Graviteam
March 29, 2024, 12:41:02 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register  
Pages: [1]
  Print  
Author Topic: Some questions on GT:OS  (Read 8022 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
33lima
Oberst
******
Posts: 273



« on: July 19, 2014, 10:09:12 AM »

Haven't so far found answers to these elsewhere, so hear goes:

1. Is it possible to play by giving orders to complete platoons, or must you control individual tanks, squads or heavy weapons? If yuo can give orders to platoons, are your platoons pre-organised for you, or do you have to group them (as in Theatre of War)?

3. Is it possible to organise a typical offensive operation - advance to contact, assault, and re-organisation - by a company-sized force, or a platoon sized force, in formation?

Say, I am a tank company commander, with three platoons with no attached infantry. I want to form up with a tank platoon leading on the left, another tank platoon leading on the right, company HQ (me) behind them in the middle, and behind company HQ, the third tank platoon - in other words, I want to advance 'two up' ('inverted wedge'). Or the same, if it's a '3 rifle platoon+coy HQ' infantry company. (or if the scale is smaller, ditto but with tanks or infantry squads in formation).

Can you organise it so the platoons don't just start in this formation, but maintain it ('taking their dressing', say, from the front left-hand platoon) and work through a typical attack and re-organisation?

For example, let's say I want my tank company to cross the Start Line in 'two up' formation and advance to the objective in this formation. I want the left tank platoon to assault the left-hand part of my objective and the right platoon, to assault the right-hand area. While they are doing this, I want company HQ (representing me) to stay just behind with the third, 'depth' tank platoon staying behind me/Coy HQ, ready for me to order in, as my reserve, as and where needed.

And unless I intervene, I want my two lead platoons to fight thru their parts of the objective, and 'go firm' on the other side, facing out, ready to repel the expected counterattack, with Coy HQ and the third platoon behind, in depth. The usual sort of drill.

As all this will be Standard Operating Procedure, with necessary details added when orders were given before the attack, I don't want to have to micro-manage my platoons - they get on with it, make the assault and re-organise as per SOP, unless stopped by enemy action they cannot overcome, or I interrupt the attack, with changed orders.

3. Is there some form of realistic radio traffic? If one of my platoons hits contact, will they report it on the radio - where it is and what it is, at least? Will they call in sighting reports? Or tell me on the radio, if they hit an obstacle or for any reason, become unable to follow the orders they have been given?

You can see where I'm coming from - what I want in a tank/infantry RTS (actually = real time TACTICS, not strategy) game is for it to simulate not wargaming with miniatures, but war. No criticism intended, for anyone who is happy with the 'wargame with miniatures' approach.
« Last Edit: July 19, 2014, 10:12:28 AM by 33lima » Logged

For it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Chuck him out, the brute!"
But it's "Saviour of his country!" when the guns begin to shoot!
'Tommy', Rudyard Kipling, 1892
andrey12345
Graviteam
Generalfeldmarschall
******
Posts: 6642


Jerk developer


« Reply #1 on: July 19, 2014, 10:33:34 AM »

1. Is it possible to play by giving orders to complete platoons,

Yes, and the game is pushing strongly to it, making it difficult to micromanagement.

or must you control individual tanks, squads or heavy weapons?
You can control individual squads, but not must.


If yuo can give orders to platoons, are your platoons pre-organised for you,
Yes platoons pre-organised as in real life, but you can change this.

or do you have to group them (as in Theatre of War)?
As I recall TOW not have platoons and even squads functionality have appeared only in the latest versions of game.


3. Is it possible to organise a typical offensive operation - advance to contact, assault, and re-organisation - by a company-sized force, or a platoon sized force, in formation?
What do you mean by the re-organization? In tactical battle or in operation?
Formations not have any limits, you can make it from any quantity of units.
You can send in formation a battalion or even regiment if you have it on tactical battle.

Say, I am a tank company commander, with three platoons with no attached infantry. I want to form up with a tank platoon leading on the left, another tank platoon leading on the right, company HQ (me) behind them in the middle, and behind company HQ, the third tank platoon - in other words, I want to advance 'two up' ('inverted wedge'). Or the same, if it's a '3 rifle platoon+coy HQ' infantry company. (or if the scale is smaller, ditto but with tanks or infantry squads in formation).
In the game it looks a little different - the formation of units = group of units united by a shared work process (path) and "target".
Game not support strange constructions like wedge or V on unit basis. But you can do this on squad/platoon/coy basis due to right order sequences with time delays.

