How tactical is GRAW 2?

[krise madsen]

As for NARCOM, I think it's a step towards scripted events, but it guides you through a mission. Are you saying just plain audio feed would be better?

No.

I'm saying no in-game cutscenes, visual or audio, whatsoever. I'm saying stop trying so hard to tell me a story through the game (they suck at it anyway, especially compared to CoD4) and let each mission and the gameplay carry the game. The insistance on ramming this "riveting" story down the players throats was the key reason why GRAW could never succeed as a tactical shooter like GR1.

Respectfully

krise madsen

[doubletap]

A SF unit such as the Ghosts are meant to depict does no rely on minute by minute guidance from HQ. Green Berets, SAS, SEALs, Delta Force........are self relient. They are trained to deal with unexpected situations, and in fact, they expect unexpected situations.

I recommend tying the NoNarcom mod. Removing that thing does wonders for for gameplay in general, and in the simplest way manages to salvage quite a bit of that GR feel that graw is missing.

One other thing about the future warrior concept is that it appears to be geared toward the regular army, not the hi end guys that go deep into enemy territory. As you can see in order to encorporate the narcom and other futuristic thingies, the combat in graw is on a much larger scale than SF actually participate in. The feature would be absolutely goofy and out of place had they given the ghosts realistic SF missions in GRAW.

Edited February 16, 2008 by doubletap

[Joriko]

Besides, the enemy could intercept messages sent so rapidly with the right equipment, correct?

[doubletap]

Besides, the enemy could intercept messages sent so rapidly with the right equipment, correct?

Yes. Actually in GRAW1 the general (or the chopper pilot) tells you that the bad guys seem to know what you're up to, and I said to myself, No ****. Why don't you get the **** off the comm.

[Tinker]

Besides, the enemy could intercept messages sent so rapidly with the right equipment, correct?

Yes. Actually in GRAW1 the general (or the chopper pilot) tells you that the bad guys seem to know what you're up to, and I said to myself, No ****. Why don't you get the **** off the comm.

This requires open ended maps, so you can re-locate, and plan a new route when needed. A little difficult at present.

[krise madsen]

Besides, the enemy could intercept messages sent so rapidly with the right equipment, correct?

Yes. Actually in GRAW1 the general (or the chopper pilot) tells you that the bad guys seem to know what you're up to, and I said to myself, No ****. Why don't you get the **** off the comm.

This requires open ended maps, so you can re-locate, and plan a new route when needed. A little difficult at present.

Which is exactly the core of the problem with GRAW.

Respectfully

krise madsen

[Tinker]

The main issue is that in GR1 you can activate all enemy at once if needed. Here we have to limit actors on the map at the same time, forcing you into some tunnel situations. Not sure if a simpler map would allow for more enemy.

[NoQuarter]

^

Wasn't GRINs' standard argument/defense/pat answer of this was that it is all related to the AI permutations, and that the levels size/content/design was irrelevant.

[RAbbi_74]

moderately tactical...

More so than other games released lately, though I think it says more about the state of PC gaming than it does about the developer and publisher team.

[krise madsen]

moderately tactical...

More so than other games released lately, though I think it says more about the state of PC gaming than it does about the developer and publisher team.

Or gaming in general, yes.

Respectfully

krise madsen

[mark2000]

my thoughts:

It's pretty obvious that this is not [GR] so you won't see me ranting about said statement(unlike the other poor saps who couldn't accept the reality of it) and, instead, judge the game by its own merits.

The inclusion of an ROE system means that unfortunate events such as teammates blowing your cover by mindlessly shooting at a hostile that they suddenly saw are lessened. It also helps keep them from sticking out like a sore thumb since recon mode forces them to lay low. Your AI squad is pretty decent most of the time but it's hard to rely on them since there seems to be a very noticeable hint of inconsistency regarding their weapon accuracy and intelligence. Sometimes, they'll be making good use of their cover and could actually get a bead on the enemy before you could even pull the trigger. But then there are other times when they'll drop for cover, start shooting at the wall, stand up to reload their weapon, then get killed by a hail of bullets. There are also times when they'll hit everything at their direction except the person they were aiming at. It's pretty obvious that you'll still be doing most of the grunt work but for the most part, they'll do a good enough job to cover all directions while you advance.

