What do CM players think: GTOS worth it?

[Macisle]

Hey, guys--I'm not trolling here, but I'd like to get some feedback on this. The recent Close Combat thread lead me to check out the Graviteam site once again and I see that the GTOS series is on super-sale for a few more days. I'm trying to decide if I should get it. I tried the demo last night with very mixed feelings on it. Basically, my first impressions were:

Pros:

--Neat eye candy like mud/snow flying from tank tracks, detracking animations and such.

--Some nice touches on buildings.

--Operational layer.

--Map edges blend into horizon.

Cons:

--Horrific camera (I actually got a headache from it).

--Very unintuitive UI (CM was easy for me to pick up).

--Soldier graphics uninspiring (they're all the same fat, old Russian guy!)

--Maps suffer from billiard table look, depending on level/angle.

--Explosions/smoke can be a bit too fast, making them look unnatural/gamey.

--Unsure at this point if I can use fire teams for specific tasks (LMG team to suppress, assault team to assault, etc.) and/or if I can really control the tactics used on the ground to the degree that I want.

Within an hour or two of playing CMx2, I was pretty comfortable with the UI and camera and felt inspired. After four hours of the GTOS demo, my forces were doing better, but I still didn't really know what was going on and the UI/camera was still very tedious to deal with. I felt tired and irritated--but wanted to like it. Of course, I realize that the game has a learning curve that requires a fair amount of time.

At this point, I'm thinking of passing on it, but taking a look at the Mius Front demo if/when available. So, for those who have spent time with this game, but whose first love in gaming is CM, what are your thoughts on this title?

[Pelican Pal]

I personally didn't enjoy it, however I do know it as a lot of fans.

I think the main difference is that in Graviteam tactics you tell the squad to "go to that house" and the squad figures it out as best the squad AI can.

While in CM you split the squad into two fireteams and have the bound through the lowground up to the house. You then have them move in short bounds with 15 second pauses and target briefly commands until the house has been secured.

In other words CM is much more micromanagement game.

[ridethe415]

I tried the demo as well.

I wanted to like it since I thought the concept was interesting with the map interface etc.

I thought the game played really fast and almost comical how the units moved. And you couldn't get into your pixeltruppenz faces like you can with CM. I am more than happy with CM.

[Macisle]

Thanks for the response, Pelican Pal.

Your nice example sums up what seems to be the key issue for liking GTOS: a player's desire to micromanage the combat. If you don't really want to, then GTOS may be good for you. If you do, you may feel hamstrung by the play.

That's why I don't really consider CM and GT to be "rivals." Rather, they offer differing ways to approach the tactical battlefield.

However, I do like to micromanage.

Interestingly, from what I've gathered (from reading, my demo is is very limited, of course), the scale of GTOS seems to be deceptively "large." Meaning, while you have a big map and operational layer, the amount of actual men on the ground at a given time is relatively limited. So, in CM, you can micromanage the combat at very low levels, but also field multiple battalions at the same time, if so inclined.

Is that true?

[gunnersman]

You got me all excited for a second there. I thought this was about Game of Thrones.

[db_zero]

Interesting. I have Steel Fury and T-34 vs Tiger. Neither are installed. Before CMBN and the new engine, I'd probably be interested. Now not so much.

[BletchleyGeek]

Some comments on the cons:

Cons:

--Horrific camera (I actually got a headache from it).

It is different, takes time to adjust to that.

--Very unintuitive UI (CM was easy for me to pick up).

Let's say that the choice of icons and use of English in the tooltips isn't very inspired.

--Soldier graphics uninspiring (they're all the same fat, old Russian guy!)

There's some variety there, but not much. CM only changes the faces of the guys and the equipment.

--Maps suffer from billiard table look, depending on level/angle.

To a similar degree than in CM, I think.

--Explosions/smoke can be a bit too fast, making them look unnatural/gamey.

Yes.

--Unsure at this point if I can use fire teams for specific tasks (LMG team to suppress, assault team to assault, etc.) and/or if I can really control the tactics used on the ground to the degree that I want.

You can't - as in CC you control squads and vehicles. Allegedly, you're supposed to issue commands at the platoon level. Some people claim that at that level the game shines.

My experience is somewhat different. Sometimes it works surprisingly well, most of the time it is sad to see what the platoon level AI does. What I can say is that the AI tries hard, and seems to have some knowledge of actual tactics - it actually deploys heavy weapons in sensible ways to support assaults - but doesn't seem to me to grasp very well timing, cover, concealment or the value of fire superiority.

