Have You Played Graviteam Tactics And If Not, Why?

[Moreb]

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

[Grim.Reaper]

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.

[Moreb]

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.

[Grim.Reaper]

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. 

[Moreb]

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.

[Ubercat]

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.

[Moreb]

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.

[Moreb]

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.

[mikeck]

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

[Moreb]

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.

[Trooperc7]

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.

[jamus34]

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.

[Zulu1966]

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.

[chemkid]

[...]
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!

[AchillesLastStand]

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.