Questions and suggestions.

[Fubar]

I'l be honest, at first I thought this game was a total piece of crap. Still those game hours keep accumulating... Well,I think I have to change my opinion, since I find myself loading the game again and again.

Couple of questions though;
- On map view (F10) there is a button "Transfer units under AI commander control". Are units in players formation affected by that, there seems to be no difference on their behavior? What does that button actually do?

- Is there any effective way for T-62 commander to define range to infantry targets?

- Repairing, should it actually work? In some cases when track is blown off repairing starts when ordered. At the same moment when I change vehicle repairing stops. Few times track has been off and "Start repairing" was not even available. If I stay with vehicle and look the crew repairing it seems to take forever, is it even possible to do that in battle?


Suggestions
- When AI-tank commander targets enemy, the point showing the target should be visible longer (at least on easier difficulty levels).
- AI for units needs way more tweaking. Setting defence causes tanks scatter around the map. I tested it, and while managing my own tank to hull down/fire position the other tanks kept reversing endlessly. AI need to be more aware of ground formations, now the "take up defense" is pretty much useless.
- AI tanks need to engage more effectly. Most of the time they just sit there getting shot even when there is plenty of targets. And yes, I checked LOS, and LOF.
- Would it be possible to add an option to give moving orders to friendly tanks from outside view without changing tanks? Like CTRL+rmb .
- Fix campaign battles. I just finished battle in Afghanistan campaing, enemy territory was 0%, his casualties 5 times more than mine, didn't loose a single tank. And that was a DEFEAT?!

[Black Watch]

I think TBH what you thought at first was correct.

BW

[Frank's Pickle Barrel Ass]

I am still deciding on this game's "bugginess," but my experience with this developer is to give them the benefit of the doubt because most things work once you understand them.

1 - AI control is only certain troops. In other graviteam games, it is mortar squads and wire-layers.

2 - This is a simulation of 80s tank combat, so you will apply the tedious milliradian ranging that tank commanders used to use. For ease, use the mil-dot reticle to range infantry. it's the little reticle in the bottom right corner with a horizontal line that says "2.7" under it and then a curved set of lines above it. the numbers are range for a 2.7 -meter tall object that fits under each dot - i.e. a 2.7 meter tall tank that fits just under the "8" dot is 800 meters away.

To convert that to infantry, a man would be just over half of 2.7 meters, so whichever dot infantry is half up to, that's the range. If an infantryman fills just over half the distance below the "8" dot, he is about 800 meters away. Fire and adjust with tracers.

3 - i really don't know about repairing. I think only a tank track can be fixed during battle, so if there's chasis damage you are screwed until the turn phases. BUT, i think whatever time the unit spend repairing during battle is decreased from the time it takes to repair during the turn phases.

[Fubar]

Can you even win in this game? Campaing ended as a draw. I managed to get even few total victories, and in every battle enemys casualties were much higher than mine. Didn't loose a single tank in whole campaing (couple damaged), pushed frontline almost out of the map. Draw?!

[Sulifer]

Originally posted by kerakari:

in every battle enemys casualties were much higher than mine. Didn't loose a single tank in whole campaing (couple damaged),

No offense kerakari but SABoW does not award victories on pure numbers of enemy killed or territory taken. Here's an interesting read on how victories, draw or defeats are calculated in SABoW.
http://graviteam.com/forum/index.php?topic=11897.0
You may not agree with how this is done in SABoW but it is probably the most realistic in taking all aspects of a campaign into consideration rather then just I killed more armor and infantry then the AI did.
I'm impressed as I have been playing SABoW for years and have never completed any campaign without losing several tanks (destroyed), kudos to you.

[Frank's Pickle Barrel Ass]

One other point, the campaign victory is largely decided by KEY POINTS. You need to control marked key points on the campaign map throughout the caimpaign period to reach victory.

You'll see that the key points on the campaign map correlate to historically important areas of the battlefield. For example, in the Hooper campaign, if you fail to control the key points you would have historically opened Angola to further invastion - even if you killed a lot of AI units.

Generally, you will win a campaign if you keep the key points for most turns.

[Fubar]

Originally posted by Sulifer:

http://graviteam.com/forum/index.php?topic=11897.0

Thanks for the link, that clarifies conditions. That been said I agree with 33lima, current victory/defeat/draw calculations are flawed.

Originally posted by Sulifer:

I'm impressed as I have been playing SABoW for years and have never completed any campaign without losing several tanks (destroyed), kudos to you.

Well, I have only done Afghanistan campaign, and difficulty was set pretty low. It's easy to keep your distance and stay alert of recoilless guns. Tried the Iran/Iraq campaing too and got my ass handed to me. Most of the time I have been spending with battle editor and trying to figure out how AI works.

And there is the game breaker for me. I feel more like playing RTS with little simulation options than tank simulator. Allied AI should be capable for more independent actions.

