Realism vs balance

[Defiant Squirrel]

I used to play a lot of military RTS/wargames and such, but unfortunately for me I stumbled upon Graviteam games and that was that, since that fateful day I've been unable to enjoy any other game in the genre, and I've tried them all, including the last Steel Division game which in all honesty I found to be very disappointing. The key reasons for that were a distinct lack of historical accuracy, realism and the absence of sheer scale, but SD is not alone there, nothing else on the market can currently compete with Graviteam on any of those fronts, let alone all three.

The only drawback with Graviteam games is the lack of multiplayer, and so I sincerely hope that this new title will step in and fill that particular void, delivering the historically accurate, realistic and large scale multiplayer experience that currently doesn't exist.

I'm one of those gamers who doesn't mind getting his rear-end kicked if it's fair and square, I don't want my Pz.III's to have an artificially imposed parity with T-34's in a frontal engagement, if an inferior enemy defeats me with superior tactics I'll be the first to smile and congratulate him, we strategy gamers are not all delicate snowflakes who need our fix of victory in video games to feel at ease with ourselves, we don't all need to win all the time, or feel that we're better than we actually are in order to have fun. As an example Graviteams Sokolovo campaign has never (as far as we know) been won, the player finds himself in a completely hopeless situation (which was common on the Eastern front), and rather than playing to win he is forced instead to try to lose as heroically as he can, such is the nature of war, and it shows how a sense of real achievement does not necessarily have to come with victory, a fact 99% of these games ignore completely.

So please, if you possibly can, try to avoid the trap of making this game absurdly 'fair' and 'balanced', war is never fair. Make it as unforgiving and as brutally realistic as you dare, allow players to at least occasionally face overwhelming odds, but be sure to give them the tactical freedom to be able to overcome those odds and achieve that uniquely rewarding sense of satisfaction that only games like this can ever deliver, but sadly rarely do.


Of course I'm not expecting Graviteam + multiplayer, that would asking too much, but we have Company of Heroes and other similarly arcadey and balanced titles for all the gamey funtime lulz and bantz we could ever want, and I really think there is a demand out there for a serious real time multiplayer strategy wargame which delivers much more, let's hope this will be it.

[Empy]

I support what you say dude! I'm all up for it. I love my games like Graviteam,Close combat and Combat Mission! It feels like SD is just a bit behind them. I am very much looking forawrd to the SD2's campaign. I always thought GT's Campaign/stragic bit was abit lacking.

[Defiant Squirrel]

Originally posted by Pingu:

I support what you say dude! I'm all up for it. I love my games like Graviteam,Close combat and Combat Mission! It feels like SD is just a bit behind them. I am very much looking forawrd to the SD2's campaign. I always thought GT's Campaign/stragic bit was abit lacking.

Indeed, Gravi games are not exactly perfect, however what they do get right they do better than anyone else, historically they are basically spot on, recreating maps and actual events according to official historical records, the ballistics and damage modelling is also second to none, mainly because the devs make tank sims for military use and that forms the basis for their strategy games, also the atmosphere is very evocative as this gameplay video demonstrates perfectly...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G5CqqUJK4d8

But they do fall short in other areas where I hope this game might perhaps excel, like a more dynamic campaign mode, perhaps larger in scale, less focus on the fine details and more on things like small unit tactics etc.

Time will tell.

[tommy.w]

I’m a big fan of Graviteam games too. - My favourite being 'Tank Warfare: Tunisia 1943'.

Whilst I appreciate the setting is different (Africa / Russia) if the new SD is anywhere near the same authenticity I will be ecstatic.

[sethgaines]

I have the earlier Graviteam game, and I just can't get into it. I enjoy the battles, but the interface is impenetrable. I can't figure out how about 90% of the game works. I was hoping SD would be a more accessible version of the same concept. I have absolutely no trouble doing what I want to in SD, but the weird abstractions (trucks disappearing, stats on a 1-10 scale like Steel Panthers, etc.), and the hectic pace are offputting. The 'balance' nonsense allows all sorts of weird results in combat. I lost a Sherman to a Pz. II at several hundred yards, which is physically impossible. I'm interested to see what gameplay/design changes they make.

