Jump to content

Another contentious topic: CMx2 vs Mius?


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, grungar said:

                  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

has huge potential yes. Making maps with say... SPWAW quality or somewhat better though is doable by use of different, customizable terrain sets (Maddox set from POA2 i.e). If one prefers one can also create maps that look like satellite images or WW2 topographical maps. One thing I miss is a campain system though. Could well be that it´s added at later time maybe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

Well, I have continued with CMx2 training.  I am not a noob, but I think the missions are good for me.  I completed CMBN, CMFI, CMRT, and have CMFB to do.  Yes, I am playing them in order of release.  (Also, I have been playing Alea Jacta Est the classical wars of Rome.  This is not a sandbox game like TW & PD games.)

But I am here to talk about GTMF as I have gotten more time with it.  I playing Shilovo as the Germans in 42.  The op has I think 13 turns.  The terrain is wooded, open, and village ... flat and rolling.  The forces vary between all infantry, motorized, and armor.

The style of play is very different from CM which is both good and bad.  Did anyone ever play Panther Games?  I was a team member.  I you played that one, then you will know there were no turns.  But order delays and time made it very different than many operational games.  How so?  Well, things don't have a beginning and an end.  Yes, strictly speaking an order is given and it with be carried out until termination.  But you quickly learn that the wait for termination is often counter-productive.  Why?  Suppose you order an attack.  I see my attack has succeeded and broken through.  I could wait for the conclusion which involve exploiting beyond the objective, regrouping, and finally securing.  That will take 4 hours of simulated time.  Then, I may have another order like to take up a defensive position.  So, 6-8 hours could go by before the force gets to that defensive position.  If the enemy gets there during that time soon, he could deploy heavy weapons and dig-in.  So, you see my point.  You want to detect the changing state on the ground and react as soon as it is reasonable to do so.  This was the heart of PG's system.

Now, GTOS/GTMF are not exactly like that.  The order delays are not nearly as "painful" in PG full realism was called "painfully realistic".  The delays exist more to discourage micro-management than to simulate the famous OODA loop.  But it is still very much about detecting/sensing transitions; rather than being like a city builder where one step is completed before another ... and all is meticulously done in space and time.  You will have some critical units which you will want to micro-manage.  The best example I can think is an FO and TRPs.  We are talking controlling 3-6 men, but very important.  However, in general, you may not even command platoons (which can be commanded as squads), but at the start of a battle combine platoons into forces.  The force will then get missions like:  clear the woods, deploy in the tree line across from the town to keep enemy occupied, another larger force may be using smoke to make a frontal assault, etc...  The orders you give will take care of lines, spacing, close to contact, close to close combat, close to grenade range, bound, run, find cover, ...  Go mounted or dismounted in support of ...

So, I am defending this town as the Germans on hill over looking a river; in particular a bridge which is the only crossing point for armor.  I will have armor up in about 12 hours.  I have already taken the town and bridge in a prior battle.  I know the Red Army (intel) will be coming across the bridge and mainly hitting one side of the town.  This is suggested, but not guaranteed, in fact, I am very fearful of the woods on the other side since they get close enough to fix bayonets before they are spotted.

I place most troops in buildings mainly on the side overlooking the river.  I set up some TRPs at the bridge choke point.  I set up my very limited ATG resource on a center of the river island which the bridge crosses hoping to catch armor in a cross fire; turn them into a natural road block.  But my real armor plan is to retreat.  I don't have as much as a stick of chewing gum to try to get a T-34 to throw a track.

The battle begins and there is a very heavy preplanned barrage by Soviets of one end of the town.  There are many wounded and KIA.  Besides the heavy losses, this concerns me as it not directly across from the bridge.  I am wondering if I can trust my Intel.  The Red Army has been known to give their officers false plans until the last minute to foil interrogations.

But the intel turns out to be correct when they come.  My TRPs are spot on, but enemy comes well strung out preventing an easy massacre; they will rally after crossing.  My other main problem is that I have great TRPs, but only a few minutes are arty for a two hour battle.  I will draw blood, but by no means will this break their attack.

