My current issues with this game <3

[Darojax]

First of all I want to say I really like this game and am grateful to the designer for creating it, well done! Additionally there are many enjoyable and positive things about this game, it's quite something else. I want to start with saying this so you don't think this is a purely negative ungrateful rant. : ) However, there are some things in this game that currently prevents me from playing it because I just get too irritated and frustrated. Here is this list, please take as constructive criticism:

1. THE UNABILITY TO RELOCATE WHEN UNDER FIRE WITHOUT TAKING MASSIVE CASUALTIES. To quote byzantine1990 from another thread: "The root issue is relocating is useless in the current system. If I have a tank on a hill with good sight lines and I come under fire and I relocate, I am giving up my valuable position AND taking much more damage compared to staying dug in. Why in the world would I ever use the screen command or the relocate SOP?" In short: fighting withdrawals are impossible in the current state of the game. Units relocating due to under fire should receive a higher defensive bonus than staying in their current pos, currently it's the other way around.

2. COORDINATING MOVEMENT/ATTACKS USING ORDER DELAY. The only time the timings of orders are accurate is when you issue them the first time when the scenario start. After that, the timing are no longer accurate. If I try to coordinate an attack involving several units and order delays, this just does not work. Some units will sit AN HOUR after receing an attack order even though readiness, morale and ammo is high, and there is no way to check how long they will sit there, so good coordination is impossible.

3. MOVEMENT DELAY IN GENERAL. If I want a unit to be ready to move quickly to where I want it on the battle field, I have to issue the order in advance and give it a big delay, then when I actually want it to move I drag the waypoint to where I want it and remove the delay and the unit moves. I can string this up with 6 waypoints "kiting" the unit if you will. IF I would realistically issue the order WHEN I want the unit to move it sits still for way too long before moving. In my opinion a unit in screening posture should be able to move quite quickly. Alternatively give us a third option besides HOLD/SCREEN where the unit is ready to step off. Especially useful for units being held in reserve etc.

4. ARTILLERY DEADLINESS. First of all I want to say I have no real experience, so maybe I am completely wrong with this. Regardless, I am really tired of just knowing that if a mechanized unit receives a single 155mm barrage while moving, half the mech unit is gone. Infantry especially in wooded terrain should not be taking the huge amount of losses it takes currently as there should be half decent cover in abundance and infantry will hunker down. Even tanks drop like flies, and this seems really silly to me. Anyway, as said, I dont have real life experience, but I feel artillery is WAY too deadly in its current state.

5. THE SOP SYSTEM. What can I say, very clunky. I constantly have to fiddle with so many buttons and units to get it set up properly. There is no easy way to just set up a SOP for a specific unit type and have it go through to all orders with a button click. I have to go through every single unit and assign the SOP to make sure it goes through to the current SCREEN/HOLD order as well.

There may be more issues that I forgot to wrote. Anyone feel free to add your thoughts and criticise me back, it's all good, friendly, constructive discussion.

[WABAC]

If I want units to move out from under artillery fire I let the AI handle it via SOP. It does a much better job of scooting out from under. than I do by giving orders. The difference between local initiative and orders through the chain of command? Maybe so. Could the users be allowed to issue scoot orders? Sure. But then we run back into friction, and the fog of war.

I see all of the things you describe as the devs best approximations of realities it is my job to plan around.

Artillery can be very effective. But as I get more time in game I find that it is not the death star some players make it out to be.

The interface for the SOP screen could be improved with the addition of a cancel button. I am often surprised by what is, and is not, included in the command to apply to all units of the same type. I think the devs would be very open to screen shots, and saved games, that point out oddities in the logic or convenience of the widget.

[byzantine1990]

If I want units to move out from under artillery fire I let the AI handle it via SOP. It does a much better job of scooting out from under. than I do by giving orders. The difference between local initiative and orders through the chain of command? Maybe so. Could the users be allowed to issue scoot orders? Sure. But then we run back into friction, and the fog of war.

I see all of the things you describe as the devs best approximations of realities it is my job to plan around.

Artillery can be very effective. But as I get more time in game I find that it is not the death star some players make it out to be.

The interface for the SOP screen could be improved with the addition of a cancel button. I am often surprised by what is, and is not, included in the command to apply to all units of the same type. I think the devs would be very open to screen shots, and saved games, that point out oddities in the logic or convenience of the widget.

I have a save from the new Canadian campaign where TOW unit is hit by artillery immediately after turn start. I think it's time to get excel out and test different SOP'S.

You don't really need tests to understand that the relocation mechanic is broken. If a unit is on "hold" and set to relocate after receiving fire, it is strictly worse than a unit with no relocate order.