Now for the levels:

The invisible "Mission Fail" borders are less frequent now although the ones that remain still create the same problem of limiting your tactical options since the paths you could've used to flank the enemy so perfectly are cut off from you just like in the first game. The maps, by themselves, are already quite adequate enough for some decent tactical fun but the overall level design hinders that by a very big margin. Missions can go from resoundingly appropriate to utterly absurd and, unfortunately, most of them have the tendency to lean on the later. Simple missions that have me do such things like saving a POW, set up charges, then extract always put a smile on my face and make me feel like doing them over and over again. Not only are these missions straightforward but they are also fitting work for such type of men you control and the technology they are carrying. Unfortunately, these fabulous things are just tiny gems inside a dreadful swampland since most of the time, you'll be dropped right into the middle of firefight with only a single bloody road for you to walk passed through and on the other end of that road are usually pairs of MG nests and dozens of infantry men, all aiming at your direction and simply waiting for you to pop your head out into the open for them to fire at and the only things between you and them are wrecked cars, well-placed roadblock slabs, and piles of sandbags. There are cases when you'll be treated to atleast 2-3 paths for flanking but sometimes when you go to a certain location, you can bet your sorry ass that an event will be triggered, a horde of bad guys will come rushing down to aim at every path available to you, and the only safe ones for you to take will be blocked by the previously mentioned invisible border. Fortunately, this works abit random and there will be times when only a single path will be used for the ambush. One more annoyance produced by the bad level designing is when you are forced to repeat the same bloody mission for the 19th bloody time because your "genius squad" can't help but expose their bloody heads to ten million billion bullets and get screwed in all directions before moving to the cover you pointed at, which adds to the vexation when you have to rely on said squad to destroy the other armored vehicle because the only weapon you are carrying that could deal with such things only has one damn rocket.

Overall though, I like GRAW2. It's basic concepts are obviously improved over the first game. My only serious problem with it is that the campaign is a complete and utter mess because it made the very same mistake that the first game did by trying to present the player with logically tactical situations based on real-life warfare and then mixing it up with failed attempts to create epic hollywood-style scripted sequences that do nothing but deteriorate the overall experience since the gameplay mechanisms are simply not built to manage such things.

For a decent tactical experience, I suggest simply playing multiplayer coop with the right kind of people. As for me though, I'll just take my time to learn how to use the editor(and also buy a new mouse with 4 buttons) and, eventually, make my own missions based on the existing maps.

For now, I'm still wondering why the hell am I only able to carry one grenade for my grenade launcher.

Edited February 19, 2008 by mark2000

[RAbbi_74]

For now, I'm still wondering why the hell am I only able to carry one grenade for my grenade launcher.

Because for GRAW2 MP, Tactical =/= Realistic. I'm still wondering, almost a year later, WTC someone was thinking when he/she determined the MP kits. Perhaps the single WORST element of the late-term abortion that is GRAW2...

[krise madsen]

my thoughts:

e.c.t.

I think you're pretty much spot on.

The team AI problem can actually be fixed without too much fuss: Since they're too stupid to be so independent, make them more obedient and accept the fact that they have to be micro-managed more. Also add soul switching (a hot topic I know but trust me it works). Some tweaks here and there perhaps, but all in all quite fixable.

The big problem is, as you say, the maps/missions. They're just not "tactical". I'm no expert, but I don't think this can be fixed within the limits of the editor. And even if it can be done, I just don't see it being worth the effort (though that is of course an individual choice).

Respectfully

krise madsen

[Nutlink]

For now, I'm still wondering why the hell am I only able to carry one grenade for my grenade launcher.

