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.
The Gnome wrote:"We do track important human factors that feed into combat performance like skill, fatigue, morale, and command disorganization so there will be lots for you to be interested in, but losses are in increments of machines."
How are losses measured for leg infantry units (or dismounted units)?
Sorry I missed this the first time around. Leg units are measured in squads.
LTCMTS wrote:Will the editor allow the creation of alternate scenarios from different periods, say the '60s, so we can add in M103s and Conquerors?
That is still 'gleam in the eye' stuff but at some point after the first release - yes. The problem is purely one of research and we have run to the exhaustion point doing just 1989. As we build up our research on weapons data and unit organizations later though we can add as many new units as we like. Two of the vehicle and unit data fields are "date of introduction" and "date of withdrawal" so you can see the plumbing is already in there.
LTCMTS wrote:Any news on status? How is the new build working out?
There have been a certain number of interface changes in the most recent build that has put some of our playtesting back at square one. Hey, they got what they asked for! Feedback on recent changes has been slow to trickle in - I guess our playtesters are having a busy fall with their non-Matrix commitments....
The bigger factor for me right now is generating a worthy set of scenarios. In my innocence I had thought that this might take a long weekend at most - this is the fun part after all. It turns out I was much mistaken and had completely underestimated the sheer creative and research effort involved. I have a list of 14 (rather boring) scenarios on paper from the original Main Battle Tank games. I want to double the list and then really pump each of them up to make them sing, but that is easier said than done!
Right now I am revisting the process used to design the scenarios. I don't do anything without writing everything up and considering all the design factors first ("measure twice, cut once"), and since this stuff is actually pretty new to me it requires a fair bit of deep thought in consultation with my friends Johnny Walker, Jim Beam, and Chivas Regal. (You are doubtless glad to hear that the Matrix R&D budget is being spent so wisely.) I have maybe 30 pages of design notes and ideas. When that is pulled together a little more coherently I will get back to the scenario editor and actually create them and start circulating them around. Doubtless this will precipitate a rewrite of the scenario editor, but that is par for the course too. It is fairly easy to have an idea and construct it in software. The hard part is the testing and real world use that leads to a bazillion change requests to smooth out all the little jagged edges and gaps. This will be a big part of the final game so it is worth spending the time needed to get it right too.
1. Every game needs a crossing of a water obstacle scenario, though I don't know if the game really provides for the "special rules" that might be required. You could use either a large river or a canal like the Main-Donau.
2. There were plans to actually blow the Main Donau canal to flood large areas of lowlands. You might have a scenario where a portion of the map is flooded. Since it would be dumb to just say you can't use the bottom half of the map, maybe there is substantial flooding across the middle, and there are one or two raised roads/bridges that connect the two playable halves - almost like a wide river running through the middle of the map. I'm thinking that, rather than have it separate the two sides, it runs parallel to the axis of advance so that half of your army is on one side and half on the other. It might give an advantage to the attacker who can concentrate most of his forces on one side, and the defender has only one or two places that it can move units across the flooding to reinforce/counterattack.
3. Airborne/airmobile attack of an urban rear area. Elite light forces strike at Reforger depots/army headquarters/logistics area in a large city in the middle of the night. The defenders are primarily REMF units of MPs, air defense, staff, German reservists, and maybe a company or battalion of regular troops until help arrives. The defender has a number of lightly armed, poorly trained companies that represents all the truck drivers and cooks being pressed into service. A wild fight develops in the city where neither player knows where the other is. Defender has complete air supremacy, lots of helos, and gets reinforcements, the elite attacker has to hang on with what little he has. This would be a battle for relatively small amount of light forces in a confusing urban environment.
4. I would love to see some scenarios where the intelligence provided is wrong. Hey, it happens. "Blue force is to move from point A through point B to eliminate the airborne/airmobile force located at Point C." Blue force skips along mindlessly in travel mode through Point B expecting to deploy into tactical mode just short of Point C, which is an obvious hill with a forest on top. Well, surprise, the airborne/airmobile force - or at least a portion of it - is at Point B. Red ambushes Blue at Point B, which should be a really nasty, constricted area. For replayability, it would be great if there was a kind of random set up for Red.
5. Defense in a heavy EW environment. All units take one or two extra turns to respond to orders. That should be frustrating.
6. Counterattack to relieve a company that was cutoff. Maybe they're cutoff by a river with three bridges. Relieving force has to capture and hold one of the bridges and push enough forces to the cutoff people to allow them to exfil over the bridge.
