Another contentious topic: CMx2 vs Mius?

[markshot]

I want to correct another incorrect statement which I made.

SABOW was a 1st/3rd person tank simulator built with the GTOS engine like Steel Beasts.

Tank Warfare Tunisia 1943 is not analogous to the above.  It is just the GTMF engine set in that theater ... like there a 4 WWII games using the CMx2 engine.  Mechanics are the same, but content is different.

[SimpleSimon]

The engine is technically and visually really impressive in a lot of ways too. Wrecks, destruction, defensive positions, etc are persistent and remembered by the game from battle to battle. More detail is rendered in a space that is bigger than most CM scenarios, though larger scenarios with lots of battling units and smoke can get tough on a mid-range computer. 

The most interesting mechanic to me, implemented in recent years, is the command "bandwidth" mechanism which actually makes how you play the sides different. The Russians use more pre-battle planning and timing cues and the lack of radios and field telephones means changing a plan is not something you can do much of since you can run out of command influence. The Germans can cope with this better, and play a bit more like units in a conventional strategy game but trying to micro them excessively can still "overload" the command network and cause them to just ignore your orders. It really feels more like you're back at an HQ barking orders through a field telephone. It's not a squad or company level game ya know? It's more at the regimental or division level and its a fascinating middle ground that is not often covered. 

Now if only the user interface didn't contain tons of vague and confusing detail of various (unexplained) importance lol. 

Edited October 13, 2019 by SimpleSimon

[markshot]

Yep, I have been working through that vague confusing stuff all day.

I have been depending on YouTube videos to teach me, but despite all the work put into their production, there are errors ... or GT modified things.  Examples:

YouTube:  Observed on map arty does not need a link; only AI auto fire.  Not true.

YouTube:  A mortar platoon with 6 tubes; 1 officer/2 tube; and a battery commander.  It is the firing officers who spot, and the battery commander who supervises the mortar crews.  It is actually the other way around.

I spent a great deal of time on the mission editor as it is only slightly documented.  Button says "trigger" ... rollover says "trigger".  1.5 hours of digging produces another player who knows the answer.

Things that only make sense to Russian programmers:  The Master Volume does not control SFX or Voice volumes???

Choosing a name for your mission save filename causes it not to be saved. 

Eventually, I will understand well enough to play, but be missing quite a bit of nuance.

But I want to say this not to just GraviTeam but much larger companies like Paradox ... it is a lack of engineering professionalism to produce complex software with woefully inadequate documentation.  In this regards, BTS/BFC has always done very well.  The manuals are comprehensive.  A player with some combat and game concepts could learn to play just from the manual alone.  The tutorials rather than frustrating the player really does help one get up to speed.

When evaluating a game ... just like support ... professionally produced manuals/tutorials are very much part of the value proposition.  It easier to excuse a small indie company that charges a fair price for their product than Paradox which can run you upto $500 USD for a complete game without a manual.

With all that said GTMF/GTOS are truly one of the kind gems.

[MOS:96B2P]

1 hour ago, SimpleSimon said:

The most interesting mechanic to me, implemented in recent years, is the command "bandwidth" mechanism

The Russians use more pre-battle planning and timing cues and the lack of radios and field telephones means changing a plan is not something you can do much of since you can run out of command influence.

trying to micro them excessively can still "overload" the command network and cause them to just ignore your orders. It really feels more like you're back at an HQ barking orders through a field telephone.    

I've never played any of the GT games, only watched a few U-tube videos, but this command "bandwidth" sounds interesting. 

[SimpleSimon]

1 hour ago, markshot said:

Yep, I have been working through that vague confusing stuff all day.

But I want to say this not to just GraviTeam but much larger companies like Paradox ... it is a lack of engineering professionalism to produce complex software with woefully inadequate documentation.  In this regards, BTS/BFC has always done very well.  The manuals are comprehensive.  A player with some combat and game concepts could learn to play just from the manual alone.  The tutorials rather than frustrating the player really does help one get up to speed.

When evaluating a game ... just like support ... professionally produced manuals/tutorials are very much part of the value proposition.  It easier to excuse a small indie company that charges a fair price for their product than Paradox which can run you upto $500 USD for a complete game without a manual.

