Feedback, suggestion and bug thread

[wodin]

Some massive gameplay changes happening..so i say lets wait and see, again my worry is Graviteam and giving to much control to the Tac Ai and AI's just aren't going to make as smart a decision as a human would.

I too love having total control at a tactical level but not micromanage..there is a fine balance between all this and graviteam has it perfect at the moment. I don't feel here is too much micromanagement at all and if there was I wouldn't be playing the game at all. I still want control to a point though.Mainly because AI's aren't advanced enough to be left to it. Unless Graviteam prove me wrong here. It sounds to me like your going for a Command Ops style gameplay but at the tactical level rather than grand tactical\Operational CO is. This could work..but again you really need one of the best AI's I've seen and better by far than any out there at this scale.

I feel Graviteam should make all these changes optional as you are going to lose customers if you don't. I wonder aren't we going to have squad\platoon orders any more? Just coy level if your a Battalion commander..then we have to watch how it all pans out? If so what we need is Leader stats\attributes for the Coys and Platoons and those leader stats\attributes to make a big difference on gameplay and the tac ai and how well the units perform orders. Also you don't need to have the first leader as the best stat soldier..if he dies and his second in command takes over he may infact have better stats\attributes. Plus leaders could be wounded for a day or so during an operation and then come back if it was a light wound that needed tending too. Then I'd like to see on the operational side rear area casualty clearing centers that will either patch  soldier up and send him back to his unit or tend to them and send them out of the game\back home. Casualty  Clearing centers should be able to be overrun thus a chance of losing replacements from slightly wounded soldiers. I'd like to see historical leaders if possible aswell..with enough research the names of coy commanders should be easy to find. I'd like to be able to dismiss a leader during an operation and promote the second in command if the leader performed awful and still survived.

If we start looking at the game from a Command Ops perspective it could work and be damn fantastic aswell...but really the AI..the AI needs to be really something to carry this off.

[Missouri_Rebel]

That's all good and well if we were following Graviteam Ops instead of Graviteam Tactics, but we're not.

I could care less if the AI was brilliant in its execution if I lose control with the massive gameplay changes. They are so close to what I have always wanted and what CM could NEVER get right. Continue on with the tactical aspect with improved house clearing,  close combat,  a better command system(not some handicap),  better structural damage, quick battle editor to share user made scenarios,  MULTI-PLAYER,  better sounds (ones that don't go silent while panning in circle),  free unit placement in deployment phase,  roadblocks,  fortified buildings,  spreading fires,  better APC/unit cohesion,  better pathfinding,  more direct unit orders,  more natural unit movements and actions,  more display options(show only fire lines,  show all movement lines,show just command info), NATO symbols,  better ammo preservation,  better supply system etc. etc..

Definitely not trying to be rude wodin. I finally find a game that seems to do so much more than anything else on the market and I am loathe to have it morph into something else entirely.

EDIT TO ADD: Command Ops was probably one of my least favorite games purchased and is exactly what I don't want to see, even if in 3-d.

[wodin]

@MR Listen..I agree with you mate! I was just trying to see how it might pan out and maybe it could work. Like you it's not really the way I want it to go, but there is nothing I can do about it, so I only hope the path they take surprises me and turns into a breath of fresh air. I'm sure you know I'm a tactical wargame nut and I want what you want but when you read Andreys vision it's opposite to how I feel a tactical game should be, but look it seems Graviteam is moving up the scale abit, and yes it still will be tactical not operational. Just not tactical at the lower end of the scale.

Anyway I expanded my wargame idea, which I feel would do what Andrey wants without the need for fancy graphics and tac ai and all that entails, yet still give you that commander feel.