The first artillery strike has the vast majority of killing power so before you relocate you have already lost a unit or three. If you relocate you are now vastly more vulnerable and depending on terrain it's possible to get hit multiple times before leaving a hex. Maybe you have been lucky but the fact that you take greater damage relocating means that it's a lose/lose situation. Sure, you might not take damage one time but the other time might mean your entire unit. What do you gain from taking on this risk? Moving to a less advantageous position.

I'd love to play the game where I can have my tanks conduct a fighting retreat but that isn't this game right now.

[byzantine1990]

First of all I want to say I really like this game and am grateful to the designer for creating it, well done! Additionally there are many enjoyable and positive things about this game, it's quite something else. I want to start with saying this so you don't think this is a purely negative ungrateful rant. : ) However, there are some things in this game that currently prevents me from playing it because I just get too irritated and frustrated. Here is this list, please take as constructive criticism:

1. THE UNABILITY TO RELOCATE WHEN UNDER FIRE WITHOUT TAKING MASSIVE CASUALTIES. To quote byzantine1990 from another thread: "The root issue is relocating is useless in the current system. If I have a tank on a hill with good sight lines and I come under fire and I relocate, I am giving up my valuable position AND taking much more damage compared to staying dug in. Why in the world would I ever use the screen command or the relocate SOP?" In short: fighting withdrawals are impossible in the current state of the game. Units relocating due to under fire should receive a higher defensive bonus than staying in their current pos, currently it's the other way around.

2. COORDINATING MOVEMENT/ATTACKS USING ORDER DELAY. The only time the timings of orders are accurate is when you issue them the first time when the scenario start. After that, the timing are no longer accurate. If I try to coordinate an attack involving several units and order delays, this just does not work. Some units will sit AN HOUR after receing an attack order even though readiness, morale and ammo is high, and there is no way to check how long they will sit there, so good coordination is impossible.

3. MOVEMENT DELAY IN GENERAL. If I want a unit to be ready to move quickly to where I want it on the battle field, I have to issue the order in advance and give it a big delay, then when I actually want it to move I drag the waypoint to where I want it and remove the delay and the unit moves. I can string this up with 6 waypoints "kiting" the unit if you will. IF I would realistically issue the order WHEN I want the unit to move it sits still for way too long before moving. In my opinion a unit in screening posture should be able to move quite quickly. Alternatively give us a third option besides HOLD/SCREEN where the unit is ready to step off. Especially useful for units being held in reserve etc.

4. ARTILLERY DEADLINESS. First of all I want to say I have no real experience, so maybe I am completely wrong with this. Regardless, I am really tired of just knowing that if a mechanized unit receives a single 155mm barrage while moving, half the mech unit is gone. Infantry especially in wooded terrain should not be taking the huge amount of losses it takes currently as there should be half decent cover in abundance and infantry will hunker down. Even tanks drop like flies, and this seems really silly to me. Anyway, as said, I dont have real life experience, but I feel artillery is WAY too deadly in its current state.

5. THE SOP SYSTEM. What can I say, very clunky. I constantly have to fiddle with so many buttons and units to get it set up properly. There is no easy way to just set up a SOP for a specific unit type and have it go through to all orders with a button click. I have to go through every single unit and assign the SOP to make sure it goes through to the current SCREEN/HOLD order as well.

There may be more issues that I forgot to wrote. Anyone feel free to add your thoughts and criticise me back, it's all good, friendly, constructive discussion.

Thanks for making this post. Hopefully if we make enough noise we can get some changes.

I'm glad you brought up the order delay system. I agree that it is not a good mechanic. Players have no idea what makes it up and no way to change it. There is a reason that Combat Mission dropped it when they moved to the current engine.

I think the difference in orders phase between the factions is plenty of command friction. The only delay should be units in the hold command needing time to set up and pack up. Units in screen should be instant since they are sitting in their vehicles waiting for orders.

[WABAC]

If I want units to move out from under artillery fire I let the AI handle it via SOP. It does a much better job of scooting out from under. than I do by giving orders. The difference between local initiative and orders through the chain of command? Maybe so. Could the users be allowed to issue scoot orders? Sure. But then we run back into friction, and the fog of war.

I see all of the things you describe as the devs best approximations of realities it is my job to plan around.

Artillery can be very effective. But as I get more time in game I find that it is not the death star some players make it out to be.

The interface for the SOP screen could be improved with the addition of a cancel button. I am often surprised by what is, and is not, included in the command to apply to all units of the same type. I think the devs would be very open to screen shots, and saved games, that point out oddities in the logic or convenience of the widget.