The Red Army takes the bridge in the first 30 minutes.  This does not bother me.  The town, Shilovo, is everything.  The bridge is one of those objectives that is easily traded ... there are no blowing bridges in this game.  From the river up the town is a steep slope with little natural cover.  However, there are enough shell holes and some former positions that fire and maneuver is quite feasible.

It was said, "How can enjoy the beauty of an RTS?".  Well, I spend most of 60 minutes watching the USSR work their way further and further up the slop and closer to the town.  So, this is no movie.  This is tense live drama.  If they manage to reach buildings and get a toe hold, the whole nature of the fight will change.  Breaking their grip on the town will require many more lives than gunning down Russians climbing the slope.

So, each little group of Russians is a drama.  A few drop to lay down fire, and couple of others race forward.  Yes, we are in a much better position.  But every now and then, a bullet finds one of my men, and I hear "Sheise, Ich bin getroffen."

It has been 60 minutes, the volume of Red troops is starting to wane, and they don't seem to be able to make any closer to the streets than 50M.  Occasionally, a single courageous Russian dashes the final distance, but so far, they have all been gun down before finding an empty building.

Having watched this drama, I am pretty sure this is the main (only) attack.  I now shift the rest of my troops to this flank as I see the Soviets have lost their momentum.  It will take far less now to break the attack.  There are no more green flares sending new platoons our way.  If anything, I am expecting orange smoke, and the attack to be recalled.  But the Soviet command treat their men as dogs; they may just die here.

It has now been 90 minutes, there is no new activity down by the bridge.  If there are reserves, they are not going to be thrown into this attack.  Yet, there are many Russians holding on tenaciously.  No doubt, they would rather face German bullets to Bolshevik bullets.  I order a general attack down the slope to a shell marked area of my TRP.  It is time to push the Russian off my position, and guarantee the bridge will be ready for armor when it arrives.

The first few Germans bursting out the town don't elicit a response, but as their numbers swell, the Soviets either lay down their weapons or turn tail and try to beat my men to the bridge.  The ones on the slope won't make it, but the ones at the rally point may fight another day.

This battle was full of graphic drama.  I think if you are playing this game right, there is plenty of time to appreciate the full glory of the graphics.  Of course, you will always miss something ... but it is the nature of things.  Also, with experience, you soon realize where to bring the camera.  Events tell you where and when an arty strike is starting or new enemy has been spotted or heavy fire is being taken.

---

I originally said this style is better and worse.  You can play in broad strokes.  The AI handles little details like smoke or calling in mortar strikes.  On the other hand, you know with the ability to control 5 men units, positions would fall easier and casualties would be lower.  What you lose in control, you gain back in the campaign game.  You feel more attached to your men in CM; because I ordered them across that street ... they died on my direct orders.  However, on the other hand, I feel more attached to the Town of Shilovo.  German blood is splattered on the buildings.  We have repelled 3 attacks already.  Nothing tells me probe, attack, assault, meeting engagement ... I have to decide will I risk Shilovo if I detach a platoon to go for the bridge.  Will Battalion say I was reckless or demonstrated initiative so that the tanks are not held up?  This operation is not just an exercise in moving shells, men, and armor.  It is a test of German martial skills.  Can German commanders read the battles?  Take ground when needed?  Hold when needed?  Preserve troops for tomorrows push as opposed to squander them and hide behind some notion of maintaining German honor.  For many, the war will be over in hours or minutes, but for our nation and army, we fight the long fight.

I hope this has helped you to get sense of GTOS/GTMF (NOTE:  GTOS is the precursor.  The later is the better game, but the former is well worth it if you are running older hardware.)

PS:  This is not an inducement to give up CM.  I have the battle of Trushinko waiting for me, but tonight is CM time.  I am enjoying the best games on the market for WWII tactical combat.  It is a wonderful time to be a gamer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

So I've spent the last weekend giving Graviteam a real chance for once. I've had MiusFront it in my game library for a long time already, but being the CM fanboy that I am, I never really made a serious effort. But now as I'm growing slightly disatisfied with CM's lack of progress/innovation, I decided to try GT out more seriously. 