With all that said GTMF/GTOS are truly one of the kind gems.

Best Way has sort of left everyone in the same boat with Men of War. I want to learn all the finer points of the game's GEM editor but it's tough because few written references (especially in English) exist and YouTube tutorials require you to parse through commentary and replays to find what you need. 

GTOS and GTMF are the true "operational" level games in the Russian sense existing between the tactical and strategic layers most games inhabit. 

1 hour ago, MOS:96B2P said:

I've never played any of the GT games, only watched a few U-tube videos, but this command "bandwidth" sounds interesting. 

https://youtu.be/wwwacMv-IjQ?t=599

About a minute or two into the linked timestamp he starts going over the command system's mechanic for limiting order spam and micro management. 

[RockinHarry]

3 hours ago, MOS:96B2P said:

I've never played any of the GT games, only watched a few U-tube videos, but this command "bandwidth" sounds interesting. 

there´s quite a couple of features I´d wish to be implemented in CMX2. Command bandwith and combat/move order granularity would be some of these. Though on can´t simply prop it on as the underlying terrain very much differs in both games as is pathing and unit resolution. In CMX2 it´s team per AS (8x8m) based, while in GT it´s more or less free on a really high resolution terrain mesh. From the following posting it´s 25cm horizontally and grid steps between 20 to 100cm. This allows for fairly realistic foxholes and trenches molded into the terrain mesh.  https://steamcommunity.com/app/312980/discussions/0/1743355067123528322/

This and the likely equally dimensioned navigation mesh allows things like more or less free spacing between individual soldiers and vehicles. I.e move in column, with tense, normal or wide spacing. Also a number of SOP´s are inbuilt though not apparent at first glance. There´s move, attack and other modes that inherently contain certain ways that soldiers move and and fight in relation to each other. This combined with some more detail options (seeking cover, crawling, spacing, formation, bounding overwatch etc) Similar to CMX2 modes, but with finer and more flexible resolutions. Wouldn´t say that it works perfectly well (in GTOS) and despite the highly optimized hand painted maps, the path finding routines have their problems sometimes. No idea if it has been improved in more recent GT titles.

CMX2 maps are more "basic" and the TacAI needs finding paths on the fly, making it more flexible and adapting to any given map at last. There´s also no real urban areas in GT, likely from the high complexity, high resolution terrain. Complexity would likely sum up as well when adding a third dimension (up/down) to it. So another point for CMX2 here, despite the sometimes troublesome simplifications.

[markshot]

The best order delay system was found in Panther Game products.  It considered many cost and load factors.  It made time a dimension and getting inside the OPFOR's command loop (OODA) a big plus.  You had to observe and know when to call off an attack and consolidate or stage the next as things could take one hour to 10 hours.  So, you could micro manage anything, but in practice you wanted to play the BIG game.  Also, this made it more scalable than any game on the market.  Battles scaled by two orders of magnitude while player workload perhaps only scaled by 2-4X.  (I only micro-managed arty as it was the most valuable resource on the battlefield.)

But there is another side to Panther Games' and Graviteam's delay systems.  It is a must have for making a high level simulation that leaves micro management on the table.  Why?  Because your skilled BG and spreadsheet gamer will always win by expert micro-management.  Thus, the gaming system must make that counter productive.  What Andrey is doing is forcing you to play the game he designed and not reintroduce CM play style to his system.  If you own GTOS and GTMF, you can see where Andey is going.  He is moving combat up as opposed to down.  Some examples:

* GTOS had keys for deploy in high ground, deploy in low ground (dead space), deploy in something I forget ... not in GTMF.

* GTOS has platoons and lots.  GTMF has both Battle Groups and Platoons, but I think this is transitional, and Battle Groups will replace platoons.

* GTOS had only TBS operations with multiple battles where the sequence can be cherry picked by the player.  The GTMF style is now WEGO and even if you TBS, the system picks your next battle, not the player.

