huge and it is easier to manage large formations.
I have GT with all of the expansions but the UI keeps me from getting into it.
The biggest issue with the UI is the glaring lack of documentation/learning resources IMO. For the most part the GT UI is very similar (almost identical) to CM in terms of functions that are performed by various keyboard buttons; just different key bindings.
I play it.
I like the attention to detail. I also like the way you feel part of the action. You can have a whole war raging around you. Very immersive.
The UI works well enough. I have no issues with it.
QuoteMoreb -- I'm curious what you think about GT's handling of infantry.
Hmmm. Well. I think its certainly adequate. Some aspects are done very well while others seem as mere placeholders. The good parts are the movements of the units through varying formations. Squads tend to move as I would hope and engage the enemy in a feasible way. For me, the thing I really like about GT is not having to give the infantry, or any of the units for that matter, overly micromanaged orders until I decide to do so. Since the maps are so big, and in fact the movement to contact can take up as much of an area as a typical CM map, in GT it's great to be able to click an area, select the formation and execute the move and be able to focus on another area. That alone relieves a lot of frustration because I can also select a unit, click on use roads and the unit will follow the best route along roads until it reaches its destination. No need to set a bunch of waypoints even if you place the order very far away. Units moving concealed will follow the winding gullies keeping to the bottom and hopefully out of site, again without setting waypoints. I hit the Defend command on either buildings, trenches or shellholes and I can expect the units to move to that location and enter it. The Tac AI does a pretty darn good job considering all of the processing the computer is constantly doing.
Where it falls apart is in closer combat. Much of it is good as the squads will lob grenades at close range. Demoralized unit throw up their arms and surrender, smoke grenades are thrown. But the animations get silly when they enter what is considered close combat. Soldiers will get up and back down again, be standing next to each other back to back. The stomping to simulate hand to hand. etc. I guess I shouldn't expect too much because there is not a game of this scale that realistically represents close combat well. It was always bad in CM 1, but we overlooked it because some abstractions just had to be used (and the game was so amazingly awesome). The Panzer Command series that came much later had terrible close combat animations where machine gunners would be firing at each other 8 feet apart for many minutes. So this is an area I'd like to see expanded on. I understand that abstractions are still very much necessary, and I don't expect some bleeding edge animations for this type of game, but some improvement here would be most welcome.
When using the orders as detailed above its necessary to micromanage at times once contact happens. IMO, the orders work really good with vehicles. Unfortunately there are no specific types of orders that would make infantry combat a lot better.
Heres what I mean.
I'd pay full price again for a major overhall to a unique infantry specific order panel and commands. The things I wish you could do with infantry would be add commands like dash, fighting withdrawal, lob grenade at specific target, specific squad combat formations, leapfrog advance, smoke placement, covering fire, enter building etc. Those are off the top of my head and I'm sure there are others. I also wish the tac ai wouldn't shuffle the troops around so much and that it was more clear exactly how far the ai was going to move the troops around as it completes its orders. For example, ordering your unit to defend in the location they ate at sends the troops in a scramble. I'd like to see them immediately stop and try to find defensive locations instead of shuffling about.
Typing ths up made me realize why I currently play GT more than CM. I have gotten used to letting the ai handle a lot of it without the micromanagement, until it is needed. I feel I don't get that repreive with CM. So hopefully Graviteam can dedicate some resources to improve the infantry model in the future.
I found this series of 101's helpful for getting into Graviteam's games...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E6MWbXT4dlw (Part 1 of 7 - they each follow on in Youtube)
German Tanks and how to use them
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ms9oE-YhNCM&list=PLx6N3LVwgba0n_wweLFzT_r0-cKi_LIhC&index=8
Russian Tanks and how to use them
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TnMgOq1vZnk&list=PLx6N3LVwgba0n_wweLFzT_r0-cKi_LIhC&index=9
Halloween sale 25% off.
Such an awesome game and only $26.
http://store.steampowered.com/app/312980/
Quote from: Moreb on October 30, 2016, 12:22:00 PM
Such an awesome game and only $26.
http://store.steampowered.com/app/312980/
Yeah I've been playing a lot more of Mius Front lately -- it really is a gem.
