Another contentious topic: CMx2 vs Mius?

[markshot]

I previously raised the issue of replayability (scripted scenarios and QB).  I own GTOS and GTMF, but have only dabbled.  I really have played and do know CMx1 and CMx2.  Part of my GT problems was simply in the early days for complete and clear help you needed to speak Russian.  However, I do not believe that is true for Mius.

I don't want to start a contentious debate here.  Rather I wanted to request links to some well considered threads that compare and contrast the games/systems in a thoughtful and analytic way.  I am tired of google searches that turn up heated threads that look like "politics" as opposed to careful analysis.

So, if anyone has some good articles or discussions, I would be happy to read them.  I am a connoisseur of games and software.  I like to read what goes on inside game engines and the assumptions that developers made.  There was a brilliant discussion by Steve (I believe here a few years back) that CMx1 was an effects based simulation where as CMx1 is an object/mechanism simulation.  The advantages and disadvantages of both approaches were discussed with BFC selecting for CMx2 based on advances in computing power leading to higher real world fidelity.

So, please don't flame my question.  Software is my thing ... I am not married to any company or game or system.  Thanks.

[MikeyD]

I had to look up Mius to know what you're referencing. That looks something like 'Theatre of War' which was one of the games BFC offered back late 2010. I'm perfectly okay with someone telling me "You don't know what you're talking about, its nothing like that!" ...because I don't know what I'm talking about.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vvMJpAaFk4c

[Pelican Pal]

I don't have any articles off hand but from my experience:

Graviteam tactics series:

- Tactical battles require less micro from the player

Troops are more spread out and you have less control over them. Preventing you from microing units a ton. You tend towards giving sweeping orders and then watching the platoons carry it out. There isn't a ton for you to do during an assault - most of your focus is on getting people in the right place. Once your infantry are moving across the map its largely too late to do much.

For example, in Graviteam its on you to get the assault platoons in position, setup the artillery, postion reserves, and support by fire positions. but once you hit the "go" button you aren't going to be telling squad 1 to break off an anti-tank team to move ~50 meters through a field to engage an enemy tank.

- Battles feel more authentic

If you read any number of AAR or personal accounts from veteran you'll read a lot of stuff that Graviteam seems to get right. The biggest one for me is that you will repeatedly read about armor advancing even after their infantry support has been pinned down. This rarely happens in CM (to the player) but in Graviteam you'll see stuff like this all the time.

In CM the player has a ton of control, this can be good, but can also create instances where battles feel too put together. Graviteam does a better job of making battles messy.

- Good campaign system

The campaign system is a strategic map of the battle area where tactical fights are generated by the movements of units on the strategic map. Its fantastic and adds a lot of replaybility to the series. This is the one area where it beats Combat Mission hands down. You are dealing with postioning of units over a period of hours, resupply, recovery of damaged vehicles, etc... I recently had a very interesting Graviteam Tactics game where I managed to win by sacrificing a tank platoon to draw the German Heavy tank unit (Tigers) into a strategic trap.

- You can get more breadth at a lower price

Graviteam mostly focuses on the Eastern front, but you can find Afghan War, Iran-Iraq, Chinese/Soviet Border War, and various African conflicts. These are all relatively inexpensive. This is something I like a lot as they are conflicts that you rarely (essentially never) see simmed and Graviteam does them.

CM:

- More Micro

In CM you can find yourself microing a platoon of infantry and 3 Bradleys to surround a compound that holds 7 Insurgents. And that will be interesting. This makes CM a much better small unit and urban combat game.

I just played a battle in CM where I knocked down a section of wall to give a T-72 a keyhole position to kill an Abrams. That isn't something you could do in Graviteam at all.

- User designed scenarios

While the campaign system in Graviteam is better, the standalone scenarios and the few "story" campaigns in CM are excellent and Graviteam doesn't have anything like it. There are a ton of them and there are quite a few fantastic ones that really let peoples imagination shine.

- More WW2 and modern content

if you want to spend the money CM covers more ground both in WW2 and in Modern.


-----

Generally I play them both.

I play Combat Mission when I;'m interested in heavy micro or a good standalone battle. While I play Graviteam when I'm looking for a week long campaign or some weird mid-century conflict. They both play very differently and its hard to compare them directly.

josey Wales has a decent video:

 

Edited October 5, 2019 by Pelican Pal
moar content

[markshot]

Pelican,

Given what I have seen from playing GTOS and watching GTMF on YouTube, I think you have covered the issues well.

