Some questions

[mikek1357]

Hi folks,

I'm thinking about getting FCSS, I do have some questions though.

How difficult is the game, I love a challenge.
How long, on average, does a campaign take to finish?

Thanks!

[SgtZdog]

The challenge against the AI in most of the standalone scenarios is fairly moderate, largely because it needs to be winnable from both sides. In the campaigns the challenge is a little greater where you have added concern from losses mattering significantly more. Against human opponents expect a significant challenge though. The game is a perfect simulation, but it's one of if not the closest you'll find at this scale. So that means you are fully enabled to make great tactical choices or incredible blunders, with the devastating consequences.

I would expect a campaign to take you between 10 and 40 hours. The huge variance is just because people can plan and deliberate significantly different amounts even beyond how quickly they play. And we have several campaigns.

I should note, that when I talk about the difficulty, that's just for securing victory. For actually maxing out your score it will be quite challenging. Maxing the score will require (in general, this is not a hard, fast rule) securing all the victory points, nearly wiping out the enemy, and taking only very light losses.

And the game is undergoing development to improve it still and will continue to receive updates for quite awhile. I think we have something like 3 DLC planned (first one coming out early 2024) and hope to do more after that (it's just too early to commit to more DLC than that).

[rmeckman]

Hi folks,

How difficult is the game, I love a challenge.
How long, on average, does a campaign take to finish?

I've played many different games over the years but have only been playing FCSS for a few weeks. One of the biggest challenges I have encountered so far is If you can see it, you can kill it, or more to the point: if they can see you, they can kill you. Whenever your forces have to move in FCSS, it is very important to consider whether the movement destination hex is likely to be visible to enemy forces. If a unit is visible to the enemy at the destination hex, command delays make it highly likely the unit will be pummeled by indirect fire before the player has any chance to respond. Small enemy recon units can be as lethal to your forces as the Main Effort and Line units due to their ability to call in indirect fire. This makes maneuvering while trying to minimize detection highly challenging.

In one of my first FCSS scenarios, I moved my units like I did in the Combat Mission WW2 games. In FCSS, my units were quickly clobbered by indirect fire, which can be called in quickly by unseen recon units.

[CapnDarwin]

Counter-recon and planning are important skills. Weather, terrain, and time of day play into the dynamics of the battle.

[SgtZdog]

That's probably one of the key differences between FC and other games. While the same rules apply that encourage tactical thinking (terrain use, LoS considerations, envelopment, supporting fire, etc.), there are no (very limited) gamey effects that let you smooth over mistakes. It would be interesting to see if playing FC makes you better at other games, even ones only tangentially related. (Does playing FC let you get better at Starcraft, or just better at things like Strategic Command?)

[rmeckman]

Indirect fire in particular seems to be a far more significant factor in FCSS compared to most other games I've played. In the Grigsby games (WitW, WitE1, WitP AE), artillery degrades the enemy some and can reduce fortifications but usually doesn't seem to be a decisive factor. In Combat Mission, artillery can knock out squads and disable/immobilize individual vehicles, but it is pretty hard to render a whole company ineffective just with indirect fire, even in the Black Sea version with precision munitions and air bursts.

In FCSS, indirect fire can in some cases determine a scenario outcome before opposing units ever get a chance to move close enough to fire directly at one another. Even standard HE barrages are capable of knocking out a considerable number of tracked IFVs or APCs that are supposed to be resistant to HE shell fragments. I personally do not know which of these games tracks closer to how effective artillery really was during the time periods they simulate. But the representation of indirect fire in FCSS does present a different set of challenges.

[WildCatNL]

Indirect fire in the game will take out platoons and companies when these platoons / companies are caught as a moving as column (Move Hasty) by a spotter.
If these platoons / companies are spread out in the 500m x 500m hex (Move Deliberate, Assault, any other order), the indirect fire will be less effective. Even if the spotter is able to shift fire, he won't be able to target multiple vehicles with a single sheaf/volley due to the vehicles being spread out.

The game models both the direct hit and near miss effects of HE. Few IFVs and APCs will survive a direct hit of 105mm or worse on the turret or hull (roof). A close miss will result in a blast effect wrecking wheels, suspension or a track (and probably some sensors too).

The trick is to not be spotted, and not be moving in column (Move Hasty) when spotted.

[rmeckman]

Indirect fire in the game will take out platoons and companies when these platoons / companies are caught as a moving as column (Move Hasty) by a spotter.
If these platoons / companies are spread out in the 500m x 500m hex (Move Deliberate, Assault, any other order), the indirect fire will be less effective. Even if the spotter is able to shift fire, he won't be able to target multiple vehicles with a single sheaf/volley due to the vehicles being spread out.

This explanation is very useful to me. I knew from the manual that Move Hasty emphasizes speed (mainly using roads) over defensive cover but was not as aware that the subunits are bunched up within the 500 m hex with this order. I've likely been overusing Move Hasty to get near the VP locations in as few command cycles as possible. Currently, I'm playing "Steel Rain" as the Soviets and have 8 hours to cover over 10 km before reaching the closest VP location. With a 42 minute command cycle, that gives me only around 11-12 cycles to move the distance and deal with enemy units. My inclination up to now has been to rely on Move Hasty to preserve as many command cycles as possible for the combat near the VP locations. That is still a reasonable goal but has to be weighted against the vulnerability of the units moving in column.

[SgtZdog]

This explanation is very useful to me. I knew from the manual that Move Hasty emphasizes speed (mainly using roads) over defensive cover but was not as aware that the subunits are bunched up within the 500 m hex with this order. I've likely been overusing Move Hasty to get near the VP locations in as few command cycles as possible. Currently, I'm playing "Steel Rain" as the Soviets and have 8 hours to cover over 10 km before reaching the closest VP location. With a 42 minute command cycle, that gives me only around 11-12 cycles to move the distance and deal with enemy units. My inclination up to now has been to rely on Move Hasty to preserve as many command cycles as possible for the combat near the VP locations. That is still a reasonable goal but has to be weighted against the vulnerability of the units moving in column.

Issuing a single order with multiple waypoints can be a significant time saver. Then in the unit dashboard you can off-click (right click for most users) to change the movement type of an individual waypoint. This can let you during setup have your entire initial plan of attack laid out without having to suffer any order delay (we assume your setup order was planned out before the game clock starts). Factoring in being able to set delays on individual waypoints and up to 6 waypoints means you can lay out a lot of planning just on the first turn that can often get you the first objective or two when attacking.