First impressions here please

Matrix Games and Simulations Canada combine and completely remake two classic NATO vs. Warsaw Pact wargames into a new classic. Based on the original wargames “Main Battle Tank: North Germany” and “Main Battle Tank: Central Germany”, Flashpoint Germany is a new grand tactical wargame of modern combat. Every aspect of modern grand tactical warfare is included, from advanced armor, air and helicopters to chemical and tactical nuclear weapons. Step into the most dangerous war.. . that never was.

Moderators: IronManBeta, CapnDarwin

Mike_w
Posts: 54
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 12:22 am

RE: First impressions here please

Post by Mike_w »

Air-land Doctrine was based on defeating the enemy throughout the depth of battlefield. You basically divide the battlefield into three areas, close, deep, and rear. The close fight was normally defined at the brigade and lower level fight (the area that FPG operates). This area is dominated by direct fire supported by the other arms. The deep fight is normally fought at the division and higher level. The intent here is to disrupt the enemy before he even arrives at the close fight! This is where you use Air interdiction, long range arty, deep strike attack aviation, and special forces to disrupt the enemy. The key to rear operations was to ensure that you are able to provide all the necessary resources to the close and deep fight. This requirement drove the need to secure your rear area and prevent it from being disrupted by the enemy. Air land battle is primarily an operational concept, not a tactical one. The tenants of air land battle were agility, initative, and depth. It fosters risk taking at the operational level (i.e., I will leave this area lightly defended so I can mass my forces at this area).

The realm of FPG is the realm of tactics. The standard saying we have in the army is that tactics are like <ahem> rear orifices, everybody has them.

Tactics are the lifeblood of the brigade, battalion, company, platoon, and squad leaders. There are certain guidelines that professionals tend to follow in reference to tactics, however, nothing is set in stone. What works in one situation will not automatically work in another one. The key things that any commander should strive for is to know himself (what assets do I have and what shape are they?), know the terrain (where is the best place to gain an advantage over the enemey?), and know the enemy (how does he operate? What are his strengths and weaknesses? Where is he located and likely to go?). If you know these things you should be able to implement a plan to defeat him. The last thing you want in tactics is flexibility. The primary means to maintain flexibility at the tactical level is to maintain a decent reserve. This should give you the ability to react to any changes on the battlefield.

Sorry for the long post but wanted to throw my 2 cents worth in a very good discussion!

Regards,

Tbird3


Tbird3,
It seems that the current doctrine of Maneuver warfare is more applicable to the lower tacticl levels than Air/land battle. My question is, although this doctrine emerged in the late 80's, was it implemented at all by 1989? I know that it reached its "perfection" in Op. Enduring Freedom but would it be realistic to have an AI that practiced it in 1989? (if it was even possible to program). I know that the USMC was indoctrinating there junior officers and NCO's in this concept at that time...
Real and Simulated Wars
Posts: 453
Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2003 9:11 pm
Contact:

RE: First impressions here please

Post by Real and Simulated Wars »

Hi Mike, I agree with you. Air/Land Battle doctrine was born after the Cold War.
As for the AI, I have seen it to do some nice things:
1) When commanding WP, it deploys in groups, each one corresponding to each battalion.
2) In AI vs AI games, I have seen it to encircle enemy forces
3) Is very aggressive (sometimes a good attack is the best defense)
However, these nice aspects are overshadowed by negatives:
a) The AI happily positions its companys in an open field which is overlooked by several hills around. A formula for disaster.
b) On the attack, it brings its firepower in a piecemeal manner. You almost can forget about the value of flanking the AI while counterattacking.
c) The AI as WP: recon assets too forward in comparison to the main force.

Cheers,
Siljanus
Posts: 35
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2005 4:25 am

RE: First impressions here please

Post by Siljanus »

I forget which scenario I was playing as NATO but at the end of the game as I was checking over the surviving WP units I saw that the AI had a mobile missle launcher that had survived. It also was capable of carrying a nuclear payload. Will the AI ever use nukes in any of the scenarios? Would make it rather interesting...

