CM vs Tank Warfare - tanks

[Endyamon]

Hi all

I recently started to play "Tank warfare tunisia 1943" and I've found it really interesting from the point of view of tank damages. My simple question is if any CM game feature such detailed tank damage? In tank warfare, you can inspect the tanks after the battle is over, and you can see which ammo hitted the tank, which penetrated and what damage it caused. I post a picture to show you what I mean:

Is CM also so realistic? Does CM takes count of all these different parameters/damages for tanks?(I don't mind to see the graphical representation or not) It's also cool to see crews trying to fix tanks if they are not under fire.
I'm just curious, I own many CM titles, and I like them all, but this game seems really cool about tanks

Sorry for my english ^^'

[chuckdyke]

6 minutes ago, Endyamon said:

cool to see crews trying to fix tanks if they are not under fire.

I don't think this is realistic. Yes during the game, the game reports the location of the damage. You can also see in the command panel where your vehicle is damaged.  

[Redwolf]

An easy to add feature that I think might be in the professional version of CM is a text file log of each shot and the result.

[womble]

CM does graphically display the results of hits. Penetrations are black circles (or elipses, or whatever, depending on angles), and ricochets that didn't breach the armour are "grey smears". There's no data display 'after the fact' to tell you which hit came from what gun; you just have to guess based on size of decal.

AIUI, the internal damage modelling is pretty detailed, as far as effect is concerned, but not shown graphically.

[Endyamon]

3 hours ago, womble said:

CM does graphically display the results of hits. Penetrations are black circles (or elipses, or whatever, depending on angles), and ricochets that didn't breach the armour are "grey smears". There's no data display 'after the fact' to tell you which hit came from what gun; you just have to guess based on size of decal.

AIUI, the internal damage modelling is pretty detailed, as far as effect is concerned, but not shown graphically.

This is what I meant. I was interested in knowing if both internal and external damages are so detailed (or even better), I don't mind if they are graphically shown or not (though it would be cool). Sorry, but I couldn't not explain myself well, my english is not so good ^^'
To reply to Chuckdyke, I was meaning the crews try to fix the tracks of the tank. It's funny to see them using big hammers to repair the tracks. Of course I don't know if it's totally realistic, but it's funny nonetheless

Edited November 27, 2021 by Endyamon

[Erwin]

This looks like a very good game.  Am hoping is plays well vs AI or is this muliplayer only?

http://graviteam.com/games/TWT43.html

[womble]

35 minutes ago, Endyamon said:

This is what I meant. I was interested in knowing if both internal and external damages are so detailed (or even better), I don't mind if they are graphically shown or not (though it would be cool).

The models used for determining penetration in CM are very detailed and based on the best numbers for armour thickness, quality and slope, along with the details of the various impactors, that the BFC crew can find out. The WW2 titles have, perhaps, more "certain" data (some of the modern numbers might still be subject to classification and therefore be more speculative). The model takes into account range (and therefore velocity loss) and the 3D angle of impact, including the element imparted by the "bullet drop" of the incoming. If any aspect of the game could be said to be "100% realistic", it's probably the penetration model. At least as far as available data permits.

[MOS:96B2P]

There is also a mod that further helps to determine what caused a hit.  Dark & light blue = high caliber,  Dark & light red = HEAT.  Light colors are for ricochets. 

 

 

[StieliAlpha]

On 11/27/2021 at 2:26 PM, chuckdyke said:

I don't think this is realistic. Yes during the game, the game reports the location of the damage. You can also see in the command panel where your vehicle is damaged.  

Yep, it’s the known habit of confusing detail with realism.

@Endyamon What makes you think all the detailed info you get is “realistic” or better “accurate”? Plus, what do you need it for?

In RL, I am an engineer and learned “too much info is not always good”. 

Edited December 8, 2021 by StieliAlpha

[chuckdyke]

On 11/28/2021 at 2:08 AM, Endyamon said:

I was meaning the crews try to fix the tracks of the tank.

I 've seen Caterpillar mechanics at work. It takes a few hours to do some basic maintenance in a fully equipped workshop. It is a little like buddy aid, TBH I think need a little more attention. I would welcome a medic (which is a part of a company)and upon evacuation it would restore the morale of the unit. 