The bad:

  • Graviteam's AI is no challenge. Lacking a multiplayer mode, this means that any fun I might have with the game will be short-lived. This is the single most important point of this review. After one weekend of playing, I'm already tired by AI suicide charges. 
  • Graviteam's UI is a nightmare beyond description, both in the tactical battles and even more so in the operational mode. I call "fanboy" on anyone who thinks differently on this point.
  • Nobody seems to understand how the various indirect fire methods really work. Even the expert tutorials just tell you which combinations of buttons you should have checked, without fully understanding what they do. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. Mabye it's bugged. 
  • The campaign aspect is certainly interesting, but it's more on the "game" than on the "simulation" side of things. They way battlemaps are cut out of the campaign map means that positions that could very well support each other are simply "cut off" (but to be fair, this is even more noteworthy with many CM maps...). Also, the whole reinforcement/battlegroup aspect is rather questionable. Battalions are represented by single companies (the other companies are in reserve, not present on the battlefield).

The good:

  • The visuals are more simulation-like: For example, tracer rounds are simulated - these really have a huge impact on the overall aesthetical impression of a WWII battle. Another thing that struck my eye is that tree models are more realistic than in CM (in CM, tree trunks are much too thick). From what I've seen so far, clear areas on most GT maps also feature a lot of small bumps that provide cover to prone infantry. The more realistic impression of GT is also related to the "tight" reaction of individual soldiers. While the overall animations of GT soldiers are a bit clunky at times, they tend to stand up and run faster than CM soldiers, who sometimes seem to react/move in slow-motion. 
  • GT gives the player less control over some aspects, which leads to command friction that is a bit lacking in CM. For example, GT has an interesting "command delay" system to prevent the player from micro-managing too much. As it has been discussed, friction is of particular importance when it comes to tank-infantry coordination. Here, properly scaled maps also help a lot - tanks are simply faster than infantry! But you will only start to understand the implications of this if you play on realistically sized maps. Graviteam's maps are realistically large. The same cannot be said for CM quickbattle maps.
  • Situational plausibility. One thing I particularly like in GT was that both the mix of troops you lead into battle as well as your overall goal for a battle somehow seemed more plausible than in most CM games. The second point is probably related to the campaign mode, which ties the operational and the tactical levels closer together. Due to their fine, time-consuming level of detail,  CM battles need to deliver a lot of action in a short time-span to be fun, even if the resulting high intensity of the action is very unplausible. GT is very different here. As they're real time, battles play out very fast. Long periods of "nothing" can be bridged very quickly by speeding up time. This means that GT can portray the intensity level of WWII engagements (with a few exceptions, obviously) much better. Casualties are lower overall, engagements develop slowlier, don't necessarily end in full escalation. Also, in the campaign battles of GT, you never know how many and what kind of troops the opponent still has in petto. You could find yourself in a very asymmetrical/unbalanced battle (it's okay because retrat makes sense and you don't lose too much precious game time if you do it...). In CM, by contrast, the balance lies within a single game/scenario, not on the campaign level. 
  • It features some details that are missing in CM: e.g. telephone units that lay wires; flares. :) Also, you can set the density of an infantry formation. I wished I could spread out my soldiers in CM too...

Offside the core functions, one also needs to point out that modding CM seems to be much easier and that CM features an awesome map/scenario editor. 

So overall, I would say that Graviteam has a more realistic/simulationist visual appeal, while CM's visuals are a bit more "table top like" (and very detailed at that!) which also has its own charm. In terms of gameplay, the overall combat situation (mix of troops, map size, goals of a battle, intensity of engagements) is more plausible in GT, while the actual mechanics are probably more convincing in CM (precise positioning, effects of cover and concealment, etc). Any advantages that Graviteam might have, however, are strongly mitigated by the lack of multiplayer support, and severely hampered by the atrocious and clunky UI. CM is the much more polished and user-friendly series.

So both games have their merits. I think I will stick to GT for a more "contemplative", laid-back singleplayer experience (let's just watch the action) and to CM for a more competitive, highly invested tactical multiplayer experience.

Edited by Kaunitz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I plan to have lots of screenshots later.  To answer some concerns:

(1)  Are you fighting/wargaming or just spectating?

(2)  What does one do when regarding a battle?

(3)  Can one enjoy the visuals or are you too busy clicking?

(4)  What level information can you get from the game?

