I am learning GTOS (Graviteam: Operation Star)

[Wodin]

Yeah this is the thing that gives me hope.  While I haven't yet managed to climb over the learning curve of GTOS, I've seen enough posts from other people who have and declare from the other side that it's actually a pretty fun game that I can't dismiss it out of hand.

Click a unit and press space..this gives you your orders. Really thats the core of the tactical aspect. The operational is to difficult either. The only confusing side really is the TOE page and working out what's what, though this doesn't have to much of an impact on the overall game.

 

The one and only negative and it's a whopper is the Germans inability to deal with armour when they have no Tanks. You can have Russian tanks right next to your men in a forest and they just run around until killed. Very annoying. A reason why I don't play it as much as I could have done.

Edited September 19, 2015 by Wodin

[weapon2010]

I have done my due diligence on GTOS, read a lot,checked out forums, watched at least 30 youtube videos, after all that I will not buy the game.

But BF should try to acquire the positives from GTOS:

Overall its prettier.

Real curved roads.

Better weather an atmospheric effects.

Flares at night.

Track marks.

Deep snow .

GTOS is a very attractive blonde, but Im not leaving my wife for her.Ive been with my wife for 16 years now, she is steady,consistent,dependable and always trying to improve!

[Wodin]

For me it's not a choice in anyway. When I don't feel like playing CM I am usually in the mood for GTOS and vice versa. I can get a mission done in a night with GTOS where it can take days in CM. So they fit in with my moods. I feel it's easy the best realtime wargame out there where as CMx2 is the best tactical wargame out there.

[Alchenar]

Click a unit and press space..this gives you your orders. Really thats the core of the tactical aspect. The operational is to difficult either. The only confusing side really is the TOE page and working out what's what, though this doesn't have to much of an impact on the overall game.

 

The one and only negative and it's a whopper is the Germans inability to deal with armour when they have no Tanks. You can have Russian tanks right next to your men in a forest and they just run around until killed. Very annoying. A reason why I don't play it as much as I could have done.

Yeah that's the thing.  I get how to play the tactical game.  What's annoying is having to stare at a blank screen for an accelerated hour because it's a night battle but the two sides never meet.  Or watching tanks show up and having literally no capacity to do anything about it.   A couple of games like that in a row and I lose the will to keep on playing.

[weapon2010]

and in cm the german infantry are the best equipped tank killers, esp in towns and forrest

[Rinaldi]

and in cm the german infantry are the best equipped tank killers, esp in towns and forrest

Well the difference between 1944 and 1942-43, right?

Although I'm curious as to why they haven't given at least a handful of close-assault equipment to the infantry. Do the Soviets have something for close-assaulting tanks or are they just as helpless if attacked unsupported?

[CAS]

It is a fantastic game!

The developer is very activ with patches, even adding new features along the way!

I bougt it from Steam and after the latest patches the installation of the addons is easy.

The game takes a lot of time to get into!

both the way the strategic phase on map and the RT tactical gameplay are different from all other games i know. The documentation is bad but there are some good userguides.

Good things:

- great gfx. Big maps and nice visuals on the outside of the playable map too.

- the best dammage moddel for vehicles i have seen in a game: ammo cookoff, visible track dammag, parts blowing off (unfortunatly not the turrents). 

- after the game you can have a look at the map and look at the dammage, including hit vectors etc.

- advanced communication, flares and field telephones including personell and vehicles to place the wires.

- a dynamic campaign map with persistent dammage on the RT maps

-visible air support

 

The best is if you get "Steel armor: blaze of war" you get a tank simmulator (M60+T62) + the campaign and tactical gameplay from GTOS.

This way you can play as the commander "1 person" and give orders to your units on the map.

Things i am missing from CM  are the cover system behind low walls and in buildings, breaching, mines and buddy aid.

I think both games are classic!

 

[markshot]

I am almost ready to start serious play.  Last night, I bought all the WWII DLC.

What I have seen is impressive.  GTOS and CM are different games.  I only think they mildly overlap.  CM is for detailed small unit actions with fine control.  GTOS is for larger scope battles on a grander scale.