"My rough idea for a uber realistic game that really was mainly text based command reports both runner and radio comms (prettify it up abit and have lots of variations and loads of text files describing the situation to really add the immersion tension and stop the messages repeating even if describing the same situation to keep replayability and immersion...) Each report at the end will give a selection of orders to choose from that you send by radio or runner. You'd have a map (most likely topographic map) that would update when new info\intel came in both enemy units and friendly unit positions (each unit will have a time sticker next to it saying roughly how long ago the last info came in), click on a unit your worried about and send a runner for sitrep update, or if radios and the lines aren't broke radio through. You'll get emergency requests full of tension describing what happening say if the Coy is being attack and about to be broken through, now thr runner could have taken half hour or more to get to you and things could have changed abit by then for better or worse but you may decide to send reinforcements or tell them to pull back etc etc .Runners will get killed aswell so sometimes your runner wont get there or a runner wont get to you. The text would be the immersion side of the game.You can also go to see a unit personally..which will give them bonus\modifiers,lets say the coy was being heavily pressed, or stalled in attack your presence and command skill while there would most likely be enough to get the attack going or keep the Coy from retreating\routing, however during the trip you will be out of the command loop until you get back so although you make a huge difference to the unit you visit you will also maybe missing out on possible important events. Thats how I'd do a Uber realism wargame. The actual battle is going on under the hood the game knows where the units are and is there is a wargame where everything is being taken into account from troop quality and quantity, leadership which is most important of your subordinates as pre battle you'll get a run down of your officers and who maybe needs watching over or who you know will get the attack done etc etc, weapons and terrain going on under the hood which you do have sometimes lots other time little control of, sometimes you may have to speed up the game because no reports come in for the first two hours but then suddenly your inundated with them trying to keep up with whats going on, then a lull etc etc but all you really get is reports and the map being updated as reports come in..if done right it could make an extremely tense game.

Maybe best at a brigade\regiment or battalion level commander I feel (could even go higher up)..would work for many eras..esp WW1 onwards. It also takes all the issues of graphics and tac ai working as it all goes on under the hood, you wont see or have to model soldiers climbing onto tanks to drop grenades down the hatch, or worry about getting your pixeltruppen to react properly graphic wise in game. Yet a tactical game is happening you just don't see it. As long as you can keep the tension going and make it feel like there is a war going on and enough variety in messages and situations cropping up it would work superb. You could even have issues coming into do with casualties or POWS etc. Your performance is measured at the end obviously if you defend successfully or attack successfully but also measured on the orders you gave at the time and how they effected the battle that was going on under the hood. At a divisional level even things like POW and casualty problems (maybe something happens and if you give the wrong order you could make a mess of things enough to cause many lightly wounded to die or become invalided home as infection kicks in due to not being attended quick enough because you moved a casualty clearing area as you thought it would be over run but it wouldn't have been as you troops held out or you never got the supplies to them or the airport was overrun so no supplies came in and less heavily wounded would be sent home again you'd get marked down for this, or even the casualty clearing station over run as you didn't give the order to pull back soon enough. This would mean you'd get you less replacements from the lightly wounded in the next attack\defense etc Sometimes the orders will seem obvious but other times you'd have to really way up all the info coming in and whether you think the leader is panicking and could hold or he does need help..or is the commander saying he can do something that you feel is to much and he just wants to impress..again you go by all the info that you have. I've rambled on enough but I think this would work..as long as the battles look to the player to be playing out realistically then you could abstract a fair bit even with regards to the battle that goes on under the hood.

Anyway I've rambled on enough. I doubt few will read this, but I hope those that do see something in the idea as a new approach."

[andrey12345]

I hope what I am hearing is more of a misunderstanding andrey. Can you answer a couple of questions to clear some things up.

1) Is this optional?

2)Will we still be able to control the individual squads as far as movements and choosing direct targets?

3) Will we still be able to use the platoon orders?

Try alpha of March patch.
All questions will disappear.

to be honest, watching a realistic battle is something I do on t.v..

But are you can watch on TV _interactive_ movies? 
I would really like have a look at it. 

Please tell me we can still play in what you called 'arcade' mode. It was that play that caused me to buy your game and all of its DLC's.

Yes, of course. Arcade mode remains as before.

