About the Fighting

[Mad Russian]

Here we see the opening round of the war. As the Soviets advance across the border the 11th ACR struggles to come to it's alert positions.

Everyone thought there would be plenty of time to respond. Everyone thought wrong. The Soviets have played their biggest card first, leading with their best assault divisions directly from their march columns, they cross the border. Soviet units catch US units out of position and make them fight for their very lives; starting with the first moments of the war. Jamming of NATO radio sets combined with chemical warhead strikes on NATO logistical centers and hard strip airfields have NATO reeling under the weight of the attack.

It will now fall to the men on the ground to bear the brunt of the fighting. Anyone who ever thought it would be different this time couldn't have been more wrong.

Can the 11th ACR blunt the thrust through Bad Neustadt and into Fulda? It shouldn't take long to find out.

Good Hunting.

MR

[Mad Russian]

I will give an example of the AI in combat.

1. The AI attempts to take control of the 300 point Victory Location (VL) in the north center of the map. The string of red crosses show the attrition battle that took place as it advanced.

2. When thrust 1 was stopped the AI split it's forces in two and advanced on the two river bridges in the center of the map. It crossed both bridges and then moved southwest down the river capturing all the VL's all the way to the 300 point VL on the west central part of the map. There was an armored battle the going the entire time the Soviet advance was moving forward.

3. The Soviets having taken the 300 point VL along the river now turns north to attack the 300 point VL at Wollbach that it didn't get with it's first thrust in #1. The advance is contested the entire way up the map to the VL. No matter the Soviet gets the VL.

At this point I have lost the battle. There is roughly 2 hours of game time left. So, what better to do than to counter attack.

Good Hunting.

MR

[Mad Russian]

During my counter attack I recapture the Wollbach VL with infantry in Bradley's, as I have very few tanks left.

I move to the bridge location that I lost a #1, retake it and start to move down the river.

I thrust a single tank platoon straight down through the town to try to take the VL in the middle of town by coup de main.

One infantry platoon is moved far to the left and then down to take the 300 point VL in the center Western location.

The rest move down the river to try to recapture as many VL's as possible.

Good Hunting.

MR

[Mad Russian]

Final result was a tactical victory for NATO.

Good Hunting.

MR

[wodin]

Sounds great..was it a tough fight? I'd have thought the first attacks by the Russian should be real real difficult to stop and it would be a case of having to hold them up for set amount of turns then exit a certain amount of your forces.

Still like the way the AI decided to try something different once it got held up in the first thrust. Is the AI scripted..will it attack that way very time you play the scenario?

What does the 1 and 2 mean above the bridge and Allied Tank unit?

[jday305]

Looks awesome, MR! I like the crosses that represent causalties. A good way to represent burned out/destroyed vehicles.

[Mad Russian]

ORIGINAL: wodin

Sounds great..was it a tough fight? I'd have thought the first attacks by the Russian should be real real difficult to stop and it would be a case of having to hold them up for set amount of turns then exit a certain amount of your forces.

It was a very tough fight. I didn't expect the AI to make thrust # 1 at all. I'd made some changes to the scenario and it had never gone that way before. I had always blown the bridge with time to spare that thrust #1 took, not this time. I had totally lost the scenario and was expecting to have to replay the battle to see if I could do better. I NEVER release a scenario that I personally haven't beaten.

When I saw that I still had 2 hours left and that I kept getting reinforced I thought I might be able to get at least a couple of the VL's back. It turned out I did better than that because the Soviets had taken such high losses in our initial battles that they couldn't hold what they had taken.

Still like the way the AI decided to try something different once it got held up in the first thrust. Is the AI scripted..will it attack that way very time you play the scenario?

The AI is semi-scripted...kind of.

The AI runs through some calculations to see what the status of the VL's are. If they are owned, either by the AI or you, if they are defended, etc. Once that calculation is complete it goes it's merry way about taking what it considers to be it's best choices.

Rarely will the AI respond exactly the same way twice. Which makes balancing a scenario a bit difficult at times but it guarantees vastly different playing experiences that are possible within the same scenario for different play throughs. However, the VL's are in the same locations each time you play and there are only so many different ways to get to them, so some gameplay will obviously be repetitive.

Rob is a genius when it comes to making the AI do it's part. [&o]

What does the 1 and 2 mean above the bridge and Allied Tank unit?

Those are way point set locations. I have that unit ordered to move down those waypoints in that order. You can assign 3 waypoints to each unit. They can also be edited at any time after you assign them.

Good Hunting.

MR

[BeirutDude]

Curious about scale, I'm assuming 250 to 500m hexes? 5 minute turns?

I saw the comment that it isn't an Engineering game, but what about engineer support of river crossings? Seems like at some point the programers would want to add at least limited engineering functions. remember the old Assault Series of games? They started out with just combat and added engineering (along with airmobile/assault and second echlon forces) as time went on. Personally I'm willing to spend the money to add capabilites if the game system is solid, but that is me. If you're going to produce longer duration scenarios engineers become key, but of somewhat lesser importance in shorter sceanrios. The Battle of Chinese Farm is a great example of one that hinged on engineering efforts, not to mention the initial Syrian assault on the Golan. You could break these battles up into segments/scenarios with engineering functions accomplished, for Chinese Farm maybe 3 or 4 scenarios depicting various stages of the battle.

[CapnDarwin]

@ Beachinnole - 500m per hex and the turns are variable based on the current state of the command network. Could be 10 minutes could be 60 depending on many factors.

The engineering functions are in the game. You can blow and build bridges, clear mines and obstacles, but the actual units are abstracted away (for now-we do plan on them being added in and expanded on in future updates of the game engine, if not MR will be a tad bit miffed at us).

