>most based tactical simulation from the most based devs
>unrivaled damage and ballistic modeling
>deformable terrain
>AI that can be trusted execute complex orders properly with just a few clicks from the player
>masterfully replicated maps, units and historical operations
>the ultimate pleb filter
>clean and functional interface that goes against the tide of zoomer-focued modern UI design
>Andrey always on the front to tell History Channel-educated critics that they just lack the intelligence to play the game
>doesn't care about your ideas on how to make the game more accessible
>doesn't care about you issues with running the game on Win11 as the devs don't have Win11
>will regularly update you on changes introduced and upcoming DLC
>still gets updates and new addons
>coming to you straight from a fricking warzone
Graviteambros, what operations have you been playing recently? You are winning right? I've been busy pushing Banisadr's minions out of Khuzestan and despite a few fumbles, I'm doing ok.
Is it all WW2?
Because if it is into the trash it goes, frick ww2 the moust fricking boring? gay and overused setting.
Yes, OP pic clearly shows it's WW2 only, you have no business being here.
I mean if its like 1% something else and 99% of wwii what is even the popint of downloading
Frick off, sudaca.
15% of the content is not ww2 but its still over 90 hours of content
>Because if it is into the trash it goes, frick ww2 the moust fricking boring?
What manner of ESL devilry is this?
Also, why didn't you just look at the OP's pic?
Games that you think are "WWII" don't depict it at all. What you're used to are video games where guns have a maximum range of 50'
Good god I should touch it again, haven't been in the mood for one of their games after I went in a binge.
The south africa and iran/iraq scenarios were really cool.
Why are graviteam players so insecure? Whenever I read their threads, they either attack other anons or circlejerk about how their game is super high iq (while admitting that you issue like three orders and then watch the game play itself).
>buy Tunisia 1943 last year
>have lots of fun with it
>want to buy Mius Front because of a change of setting and cold war scenarios
>buy it a couple of days ago
>try the South African scenarios
>all of my vehicles get destroyed
>still have fun
Thank you Graviteam
>all of my vehicles get destroyed
Yeah, those scenarios aren't really what you'd call balanced. Some operations basically have you take a beating, only for reinforcements to arrive right at the end when you just mop up the entire enemy force, cause they used up all the ammo when wrecking your armor before. And there are those ops, where you're bound to loose and the best you can do is pat yourself on the back when you did better than the actual commanders in that op. Then again, the enemy AI is kinda smart, so you can't count on getting a lucky ambush that actually happened (still can't win at Chouigui Pass as the Yanks, fricking AI is always on to my plans).
>try the Iran-Iraq war DLC
>play as Iraq
>first turns lose 2-3 tanks per battle, but at the end I end up steamrolling Iran
>win
>play Swords of Baghdad at full volume
This
theres some scenarios where you just have no chance, unless you pull some 1000iq shit
but even so, doing desperate last stands is really fun in this.
To quote the late Sun Tzu
"Losing is fun"
There's no reason to play this clunky, unwieldy, over-simulated "game" anymore now that Steel Division 2 exists.
>there's no reason to play a Starcraft when Hearthstone exists.
>Shit Division 2
Poor bait.
Anon you have too put more effort into these posts
Steel Division is just a somewhat more realistic Company of Heroes on bigger scale maps, its still arcadey bullshit with little depth.
>Steel Division
>somewhat more realistic Company of Heroes
That would be arguable.
according to picrel Andrey was caught being based on the steam forums 5 days ago, I guess they're fine.
I've been reminiscing on some complaints I had towards the game just a few months ago and I realized how many things I simply didn't understand and I've been introduced to the series with SABOW. The only real issue is the performance, but considering the game does LOS checks for every single soldier in real time all the time, not to mention all the ballistics, I guess there isn't much that can be done.
sneed
can i play USA? if not, doesnt sound that good to me
in tunisia yea
play Tank Warfare Tunisia, its basically the American DLC but as a standalone game
thanks, lad. i love the US.
so is this like an RTS? im not very good at those. like you build buildings? and have resources?
If I find the vanilla scenarios kinda shit and boring will I find the other scenarios the same? I like the gameplay but the vanilla scenarios just aren't compelling to me (boring terrain, small feeling map, boring forces to work with)
Are... are they devs alive? They're Ukrainian, and my guess is they're from the east considering their fondness for battles set in that area.
They are located in Kharkov, i don't know what the situation there is like right now but they said they were still developing content regardless of what was going on.
It's a good looking game, with a vast breadth to it. Impressive.