7. Operations after a heavy rain or snow melt. All off-road tactical movement reduced by 1/3 to 1/2.
8. Surprise meeting engagement. Each side's orders direct the player to move from the lower corner of the map to attack something on the diagonal opposite side of the map so that, during the movement, both sides are moving from a bottom corner toward the middle with the inevitable meeting at the crossroads in the middle. Both sides are expecting the contact at the top corner of the map on the opposite side (at a deceptively obvious location like the big-@ss hill in the corner). There is a substantial forest/hill in the middle of the lower half of the map so that neither side can see the other side until they are in close proximity to one another. Maybe it's even a lake so that, once you've played the scenario once you don't just deploy your forces to move straight toward the enemy and are forced to basically start the fight at one small point with the bulk of your forces behind you. You only have to choices: fight through the small point, i.e., crossroads without being able to deploy on line, or traverse your entire force behind your lines from the bottom of the map up to the top and then swing them from behind your lines through the top middle of the map and point them toward the enemy in the lower corner - basically a 270 degree turn. Either way, not an ideal starting situation for either side and neither side will probably be able to use his weapons systems to full capability.
9. The reservists enter the battle. Recommended that a human play the defense. The defender is required to defend with markedly inferior equipment and troops - possibly against depleted but better forces. I've got no problems with a scenario where the player will inevitably "lose" by being pushed back so long as the victory conditions give the player an even chance of winning. So the player in this scenario may only have to hold one of five victory locations at the end of the game.
10. This idea of a controlled loss could apply to any number of scenarios. No reason why the attacker should have a 3:1 ratio in every scenario so that each side has an equal chance of controlling the battlefield at the end of the game. You could easily have overwhelming attacker odds so that the defender gets a moral victory. In other words, no reason to always have objective victories; you can have subjective victories where the challenge for the defender is to get only one cheek of his @ss kicked and not both. While conceding that the defender will inevitably lose most of the map, he can still "win" by either excessively attriting the enemy or holding on to more of the map than he should given his dumpy forces.
11. Sabre21 to the rescue. Scenario is a small ground cav force but with lots of attack helicopters and arty. Mission is to attrit an overwhelming Red force, who has sufficient AA to make it interesting if he deploys it well. The first part of the game may be the Cav trying to destroy the AA assets (as Sabre has mentioned they are a priority) with the Red guys trying to protect them while also pushing forward.
12. Claustrophobia. An armor-heavy unit has to attack through dense terrain like urban or forest held by lighter infantry forces; some roads are mined or have had obstacles placed. Hopefully, the game properly models the disadvantage that the armor guys have in tight spaces so that, while it may seem that you have overwhelming force, it simply cannot be deployed properly causing a real headache. This scenario only has value if mech forces really do have a disadvantage in dense terrain.
The neatest trick you could pull of would be to make some randomness in the scenarios. It gets dull when you know exactly what the force mix and terrain is for scenario 14. The game then becomes one of deploying your forces perfectly to take full advantage of the information that you realistically would not have had. "I'll place my hammerhead here because I know a company of T-80s will exit the forest on that road on turn 4."
I'm not a computer guy, but I would think this would be doable. One way would be to have have three alternate OOB's and setup locations for each side. When you choose scenario 14, the computer randomly selects one of the three alternates for each side. It would take extra work since you are having to do six set-ups instead of two, but (if my math is right) you get nine completely different scenarios. And the scenario is always played on the same map. The objective or mission would always be the same for each side, but the force make-up and starting locations could be drastically different from scenario to scenario. Hey, a commander has to make do with what he has. And what a surprise when he says "Gee, this isn't what happened last time!" To keep the game balanced regardless of which of the setups are selected, you would design each setup to provide a side with essentially the same "value" of forces, e.g., lots of reservists or few elite, fewer ground forces but more arty and air support.
And there's always the Putlach Trench scenario that I wanted to see a year ago.
So go crack the seal on whatever you're drinking and get to work!
If you put your thought into your scenarios, and then make them play the same each time, you won't be doing them justice!
Saw it with Call of Duty (totally different I know) but they have german 1, 2 and 3 in a building at the exact same point at the exact same time...you then know to go into that building looking for german A on the right, german B on the left and german C in the room down the corridor to the right...no replayability what so ever!
So, for your sake, the games sake, the players sake and to do your work justice, make them random!!
JudgeDredd wrote:Randomness is the key to playability.
Randomness will give extended life to the game.
Couldn't agree with you more. I have played Rogue Spear countless of times, mainly because the terrorist placement (in Terrorist Hunts) is somewhat random. Adding a small amount of optional randomness into scenarios would do a lot to their replayability. I'll leave as an exercise to the reader the countless possibilities to implement this . I imagine it would be a lot easier to add now than when the scenarios are done.
Robert, will supply be a factor in this game, or will it more along the lines of Combat Mission in that the battles are shorter so supply is assigned at the start of a scenarioi and resupply is not an issue.
The reason I ask is that I would like to see a series of scenarios based upon "Team Yankee" and as I recall, the unit commanders needed to make decsions based upon resupply availability and timetables.
Thanks
"The only way I got to keep them Tigers busy is to let them shoot holes in me!"
. I imagine it would be a lot easier to add now than when the scenarios are done.