The AI isn't scripted - so you'll get quite different behaviors over several replays - but the "plans" it develops sometimes remind me of McClellan at Antietam, at other times of Burnside at Fredericksburg.

I tend to think that the AI is perceived by some to be stronger than actually is because of the match-ups in some operations: you don't need to be a genius to be challenging when you're attacking a scattered German infantry force, whose AT assets are limited to grenade bundles and German Anti-Tank Rifles, with Matildas supported by infantry.

[kuri]

I quite like it, mainly for the operational level it provides, even though it could use some work, that said i am looking forward to Mius front.

[Macisle]

Thanks for all the responses and info guys.

Given the very low sale price, I might go ahead and go for it. Maybe I won't play it much, but I'll probably get my money's worth out of it.

[Pelican Pal]

On the operational map you control platoons(?) on a square grid. When two platoons meet to engage they can draw in nearby platoons. So you never really start with a gigantic force but as the battle develops more and more troops from surrounding areas will begin to enter the combat zone.

So over the course of a battle you'll go from a single platoon to a company sized engagement.

I should say that I'm recalling most of this from memory so the specifics might be a little off. However, this is generally how it works. I'm not sure if you can stack up platoons to attack a single sector or assign platoons to support each other. Although I suspect that you can because that makes sense.

[Frankster65]

I enjoy it for something different and agree with the pros and cons listed by others here. However, my biggest gripe is that it is only "real time." Too much of a click fest IMHO, I never get good time to stop and view the cool graphics and actions. I'm always wondering what have I missed visually? The CMx2 series is still my favorite and go to game every time because you have the choice of real time or turn-based. The replay feature of CM is a big draw IMHO as well.

[Macisle]

I went ahead and got it. The entire GTOS series for a total of $39 plus change. Funnily enough, it may mainly wet my appetite for CM: Black Sea, as there are some post WWII DLCs.

This was totally an unexpected impulse buy, so I won't have time to really look at it for a number of days. My first priority after finishing a work project that has been taking forever is to get some CMRT PBEM games going with folks who've been waiting on me for ages!

Frankster65,

Yeah, the lack of a movie/turn-based feature is a head scratcher to me. Why go to all the trouble with the pretty eye candy if the player is almost never going to see it? I saw a couple of YouTube vids with folks spending hours at such a high view level that the game looked like some kind of space game from the mid-90s. At that point, heck, I'd just go for VASL.

[StkNRdr]

I own it and played several times but shelved it.

There are several aspects I do like but the lack of a WEGO system (allowing review for numerous reasons) and having no multi-player are the killers for me.

One of the devs definitively stated there will never be any sort of turn based movement as this is unrealistic, however there is a pause available. He is also of the mind that their AI is much better to play against than any human player could possibly be, therefore mp is very doubtful. Don't quite understand the mindset as these features would only be options to those who want to use them and not forced on anyone, which could expand their sales. Go figure.

[Erwin]

Has the interface of GTOS been improved? I tried the demo and found it impossible to understand how to do things. And problem as always with RT is that there is so much going on, that you miss too many events. But, boy, it looks really good.

[Collingwood]

Has the interface of GTOS been improved? I tried the demo and found it impossible to understand how to do things. And problem as always with RT is that there is so much going on, that you miss too many events. But, boy, it looks really good.

I doubt that you'll find the interface improved, it's fairly obtuse. It took me a couple evenings to learn enough to get by.

CM's wego is my preferred way of playing so I thought the RT in GTOS would stop me enjoying it, but I find it's not that much of a big deal. My experience is the battles are never so large that I can't keep control - there is pause after all. The lack of replay/rewind is frustrating at times - why did that squad of mine all die over there? What happened?

It does look really good, although some of the infantry animations are annoying - sometimes they look like they are walking into the library, not going into combat. And I wish I could kill that damned rooster that keeps going all through battles.

As for their developer being

of the mind that their AI is much better to play against than any human player could possibly be

- the very fact that I can beat it means either I'm a military savant, or they're wrong. The AI is not bad though, I quite like what I've seen its TACAI do at times.

[Macisle]

Starting out, my main issue with GTOS is that they need much better English documentation. What they do have is bare bones, for an older version, and some of it is not correct.

I'm finding the real-time play is fairly easy to adapt to with liberal use of the pause button, but this (and their game system) necessitates a limit on the scope of engagements that CM does not have. So, CM actually allows both smaller (team-based tactics and combat) and larger engagements (WEGO would be mandatory beyond a certain size, of course). The lack of a replay feature is a drag, but there isn't one in CM's real-time play either.

