The First Dance

[Bemused]

Ok, so have tried this three times as NATO as my first scenario after training. It's very challenging and I will try to avoid spoilers but a couple of things strike me:

1) All of my Bradleys only fired a few shots of 25mm and mostly engaged infantry with MGs when the 20mm would have been much more effective. Why?
2) I pulverised an area with large calibre artillery and 80mm mortars over two turns but did negligible damage (maybe 2 hits?) despite the enemy (infantry) being in only 12% cover. How was this not higher?
3) Bradleys die so easily (possibly not helped by the fact that their own fire does not use 25mm) - is there a way to keep them back as squads push forward? There is the dismounted SOP but it doesn't seem to make much difference.
4) The mechanised units have both Recon and IFV SOPs and they both have March and Screen and Fight i.e. there is a Recon March and an IFV March - what's the difference?
5) I can select a Unit Role - I looked it up in the manual but I am still not clear - what difference does this make?
6) If feels like the enemy is cloaked in Stalinium despite being mostly infantry in poor cover. I have been firing artillery at where I know they are. They disappear so quickly though my actual combat units rarely get the chance to shoot at them (even when adjacent). Is there a way to order area fire from regular combat units into an "empty" hex i.e. one where we know there are units but they have momentarily disappeared.

[Bemused]

Another round tried - got to a "tolerable" draw and one more turn might have made a difference. Still can't get over the tiny amount of main-gun ammo used by my vehicles, not just the Bradleys. The tanks engage but mostly with their MGs, not their MA.

[Bemused]

WARNING: SPOILERS IN THE ATTACHED IMAGE.

Just as a for example - The 8/B/1 Abrams unit has been engaged with the nearby infantry over multiple turns. You can see it has used plenty of 7.62mm but not a single 120mm round. This is the end screen and you can also see the losses to the other units scattered around.

The AT/2/1-900 has lost 6 of 9 squads and is still 81% morale. It has been sitting in 12% cover for round after round under artillery and mortar fire and fire from nearby mechanised infantry and Abrams. As noted already, most of this fire from my units has been 7.62mm. I'm inclined to say all of it, but I can't be bothered checking through them all.

So 2 questions:

1) Is this a reasoanble result - should dismounted infantry be able to withstand this kind of force?
2) Why are my tanks and Bradleys not engaging with their main armaments?

https://imgur.com/a/KHDqz8j

[CapnDarwin]

A quick answer on the tank not using the 120mm on infantry. It does not have a high-explosive round. Tankers do not waste AP or HEAT ammo on area targets like infantry squads. The 25mm on a Bradley is another issue, and we are looking into that as it is used mainly against lightly armored vehicles and the occasional shot at a helo.

[CapnDarwin]

As for artillery, blind-fired artillery is less likely to be placed over enemy units and therefore less likely to hit. All artillery is resolved per shell on the target hex against a distributed enemy target in the hex. That distribution is a function of movement mode or static order (Screen/Hold). Spotted road movement has the highest chance for a devastating strike, assuming the size of shells and the number of shells in the barrage.

IFVs like the Bradly are glass cannons. Lots of kill power with TOWs and the 25mm chain gun, but lacking heavy armor, so also vulnerable to all heavy weapons.

The Recon or IFV SOPs are a function of the mission the Brad is on. If you have an ACR formation, they are a recon-type unit, and that is the better SOP. Mechanized infantry units are better with the IFV SOP.

Role is a positional helper for group movement, as it sets the position in a group for that role. Recon in front, followed by Line, then Overwatch, and finally Support.

[Bemused]

Thanks for the replies Capn Darwin.

I suspected the issue was the ammunition load of the tanks. In this case I am left wondering if this was a major historical error (considering MGs adequate to engage dismounted infantry in open) or the game under-models the impact of MGs against dismounted infantry in the "open"? Here I had 4 Ambrams platoons engaging the Sov infantry at 1 or 2 hex range while said infantry was also being suppressed by artillery. The enemy infantry's ATGMs/RPGs (while under MG and arty fire) were far more damaging than the tanks' (12 tanks at start although they took rapid casualties moving to taregt) MGs which were largely ineffectual. Would you expect this against infantry in 12% cover, although they were likely also dug-in at this stage?