And on that note, has the WP under AI control used gas in any of the scenarios?
User avatar
TheHellPatrol
Posts: 1588
Joined: Fri Jul 02, 2004 9:41 pm

RE: First impressions here please

Post by TheHellPatrol »

ORIGINAL: Siljanus

I forget which scenario I was playing as NATO but at the end of the game as I was checking over the surviving WP units I saw that the AI had a mobile missle launcher that had survived. It also was capable of carrying a nuclear payload. Will the AI ever use nukes in any of the scenarios? Would make it rather interesting...

And on that note, has the WP under AI control used gas in any of the scenarios?
As of yet i haven't seen the ai use chemicals or nukes, but what really suprises me is that when a scenario is over (i win, full fow etc. ai as WP), and i am allowed to browse the battlefield, there is always a Hind chopper(assuming the scenario has one) in/near the corner of the map. I often wonder...is it protecting the ai HQ? Why haven't i seen it in action? FOW? When the game ends it is always on the edge of the map[X(].
A man is rich in proportion to the number of things he can afford to let alone.
Henry David Thoreau

Siljanus
Posts: 35
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2005 4:25 am

RE: First impressions here please

Post by Siljanus »

ORIGINAL: TheHellPatrol

As of yet i haven't seen the ai use chemicals or nukes, but what really suprises me is that when a scenario is over (i win, full fow etc. ai as WP), and i am allowed to browse the battlefield, there is always a Hind chopper(assuming the scenario has one) in/near the corner of the map. I often wonder...is it protecting the ai HQ? Why haven't i seen it in action? FOW? When the game ends it is always on the edge of the map[X(].

Heh, I've noticed the same thing as well. Next time I play I should check the WP diary at the end of the game to see if the Hind ever engaged any of my forces or if the pilot was just drunk on vodka and stayed in the rear...[;)]
kmb
Posts: 18
Joined: Sun Jan 09, 2005 10:11 pm

RE: First impressions here please

Post by kmb »

I justed played the titans scenario and the wp also had the chopper in the bottom corner next to the hq.I am a newb and have been destroying the wp..........I am I lucky or bad ai?[&:]
User avatar
IronManBeta
Posts: 3767
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2002 10:00 am
Location: Brantford, Ontario

RE: First impressions here please

Post by IronManBeta »

Call me old fashioned but I just could not bear the idea of the computer dropping nuclear weapons on people, even simulated people. Maybe I watched the Terminator movie too many times, or maybe I just had trouble coming up with a rational way to control it and not lose VPs in the process. Anyway, the target aquisition routine for nuclear weapons is not likely to find many tempting targets and not fire very often at all. For version 1.01 of the game I might make it a little less rational but don't quote me on that!

Cheers, Rob.

ORIGINAL: Siljanus

I forget which scenario I was playing as NATO but at the end of the game as I was checking over the surviving WP units I saw that the AI had a mobile missle launcher that had survived. It also was capable of carrying a nuclear payload. Will the AI ever use nukes in any of the scenarios? Would make it rather interesting...

And on that note, has the WP under AI control used gas in any of the scenarios?
User avatar
IronManBeta
Posts: 3767
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2002 10:00 am
Location: Brantford, Ontario

RE: First impressions here please

Post by IronManBeta »

Ah, helicopters. They can be devastating if they obtain surprise but are sitting ducks if they don't. I got tired of seeing them all shot down within 15 - 60 minutes of first moving so I tightened up their employment considerably. They are now more a 'reserve of last resort' and are kept for only certain kinds of high-payoff, low-risk strikes. Your particular games may not have triggered it in which case their loitering at the map edge would not be irrational. On the other hand, I might just check it again and bump up the general aggression level if the side is visibly losing. Given that the premise of the game is a short war - go for broke and count the losses when its over - it might make more sense to take a 'use it or lose it' attitude on the part of the AI.

I'll take a look.

Cheers, Rob.

ORIGINAL: Siljanus
ORIGINAL: TheHellPatrol

As of yet i haven't seen the ai use chemicals or nukes, but what really suprises me is that when a scenario is over (i win, full fow etc. ai as WP), and i am allowed to browse the battlefield, there is always a Hind chopper(assuming the scenario has one) in/near the corner of the map. I often wonder...is it protecting the ai HQ? Why haven't i seen it in action? FOW? When the game ends it is always on the edge of the map[X(].