I have a save from the new Canadian campaign where TOW unit is hit by artillery immediately after turn start. I think it's time to get excel out and test different SOP'S.

You don't really need tests to understand that the relocation mechanic is broken. If a unit is on "hold" and set to relocate after receiving fire, it is strictly worse than a unit with no relocate order.

The first artillery strike has the vast majority of killing power so before you relocate you have already lost a unit or three. If you relocate you are now vastly more vulnerable and depending on terrain it's possible to get hit multiple times before leaving a hex. Maybe you have been lucky but the fact that you take greater damage relocating means that it's a lose/lose situation. Sure, you might not take damage one time but the other time might mean your entire unit. What do you gain from taking on this risk? Moving to a less advantageous position.

I'd love to play the game where I can have my tanks conduct a fighting retreat but that isn't this game right now.

I do see preparatory bombardments at the beginning of some scenarios. I don't know if this is done by the AI, or the scenario designer. I do know that I try to avoid being in the places that the AI might hit. That's not always possible.

As for the rest, I have different expectations than you, so I am not disappointed.

BTW, you are using smoke when you try to move those units?

[byzantine1990]

If I want units to move out from under artillery fire I let the AI handle it via SOP. It does a much better job of scooting out from under. than I do by giving orders. The difference between local initiative and orders through the chain of command? Maybe so. Could the users be allowed to issue scoot orders? Sure. But then we run back into friction, and the fog of war.

I see all of the things you describe as the devs best approximations of realities it is my job to plan around.

Artillery can be very effective. But as I get more time in game I find that it is not the death star some players make it out to be.

The interface for the SOP screen could be improved with the addition of a cancel button. I am often surprised by what is, and is not, included in the command to apply to all units of the same type. I think the devs would be very open to screen shots, and saved games, that point out oddities in the logic or convenience of the widget.

I have a save from the new Canadian campaign where TOW unit is hit by artillery immediately after turn start. I think it's time to get excel out and test different SOP'S.

You don't really need tests to understand that the relocation mechanic is broken. If a unit is on "hold" and set to relocate after receiving fire, it is strictly worse than a unit with no relocate order.

The first artillery strike has the vast majority of killing power so before you relocate you have already lost a unit or three. If you relocate you are now vastly more vulnerable and depending on terrain it's possible to get hit multiple times before leaving a hex. Maybe you have been lucky but the fact that you take greater damage relocating means that it's a lose/lose situation. Sure, you might not take damage one time but the other time might mean your entire unit. What do you gain from taking on this risk? Moving to a less advantageous position.

I'd love to play the game where I can have my tanks conduct a fighting retreat but that isn't this game right now.

I do see preparatory bombardments at the beginning of some scenarios. I don't know if this is done by the AI, or the scenario designer. I do know that I try to avoid being in the places that the AI might hit. That's not always possible.

As for the rest, I have different expectations than you, so I am not disappointed.

BTW, you are using smoke when you try to move those units?

All I'm saying is the relocation feature is broken/useless. I have not seen a single response to this.

Regardless of expectations, if a key feature of the game is broken/useless. Wouldnt you want to fix it?

[WABAC]

I have a save from the new Canadian campaign where TOW unit is hit by artillery immediately after turn start. I think it's time to get excel out and test different SOP'S.

You don't really need tests to understand that the relocation mechanic is broken. If a unit is on "hold" and set to relocate after receiving fire, it is strictly worse than a unit with no relocate order.

The first artillery strike has the vast majority of killing power so before you relocate you have already lost a unit or three. If you relocate you are now vastly more vulnerable and depending on terrain it's possible to get hit multiple times before leaving a hex. Maybe you have been lucky but the fact that you take greater damage relocating means that it's a lose/lose situation. Sure, you might not take damage one time but the other time might mean your entire unit. What do you gain from taking on this risk? Moving to a less advantageous position.

I'd love to play the game where I can have my tanks conduct a fighting retreat but that isn't this game right now.

I do see preparatory bombardments at the beginning of some scenarios. I don't know if this is done by the AI, or the scenario designer. I do know that I try to avoid being in the places that the AI might hit. That's not always possible.

As for the rest, I have different expectations than you, so I am not disappointed.

BTW, you are using smoke when you try to move those units?

All I'm saying is the relocation feature is broken/useless. I have not seen a single response to this.

Regardless of expectations, if a key feature of the game is broken/useless. Wouldnt you want to fix it?

I know you think it's broken. And I did reply. You disagree with my response. That's OK.

