Have You Played Graviteam Tactics And If Not, Why?

[RyanE]

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.

[MengJiao]

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.

[Moreb]

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.

[Hofstadter]

Im graviteams biggest ho.

Honestly I love everything about the games except for the distinctly Russian horror UI.

[Wburn]

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

[jomni]

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.

[MengJiao]

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.

[sandman2575]

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.

[sandman2575]

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.

[Moreb]

Moreb -- 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.

[jomni]

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.

[GDS_Starfury]

I have GT with all of the expansions but the UI keeps me from getting into it.

[Rekim]

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.

[Asid]

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.

[Moreb]

Moreb -- 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.