Heh, I've noticed the same thing as well. Next time I play I should check the WP diary at the end of the game to see if the Hind ever engaged any of my forces or if the pilot was just drunk on vodka and stayed in the rear...[;)]
User avatar
TheHellPatrol
Posts: 1588
Joined: Fri Jul 02, 2004 9:41 pm

RE: First impressions here please

Post by TheHellPatrol »

@Robert: I don't have a problem at all with the ai not using nukes, i understand your decision and it does not detract at all from the game. The helicopter issue, just to give you more info: all that remained of the WP was an HQ, one or two arty units and an AAA. This was the case on more than a few occasions, but i was playing a purely defensive battle and did not seek out the remaining WP forces[8D].
A man is rich in proportion to the number of things he can afford to let alone.
Henry David Thoreau

User avatar
IronManBeta
Posts: 3767
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2002 10:00 am
Location: Brantford, Ontario

RE: First impressions here please

Post by IronManBeta »

ORIGINAL: Tbird3

Okay folks, my 2 cents worth on first impressions. I have played about 6 games now, both WP and NATO. ...

Thank you Tbird3 for your thoughtful and well considered remarks. In fact, everyone posting here has given me a lots of ideas and the energy to throw myself back into it! Thank you everyone.

I have made a host of small and not so small changes to the game based on all this feedback and we are busy playtesting again. Not everything that has been suggested is going to make it into 1.01 in time (e.g. dismounted infantry) but I think you will see it evolving in a direction that you like. The idea is to make adjustments gracefully without blowing what is there all to pieces. You would agree I'm sure, that there is some value to that approach!

The game can't be everything to everybody but I hope that will presents a coherant viewpoint and a worthwhile gaming experience to all those willing to spend some time getting into it.

Cheers all, Rob.
User avatar
IronManBeta
Posts: 3767
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2002 10:00 am
Location: Brantford, Ontario

RE: First impressions here please

Post by IronManBeta »

Hi Nils - its nice to welcome a SimCan veteran to the ranks!

1. The NATO and WP forces had a *lot* of engineers in their real life OBs and it just became cumbersome to keep dealing with them all the time. It gave the AI fits too. We looked at the essence of the engineering capability and ended up deciding to abstract them a little. At least one of the scenarios still has an engineering counter as I recall and it would not be a big deal to put some back in a little later. The only real loss as you note is that you do not have engineers to lay minefields during the course of the game. The scenarios play so fast so that we found that by the time the engineers had received their orders, moved and laid the fields (30 minutes for the latter alone) the game was often pretty much over. Once you get used to artillery delivered minefields (circa 10 minutes tops) then you get out of the mood of wanting to wait.... Building and blowing bridges are far more important and these we just streamlined.

2. Ah, the other unit orders. They were in the game originally but after a while they just did not seem sufficiently distinct from what else was in there to be worth the effort. Even when I studied the original source code is was hard to tell what the difference was. My recollection is that they were really aliases for different sets of unit SOP settings and these in turn drove the behaviour that you saw (or thought you saw). I deemphasized SOP in FPG for a while in favour of giving the player more direct control and so these other orders faded into obscurity. I am on an SOP kick again right now but I would still rather just let the player change SOP directly rather than collar him with my preset assumptions.

3. Group orders. After you give the orders you can click on each unit in the group in turn and drag the waypoints to just where you want them. (This does not cost you order points if you are playing with the limited staff rule.) This is how you should create your formations, etc. If this is not good enough then just create the first group waypoint and make that the center of your formation staging area. Then go back through the units and move their waypoints into a formation of choice. When all of these moves are complete then your forces will be ready for another group order to make their advance to contact or whatever. Sometimes it takes a little time and care to get these things right, but that is why we kept the unit density down (Steve Newberg of SimCan was adamant about this when we discussed FPG back at the beginning) and the games are pretty short anyway. As in many things, taking the time to set up the attack properly pays dividends later.

Cheers, Rob.

ORIGINAL: Nils

FPG is my first Matrixgame ever (and this is my first post in this forum, too...).

