|
so many bad reviews lol
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2017 23:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 06:07 |
|
|
jBrereton posted:Even by CMBB CM's movement was not terribly intuitive. Having both Quick and Fast in the newer games is bad and the command should better explain what it is. Haha remember when you had to pay $10 for a patch that would allow you to play multiplayer with me? Hahaha
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2017 23:33
|
|
|
Baloogan posted:holy poo poo that looks like my catnip Baloogan posted:so many bad reviews lol  but for Derek Smart's Universal Combat / Battlecruiser 3000AD.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2017 23:37
|
|
|
jBrereton posted:Even by CMBB CM's movement was not terribly intuitive. Having both Quick and Fast in the newer games is bad and the command should better explain what it is. The difference is that there aren't that many commands in CM, and the manual explains pretty clearly what those do, both for infantry and vehicles. In Graviteam you get this: glynnenstein posted:I'll try to be specific about some of my points of confusion straight out of the manual.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2017 23:43
|
|
|
Baloogan posted:so many bad reviews lol I've tried to play Pacific Storm Allies like a dozen times because the idea is amazing. Full simulation of the pacific war with real time air and ship battles, which in the case of the air battles you can jump in and fly a plane yourself. Holy poo poo is it crashy though, and when it doesn't crash it's barely held together by the thinnest of threads. There's an unofficial patch on the steam forums that apparently makes it crash less somewhat but it also adds a bunch of content which I dunno how well it all meshes.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2017 00:06
|
|
|
Kenzie posted:The difference is that there aren't that many commands in CM, and the manual explains pretty clearly what those do, both for infantry and vehicles. In Graviteam you get this: Because you get Orders in GM but direct commands in CM. Stop comparing them because they're not comparable
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2017 00:58
|
|
|
Phi230 posted:Because you get Orders in GM but direct commands in CM. Yes they are. They're both realistic real-time 3D tactical wargames. You can command individual tanks and infantry squads in each one. You can zoom right down to eye level and directly command individual infantry squads and AT guns in each game. Just saying "the controls are different" doesn't make them not comparable. In the hundreds of pages of this thread, people have complained over and over again about the confusing gameplay and UI in Graviteam, and have also compared it to CM over and over again as well. You're the only person I've ever seen who insists they're not even in the same genre.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2017 01:26
|
|
|
Kenzie posted:Yes they are. They're both realistic real-time 3D tactical wargames. You can command individual tanks and infantry squads in each one. You can zoom right down to eye level and directly command individual infantry squads and AT guns in each game. Just saying "the controls are different" doesn't make them not comparable. In the hundreds of pages of this thread, people have complained over and over again about the confusing gameplay and UI in Graviteam, and have also compared it to CM over and over again as well. You're the only person I've ever seen who insists they're not even in the same genre. They're fundamentally different because in GM you issue orders that outline behavior and your men's AI execute those orders as faithfully as possible. You do not control these men, you lead them as a simulation of a regimental commander. In CM your men are mindless robots and do exactly as you control them to do. You play with them like a miniature wargame ported to PC. The entire base function of the game is different. The entire scale and purpose is different. People in here are assuming the orders you give your troops in GT are the same as in CM. They are not and approaching them as such is why there is confusion in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2017 01:36
|
|
|
Phi230 posted:They're fundamentally different because in GM you issue orders that outline behavior and your men's AI execute those orders as faithfully as possible. This makes me really want to play Command Ops, but the resolution is hosed and there isn't anything else to scratch that itch.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2017 01:41
|
|
|
Chump Farts posted:This makes me really want to play Command Ops, but the resolution is hosed and there isn't anything else to scratch that itch. CO2 reminds me of what so many games could be. I really like GT where my dudes actually try to behave in a realistic fashion. It always bugs me that the units in CM behave like I'm some sort of omniscient god and they blindly follow my lead. At least until they get pinned and then suddenly behave like real soldiers. I want to control the battle, not micromanage every single scout squad, tank, logistics guy, ammo carrier, and cook. CO2 has the potential, but the execution just feels off.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2017 01:49
|
|
|
pacific storm allies is such a bad good game
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2017 01:50
|
|
|
Baloogan posted:pacific storm allies is such a bad good game LP it
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2017 02:09
|
|
|
Phi230 posted:They're fundamentally different because in GM you issue orders that outline behavior and your men's AI execute those orders as faithfully as possible. What you're saying here is that the games aren't direct clones of each other. Graviteam has managed to differentiate itself in several ways, like the operational layer, but they are still very much in the same genre, market themselves in the same way (as a 3D tactical battalion level combat simulation), and Graviteam is probably the only real competitor to CM there is. People are obviously going to compare them and have ever since they came out. And the types of orders you give have nothing to do with how difficult the UI is to understand. People were talking about the graphical symbols being confusing and the lack of good information about it. It's about being user-friendly and intuitive.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2017 02:28