* In GTMF many fine grained features have been consolidated into smaller set of choices.  You can see this in game style play options.  I don't think this was a UI simplification choice, but again the move towards a higher level conceptualization of the system.  I have also scanned the forums ... he answers questions ... but has never responded to this.  Steve joins the discussion when something is dear to his heart.  Andrey will not discuss something when it is dear to his heart.  But what he won't discuss tells you what is absolute for the engine's evolution.

I think this is a smart move:

* There are a ton of 3D battle field games.  But GTMF is unique for its scope, with 3D representation.

* I spent about 15 years with Panther Games; the best AI and operational system on the market.  But you played it on a 2D map with variable time speed and counters.  One of the most often requested features was for a 3D representation of the action.  People wanted to see the carnage.  I think this is part of the reason that the game never broke out from its niche within a niche market.  I think Andrey has already broken out of the most narrow niche (because he has a 3D) ... I don't think he is going to rival the TW franchise (ever), but I think there is still much more market share to pick up.

Edited October 14, 2019 by markshot

[General Jack Ripper]

On 10/4/2019 at 9:20 PM, Pelican Pal said:

They both play very differently and its hard to compare them directly.

I wish more people would realize this.

I've played both series of games, and quickly come to the realization that trying to judge them against each other is impossible.

They are both two different games, built along different designs, for different purposes, with different simulation, and completely different gameplay.

 

But hey, if you want to spend your life arguing between apples and baked potatoes, go right ahead.

[sttp]

In my impatience (in waiting for the CMFI module), a few weeks ago I finally went ahead and bought GTMF. And wow, I'm really glad I did. It's a much different game, with its operational layer and all, but the experience is just as rewarding and entertaining, IMO.

The one thing that had kept me from buying GTMF is that with CM I'm primarily a turn-based/WEGO player -- I spend as much time watching the action as I do planning it -- so GTMF, having no replay capabilities, just didn't seem all that attractive to me. What I did not realize, though, is that GTMF has what might be called a pretty robust StratAI, so once you get proficient with the (very different) orders and control system, you can pretty much just position your forces, give a few basic commands, and then just watch the action unfold. It's a real hoot. There is much, much less micro-managing than is needed in CM, and you can usually trust your forces to do the smart thing, so as it turns out there's still plenty of time to play Combat Cameraman.

Any CM players who like Red Thunder the most, or really anyone who leans more towards armor vs armor battles... you, especially, are really missing out here. Don't let the lack of WEGO be what stops you from trying out GTMF -- that's what held me back for so long, yet I now realize I could've been having fun with TWO great games for the past few years. CMx2 is still my overall preference (for a dozen reasons I won't get into right now), but there's really quite a bit to like about this Graviteam game.

Edited October 14, 2019 by sttp

[RockinHarry]

Yes, they´re only comparable in parts. Initially it was just my curiosity comparing both games RT system, but to be honest I´ve no further interest to try (and compare) RT in CMX2. I´d rather wish WEGO implemented in GT series. I´m and will remain fine with CMX2 WEGO as well as its sandbox system as is map editor. GT provides different challenges and I´ve yet to see how much long time motivation I can preserve from it. ATM still at learning stuff in quick battle editor. Just figured by chance one can actually customize the QB forces some more in another screen. Deleting and adding sub units, as well as bits of custom subordinations. Also QB parameters offer some options making a battle play out very differently. I.e setting low condition forces yield exhausted and lessened morale troops that play and react decisively different. That to be prepared to actually enter the main part of the game, the operations. That´s going to be interesting, so operations... point for GT.

I´m still doing lots of micro managing, not from lacking capabilities of the battle AI but rather learning commands for larger formations (Coy +). I figured much depends from forces assembly and deployment as many commands relate to it directly. Otherwise there can be a big loss of time & C2 as when assigning formation commands from a faulty initial deployment. I.e placing a blob of units on the map then planned to move in column formation along a road is not a good idea. Units move in certain order and if initial deployment does not reflect this, forming up and getting to move in desired formation can become quite a mess. Bits of planning ahead and accounting for this then gives best results, particularly for the broader strokes. That as said in Operation Star. If it all works better in Mius I can´t tell.

