Tank Warfare: Tunisia 1943 80% off on Steam

[Bulletpoint]

A well done review in my opinion. I too think that it is more a simulation than a classical game. If you played much CM like me it is quite a different experience. Not better or worse, but different instead.

I agree with much of what he says, even though I think he's not critical enough of the weak points. But I mainly disagree about two things:

He says it's extremely addictive if you manage to learn how it works. I personally don't really think it's addictive as such. Fascinating and interesting, yes, but as he says, it's mostly a simulation rather than a game, and I don't think the gameplay in itself is "addictive".

He also says the game looks amazing. I'd say it looks halfway amazing and halfway weird. For example, shell craters are painted pitch black, which makes them look strange and like craters on the moon rather than on planet earth. Shadows under trees also look strange when viewed from a distance. And it's often difficult to see exactly what kind of lighting conditions are active - even in bright daylight, it often looks like there's a strange twilight going on.

 

[HOA_KSOP]

IMO the graphics in GT are better, way better, despite a few aesthetic things that you have pointed out. What I think Graviteam does way better is the size of the battlefield is more realistic. You don't get that condensed map feel like in CM.

So my take on Graviteam is that it is definitely a simulator masquerading as a game. It simulates battalion and regiment command and control. The operational component is the equivalent of map table planning that an HQ staff would need to accomplish planning a battle. After you have moved to the tactical map you can issue orders after the battle starts, but there are delays (realistic, especially for a WW 2 game), sometimes units never get the message (again, possible during a battle) and your ability to control individual platoons and squads is limited, as it would be for a battalion or regimental commander managing a battle unless he personally took command of a platoon during the battle. Once people understand that they can't micromanage their units, that forces them to learn how to plan a battle in detail and how to provision and reinforce that attack as a real commander and his headquarters staff would do. Once you understand that this simulation does not let you be a "parachute commander' like CM does, the game engine makes a heck of a lot of sense. It is just a whole different beast entirely.

 

[Bulletpoint]

IMO the graphics in GT are better, way better, despite a few aesthetic things that you have pointed out. What I think Graviteam does way better is the size of the battlefield is more realistic. You don't get that condensed map feel like in CM.

I completely agree.

About the micromanaging though, it also depends on the realism settings. I'm playing on the "normal" command and control setting, and I find I can give quite a lot of orders. But if playing on stricter settings, I'm sure it starts getting a bigger challenge to plan maneuvers ahead of time.

 

[HOA_KSOP]

I completely agree.

About the micromanaging though, it also depends on the realism settings. I'm playing on the "normal" command and control setting, and I find I can give quite a lot of orders. But if playing on stricter settings, I'm sure it starts getting a bigger challenge to plan maneuvers ahead of time.

Yes, true. You can give a fair number of orders during the course of the battle, but as was mentioned above, how long it takes orders to be executed varies as to the prevailing conditions, especially the state of the communications network.

 

[Lethal2615]

It is not surprising that coming from CM players bring their CM habits. If you think that GT has a lot of micromanaging, then you are trying to play it using CM methods. It is possible to play smaller scenarios without any micromanaging.

 

[Zeke_21]

If Gravteam would add a WEGO, replay and h2h feature it could give Combat Mission a run for its money. As much as I love CM, I sometimes get a feeling of complacency from BF. Its like we have the only game in town and take it or leave it. Some good competition would be good for everyone involved.

Another area of difference between GT and CM is vehicles, in particular tank mobility. In CM its possible to give a tank a move fast order and it hauls ass. In GT what would be considered clear terrain in CM often has undulations and tanks move much slower. Tanks are much more lumbering beasts in GT.

Which one is more realistic? I'm not the expert. Maybe in modern MBTs you can zip over terrain fast and not worry, but idk if WW2 tanks had as sophisticated suspension systems as today. I would have to think if you were a WW2 tanker, you're going to be careful and judicious with how you handle a tank. You don't have roadside service, you're tank has probably already been through hell and the last thing you want is to drive it like a maniac and break something leaving you immobile.

Speaking of tanks, I've had battles in GT where perfectly good Russian tanks have been abandoned by panicked crews. I can't recall that happening in CM. Usually a tank has to suffer penetrating damage to have crews bail out in CM.

 

[Lethal2615]

If GT had CM WEGO MP features I would play it all the time! GT is a very interesting SP experience. Although looking dated, CM is still an excellent game and its replay feature is a real plus, particularly if you are trying to make a YT vid.

 

[Zeke_21]

If GT had CM WEGO MP features I would play it all the time! GT is a very interesting SP experience. Although looking dated, CM is still an excellent game and its replay feature is a real plus, particularly if you are trying to make a YT vid.

CM is a great game. I have multiple h2h games in progress over they years I've managed to finish numerous campaigns and I'm still in progress on a number of them. I finally finished a Market Garden campaign battle last night. I've been at it for 5 or so years!

One of the Campaigns - Raging Buffalo from Italy was in progress, but I guess an update broke it. I get a weird graphics glitch. Too bad, it was a fun campaign.

 

[Zeke_21]

 

[Zeke_21]

Aside from new interface, it appears that GT has upped the graphics. Once again you need some serious hardware to run with everything maxed out, but its worth it. assaults with Hannomags is a different experience in GT. Saw the HTs advance with MGs blazing, dismount infantry, then back up with MGs blazing. This one got lit up, but others ones pretty much decimated the entrenched infantry.

 

[Bulletpoint]

Another thing about GT is that not only are the maps bigger, they also have more natural and realistic terrain, since they are mapped from real world locations.