Graphics-wise, there are a lot of nice touches (wonderful work on de-treaded tanks and I love the mud and snow flying off the treads!), but there are also things I don't like. At certain zoom levels, I keep feeling like I'm fighting on a miniature golf course. That never happens in CM. CM's infantry unit models and textures are outright a cut above those in GTOS. With modded uniforms like Vein's, CM's are way better. While GTOS's infantry animations can be annoying, they do often look more fluid than CM's. CM should shoot for more fluidity. Vehicle model comparison results are mixed, but I'd give the overall nod to CM there, too. There are bits and pieces on specific GTOS models that are better, but the reverse is true as well. CM's HTs and open-backed AFVS like Marders are significantly better than GTOS's.

I think a lot of the opinions on graphics come down to what you like in them subjectively. If you want units to look like well-painted model kits, GTOS will suit you. If you like stuff to look more like the "ideal" illustration on the cover of the old Tamiya model kits, then CM's look will probably please you more. For my part, I like CM's "Tamiya" approach, but would like to see a bit more grit and lots more animations (like the tread stuff mentioned above)--especially to make the infantry look more fluid (but like I said, CM's infantry looks significantly better to me model/texture-wise than GTOS's). While GTOS can look great in certain areas, it overall has a bit of a "kiddie" vibe (like a very well-painted table-top model display) to me, graphically. I genuinely prefer CM's more "adult" or "sober" look (which to me, looks like a less-gritty, somewhat sterile and stiff version of the real world--but with overly-boxy buildings and oddly-angled roads). CM just needs a dash more grit and to keep adding and enhancing the eye candy as quickly as BF can afford to do so (keep working on lighting and shading, too). Oh, and I think that with Vein's effect mod, CM's smoke, explosions and fire look better than GTOS's. GT definitely needs to tweak the timing to make certain effects look less arcade (but watching a tank close up in mud or snow is quite a treat. Great work there!).

Aside from adding new animations and effects, CM should eventually get the map edge thing taken care of. I really don't even notice it anymore, but it is something that will need to go, if only because it is so out of style.

GTOS does have some nice thatched houses. CM should add those, if possible. GTOS definitely wins in building model shaping. But of course, like its roads, CM's buildings are designed to allow people to build maps themselves easily and so stretches the utility of its modular building system as far as possible. It's a (correct) decision to offer players the power of the Editor in exchange for a more "stiff," less natural look in some of its architecture and terrain features (again, like roads). I like CM's foliage and fences better. GTOS has better terrain destruction effects, though. But is there a way to make buildings transparent in GTOS? They've got units in different rooms, but currently, I can only see them through the window, or if the wall gets blown off!

GTOS is definitely helping me to appreciate how well thought-out the CM stock camera controls are. Folks gripe, but I really like them. True, I'd like to be able to turn off the screen edge movement feature for mouse drag-only control, but I really like how much camera control I have in CM with a mouse and occasional hotkey. With GTOS (may change as I get better and learn customization techniques), I feel really taxed to have to run the camera with two hands on the keyboard, then going back to the mouse for commands. I'm getting better at it, but man...clunky!

It's still too early to say on the gameplay. I definitely prefer being able to assume the role of squad leader like in CM, to be able to split custom teams for specific duties and situations. With GTOS, you're basically operating as platoon, company, or occasionally, battalion commander. I also want more control over my AFVs. Having said that, it is nice, as an option, to be able to "cruise control" some of your maneuvering. I'd love to see CM add a "Follow" command that would allow multiple vehicles to follow a lead vehicle convoy style.

So far, I've only done a handful of QBs. In the first few, I had tanks and infantry against the same, plus ATGs. I won handily with very few casualties. -Somewhat disconcerting since I'm a newbie and don't even know the controls, really. HOWEVER, last night, I did a 1:1 force balance attack on dug-in positions on a hill. I had lots of mortars (kudos to CM for having such an easy to use arty system!) and HMGs and tore up the first layer of defense. After that, I ran out of arty and my attack on the hill was put down with heavy losses by enemy mortar and machine gun fire. I gained some respect for the game system on that one. The HMGs were useless against the main hill defense because I couldn't figure out how to do suppression fire ala CM, or even get them to deploy as desired. Had I been able to control things at the CM level (area fire for specific HMGs and split teams leapfrogging), I might have at least been able to make it to the closer trenches on the hill.