[crackz12]

the graviteam game is very realistic in the gameplay like has been mentioned the problem is the graphics and maps are pretty sparse to be honest.no hills or mountains etc.but it is arguably the best ww2 realistic wargame out there!!..close combat is a brilliant squad based game too.but needs the game engine remaking it looks and feels so old!!..SD1 i really enjoyed except my main dislike as with all eugen games so far..it runs far too quick to be a good tactical game.which,is a shame because there is a brilliant tactical game in there!!.just slow the game speed down a notch and zoom in.you can move units about into specific buildings and the actual models are awesone.but its all lost in the 100 mph speedfest of mp [bang out the most units u win]icon blurred map game.

[Defiant Squirrel]

Originally posted by crackz12:

...the problem is the graphics and maps are pretty sparse to be honest.no hills or mountains etc.

I agree with everything you say, except quote related^^, the maps in graviteam games are based upon both satellite data and information and photographs etc from the time, they are absolutely the most accurate maps in any 3D wargame, it is simply not possible to make them any more topographically accurate, so any lack of hills or mountains is something you have to blame on the Earth itself lol, if you look at their Tunisia 1943 campaigns there are plenty of hills and mountains.

Having said that I do agree that their maps can be sparse, some of the landscape models are very low-res, trees and bushes etc, but we are talking about a tiny development team who seemingly only make those games as a kind of sideline or hobby.

But your point about SD time scaling I agree with completely, and it goes into my broader point about scaling, scaling of distance and time, again and I hate to keep praising the series, but as you know graviteam games scale nothing, the distances are all true to reality, the ballistics and effective range of weapons and resistance of armour etc is all real world accurate, and of course time itself is also accurately modelled, if a campaign takes place over three days and is 12 turns then each turn will effectively play out over the correct portion of time, albeit divided up into multiple engagements that take place in various parts of the battlefield simultaneously, which for obvious reasons must be played in sequence. And it goes far deeper than this, in a three hour battle you will see the sun or moon moves in its correct arc across the sky.

So yes it would be fantastic if they slowed SD2 down, and scaled the distances up, allow armour and field guns to engage over 1 or 2 kilometres, allow the players the time and space to maneuver, but that I suppose is where this series needs to find the sweetspot between realism and fun, I hope they take a step or three towards realism while keeping one foot in the region of fun accessible gameplay.

[Magnus Aurelius, Bright Lord]

" nothing else on the market can currently compete with Graviteam "

Talking about Wargames in general :
I disagree, have you heard of Gary Grigsby's war in the East/West. And of the upcoming "Gary Grigsby 2 " who combines botg western and Eastern front, from 39 to 45 ?

Massive multiplayer campaigns that pits 4v4 or 5v5 in campaigns that last 5 to 6 years ?! (Human years, not game years)

(4v4 is massive considerig the game is made tor 1v1 but the community DIY it to multiple opponent, the way we work it is to have one human commander (Hitler or Stalin), that orders around 3 human Generals/Marshals and (sometime) 1 human air commander.

Each axis general faces off against a allie Marshal. Learning how each other use strategy, sometime Generals/Marshals are forced into retirement or to the gulags, and you have to face off against another opponent and learn your opponent all over again)


Anyway, this game is THE best ww2 strategy game. Especially when played in multiplayer. Playing as the Germans is usually always a defeat. But there is a slight possibility of victory.


RTS :

Also , I would recommend men of war assault squad 2 over Company of Heroes, seeing as CoH is arcade and MoW is the more realistic version. If you haven't heard of it, I highly recommend.

Its THE best, realistic, unbalanced RTS. (In my opinion of course)

[Defiant Squirrel]

Originally posted by Hobotango:

" nothing else on the market can currently compete with Graviteam "

Talking about Wargames in general :
I disagree, have you heard of Gary Grigsby's war in the East/West...

...I would recommend men of war assault squad 2...
Its THE best, realistic, unbalanced RTS. (In my opinion of course)

I was of course speaking about wargames that have real time 3D battles, and I maintain that Graviteam are by far the best, afterall they are (as far as I know) the only games in existence that actually simulate 3D battles in actual real time) as in the operations begin and end at the exact times they began and ended in reality, and therefore playing through an operation that historically took place over 36 hours will result in 36 hours of battle time (extra time will be added to this of course in order to resolve simultaneously occuring flashpoints on the 3D battlefield, and to manage and organise your forces between turns). This is why I always chuckle at the term 'Real Time' Strategy applied to games where battles last +/-10 minutes, the time it takes to warm up the engine of a tank before it departs the forming up area prior to heading to it's attack position.

