Honestly Comparing Battlefront's Combat Mission 2.0 with Graviteam's Tactics

[Redirected]

Haven't played anything but the AP or APK demo and that was short lived and long ago.  Are there new demos?

[Dolan50]

The new demo is the same 5 turn Russian campaign that is in the current version of the core game game.

http://www.graviteam.ua/help/download-patches.html
•NEW Demo (October, 30 2012)

For anyone interested in the demo make sure you get the English version as there is a Russian version here also.

[MengJiao]

Haven't played anything but the AP or APK demo and that was short lived and long ago.  Are there new demos?

  I would just get some of the games and play them.  I've played a few and they are quite interesting.  I do prefer CMxx, but the Graviteam stuff is very worthwhile.  I would say this is really a matter of taste and there are not many rational reasons for preferring CMxx to Graviteam.

[Redirected]

Thanks, I will check it out this weekend. 

[Tuna]

Multiplayer  8)

[MengJiao]

Multiplayer  8)

  Yes and numbers of troops that can be in a particular action.

[bayonetbrant]

this is really a matter of taste and there are not many rational reasons for preferring CMxx to Graviteam.

We're talking about Combat Mission - rationality went out the window as soon as the discussion opened.

So far this thread has stayed fairly clean and calm, so let's please keep it that way :)

[Rayfer]

this is really a matter of taste and there are not many rational reasons for preferring CMxx to Graviteam.

We're talking about Combat Mission - rationality went out the window as soon as the discussion opened.

So far this thread has stayed fairly clean and calm, so let's please keep it that way :)

+1   Both of these games have been on my radar for awhile, it is refreshing and helpful to see this sort of exchange rather than the emotional personal attacks that have ruined other threads.

[RyanE]

A thread over at BFC reminded me of one nice little feature in AP.  Wire communications.  It is modeled...down to the level of having to send out signalmen to repair broken comms.  Not that interesting except when it is.  It makes you take some real world things into consdieration.

[Con]

I played the hell out of AP Kharkov and a lot of Operation Star when they came out.  This discussion is like trying to decide if you like Tequila or Whisky

They both get you hammered if you drink to much and we are lucky to live in a world where we can decide which Eastern Front game we want to play (and which booze to get lit up on).

For me the edge goes to CM because of the multiplayer and mods/engaged community.  I like all the tools and visuals of AP and while I feel it plays accurately in my opinion the very reality of the game is what makes it less engaging for me.  Those huge maps, trying to manage many units moving around in many different places while action can be unfolding in one corner and your troops routing in another.  Its always just a bit exhausting for me to play AP.  I actually prefer the simpler scope of CM and challenge of playing another human.

Con

[Redwolf]

So how does Tactics really differ from the Kharkov thing?

[Redirected]

A thread over at BFC reminded me of one nice little feature in AP.  Wire communications.  It is modeled...down to the level of having to send out signalmen to repair broken comms.  Not that interesting except when it is.  It makes you take some real world things into consdieration.

A pet peeve of mine also.  Not sure if military guys bother with these anymore but we did in the 80s.  LP and OP duty.

From reading WWII accounts, it seemed commo guys worked non-stop across europe and other battlefields keeping the wire unbroken.  Also, command posts should be modeled.  Are they in AP?

[RyanE]

I think they are modeled from the standpoint that that is where a commander is and a radio/phone.  It's usually in a trench/bunker on defense.

[MengJiao]

this is really a matter of taste and there are not many rational reasons for preferring CMxx to Graviteam.

We're talking about Combat Mission - rationality went out the window as soon as the discussion opened.

So far this thread has stayed fairly clean and calm, so let's please keep it that way :)

+1   Both of these games have been on my radar for awhile, it is refreshing and helpful to see this sort of exchange rather than the emotional personal attacks that have ruined other threads.

  I wasn't saying that irrational reasons are bad reasons or that there are no rational reasons -- BUT I think the Graviteam stuff is interesting and worth some time.  I do prefer CM, but I would be the first to admit (indeed let me do it right now) that there are a lot of very good games that are not my cup of tea (for example ASL or Skyrim or Crusader Kings II or CMANO) and a lot of not-quite-so-obviously-good games that I have liked a lot (ATS for example or PQ-17 or certain Bohemia Interactive games about Mars or Island Carrier things).  Graviteam kind of reminds me of my feelings about Crusader Kings II: there was a lot there, and it was pretty interesting, but in the end, I just never quite got caught up in it.

[Bletchley_Geek]

A thread over at BFC reminded me of one nice little feature in AP.  Wire communications.  It is modeled...down to the level of having to send out signalmen to repair broken comms.  Not that interesting except when it is.  It makes you take some real world things into consdieration.

A pet peeve of mine also.  Not sure if military guys bother with these anymore but we did in the 80s.  LP and OP duty.

From reading WWII accounts, it seemed commo guys worked non-stop across europe and other battlefields keeping the wire unbroken.  Also, command posts should be modeled.  Are they in AP?

I am seeing those messages all the time, but I have a hard time making sense out of it. First, what it does enable the "wire communications link" to have been established? The obvious is that it would allow the unit in comms to spot for artillery, but I don't see the 'FO' button activating when the link has been established. Second, on what basis are those links established? I am seeing squads and platoons establishing a wire link while in the attack and under fire. That's a bit at odds with what one would expect to be possible when establishing a field phone network. Third, when in the defense, those links take as little as five minutes to be established between units separated by distances over 500 meters.

Indeed, there are "wire links" in the game, but I wonder whether we're meeting here another further issue with translating a term from Russian into some seriously broken English.