I remember when I first played GTOS.  I had the style all wrong, positioning each unit and gun while painstakingly check LOS.  (Because I was playing CMx1/2 from inside GTOS.)  But later it did dawn on me that it is a broad strokes game.  One YouTube video I was watching made a good point ... campaigns are not won or lost in tactical battles, but on the campaign map.  I heard that they added WEGO to the campaign options.  I do remember getting myself out of a pickle a few times by the sequence I resolved battles in GTOS.  Not anymore ...

I love the CM movies.  They are very immersive.  And they allow immersion, since you aren't failing to command while enjoying them.  Also, one could argue that you need a more solid system with CM-WEGO than GTMF-RTS, because one can analyze the next minute's orders for 30 minutes.  Although you can pause GTOS/GTMF, you really aren't going to analyze for 30 minutes before revising orders.

I am not sure how I feel about tanks bounding ahead of the infantry.  It seems from watching the game, shaped charge propelled anti-tank weapons had yet to arrive on the scene.  So, with great sacrifice and bravery, you might knock off a track.  Even then, if you held the field, the tank would be recovered and put back into service.

[Warts 'n' all]

"I don't want to start a contentious debate here". The title of this thread suggests otherwise.

[markshot]

No.  I mainly was requesting links of interest.  You need to go back and read the original post.  (There is another post on this board with all types WWII training materials.  Simply because someone asked.)

If you paint, then comparative painting is an interesting topic.  If you engineer bridges, then comparative bridge engineering is an interesting topic.  If you are a software engineer who plays games, then comparative game design is an interesting topic.

Neither of the games discussed are tic-tac-toe, they amount to small scale systems.  I think they represent many interesting decisions as I alluded to Steve's discuss of the core engine concept differences behind CMx1 and CMx2.

Sometimes, people just need to lighten up and realize that systems design and games are an art form.  And learn how to appreciate art and its intrinsic beauty.  The title reflected the sad nature of gamers being unable to do that.

[Mord]

This should wet your whistle.

http://grogheads.com/forums/index.php?topic=9819.0

 

 

Mord.

[Ts4EVER]

The strategic campaigns and graphics are better in Graviteam. CM is more suited to small scale skirmishes and intricate battles in cities / bocage. Personally I like playing historical scenarios, so CM wins that for me. Generally in CM you have more control over your troops, you "are" your troops, whereas GT makes you feel more like a commander who just happens to have drone vision... personal preference I would say, I can do both. Graviteam is a lot cheaper, releases stuff for free that BF sells as "engine updates" and generally puts out content quicker. On the other hand, that content is not a traditional "expansion pack", but usually 1 new operation with maybe 2 or 3 new tanks each. It is on Steam, so way more comfortable to buy and maintain.

Edited October 5, 2019 by Ts4EVER

[Warts 'n' all]

I don't wish to be contentious, but I've yet to see a Mius Front video as entertaining as this.

 

[markshot]

Yes.  That was pretty slapstick.  Thanks.

[RockinHarry]

How do both RT systems compare to each other? Right ATM considering a reinstall of GTOS again (Mius won´t run on my OS). Which of both provide better UI and comfort when it comes to managing RT battles? Maybe also throwing Steel Division into the cauldron.

[Ts4EVER]

From what I can tell Mius has an improved UI, but it is still not very intuitive. GTOS is supposed to be abysmal though. Steel Division is a good game but not a simulation like CM or GT, think of it more like a less gamey Company of Heroes. Very nice in terms of historical detail though.

[markshot]

This was the major impediment I had with GTOS and still concerns me with GTMF:

Quote

Для начала нужно четко понимать, что во-первых игры Graviteam являются серьезными тактическими варгеймами, а не простой стратегией в реальном времени, и в них очень большое внимание уделяется реалистичному отображению военных действий во всех аспектах; во-вторых действие основной части игр происходит в период Второй Мировой Войны, на который пришелся рассвет в развитии военной и конструкторской мысли в развитии танковых войск, именно в эти годы вырабатывались основные принципы применения танков на поле боя, и соответственно меры противодействия им, так же в эти годы активно развивалась и сама конструкторская мысль, отрабатывалось множество вариантов конструкций танков, и их вооружения, и именно тогда танки начали приобретать классический вид, в военный период были набраны высочайшие темпы освоения в производстве танков совершенно новых типов, конструкций и ТТХ. Виду чего в этот временной период еще не было выработано универсальных решений и средств для борьбы с танками, а те решения, которые ещё вчера были эффективны и достаточны, на следующий день становились совершенно бесполезны, и с этим вам придется считаться в игре.