NOTE:  The UI/instruction is lacking.  But then "real men" don't need a manual to play a wargame.  And this is true.  I couldn't figure out GTOS; so, I quit.  A friend here, Harry, has GTOS, he just watched and told me what was going on.  He is much more of a wargamer than me.  I would class myself as just average.  But still, I am having a good time.

I am in the midst of a major battle, and my first armor battle.  I have been pausing (removing UI) to get you some really impressive shots.  This is even though I have turned down the graphics so that I can maintain a high FPS.

Edited by markshot
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some things I learned and noticed about GT during my first campaign playthrough that are quite impressive, I have to say:

  • Persistent battlefields throughout the campaign: dead soldiers, craters, destroyed buildings, trenches, destroyed vehicles - everything is persistent. Campaigns are played on a map which are roughly at least 80km² big. Tactical battles take place on  3x3km sections of this map. If in your first battle a tank burned out at location X on the map, the wreck will still be there 5 turns later (the next day). 
  • Dynamic terraforming. That's right. Take a look at the attached video. At 09:37 you can see how the infantry gun slightly "condenses" the soft ground.
  • Sounds! The great thing about the sounds is that GT differentiates close and distant sounds. It's extremely immersive and something that is sadly missing in CM. 
  • For some reason, armored battles play out "softer" than in CM. In CM, tanks are taken out of the battle completely very quickly when they start to get hit. In GT, you typically end up with a lot of "damaged" and immobilized tanks. (Those need to be repaired in the campaign) Of course it also depends on the pairing (armor versus gun*range*angle).
  • GT has a pretty complex system to keep the player from micromanaging too much. Giving orders requires you to have command points and consumes command points. Units that have no communication links to their superiors or are in a bad shape in general need more command points to follow orders. Command points regenerate over time. (You can set the regeneration to fast if you want to "switch off" this system/restriction).
  • Info sharing (about enemy contacts) works similarly to CM. By voice, wire/telephone, radio, maybe even flares (haven't quite figured this out yet). GT even has infantry telephones on tanks (haven't seen those yet ingame, but it is mentioned in the manual that they allow info sharing between infantry and buttoned-up tanks).

Video of my second engagement in the campaign. Unfortunately, you have to play the game while you watch the action, so creating beautifull videos is not that easy. But I think you can get an overall impression of the relatively low battle intensity, realistically scaled maps, dynamic weather (note how it gets darker), and also the notorious "emptyness" of the modern battlefield. 

 

 

 

Edited by Kaunitz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well now, my presentation will obviously be less dynamic; just screen shots.

One of the most confusing about the GTOS/GTMF/TWT-43 are battle outcomes.  I just fought a battle which if you watched it; view AAR numbers; and looked at the results on the campaign map, they all seem to say victory.  But it is a TOTAL DEFEAT.  Note that I am winning the op 8 of 13 turns played 349:124 points.

I think GTMF battle is bit like the movement of stock prices.  Well, you much watch a stock and see that management announces a dividend inline with prior dividends and earning are also inline.  So, you would think the stock price will climb.  Good news, right?  Wrong.  The market has already factored that news into the current trading price.  Thus, management needs to announce a dividend or earning that beats expectations (and the "whisper number" what everyone expects) to get an uptick.

So, in terms of GTMF, I think if you have superior force, supply, and terrain, that you may produce good numbers, but not impress the game engine.  Whereas the underdog who wins big that is TOTAL VICTORY.  In any case, capturing and holding key objectives on the map turn after turn is main factor which wins campaigns.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again we fight around Shilovo.  However, the enemy will be trying to Trushinko which leads to Shilovo and that all important bridge.  We (Wehrmacht) will try to hold Trushinko and capture a key road cross road.  Shilovo although fighting may take place in it cannot change hands (it is in mine).  Why?  There are three battle scope levels you can set.  Unlimited, Medium, Limited ... Unlimited the entire grid is in play.  Medium some parts of the grid are locked in terms of ownership.  Thus, they are not worth fighting for, but they may be worth maneuvering in or offer key terrain for the battle.  Why?  This is done to avoid humongous battles as the largest ops challenge even today's fastest machines for a good FPS.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is the deployment.  Analogous to CM setup zones.  (Note:  Blue is the Red Army setup zone.)