This game is so fricking boring. The realism can get to a point where it detracts from the fun. How many levels of autism do I have to be on to enjoy this shit? I don't want to watch units take pot-shots at each other for half an hour.
>I don't want to watch units take pot-shots at each other for half an hour
NGMI
Are you a CoH casual? This is how war are actually fought not your arcadey garbage
and real war fricking sucks, why do you Black folk put yourselves through this
According to who? You, a filthy casual? I bet you enjoy Skyrim too, fricking disgusting.
>I don't want to watch units take pot-shots at each other for half an hour.
Thats the whole fricking appeal of it
Combat Mission is superior because it's turn based, you can skip, advance, rewind what you are watching at any moment to review the action or simply skip the boring parts while still being very detailed.
I played Graviteam and I found it clunky, the AI artillery targeting was beyond moronic:
>Oh you can't see that little hole down there
>Too bad, out spotters can't direct artillery
>Wire dude doesn't do shit all day, just sits there
>City fights are impossible because the AI outright refuses to move after a certain point
>Machine gunner firing at you? Who cares just keep walking as if nothing is happening
>Tanks AI is broken and tanks won't do ANYTHING you ask them, besides getting bogged down
>Planes randomly decide to help you one day or the other
>most of the missions are unbalanced garbage what makes it harder is that YOUR AI refuses to fire
>units ignore your orders and behave erratically
Autists on here will say that’s a feature not a bug.
Or maybe you have to understand that the game is trying to simulate a real war and none of your RTS asiaticclick bullshit, for example if an infantry unit is under heavy suppression fire then of course it won't move towards the enemy firing at it, opposite to the dumb player (you) the AI would prefer to not get his ass kicked.
It's got nothing to do with autism, just understanding how the game works. Every unit has morale, experience and readiness. 90% of the time when something goes wrong, you fricked up at the operational level - supply and being in range of commanding units is important. Then on the tactical map, you still need to have a chain of command, plenty of ammo and fuel and not be shot at from multiple angles to get shit done. Orders are also complex. Stuff like unit AI matters if you want to do recon and ambushes, cause if you don't turn it off, units will run to their commander as soon as they lose contact. I've played this extensively for the past few weeks and pretty much any complaint I had towards the AI is due to my own fault. This is not an RTS where units will do whatever you tell them to. Orders take time to execute and units engaged in combat will ignore your shit ideas and fight for their lives. One thing I've learned is that 60% of success comes down to unit placement via LOS. If your troops can't see and area clearly, they will have trouble shooting, assaulting there or doing arty. Good placement of spotters, putting them in hold fire and cover mode allows for some epic shit if you know what you're doing. Most players don't understand this, so they blame the game. I know, I've been there, then I played more, watched better dudes on YT and figured it out.
It's ok not to like Graviteam games, but their problem is not that their clunky or broken, they just don't explain how shit works and the shit goes deep. Why they don't explain it? Because some of the devs are ex-military with combat experience and to them the mechanics are obvious. The game expects the player to educate himself, just like any other simulation expects you to know shit like IDK that an AMRAAM is more effective at high altitude because of air drag.
Graviteam games are sims, learn your shit or suffer. Or go play something else.
>they just don't explain how shit works and the shit goes deep. Why they don't explain it? Because some of the devs are ex-military with combat experience and to them the mechanics are obvious.
Pic related is an example of a mechanic that should be obvious to anyone with combat experience according to (You).
I really like it when Andrey himself btfos Graviteam fans drooling over how unfathomably deep and realistic the game is.
He's just being honest here as to the mechanics and the drawbacks of this being a computed simulation.
99% of the steam drones don't understand these games for shit. They just consider themselves fans, to be in the hardcore 1%, similar to Dark Souls fans, who mostly cheat to beat the game and then do the 'git gud' meme to boost their ego. I would never recommend Graviteam games to anyone saying he just wants a realistic battle simulator, because it takes a lot of time to learn the games enough to enjoy them and at this point, you also need to understand the philosophy behind the design (which is not easy considering Andrey's tone and the obvious language barrier) and only then you either love it, or move to something more clear like Combat Mission. Graviteam games are not there to be minmaxed, won all the time, or to give you a dopamine rush. Quite the opposite, they are made in a way to frustrate you, beat the tactical and strategic ideas into you the hard way, but also hammer in the concept that war is not meant to be fun, balanced or winnable if you play enough.
Why are you sperging so hard? It's just a fricking video game, play it don't. You don't have anything to gain from this moronic argument you started. Get a life.