Your claim that a key feature is broken rests on your expectation of what it should be like to move under fire. The devs have a different point of view. My expectation of what it would be like to move under fire is closer to their opinion than to yours. Ergo, not broken.

I suppose at some point they could add options to make artillery less lethal if there was enough demand.

[byzantine1990]

I do see preparatory bombardments at the beginning of some scenarios. I don't know if this is done by the AI, or the scenario designer. I do know that I try to avoid being in the places that the AI might hit. That's not always possible.

As for the rest, I have different expectations than you, so I am not disappointed.

BTW, you are using smoke when you try to move those units?

All I'm saying is the relocation feature is broken/useless. I have not seen a single response to this.

Regardless of expectations, if a key feature of the game is broken/useless. Wouldnt you want to fix it?

I know you think it's broken. And I did reply. You disagree with my response. That's OK.

Your claim that a key feature is broken rests on your expectation of what it should be like to move under fire. The devs have a different point of view. My expectation of what it would be like to move under fire is closer to their opinion than to yours. Ergo, not broken.

I suppose at some point they could add options to make artillery less lethal if there was enough demand.

I understand, would you mind elaborating? Do you think relocating under fire is an efficient move compared to staying in place? Or should it not be an efficient move? Are you saying artillery in the 80's is pinpoint accurate with no spotting rounds need like in game?

[MikeJ19]

There is an adjustment of targets in the game, you just do not see it. Also, observers had many ways to bring fire down quickly and unexpectedly. I believe that the game does a good job of covering the artillery.

[byzantine1990]

There is an adjustment of targets in the game, you just do not see it. Also, observers had many ways to bring fire down quickly and unexpectedly. I believe that the game does a good job of covering the artillery.

I think we'll have to agree to disagree on the effectiveness of artillery, that's subjective. What myself and others are giving feedback about is the counterplay with artillery in FCSS as a game. there is no way to relocate out of a hex taking indirect fire without taking more damage than staying still. This means once you finish deploying your defense that's it. There's no ability to fall back or set multiple ambushes. Just stay dug in and hope you win. This makes playing NATO not fun from a game and mechanics perspective.

I would love to hear the counter argument though.

[byzantine1990]

There is an adjustment of targets in the game, you just do not see it. Also, observers had many ways to bring fire down quickly and unexpectedly. I believe that the game does a good job of covering the artillery.

One example. When trying your Canadian campaign my first thought was have my stationed far ahead and have them ambush Soviet armor before falling back and doing it again at another position. My tanks kept getting blasted while they were relocating. Instead, I sat my tanks in the extreme rear and one without ever moving any of my units. The former would be much more fun than the latter.

[WABAC]

I understand, would you mind elaborating? Do you think relocating under fire is an efficient move compared to staying in place? Or should it not be an efficient move? Are you saying artillery in the 80's is pinpoint accurate with no spotting rounds need like in game?

I start from a different place. What is the effect of dropping 1296kg of M107 rounds into a single hex in five minutes. That's what you get from a 30-round neutralization mission from 155mm howitzers IIRC. Were talking about 30 individual blast waves of 6.86kg of tnt and a 1000kg of steel flying through the air at 540 m/s.

There are formulas out there that predict this. Two that I am aware of are "Army Operational Research Group Report No 179 'Lethal and Material Effects of Gunfire and Bombing on Land Targets - A Record of the Present State of Knowledge' 20 March 1944" and Super Quickie II which is explained in ADA199942.pdf.

There are others like this Gurney Equation calculator https://unsaferguard.org/un-saferguard/gurney With furthr explanation here: https://man.fas.org/dod-101/navy/docs/fun/part13.htm And Sadovsky formulas: https://www.metabunk.org/attachments/bl ... -pdf.2578/

Have I run these formulas. Heck no. I would be surprised if the dev team was unaware of such formulas. And I would be surprised if they hadn't run through a few of them.

Whether or not to move depends on the situation. If I'm trying to keep the Czechs from crossing the Donau then the SOP for several units is set to never move, and expend all ammunition before resupply.

If I want units to move, then I typically control standoff range, or response to fire. I find it more efficient to let the AI control their movement. If I intend to do it, I make sure to have lots of smoke, and three or more hexes, between me and spotters.

Either way, I have to be prepared to accept casualties.

[byzantine1990]

I understand, would you mind elaborating? Do you think relocating under fire is an efficient move compared to staying in place? Or should it not be an efficient move? Are you saying artillery in the 80's is pinpoint accurate with no spotting rounds need like in game?