I would have liked to keep the tanks back and engage at range but other times I did this they rarely shot as the enemy infantry would only blink briefly into LOS when they opened fire. Is this reasonable by the way? I can buy infantry "disappearing" this way if there is heavy cover like a town but if they are dug-in in open terrain they should be reasonably visible, especially if they have been firing and/or there are enemy units adjacent to them. If you feel this is reasonably modelled, is there a way to force your units to area fire against hexes where they know there is enemy (but they are momentarily invisible)? If not, this forces move to close contact with attendant high casualties.

[Bemused]

Exploring this further I swapped sides. Now I'm completely new to this series so I may have made mistakes but here are some interesting differences I have found!

The US side seemed to get to the objectives much faster than I did despite me absolutely hammering them on their routes of advance to the objectives (including knocking out two HQs) with attack helos. When I played the US my SOP was Recon March and I mapped hasty orders to the objectives but the Sov got there well ahead of me and I had no observation on their infantry. As the Sovs, I issued hasty orders to the objs (although I did not change whatever the SOP was). I noticed that the transport helos lagged the attack helos significantly and they took longer to get there than the AI did when I was playing the US. Anyway, they landed fine and I issued move orders to the disembarked troops. Next thing I know they were all being hit, incredibly effectively by well aimed artillery. As far as I can tell they had no units in range to observe where they hit. They decimated my forces.

This leads me to wonder if there is additional assistance for the AI when playing on Veteran level?

[CapnDarwin]

There are no boosts or cheats for the computer player. They use all of the same rules and mechanics the player and player side computer gets. Variations in performance will be a factor of equipment and soft factors (training, readiness, and morale). Time of day and the weather will all play parts in the outcome of events.

[SgtZdog]

I will slightly caveat Darwin's answer by adding that the computer player is typically using a Battleplan which is not restricted to the same deployment zones as the player is. So the computer player is often further forward than a human player is.

[Bemused]

Kevin,

That makes sense. I played it again and got there in time, ahead of the US and won a decisive victory as the Sovs. I have no issues with this being harder on the US - just concerned about issues I have raised that make them feel like I am throwing rolled up paper at the Sovs. In the battle I just finished I lost a couple of helos and 4 infantry (all to one barrage attack).

Any thoughts on the questions I raised re area fire against disappearing units and the effectiveness of Bradleys/Abrams vs infantry.

[HaughtKarl]

I was able to eek out a marginal victory as NATO on this mission but I had the Warsaw Pact's battle plan set to random so who knows which one I won against.

The other times I tried it I either ended up with a marginal or tactical losses.

[rmeckman]

Dislodging enemy infantry from good defensive positions is not really a strong point for armored calvary. The only infantry they possess are the four troopers in each recon section armed with M16s, grenade launchers, and LAWs. This is insufficient for mounting any kind of combined-arms attack. Sending the ACR tank platoons alone into enemy hexes will also not end well in most cases.

Getting a marginal victory or contested result as NATO in this scenario is actually pretty good from my experience. In many 11 ACR scenarios, laying smoke with the 107 mm mortars can be a key ingredient for the NATO side; the ACR units can see through it, but the enemy units can't. Increasing the spotted number thresholds within the mortar fire support groups can also help in that the mortars will focus their HE missions on hexes with larger numbers of enemy subunits.

There have been some related discussions over on the Discord channel for FC:CW.

[HaughtKarl]

Do you have that Discord link handy?

[rmeckman]

There's a Join the Discord! link near the top of this forum.

[Bemused]

Rmecman,

I tried with smoke - it didn't seem to make much difference. I have no doubt that what you said otherwise makes sense but I think the fire from the US armoured units is THE fundamental issue. It is so ineffectual against enemy infantry. As a palette cleanser I decided to try an "Easy" scenario so I picked "A Time to Dance", again as US.

SPOILERS: Endstate is in image below.

I guess this is only "easy" if you are playing Soviet? I took a narrow loss here due to my casualties - I knocked out 118 units for 42 Fallen out and 6 dead of my own. Again I found fire against infantry the issue. You will note I killed 51 enemy tanksand 19 Mech but only 12 infantry. They were able to just waltz past me and, with large 31-strength units, I could not break their morale to force a retreat. Edit: most of them had very low morale in fact, one of them at 0%! Didn't seem to make much difference though...what are the effects of being at zero morale?