[FlashBurn]

Average infantry height is around 1.7 meters tall. So knowing that you can guessitmate range using scale. But generally its simply walk tracers into area. From there you can adjust range scale to point of aim and then fire off an HE using range figured out with tracer and impacts.

I would not calll the victory conditions flawed per say. Different yes. Perhaps badly worded. But if attack an objective and take it but loose 10 times the number of troops to do so than the enemy is that really a victory? It does give you weird out comes. Wipe out a bunch of trucks with a company of M60's and it might tell you minor defeat or draw. The reason is you so out matched the enemy that it was not really a fight. Might be better to say effectivness than win loose or draw. Say you where 32 percent effective as you took your objectives but lost 3 tanks to a bunch of infantry.

But in the end you can have tactical in game victories all over the place and loose the battle by not controlling the important bits. Sort of like the US in Vietnam or the Soviets in Afganistan. WIn every battle utterly but really loose the war for lack of controlling what was actually important. In this case, its hearts and minds as well as controlling the important stuff...say North Vietnam. Although that would of just ended up even more stupid than it was most likely. For the afgan game campaign it is not relevant per say that your body count is crazy good. You failed your objective of controlling the ground that was set out as the reason for the operation on the historical time scale. In the military you get your orders. Attack and control X by such and such a time. It might not make much sence to you about the time scale. But the other pieces of the pie outside your view might need that place under some sort of control so they can go off and attack their objective freely.


Personally I think the game plays best with smaller numbers of units. At times there are simply a ton of things going on and folks that do not want to be a company commander and just a tank commander might be out of their depth. But in in the end its a tank sim built on a tactical war game chasis. A more tradional single player campaign option might be a good thing to round out game. Who knows. Maybe that happens some day.

I personally think the Angola campaign the best of the lot. Iran is a meat grinder.

[Fubar]

Originally posted by FlashBurn:

Might be better to say effectivness than win loose or draw.

I agree.

Originally posted by FlashBurn:

Personally I think the game plays best with smaller numbers of units.

I agree. Perhaps it would be possible for developers to add somekind of randomizing to battle editor, that you can set sides and battle sizes and generate random missions? Sure you can edit battles yourself but that kinda takes away randomness. I bet random missions would prolong game's lifespan.

Originally posted by FlashBurn:

But in in the end its a tank sim built on a tactical war game chasis.

And that is games biggest problem in my opinion. AI just isn't good enough to handle ground formations and cover, hence micromanaging.


In my opinion victory is a victory, even if you achieve it with superior forces and/or massive casualties. If I loose 95% of my troops but control the area and decimate enemy, I won. I did very badly but won.
But next battle with those diminished forces is going to be much much harder, and thats the way I would like it to be.

Well, I keep my fingers crossed for better AI.

[Sulifer]

A victory is a victory is not always true historically, a good example of this was the Tet Offensive in 1968. The Viet Cong were totally crushed but it was a game changer for the US military in Vietnam. There are other examples in the battles and campaigns on the western and eastern fronts during WW2 also.
Another thing to consider with GT's games are they are very much designed with an eye towards historical aspects of events, this goes beyond just what equipment each side used at what time.
The RTS part of SABoW is what makes it very unique as far as SP combat games go and is probably what will give SABoW high replayability for years to come. I agree the micomanaging can be a PITA but I look at it this way, if something goes wrong (or right) it was mainly because of the decisions I made and not what the AI decided for me, and when it goes right it's most satisfying.
But I do agree and hope that GT does add a battle editor that is a little more involved then the QMB they have now, so you can play missions more like whats in their Steel Fury Kharkov 1942 game. Kind of more then the current SABoW QMB offers but less then a SABoW full blown micromanage everything type campaign.

[Fubar]

Originally posted by Sulifer:

A victory is a victory is not always true historically, a good example of this was the Tet Offensive in 1968. The Viet Cong were totally crushed but it was a game changer for the US military in Vietnam.

Tet was not a game changer for US military. What it did was caused public opinion to became antiwar, and public opinion elects politicians. Some historians and professional soldiers even think that US was not "allowed" to win the war, because body bags dont make good publicity and winning would inevitably lead to more troops and more casualties. Seek&Destroy proved to be ineffective.

Using Vietnam as an example, US didn't loose single battle if considered company sized and larger battles. In Sabow they would loose all of them, because their superior armanent against AK's and RPG's (or even WW2 era rifles). Even if US destoyed NVA/VCA entirely it would be a loss since US had better gear. That feels a bit stupid to me.

Originally posted by Sulifer:

I agree the micomanaging can be a PITA but I look at it this way, if something goes wrong (or right) it was mainly because of the decisions I made and not what the AI decided for me, and when it goes right it's most satisfying

I totally agree that I dont want AI to fight my battles. I'l give an example what kind of AI behaviour need to be fixed;

Last night I started the Angola Campaing. At certain point I had 3 T-62's in line formation, and I spotted single enemy tank. I checked my tanks LOF and LOS, and all my tanks had a clear shot.