Because for GRAW2 MP, Tactical =/= Realistic. I'm still wondering, almost a year later, WTC someone was thinking when he/she determined the MP kits. Perhaps the single WORST element of the late-term abortion that is GRAW2...

The 1 grenade for the GL is a screw up from the last patch. You're supposed to have like 5 or 6 I think for SP, the 1 is supposed to be in MP only. As for the kits, they were created to help give it that [GR] feel, but they definitely should have put a little more thought into what goes on each kit. I mean, come on, there are 2 XM8 kits that are the exact same except one has a silencer. ######.

[mark2000]

The big problem is, as you say, the maps/missions. They're just not "tactical". I'm no expert, but I don't think this can be fixed within the limits of the editor. And even if it can be done, I just don't see it being worth the effort (though that is of course an individual choice).

Respectfully

krise madsen

I would honestly not go so far as to fix the missions per se. The best I could do is simply go back to the basics(i.e. place hostiles at completely random locations and, if possible, have them move around the map randomly). Obviously, no scripting would be involved except probably from 1 or 2 very simple objectives I could place if it won't take too much effort to do.

Since I haven't really had much time to totally study the editor, all these ideas are pretty much theories at the moment.

If only it was as simple as ArmA's editor where you can just select any object and have it spawn at random locations within a radius size of your choice then, if it is an infantry, have it set to "Safe" mode where it'll simply walk around aimlessly around the map with his guard down.

[Tinker]

Good luck Mark2000. Scripting is actually a lot quicker than using Igor or a drop down menu option.

[Nutlink]

Scripting the game does allow random enemy spawns, but it works a little differently. Basically you place down 4 groups of enemies and have a probability factor decided which ones will spawn and which ones won't. A number is picked 1-100, and each group has a selected setting of your choosing. For example, if group 1 is set to 50, then any number picked between 1-50 will spawn that group. The second group could be set to 70, so any number between 51 and 70 would spawn that group. So forth and so on. You could even have the possibility of them NOT spawning by having the last groups number less than 100.

This also works on "events" as well, meaning a random spawn zone, random timers, random helpful AI, random vehicles, random music, random vehicle explosions, random messages, random narcom videos, random wind, random order of events, and a ton of other things.

Makes for an interesting map when you have 4 people write their own script for the same map and just have one of them selected at random every time you play it. Or a branching mission that starts off in 4 different locations, ends in 4 different locations, and has 16 random objectives in-between.

[mark2000]

you have just beautifully summarized every damn idea I have in my head. Now all I wish is that I could actually pull it off. Either that or simply wait for some good soul to create that kind of map and be able to use it on single-player.

OT:

speaking of which, are the AI(friendly or otherwise) flexible enough that I can just drop them anywhere and let them do their thing without having to set paths and cover spots on every nook and cranny of the map?

[GRIN_Wolfsong]

Unless you only want the AI to stand still, until they detect the player team, you have to give them orders in the editor.

[doubletap]

It's pretty obvious that this is not [GR] so you won't see me ranting about said statement(unlike the other poor saps who couldn't accept the reality of it) and, instead, judge the game by its own merits.

I respect your views very much but that's a simplistic perspective. I would not decry the game's content and overall feel had it not bore the name Ghost Recon in the title. No one expects the same GR1 every release, but what we poor saps lament so vocally is the departure from the core structure and gameplay, which are what make the series GR at all. I'm the first to praise GRAW2 for what most definately are improvements over the original GR, but I kinda have issues with being reduced to "poor sap" for expressing my convictions about maintaining the series' integrity, and the direction (for the worst) my hobby has taken.

I appreciate that the GR series is just another shooter to many gamers, but as far as I'm concerned, those people are just passing though. Like I said, it's a hobby, not just a game, and I feel I have much invested in it.