Being a big fan of the old school SimCan MBT games, I was eagerly awaiting the release of FPG. Bought it the very first day and, overall, I am impressed! The graphics are cool, the game play is challenging, and the cold war is one of my favourite wargaming subjects, making FPG a perfect computer game for me. A great new edition of a classic wargame!

Still, I was wondering why some of the features of the original MBT were dropped in the new edititon:
1. The original MBT had engineers that could lay bridges and especially minefields. They are gone now as individual units and I can't see how those are designed into other units (like dismounted infantry).
2. The order menu was simplified. Why did orders like advance, fall back and such get dropped? I always felt that they added a lot of tactical nuances to the game. Or are these choices modeled via stealth???
3. It seems the logic of formation orders has changed. I haven't played FPG enough yet to really make a comparison, but judging from the documentation, group orders in FPG helps units arriving in same location at the same time, without any regard whatsoever to tactical disposition of the individual units. Moreover, after giving a group order, you are not able to modify the waypoints of the individual units of the groups. I think that makes the coordination of large forces a lot more complicated.

Lastly, is there a way to print out the scenario maps? Pre-planning your battle is a big part of FPG and a hardcopy might help in this task.

Cheers,
Nils
User avatar
IronManBeta
Posts: 3767
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2002 10:00 am
Location: Brantford, Ontario

RE: First impressions here please

Post by IronManBeta »

Driving the AI. The map is divided up into 12 sectors and each is rated (or not) for VPs for clearing or occupying. This has a really, really big impact on the AI and where it wants to send it's forces! Study this (Staff Summary F6, yes I know those little numbers are hard to read) before the game starts and you will get a huge hint on what the AI will try to do.

I'm not sure which scenario you played but I hope that the AI went into your original deployment area because there were VPs to be had there. It would have had some very general knowledge of where the center of gravity of your forces started and there is a secondary chance that it went there just because it was feeling hungry still.

The basic premise of this particular WW3 game is that it was a very short, go for broke, and devil take the hindmost war. Every hour counted and every general had to do his utmost to win it before time was up. Just sitting around was not an option!

Cheers, Rob.

ORIGINAL: Chelco
ORIGINAL: Black Cat

Since I only play against the AI I wonder how that is in attack and defense ?

Ey Cat!
Finally could get an additional half and hour of time with my FPG. Man, life if hectic if you have kids ...
I decided to make a custom scenario setted up a WP with a tank and a mounted infantry Btn (AI) vs NATO (a tank Co and a mounted infantry Co, all these under my command). Objective was a urbanized sector near NATO deployment area. I used the no-fog of war option for myself to see the AI moves.
The WP AI moved with their infantry in front, neatly spaced units to provide a screen, I guess. To my entire satisfaction, it used their infantry to enter into the urbanized area (objective sector) and then rolled up the tanks into the fight. It was very cool.
Then, (to my amusement) having all the objective sector controlled, the AI rolled into the adjacent sector (my deployment area) to basically clean it up. Good stuff! My NATO forces were not there anymore. It looked like the AI has some kind of knowledge system, which basically told it I should be there. Is this possible?
Main conclusion: AI is aggressive.
User avatar
IronManBeta
Posts: 3767
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2002 10:00 am
Location: Brantford, Ontario

RE: First impressions here please

Post by IronManBeta »

The T-80s in 1989 did indeed have an AT-8 (Songster) ATGM that they could launch down the tube of the gun if they had to. Reading between the lines I believe that it had an astromical failure rate and was feared by its own crews more than by NATO. I can't prove that but I considered it sufficiently likely that I left it out of the T-80 armaments list. Just appearing in 1989 were the replacement AT-11 (Sniper) missiles but I doubt there were many available at that stage.

You can look this sort of thing up by browsing the "FPG Platforms.pdf" file that ships with the game. It is a little dry but what the heck. The BMPs carry AT-3s (Sagger) and AT-5s (Spandrel) depending on the model in question. The AT-5s are nasty.

Cheers, Rob.


ORIGINAL: Marc Schwanebeck

Yes true, NATO weapons shine at long distances, same for the MBT cannons. The russians btw have also ATGMs, mounted on the BMPS, and on wheeled vehicles. I´m not 100% sure if it´s implemented in FPG but the T-80 (at least some versions) of it also had ATGMs mounted. Once WP forces manage to get their mech inf close it will get dirty. The BMPs cannon can be quite lethal at close ranges.