[wodin]

Will the new arcade mode be the current pre march patch simulator mode?

Otherwise if it's like the current arcade mode then thats not what MR will want at all.

[Beelzeboss]

What about those MGs? Is it known bug, is it going to be fixed or are you not going to change that? Or maybe I'm just grumbling?

Its not a bug. Heavy machine guns can not be placed in the buildings, its available only for LMGs.

And why is that? It seems strange for me


Once I've watched Saving Private Ryan movie. And in that movie Steven Spielberg claims that brave Americans during WWII where not only destroying en masse German Tiger tanks with their socks but they were also able to mount HMG in a Church's tower! That's truly amazing

And just for curiosity. Is there any way to "teach" infantry using vehicles as a cover like in real life. I can't find any game of this kind that would properly simulated this aspect of warfare except games like Full Spectrum Warrior but this is diffferent kind of game.

[lavish]

IMO, the game is going towards better direction by making some unnecessary micromanagement procedures redundant. This allows player to focus on command and enjoy the "interactive war movie" at the same time even more (without wego). Generally, as I've understood (seen on alpha patch), everything remains the same as before except that

1) automatic functions for units are added and
2) number of orders that a player can give is limited to time constraints and also to command value or communication chain integrity of units.

Player must stilll think and decide when, where and how the units should move and what they are allowed to do (including allowance of automatic functions). It's still possible to give some spesific "micromanagement orders", but it will be impossible to spam them due to to limited commanding capacity ("limited command/action points") of the player within a certain time frame.

Why I like this very very much is that you cannot outmaneuver enemy A.I. anymore by simply mouse-clicking a lot - i.e. you cannot improve your result by micromanaging and optimizing your tactics on the fly. The game must be played more closer to the rules or handicaps that enemy A.I has. This mean more challenge and thinking depending how you are used to play.

I think many more RTS games should have these kind of "intelligent" automatic functions to reduce the need for mindless furious mouse-clicking. Maybe graviteam is one of the pioneers regarding to this and maybe in the future automated functions will get more common in other games too (at least I hope so). I remember that at least Homeworld 2 (close to usual RTS) had a simple automatic unit behaviour so that fighter units in your battle group automatically attacked enemy fighters or bombers threating your capital ships, for example.

[andrey12345]

What about those MGs? Is it known bug, is it going to be fixed or are you not going to change that? Or maybe I'm just grumbling?

Its not a bug. Heavy machine guns can not be placed in the buildings, its available only for LMGs.

And why is that? It seems strange for me

But why?
In our photo we will see LMG, you can put it in the game in the house.

[Lemonade]

And just for curiosity. Is there any way to "teach" infantry using vehicles as a cover like in real life. I can't find any game of this kind that would properly simulated this aspect of warfare except games like Full Spectrum Warrior but this is diffferent kind of game.

Yeah, but those bastards hiding behind ADGZ from the picture are from paramilitary SS, SA and police organizations and were attacking a postal office in urban environment in Septebmer '39. As far as I know, they had little to no combat experience. I don't think the real army soldiers from these times would do the same on the real battlefield, when enemy is suspected to have HE or fragmentation rounds. And this is almost always the case in APOS.
Also, vehicles tend to draw a lot of attention during combat, especially on open space, so it's not the best cover to hide behind.

[Schuck]

Missouri_Rebel and wodin,
Im with you guys on this, i think the level of control at the moment is just about right, not to much micromanagement ie. individual soldiers. Not to little control ie. Company command.
I think the best think to to is to give the player the OPTION.
Then everybody is happy and everybody continues to buy the game.
Take something out, or put something in that people dont like and you will lose customers!!

If i was going to do anything with the game, i would include command posts with tents and aerials for company/battalion comanders. And all orders would originate from here.
And i would have fuel/ammunition trucks driving to these command posts in game to simmulate re-supply.
It would give the player the opportunity to disrupt enemy supply, communications and chain of command by targeting these.

