Graviteam Tactics: Operation Star

Graviteam Tactics: Operation Star

View Stats:
=BKHZ= hnbdgr Nov 13, 2014 @ 4:50am
Communication - need to know more
Can somebody explain the impact of "comms icons" and the animated symbols in that guide in more details I'd be extremely grateful. Currently it's like this for me (example):

I'll start a battle - select mortar squad from a platoon and switch off ai. I'll move the mortar somewhere further to the back => squad icon turns yellow for duration of transit (meaning I think they can't fire because weapon is not ready) and the little square icon turns red (according to JCMillers guide it means link is broken...?) How does the link broken effect the squad? I can still issue orders to it, I tried it and it works fine, doesn't eat much of the command bar. I'm a bit clueless.

In other words:

The animated icons on the battlefield - do they just indicate what's happening, but have otherwise no impact on gameplay?

The little squares on unit cards - how do black, blue and red differ in terms of gameplay? What will they change?
Last edited by =BKHZ= hnbdgr; Nov 13, 2014 @ 4:58am
< >
Showing 1-7 of 7 comments
jcmiller101 Nov 13, 2014 @ 7:43am 
In all things GTOS - The bottom line from the devs is - play & discover.
They still believe in old skool game play where discovery is a component of the fun. :)

Any icon/button modifier (top corners of selected unit information panel bottom of GUI) is reporting a status - generally: - red bad, blue good, black dead etc (depends on the icon as to what is referenced.)
The icons report what is happening to your units & you then use this sit-rep to react/plan your moves.

The game is more sim than game & no comms means little to no command.
If a comms link is broken then the unit loses any immediate guidance &/or orders take forever to arrive, if at all.
In game this means:
- you cannot directly/quickly control a unit out of comms range.
- they cannot share target or threat info.
etc.

So you can have what appears to be a healthy unit sat in the middle of nowhere doing nothing - because it has lost HQ contact & someone has to re-establish contact to get some response or activity going.

If you are using expert scouts they can to some extent 'behave more sensibly' & not just sit there, as they are trained to be distant from HQ.
But generally it depends on experience & situation etc. Issuing a chain of orders early on, can mitigate loss of comms later in the game.

Comms are relevant
- within a unit
- between units
- to overall C&C within the whole chain of command.
I too would like to know more about how communications work in the game. I don't really buy the "you are meant to discover it for yourself" argument, because a strategy game really needs to have some mechanical transparency, otherwise you can't make informed decisions and thus can't even play the damn game. I couldn't even approach effectively playing a tabletop wargame only knowing half the rules. It's pretty silly. For a game with such focus on command and control and inter-unit communication, it would really help to actually know what the game even is.

That said, I do like the game a lot, I'd just like to have some more info on what the hell is going on.

The red for the mortar is a little confusing, because I know the red dot for artillery spotters means artillery is currently incoming and the spotter is in contact with the off-map artillery. I would imagine the mortars might work somewhat similar? How to even use mortars is one of the things that even after two dozen hours or so I still lack a firm grasp on what the hell is going on. Do they fire on their own? Do I need to order area fire? I don't know. But that's getting off topic.



FlashBurn Nov 13, 2014 @ 9:58pm 
On mortars. If they communication with other units...and their platoon leader, with AI on for them. They will fire mission on there own. They will also fire if they have direct line of sight. To make them fire at something you want selct the platoon leader. Look for the circle with cross icon and place where you want blasted. You can also drag with mouse and will make a long fire area instead of a circle.
jcmiller101 Nov 14, 2014 @ 3:54am 
Originally posted by Lucireefer:
I too would like to know more about how communications work in the game. I don't really buy the "you are meant to discover it for yourself" argument, because a strategy game really needs to have some mechanical transparency, otherwise you can't make informed decisions and thus can't even play the damn game. I couldn't even approach effectively playing a tabletop wargame only knowing half the rules. It's pretty silly. For a game with such focus on command and control and inter-unit communication, it would really help to actually know what the game even is.