I start from a different place. What is the effect of dropping 1296kg of M107 rounds into a single hex in five minutes. That's what you get from a 30-round neutralization mission from 155mm howitzers IIRC. Were talking about 30 individual blast waves of 6.86kg of tnt and a 1000kg of steel flying through the air at 540 m/s.

There are formulas out there that predict this. Two that I am aware of are "Army Operational Research Group Report No 179 'Lethal and Material Effects of Gunfire and Bombing on Land Targets - A Record of the Present State of Knowledge' 20 March 1944" and Super Quickie II which is explained in ADA199942.pdf.

There are others like this Gurney Equation calculator https://unsaferguard.org/un-saferguard/gurney With furthr explanation here: https://man.fas.org/dod-101/navy/docs/fun/part13.htm And Sadovsky formulas: https://www.metabunk.org/attachments/bl ... -pdf.2578/

Have I run these formulas. Heck no. I would be surprised if the dev team was unaware of such formulas. And I would be surprised if they hadn't run through a few of them.

Whether or not to move depends on the situation. If I'm trying to keep the Czechs from crossing the Donau then the SOP for several units is set to never move, and expend all ammunition before resupply.

If I want units to move, then I typically control standoff range, or response to fire. I find it more efficient to let the AI control their movement. If I intend to do it, I make sure to have lots of smoke, and three or more hexes, between me and spotters.

Either way, I have to be prepared to accept casualties.

I get where you're coming from. I agree that artillery should be lethal. I think your data is ignoring how many rounds it takes to actually hit something. Look at how many rounds and time it takes to get on target in Ukraine with a drone observer.

From a game and fun perspective I just think it needs counterplay. In Combat Mission, I see the spotting rounds and I can either stay or move out of the way. Both have strengths and weaknesses. My theory is you don't get that option I'm FCSS

I'm hoping to do some tests on artillery and it's effects on units on hold and units relocating. Get some actual data for my claims. Might make for a more interesting discussion.

Thank you for debating with me on this.

[byzantine1990]

I understand, would you mind elaborating? Do you think relocating under fire is an efficient move compared to staying in place? Or should it not be an efficient move? Are you saying artillery in the 80's is pinpoint accurate with no spotting rounds need like in game?

I start from a different place. What is the effect of dropping 1296kg of M107 rounds into a single hex in five minutes. That's what you get from a 30-round neutralization mission from 155mm howitzers IIRC. Were talking about 30 individual blast waves of 6.86kg of tnt and a 1000kg of steel flying through the air at 540 m/s.

There are formulas out there that predict this. Two that I am aware of are "Army Operational Research Group Report No 179 'Lethal and Material Effects of Gunfire and Bombing on Land Targets - A Record of the Present State of Knowledge' 20 March 1944" and Super Quickie II which is explained in ADA199942.pdf.

There are others like this Gurney Equation calculator https://unsaferguard.org/un-saferguard/gurney With furthr explanation here: https://man.fas.org/dod-101/navy/docs/fun/part13.htm And Sadovsky formulas: https://www.metabunk.org/attachments/bl ... -pdf.2578/

Have I run these formulas. Heck no. I would be surprised if the dev team was unaware of such formulas. And I would be surprised if they hadn't run through a few of them.

Whether or not to move depends on the situation. If I'm trying to keep the Czechs from crossing the Donau then the SOP for several units is set to never move, and expend all ammunition before resupply.

If I want units to move, then I typically control standoff range, or response to fire. I find it more efficient to let the AI control their movement. If I intend to do it, I make sure to have lots of smoke, and three or more hexes, between me and spotters.

Either way, I have to be prepared to accept casualties.

I get where you're coming from. I agree that artillery should be lethal. I think your data is ignoring how many rounds it takes to actually hit something. Look at how many rounds and time it takes to get on target in Ukraine with a drone observer. Also, watch how quickly vehicles start evading and how hard it is to hit them. Not to mention how close a round has to hit.

From a game and fun perspective I just think it needs counterplay. In Combat Mission, I see the spotting rounds and I can either stay or move out of the way. Both have strengths and weaknesses. My theory is you don't get that option I'm FCSS

I'm hoping to do some tests on artillery and it's effects on units on hold and units relocating. Get some actual data for my claims. Might make for a more interesting discussion.

Thank you for debating with me on this.

[WABAC]

I haven't seen much detailed reporting on Ukraine. But I haven't been looking. I did find these easily enough:

https://www.usmcu.edu/Outreach/Marine-C ... Revisited/

A senior advisor to the commander of the armed forces of Ukraine argued in April that “anti-tank missiles slowed the Russians down, but what killed them was our artillery.”24 Indeed, many videos show a significant number of kills caused by artillery strikes.

https://static.rusi.org/359-SR-Ukraine- ... -final.pdf

Despite the prominence of anti-tank guided weapons in the public narrative, Ukraine blunted Russia’s attempt to seize Kyiv using massed fires from two artillery brigades.