|
|
|
Kenzie posted:What you're saying here is that the games aren't direct clones of each other. Graviteam has managed to differentiate itself in several ways, like the operational layer, but they are still very much in the same genre, market themselves in the same way (as a 3D tactical battalion level combat simulation), and Graviteam is probably the only real competitor to CM there is. People are obviously going to compare them and have ever since they came out. And the types of orders you give have nothing to do with how difficult the UI is to understand. People were talking about the graphical symbols being confusing and the lack of good information about it. It's about being user-friendly and intuitive. The very mechanic base of the orders you give are different let alone the different orders The scope and scale are different. The level of simulation is different. The core gameplay is different. Phi230 fucked around with this message at 04:14 on Jun 20, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2017 04:09
|
|
|
the UI is still terrible though
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2017 04:25
|
|
|
GT tactics is a bad game made by good people. CM is a better game made by assholes. I play neither. and own both.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2017 04:48
|
|
|
Phi230 posted:The very mechanic base of the orders you give are different let alone the different orders You are talking absolute nonsense, Graviteam Tactics maps are literally made up of cell squares just like Combat Mission is and you issue commands to individual squads in the same way. The scale is identical, both deal in platoon-to-company level combat, GT just has an operational layer on top to give you a thin sense of control over where fights happen.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2017 08:19
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:You are talking absolute nonsense, Graviteam Tactics maps are literally made up of cell squares just like Combat Mission is and you issue commands to individual squads in the same way. The maps are not made of cell squares that is a visual aid for cover
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2017 15:03
|
|
|
All of you really don't seen too familiar with GT so idk why yall are talking authoritatively about it when you don't even know how its different from CM
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2017 15:04
|
|
|
Instead of repeatedly telling us "ur doin it rong" maybe you could effortpost a guide on how to play?
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2017 15:09
|
|
|
The games are virtually identical except CM runs like rear end but has a coherent control scheme, whereas Graviteam runs smoothly but tries to pretend that you aren't a Godlike being directing orders to every single squad despite the fact that you obviously are so has about 500 different ways of saying 'move to this square'. Aside from deciding what square your units should stand in the next most important thing you do is set their fire arcs. Guess whether that last sentence was about CM or GT.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2017 15:09
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:The games are virtually identical except CM runs like rear end but has a coherent control scheme, whereas Graviteam runs smoothly but tries to pretend that you aren't a Godlike being directing orders to every single squad despite the fact that you obviously are so has about 500 different ways of saying 'move to this square'. Yeah you don't know what the hell you're talking about
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2017 15:28
|
|
|
Phi230 posted:Yeah you don't know what the hell you're talking about I'm with Phi on this one, Graviteam is a simple left click, group select, right click game with the ability to specify on top of that. If you're not doing it that way as your starting point, you're doing it wrong. CM is "you must specifically order every single unit every time", which is loving insufferable with larger scale missions. Macro+Micro vs simply Micro.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2017 15:31
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:Instead of repeatedly telling us "ur doin it rong" maybe you could effortpost a guide on how to play? The basic way to learn the game is just understanding what the orders do and how their behavior is modified. Then you have stuff like delay in orders as runners are simulated, communication whether it be flare/voice/telephone wire/or rarely radio, then managing your command capacity. This game is about ordering men around. Your men have their own AI, and will execute orders on their own. This is not a game about micromanagement. An attack order is not to attack specific men, its to move to the objective in a behavior in a manner of attacking, that means staying low, moving slow, bounding when possible, dropping smoke, and engaging hostiles. You don't order an attack order right on top of enemy units. It also boggles my mind how there is confusion in the simplest part: formation. You all really get confused about how many lines in a formation? The UI is simple. 1 line = 1 line. 2 lines = 2 lines. 3 lines = 3 lines. Then there's column, line, and free formation. If you don't know the difference between a column and a line I don't think you're in the right place. 1 line + column = singlefile walking 2 lines + column = classic 2 rank column 3 liens + column = 3 rank column same for lines. Don't get hung up on the squares because those literally only exist as a visual aid for cover and elevation/depression. The most important tool in GT is line of sight tool.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2017 15:34
|
|
|
Disregard
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2017 16:29
|
|
|
Phi230 posted:Yeah you don't know what the hell you're talking about I always knew Phi230 was a dev from Graviteam trying to infiltrate our forums..
