Jump to content
markshot

Another contentious topic: CMx2 vs Mius?

Recommended Posts

I am still on the fence.

Have a CM question on smoke, QB, arty ...  Get an answer(s) in 24 hours.  Have a GTOS/GTMF question ... you best soldier on and not ask dumb questions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, markshot said:

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.  :)

:lol: lol  .... shame the GT guys didn´t ask community (?) members for voice file support. But I don´t want to bash on them more (now) than I do on BFC occasionally. GT focus is on soviet side of affairs and they do fairly well there I think. Sound file modding seems possible so I might try on that, if my time and further interest (yet open) allows.

2 hours ago, markshot said:

I am still on the fence.

Have a CM question on smoke, QB, arty ...  Get an answer(s) in 24 hours.  Have a GTOS/GTMF question ... you best soldier on and not ask dumb questions.

Well I do not intent messing with community or developers here anyway. Found required pieces of info all around the www. Rest is trial and error and making my rational mind on all that.

Wished they´d put their focus back on tank sim matters. SF Kharkov 42 was among the best you could play with WW2 setting, but oh well. My hopes remain with Tank Crew then.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just read the GTMF and GTOS manuals.

They are different manuals!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  They obviously should be far more similar than different.  I would say both are worth reading as they cover different, but related stuff.

All I can say, it was probably fortunate for the USSR that the T-34 was more intuitive for a farm boy to operate than these games are to manage!!!

SIDE NOTE:  IQ test scores have been climbing for the last hundred years.  Are folks getting smarter?  No.  IQ test often focus heavily on abstract reasoning.  We are living in a far more abstract society than existed 100-200 years ago.  We are just getting better at IQ tests.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, markshot said:

I am still on the fence.

Have a CM question on smoke, QB, arty ...  Get an answer(s) in 24 hours.  Have a GTOS/GTMF question ... you best soldier on and not ask dumb questions.

I must retract this statement.  Whereas it is true that a CM question draws help from numerous generous and veteran players; I did post a technical issue on Steam and within 24 hours I did have two posts from the primary designer/developer of the game.

I believe it is fair to say that BFC (for CMx2 games) has a far greater market than Graviteam.  What do I base my conclusion on?  Post counts.  Russian is about double English for GTMF:  2,000:4,000 (adding Steam in isn't going to move the needle much).  Now, if we say that GTMF is the current major offering and CMx2 is the current offering, you see that BFC post counts come closer to 400,000.  It may not be that BFC's market is 100X larger, but clearly it dwarfs Graviteam's.

Well, I do hope that Graviteam improves the quality of its documentation which is more of an issue than the UI, and they find greater success.  I think the long life of BTS/BFC and multitude of other tactical/operational titles means there is room and profit for both companies in this space.

Good luck, Gentlemen!

PS:  I want to see our hobby of war gaming flourish.  I want to see that the true history of the conflicts modeled by these companies should not be forgotten.  Lest we forget who we are and how we got here today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, markshot said:

I just read the GTMF and GTOS manuals.

They are different manuals!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  They obviously should be far more similar than different.  I would say both are worth reading as they cover different, but related stuff.

All I can say, it was probably fortunate for the USSR that the T-34 was more intuitive for a farm boy to operate than these games are to manage!!!

SIDE NOTE:  IQ test scores have been climbing for the last hundred years.  Are folks getting smarter?  No.  IQ test often focus heavily on abstract reasoning.  We are living in a far more abstract society than existed 100-200 years ago.  We are just getting better at IQ tests.

Grabbed the GTMF manual from steam and found it just beeing bits of cleaned up version of the APOS one. Nothing new in there as I´d hoped, but no problem. This guys posting was of good value though: Tips for GTOS newbies [Game Guide+Tech Help] Also grabbed that one as PDF file.

Re T-34 I highly recommend reading Boris Kavalerchik´s "The Tanks of Operation Barbarossa". There´s lots of great detail on both sides tanks in there with focus off course on russian hardware. Learned quite a number of new things that were only scraped in other even quite popular publications.

 

1 hour ago, markshot said:

I must retract this statement.  Whereas it is true that a CM question draws help from numerous generous and veteran players; I did post a technical issue on Steam and within 24 hours I did have two posts from the primary designer/developer of the game.