[RockinHarry]

16 hours ago, markshot said:

 

* I spent about 15 years with Panther Games; the best AI and operational system on the market.  But you played it on a 2D map with variable time speed and counters.  One of the most often requested features was for a 3D representation of the action.  People wanted to see the carnage.  I think this is part of the reason that the game never broke out from its niche within a niche market. 

At Matrix Games times I was bits more involved with Command Ops BftB. Had an Operation Veritable (CW offensive into the Rhineland in february 1945) project pretty much progressed to higher state when I figured I couldn´t recreate the operation in historic ways. There was too much moving and shifting around of front line units that didn´t reflect the more static german defenses very well. So at last I got to abandon it figuring the game system is more suited for fluid and highly mobile operations. Otherwise I like that game  system and might turn back to it any future time.

[Bulletpoint]

Seems like in GTMF, Anti-tank-guns dominate much less than in CM. Maybe partly because of longer engagement ranges, but it also seems tanks spot the guns and return fire and more accurately in GT than in CM.

This observation only based on watching youtube videos - I don't own the Graviteam game

 

[Ts4EVER]

Yes, in my experience you need to really mass at guns together and open fire at the same time to make them worthwile.

[markshot]

In CM one 88 can be invincible at a distance.  In GTOS/GTMF, you will get your kill, but be prepared for the wrath of the Red Army.

[markshot]

Harry,

Your issue with BTFB is something we well knew in the Beta Team.

As the system had no scripting, you could place historical units in historical positions, but the AI would work out the best plan of defense and attack, and go for it.  Thus, it was hard to get a historical start in a static defense situation.  And so, most scenarios gave both side objectives with forces in motion.  You have hit upon a known weakness.

[RockinHarry]

6 hours ago, markshot said:

Harry,

Your issue with BTFB is something we well knew in the Beta Team.

As the system had no scripting, you could place historical units in historical positions, but the AI would work out the best plan of defense and attack, and go for it.  Thus, it was hard to get a historical start in a static defense situation.  And so, most scenarios gave both side objectives with forces in motion.  You have hit upon a known weakness.

Wouldn´t quite call it a weakness, I´d rather selected the wrong campaign from the time span in the offer and given ESTAB at that time (CO 1). I like fluid battles and campaigns, but would´ve prefered Barbarossa or Fall Gelb (french 1940 campaign) possibility in the offer. Think I´ve seen some have been tackled from game users in CO 2. Great system actually. Have base game for free and then purchase theater you´r e most interested in, also having ESTAB´s and map editor for own creations. Have it on my purchase list when I´ve upgraded to required more up to date computer system.

[markshot]

I both like and dislike the UI with floating windows and multi-monitor support; more info can be displayed, but it wasn't really hashed out.  I have a 30" TV 1080p mainly for games and and 21" LCD (1600x1200) mainly use for work and old 4:3 games.

BFTB has a very crisp interface.

I have not played for a long time, I just don't have 1/2 to a day planning a battle.

[landser]

On 10/14/2019 at 3:58 PM, Bulletpoint said:

Seems like in GTMF, Anti-tank-guns dominate much less than in CM. Maybe partly because of longer engagement ranges, but it also seems tanks spot the guns and return fire and more accurately in GT than in CM.

 

I think AT guns should be difficult to spot, especially out of a tank. But the odd thing for me in Combat Mission is the game seems to treat it as though it's the crew spotted, not the gun. As a result, if the crew becomes suppressed, the spot is lost. As though it's the top of the pointer's helmet that's spotted, not the gun, and if the crew simply lie down we can no longer see the gun.  I think once spotted, an AT gun should remain so unless it's moved, the spotting unit moves, or it's obscured by smoke. The crew could run away or dig a tunnel but the gun should still be seen. Not how it works in CM.

[RockinHarry]

23 hours ago, markshot said:

I both like and dislike the UI with floating windows and multi-monitor support; more info can be displayed, but it wasn't really hashed out.  I have a 30" TV 1080p mainly for games and and 21" LCD (1600x1200) mainly use for work and old 4:3 games.

BFTB has a very crisp interface.