[byzantine1990]

I haven't seen much detailed reporting on Ukraine. But I haven't been looking. I did find these easily enough:

https://www.usmcu.edu/Outreach/Marine-C ... Revisited/

A senior advisor to the commander of the armed forces of Ukraine argued in April that “anti-tank missiles slowed the Russians down, but what killed them was our artillery.”24 Indeed, many videos show a significant number of kills caused by artillery strikes.

https://static.rusi.org/359-SR-Ukraine- ... -final.pdf

Despite the prominence of anti-tank guided weapons in the public narrative, Ukraine blunted Russia’s attempt to seize Kyiv using massed fires from two artillery brigades.

The issue here is taking months of fighting and distilling it down to a single use case. These casualties include infantry sitting immobile in trenches and buildings, counter battery etc. I'll see if I can share some links of vehicles being targeted with artillery.

[IronMikeGolf]

(Long post as there is a measure of Player Training here)

1. THE UNABILITY TO RELOCATE WHEN UNDER FIRE WITHOUT TAKING MASSIVE CASUALTIES. To quote byzantine1990 from another thread: "The root issue is relocating is useless in the current system. If I have a tank on a hill with good sight lines and I come under fire and I relocate, I am giving up my valuable position AND taking much more damage compared to staying dug in. Why in the world would I ever use the screen command or the relocate SOP?" In short: fighting withdrawals are impossible in the current state of the game. Units relocating due to under fire should receive a higher defensive bonus than staying in their current pos, currently it's the other way around.

When you make contact with a peer adversary that has weapons that can kill you and you get to the point of him inflicting casulaties on you, you have become essentially "fixed" (fixing a unit means preventing the enemy from moving any part of his force from a specific location for a specific period of time). Fixing is most often only partially successful, meaning some portion of the fixed unit escapes. You'd like it if you could just melt away once you receive fire or take casualties. That is a rare thing. It might be helpful for us to introduce (an) SOP Relocate option(s) based inflicting casualties. Honestly, if your enemy is engaging you (meaning they see you and have a minimally good shot), breaking cover is unhealthy.

2. COORDINATING MOVEMENT/ATTACKS USING ORDER DELAY. The only time the timings of orders are accurate is when you issue them the first time when the scenario start. After that, the timing are no longer accurate. If I try to coordinate an attack involving several units and order delays, this just does not work. Some units will sit AN HOUR after receing an attack order even though readiness, morale and ammo is high, and there is no way to check how long they will sit there, so good coordination is impossible.

"After that, the timing are no longer accurate." I'll take that to mean the unit doesn't move according to the initial estimate and the current estimate may show in the past. Just that portion, I really have no issue with, as it tracks with real world.
TOC: "A Company, move to Phase Line MARLBORO." (a 5 km move)
A Company: "Roger. Moving time plus 10." (10 minutes from now)

20 minutes later:
TOC: "A Company, SITREP, over."
A Company: "Moving to MARLBORO, time plus 5"

The question I have is the scale of the actual delay to execute. It's possible there are legit factors causing this. It's sounds big enough that I want to check for a bug, though.

To do that, we need game save files. THis would be from before the unit in question was ordered to move and exactly what the Order and SOP setting are. That way we can replicate things exactly and step through the code.

3. MOVEMENT DELAY IN GENERAL. If I want a unit to be ready to move quickly to where I want it on the battle field, I have to issue the order in advance and give it a big delay, then when I actually want it to move I drag the waypoint to where I want it and remove the delay and the unit moves. I can string this up with 6 waypoints "kiting" the unit if you will. IF I would realistically issue the order WHEN I want the unit to move it sits still for way too long before moving. In my opinion a unit in screening posture should be able to move quite quickly. Alternatively give us a third option besides HOLD/SCREEN where the unit is ready to step off. Especially useful for units being held in reserve etc.

First, I'll admit "Screen" is a poor name. Think of it as "Temporary halt" or "Pause in movement" It is absolutely the posture to be in for the quickest execution of an Order (lowest Order Transition delay). Units grab a piece of cover (Posture is Protected), troops dismount carriers and pull local security. There is a measure of dispersion, but it is not a fighting posture.