I believe it is fair to say that BFC (for CMx2 games) has a far greater market than Graviteam.  What do I base my conclusion on?  Post counts.  Russian is about double English for GTMF:  2,000:4,000 (adding Steam in isn't going to move the needle much).  Now, if we say that GTMF is the current major offering and CMx2 is the current offering, you see that BFC post counts come closer to 400,000.  It may not be that BFC's market is 100X larger, but clearly it dwarfs Graviteam's.

Well, I do hope that Graviteam improves the quality of its documentation which is more of an issue than the UI, and they find greater success.  I think the long life of BTS/BFC and multitude of other tactical/operational titles means there is room and profit for both companies in this space.

Good luck, Gentlemen!

PS:  I want to see our hobby of war gaming flourish.  I want to see that the true history of the conflicts modeled by these companies should not be forgotten.  Lest we forget who we are and how we got here today.

Well, BFC forum deals with a whole family of CM games covering almost 2 decades of development, while GT is hardly 1 decade in the market. Yes, I´ve seen Andrey posting and answering questions on several occasions and different forums. Think the most interesting discussions and info can be found in russian language forums though.

I as well hope that GT keep at their ways of doing things which I find refreshing and of great potential. I found the UI just part of the overall possibilities accessing the games features. ATM I majorily use key commands in conjunction with parts of the graphical UI and became quite comfortable with it. One thing I´m now trying to get acquainted with  is units forming up before executing movement and combat orders. So i.e it´s worth to know when giving an infantry Plt a "move platoon along that road in marching formation" order, that squads and teams move in order by given force structure. Plt HQ first, then 1st squad, 2nd and so forth. So one got to bits of plan ahead (initial deployment) for any movements and combat actions to not loose time and cause confusion among troops. This info is not to be found in the GM unfortunately, but one can figure out oneself in QB which I use for practice as said. If one has the patience one in fact can apply standard SOP´s fairly well. I draw much of that from my original german wartime manuals so can well compare how it all works out in a game. But I´m still at the beginning and just toying around with small infantry forces.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, RockinHarry said:

Wished they´d put their focus back on tank sim matters. SF Kharkov 42 was among the best you could play with WW2 setting, but oh well. My hopes remain with Tank Crew then.

IIRC their tank sims didn't sell well enough so they started building it out into the Graviteam Tactics series.

Steel Armor: Blaze of War is one of my favorites and its a pity we won't be seeing more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a fan of both franchises, I think the comparisons are Apples vs Oranges. CM focuses on depicting the crucial moments of the tip of the spearhead. GT focuses on the day-to-day operations of a Brigade across a wide front. CM battles tend to be incredibly fast paced, which each minute being of significance. GT battles tend to be slow paced, many being operationally trivial. In CM, you command squads and teams with WE-GO. In GT, you command platoons in RT and companies in TB.

10 hours ago, RockinHarry said:

Wished they´d put their focus back on tank sim matters. SF Kharkov 42 was among the best you could play with WW2 setting, but oh well. My hopes remain with Tank Crew then.

Me too. I think Steel Armour: Blaze of War was a fantastic sim. For some reason, they've stopped updating it. There's an untapped market for a serious tank sim, that's also a game (unlike Steel Beasts).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Pelican Pal said:

IIRC their tank sims didn't sell well enough so they started building it out into the Graviteam Tactics series.

Steel Armor: Blaze of War is one of my favorites and its a pity we won't be seeing more.

Just like APOS I grabbed a SABOW DVD for few euros couple years ago. Didn´t came to install it yet, but I still have a somewhat modded SF Kharkov 42 on my hard drive. Modding community was quite active on that, resulting in gems like STA and the likes. Too bad combined arms is just superficial in all that, but at least it´s in. Think there were also new maps made from community members although map creation would be quite PITA like i.e the ARMA series. Unless BFC map editor it´s just for most patient and ambitious folks I´d guess. High detail hand painting and navigation mesh creation is not for beginners, so BFC map making is more versatile and superior in that regard. Think Andrey also gave the mapping tools to selected community members, but like the SF 42 tools I´d not expect them to be easy use apps (and likely russian language only). Would not deter me from trying though.

34 minutes ago, DerKommissar said:

As a fan of both franchises, I think the comparisons are Apples vs Oranges. CM focuses on depicting the crucial moments of the tip of the spearhead. GT focuses on the day-to-day operations of a Brigade across a wide front. CM battles tend to be incredibly fast paced, which each minute being of significance. GT battles tend to be slow paced, many being operationally trivial. In CM, you command squads and teams with WE-GO. In GT, you command platoons in RT and companies in TB.