[Missouri_Rebel]

Lavish said;

you cannot improve your result by micromanaging and optimizing your tactics on the fly.

But I want to improve my results. That is the idea of it all. Here's how I see it;

During the duration of the battle there are usually several hotspots where the battle hinges one way or the other and a host of other less important engagements. I applaud the idea of an AI that can function on its own in those lesser areas. I believe it does that now and any improvements to this part of the game can only be seen as a positive.

BUT

and its a big but, I also appreciate the ability to change my tactics on the fly, micromanagement or not. These are the minutes during the game that are the best. Heck, we advance the clock as fast as we can to get to these situations. Micromanagement is just what one needs during this time and in no way guarantees a good outcome. From what I have played I don't seem to do any better than the AI during these times and my involvement is usually a last ditch effort. To me this is the high mark of the game and a real nailbiter. Why take that away?

If you want to give players a great challenge add multiplayer. That alone would be the best improvement that I could think of. I'm sorry that you think the AI is so weak that you must restrict the actual player. I don't believe it is. There's nothing against implement a better command structure if you want to simulate the realities of combat and command. They could even cause a delay in the response time and still let players react to the changing situation. Anything but remove what I and others think is one of the most important feature, the ability to get down and dirty and involved in the tacticle aspects. Graviteam Tactics style.

At least make it fully optional. Give us the 'arcade' mode without any command points etc. and also a more restrictive mode or two.

I think many more RTS games should have these kind of "intelligent" automatic functions to reduce the need for mindless furious mouse-clicking. Maybe graviteam is one of the pioneers regarding to this and maybe in the future automated functions will get more common in other games too (at least I hope so).

They already have automatic functions in APOS do they not? And the units already react to the enemy unless restricted. No one is making you micromanage anything. Just move your units to an area if necessary and set up the type of order you want them to use. How much more automatic do you expect lavish? Again, that is what I do for many areas.

But maybe many of us prefer also to manage at least a bit more than that and I guess we just kind of expect it since its already a feature we employ and enjoy in the game we purchased. What we are doing pre alpha is not micromanaging in the first place IMO and in fact I consider it integral to the game I have been playing these many hours. I assure you I'm not worried about 'mindless' furious mouse clicking because I consider it neither.

Play the game as you do and understand that you do not have to have one without the other.


Andreysaid;

Yes, of course. Arcade mode remains as before.

As an option and as it is for August 2012 and prior?

Try alpha of March patch.

I will try again.

I understand that you have a monied interest here andrey so you are going to do what best fits your business model, but don't be surprised if you take away such a big part of the game that you also lose many customers.

[Tanker]

I agree with Missouri Rebel's view point.  I don't want to watch an interactive military movie.  If I wanted to play a battalion, or regiment CO, commanding from a bunker, I'd play Airborne Assault. 

[Flashburn]

I really think people are making more of this than there really is.  Your still in command.  But now there is a delay in issueing orders based on communications.  The arty I do not think will really be much different than before.  IMO the command lag simply and command element just add another layer to the game.  But your still in control.  It is not suppose to be a RTS, nor a WEGO.  Something different in the middle.  If it does not work or such (I think it will.....so far I like where its going) a hard MOD or normal mod being a difference based on skill and preforance.  OH wait........you allready can change to much in options now.  Why would that change?

Also, command lag based on commanders abilty and getting messages to the troops is totally legit.  How the commander deals with this issue just adds another layer to the game.  Where do you place your commanders for most effect?  Where do you place your signal wire troops?  IE NOT in the front line, unless no other option.  I would like to have support guys driving around dumping ammo boxes too.  Or even medic guys doing what they do.  Set up right ,help moral.........set up bad hurt moral.  But NOT micro managed.  Just placed unit and it does its thing with min of baby sitting. 

[budd]

My two cents: I agree with Missouri Rebel, i'll not be updating my game until i see how it shakes out. I mostly like how it plays now.Some things for sure could use improvement [infantry, towing guns, ect.]  but I don't feel over burdened by micromanagement .