Some of the older Graviteam games/DLC at a good price at Bundlestars:
https://www.bundlestars.com/en/bundle/graviteam-tactics-bundle?utm_source=Bundle%20Stars%20Newsletter&utm_campaign=6e690db459-Endless_Legend_11_10_2016&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_3437eaaeba-6e690db459-423858005&mc_cid=6e690db459&mc_eid=c35063a82d
Are the Graviteam games easier to learn than the CM x2 titles?
No, the UI takes a little time to get used to. CM is more intuitive and simple to learn.
Quote from: Hartford688 on November 10, 2016, 03:33:19 PM
Some of the older Graviteam games/DLC at a good price at Bundlestars:
https://www.bundlestars.com/en/bundle/graviteam-tactics-bundle?utm_source=Bundle%20Stars%20Newsletter&utm_campaign=6e690db459-Endless_Legend_11_10_2016&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_3437eaaeba-6e690db459-423858005&mc_cid=6e690db459&mc_eid=c35063a82d
That is a heck of a deal. Even though the UI is not as good in those older titles, they are still great games. That bundle represents 100's of hours of playing time.
Quote from: acctingman on November 10, 2016, 08:46:52 PM
Are the Graviteam games easier to learn than the CM x2 titles?
Graviteam games are definitely harder to learn than CM2. The UI isn't great, calling artillery and things like that are odd and because communications is accurate modeled (if neither team has a radio they better be within shouting distance) you can't tell if your troops aren't doing what you want because of a WAD game rule or because you didn't do it right. Worse, with Mius Front. The manual is crap. It's basically an index.
BUT, learning Graviteam is worth the extra effort. I never play CM2 anymore...I can't. Graviteam games are beautiful, the graphics and damage modeling are accurate and the sounds and visuals of tracers and artillery are very immersive.
I recommend you sit down and learn the game. It is worth it
I think one big draw with the CM games is the maps are hard featured. The terrain, the buildings, the hedges, all act as funnels and draws. If it's a hedge it's really obvious. If it's a river-gulley it's obvious. Whereas in GT all I see is maybe a green square or an orange one with some other color. What does that mean? There's no tooltips to help me sort it out.
When I load a map in GT I'm not entirely sure what my "win" condition is. My units might advance, or maybe they'll defend, and then after fifteen minutes of bullets and tanks the match ends. One thing I do like about GT in that regard is it doesn't feel like a puzzle. Some scenarios in CM feel like there's one way to advance through the map, it's like solving a puzzle. GT gets that right that it feels like a firefight.
With some tooltips, more info about the soldiers, and a rework of the goofy terrain square system, it could really be a great game. I also like CM having a one minute turn so I can go back and replay all of those crazy shots and moments. The game feels more cinematic and the tension is higher.
I think what you are touching is the difference between a game moving towards simulation (Graviteam's) and games still with connections to board/tabltop (BFC). BFC tried to break more of that connection with CM2 games, but it has kind of gravitated back to it over the last few updates.
For me the big -- maybe only -- advantage CMx2 has over Graviteam Tactics is CM's far better modeling of infantry combat. I'm currently slogging my way through a scenario in Red Thunder that's primarily infantry-focused. It's tense and difficult. The same scenario in GT would be pretty boring and over in under half-an-hour. There just isn't enough nuance or flexibility in commands you can give infantry in GT, and their behavior tends to be highly suicidal, as the game does a poor job at all of modeling morale - at least, I've never really noticed morale effects having an important effect in GT, even though I know the game does track this for different units.
That said, 'slog' is generally the right word for CMx2. GT is far more fluid and up-tempo, and in a good way. The table-top analogy seems right to me. CMx2 still does feel like moving each individual piece on the board. GT feels like a computer simulation.
I love both series and play both constantly. But to be honest, if GT gave us interesting, in-depth infantry combat the way CMx2 does, I'd probably play GT almost exclusively. On so many levels it just feels like the more up-to-date, still evolving game. CMx2 is unfortunately stuck in a rut, with its painfully clunky UI, its lack of dynamic campaigns that seamlessly join the operational and tactical levels.
Quote from: RyanE on November 11, 2016, 12:41:27 PM
I think what you are touching is the difference between a game moving towards simulation (Graviteam's) and games still with connections to board/tabltop (BFC). BFC tried to break more of that connection with CM2 games, but it has kind of gravitated back to it over the last few updates.