Me too. I think Steel Armour: Blaze of War was a fantastic sim. For some reason, they've stopped updating it. There's an untapped market for a serious tank sim, that's also a game (unlike Steel Beasts).

Personally i´m just comparing out of curiosity. I´m not an actual "player" of these games generally, but use these more as tools for my historic researches. Small unit tactics (regimental and below) in particular. ATM I find GTOS more interesting in this regard as I find CMX2 more and more superficial when it comes to RL tactics and doctrines. So CMX2 versatility comes at a price if taking it bits more serious IMO.

Got to test SABOW yet, but I´d likely remain with my SF Kharkov install for my main interest beeing in WW2. I remain with high hopes for 1C´s IL2 Tank Crew B)

https://youtu.be/qjfKMUhk59A

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I tried SABOW and it looked quite nice.  More fun than Steel Beasts as it was GTOS, but with tanks you could crew.  But then, I really have problem gunning, since I have tremors and twitches ... shooting games are hard for me.  3rd person like CM/GTOS/GTMF/SOW ... are much easier.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm just getting back into these type of games and looked at both Graviteam and CMRT. I chose CMRT due to the WEGO system. It's much easier to plan your attack and to make adjustments. Graviteam reminds me of what Theater of War Kursk and Theater of War Korea were. They were both great games and I wish that the Battlefront team would have went that way with the graphics but you probably run into issues with older computers. Plus when playing Real Time games you can't take the time to watch one area that interests you. You have to look over the whole battlefield and may miss some cool action that you can't look at again as you can in the WEGO replay system.

The current Combat Mission series can be played on relatively older computers and don't need the high end graphics cards or systems. I also played the original Combat Mission when it first came out and a lot of things are still basically the same and it's relatively easy to pick up again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I really like Graviteam's stuff, but it's important to understand that their games are more abstract than CM. Combat Mission is way more granular and comparing the games directly seems a bit frivolous to me because they're only superficially similar. Structurally they're very different. 

One thing I think Graviteam has on CM though is some of the AI functionality. I've watched the AI do some crazy smart stuff in Operation Star, like watch individual machine gunners pause their reload to pick up a rifle and fight off guys attacking them outside their machine gun's arc of fire, and then go back to reloading and operating their Maxim. 

Now Eugen's games....meh. 

Edited by SimpleSimon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, markshot said:

SIDE NOTE:  IQ test scores have been climbing for the last hundred years.  Are folks getting smarter?  No.  IQ test often focus heavily on abstract reasoning.  We are living in a far more abstract society than existed 100-200 years ago.  We are just getting better at IQ tests.

Better nutrition also plays a role, though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bulletpoint said:

Better nutrition also plays a role, though.

there is a much bigger sample too :P  Does BF even develop and or sell theater of war anymore?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So as some my purpose is comparing both games capabilities I tested bits on machine guns. Was somewhat pleasently surprised to see that GTOS machine guns are used in realistic continuous fire modes (HMG) and quick successive bursts for lMG. I.e the main feature of german MG34/42 not simply was it´s high ROF, but rather applying that high volume of fire in long bursts (standard was continuous 50 round bursts for HMG and quick successive ones for lMG at say 3 to 8 rounds maybe) on suitable targets. In GTOS it also works realistically at longer ranges (up to 1500m), where at least in case of german ones that was the HMG´s main purpose. In CMX2 it´s more of a nuisance, also considering that any team with a MG is a huge, easy kill target. That non seperation of the MG guys either from rest of an infantry squad, or in case of a HMG, from the ammo carriers is the main reason.  So just by doctrine and realistic employment I found it all works way better in GTOS ATM. Despite the low troop density in most GTOS mission, MG´s are a real threat to deal with and countering tactics as well need to be applied in more realistic ways. My next tests involve a couple of Maxims wrecking havoc (hopefully) on some german targets.

Beside refering to all my field and tactics manuals I´d also taken this video as descriptive reference.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am curious. I have tried The Graviteam series quite a while ago but found they did not do a good job of handling smaller reduced company size engagements. I much prefer CMX2 as it you can craft very small scenarios that play well...............and that is mostly what I like.

Has this changed now with Graviteam?  Is it possible to arrange very small scenarios that actually play properly?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, z1812 said:

I am curious. I have tried The Graviteam series quite a while ago but found they did not do a good job of handling smaller reduced company size engagements. I much prefer CMX2 as it you can craft very small scenarios that play well...............and that is mostly what I like.