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2017 16:47
|
|
|
Phi230 posted:
That's 100% inaccurate. You can issue your men orders and they can choose to ignore them. In the modern variants of CM particularly. You can order a tank forward, and as soon as it detects lasers it will pop smoke, ignore your loving order and back itself into cover. Like in GT, unless you give them orders to the contrary, your troops and vehicles will shoot at whatever the gently caress they want to. In addition they will run the gently caress away if they are just uncomfortable (depending on the relative experience of the unit) with where you've positioned them. Literally the only thing that is different is in GT there is way the gently caress more micro managing of things like movement than CM, which seems to totally go against your characterization of both games--one just issuing orders and the other you have to totally control your mindless robots. Literally the only thing you've got on your side of the argument is that GT has an "orders points" system limiting your ability to order stuff around whereas CM does not.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2017 17:02
|
|
|
Phi230 posted:The basic way to learn the game is just understanding what the orders do and how their behavior is modified. Then you have stuff like delay in orders as runners are simulated, communication whether it be flare/voice/telephone wire/or rarely radio, then managing your command capacity. Well, you're pretty willfully mis-reading my complaints to belittle them, which I don't think is especially productive. It's not an especially small group of people with complaints about the UI, and this is in a field of games renowned for ancient and challenging UIs. This is not a specious point that you can refute by saying I'm dumb. I don't really care about the comparison to CM one way or another. They are more similar games than you're giving credit, but that's pretty irrelevant to why GT is hard to get into. The game doesn't do anything to accommodate learning it's totally unique (and bad) UI and the manual is a waste of time. The whole core of my complaint is precisely that it is hard to achieve an "understanding what the orders do and how their behavior is modified". If you could be constructive on that topic it would help, otherwise this is just a lot of wasted posts. I suspect it's hard to accomplish that otherwise there would be a helpful effortpost already.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2017 17:32
|
|
|
Baloogan posted:okay i bought pacific storm allies be sure to get the 1.8 patch. there has been a lot of work put in by the community and it makes the game better right out of the gate.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2017 17:41
|
|
|
ZombieLenin posted:That's 100% inaccurate. You can issue your men orders and they can choose to ignore them. In the modern variants of CM particularly. There is no micromanagement in GT. Have you ever played GT?