The biggest negative is documentation.  This is not to say a non-Russian speaker cannot learn the game.  But unlike CM, you will not get 85% from the manual.  You will have to dig in 5 different places to really learn it.  But this is very much the reality of games these days.  Years ago MPS delivered well written classic manuals of hundreds of pages.  (one period reference and one game play reference)  Now, you are lucky to get a 15 page PDF written by a drunk beta on a Friday night! 

[Macisle]

I am almost ready to start serious play.  Last night, I bought all the WWII DLC.

What I have seen is impressive.  GTOS and CM are different games.  I only think they mildly overlap.  CM is for detailed small unit actions with fine control.  GTOS is for larger scope battles on a grander scale.

The biggest negative is documentation.  This is not to say a non-Russian speaker cannot learn the game.  But unlike CM, you will not get 85% from the manual.  You will have to dig in 5 different places to really learn it.  But this is very much the reality of games these days.  Years ago MPS delivered well written classic manuals of hundreds of pages.  (one period reference and one game play reference)  Now, you are lucky to get a 15 page PDF written by a drunk beta on a Friday night! 

They are definitely different games. I see GTOS as a kind of halfway house between mainstream gaming and the sim end of the spectrum. It offers a level of realism far above the mainstream, but IMHO opinion, not even at ballpark proximity to what CM offers. This is why it has so many people in more mainstream circles praising it for its realism. It's also probably why the maker has said that he doesn't want CM people in his community -- because they are more likely to see realism gaps in his game.

Assuming WeGo, I find that CM is better both for small and large force sizes. Actually, I find that CM is much better for large force actions (again, assuming WeGo). I don't have a problem taking a battalion of infantry and two companies of tanks into action in CM. It's a lot of work, but I enjoy it and the CM UI is very comfortable for me. But in GTOS...well, trying to deal with the Close Combat-like force selection "slot" system and that UI...Gawd. I can feel the migraine coming already! He-he.

Definitely, the documentation needs a lot of improvement, but the main problem with GTOS for me was what I consider the worst UI and camera system I've ever seen. The actual combat wasn't too difficult. I was using the maximum realism settings and was usually winning pretty much out of the gate in QBs. In fact, I'd say CM is generally more challenging. I never bothered with the campaigns beyond the demo because I figured if the tactical layer wasn't there for me, then they would be a waste of time. Also, like Close Combat, GTOS seems to provide the "challenge" by throwing unwinnable situations at you (like a platoon of infantry and some ATRs vs. multiple Tigers). I consider that a waste of my time. I know that some battles in war are unwinnable. However, as a gamer spending my precious free hours, I want scenarios that reward good play with some chance of victory. Skip the disaster battle and fast forward to the start of the battle where my side finds its feet again.

 

Edited September 20, 2015 by Macisle

[Macisle]

I have done my due diligence on GTOS, read a lot,checked out forums, watched at least 30 youtube videos, after all that I will not buy the game.

But BF should try to acquire the positives from GTOS:

Overall its prettier.

Real curved roads.

Better weather an atmospheric effects.

Flares at night.

Track marks.

Deep snow .

GTOS is a very attractive blonde, but Im not leaving my wife for her.Ive been with my wife for 16 years now, she is steady,consistent,dependable and always trying to improve!

With mods, I'd say CM is overall prettier - especially the infantry, which blow away GTOS completely. I also don't like the GTOS vegetation, and there is something about the terrain that always makes me think I'm fighting on a miniature golf course. Vein's effects are more to my taste than what is in GTOS. The fire and explosions look very canned/arcade.

On the roads...

yes, we'd all love to have naturally curving roads, but that's the price of having an Editor that anyone can jump in and be making maps with. I think BF totally made the right decision on that one. Think about some of the amazing maps we have. I was bored of the entire series of GTOS maps in only two weeks of QBs!

Edited September 20, 2015 by Macisle

[CAS]

The roads in GTOS are great.

You can order your vehicles to follow roads (good path finding) to make them move faster and reduce chances getting bogged.

And you can order your troops to follow the vehicles (in the Mius update they will even take cover behind the vehicles)

 

In relation to the unbalanced battles:

The dynamic campaigns sometimes produce battles where you face overwhelming forces, this is how it should be. If it is hopeless just retreat.

The early German infantry units have sparse AT weapons. If they manage to immobilize a tank it can still be a little victory in the big picture.