Has this changed now with Graviteam?  Is it possible to arrange very small scenarios that actually play properly?

I´d just started with my little comparison project and usually prefer having more control when creating some missions too (map making, scope, force selections etc). Point for BFC/CMX2 in any case. My little QB´s (up to Coy size)  play out fairly realistic actually. The AI does flanking (or tries to unless bumping into my flank security), but too much depends on what forces you give both sides. Same for the (few) maps. Got to try more combined arms and tank heavy battles to make a better judgement. Also different weather, time of day and finally adding bits of air support. Think the real challenge comes in campaign games, when one got to deal with depleted, tired and not optimally supplied  troops. One also does not know the exact composition of the enemy unlike in QB. As said I´m toying around with the old APOS/GTOS and base any my judgements on this, not more recent Mius Front or Tunisia.

My main problem was preserving enough of my patience to learn the interface and various move and combat modes properly. Now with most of it under control I can plan and pull off battle plans fairly realistically. There´s also configurable action reports and feedback (pause or compress time on event x or y). Once can by left or right mouse clicking certain UI elements jump to units reporting. Things like enemy spotted, leader killed, command link lost etc. One sees what´s reported, where and who sends report. While I prefer WEGO in any case, this RT system turned out quite managable and one can keep track of things if one knows what to look for (blinking icons, special symbols and text reports). The game manual just gives some basic explanation on all that, but with required patience one figures out the details sooner or later.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is important to keep in mind that Harry is really reviewing GTOS.  Most of the community is not playing that, but GTMF (aka Mius).  GTMF was released in 2016.  Originally, the two were quite a bit closer than today.  I am no expert, but some obvious differences are:

* A better UI

* Improved mechanics

* Improved performance (see below)

* Improved orders simulation

* WEGO for the campaign map or the older TBS (but still less gamey).

* More statistics

* Battle groups (although in most cases; most content has a BG version and a platoon version).  BGs reduce micro-management.

* Improved mission builder (no map editor; no campaign editor)

Harry does mention this above, but it important to note that most of the community has moved on to GTMF and if you were buying, you would buy GTMF and not GTOS.  What are SABOW and TUNISIA?  They are 1st/3rd person tank simulations using the GTOS and GTMF engines respectively.

* So, buying GTOS is like buying CMBO/CMBB/CMAK ... for sure great games.

* Most would buy CMBN/CNFI/CMRT/CMFB these days ... or correspondingly GTMF.

Finally, if you would buy/play CM than you would buy/play GTOS or GTMF.  If you would buy play Steel Beasts, then you would buy/play SABOW/TUNISIA.

NOTE:  I am very impressed by the programming (as a software engineer) of these games.  They do a lot work and display beautiful graphics - VERY SMOOTHLY.  Over the last 40 years, the art of performance programming has been lost.  Why?  Hardware became cheap and people expensive.  But clearly whoever does the coding is "old school".  So, how can the newer program run better?  GTOS is 32 bit, and GTMF is 64 bit.  For a game, this means much more of the textures and models can be loaded and decompressed before launch.  I believe the program uses multiple cores, but nothing like a chess engine which scales linearly based on cores.

The games are not CM competitors and the style and feature sets are not subset/superset and only minimally overlap.  It is mainly about you personally and how you like to game.  Although I will say that the CM UI is more intuitive, much better documented, and there is a larger community of English speakers to help.  However, given the current size of the English speaking GTMF community and some excellent YouTube materials, both games are NOW much more approachable than say in 2014 (GTOS).

Edited by markshot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Harry,

I recently read that the AI plays very differently based on time given.  Thus, for a 2 hour fight, you will see a lot more probing/recon than one hour fight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I played GTOS many years ago, and for reasons I don't recall didn't care much for it.  I haven't tried GTOS...sounds interesting, but I understand that it doesn't have a map editor, which would be a deal breaker for me--is that correct?

Edited by 76mm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, markshot said:

It is important to keep in mind that Harry is really reviewing GTOS.  Most of the community is not playing that, but GTMF (aka Mius).  GTMF was released in 2016.  Originally, the two were quite a bit closer than today.  I am no expert, but some obvious differences are:

* A better UI

* Improved mechanics

* Improved performance (see below)

* Improved orders simulation

* WEGO for the campaign map or the older TBS (but still less gamey).