>unless a game accurately simulates all of living reality, it can't be called realistic
Let me guess, you think Cuckbat Mission is superior when it's the most turbojank game made by human hands?
rent free
Well yes, your point being? Do you really think say an infantry platoon starts blasting the second it's in contact? Doctrine at least dictates to report the contact, sometimes if you're hidden it's unwise to engage. Other times the element of surprise takes away any ability to take action, which is why it's so powerful. How about untrained soldiers actually not willing to shoot the enemy? Cause these situations happened more often than not during conflicts. This is why training targets after WWII are now man-shaped rather than just a circle. In Nam, a good many soldiers had to be told to even return fire. This is why veteran units are so valuable, it's not that they are bulletproof or have guns that deal more damage, they just don't have issues with killing people and in the military that's kinda big deal. This is why stuff you seen in movies like Full Metal Jacket isn't just artistic license and why there used to be a huge difference between Army and Marine training, making Marines sort of an elite unit.
If you're gonna quote Andrey on the game, take a look at his posts concerning stuff like people wanting more gore. If anything, Graviteam makes anti-war games rather than games that promote war.
Also, if you seriously place units right at the front line before the battle begins, you really are asking to get your ass kicked and rightfully so.
>your point being?
Stop sniffing your own farts. Graviteam has plenty of issues, cut corners, oversimplifications and straight up bugs. It's not a military-grade simulator, it's merely an autistic strategy game. I have no idea why you're denying it when the devs themselves admit it.
>Doctrine at least dictates to report the contact, sometimes if you're hidden it's unwise to engage.
How is any of this relevant to troops that spawned next to each other in the middle of a fricking field and couldn't even see each other for two minutes straight? It's a deliberate oversimplification added for the sake of the player's comfort, it has absolutely nothing to do with ROE and OODA.
Drooling morons like you who don't even play the game yet shill it religiously while spouting lies in every post is the reason why Graviteam isn't being discussed here.
>It's a deliberate oversimplification added for the sake of the player's comfort
You are wrong, the simplification is that there's a tactical map at all that allows units to be next to each other. Because there's a tactical map and the game tries to remember unit positions for real battles they sometimes spawn too close. Would be really annoying dropping into the battle and its already started. The 2 minutes simulates the forces making contact again. Its not really an indictment of the game, but rather against modern computer and developer constraints.
hmmm I don't have these problems, strange
Graviteam vs combat mission?
I kinda wish Graviteam wasnt so focused on obscure engagements
Combat Mission has more variety but for everything else Graviteam
Very different games. Graviteam is a singleplayer operational wargame that (very poorly) attempts to recreate the perspective of the commander/HQ. Combat Mission is a multiplayer tactical wargame where you micro your troops up to a two-man cell. Graviteam should be compared to Command Ops 2, which has a similar scale and scope. Between these two Graviteam has better visuals and Command Ops 2 has better everything else.
What is the most modern tank you can use in Mius Front with all the DLCs?
Chieftains and t62's in the iran/iraq scenario
I really wish this game had a way to turn off night battles completely or atleast make them visible only to the player, it already has the cheat to let you see all enemies so why not.
Isnt there an option in the options to remove night battles?
Yes, never used it personally but its there
Night vision is soul mode
Neat. I dont think I've ever turned NV on. Usually I just set my orders, pick a squad to follow and then pull back the camera every 15 mins to make sure I'm not getting flanked or walking dudes into a grinder if its unnecessary.
I recommend taking a look at it
KRUPP STEEL
shermans were shooting 9mm
I'm guessing the M4s are using steel-core ammo just like the Stuarts.
Is this the new DLC?
No, its from Tunisia 1943, i also remade the webm in VP9
How to not immediately lose all South African scenarios?
I feel like the training and morale can't be modelled properly, and my guys just get rolled over or go 1 to 1 with the enemy. Maneuvering can only help so much.
>I feel like the training and morale can't be modelled properly
You are literally fighting in Africa and the sides are Cubans and a bunch of dudes who called themselves National Union for Total Liberation of Angola, what training and morale? I've played these scenarios in both Mius and SABOW, the latter one really puts into perspective what the guys fighting had to deal with - you can't see shit and at some point the enemy either has air or rocket arty. I had mild success with using ambushes. You might get air support so that's when you rush B. The problem with operations in Graviteam games is that you don't really have much choice in terms of strategy and you're on a schedule, a short one too. Apparently some guy way back when coined a rule that you need to have 3 times the troops to even attempt a successful attack and the scenarios in the game all abide by it. So when defending you're pretty much always facing an overwhelming force and when attacking, you always lack troops, unless get your logistics right. Again in SABOW I played this Iraq-Iran scenario and steamrolled everything in turn 1. Then came the counter-attack and I was confident until I realized I was out of SABOT and desperately low on HEAT. My remaining tank platoon was wiped by a pair of Migs. So my guess is, in Mius, morale is probably heavily tied to ammo and ways to effectively fight back.
