The Direction of the FPC series

[ComradeP]

Why would one NOT pick the most interesting period, when looking at the balance of forces, when deciding to pick a period to wargame?????

The "pick a period" part is what I'm referring to. It can feel artificial, because in this case the war never happened. This is one of the few, at the moment only, popular conflict in wargames where a convenient moment to start the war is picked. Wars start at inconvenient times for at least some of the combatants most of the time. In this case the war starts at a convenient time for NATO, when it has found a way to deal with the Soviet advantage in quantity.

Let's say the war had turned hot in the 1960's, somewhere there would've been a stalemate and peace, and after that the development of military technology and the balance in Europe would develop in a similar way to what really happened, so we end up with roughly the same situation in the 1980's, but there's no war. How many 1980's wargames do you think there would be? I would say there would be few, because most would focus on the actual war.

In other words: this particular time for the Cold War to turn hot could be picked because the war didn't happen, as otherwise the moment where it would've started would've been more popular to wargame.

From a wargaming perspective, it is indeed a good and perfectly understandable decision to create a wargame for the most interesting period. From the perspective of historical accuracy, there are some issues with that approach that wargames based on actual wars don't suffer from.

[Hexagon]

Well, we need think in 3 diferent periods, WWII, post WWII and WWIII, here we have hystorical and non hystorical and in a diferent position i put what ifs.

why not release historical game with what ifs??? for example in WWII the not very well covered battle for Berlin with a what if where soviets attack allies after fall Berlin and we can see UK+USA+German kampgruppes or Korea 50 with Korea 1985/1989 but maybe maybe i think is better separate real Korea from WWIII becuase Korea 50 needs WWII scale of 200-250m over the modern scale of 500m.

Maybe we need see first some game patches to fix and improve the actual game and at least a pair of DLCs to complete Red Storm, after this... well, if they are very open in their options why not present a serie of options and see what has better acceptation... and of course, why not release a beta-test scenario in a WWII engine version??? something to test how works in this era... could be historical or not, only a test version.

[Mad Russian]

What we were looking at was actually in terms of decades.

40's, 50's, 60's 70's, 80's, 90's, 00's, 10's, etc.

This would allow us to concentrate on at least one major war/theater in each of these decades and once those were done it would be easy to add anything else that happened in that time period.

If you think in those terms all that is missing for 2 Gulf Wars are the maps. The war's themselves have the equipment and TO&E's in place for the most part.

Good Hunting.

MR

[garymiboy]

hi guys,

i just recently added this game to my large collection of wargames although not especially a fan of "cold war"games.just due to the fact that they are mainly "what if". and im just talking about the period and area this game is set in...but,i was playing another great game in the john tillers campaign series [my most played game ever.had it since release].and just the sheer volume of battles/campaigns are amazing.anyway, i thought "this game would be brilliant with the FC:RS game engine.so mant battles etc already in place... the good thing about factual wars is the easy access to genuine information..which obviously isnt there with the "what if" games.and ww2 games do sell due to the factual side of things.

im not taking anything away from this era the game is set in. i think its a truly great game.and definitely top 5 in my war games. but game engine wise id say probably at the top !!.

just my opinion added in to the mix.

[grant1pa]

That's exactly what I would like to see. For those of us more "seasoned" (meaning...old), it affords an opportunity to explore this genre into the times we lived through.

One additional note. Being weened on the old board and chit games and an avid student of military history, I'd love to see this engine adapted to the rich historical background of the Arab/Israeli conflicts.

Thanks for a great diversion to the trials and travails of day to day life!

Tom

One thing we would like to do is possibly do the scenario set in different time frames. Do nothing to them but replace the current equipment structures and see how the different time periods would play out.

For example, A Time To Dance in 1960, 1965, 1975, 1982, 1985, etc. and the same for the rest of the scenarios.

The list of things this engine could do is limited only by our time and the communities willingness to support it.

[bluth]

Definitly Vietnam, the scale seems perfect for it

[governato]

My preference would go for

- 1973 Yom Kippur War

- East Front Summer '41

- France 1940

They 'd all highlight the importance of C&C and coordination between the various branches.

Btw, Summer 1941 in Russia was not an one sided fight, the Red Army counterattacks in the AGS and AGC sectors were intense and did not work out only because of lack of unit cohesion and poor tank tactics. All three scenarios would put the players
in the classic 'I am sure I can do better than those poor sods', to discover that it wasn't actually that easy with no air cover, or radios or if your Division HQ had suddenly been strafed...

And of course, playing the IDF side on the Golan Heights would be pretty epic.

Great game with a lot of potential!

[Hexagon]

I prefer to see a historical module with the wars in middle east... for me is better join in same title 67-73 wars to have all the options in nations and situations (we have both sides in attack and in defense) and as DLCs i think in Lebanon 1982+ the 1956 war (here we have a WWII war with France and UK to) but here all depends what want do on target... i refer to module price and size, if they release middle east module for lets see 20 euros with only one of the main wars (1967 or 1973) and DLCs of 15... but again, here they need take a decision like if we need Flashpoint to install the new modules or any module is stand alone.

Other point is they here can play with what if scens/campaigns... i think in soviet or/and USA intervention, this is an interesting thing i find in Tiller title for middle east, is a way to add more value to the module.