With respect

d o u b l e t a p

p.s. I know you meant no disrespect so don't worry about that

Edited February 20, 2008 by doubletap

[krise madsen]

It might be interesting to see what a good sized, open-ended map (kina like an MP map) with random AI enemies would play like.

Respectfully

krise madsen

[mark2000]

Unless you only want the AI to stand still, until they detect the player team, you have to give them orders in the editor.

fair enough. Besides, the maps are so small that adding patrols along with stationary sentries might make it a tad too crowded.

they DO know how to move from place to place when engaging hostiles right?

It's pretty obvious that this is not [GR] so you won't see me ranting about said statement(unlike the other poor saps who couldn't accept the reality of it) and, instead, judge the game by its own merits.

I respect your views very much but that's a simplistic perspective. I would not decry the game's content and overall feel had it not bore the name Ghost Recon in the title. No one expects the same GR1 every release, but what we poor saps lament so vocally is the departure from the core structure and gameplay, which are what make the series GR at all. I'm the first to praise GRAW2 for what most definately are improvements over the original GR, but I kinda have issues with being reduced to "poor sap" for expressing my convictions about maintaining the series' integrity, and the direction (for the worst) my hobby has taken.

I appreciate that the GR series is just another shooter to many gamers, but as far as I'm concerned, those people are just passing though. Like I said, it's a hobby, not just a game, and I feel I have much invested in it.

With respect

d o u b l e t a p

p.s. I know you meant no disrespect so don't worry about that

Sorry if I somehow inadvertently offended you guys. That part was actually aimed at every mindless comments I keep seeing across the net, from forums to video comments, every time I try to find decent info about the GRAW series.

I meant no disrespect to you guys but you already knew that so meh.

To be frank, I was actually expecting to receive a good amount of senseless rants after that post of mine but I guess that only happens on places like Gamespot and I should've known people here better.

Edited February 20, 2008 by mark2000

[GRIN_Wolfsong]

they DO know how to move from place to place when engaging hostiles right?

Yes. The AI is always active and will react if it detects the player by sound or sight.

[doubletap]

they DO know how to move from place to place when engaging hostiles right?

Yes. The AI is always active and will react if it detects the player by sound or sight.

Are you guys both talking about the same AI (freindly or enemy or both)? I've seen all the posts calling the ghost AI stupid but I find them to be very good and only have one comlaint, that hey don't fire back many times when they should, and they just stand there taking shots. But their movement and responding to commands works just fine for me.

Actually I play SP so much more than MP because while the AI has it's limits, they behave more like soldiers and less like "gamers" which makes for a more realistic experience. But obviously it depends on how one uses the word realism. To some it means "like playing with real people", but I use it to mean "like simulating realistic combat tactics". Unfortunately, I have found the term "real people" to be far too vague in the tac gaming world, lol.

Scripting the game does allow random enemy spawns, but it works a little differently. Basically you place down 4 groups of enemies and have a probability factor decided which ones will spawn and which ones won't. A number is picked 1-100, and each group has a selected setting of your choosing. For example, if group 1 is set to 50, then any number picked between 1-50 will spawn that group. The second group could be set to 70, so any number between 51 and 70 would spawn that group. So forth and so on. You could even have the possibility of them NOT spawning by having the last groups number less than 100.

This also works on "events" as well, meaning a random spawn zone, random timers, random helpful AI, random vehicles, random music, random vehicle explosions, random messages, random narcom videos, random wind, random order of events, and a ton of other things.

Why is none of this apparent in the default missions? Or is it? I don't see it. Seems to me I see the exact same enemies in the same place doing the exact same thing every time I play.

Edited February 20, 2008 by doubletap

[Tinker]

Are you guys both talking about the same AI (freindly or enemy or both)?

There talking about what happens if you just place enemy on the map with no plans. They still react if they see or hear you.

Why is none of this apparent in the default missions?

Probably the same reason it is not apparent in GR1 and GRAW1, left for the modders to introduce. We just need some modders really...