[Ultradave]

Throw a track in the time span of a CM scenario and the best bet for the crew is to grab their pistols and SMGs and become scouts.

Dave

[Thewood1]

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.

[hm_stanley]

On 12/22/2021 at 5:09 AM, Thewood1 said:

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 found it impossible to play. I actually purchased one of their first releases of that simulator.  It only ran on Windows and it was so complex (and I love detail) that I thought my brain was going to explode.  I've watched others play the game, but I just can't get into it.  I just like the "unknown" aspect of wego, you do your stuff, and click and pray, just feels more authenticate somehow (not in Iron mode).

[chuckdyke]

No Soft Factors in Graviteam  I bought it and uninstalled it. I bought it because it looked good at the time. Happy you enjoy it I didn't.

[Thewood1]

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.

 

 

[chuckdyke]

They are not the soft factors we play in Combat Mission. I doubt or you even play Combat Mission. Besides I don't promote Combat Mission on the Graviteam website and suggest it is not cool to promote Graviteam here. Graviteam is not the topic here. I think for example that Call of Duty has better graphics but that is not the reason I don't play it. 

[Thewood1]

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.

[chuckdyke]

The Pyramid will affect the Soft Factors during a crises. TBH I had Kharkov 1943 and I didn't like it. It was along time ago and hope they have improved.  If you do good luck the emphasis is on tanks, thanks for pointing it out. I like games where the emphasis is on infantry. My screenshot is the reason I play CM ignore the pyramid and you soon lose that unit. The green on the pyramid doesn't mean he is ok. He is a plus 2, plus 1 and will fight to the death for a scout this is dangerous. I need him to pass on contacts. Action for his HQ and Company HQ establish their C2. I was irked before when somebody said it is cool that they try to repair a lost track. More unrealistic details like a crewman coming with a spanner doesn't make a better game. Happy gaming I stick with CM. I like required details which enable me to come up with a realistic tactical solution for a scenario not pedantic stuff like people with spanners who have no hope to complete a 5 hour repair job. For in case you have not noticed I find the topic not cool as it seems to promote and advertise a different game. Something I would never do is to promote CM on a Graviteams website. 

Edited January 14, 2022 by chuckdyke

[Thewood1]

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.

[Thewood1]

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

[chuckdyke]

3 hours ago, Thewood1 said:

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

I don't promote it! If I liked it I would have kept it. Here is the opinion of a very good Combat Mission player. I agree with him it is only RTS in other words a serious shortcoming, you can't put yourself in every soldiers boots. His opinion I agree with Yep, the infantry models and movement to contact are functional but once in combat they become pretty sketchy. However, the vehicles and physics are very good. Conclusion if you like the WeGO system and detailed infantry management don't buy this game. Otherwise have a look and make up your own mind. I am not going to be told not to comment or talk about anything. 

 

Edited January 14, 2022 by chuckdyke

[chuckdyke]

3 hours ago, Thewood1 said:

In Graviteam games, its a couple simple orders.  But there are people who like micormanaging a game and have the time to do it.

I see never read peoples wish list for the next engine. Like Advancing, No security Highest HQ gives the order to advance a little  like ordering an artillery mission set the area. Medium security on company level. High security platoon level. split squads etc. No security on fast would be automatic road travel as quickly as possible. I agree it can be a pain but there are some methods around it. My major gripe is pathfinding but on this website I stick to suggestions to make it better.

[Thewood1]

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.

[Pelican Pal]

The newest Graviteam games do have soft factors but the thing about the Graviteam games is that they do not give the player a ton of feedback. CM is sort of like a board wargame in that department where you will know that 1st squad is pinned down because the game deliberately tells you. While in Graviteam you sort of get a feel that an attack is going well.

@chuckdyke Your tank crew in graviteam will attempt to do repairs when they are out of combat. Maps in Graviteam are much larger and battles last far longer so its far more likely that they will be out of combat. Also just because you see the crew attempting to repair doesn't mean that they will actually complete the repair within the combat time frame.

Recently I had a vehicle throw a track at the beginning of a battle and it was back in action literally hours later. But most of the time you are going to end the battle with the crew still repairing the vehicle rather than the vehicle being combat ready.

[Thewood1]

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.