I never thought of it like that, but that's a great way to describe it. It really does feel like a more flexible ASL sort of game.
Quote from: sandman2575 on November 11, 2016, 12:52:56 PM
For me the big -- maybe only -- advantage CMx2 has over Graviteam Tactics is CM's far better modeling of infantry combat. I'm currently slogging my way through a scenario in Red Thunder that's primarily infantry-focused. It's tense and difficult. The same scenario in GT would be pretty boring and over in under half-an-hour. There just isn't enough nuance or flexibility in commands you can give infantry in GT, and their behavior tends to be highly suicidal, as the game does a poor job at all of modeling morale - at least, I've never really noticed morale effects having an important effect in GT, even though I know the game does track this for different units.
That said, 'slog' is generally the right word for CMx2. GT is far more fluid and up-tempo, and in a good way. The table-top analogy seems right to me. CMx2 still does feel like moving each individual piece on the board. GT feels like a computer simulation.
I love both series and play both constantly. But to be honest, if GT gave us interesting, in-depth infantry combat the way CMx2 does, I'd probably play GT almost exclusively. On so many levels it just feels like the more up-to-date, still evolving game. CMx2 is unfortunately stuck in a rut, with its painfully clunky UI, its lack of dynamic campaigns that seamlessly join the operational and tactical levels.
For whatever reason it feels like I have more options regarding movement in CM. The maps don't feel quite so open.
I think what you are seeing is the lack of locations in GTMF and the extreme flexibility for locations in CM games. In CM, you can change up locations and there are a lot of different terrain types. It also has a much larger OOB variety. With the new GT engine, you have a limited number of maps. Granted, they are large maps, but the terrain variety just isn't there.
CM is built to be very broad with each game engine. GT builds its games to be pretty deep around a specific battle area and time.
Quote from: sandman2575 on November 11, 2016, 12:52:56 PM
For me the big -- maybe only -- advantage CMx2 has over Graviteam Tactics is CM's far better modeling of infantry combat. I'm currently slogging my way through a scenario in Red Thunder that's primarily infantry-focused. It's tense and difficult. The same scenario in GT would be pretty boring and over in under half-an-hour. There just isn't enough nuance or flexibility in commands you can give infantry in GT, and their behavior tends to be highly suicidal, as the game does a poor job at all of modeling morale - at least, I've never really noticed morale effects having an important effect in GT, even though I know the game does track this for different units.
That said, 'slog' is generally the right word for CMx2. GT is far more fluid and up-tempo, and in a good way. The table-top analogy seems right to me. CMx2 still does feel like moving each individual piece on the board. GT feels like a computer simulation.
I love both series and play both constantly. But to be honest, if GT gave us interesting, in-depth infantry combat the way CMx2 does, I'd probably play GT almost exclusively. On so many levels it just feels like the more up-to-date, still evolving game. CMx2 is unfortunately stuck in a rut, with its painfully clunky UI, its lack of dynamic campaigns that seamlessly join the operational and tactical levels.
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/f5/8e/c7/f58ec70e147a5213928e93d33cd37bf5.jpg)
| That sums it up pretty well, to be honest. The main issue with CMx2 is that if you want to have a platoon to move towards a tree line to secure the flank of a force advancing on a town, and you want to make sure that that platoon reacts to enemy contact in anything resembling intelligent behaviour you need to 1) break down the squads in the platoon, 2) combine move and "hunt" commands for each element, moving by bounds and 3) update those commands in a timely fashion as the platoon progresses towards the objective, every single turn if you play in WEGO. Hence that "moving the pieces" feeling - you actually are! Your units very often zombies that do fun stuff like running towards an imaginary finish line when shoot at. And yes, like in the heartbreaking end of Gallipolli, they don't make it across. It is something best to play with the lowest motivation and experience settings: your troops actually react in believable ways to incoming fire, engaging in self-preserving behaviour.