Can you organise it so the platoons don't just start in this formation, but maintain it ('taking their dressing', say, from the front left-hand platoon) and work through a typical attack and re-organisation?
This will not happen automatically. Game does not support the inviolability of platoon's "borders" or mutual bind one to another.

For example, let's say I want my tank company to cross the Start Line in 'two up' formation and advance to the objective in this formation. I want the left tank platoon to assault the left-hand part of my objective and the right platoon, to assault the right-hand area. While they are doing this, I want company HQ (representing me) to stay just behind with the third, 'depth' tank platoon staying behind me/Coy HQ, ready for me to order in, as my reserve, as and where needed.
You can send it manually like any other game or use time management mechanism for group tasks. No scripts programming or somthing like this in this game.

3. Is there some form of realistic radio traffic? If one of my platoons hits contact, will they report it on the radio - where it is and what it is, at least? Will they call in sighting reports? Or tell me on the radio, if they hit an obstacle or for any reason, become unable to follow the orders they have been given?
Radio is very rare visitor while in the army. But if you have for example modern DLC from 80s or tanks with radios, you have a radio traffic and ability to automatic fire control if its possible. In WWII times most communications through voice, signals or wire phones - and yes this modelled in game too.


You can see where I'm coming from - what I want in a tank/infantry RTS (actually = real time TACTICS, not strategy) game is for it to simulate not wargaming with miniatures, but war. No criticism intended, for anyone who is happy with the 'wargame with miniatures' approach.
Yes we try to do this.
Logged

Пользовательский интерфейс будет неуместен на сегодняшних широкоэкранных экранах, а оригинальные карты неопределенного метра и моделирование чисел с низкими лицами заставляют людей действительно не хотеть играть.
33lima
Oberst
******
Posts: 273



« Reply #2 on: July 19, 2014, 10:55:28 AM »

OK sound promising and thanks for the fast response, Andrey. I'm downloading the AP:OS/GT:OS demo now.

I would expect to have functioning radio traffic with Panzers, not just modern kit. They did work, most of the time, tho I believe the Red Army was less well-equipped in WW2 and/or emphasised just getting on with it with less discussion or chitter-chatter  Smiley

By 're-organisation' I didn't mean changing the organisation of units, I meant the final phase in typical battle drills, which in the British Army is called 'Re-organisation'. For example our Section (infantry squad) Battle Drills are: Preparation for battle - Reaction to effective enemy fire - Locating the enemy - Winning the firefight - Assault and fight-through - Re-organisation. Basically, the same as was adopted by, I'm told, early WW2. Having fought through the objective, you go firm, not on it which is likely to be a registered enemy artillery target, but beyond it, in an arc mostly facing the threat but with all-round defence, while you sort out casualties, ammo and the like. Much the same for larger units, just on a bigger scale, I'm sure you know the procedure.
Logged

For it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Chuck him out, the brute!"
But it's "Saviour of his country!" when the guns begin to shoot!
'Tommy', Rudyard Kipling, 1892
wildman
Oberstleutnant
*****
Posts: 113



« Reply #3 on: July 19, 2014, 01:34:39 PM »




You can see where I'm coming from - what I want in a tank/infantry RTS (actually = real time TACTICS, not strategy) game is for it to simulate not wargaming with miniatures, but war. No criticism intended, for anyone who is happy with the 'wargame with miniatures' approach.


this game gives so much freedom for you to manage your tactical approach, and the way the line of sight and ballistics is modelled along with the command levels and realistic communications this game really does offer a very realistic war simulation. The AI is not perfect but I have never seen better AI in this type of game and when I am involved in a battle I believe everything that happens, it is really very well made this game.

Welcome to the Graviteam Tactics world, your current expectations of what an RTS game can be is about to be blown apart.  Wink
Logged
Dane49
Generalfeldmarschall
*****
Posts: 1479


« Reply #4 on: July 19, 2014, 02:54:30 PM »

Quote
By 're-organisation' I didn't mean changing the organisation of units, I meant the final phase in typical battle drills, which in the British Army is called 'Re-organisation'. For example our Section (infantry squad) Battle Drills are: Preparation for battle - Reaction to effective enemy fire - Locating the enemy - Winning the firefight - Assault and fight-through - Re-organisation. Basically, the same as was adopted by, I'm told, early WW2. Having fought through the objective, you go firm, not on it which is likely to be a registered enemy artillery target, but beyond it, in an arc mostly facing the threat but with all-round defence, while you sort out casualties, ammo and the like. Much the same for larger units, just on a bigger scale, I'm sure you know the procedure.