Of course Gary Grigsby's games are legendary, but they belong to another genre altogether, however the comparison is fair in one sense, those games are to hex turn based WW2 strategy gaming what Graviteam's games are to real time 3D tactical battle based gaming ;p, and although MOWAS2 is indeed an OK game, it is much closer to arcade classic CoH2 than it is to Graviteam in terms of realism and historical accuracy, hopefully SD2 will sit somewhere in the middle, hitting that elusive sweetspot between accessibility/popular appeal and realism/historical accuracy, it's a niche that is begging to be filled, and as yet nobody has even come close to doing it.

[Magnus Aurelius, Bright Lord]

Understand, I HAD to plug Gary Grigsby's War in the East, one way or another. haha ;)

I like Graviteam for its realism, but I kinda hate the stupid tank crews. Not sure if the AI got an upgrade since last title I played.


I am hoping for SD2 to be pretty much exactly like the "Wargame" franchise. I didnt enjoy SD1 so much as I prefer single player in my RTS, but from what I read, SD2 sounds great.

Plus...you cant go wrong with the eastern front as far as Im concerned. :)
Lets hope for a good release.

[gribelo]

At least what about two separate rule sets?

One can be aimed at balanced, casual, cybersport type of gamers which you probably are aiming at (but half of your customers are actually better than this and want to see more complex game from you)

Other at us, wargamers, who hate balance and simplifications, this set can just use more realistic stats for the units on the same maps. Something average beetween dumbed down balanced games and games from Graviteam.

Admins can choose what type of rules to use, RTS or wargame ones, seems not that hard to implement actually.

You will be kings and masters of genres if you will satisfy everyone in one game.

P.S. Looking at screenshots and videos, SD2 already seems to be closer to Graviteam spirit than lets say WRD. Looks like distances are more realistic, but this can be just an illusion.

[Defiant Squirrel]

Originally posted by gribelo:

At least what about two separate rule sets?

One can be aimed at balanced, casual, cybersport type of gamers which you probably are aiming at (but half of your customers are actually better than this and want to see more complex game from you)

Other at us, wargamers, who hate balance and simplifications, this set can just use more realistic stats for the units on the same maps. Something average beetween dumbed down balanced games and games from Graviteam.

Admins can choose what type of rules to use, RTS or wargame ones, seems not that hard to implement actually.

You will be kings and masters of genres if you will satisfy everyone in one game.

P.S. Looking at screenshots and videos, SD2 already seems to be closer to Graviteam spirit than lets say WRD. Looks like distances are more realistic, but this can be just an illusion.

I think 2 rule sets would be a great idea, if done right they could draw in players from both ends of the spectrum.

[-=EDF=- Kouta Seto]

Realism this time pls. They tried it with ballance in Normandy already!

Realism is : TEST how armor behaves, TEST wich guns did what, LEARN how tanks and infantry fought, LEARN what those battles where like.

And not the stupidness that most game dev's do atm. Hell the panzer IV in BF5 is more realistic than your ENTIRE first steel division ever was/will be! and thats only ONE TANK we talk about against your entire game!

Either vastly upgrade on realism instead of ballance OR lose even more players. Steel division has less people playing than Victoria II atm. and vic2 is WAY OLDER!

[crackz12]

and for gods sake ...SLOW IT DOWN!!......got big heavy tanks going faster than ferraris!!

[gribelo]

Originally posted by crackz12:

and for gods sake ...SLOW IT DOWN!!......got big heavy tanks going faster than ferraris!!

They will not slow down action to realistic values most probably, but again this can be fixed by two set of rules.

You want battle to start in 2 minutes after begining? Fine, choose "RTS" rules.

You want more sense and realism and ready to waste 20 minutes for maneuvers? Good, choose "Wargame" rules.

They just need two set of values for everything. Nothing else. Thats all!

Im afraid they will sacrifice all realism for balance of course and this thread is pointless. But maybe they can hear us and introduce optional more hardcore variant of gameplay?

P.S. At least we promoted Graviteam games here )) I found about them at WRD forums myself ))

[Magnus_Incognito]

Single player - realism first. Multiplayer - balance is more important. Core of any multiplayer strategy game is a balance!