That there aren't anything like SOPs, either "realistic" as in TacOps or, "impressionistic" as in PanzerCommand, or anything like support for formations at our disposal to play CMx2, after all these years... I don't know what to think about that at this stage. I know very well what Steve has to say about that, and to be honest, as with many other things in CMx2 I can't help thinking that "if it is so hard to do X because of Y, probably it is because you are just doing Y wrong". For instance, fixing the SOP to the experience and motivation levels - as CMx2 seems to do - means that sometimes your guys won't behave in a sensible manner unless a 155mm round goes off like 8 meters away from them, hosing down half the squad.
On the Graviteam games there's nothing like the micro behaviours we see in CMx2 - and allow to criticise it as well, let's be fair here. You see your guys walking towards the enemy, sometimes running, sometimes kneeling and firing, sometimes going prone, but there does not seem to be a "cause and effect" relation between those animations and what actually is happening. That sincerely looks a bit like the Scourge of War approach: the animation is just a placeholder for some rolls on a table, meant to give some "crunchy texture" to the game like the fancy sprite packs DLC do in Paradox games. Don't take me wrong - faking some part of the simulation of course needs to happen, but that it happens at the very extremely low level of platoons engaging platoons is a bit distracting. I honestly prefer something like the JTS platoon level games - they don't create an expectation of being truth-to-nature which just isn't there.
Graviteam games win in the immersion department - and they win big - because they follow a data driven approach to map making. They take topographic data and generate like 90% of their maps based on the digital model of elevations, etc. Probably they use some sort of procedural generation algorithm for the vegetation, towns and fields. So their scenarios look like the real thing, because they're the closest thing you can get to the real thing on a computer. On CMx2, to obtain anything like that, requires a lot of man hours of careful work preparing overlays and then manually keying in the terrain features. Again, after so many years, data input on the scenario editor is very primitive.
The dynamic operational layer is good, but since the infantry game is so flimsy, many battles are just a bore. Is there a way to auto-resolve them? I had one where a battery of infantry guns pounded for half an hour a couple infantry platoons... do I really have to go through that? Maybe yes, that's guaranteed to produce more realistic outcomes than any "design for effect" trickery.
|
With Graviteam I have the impression that I am dealing with an alien from Star Control 2. Mistifying most of the time, enlightening hardly ever. Asking simple questions such as "how can I implement fire and movement in your game?" results in the answer "no, you want to do too much micromanagement, and on top of that, war is chaotic, tactics were never actually used and xljswi opjupjdf poas dfj';j dfjw eo uwekn mjSD FKL DFK KLJW DFleli", where a "sorry, but our current engine abstracts many aspects of infantry fighting in World War 2, we think those abstractions adequately account for fire and movement, we note your objections and we'll study them but this is our game and our call" would have been perfectly fine.
As an aside, sometimes I can't help thinking that knowing too much on a specific topic detracts from having fun with wargames and simulators. That's quite a curse to be afflicted with :(
I've never played CMx2, so I can't comment on that.
Graviteam Tactics handles immersion well in terms of the terrain and the look and "feel" of your forces, as has been noted, but then breaks it in several ways.
I haven't played GT in a while, but have clocked a fair number of hours earlier in the year. I haven't played the early versions before the name change. The interface is quite functional in the latest versions, I expected it to be much worse when I started playing.
The infantry combat model isn't very complicated and though you can draw lines or areas to determine the stop line and facing of your troops after movement, their actual movement is still confusing sometimes.
The movement planning ignores terrain. I have no desire to try and remember how often half of my squad ended up getting shot because the other half, including the MG's didn't have LOS to them or the enemy. As mentioned by Bletchley Geek, the movement animations may or may not have have anything to do with what is actually happening. As the stock and DLC campaigns tend to feature gently rolling terrain, this can quickly become a problem. It also allows you to murder the AI in sadistic ways by digging in on the other side of such a slight rise and setting the fire arc to a limited area. As soon as the AI's infantry crest the hill and walk a few meters, they are butchered.
Spotting features some of the same flaws as Panzer Command and, based on comments elsewhere CMx2, where you can't always "see" what you should be able to see because the way LOS and firing lines are calculated don't use the same visibility data and are a bit wonky.
GT vehicle movement reminded me of the worst bits of CC from time to time, where it could take minutes to get a tank across a ford. For some reason, even if you want a tank to move straight, it tends to turn and will start to move out diagonally at first in GT. This might be due to how the movement system responds to the dynamic map, which might make the movement path calculation complicated.