I managed to keep one Bradley alive - take a look at its stats. All 12 TOWs fired but only 2 rounds of 25mm and 3 of MG. I don't know if this is modelled in this game, but in others it is much harder to hit someone with a TOW in built-up terrain. I suspect Sov IFVs have a similar issue. Looking through their subunits, I don't see a single round of Auto Cannon used. There is plenty of contemporary footage on such wepaons being used in urban environments. I really think something doesn't add up here.

Also, would tanks not fire HEAT rounds at infantry in buildings? Again, I don't know how it is modelled here, but infantry in roads/open should be engaged by MGs and in buildings by HEAT no? So many shots from my tanks against infantry for basically zero effect.

https://imgur.com/a/QDHmJg2

[Tcao]

yes, there are 3 issues make US mech formation in a disadvantage position against a dug in infantry formation

1, Abrams will not fire 120mm HEAT on any infantry units and some non armored equipment, RPG gunner, ATGM operators, MT-12 , SPG-9 and towed artillery. (Which makes MT-12 100mm ATG position a dangerous foe to M1A1)

2, BFV will only us MMG instead of 25mm chain gun to engage infantry units

3, MMG and autocannon has low rate of fire IMHO.

with current game mechanism, for the regular BFV Mech inf formation assault enemy dug in infantry position, it would be better to change the carrier to "hide after dismount" so the precious BFV will not participate the firefight then took a RPG.
Either stack, or carefully planning arrival time, to make sure at least 3 Mech infantry plt arrives in the destination hex at almost same time. So the dismount mech infantry can win the close quarter fire fight.

The other way around is DO NOT assault enemy infantry position at all

[Bemused]

Time to Dance, part deux.

Tried this again as US, forewarned by certain things I hadn't seen coming in my first playthrough. SPOILERS in the image below which shows the end where I managed a marginal victory. You will see this time that my Bradleys did fire some chain gun but not very much. This may be because it does diddly-squat. The combat results flash up quick enough but I kept a close eye out for kills from the 25mm. I didn't see a one so is the AI not firing it because it knows it is ineffective? It therefore prioritises 7.62mm. Should the 25mm not be more effective?

You can see from the image that I setup a killing ground and I reduced one of the large Sov mech companies (31 strong) to about 5 strength before it finally pulled back. Should morale effects not kick in earlier? I know it can be difficult to disengage from the enemy but I'm not talking in a controlled way here, but an out and out rout. This game reminds me of the board game World at War 85 where no one runs away - the only way to stop them is to kill them all!

https://imgur.com/a/KKbCbJc

[CapnDarwin]

For the points above from Tcao:
1. AP and HEAT rounds are not effective versus troop targets. They need HE or Cannister rounds to deal with infantry units. M1s at the time did not carry either, so MGs are the only effective weapons. The upcoming data update will have a minor effectiveness update to MGs and VSWs, as a side note.

2. We are looking at the issues with autocannons and not targeting infantry targets in cases of close engagements or high value threats like AT teams and we hope to have a fix for the next update.

3. All of those weapons are considered high rate of fire systems and are treated as such in the game engine.

Have a Happy Holidays!

[GiveWarAchance]

I tried this twice and got wiped out by the Soviet attack choppers.
The AI cheats by knowing exactly where the player starting positions are and we are not allowed to redeploy at all. The first turn and onwards is watching swarms of choppers fly directly to where my units are and then blow up the tanks and bradleys one after another turn after turn. It is depressing.

I regret buying this game. AI cheating just kills the game.

[Bemused]

Darwin,

They may be treated as high rate of fire but, in my limited experience of actually seeing them shoot (which is very rarely as noted above), I have never seen one do any actual damage. I am aware they are shooting because of the different sound effect but no hits follow. I wonder then if the AI is choosing not to prioritise firing them because they are so ineffective?

Did this not come out in testing or did a bug slip in on launch? I have paused playing this otherwise excellent sim until this is addressed.