After release the historical modern module... maybe i prefer see more modern modules exploring Flashpoint situations in other fronts, i think in a "Dragon rise" module with China attacking Taiwan, Japan and Korea for example or a Module covering the Nato South front... what do Turkey, Greece... we can see them fighting together WP or one of them join to WP and the old enemies fight again [8|]


But this is all a castle in the air, first we need see some patches to fix game and see the first DLC, if i dont remember bad add East Germany, Poland, France and... Canada?

[Dorb]

ORIGINAL: Radagy

Six Days War and Kippur War above all. Then Korea, Falklands, Iran-Iraq.
Desert Storm could too much unbalanced. I wonder if this engine could support Vietnam War without a substantial makeup.
Interest in hypotetical future wars (US vs. rest of the world... Russia, China, Iran and so on. ) just to test brand new gear.
Absolutely no interest in hypothetical past wars, apart from NATO-WP.
Last and least, a WWII add on would be welcome.

Ditto!
I agree with every word.

[wodin]

@Radagy Vietnam has been discussed and I'm sure we will see it as the developers like the idea. We would need Heli insertions as a new feature. Plus actual men counted as casualties as it was all about the bodycount from the US side. Even if it's just chrome multiplying the dead Inf subunits by 30 (platoon size) and then giving the score at the end.

[PirateJock]

I'd be really interested in seeing what could be done with the Arab-Israeli wars. I'm a WWII man BUT always on the lookout for expanding my understanding of more recent conflicts. The problem being there just isn't that many PC games out there that cover these areas.

My limited knowledge of the 6 Day and Yom Kippur Wars is that there was plenty of hardware involved on both sides although I have no idea on how evenly matched they were - something to explore in the scenario design?

Cheers

[TheWombat_matrixforum]

ORIGINAL: PirateJock

I'd be really interested in seeing what could be done with the Arab-Israeli wars. I'm a WWII man BUT always on the lookout for expanding my understanding of more recent conflicts. The problem being there just isn't that many PC games out there that cover these areas.

My limited knowledge of the 6 Day and Yom Kippur Wars is that there was plenty of hardware involved on both sides although I have no idea on how evenly matched they were - something to explore in the scenario design?

Cheers

One thing about Middle Eastern wars is the political layer often affects the modeling and data. There is so much spinning from all sides that anyone who's ever done any research into the Arab-Israeli conflicts quickly finds that getting good baseline information is sometimes damned difficult. But yeah, there are a lot of interesting hardware matchups, from WWII-era stuff lingering on in various garb (halftracks, souped-up M4s, and more) through ATGMS, ARMs, and SAMs.

[CapnDarwin]

TheWombat wins the why Flashpoint Mid-East ground to an ugly halt. Very tough to get two pieces of paper that say the same thing about anything in those battles. Units, OOB, losses, etc. All over the map. We will de-scope and get there down the road.

[BlackMoria]

I would love to see the game do different time periods for a NATO-Warsaw conflict, including different locations.

For example, postulating that the Cold War didn't end in 1989, I would love to see a 'current' treatment with weapon systems fielded today for the NATO forces and the Warsaw Pact. A number of weapon system developments got cancelled due to the collapse of the Warsaw Pact, so it would be great to 'see' how the Assault Breaker system would have performed had it been fielded or if the Future Combat Systems initiative came to maturity.

As for location, Norway and Iceland would be crucial areas for Warsaw Pact forces to seize, given NATO naval doctrine of trying to keep Warsaw Pact naval forces bottled up from operating with impunity in the Atlantic and North Sea.

Also, another vote for a Vietnam era module and a current modern Korea conflict.

[Mad Russian]

Southern Germany as well as the Low Countries and the Arctic Circle are on the list of things to get out before we move very far.

Is that a helpful enough hint???

Good Hunting.

MR

[Arnir]

I would like to see the rest of the 1985 WWIII fleshed out. Add the rest of NATO and the WP. Go to the Arctic and fight on the snow and ice. Add a NATO campaign against/in some of the Arab states. Fight for the Bosphorus. Berlin '85? Etc.

[Hexagon]

Of course before a new module complete more RS module is the obvious movement, i understand is better now work in add more nations/scens/campaigns/fronts that start a new module changing the scope.

The first DLC add east Germany+Poland in WP and France+??? in NATO, apart scens covering first days of combat (with east Germany and Poland attacking the north front maybe with naval attacks???) i want see french forces first helping stop the WP last good troops and fighting the first reserve units... maybe here is a good point for the DLC, add scens covering the fighting of soviet reserve units VS german/USA/UK ad hoc units with reserve units to.

For me a second DLC could be or based in the assault over Norway and Sweden or in a Danube front fight... both can add new armies and if in this time you add a way to have in a side units from diferent armies (this or create a generic nation called NATO forces)... i think that in both fronts the use of expeditionary forces is a good option, i think in the north based in french units+minors like Portugal and Spain as support and in the Danube Italian units as base+German and USA task forces+Austrian troops, in both case 2 diferent scen types, early assault with nationals trying delay soviets and a 2nd phase where appear the expeditionary forces.

Lets see, first DLC is in the mist but sure is going to be a must have [;)]

[Rob322]

The counterattack [8D]

[Mad Russian]

I believe you will see offensive action before Christmas. May not be a full blown counterattack but it will be a NATO unit on the offensive.

At least that's what I think is going to happen. Only the Scenario Guru knows for sure....[:D]

Good Hunting.

MR

[Hexagon]

Ummm but as a bonus in a patch or as DLC???

Something i need ask, what is the other nation planned to add in NATO??? i dont remember now if is Belgium, Netherlands or Caaaaaaanaaaaaadaaaaa [:D]