Okay, so just spent the better half of my evening doing this. It's not morale or training, it's how the campaigns are stacked against you.
>UNITA fricked right up the ass
>all keypoints are mine
>campaign result says total defeat
>all because my dudes died a lot while pulling this off
>all because enemy still had one platoon with 8 soldiers and one APC
>didn't even have tanks and arty proved useless
I consider this a total win. Welcome to Graviteam games.
If you lose more "value" like important vehicles compared to the enemy then the game might consider a battle a defeat even if the enemy lost a lot of troops, territory or vehicles themselves.
Yup, this is how it works, though when you conserve forces, even if you wreck them good, it's still considered a loss, cause you don't have the keypoint.
That was a total win for the USA (pushing Russia out of country by destroying their proxy army), but not South Africa who couldn't afford all the losses. The joys of proxy wars.
The issues I'm having, are when I'm playing from the South African perspective. I understand UNITA troops should be low tier, but even on something like leopards leap - I'm finding my (regular SA) troops going 1 to 1 with tribes people. I get if they have a T-55, I will need to maneuver to have a chance against it - but they just lock on to my ratels immediately, and click delete. I have no idea how the South Africans managed it, if this is how it was. My understanding is that the African native armies fought at iq79 level - but they're pulling 100iq moves.
I also had some issues with the BTR's putting holes through my APC's, with mine hesitating to fire back - but that might be because I didn't "prioritise fire" on them. Still - I'd have thought that if they're in effective range, they'd just open up if they saw them.
What, do you just expect them to roll over and die because they are Africans?
They're not supposed to just roll over and die, but their training is in no way comparable to South African regulars.
Are you trying to be ironic, or make some sort of joke? Have you even seen combat footage from that part of the world? Half of them don't even bother to aim. You don't get results like what the South Africans got, without significant squad level superiority.
I found my answers from the forum anyway - Andrey based as always.
Im not trying to be ironic, i just find "why isn't easy enough? They are supposed to be dumb Black folk" to be kinda lame when talking about a game
Wtf I just found out Graviteam is based in Kharkov. How are these Black folk not dead?
Kharkov never got seriously attacked in the same fashion that the donbass is getting rolled up, supposedly their office building got wrecked but they're staying put until liberation day and get knocking out updates
Kharkov got shelled a couple of days ago, mostly dead kids as a result - russkies been doing it like this for ages (makes me mad, cause even now some political gays call this shit "liberation"). Too bad so much sovl hardware is wasted cause they chose to be animals.
Graviteam dudes seem to go unscathed though. Just shows how being incredibly based makes you arty-proof. These frickers probably have no idea this board exists, but considering what's going on with gaming nowadays, Andrey and his crew occupy this weird place in my heart that's anything but love, but all acknowledgment and respect for passion.
anyone playing on linux? I see people making it work in https://steamcommunity.com/app/312980/discussions/0/405693392916015232/?ctp=2 but I'm worried wine + my intel hd card won't be enough
Black snow, strong point, or grim of death, for best defensive operation with plenty of pillboxes and bunkers?
T. Wanter of such an operation
Still no multiplayer, right? "Strategy" games without multiplayer just don't do it for me, too easy. I get that GT looks difficult but once you realize the AI is even stupider than P*radox all of the mystique goes away. At least it's pretty.
>but once you realize the AI is even stupider than P*radox
Its not and they are completely different games, the difficulty depends on what campaign and what side you are picking, there are some campaigns like that one
on the american side that are tough enough that even getting a minor victory is quite challenging.
It is, why are you so defensive? The webm you linked literally has an AI Tiger ignoring an entire platoon of Shermans shooting its ass, how can you pretend that's a decent AI. Don't even want to know how it ended up in that position to begin with given how flat the North African terrain is. And I know GT is different from Paradox games, that doesn't mean talking about the competence of their respective AIs is an apples to oranges comparison. Look, I put ~100 hours into Mius Front, coming from Wargame, and beat every campaign on hard, usually clearing the map by the halfway point and just slaughtering whatever the AI brought up for the second half.
It's really pretty and the simulationist aspect is second to none, but the hardest part is figuring out how the UI works, if you have a half decent idea of how modern warfare works you'll be going 3:1 or better in all but the most unequal of fights.