Basically in this game re-organization takes place during the op phase of the next turn. This is when you are allowed to reorganize your forces, rest them, supply them and orientate a defense towards the enemy if he counter attacks.

Note-Option 8.08 in your options settings. Default order-in the absence of orders you can set a defense default order and your units will automatically take up a defensive posture after they have completed your last order.
« Last Edit: July 19, 2014, 03:04:04 PM by Dane49 » Logged
Dane49
Generalfeldmarschall
*****
Posts: 1479


« Reply #5 on: July 19, 2014, 03:10:58 PM »

Quote
Welcome to the Graviteam Tactics world, your current expectations of what an RTS game can be is about to be blown apart.

I think Wargame-Air Land Battle would be great game if they adopted the Graviteam approach to RTS. That doesn't necessarily mean I want Graviteam to become a W-ALB type game, but I think it would certainly improve W-ALB though.

I personally prefer company sized battles and enjoy managing squads and individual weapon systems while being able to keep my camera near ground level as much as possible.
Logged
Flashburn
Generalfeldmarschall
*****
Posts: 2412



« Reply #6 on: July 19, 2014, 07:31:03 PM »

Quote
Welcome to the Graviteam Tactics world, your current expectations of what an RTS game can be is about to be blown apart.

I think Wargame-Air Land Battle would be great game if they adopted the Graviteam approach to RTS. That doesn't necessarily mean I want Graviteam to become a W-ALB type game, but I think it would certainly improve W-ALB though.

I personally prefer company sized battles and enjoy managing squads and individual weapon systems while being able to keep my camera near ground level as much as possible.

Yep. 

although sometimes I would like to be able to micro manage fire teams from a squad. But such a small thing and would only use it if small numbers of squads and units where in a battle anyways.  Placing support weapons like maxims and Mg42's etc are is a must and can be the responsibility all the way up to a company commander.  But placing a squads mg someplace is stupid.  That is the job of the squad leader, ei...not me. 
Logged

Yabba dabba do
topnik
Oberstleutnant
*****
Posts: 133


« Reply #7 on: July 27, 2014, 10:50:54 AM »

I would like to have the option to delegate more control to the AI on a different HQ levels. For example, order a platoon commander to attack a location, and he controls all his squads, choosing lines of advance and formations. Same goes for company HQs or battalion in a massive battles.

Andrey, what do you say? Smiley
Logged
andrey12345
Graviteam
Generalfeldmarschall
******
Posts: 6642


Jerk developer


« Reply #8 on: July 29, 2014, 08:10:43 AM »

I would like to have the option to delegate more control to the AI on a different HQ levels. For example, order a platoon commander to attack a location, and he controls all his squads, choosing lines of advance and formations. Same goes for company HQs or battalion in a massive battles.

Andrey, what do you say? Smiley

In far far plans, 3rd game mode in game, to completly indirect control through "command console" like real commander. We think about it after Mius.
Logged

Пользовательский интерфейс будет неуместен на сегодняшних широкоэкранных экранах, а оригинальные карты неопределенного метра и моделирование чисел с низкими лицами заставляют людей действительно не хотеть играть.
wildman
Oberstleutnant
*****
Posts: 113



« Reply #9 on: July 29, 2014, 10:14:06 AM »

I would like to have the option to delegate more control to the AI on a different HQ levels. For example, order a platoon commander to attack a location, and he controls all his squads, choosing lines of advance and formations. Same goes for company HQs or battalion in a massive battles.

Andrey, what do you say? Smiley

+1

Logged
topnik
Oberstleutnant
*****
Posts: 133


« Reply #10 on: July 29, 2014, 01:44:00 PM »

I would like to have the option to delegate more control to the AI on a different HQ levels. For example, order a platoon commander to attack a location, and he controls all his squads, choosing lines of advance and formations. Same goes for company HQs or battalion in a massive battles.

Andrey, what do you say? Smiley

In far far plans, 3rd game mode in game, to completly indirect control through "command console" like real commander. We think about it after Mius.

Great, looking forward to it! Of course, there should always be the possibility to micromanage everything.
Logged
Pages: [1]
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
Simple Audio Video Embedder
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!