Aside this being cold war how does this compare to Graviteam?

[Antmf_slith]

I just picked up Graviteam and man it's good. Hard but real good. How does this g as me compare and how is the AI in this game? I think the graphics aren't great but I don't care About graphics as long as the depth and realism is good. Please let me know.

[exsonic01]

I played GTOS several years ago, really enjoyed for about a couple of years. Played GTMF one campaign.

As you may know, AB is more close to CM and CC series than GT, in many points.

1) Unit control is more intuitive than GT series, more resembles the way of CC and CM.

2) GUI is of course different, AB is more close to CC or CM, more intuitive if I compare with GT.
(I still think GT can change their GUI much better, which would bring more players for them. I can't understand why they don't try it)

3) Level of micro is different, it is not easy to perform micro in AB because of the command delay, but you can still try micromanage the single units in AB. But in GT, you cannot do micro the single unit as you know, it is more like 'macro-management', so to speak.

4) AB does not have operational layer control like recent CC series or GT. AB has a dynamic campaign system, but doesn't show unit icons or any information on regional map or operational layer. Rather, dynamic campaign of AB is based on completely different model. I wish AB introduce some changes for their campaign system in the future.

5) While both games have good AI, AB introduced dynamic AI, which makes the game free of any scripted mission, and would give players kinda reactive experience. But still, AB AI needs some improvements IMO. But dynamic AI of GT series is not also perfect. AI is always a big huddle for any wargame or RTS games.

6) AB relies on some abstractions. For example, infantry unit in AB is not a single soldier, but a squad or a platoon. Also, company and platoon representation and control of them in AB are not realistic at all, this must be changed in the future IMO.

7) AB is much better to create the user mods, for units and maps.

8) Unlike CM, you can enjoy brigade ~ regiment level battle in AB. And in that sense, AB is allowing quite huge or small battle scale.

9) AB has more freedom, and more looks like sandbox simulator. If you experience the mission generator and campaign generator of AB, you will find that AB can simulate so many things on the battle field.

I will add later if I think more.

http://grogheads.com/forums/index.php?topic=9819.0
This is the well written post for the comparison of CM and GT. Again, CM and AB are fairly different games, but a bit close. So if you read this article and watch any AB and CM youtube video, you would get some idea.

[Antmf_slith]

Do I need a vast knowledge of militart equipment to enjoy the game, and is there an in game database that shows what each weapon is capable of and which tank can go again which enemy etc?

And how realistic is this? Is it more a simulation or more gamey?

[exsonic01]

ORIGINAL: Antmf_slith
Do I need a vast knowledge of militart equipment to enjoy the game,

If you have some basic idea about vehicles and weapons of cold war error, it would be more enjoyable. If you have no knowledge of vehicles on weapons, I think it would be still possible to enjoy. AB is more like 'tactical' game. Because of that, IMO important factor to enjoy such 'tactical' game is 'tactical sense' or 'tactical idea', rather than knowledge of equipment and weapons. For example, if you have any sense of how to use geometry (where to put tanks, and where to recon, where to hide ATGM teams and etc...), you will be able to play this game nicely even though you don't know about weapons and vehicles.

IMO AB requires more ability to analyze the geometry and map than other games, because you can play at any geometry you want from big regional map. Regional map is 64km x 64km size, and maximum playable map size is 16km x 16km. You can select any place you want, and in dynamic campaign, AI will decide the map. You need some ability to adjust your forces and tactical sense based on different terrain. (This is one of the reason why I wish the AB let players to see the map during unit purchase screen)

Other games use fixed map and use scripted AI (or dynamic AI). If you play the game repeatedly in the same place, you will get used to the map, and you will be able to attempt min/maxing. But in AB, map can be anywhere, so you need some flexibility to adjust your idea and plan.

Meanwhile, you can learn about cold war weapons and equipment during game or via reading...

If you played GT and played it nicely, I assume you would have enough tactical sense of playing tactical military games, so I think you should be fine.

and is there an in game database that shows what each weapon is capable of and which tank can go again which enemy etc?

AB does not provide unit encyclopedia system like GT do. Instead, AB provides unit information card for each unit. That information card introduces each unit's in-game ability, specs, offense and defense capability of units. To check the data, you need to click the unit and press enter.
Problem of AB's unit data card system is:
1) It cannot check the data of enemy unit. Only friendly is possible. I wish they change this.
2) This data card can be only checked during in-game. No additional options to check unit data in purchase screen or main menu screen. This is really inconvenient and needs to be fixed.
In the end, it would be great if AB provides and dedicated menu, to show all unit's data card, like GT's encyclopedia system does. CC and CM needs this feature too IMO.

And how realistic is this? Is it more a simulation or more gamey?

AB is more like simulation, sandbox simulation. AB tried to be realistic under given game engine, but not perfect, and level of abstraction is not small. Actually, IMO AB has long way to go, but has a huge potential. Given their team size and budget, I think they are doing fine, but AB needs a lot of things to be included and fixed to become good one.

[Antmf_slith]

Thank you, I just picked it up and will give it a go later. Any particular scenario I should start with to ease myself in the game? Does t have a tutorial in game?

[exsonic01]

ORIGINAL: Antmf_slith

Thank you, I just picked it up and will give it a go later. Any particular scenario I should start with to ease myself in the game? Does t have a tutorial in game?

Hmmm AB doesn't have dedicated tutorial mission, but you might try some single missions like "Twin Valleys" or "East of Fulda" or "Desperate Measures".

You don't need to rely on particular scenario, you can create single battle very easily. You can set up your forces and enemy forces by yourself, or let AI decide the forces.

Check some youtube videos and check manual, it is very easy to create a game. There, you can test anything you want.

[Antmf_slith]

Very cool. So I can actually create my own scenario and play it without knowing what the outcome will be? Thats awesome.. Also I know the scenarios here are all what ifs and hypothetical but do they plan on coming out with real life scenarios? Thanks...

[exsonic01]

ORIGINAL: Antmf_slith

Very cool. So I can actually create my own scenario and play it without knowing what the outcome will be? Thats awesome.. Also I know the scenarios here are all what ifs and hypothetical but do they plan on coming out with real life scenarios? Thanks...

Yep, like I wrote, this is more like a sandbox simulator. You can create any conditions you want as long as map and game engine allows. Like I wrote, this game is not perfect but still kinda enjoyable.

I dunno what devs are thinking about future plan. They have a lot of list to do, but it is only 4-men studio. So we need to wait.

I wish if they open any social funding account in the future. AB and FPC-RS really needs more support to get their brilliant idea shine.