 

[RockinHarry]

10 hours ago, Ts4EVER said:

From what I can tell Mius has an improved UI, but it is still not very intuitive. GTOS is supposed to be abysmal though. Steel Division is a good game but not a simulation like CM or GT, think of it more like a less gamey Company of Heroes. Very nice in terms of historical detail though.

Thanks. Just installed again (GTOS V5.81) and give it a try nonetheless. Think in order to get a grasp one needs to get away from CMX2 playing habits and start clear minded. Then I might try CMX2 RT (never did before) so I can answer my questions myself basically. Don´t think it will turn me prefering RT before WEGO though. Just to get the idea on the GT guys concepts which I think aren´t bad at all.

[Pelican Pal]

Graviteam real-time has more in common with CM WEGO than CM Real Time. Order delays, the independence of the tacAI, size of the maps, lack of exact precision, etc... all preclude you from doing heavy micro that you would in CM given the same situation. Overall approaching Graviteam games as if they are Combat Mission is a recipe for failure.

Stepping back and approaching the Graviteam games as their own beast will give you the best success. My recommendation is to focus a lot on the high level of the battle. Who is providing fire support, who is assaulting and from what direction (What cover/concealment will they have), who is the follow on force,  etc.... Whereas CM Real-Time has much more to do with the exact movement of a fireteam down an alley.

[RockinHarry]

8 minutes ago, Pelican Pal said:

Graviteam real-time has more in common with CM WEGO than CM Real Time. Order delays, the independence of the tacAI, size of the maps, lack of exact precision, etc... all preclude you from doing heavy micro that you would in CM given the same situation. Overall approaching Graviteam games as if they are Combat Mission is a recipe for failure.

Stepping back and approaching the Graviteam games as their own beast will give you the best success. My recommendation is to focus a lot on the high level of the battle. Who is providing fire support, who is assaulting and from what direction (What cover/concealment will they have), who is the follow on force,  etc.... Whereas CM Real-Time has much more to do with the exact movement of a fireteam down an alley.

yep, thanks. that´s my intent anyway. If the AI does (realistically) fine at that level I personally see no need to go micro managing anyway. Some the CMX2 TacAI and pathing failures is actually what makes me intervene more often than I´d like usually. One thing that made me loosing interest in GT quickly was lack of an easy to use map and mission editor. That´s usually the place where I spent at least half the time when launching a game. But maybe I´m not too well informed re GT mission editing capabilities? 

[Pelican Pal]

Unless I'm mistaken there is no mission editor outside of a simple QB system. Most of the gameplay variety is thanks to the excellent campaign system which is the one area where Graviteam emphatically leaves CM in the dust.

[markshot]

I had for many years been a participant of Panther Games (one of the best AIs).

MIUS/GTOS remind me of Panther.  You craft the fight in broad strokes and let the mechanics do its thing.  That is not to say that proper sighting of some ATGs can be critical.

I think it is easier to pickup MIUS/GTOS from CMx1/CMx2 than the other way around.  Why?  I think CM teaches terrain, weapons systems, and combined arms to allow you to step up a level or two.  I definitely understood PGs RDOA/HTTR/COTA/BFTB/CMDOPS better having played CM.

---

Mord,

Thanks for that thread.  It was a good read.

[RockinHarry]

54 minutes ago, Pelican Pal said:

Unless I'm mistaken there is no mission editor outside of a simple QB system. Most of the gameplay variety is thanks to the excellent campaign system which is the one area where Graviteam emphatically leaves CM in the dust.

too bad, though i think I´ve seen some user made campaign or missions anywhere, indicating at least some "hacks" seem possible. Some editor like for  Steel Fury - Kharkov 1942 tank sim would be nice, even if somewhat hard to work with. But IIRC there was no map editor either.

Yes the campaign system seems quite nice. Will tackle that more in depth for sure.