 I didn't know about this arcade mode and can't find anything in that thing thats called a manual about it. Can someone explain what the difference is compared to optimal and simulation? Are the differences written anywhere? Does anyone play on simulation? I guess i've always played on optimal.

[Missouri_Rebel]

There isn't actually an arcade mode.....yet. That was a term coined by andrey when describing what the game is now and what it is like with more unit management than an actual simulation or wargame. I don't particularly agree with that assessment but, if it helps describe the style I wish to continue playing in, I will continue to use the term.

I guess I can hope that it will be an option in the future to play the game as was presented in the demo that prompted me to buy the game and its DLC's.

[andrey12345]

I will try again.

I understand that you have a monied interest here andrey so you are going to do what best fits your business model, but don't be surprised if you take away such a big part of the game that you also lose many customers.

If you try alpha. You must have noticed that there was not removed any feature from what was previously and added a new ones.
And do not scare us so that someone will stop buy and play our game  . This does not sense, as we do the game that are good to play in the first place. And then to sell.
Otherwise, we would be doing clones and not to make any new features.

[wodin]

As I said I want to see it in action..I like the idea to a point, my worries on the whole are it will need one amazing tac ai. I understand about making a clone thought. Though your from from any RTS I've played as I normally don't like them, only CC2 and maybe CC3 I loved for years. I also see if you do what I think your intending todo it will be a unique wargame experience. The interactive war movie expression though isn't one I'd use to try and sell your game..it sounds restrictive, infact many gamers moan about games being more like watching a movie with minimal input (talking FPS here) I wouldn't want to see this go a similar route though unlikely that expression does bring it to mind. I want a tactical wargame that looks great but also has me involved as much as I want and when I want..I like the sound of a more automated AI, but I also want to be able to jump in..because AI's aren't that clever yet. SO when I see it do something that is obvious wouldn't happen in real life  due to it being an AI I want the chance to be able to step in and give it the correct order.

If I was Graviteam I'd put all these improvements in..make the AI that good the player doesn't need to do the areas of micromanagement graviteam wish to drop and then you have the game you wnat, the AI plays that well people don't micromanage in those areas, however you still leave in the option for those who still want to.

I would like to say though that not long ago Andrey said Command Delay was no good in a tactical wargame...yet it seems it's being implemented.

Sometimes I think the language barrier gets in the way alittle here and things are read in a different way they are meant by both sides.

[Flashburn]

I say just try the alpha. 

[wodin]

I'm playing the Alpha..but haven't a clue whats going on to be honest. Also I'm going by what Andrey is saying the future game will be like once it's all implemented. I don't think the alpha yet is anywhere near like how it's going to be as alot of the features Andrey is saying aren't in yet fully.

Everything seemed to be the same except the blue bar and all the new info icons above the troops. I carried on playing as I normally do and not sure if the new features actually make a difference..I didn't notice anything anyway. However I'm sure once it's all done it will play differently. Oh and mortars don't work properly because the new comms isn't working yet I think. Well you can't give them indirect fire orders anymore..and so they don't actually fire. I had a whole load of mortars and they didn't fire a shot all game..I wasn't sure whether I'm supposed to send the HQ out somewhere to spot or what? Also I don't know how you work out if some comms are by radio thus no wire needed or messengers..infact I thought wire men mainly fixed the wires from the FO of an ARTY  unit back to the Art battery...in this game it looks like every unit is connected by wire. Abit confusing.

[budd]

I see an option in the game now under realism settings for arcade, optimal, simulation,  just wondering what the real difference is in game. The options appear as active options right now.

There isn't actually an arcade mode.....yet. That was a term coined by andrey when describing what the game is now and what it is like with more unit management than an actual simulation or wargame. I don't particularly agree with that assessment but, if it helps describe the style I wish to continue playing in, I will continue to use the term.

I guess I can hope that it will be an option in the future to play the game as was presented in the demo that prompted me to buy the game and its DLC's.