Sure it can be frustrating but it doesn't really matter if you 'buy' it or not.
There is a manual & the basic GUI conventions you should already be familiar with.
But most importantly - you aren't completely alone in the dark with all the info from people who have learnt by experimenting - that is available here & elsewhere.

GT for whatever reason encourage players to explore & figure out what is going on. Applies to RU version as well, so it's not just about being able to afford a translator to document every aspect of the game. Check their forum - you will see Andrey encourages trial & error.

Part of gaming used to include Easter Eggs - even Windows OS had em - & going to play arcade games sometimes meant machines with 0 instructions just a few different buttons.

I'd rather be challenged than spoon-fed in any case.
Originally posted by jcmiller101:
GT for whatever reason encourage players to explore & figure out what is going on. Applies to RU version as well, so it's not just about being able to afford a translator to document every aspect of the game. Check their forum - you will see Andrey encourages trial & error.

I probably would have some serious disagreements with his design philosophy. :-/

Complaints aside, I do still enjoy the game. And I've got another question about communication and commanders: for your squads, will it benefit them to be in command range of any commander, or only their own platoon command? I'd assume battalion and company commanders would still affect them, but what about commanders from other platoons? And does command effects stack if I put multiple commanders in an area?
Frisko [VL] Nov 15, 2014 @ 10:19am 
the only thing lacking is a good entertaining openings-cynematic! :p

And an auto-updater...
and changelogs in english...
and a big cup of coffee, öberfeldwebel Grupps is cold and whining....
jcmiller101 Nov 16, 2014 @ 3:21am 
Originally posted by Lucireefer:

I probably would have some serious disagreements with his design philosophy. :-/

Complaints aside, I do still enjoy the game. And I've got another question about communication and commanders: for your squads, will it benefit them to be in command range of any commander, or only their own platoon command? I'd assume battalion and company commanders would still affect them, but what about commanders from other platoons? And does command effects stack if I put multiple commanders in an area?

You can switch on the 'circles & lines' that show command link/radius (state switch on bottom left button panel) to see who is with who.
Try thinking of it as reality - you don't want all your eggs in one basket, so bunching officers isn't a great idea esp. when you are being shelled.
Too many commanders is as bad as too few.
The normal state for troops is no leader = no command.
Hence:-
i) targeting officers has always been a priority to destabilize & break enemy forces.
ii) you always need field officers for each unit.
Maintaining as cohesive & broad a C&C structure as possible, top to bottom, is the aim. but action & casualties make this difficult.

Once I found that I had a bunch of conscripts lose their officer, they were under a lot of pressure & looked about to rout, it wasn't a surprise that they weren't going to obey any orders from me... But I moved a unit that still had an officer nearer to them & they rallied.
I assume this is due to a combination of morale + command presence, given the situation.
In other cases I can see that that might not have worked i.e. if the assault had been stronger &/or more advanced on different terrain etc.
There are so many variables in this game I think you need to try to match historical reality/doctrine with what the game tries to do. Doesn't always pan out & the AI can be a bit crazy sometimes but generally stuff works logically.

***

http://graviteam.com/forum/index.php?PHPSESSID=t66tplqjn1h760naskbbhagi82&topic=11099.0
The forum has always had lists of changes on every update as they often introduce new features in them.
That was another reason to encourage trial & error, they can't update a manual fast enough to keep up with the improvements - which are free in their updates (unlike some devs who make players buy this kinda thing).
The update system was designed to add DLC, Mods & updates, I think this is why it wasn't full auto. A bonus is that it allows you to roll back easily if you don't like something.


GT don't have the huge resources of some RTS studios that make lovely video ( & buggy games :P ). I get the idea that like combat where things are unpredictable & full of surprises, GT try to make the best of limited resources & encourage people to meet them half-way & discover things. The difficulty of learning it has made it a more interesting game for me.
& I can see why their military used the devs to make simulations for them - they do try to make it realistic.

Last edited by jcmiller101; Nov 16, 2014 @ 3:27am
< >
Showing 1-7 of 7 comments
Per page: 15 30 50

Date Posted: Nov 13, 2014 @ 4:50am
Posts: 7