[markshot]

I had bought GTMF on release during my last days of GTOS although no expert.  I fired it up last night and took it for a basic spin.

I can say it was obvious that much work has gone into the UI since GTOS.  It was far more intuitive, cleaned up, better structured, and clearly an effort had been made for English speakers.  With that said, it is improved, but by no means obvious and anyone Russian or not is going to have to invest in a major learning curve.

I guess there is a big market in Russia for the Great Patriotic War.  I was a member of a French company, AGEOD, the only non-French member (FYI I was born NYC/USA 3rd generation).  Our first 2 games were the American revolution and American civil war.  Despite being French, it was clear to us that the market for PC games was in the USA.  Thus, our target.

I don't know about the current generation today.  In fact, a whole generation has grown up since the WTC came down (my generation's Pearl Harbor).  But for most Americans WWII is the USA.  It is only here on the BFC forums, you will find people aware that the ball game was really won or lost in The East ... US deaths were a drop in the bucket compared to the USSR.  But if you want to make money off WWII, you are going to do the USA in the West.

It is pity that so few know any history.  I have spent the last three years on 500 BCE - 500 CE (not just games, but maybe 12 classes).  (It seems writing BC/AD would date me.)  Rome is long gone, but casts a shadow maybe far greater than WWII ... construction (arch, concrete), legal system, government (republics), languages (root words from Latin), spread of Christianity, ...

Edited October 7, 2019 by markshot

[Erwin]

There is also a generational shift in what wargamers like to play.  eg:  2-4 decades ago one had to practically pay oppos to play the Russians or W. Allies.  Everyone wanted to play the Germans.  The German units were much more "sexy".  I think CMBO was the first time I noticed that the market had changed to wanting to play the US (since the Germans were mostly on defence in that title) and it was puzzling.  (CMBB went back to the sexiness of the German "Blitzkrieg" into Russia in 1941 and onwards.)

 

[Frenchy56]

Same thing happened with the new IL-2 Sturmovik. Before, everyone flew the German planes instead of the Soviet ones for the same reason, meaning they had to fight 20 vs 60 sometimes in multiplayer.

Now that the new Allied planes are out (Mustang, Thunderbolt, Spitfire, Lightning, Tempest) it's 20 Germans vs 60 Allied.

Edited October 7, 2019 by Frenchy56

[Bulletpoint]

3 hours ago, Frenchy56 said:

Same thing happened with the new IL-2 Sturmovik. Before, everyone flew the German planes instead of the Soviet ones for the same reason, meaning they had to fight 20 vs 60 sometimes in multiplayer.

Now that the new Allied planes are out (Mustang, Thunderbolt, Spitfire, Lightning, Tempest) it's 20 Germans vs 60 Allied.

So basically like the real war then...

[RockinHarry]

APOS 5.81 with Sokolovo, Fall Blau and a map pack add on. (grabbed but never played it for 10 EUR couple years ago).

Few hours in majorily getting along with the somewhat confusing UI. Finally figured certain ways to get things done in more intuitive ways. For now just playing some small force size quick battles to learn navigation, formation and combat commands. Again confusing as hell initially (mainly for lack of a really usefull GM), but once learned one can make quite realistic battle plans and pull them off in fairly realistic manners. For now just on some Plt vs Plt size battles but think I can get it to work with larger size formations as well. A major annoyance was german voice files and I´m glad voice FX can be turned off (stupid german sentences, completely unrelated to given actions). Same for small arms sounds but fortunately found some good mods as replacements. Infantry animations is a mixed bag. Generally they´re fairly well done and no moon walkers in sight yet. Some poses and stances though look a bit stiff, more appropiate for a red square parade maybe. So that´s some first impressions only, but started having some fun with it.

[markshot]

German voice files?  Ah, you would have loved GTOS.

There was constantly a voice crying before even a single shot was fired:  Wir werden alles sterben.  If it had been an FPS, I would have turned around and put a bullet in his head and fulfilled his prophecy.

Now, the Germans wherever they go, there is always someone saying, I think "Walter?".  I think ... did Walter go missing last night?  Is the point of the Barbarossa simply to find Walter and deliver him to his mom and apple strudel?  Is this this the Russian version of "Saving Private Walter?".  At least, I cannot understand Russian.   But I would happily send Graviteam, the guy from CM who keeps saying "Take a look at that!".  Obviously, his first time off the family farm.