Right flank:  I have some infantry in Shilovo that were dropped there.  They cannot be moved until later.  This simulated that these guys were on the move when the battle jumped off.  I will shift these guys as soon as the game starts to defend Trushinko (using buildings as cover) in the town.

Center:  The town of Trushinko.  Here you see to main defenses.  All are dug in (you get to this if you are not on the move).  On the right, we have infantry guns covering the wide open approach out of woods and built up areas.  In front of the guns, we have infantry to provide close combat support for the guns.  Around Trushinko itself, we have infantry dug in around the perimeter.

Left flank:  Armor and mechanized infantry which will swing around the woods and go after the crossroads.

Center (again):  The blue bars show my TRPs.  The idea is that if the assault numbers are that great, then fast accurate arty will stop them at close range, before the are able to take the trenches.

01RF.jpg

02CT.jpg

03LF.jpg

04TR.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Kaunitz said:

Do you know whether the "victory/defeat" differentiation means anything or is just an information on your "performance"? After all, as you say, what really matters is capturing squares.

I think it may be worth some points, but they are minor to holding/taking keypoints.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My initial orders.  These are analogous to give orders in CM during Turn #1 from the setup zone.  BUT THE KEY DIFFERENCE HERE IS THAT THERE ARE COMMAND PENALTIES, AND ORDERS LIKE FIRE MISSIONS ARE RELATIVELY FREE WHEN GIVEN LIKE THIS.  This only show movements.  There are other static roles which we discussed already.

In these first two, you see me pulling my repair crews and truck back as far away from danger as possible.

In the third, this infantry is order to hustle over to Trushinko and find cover in buildings, and prepare to defend.

In the fourth, this is the order for the armor/mech force to do the end run to the cross roads.  I try for a gentle curve as I want to avoid chaos an exposure of flanks.  (Agreed, there might have been a recon problem in front.)

05RF1.jpg

06RF2.jpg

07CT.jpg08LF.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The battle begins (2 hrs) which I think is optimum.

Troops sprint for Trushinko to set up defense.

09TD.jpg

A field gun position covering the approach to Trushinko.

10D1.jpg

Infantry deployed ahead of the guns to prevent close assault.

11D2.jpg

Trenches around the outskirts of Trushinko.

12D3.jpg

From the Red Army perspective.

13D4.jpg

Armor forming up.

14A1.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Kaunitz said:

Dynamic terraforming. That's right.

The CM engine can do this too, as we see each time a shell makes a crater. I don't know why they don't use this feature to make trenches. You could have the landscape looking normal until the trench is spotted, then it could dig down the trench instantly. Realistic trench, plus Fog of War problems solved.

Edited by Bulletpoint
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can view the action from the perspective of a prone soldier or a drone.  There is also a tactical 3D map that looks like what she saw for deployment.  Here is the eye in the sky.

We see Trushinko.  To top right is the woods the enemy infantry will attack from.  On the distant left, we see the armor advancing.

16OV1.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let me show the UI which you use for battles (as I have been taking it out of the shots).  There is wealth of information here.  More than I fully understand.

Right now, I have Blesch's Platoon which ran from Shilovo to Tushinko to defend.  As you can see, the squad are exhausted, but in place (green dots).  Left is unit state information like ammo amount and type, and modes like fire at will.  The top more or less controls various displays such as LOS.  The right is your arty fire control queue, and events.  Clicking on events will take you to them.

16UI.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CONTACT!

Red Army infantry launches itself out of the woods towards Trushinko.  Our field guns open up.  The enemy tries to cover their movements with smoke.  That's a lot open ground to cover against entrenched defenders.

I cannot help but to think that those T-34s we just neutralized were waiting to jump off to help their infantry cross that open ground to Trushinko.

23.jpg

24.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think laying down smoke will be half as effective as a T-34 escort.  The Red Army has a real problem.  Especially, as I now hold the Crossroads.

Thus, I turn my armored force to come down this slot and hit the Red infantry in the rear.  Can you imagine the terror when they realize that it is not T-34s coming up from behind, and that they at closest a click from any type of cover.

27.jpg

Link to comment
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
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
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...