I am glad that I bought the game. It's nice to see a different angle on things, anyway. I'll try to keep an open mind as I learn the system...other than one thing:

Yes, kill that rooster!

[Vinnart]

Looks good, but I'd rather play CM co-operative real time multiplayer if it existed.

[Squallion]

I wanted to love GTOS. I just suck at it. I can't do it. Two AT guns firing at two enemy tanks. AT guns go down. No other AT in my force, infantry vs tanks. I know I'm probably missing something. I just can't get into it when I could be playing Combat Mission or Command Ops.

[Macisle]

I wanted to love GTOS. I just suck at it. I can't do it. Two AT guns firing at two enemy tanks. AT guns go down. No other AT in my force, infantry vs tanks. I know I'm probably missing something. I just can't get into it when I could be playing Combat Mission or Command Ops.

I haven't faced that exact situation yet, but from the demo, I've come to expect it (AT rifles and Maxims against multiple Tigers. What fun!). GTOS shares that fault with the Close Combat series: putting the player in an impossible situation (plus big issues with tank uber-spotting and ATGs being too easy to spot). Did hopeless situations sometimes happen historically? Yes. Do I want to spend my precious minutes as a game player taking the role of the losing side in an impossible situation? No. I'd rather read in my briefing that the previous unit was wiped out and start the scenario when friendly forces had brought in reserves that give my side a chance.

CM solves the problem in two ways:

First, the CM scenario design philosophy stresses balance. Not symmetry of forces, but a roughly equal shot at victory through different tactical approaches. So, if the Russians only have AT rifles, then the terrain and German force mix should be such that the Russians actually have a chance to win, despite not having any AFVs. Second, the CM (whenever I say CM, I mean CMx2) game engine offers more realistic spotting, giving the Russians a better chance to hide, and infantry better close combat power, giving them a stronger ability to knock out tanks at very close quarters.

Also, CM handles ATGs WAY better. In CMRT, I've seen a single, well-placed Russian ATG knock out six PIVs out of a hord of 10 approaching the ATG through brushy area of soft ground where spotting was difficult.

And, in GTOS (a QB), I've seen a platoon of PIIIs (mine) chop through an entrenched Russian position in the woods with an ATG and dug-in T-34 with NO casualties. I mean, man...like...all I did was tell them to hunt in that direction. In combat mission, I might well have lost the whole platoon sending them charging into that situation.

However, I have seen GTOS handle an infantry on infantry situation with more realistic results than with tanks and ATGs. CM just does both better. It's still early days, though. These are just first impressions.

[Squallion]

I haven't faced that exact situation yet, but from the demo, I've come to expect it (AT rifles and Maxims against multiple Tigers. What fun!). GTOS shares that fault with the Close Combat series: putting the player in an impossible situation (plus big issues with tank uber-spotting and ATGs being too easy to spot). Did hopeless situations sometimes happen historically? Yes. Do I want to spend my precious minutes as a game player taking the role of the losing side in an impossible situation? No. I'd rather read in my briefing that the previous unit was wiped out and start the scenario when friendly forces had brought in reserves that give my side a chance.

CM solves the problem in two ways:

First, the CM scenario design philosophy stresses balance. Not symmetry of forces, but a roughly equal shot at victory through different tactical approaches. So, if the Russians only have AT rifles, then the terrain and German force mix should be such that the Russians actually have a chance to win, despite not having any AFVs. Second, the CM (whenever I say CM, I mean CMx2) game engine offers more realistic spotting, giving the Russians a better chance to hide, and infantry better close combat power, giving them a stronger ability to knock out tanks at very close quarters.

Also, CM handles ATGs WAY better. In CMRT, I've seen a single, well-placed Russian ATG knock out six PIVs out of a hord of 10 approaching the ATG through brushy area of soft ground where spotting was difficult.

And, in GTOS (a QB), I've seen a platoon of PIIIs (mine) chop through an entrenched Russian position in the woods with an ATG and dug-in T-34 with NO casualties. I mean, man...like...all I did was tell them to hunt in that direction. In combat mission, I might well have lost the whole platoon sending them charging into that situation.

However, I have seen GTOS handle an infantry on infantry situation with more realistic results than with tanks and ATGs. CM just does both better. It's still early days, though. These are just first impressions.

Yeah. CM is brutal in that way. I am often frustrated at my loss of tanks to ONE enemy AT gun or tank. It makes me want to restart whichever scenario immediately. lol. Usually don't, but those kinds of losses are very discouraging.

[Destraex1]

I love the idea but hate the execution