They do this with a semi-automated process, whereas in CM, if you want to do the same, you have a lot of manual work to do. The best CM campaigns also feature terrain that is very close to the real locations, but I'd still say GT has the edge here.

It's often surprisingly difficult to find good fields of fire, since there will always be some ever-so-slight curve to a hill that means it's very rare to be able to dominate the whole landscape from one position.

 

[HOA_KSOP]

Another thing about GT is that not only are the maps bigger, they also have more natural and realistic terrain, since they are mapped from real world locations.

They do this with a semi-automated process, whereas in CM, if you want to do the same, you have a lot of manual work to do. The best CM campaigns also feature terrain that is very close to the real locations, but I'd still say GT has the edge here.

It's often surprisingly difficult to find good fields of fire, since there will always be some ever-so-slight curve to a hill that means it's very rare to be able to dominate the whole landscape from one position.

Yep, the terrain mapping is very good. Even though a lot of the maps are pretty "open" the terrain "nuances" surprise you a little when you think you would have a decent LOS/LOF to a target and you don't because of a not too obvious undulation in the terrain between you and the target. So I completely agree with @Bulletpoint about GT's maps and terrain modeling being somewhat superior to CM's.

 

[HOA_KSOP]

Who says they don't model everything...simulating the effects of bullets and shrapnel on a body's internal organs...WHOA...this is the latest Tunisia update.

 

[Hardradi]

Who says they don't model everything...simulating the effects of bullets and shrapnel on a body's internal organs...WHOA...this is the latest Tunisia update.

Giving this game a go. I have seen a few heads go the way of a water melon.

Its quite interesting and quite detailed. Sort of feels a level up in command compared to CM.

 

[Zeke_21]

You can also see details like soldiers hiding behind undulations and machine gun fire slowly chewing away the undulation. When tanks over-run a position it looks very convincing. Seen infantry being run over by tanks.

In Combat Mission infantry can disable and destroy tanks with grenades. I've yet to see this happen in Gravteam.

 

[Bulletpoint]

In Combat Mission infantry can disable and destroy tanks with grenades. I've yet to see this happen in Gravteam.

I've seen it happen many times, but not with regular hand grenades.

In CM, they use a very crude abstrated system where you see troops throw regular hand grenades at a tank, and easily knocking it out.

In GT, troops might throw hand grenades at a tank, but unless it's a very weak tank, they won't do any real damage. You need specialised AT grenades, grenade bundles, and AT mines to have any chance of damaging a tank. And even if you have those available (usually only available for combat engineers), it still takes a lot of grenades before you knock out a tank.

 

[Artkin]

I've seen it happen many times, but not with regular hand grenades.

In CM, they use a very crude abstrated system where you see troops throw regular hand grenades at a tank, and easily knocking it out.

In GT, troops might throw hand grenades at a tank, but unless it's a very weak tank, they won't do any real damage. You need specialised AT grenades, grenade bundles, and AT mines to have any chance of damaging a tank. And even if you have those available (usually only available for combat engineers), it still takes a lot of grenades before you knock out a tank.

I am pretty sure the infantry in CM have a specific number of regular grenades and a specific number of AT grenades. Some of my soviet squads did not carry AT grenades. However, a team like the 3 man anti-tank team will have all AT grenades.

I made a small scenario in CMRT and I had to kill a pz 2 with grenades as part of it. My regular infantry just could not do it no matter how many grenades were thrown. I put down a anti-tank team and they had the job done after the first grenade toss, with a much larger boom too.

In pbem, I've had an infantry squad kill a panther pretty quickly by grenade. So IDK what formations carried them and which didn't. I can't remember what team killed the tank in that instance, and I can't remember what team couldn't kill that pz 2. But they were both infantry squads.

 

[Bulletpoint]

I am pretty sure the infantry in CM have a specific number of regular grenades and a specific number of AT grenades. Some of my soviet squads did not carry AT grenades. However, a team like the 3 man anti-tank team will have all AT grenades.

I made a small scenario in CMRT and I had to kill a pz 2 with grenades as part of it. My regular infantry just could not do it no matter how many grenades were thrown. I put down a anti-tank team and they had the job done after the first grenade toss, with a much larger boom too.

In pbem, I've had an infantry squad kill a panther pretty quickly by grenade. So IDK what formations carried them and which didn't. I can't remember what team killed the tank in that instance, and I can't remember what team couldn't kill that pz 2. But they were both infantry squads.

If infantry have special weapons such as AT grenades or satchel charges, they will use those against tanks of course. But in case they only have regular hand grenades, they will use them too, and often to good effect.

I'm not sure why you couldn't knock out the PzII. I don't have CMRT, but in CMBN and CMFB, I've seen even Tiger IIs disabled or knocked out by regular infantry hand grenades.

 

[Zeke_21]

Was running low on disk space so went ahead and got a 1TB WD_Black SN850 NVMe drive that was on sale for $164. On paper this is a blazing fast drive. Tests done on youtube show its only very slighty better than normal SSD drives in real world gaming use. I have a mother board that supports it and a free slot so why not.

I loaded Gravteam on it and running at 4K on a 42 inch monitor I used to get slight pauses when scrolling the tactical maps. Now its buttery smooth. Whether its worth going out and buying a blazing fast NVMe is open to question though.

I'll try re-installing Combat Mission on it as scrolling huge maps also sometimes has slight pauses.

 

[Bulletpoint]

I'll try re-installing Combat Mission on it as scrolling huge maps also sometimes has slight pauses.

I doubt you'll see any improvements there. I'm running CM on an SSD and I still get those strange pauses. I think it's due to a deeper issue with the way the engine caches things in and out of memory.