With regards to reading, it´s almost a "classic" companion to playing FPG, I can recommend "Team Yankee". It´s out of print, but you can grab a copy on eBay or Amazon Marketplace / Z-Shops once in ahwile.
User avatar
IronManBeta
Posts: 3767
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2002 10:00 am
Location: Brantford, Ontario

RE: First impressions here please

Post by IronManBeta »

1. Historical unit tags are just abreviations of the unit name - hopefully no more than 4 characters or they will not fit. It just helps you identify quickly which unit is which on the map. The '2-7' etc business looks like the default caption which has number of runners on the left and a relative speed rating on the right. In this game everything is 'fast' and the speed rating is not much help but for leg and immobile units it will show a 1 or 0 and that will help.

2. There is definitely a counterbattery mission for artillery . It depends how many units are assigned counterbattery, whether there are higher value missions being requested than counterfire, and how often the potential target is firing.

3. Sending out a lot of radio traffic by giving lots and lots of orders definitely can give your HQ location away. That is very deliberate and is meant to be a natural check on a player's desire to micromanage. You can give a lot of orders if you like but you had better be prepared for the consequences. Dilemmas, dilemmas.... Make sure that the radio message gauges are enabled in the game options setup so that you are aware of your general traffic levels and can learn what is risky to you.

Cheers, Rob.


ORIGINAL: Fulcrum

A few quick questions:

1. What does the second number mean when you select "Historic Unit Tags" for the counter information? It doesn't seem to be spelled out in the manual. Such as 2-7, 3-7, 4-7. I've figured out the first number represents the number of runners left in the unit, but for the life of me I can't extrapolate what the second number represents.

2. Is there counterbattery fire for artillery? You can detect enemy HQ's by their radio traffic, but it doesn't seem to detect on-map artillery units that are firing.

3. Finally, is it me, or does it seem like the enemy locks onto your HQ? My HQ's position was blown and the enemy started raining down arty on it. But no matter where it moved, artillery fire shifted just as quickly.

Other than that, great game guys.
User avatar
Crimguy
Posts: 1408
Joined: Fri Aug 15, 2003 6:42 pm
Location: Cave Creek, AZ

RE: First impressions here please

Post by Crimguy »

Re: nukes: Nothing wrong with a little insanity on the part of the computer. Don't forget it's just a game and even in reality a general must be wary of the chance of a nuclear exchange, no matter how unlikely. Nuclear possibility (die roll) when >75% losses is not a bad idea IMHO.

I have not seen a Hind attack in 6 outings. Always in the corner.
ORIGINAL: RobertCrandall

Ah, helicopters. They can be devastating if they obtain surprise but are sitting ducks if they don't. I got tired of seeing them all shot down within 15 - 60 minutes of first moving so I tightened up their employment considerably. They are now more a 'reserve of last resort' and are kept for only certain kinds of high-payoff, low-risk strikes. Your particular games may not have triggered it in which case their loitering at the map edge would not be irrational. On the other hand, I might just check it again and bump up the general aggression level if the side is visibly losing. Given that the premise of the game is a short war - go for broke and count the losses when its over - it might make more sense to take a 'use it or lose it' attitude on the part of the AI.

I'll take a look.

Cheers, Rob.
________________________
www.azcrimes.com
<sig removed because I'm a bandwidth hog>
Siljanus
Posts: 35
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2005 4:25 am

RE: First impressions here please

Post by Siljanus »

I can understand having the AI be a bit hesitant regarding throwing around nukes due to the VP penalty. But since gas doesn't have any downside to it within the game, I would think that the AI as the WP player would make more use of gas as part of their strategy to overwhelm NATO forces. At least in gaming terms, it would be an additional thing for the player to react to, making the game even more interesting. Nothing like WMD to keep you on your toes...
Mike_w
Posts: 54
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 12:22 am

RE: First impressions here please

Post by Mike_w »

Hi Mike, I agree with you. Air/Land Battle doctrine was born after the Cold War.
Chelco,

From what I understand, MAnuever warfare is the evolution of airland battle. It is about reinforcing success and striking where the enemy isn't to sew confusion and force an enemy out of his planned route/fighting position. By forcing him to redeploy to face a force behind him, he becomes exposed. I just wonder when this was implemented..and if I am right.