* More statistics

* Battle groups (although in most cases; most content has a BG version and a platoon version).  BGs reduce micro-management.

* Improved mission builder (no map editor; no campaign editor)

Harry does mention this above, but it important to note that most of the community has moved on to GTMF and if you were buying, you would buy GTMF and not GTOS.  What are SABOW and TUNISIA?  They are 1st/3rd person tank simulations using the GTOS and GTMF engines respectively.

* So, buying GTOS is like buying CMBO/CMBB/CMAK ... for sure great games.

* Most would buy CMBN/CNFI/CMRT/CMFB these days ... or correspondingly GTMF.

Finally, if you would buy/play CM than you would buy/play GTOS or GTMF.  If you would buy play Steel Beasts, then you would buy/play SABOW/TUNISIA.

NOTE:  I am very impressed by the programming (as a software engineer) of these games.  They do a lot work and display beautiful graphics - VERY SMOOTHLY.  Over the last 40 years, the art of performance programming has been lost.  Why?  Hardware became cheap and people expensive.  But clearly whoever does the coding is "old school".  So, how can the newer program run better?  GTOS is 32 bit, and GTMF is 64 bit.  For a game, this means much more of the textures and models can be loaded and decompressed before launch.  I believe the program uses multiple cores, but nothing like a chess engine which scales linearly based on cores.

The games are not CM competitors and the style and feature sets are not subset/superset and only minimally overlap.  It is mainly about you personally and how you like to game.  Although I will say that the CM UI is more intuitive, much better documented, and there is a larger community of English speakers to help.  However, given the current size of the English speaking GTMF community and some excellent YouTube materials, both games are NOW much more approachable than say in 2014 (GTOS).

good info thanks. B) In fact I wanted comparing both games RT systems, at least that was the igniting spark. In the meantime I figured by given game features I don´t miss WEGO in GT sims that much as I´d likely do in CM. A matter of what one got used to maybe, but I learn to admire both given systems as is. I´ll see if I can keep any motivation going beyond mere testing GT, but likely not. As pointed out already, I as well spend lots of time in CM games editors, map and AI editor quite in particular. The 1942/43 eastern front period, while quite interesting sooner or later becomes boring and repetitive I guess. But for some realistic playouts of typical battles on highly realistic maps of that time it´ll keep me interested. I´m mostly comparing and applying RL doctrines and trained combat methods as given in my prime sources. ATM it seems GT sims are better suited, than CMX2 with all the more abstractions and certain compromises. Final judgment is yet to be made though and it´s still early. SABOW´s also on my to do list. As well collecting dust since purchased for few EUR in local store couple years ago. Think my staple of purchased but never played games is about 2 feet high. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, markshot said:

Harry,

I recently read that the AI plays very differently based on time given.  Thus, for a 2 hour fight, you will see a lot more probing/recon than one hour fight.

thanks, good to know! I´d started with 2 hour default and will see how AI plays out with more time pressure. Also will be interesting in campaign mode with all the unknown and hardly predictable variables.

3 hours ago, 76mm said:

I played GTOS many years ago, and for reasons I don't recall didn't care much for it.  I haven't tried GTOS...sounds interesting, but I understand that it doesn't have a map editor, which would be a deal breaker for me--is that correct?

From what I read in the net, Andrey had given some map making tools to selected people. If it suffices to just ask, I don´t know. I expect something as advanced and complicated like Bohemian´s ARMA editors though. Hand painting, micro mesh detail editing, as well as creating navigation meshes and its testing can be fairly laborous. Doesn´t mean it all delivers more than say CM maps, but they´re highly optimized, particularly for AI´s use. Going beyond 1942/43 eastern front period also requires introducing new vehicle and other models. IIRC tools for that come with the basic game. So that´s all more work for rather a team, or single specialist with lots of time at hand. :o

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that yes one of the game's problems is that it can fall to a point where the forces involved are too minimal to pose a very interesting situation. You can end up with lots of situations where opposing forces never encounter each other at all and simply capture uncontested map objectives after wandering right by each other in the dark. This isn't inaccurate, but it's also not terribly exciting. They need a better mechanism for just auto-resolving engagements that aren't developing much beyond "guys wandering around the steppe".

Because their game is functionally so different from other strategy games the Graviteam guys should've included more options for tutorials, but I think it's really great honestly, it's just very different from most strategy games because control is so decentralized. You have to be more general about how you play and not see it as "Combat Mission Operation Star". 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...