Starting to make some progress with Mius

[Bulletpoint]

Another Saturday spent fighting the Red Army Graviteam user interface.

But I'm starting to make some progress, I think. Still haven't won many campaigns, and have been doing plenty of restarts, but it's starting to come together for me.

Finally found out how to establish and maintain a communications network by wire and how to use it to make my units able to automatically call in fire support from on-map mortars. It's really cool when it finally works.

In a night mission, I was able to sneak up on enemy tanks and attack them with mines, AT grenades, and flamethrowers. The flame hardly hurts the tanks if they are closed up, but one of them got hit into the open hatch. The burning tank rumbled on and into a lake where it came to rest with only the turret above the surface like some ghastly bonfire on the water. Looked like something from a movie.

The next battle, the tank was still there in the lake, but now extinguished. This kind of persistent map damage is really great.

 

[Bulletpoint]

Another thing I keep pondering over is how to place individual units on the operational map. You can only have 3 units in any one square, so they get in the way of each other... If you have the Battalion commander in the square, you can use some heavier artillery, but then you lose out on a whole platoon or other asset you could have placed there instead. Also, it's really tricky to predict which squares will actually participate in any given battle.. Not sure how the game determines this?

 

[xmax]

You may start playing operations with battlegroups, less frustration about individual platoons movements.

 

[Bulletpoint]

Yes, I thought about doing that.. The one time I tried, I found the battles got way too big and both my computer and my brain were overwhelmed. Might give it a try later again.

However, I think I found out how the game decides which squares will participate in the battle. It seems to be just including the neighbour squares of the starting location of the unit that started the engagement.

Still not sure what the "rush attack" does though. It doesn't seem to change the squares involved (if using the indirect control option (that in true Graviteam style actually gives direct control...)

 

[xmax]

It means the defender will have more squares and possibly forces in the battle then the attacker. It usually triggers when the direction of attack is through difficult terrain. Otherwise attacker always has a potential to involve more units then the defender.

 

[Bulletpoint]

It means the defender will have more squares and possibly forces in the battle then the attacker.

I don't think so. I did some testing where I would start attacks from the same position. The same squares were involved both for rush attack and normal attack...

Rush attack is triggered by the attacking unit being a company commander or tanks or mechanised infantry.

 

[xmax]

I don't think so. I did some testing where I would start attacks from the same position. The same squares were involved both for rush attack and normal attack...

Rush attack is triggered by the attacking unit being a company commander or tanks or mechanised infantry.

This confuses me. It can't be the same as it goes two squares deep into the enemy territory. Do you play with direct or indirect control? What type of arrows are you talking about? Thin dashed line (move), thick solid (advance) or thick dashed (breakthrough)?

The difference between move and advance is that you (your infantry) may advance only one square ahead using combat formation. You move in marching order.

Breakthrough (what I thought you mean by rush attack) usually triggers then you attack through tough terrain or when motorized units advance two squares ahead into the enemy territory.

 

[Bulletpoint]

This confuses me. It can't be the same as it goes two squares deep into the enemy territory. Do you play with direct or indirect control?

I'm playing with "indirect control". As far as I can see, the thing about moving two squares into enemy territory is only present when playing "direct control"?

Many of these confusions arise because the game is constantly updated and changed, which is a good thing because it improves the game, but it also means it can be confusing because things are moved around, renamed, etc.

What type of arrows are you talking about? Thin dashed line (move), thick solid (advance) or thick dashed (breakthrough)?

Solid red arrow.
When I select a regular infantry unit, I get the option to attack enemy locations marked with an orange dot. When using a company commander, these dots are now yellow. I thought that meant a "rush attack".

It's mentioned in the tutorial:

https://imgur.com/a/FFBZQ

 

[xmax]

This is “advance”. Any unit may advance (if it is eligible to attack) into any adjacent square. I think the tutorial was made initially for direct control, so it only adds to confusion now.

 

[Bulletpoint]

OK, and what he calls "rush attack" you call breakthrough? It's the same thing?

Is there any such special attack when using indirect control? Or are all attacks just "advance" in that mode?

 

[xmax]

They are all just advances or moves (in this mode you may order impossible orders, like advance three squares and the AI will try to figure out how to fulfill them). Breakthrough triggers on some conditions.

 

[Bulletpoint]

Thanks for helping out. So if I understand you right, in indirect control mode, if I order an advance two squares into enemy territory, it should/could trigger a "breakthrough" and that means a more difficult battle but with more benefits if I win?

 

[xmax]

It's a bit tricky in indirect mode. Because the breakthrough may not trigger even if you order your motorized forces to advance two squares forward depending on the enemy moves. But essentially breakthrough means what you wrote.

 

[Bulletpoint]

@xmax Do you know if the concealment value for squares depends only on the colour code, or if the game also takes into account vegetation etc.? I noticed that in many cases, squares completely without any visible cover will be coloured red or yellow, indicating there's pretty good concealment there, but it's just an open field without even bushes?

 

[Izdeliye]

Do you know if the concealment value for squares depends only on the colour code

No. Visibility and concealment indicators in deployment phase are just a visual aid for the player.
In game visibility and concealment is calculated on a case to case basis, taking into consideration vegetation etc. or lack of thereof. For example, if enemy infantry is hiding in the grass you can burn it, depriving them of this cover.
andrey12345 v2.0 [developer]:

Squares for deployment? They are not used for AI, this indication is purely for the player. It is calculated at the stage of creating the battlefield.

Visibility check is attached to sensors. Each unit has a set of sensors i.e sights if it is a tank, for example. For them, visibility calculation provided depending on the environment and their condition. Further, for each sensor, used ray tracing over the landscape and objects. Here this ray tracing over objects is done in parallel.

 

[xmax]

I noticed that in many cases, squares completely without any visible cover will be coloured red or yellow, indicating there's pretty good concealment there, but it's just an open field without even bushes?

If it is a square in the bare field then you may look closer at such a square, and there may be an uneven terrain, a small depression that is not visible from the distance, but gives cover.

 

[Bulletpoint]

If it is a square in the bare field then you may look closer at such a square, and there may be an uneven terrain, a small depression that is not visible from the distance, but gives cover.

I did look closer, and saw nothing. Other times, a square has visible vegetation and bushes, but is not marked as giving concealment. It seems the coloured squares don't quite match up with the actual terrain.

 

[Bulletpoint]

No. Visibility and concealment indicators in deployment phase are just a visual aid for the player.
In game visibility and concealment is calculated on a case to case basis, taking into consideration vegetation etc. or lack of thereof. For example, if enemy infantry is hiding in the grass you can burn it, depriving them of this cover.
andrey12345 v2.0 [developer]:

I often find it difficult to understand what Andrey the developer actually means. In this reply, he seems to talk about whether AI takes the coloured squares into consideration, not whether they actually provide concealment.

 

[Bulletpoint]

I'm starting to have actual fun with this game. But here's another question for the experts:

If I have troops in an enemy map section (square km), but I don't have enough troops to actually take the area, are my troops then lost at the end of the battle? I think I saw that yesterday. Had two platoons starting to enter an enemy map section when the battle ended due to time. On the operational map, I saw that there was a cross on my side, indicating a lost platoon.

The platoon only had a couple of squads into the enemy territory, so I thought they would just return to my lines if they couldn't capture the area...

 

[xmax]

I did look closer, and saw nothing. Other times, a square has visible vegetation and bushes, but is not marked as giving concealment. It seems the coloured squares don't quite match up with the actual terrain.

A colored square is an integral value of concealment. It takes into account visibility from all the directions and doesn't depend only on the square's terrain, but all neighbouring terrain as well.