I have not played for a long time, I just don't have 1/2 to a day planning a battle.

True. Just like in GTOS one got to get used to the UI with bits of patience. Started mixing up key command and cam movement habits in GTOS with CMX2 and vice versa.  At last my initial difficulties with GTOS UI turned to appreciation of the various possibilities. One can do much in the Tac screen overview (F10) and choose most comfortable selection and ordering methods either with key commands or menus. Patience always pays off. Counts for all games at last.

[markshot]

In a number of ways, GTOS allowed more control.  Like you can lock the position of deployed units.  You cannot imagine what a convenience that is.  I simply cannot comprehend why Andrey removed that.

You could also deploy elevated or depressed.  Now I can understand why that was removed.  In theory it sounds good, but in practice while checking with the LOS tool, it rarely ever achieved what you want.  As such it was more misleading than useful.

[Bulletpoint]

17 hours ago, landser said:

I think AT guns should be difficult to spot, especially out of a tank. But the odd thing for me in Combat Mission is the game seems to treat it as though it's the crew spotted, not the gun. As a result, if the crew becomes suppressed, the spot is lost. As though it's the top of the pointer's helmet that's spotted, not the gun, and if the crew simply lie down we can no longer see the gun.  I think once spotted, an AT gun should remain so unless it's moved, the spotting unit moves, or it's obscured by smoke. The crew could run away or dig a tunnel but the gun should still be seen. Not how it works in CM.

+1 for your observation, but could it be that it's the smoke from the exploding HE that obscures the gun and loses the spot?

Edited October 17, 2019 by Bulletpoint

[markshot]

It seems that CM tends to drop the spot on units when they go to ground.  Perhaps that is too easy unless behind a wall.  Also, if a mortar, HMG, ATG ... the former are going to take a minute to be ready to displace, and the latter ... well it ain't going anywhere.

Also, I remember that CMAK introduced dust which was very nice.  But the AI did not understand what a column of dust meant.  Does CMx2v4 now understand what  a column of dust implies or is the AI still dust blind?

Thanks.

---

We are talking about spotting and GTMF and CMx2.  In GTMF, you can hear enemy equipment which has yet to be spotted by virtue of moving the camera.  I think this is bad.  The volume and direction is pretty accurate.  In worst case situation, troops are at a FUP and you cannot see them, but you have registered arty upon the location (like a CM TRP, but in GTMF a minimal number of rounds are sent down range to complete the process).  So, you could slaughter an entire company not based on recon, but on sounds from invisible troops.

In general, sound handling is pretty good.  Arty flashes before the rumble reaches the observer.  Certain shells come down without that railroad train loud roar.  But I don't like this acoustic recon by the player.  For a game that prides itself on realism, this is a red flag.

[Bulletpoint]

2 hours ago, markshot said:

Also, I remember that CMAK introduced dust which was very nice.  But the AI did not understand what a column of dust meant.  Does CMx2v4 now understand what  a column of dust implies or is the AI still dust blind?

In CM2, there's no AI that sits and thinks about the overall battle in any way, so if it understands what dust implies is the least of our concerns

Edited October 17, 2019 by Bulletpoint

[landser]

5 hours ago, Bulletpoint said:

+1 for your observation, but could it be that it's the smoke from the exploding HE that obscures the gun and loses the spot?

I suppose it could, though I can't say I notice losing the spot until or unless the crew go to ground, dust or no dust. That could simply be due to not looking for it. Of course the two things are linked because if a round arrives at the position large enough to produce a dust cloud and close enough to obscure the gun, then it's probably also large and close enough to make the crew get their melons down. More careful scrutiny is required

[grungar]

                  If you want a game that simulates "bandwidth" just check out hps's tigers unleashed. for those that know about it it actually works now. to explain how play unfolds is rather daunting but my experience is the command and control from the commanders perspective in that title is very challenging from the get go. It also simulates friction in a way that makes me understand what is meant by the term. Its to bad the title is only in 2d with rather drab maps. If you want a game that simulates the commanders viewpoint it might be worth 50 dollars for some to check it out.It is also heavily documented for those who love manuels. cheers