[BeirutDude]

Great! Thank you. Very excited by what I've seen so far! [:)]

[Mad Russian]

500 meters. Turn is determined by command cycle.

I didn't say the game had no combat engineering in it. It's in here. It's just a bit abstracted for the most part.

River crossings for NATO are a HUGE problem. Most Warsaw Pact equipment is amphibious. You HAVE TO BLOW THE BRIDGES!!! If you don't I'll be getting feed back from you here on the forums crying about how unbalanced that scenario was as you didn't hold the Soviet Tide back at all.

Here is a screen shot showing where I blew the bridge. Arrow 1. [8D]

Right next to it you can see where the AI built another bridge. Arrow 2. [:@]

Their advance continued right after that! [X(]

There are minefields and obstructions in the game as well. A problem to doing Combat Engineering correctly is the vast number of coding/game issues that have to go right for them to work.

1) They take time to create. Usually lots of time. Most games don't have that. FPC to some extent does. That wasn't the main issue here.

2) They have to have specialized equipment and supplies at the site when needed. This is the main issue. CE's don't just magically materialize out of thin air. They are a much needed special asset and every commander on the front is screaming for them. Where in the columns are they? I want them here NOW!! FINALLY, the CE's are here but their trucks are lost in the rear SOMEWHERE....and on it goes.

3) As engineer units are depleted/stretched thinner they rely more on untrained manpower to help them. That increases the time for completion of the task....now we go back to #1 and start the loop again.

What Capn and Rob have done is to add in the most frequently used CE functions as seamlessly as possible. [&o]

If the unit has amphibious capability it will cross the river after a time penalty. If all the units that are crossing have amphibious capability then there will be no bridge built. If all the units do not have amphibious capability a bridge will be built there.

Not a perfect answer but one that works in the context of the game very well.

Good Hunting.

MR

[CapnDarwin]

MR covers the engineering picture there very well. One thing we will need to expand on is the functions of other unit types in the game. One area of importance is recon. Finding the enemy allow you to fix the enemy by hitting them with artillery or air strikes. Buys you time to move your forces to better defend the enemy's line of attack. Keeps you from being surprised when the enemy appears off you flank or worse. Recon units in the game have the added benefits of being harder to spot and also do a better job of spotting units. As a commander recon and counter-recon operation may make or break the battle.

[Mad Russian]

This is not WWII and it's not FPG. This is Flash Point Campaigns: Red Storm. In this game you will find one thing that is drastically different than in any game you have played to this point. Combat in a WWIII environment would have been two things...

FAST AND RELENTLESS!

You're finely tuned responses to developments on the field, garnered from countless hours hovering over wargame maps, will have you two steps behind. The Russians won't wait for you to get your act together. At least they didn't for me!! [8|]

Good Hunting.

MR

[BeirutDude]

Thanks for answering the questions.

[jday305]

MR
I like that the AI did something you were not expecting. That will make it tougher to predict how the AI will react to my moves and keep me on my toes. I only question why would you never release a scenerio that you can't beat? Not all battlefield situations can ultimately be won.

[Mad Russian]

I didn't say I wouldn't release a scenario that I hadn't been beaten in. I won't release a scenario that I personally haven't beaten because I want to know that there is at least a possibility, if you play well, that you too can beat it.

Nowhere did I say they would be easy to beat....[:D] [:D] [:D]

Winning in FPC is a relative thing. It takes into account force sized, objectives controlled etc. It's just a straight up you took 200 points I took 300 points worth of VL, so I win. Not nearly that simple here.

As I've said before, the team is made up of veteran gamers. We know what we like and you will see that reflected in the game.

Good Hunting.

MR

[Mad Russian]

A bit about the battles.

They come in different flavors. Something for everyone.

The main combatants in the base game will be British, Soviet, US and West German.

If time allows I would like to have each scenario playable from the NATO side, Soviet side and Head to Head.

The scenarios range from small actions to large scale battles.

The scenarios will be sortable. For example, if you want a small fight with the West Germans fighting the AI you can find that quickly without having to go through the entire scenario listing.

The maps are all the same size but they are all different. Each battle has it's own unique map. The battles cover everything from the Fulda Gap up through the mountains and onto the North German Plain. There is everything from major rivers to wide open spaces.

Force sizes vary and the exact content of your forces at any given time in the battle will vary as well. I believe in the liberal use and arrival/departure of reinforcements. As with actual battles things get chaotic.

There are two basic types of wargamers. Those that play wargames like chess, very structured, and those that play it that believe no plan lasts past the first shot and that warfare is trying to execute a plan out of utter chaos. I belong to the second group of gamers. My scenarios will make you adjust constantly to changing situations in as many aspects of the combat model as I possibly can.

Good Luck with that, you'll need it. [X(]

Good Hunting.

MR

[BeirutDude]

These posts/threads need a "Like" button like on Facebook! [:D]

[wodin]

Music to my ears..

ORIGINAL: Mad Russian



There are two basic types of wargamers. Those that play wargames like chess, very structured, and those that play it that believe no plan lasts past the first shot and that warfare is trying to execute a plan out of utter chaos. I belong to the second group of gamers. My scenarios will make you adjust constantly to changing situations in as many aspects of the combat model as I possibly can.


MR

[CapnDarwin]

Rob's AI is good. AI is never an easy prospect when coding a game. It will never be as good as another player (at least if it's not cheating all the time and even then it still appears fishy). Unless you start shipping games with a trained Deep Blue computer or clone a developer, you are left with some form of rules based AI. I think the job done by Rob is awesome. I have been caught off guard on a few occasions when enemy forces have appeared along a route that I blew off covering thinking the computer would not take that approach. You really need to look across the map and ask yourself what you would do to attack your force in the worst way and prepare for that possibility. And then keep doing that routine with the current state as a jump off point for the whole game.