>The webm you linked literally has an AI Tiger ignoring an entire platoon of Shermans shooting its ass
Which is realistic since he is about to get blown to smithereens from that range even from the front and he was getting pelted by shells, this is not a asiaticclicker where units just stand there even if they are under attack from every unit, if anything he should have run away sooner but i kinda caught the Tigers by surprise.
>But I kinda caught the Tigers by surprise
As I said, the AI letting you get that close to its Tigers on that parking lot of a map proves my point about the AI just as well.
The AI doesn't have god vision, they had very little support aside from some crappy AT guns and a few infantry units, even on that flat terrain there are some areas that blocked the Tigers LOS and that's where the Shermans came from.
> "Strategy" games without multiplayer just don't do it for me, too easy
Post a screenshot of your furthest campaign
Why would I lie? This is Shilovo, I think, from one of the DLCs. I have similar screenshots for most of the campaigns that existed when I last played.
>sneed
but you are performing than historically
According to the synopsis on the right Germans were still attacking towards Shilovo at the time I took that screenshot, who are you kidding?
Here's another one, from Stepanovka. 10 turn operation all over but the crying by turn 6. All on hard/simulator, of course.
that feel when realise mareth line DLC got updated so the bridgehead is larger, so no more first battle ebin defensive lines with interlocking bunkers.
Ok bros, what dlc should I buy? I'm pretty green here, have played through 3 campaigns(plus tutorial). The cold war tech theater of Iraq-Iran interests me, but at the same time I like the old meat grinders.
Which dlc campaign will have my final turn battles take place on top of the most corpses?
Black snow is a meatgrinder. Lots of infantry, bunkers, landmines, and trenches. Some heavy tanks on the Russian side, along with some SPGs for the Germans.
Seconding Black Snow. Enjoy not only the final turns, but the early mid, mid, and late mid turns to be fought over corpses
>queue up an assault command
>3 infantry squads and a single tank
>guys huddled together sp tight like its a community pool in a low income neighborhood
>tank drives over a single mine
>all infantry is dead
>tank still good
RIP dudes, next time dont listen to my asinine suggestions
The more I play, especially the Angola scenarios, the more I think that the standard assault order that has infantry moving behind vehicles is quite often a bad idea. Your tank exploding is one thing, but when it gets immobilized, sometimes the infantry frickers just bunch up behind it and stay there, refusing to move. Another problem with this tactics is infantry does not do it's job of protecting vehicles from RPGs. If you're doing WWII and attacking trenches and MG nests, infantry behind tanks is fine. All other cases, you may want your dudes moving alongside tanks.
I'm finding its only really good when crossing open field against a fortified position when trying to eject some defenders. I find myself using the modified orders a lot more now that I'm getting better at the game.
Standard attack in one line is ludicrous if you are giving it to a large platoon. Should default to 2 lines.
>normal morale regualar squads in bunker / trenches flanked by minefields and barbed wire, with platoon commander nearby (~100m), and company commander ~400m away, connected by wire coms, and with tank acting as mobile pillbox next to said squads
>under frontal assauly by infantry with 50mm mortars, and a few wildly inaccurate lieg shells, every now and then
>infantry freak out and leave their entrenchment/bunker kill zone, and retreat over the mine field away from the HQ components of the company/platoon, despite having a suitable rear retreat that didn't include mines, taking huge casualties and putting themselves in a hugely more vulnerable position to enemy fire
>could've just had a turkey shoot, but chose this instead
What did they mean by this?
high explosives are spooky
Any tips for Iran/Iraq?
Always seems like the first battle is a huge clusterfrick (maximum battle radius). Everything dies quickly thr second they step out their bush or ditch (especially anything not sitting in a MBT). Currently trying to sit way back in my squares and hold back until air support can ID enemies, but there isn't much difference given how long the sight-lines are.
After the first battle, the rest of the op is crippes on cripples.
It is thermal equipped tanks and ATGMs on both sides fighting over mostly open desert that's been cut through in all directions by irrigation channels that are effectively (or actually?) anti-tank ditches so no you pretty much got it. Its all about preparing in the deployment phase (this includes putting tanks close to cover then ordering them into it with the 'start orders' phase) then finding out who gets fricked once missiles start flying.
The primary objective IMO is to get a deployment in an L shape so you can set up an L shape ambush of the entire battle space, then hope the AI deploys too close to the front and gets caught in it. I would add that your infantry can get a LOT closer than you'd expect if you order them to crawl slowly and be cautious the whole way - as long as they stick to green areas. Infantry on both sides are fully capable of knocking out the other's MBTs as long as they get within ~200m or so.