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2017 17:49
|
|
|
glynnenstein posted:Well, you're pretty willfully mis-reading my complaints to belittle them, which I don't think is especially productive. It's not an especially small group of people with complaints about the UI, and this is in a field of games renowned for ancient and challenging UIs. This is not a specious point that you can refute by saying I'm dumb. ASSAULT = ASSAULT COVERT MOVE = COVERT MOVE MOVE QUICKLY = MOVE QUICKLY MOVE BY ROAD = MOVE BY ROAD ATTACK = ATTACK RECON = RECON All of the orders are self explanatory. Combat Mission is a simmultaneous turnbased skirmish wargame, with heavy micromanagement. GT is nothing like the sort. Like I said, you're trying to play it CM. It is not CM, and you are all getting mad and frustrated and confused because the game is very different from CM at every level. Play CM if you want to play CM. Graviteam requires a completely different approach. Phi230 fucked around with this message at 17:55 on Jun 20, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2017 17:50
|
|
|
In both games you can choose to micromanage units a lot more than you have to. This style of play will affect combat performance. Stop getting mad at eachother in the grog games thread, both are grog games, they are similar, pretending they aren't is a dumb hill to die on. Jobbo_Fett fucked around with this message at 18:23 on Jun 20, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2017 17:54
|
|
|
ZombieLenin posted:
This is because you intentionally have less control over your men than in CM. In GT it is intentionally not an ability to tell your men exactly what to do or who to shoot at. The scale is larger than that, you aren't supposed to micromange in that way because in GT you are a commander not a player controlling every single thought, movement, and action of your dudes.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2017 17:59
|
|
|
Remember in CM when you told a truck to drive somewhere and a pebble was in the way so it would make like 14 waypoints and slowly creep around it over the course of 20 minutes.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2017 18:05
|
|
|
ZombieLenin posted:That's 100% inaccurate. You can issue your men orders and they can choose to ignore them. In the modern variants of CM particularly. There is very little micro managing in GT. In fact its quite difficult to do even if you wanted to. Especially if you are attacking, its difficult to transmit new orders to units at all if your unit cohesion isn't good. The "orders points" system you are talking about is more involved than a mere "orders points" system, the points are only a small part of it. It traces lines of communication from leadership to the individual soldiers, and models voice, wired, wireless comms, and hand, flare, and smoke signalling in order to model sharing information and transmitting orders. It even takes into account people not being able to hear things due to the volume of battle around them. In GT you are basically coming up with a plan during deployment and initial orders phase that you want to deviate from as little as possible due to the c&c problems I mentioned. I don't see how you could play the game if youre relying on micro management. I think there is more micro management in CM. For example, I remember a battle for normandy campaign that had a mission where you were microing scout teams to find enemy locations without being detected. That type of thing isn't really possibly with GT (for better or for worse depending on your perspective) Also I've had lots of success microing bazooka teams to eliminate panzers in pbem games where I was US airborne infantry defending against germany armored counter attacks. Stuff that isn't exactly realistic in terms of c&c and the information available to the unit. I enjoy that type of gameplay too, and I'm not saying its better or worse, but I do think its objectively more micro-intensive.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2017 18:05
|
|
|
Decrepus posted:Remember in CM when you told a truck to drive somewhere and a pebble was in the way so it would make like 14 waypoints and slowly creep around it over the course of 20 minutes. In CM there's no way for any unit to follow a road unless you make a billion waypoints, all timed perfectly correctly, along the road. Then you're hosed if the 9-second-pulse spotting reveals a unit that your unit cannot react to because of the way spotting works + wrong waypoint, then it dies. In GT you group select with a click and drag, give a move-by-road order and bammo all of those units move together along a road at the same pace. And if there are any enemies they'll either engage while moving or if its bad enough they'll stop on their own and fight until the threat is lessened enough to continue. All on their own.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2017 18:08
|
|
|
I assure you that my problems are not caused by trying to play GT like CM. I get the different approach, really.Phi230 posted:In GT you group select with a click and drag, give a move-by-road order, and if anything is spotted with real time spotting along the way, they'll shoot back and defend themselves. If you give the "cancel order" modifier along with a backup order with shift clicking when adding an order, when they react to a contact they'll cancel the original move order and resort to the second order instead. Yeah, that's my problem. I'd love to have this sort of thing explained.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2017 18:12
|
|
|
"Your game isn't as groggy as my game, I only have to click 5 buttons, some of those including modifier keys, to issue basic orders!" "Yeah, well your game isn't as groggy as MY game because my developers are 20 years behind the curve and haven't figured out basic pricing and quality of life changes!" Can't wait to see people argue about how each and every tank should be different based on dice rolls to determine which manufacturing plant, what month, and what potential optional upgrades/modifications were fitted to each individual unit. Jobbo_Fett fucked around with this message at 18:29 on Jun 20, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2017 18:27
|
|
|
So I was going to try and get into a grog WWII game, and I'm just going to make my own, it sounds easier.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2017 18:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 06:07 |
|
|
Phi230 posted:In CM there's no way for any unit to follow a road unless you make a billion waypoints, all timed perfectly correctly, along the road. The last time I played CM I queued up a bunch of waypoints to go around rough terrain but I forgot that each waypoint added delay time to the order. My trucks didn't leave the deployment zone for 3 minutes and I conceded.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2017 18:29
|
|