Dismounted troops means a slower response time. Dispersion means a slower response time. Keep in mind, right now there is no distinction in just pausing along a previously plotted Order and giving an entirely new Order. In the real world, it is very different to order a unit to "hold up" and then later tell them to resume mission as opposed to giving them an entirely new mission.

I am going to read between the lines and also make a plea to help us make the game better. This is looking at items 2 and 3 together and I think they are interconnected. My between the lines part: It seems to me you'd like to make a plan, hit Start, and if you're not reacting to being surprised (enemy hitting you from an unexpected and undetected axis, for example), then "minor" changes to your plan's execution should happen rapidly.

If the game were "perfect" (meaning how things are/were done real world, again with a US bias), as a player you'd define quite a few complex artifacts to facilitate coordinate (across subordinate formations, so things "work right" during turn resolution).
1. Maneuver Control Graphics: As a minimum, Sectors (which constrain subordinate formations to swaths of terrain) and Phase Lines ( control extent of movement over time)
2. Decision Support Matrix: A mapping between enemy Courses of Action (COA) and the response to those (meaning you decide on a response to confirming and enemy COA during planning).
3. Execution Matrix: This is subordinate formation actions related to enemy actions.
4. Synchronization Matrix: This is subordinate formation actions related to sibling formation actions.

Now that's a lot to ask of a hobby gamer. And I feel no hesitation on inflicting that on professional gamers. But we have NOT built that and it is a HUGE effort to put that in the game.

So, can a Player actually do the items 1-4 above? Absolutely! I've played about half the scenarios. Not for fun, but to validate them. And that includes Campaigns. My standard is first run through I get a Tactical Victory or better (assuming my own After Action Review didn't reveal one or more stupid decisions. Hey, I'm human!"

So, doing 1-4 above works, but it isn't as fast as in the rea ]l world, because the game doesn't automate sibling-unit coordination. That means, as a Player, you need to factor that in . You can prevail!

4. ARTILLERY DEADLINESS. First of all I want to say I have no real experience, so maybe I am completely wrong with this. Regardless, I am really tired of just knowing that if a mechanized unit receives a single 155mm barrage while moving, half the mech unit is gone. Infantry especially in wooded terrain should not be taking the huge amount of losses it takes currently as there should be half decent cover in abundance and infantry will hunker down. Even tanks drop like flies, and this seems really silly to me. Anyway, as said, I dont have real life experience, but I feel artillery is WAY too deadly in its current state.

Well, the effect of woods against mech inf is two-edged. It is unlike WW II or earlier. Woods offers concealment but not a whole lot of cover for indirect fire. The target description of troops in woods in woods leads to a fuze choice of VT (Variable Time). The precision of Cold War era maps (as opposed to WW I or WW II era maps) better informs the firing battery FDC of the actual elevation of firing battery and target. Meteorological data is a couple of orders of magnitude better. All tat combines to fuze settings that ensure a round bursting beneath canopy.

As to the carriers/IFVs, the sheaf can well include Super-Quick fuzes, which cause round detonation right at ground surface, which is what you want to kill AFVs.

Moving itself isn't really a protective factor if the unit is still observed. I was a random squad leader at one point and trained live fire to call fire on moving targets. It's just not that hard and the target cant move faster than you can adjust unless they break line of sight, so hitting the target just isn't that hard,

There's a reason the Artillery in the US Army calls itself the King of Battle. Actions in the Ukraine war point to that remaining true.

5. THE SOP SYSTEM. What can I say, very clunky. I constantly have to fiddle with so many buttons and units to get it set up properly. There is no easy way to just set up a SOP for a specific unit type and have it go through to all orders with a button click. I have to go through every single unit and assign the SOP to make sure it goes through to the current SCREEN/HOLD order as well.

It is clunky and needs love. And it is in flux. The flux part is making it easier to figure out what to use when and that's not easy.

Is that bad? From my position, no. Now, absent specifics and based on both my professional and FCSS experiences, I am going to cast much of your complaints as poor planning. Yep, I am throwing a rock! So, give me a scenario, your plan, and game saves and your thoughts and orders at each stage. Let's pick this apart. Does that discover need for improvement beyond what I listed above? Quite likely. Does it illuminate room for improvement for you as a Commander/ Well...

I truly invite you to participate in this.

[WABAC]

I haven't seen much detailed reporting on Ukraine. But I haven't been looking. I did find these easily enough:

https://www.usmcu.edu/Outreach/Marine-C ... Revisited/

A senior advisor to the commander of the armed forces of Ukraine argued in April that “anti-tank missiles slowed the Russians down, but what killed them was our artillery.”24 Indeed, many videos show a significant number of kills caused by artillery strikes.

https://static.rusi.org/359-SR-Ukraine- ... -final.pdf

Despite the prominence of anti-tank guided weapons in the public narrative, Ukraine blunted Russia’s attempt to seize Kyiv using massed fires from two artillery brigades.

The issue here is taking months of fighting and distilling it down to a single use case. These casualties include infantry sitting immobile in trenches and buildings, counter battery etc. I'll see if I can share some links of vehicles being targeted with artillery.

Like what the Ukrainian artillery achieved in the Battle of Siverskyi Donets?

[cbelva]

Before I say anything regarding the previous comments, let me say that we take all comments seriously, especially the critical ones. We read all comments whether we respond right away or not, and they get discussed in our team meetings. And we by no means want to discourage critical comments regarding the game. They have helped us make the game better. And don’t take this as a critique of any player posting their thoughts and feelings on the game. We now have two threads with similar comments and I felt it needed a response.

I keep hearing Flashpoint Campaign being compared to Combat Mission. It’s not a valid comparison. I have and have played Combat Mission for years, and I am very familiar with it. Combat Mission is a tactical level game. Flashpoint Campaign is an operational level game. Most of the maps in Combat Mission can fit onto Flashpoint Campaign’s map in anywhere from a radius of 3 to 10 hexes, with the majority of the maps being on the lower end. In Combat Mission you are a platoon leader or company commander and are in the trenches with your units. In Flashpoint Campaign you are at a minimum a Battalion Commander but more realistically a Brigade/Regimental Commander and in some cases even a Division Commander.

In Flashpoint Campaign, you are not going to see the spotting rounds of artillery like you do in Combat Mission. You are not at that level. You are in the command post. In Flashpoint Campaign, your job is to evaluate the overall situation and to maneuver your formations into positions for success in your mission. Many unit level actions have been taken care of through the program itself. You can influence them with the SOP editor.

The SOP editor is a work in progress. We want to continue to develop it and make it more user friendly. Even thought I don’t find it all that hard to use myself. In just a few click I can change the SOP for a entire formation (be it company size or battalion). I do agree that we need a “cancel” button to cancel all changes before they are committed.

Several players along with IronMikeGolf and MikeJ19 have made comments regarding the artillery model in the game. I have to concur with them in their comments. Both IronMike and MikeJ19 are retired military. MikeJ19 was in artillery officer and was an artillery instructor. He had a lot of imput into the artillery model in the game. I also have military experience. I’m not saying that we can’t improve our artillery model. But I don’t believe it is as off as some are alleging. Artillery is not called “the King of Battle” for nothing. It is the single biggest killer on the battlefield. When artillery starts falling, you don’t try and run always from it. You hunker down and try and find cover as best as possible. And that is what I was taught. Getting up and trying to move away from it will get you killed. One other thing to consider, our hexes are 500 meters across (half a kilometer). It takes time to move that distance.

Regarding command delays and relocating during a battle. First, command delays are not going away. They are a realistic problem that commanders have to deal with. We appreciate the fact that some orders don't need a long delay since they were issued and being handled by lower level commanders. We have tried to incorporate that with SOP and in how long shorter moves take. But even a leader on the ground can’t get instantaneous movement out of a unit. It will take a few minutes to get the soldiers moving and again, to change from one hex to another is around ½ kilometer. With that said, we are still trying to improve it and are open to ideas and good examples. In fact we have already made changes in command delays due to comments in the forums. Second, I echo IronMike’s comments on units trying to disengage from the enemy as valid. Relocating issues usually spring from two problems (at least what I have found looking into these problems). First, their SOP settings are not correct and causing units to relocate when they shouldn’t or not relocating at all. Second, and by far the most common, players waiting until it is too late to try and pull their forces back. The decision to pull back has to be made early and while the enemy is far enough away to disengage without endangering the units. If you wait until they are within their effective range, you units will die as they try and disengage and pull back. I would also recommend that you use smoke when disengaging. You can fight a delaying action in Flashpoint Campaign. Take long range shots and have your units pull back early while using smoke if possible. In fact, you can set the SOP to handle a delaying action. And it can do it quite nicely with little input from the player.

Flashpoint Campaign has its flaws and its limitations. And no computer simulation can get it all right. However, I have not found a game that puts me back into the command post like Flashpoint Campaigns. It does a great job in presenting the war that was never fought. Is it perfect? No, and never will be.

[Darojax]

I felt it needed a response.

Thanks for that. Any thoughts/comments on the fact that it's neigh on impossible to coordinate units to attack/move simultaneously due to estimated timings not being accurate (except if issued as part of the initial orders)?