Chelco, if you Tbird or anyone knows, I'm interested as this would apply to the tactical element in this game. Hmm, maybe a discussion for the general forum?

Call me old fashioned but I just could not bear the idea of the computer dropping nuclear weapons on people, even simulated people. Maybe I watched the Terminator movie too many times, or maybe I just had trouble coming up with a rational way to control it and not lose VPs in the process. Anyway, the target aquisition routine for nuclear weapons is not likely to find many tempting targets and not fire very often at all. For version 1.01 of the game I might make it a little less rational but don't quote me on that!


Rob, would it be possible to program the AI to let loose with nukes when it loses a certain percentage of its forces and there is a section of the map where many player units are concentrated? This way, the AI would only use them in a "desperate" situation, much like a real commander but would actually do some real damage as opposed to a random shot.

GReat thread!
CoffeeMug
Posts: 95
Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2004 6:31 am
Location: Frankfurt/M, Germany

RE: First impressions here please

Post by CoffeeMug »

ORIGINAL: RobertCrandall

Five GREAT posts of Robert snipped

Heya Rob,

get yourself out of here, add more features and dont waste time! [:@]

/me cracks the whip

[;)]

No, just kidding. [:D]

Great post, great customer orientation!

It's really fun to read all given feedback and give my 5cts, too, and see all resulting in your continue efforts!

Rock on, Rob! [&o]

Group hug!

CM
gsol69
Posts: 62
Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2005 1:58 pm

RE: First impressions here please

Post by gsol69 »

Interesting game system here, one thing I miss is individualized silhouettes for each type of hardware platform. I was a big fan of the old Avalon Hill Panzer Blitz & Panzer Leader WWII games, and one thing that kept me coming back for more was the silhouette of the Panzer IV-G and the Tiger Tanks. Being able to uniquely identify each unit by its silhouette (as opposed to all tanks having the same generic "armor" icon) made that experience a whole lot more enjoyable for me. Just wanted to get in my 2 cents.
Nice job on the whole, please consider releasing mod tools so the user community may be able to add customized silhouettes at a later time. Thanks!
User avatar
IronManBeta
Posts: 3767
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2002 10:00 am
Location: Brantford, Ontario

RE: First impressions here please

Post by IronManBeta »

Hey, we agonized over this a long time. I love Panzerblitz too and know exactly what you are talking about. The problem is that modern forces are so darn mixed in terms of attached vehicles. It is hard in many cases to even decide which is the predominant vehicle and someone is sure to quibble with the choices. Then there was the problem of getting the actual artwork done...

Currently we have arbitrarily defined one silhouette for each icon type (arm car, tank, mech inf, sp arty, hq, etc) and this is meant to be a generalization that quickly communicates the general unit type to the player. I know that the exact vehicles are usually wrong. Can we change it? The biggest problem was getting suitable art and deciding which vehicle to use in ambiguous cases. If the players would rather make that decision themselves then we can enable it at some point down the road. Please don't count that as a promise - but I'll consider it. I am truly swamped with other good ideas already! Just writing them all down and organizing them properly is consuming a surprising amount of my FPG time as it is. No complaints of course, as this is a gold mine for me, but I don't want to raise expectations either.

Cheers, Rob.

ORIGINAL: gsol69

Interesting game system here, one thing I miss is individualized silhouettes for each type of hardware platform. I was a big fan of the old Avalon Hill Panzer Blitz & Panzer Leader WWII games, and one thing that kept me coming back for more was the silhouette of the Panzer IV-G and the Tiger Tanks. Being able to uniquely identify each unit by its silhouette (as opposed to all tanks having the same generic "armor" icon) made that experience a whole lot more enjoyable for me. Just wanted to get in my 2 cents.
Nice job on the whole, please consider releasing mod tools so the user community may be able to add customized silhouettes at a later time. Thanks!
Post Reply

Return to “FlashPoint Germany”