Victory conditions are often all about capturing map locations, which can lead to silly situations. It's often wise to select the largest battle area possible in the options menu, so the battles cover a substantial part of the operational map, as in many cases you can simply let some fast unit drive straight into the enemy rear and capture flags.
I've fought costly battles where the heroes were not my bloodied but victorious troops, but the battalion/company command and field telephone halftracks capturing flags in the enemy rear. That is quite gamey in a way, but the problem is that you will quite probably lose the battle if you beat the enemy forces but don't capture more locations.
There are rarely more than a few companies involved in a battle, if that, and it's impossible to hold a several kilometre wide front with them. The AI's unit placement also isn't very intelligent, and to make things exponentially worse your own unit placement is usually not very limited.
Penetration data and the visuals of tank combat, both on the AFV models and on the "this is where the vehicle was hit" overlay at the end of the battle are top notch, that has to be mentioned.
When I want to see what WWII looked like, and be immersed in that, I play Graviteam Tactics.
When I want to micro-manage tactical fights, I play CMx2.
When I want to actually command significant WW2 operational forces, using realistic maneuvers, with well researched OOBs and maps, I play JTS Panzer Battles/Panzer Campaigns.
This game could be so much better with a redesign of the. UI. I try the game and then get lost. I would love to play and just no luck.
By the way, how do you a bundle like that early before it ends? Does humble notify you?
Thanks
I really think the UI gets a bad rap -- especially the revamped UI they put together for Mius Front, which overall is very good in my view. It is definitely unique, which accounts for the learning curve. And it's true that some commands -- like how to set target points for artillery spotters -- are opaque. So you do have to do a little trial-and-error and YouTube hunting to figure some things out -- obviously Graviteam could improve things on that score.
But Mius Front's UI is a damn sight better than what CMx2 offers. Mius Front's UI is confusing to the uninitiated, but once you figure things out, you see it is quite flexible and powerful. CMx2's UI is simply badly outdated and clunky and a chore to use.
Quote from: sandman2575 on November 18, 2016, 08:50:25 AM
But Mius Front's UI is a damn sight better than what CMx2 offers. Mius Front's UI is confusing to the uninitiated, but once you figure things out, you see it is quite flexible and powerful. CMx2's UI is simply badly outdated and clunky and a chore to use.
I would agree that the Mius Front UI is much improved. I find it much easier to use that the UI from previous games. I don't think Graviteam necessarily falls down on the design of their UI, where I think they've failed is in
explaining the UI. There's no way around it: their documentation sucks. I don't accept the "But they're Ukrainian, so they don't speak English!" argument, either. If you're going to sell to an English speaking market, you need documentation in English. The real reason their documentation sucks is that they are undisciplined developers that don't like to write documentation.
CMx2 is fundamentally a different game with a different mechanic. The UI is optimized for turn-based play, and unit micro-management. I don't think it's clunky at all, and can be used quite quickly. It won't be as efficient at RTS though, and GTMF has better RTS tools.
My CM opinions are known so I'll only offer a dissent to any who dismiss the UI outright. I think that's incorrect.
I will now purchase no more GT games until they give me MP. Sticks thrown.
Jim
Quote from: panzerde on November 18, 2016, 09:09:21 AM
CMx2 is fundamentally a different game with a different mechanic.
I think you're right and therefore I'm thinking that maybe we should stop comparing the two games like for like.
Quote from: Father Ted on November 18, 2016, 07:21:57 PM
Quote from: panzerde on November 18, 2016, 09:09:21 AM
CMx2 is fundamentally a different game with a different mechanic.
I think you're right and therefore I'm thinking that maybe we should stop comparing the two games like for like.
You speak great truth, O Wise One. +1
Quote from: panzerde on November 18, 2016, 09:35:48 PM
Quote from: Father Ted on November 18, 2016, 07:21:57 PM
Quote from: panzerde on November 18, 2016, 09:09:21 AM
CMx2 is fundamentally a different game with a different mechanic.
I think you're right and therefore I'm thinking that maybe we should stop comparing the two games like for like.
You speak great truth, O Wise One. +1
He certainly does! :notworthy: