Thewood1

I would think moving vs. non-moving would be a pretty big influence on spotting and even hitting first shot. Did you test this against no hull down and one tank moving into sight? Otherwise, I think its hard to separate whether hull down or moving has more influence.

The unmentioned difference is VASSAL is free. And thats a good point about PBEM.

Maybe better, a step by step process. https://www.techadvisor.com/how-to/pc-components/how-set-default-graphics-card-3612668/

yes, although I have seen some modules of both provide some rules-based automation. But not much and not many.

I have it, but haven't used in maybe two years. Fundamentally, its the same as VASSAL. But it goes to great lengths to make it feel more like a boardgame. Its got a lot of flash that VASSAL doesn't have. But if I had to do it over again, I'd stick to VASSAL. TS does have a better portfolio of games than it did a couple years ago. But VASSAL still outnumbers it from what I can see. Thats from a wargaming perspective. TS seems to have a broader appeal.

A minor quibble on the title. The Russians/Soviets were already in Europe.

Now its on...

CM is based on a 32 bit engine so its only going to use 3-4Gb max of RAM to begin with. And not knowing what scenario or having any kind idea what the scenario state doesn't provide much help.

As mentioned Osprey has a few books. I own these. They are short but fairly detailed to their subject and give a good history of the combat application and development of mechanized/armored infantry tactics: https://ospreypublishing.com/world-war-ii-german-motorized-infantry-panzergrenadiers https://ospreypublishing.com/vietnam-infantry-tactics https://ospreypublishing.com/world-war-ii-us-armored-infantry-tactics https://ospreypublishing.com/world-war-ii-combat-reconnaissance-tactics-pb There are also books on specific battles and APC/IFV units that shed some light on more modern developments.

I have several of them. I think the scenario's from Bolt Action are very vague and loose. Some are better defined than others. I think using an ASL scenario would probably be better.

I think we all talk about the combination of an operational phase and tactical phase as much wanted feature. Graviteam is built around that. But I think in reality, most players are either tactical or operational. I don't play the campaign or the ops phase at all. I only play the tactical side. I think they player base is limited that can and want to play both.

Actually, you can set it up to be made aware in multiple ways to know whats going on. In fact, they give you much more feedback that CM. The unit itself is color coded, the numbers and state are visible in the left panel, the event log can be set up to show it, the camera can be set up to center the unit on the screen, and you can pause the game based on that happening. You can also set it up to be wego by pausing at set intervals. And that is part of the problem of people feeling the UI is too complex. There are just a huge number of options, along with some translation issues with the dev. People that play for a while will figure out how to adjust the game and interaction with the game to their play style. From micromanagers to completely hands-off. In CM, the interface is handed to you with very limited options. That tends to attract a specific kind of player who doesn't want to fuss with learning how to configure the UI to match themselves. Graviteam's main problem is you have to play it quite a bit to figure out how you want to configure the interface to match your play style. Funny you say that about CM being a boardgame-like experience. I have always considered CM a detailed miniatures game with a computer interface. Definitely for CM1, and a little less so for CM2.

I still want to come back to these alleged "soft factors" you claim that the Graviteam games don't have. Can you actually list the CM factors you don't see Graiteam using? Also, I didn't start this thread. I'm not promoting it. I gave my review in a thread where I saw people who don't play the game not understanding it. It would have stopped there without your false assertions. As I have said a couple times. Some people like games, some people don't. I can find youtube reviews on either side for both Graviteam and CM. But for someone that doesn't own the game to come in talking like an expert and making false claims, I'll present my experience. So, again, layout your claim that these soft factors aren't in Graviteam games.

btw, you better stop talking about Graviteam games. Seems to be a sore point with you.

Well that sure is a different tone from being a jerk isn't it? And the Graviteam games have exactly the same concept of suppression as CM, except not represented in a pyramid. Its color codes and a number. Doesn't one any better than the other. And games like Graviteam's and Steel Beasts have repair on minor damage because you can have games across much larger maps and longer times. So some minor repairs do come into play. Like replacing vision blocks. Take a look at the manual on comms and its far more detailed in types of comms and spotting than CM. Is it better? Maybe, maybe not. But what they do have is the ability to remove the severe micromanagement you have in CM. I can actively turn the game over to the AI with general orders and good planning. You can't do that in CM, at any level. I don't have time to lay out the moves for a convoy of twelve halftracks down a road. In Graviteam games, its a couple simple orders. But there are people who like micormanaging a game and have the time to do it.

Been playing CM since The BTS days 1999/2000. Been playing CM2 since 2007. A lot. For over 10 years it was about the only game I played. Play it a lot less in the last four years. But still come back to it for some of the unique things about it. So what soft factors are you talking about? Morale, Experience, Fitness, Motivation? How about Morale, Experience, Stamina, Combat Sustainability? They are the exact same thing as in CM, plus a few extras. http://cdn.akamai.steamstatic.com/steam/apps/312980/manuals/GTMF_Manual_eng_03.pdf?t=1470377610 Page 26. btw, look at pages 38-40 to see the level of detail on the penetration model. Its all done in game. Not sure you have ever really looked at a Graviteam game. I'd sure like to see the screen cap of the transaction. And Graviteam is the exact topic here. Look at the topic title. Tank Warfare is a Graviteam game. Its the western front version. You were the second poster in the thread and NOW you suddenly feel like its a bad topic. I might have taken you a little more seriously if you had had the issue and said something about talking about another game before I came in with receipts. Someone doesn't like a game, I have no issue with it. But don't come in with bad info on a game and then get dismissive when you are corrected. Its a bad look.

So what do you call this... Command Level Combat sustainability Experience Morale Stamina Are those soft factors? I don't think we are talking about the same game.

Its always neat watching internet and anonymous critics get all fired up until the actual author/designer shows up to respond.

OK

I like the Graviteam games a lot. They bring in a lot of tactical combat from WW2 east front. The armor model is every bit as accurate as CM2. And they provide a lot of the background behind the armor model in-game. The battles are generally on larger maps so there is more room to maneuver. The battles can last long enough that resupply and minor repairs are relevant. It also has the operational layer if you want make battles more relevant to a broader campaign-like environment. They also provide the option of very detailed orders or having the AI take general orders and handle the details. The AI is pretty good at it. There is also an event viewer so you can maintain situational awareness. You can have the event take you to the unit or pause the game as an option. Something that keeps me from playing CM more. The downside...its too realistic sometimes. Forgetting to string comms wire or cutting of comms wire means your units are sometimes on their own. This can be set up in the options, but only before the battle. Its also focused on very narrow battles and the scenario builder is not very flexible. The do cover battles that CM will never cover, but its still feels limiting. The ability to give very detailed orders makes the interface seem overly complex for micromanagers. But if you are more hands off and like to give general orders, its actually simpler than CM. There is no wego, but there is an active pause that be set to pause every X seconds. And there is no replay. To me, thats why I still come back to CM now and then. But the AAR is very detailed in showing shots, hits, damage, and destruction. Overall, I play it and Steel Beasts much more that CM because of the tools you have available to manage the overall battlefield. CM's inability to take advantage of advancement in technology also plays a role.

I would normally wait for an ebook version. But Helion doesn't have many ebooks.

A lot of these questions about the air/missile battle over cold war Europe can be answered in Command Modern Operations. I think just reading some of the forum will get you some answers based on the CMO models.

Wow...sorry I said anything. Enjoy DOS.

Upgraded both of my laptops from 10 to 11. No issues with any games. MSFS 2020 actually runs much better. Tested CMBN and it ran fine. Once I installed 11, within 5 minutes I had configured to look exactly like 10. There are a few menus and such moved around a little, but not a big deal.

I think both CM and SB generally handle spotting about the same. Each have different areas where its more detailed and more abstracted. CM has its spotting cycles and action squares. SB has lack of experience/morale. And they both suffer numerous similar issues like spotting missile teams, as well as AI seeing through pinholes in cover. esims has added a number of capabilities to support playing it as a wargame in the last 4-5 years. My real point here is it is absolutely not comparing apples and oranges. Both are 3D representations of tactical combat with relatively real life tactics and tools. Both have relatively sophisticated FoW capabilities. Both can run in real-time. An AFV and an infantry team/squad are the lowest levels of combat unit you will see. They both have other capabilities that add to their game experience, but they have the exact same level of granularity and expected outcome. I can take a scenario in SB and pretty quickly convert it to CM, depending on maps. I did it once before with an SB scenario, almost unit for unit. The main difference between SB and CM is that CM is a micromanager's dream. In SB you can script and plan out an entire engagement with almost no direct intervention, unless you want it. With CM you can only plan a few turns ahead, especially on attack. SB also skews towards the platoon as the main unit to direct orders to. The order system is built around that. But working with individual units is possible and it happens quite frequently. The biggest issue with SB is its development is majority funded by DoD/MoD projects. Players are left to hope and wish for changes that impact the game aspect of it.