I changed to gunner site, shot and bounced. Gave order to driver to reverse, and my tank turned 90 degrees, exposed side to enemy and then started to back up. By the time I changed to driver tank was destroyed. Other two tanks did nothing. Changed to second tank, started rotating the turret and got blown to pieces. When I switched to third tank I tried to reverse for some cover, but got destroyed.

So, all tanks had clear shot, none of them shot. Obviously there was no obstacles since enemy tank had no problem shooting me. My AI driver was propably blind, drunk and one handed. Fire at will command seems to mean "fire IF you will, but propably not".

What I like to see is when I order other tanks to use cover, they do it. Too many times I have noticed that when I order "Take defence" and start manouver my own tank I find the other vehicles scattered around with erratic patterns. I tested in Battle editor, that when there is actual hulldown position available, AI-tanks cant use it or find it. It's a bit frustrating to get your own tank in position and see your other vehicles reversing hundreds of meters behind you.

[Frank's Pickle Barrel Ass]

I agree that friendly AI could use some fine tuning. Despite that, I have a lot of fun with this game. It's worth supporting this developer's work because they constantly work to improve issues in their games. Their releases show steady improvement, especially recently.

Moreover, this developer will soon be releasing new titles that address any shortcomings from the past. Keep in mind, this was a circa 2011 release. With much more powerful hardware available today, this developer can shoot for an even higher standard.

Graviteam demonstrates the potential to create pioneering games that combine large scale simulation with historical accuracy. There's just nobody else following this path. The Wargame series was the only game somewhat close, but the Wargame developer killed that series in favor of more simple point and click RTS.

Stick with these guys and I think you'll see some incredible releases soon. They are even setting goals to create multplayer games of this nature.

[FlashBurn]

Some of the ai issues are simply becasue a game AI is not a human. Its more a cockrouch. What we see a clearly cover, the ai will not recognize it. There are no nodes except where trenches are located that tell the ai that THIS is cover. It just looks for low points and brush. But an open ended "low point" that gives hull down to one direction that is obvious as hell to us, it no to the ai. And this is a limitation of not just Gravi ai, but all AI in all games. In other games where in linear its easier to tell the ai what is good and bad cover. In open world games its really hard. Look at Arma 3's AI. Its way worse but has the same core problems. =( Ditto with other sims like DCS world. The tanks and such are retarded.

[Fubar]

Originally posted by Frank's Pickle Barrel Ass:

Stick with these guys and I think you'll see some incredible releases soon. They are even setting goals to create multplayer games of this nature.

Sure, I wont "abandon" Graviteam. Even with flaws this game is the only one which comes even close to tank simulator nowadays (*cough* Steel Beasts). That been said and with issues I have "complained" I'l guess I just wait for patches and hope for the best. At current state I find gameplay too frustrating.

You mentioned "incredible releases soon". Any more information of those? New tank sim?

[Sulifer]

Sorry to disagree kerakari but as someone who was old enough at the time of Tet and with several family members "in country" at the time I can tell you that Tet came as a total suprise to US forces from top generals to the grunts and the American public. Pre Tet most if not all military adviser to President Johnson and US forces in the field felt the end game was insight for an outright victory or at the very worst case a stalemate akin to what happened in Korea. Your correct that US forces won all their engagements with the NVA regulars but even ARVN forces were winning most of their engagements with the NVA regulars by 1968. Post Tet all that confidence did a 180 turn. With over 100 cities and towns attacked in the South (even the American Embassy in Saigon to boot) the end game was revealed to be very far from within grasp. As I stated earlier about being old enough at the time I can tell you from first hand experiance that the view of most Americans in 1968 was we were winning in Vietnam. I can still remember correspondent Walter Cronkite first hand assestment of the war to the American public on TV after Tet followed shortly by President Johnsons announcement he would not seek reelection. You are partially correct that the new's coverage of the Tet offensive did start to sway the American public's view on the war in Vietnam, with heavy nightly news coverage of the fighting (esecially at Hue) it wasn't hard to figure out thing's were not going as well as we were told. But despite Tet it would take another 2 years before we started really winding down our involvement and as then President Nixon said "start Vietnamization of the war". A real paradox of it all was a majority of Americans still supported involvment in Vietnam after Tet. Sorry so long on this and OT but with so many close relatives serving in Vietnam it's a subject very close to my heart.

[Fubar]

As you without a doubt can tell English is not my first language and my expressions may come out more harshly than I mean. I also may understand some fine nuances wrong.

I dont mean to disrespect any person, country or veteran from any side of that war, or any other conflicts.

What I meant about Tet not being a game changer was that it didn't effect US capability to fight.

Being younger that you (born -73) my knowlegde about Vietnam comes from books and documentaries (seen that famous Cronkite raport of course), but it seems that my "opinion" matches 100% what you wrote. If I understood you right we both agree that biggest effect Tet did was to reveal real status of the war.