US firepower vs WP firepower

[geozero]

Comparison of Iraqi forces to East German / Soviet forces is way off base. The Iraqi "army", while being like the 4th largest army in terms of men, was the most inept, untrained, and poorly equiped army the world has ever seen.

I think that the only reason such a comparison would be made is due to the game's era covering 1980's, and therefore the only "major" conflict would be the first Gulf War. But the time, events, terrain and forces are so different that such a comparison is unwarranted.

This game is a game of combat. The WP has to attack, attack, attack. That would have been their role in a WW3 scenario (theorically speaking). Unlike what some may believe, IMO the Nato forces would have had the better training and equipment. Sure WP and Soviets may have some better weapons systems, but one has to look at the overall arsenal, training, experience, etc.

Having said that, the WP forces were no push overs either. Western diplomats feared such a show down (which is why the nuclear weapons race took place).

What needs to happen in the scenarios is that the WP forces get more units, to duplicate the theorical larger numbers of forces. Scenarios that have evenly balanced number of "units" will always favor the Nato player. The WP forces should have a 2:1 or even 3:1 superiority in numbers. That way the Nato player (even afetr killing many enemy) could still "lose" a battle.

[John21b]

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

ORIGINAL: Mike_w

The AI as NATO smashed right in to a well set-up ambush. During the fight, I'm not even sure any of the NATO units really got a shot off. As it was pointed out to me in another post, when your units are moving, they are only using 25% of combat strength. When they are holding, they use 100%. Thats why a defender gets off far more shots.

Who knows, a few more rounds against the AI and I make take the "Oleg challenge"!! [:D]

Well what you described falls into "AI being stupid" cathegory. You have to be real stupid to go on attack as NATO in 90% of scenarios, since your tasking is very clear: you have to DEFEND vs. WP onslaught. So why would you want to attack and expose yourself to WP defensive barrages?

Note, I am not saying AI in this game is stupid, I didn't test it myself (I always prefer PBEM anyway), but most of scenarios, if playing vs. PC, are recommended to be played as NATO human vs. WP AI - it says so in the scenario briefings, so if NATO AI disappoints, you can't really complain... there is always a limit in what AI can do, so please note I am not being displeased with AI performance in this game in any way shape or form. I do, though, expect humans to do better [:D] but I am not sure thay can (as WP).

So, what I am commenting is human vs. human play.

In 80% of situations all NATO human (or clever AI) commander has to do is dig in his units, and click "End turn", occasionally taking care to replenish ammo his frontline units spent on swapping WP tanks like flies. If development of this game continues, as I am sure it will, whoever programs the AI will come to conclusion that NATO AI has to be made to dig in and wait [;)]

Have you tried playing with the auto supply turned off? Defender can't just sit and shot off massive numbers of rounds. Hit them in the front with deversion, the shot most of their ammo then hit them in the flank.

Most of the comments about playbalance comment that it's not really WP being weak here, but rather any attacker, be it NATO or WP. May be so, but this is kinda moot point for me, since this is WW3 we talk about, and attacker equals WP. NATO wasn't expected to march on Prague in case of WW3. If all you have to do to defeat attacker (ie. WP) is to dig in and click End turn, then we all have to agree - it is unbalanced game.

I know many here are ex-NATO tankers and whatnot, and I expect you to show a healthy dose of disrespect for "derelict Russian systems" [;)] and "badly led WP hordes" [:D]. Perhaps those feelings are founded after all but to me, we have issue of making the game somewhat balanced and fun to play from both sides, in PBEM. That's all I am saying.

Oleg

[iberian]

ORIGINAL: Chelco
Another question: Units that are moving are supposed to be more exposed to target acquisition but are also supposed to be harder to hit. Is that taken into consideration for FPG?

I'm not sure if that consideration would traslate well to a game of this scale. Unit movement is basically an abstraction. When you order a unit to move, posture is set to covered exposure. That means the unit is advancing tactically: some of the steps will be in overwatch, while other leap. Then they switch.

So when a unit engages a moving enemy, there's no way to tell if fire is being directed against the moving leaping units, or against the stationary overwatch units. In addition, the game is abstracting 5 minutes combat pulses, where many rounds are fired, and there's enough time to correct your fire.

On the other hand, when you are in route march, you are totally exposed, and no speed is going to outrun a TOW missile or a 120mm sabbot. I think is fine as it is.

[Oleg Mastruko]

ORIGINAL: iberian

ORIGINAL: Chelco
Another question: Units that are moving are supposed to be more exposed to target acquisition but are also supposed to be harder to hit. Is that taken into consideration for FPG?

I'm not sure if that consideration would traslate well to a game of this scale. Unit movement is basically an abstraction. When you order a unit to move, posture is set to covered exposure. That means the unit is advancing tactically: some of the steps will be in overwatch, while other leap. Then they switch.

Correct. That's why aspects like unit facing do not come into play here. FPG is what I'd call "grand tactical" game: weapon ranges come into play (tactical) but things like unit facings do not (grand tactical).

Oleg

[Real and Simulated Wars]

Roger about the fire under movement and about the abstractions and agregations of units, time, fire, etc. Having read all the thread I lean towards the opinion that if losses happen on a moving unit, they should stop and bring all their firepower into action. They stubbornly keep moving when they suffer losses, which in turn makes them to lose more.

On the other hand, when you are in route march, you are totally exposed, and no speed is going to outrun a TOW missile or a 120mm sabbot.

LOL, I didn't mean missile/shell-dodging tanks. I don't know about the TOW, but the acquisition of a moving target with a 120mm gun is kinda more difficult than the acquisition of non-moving one. Even with the most advanced optics and lead computing devices.
Thank you.
Cheers,

[CoffeeMug]

ORIGINAL: Chelco

LOL, I didn't mean missile/shell-dodging tanks. I don't know about the TOW, but the acquisition of a moving target with a 120mm gun is kinda more difficult than the acquisition of non-moving one. Even with the most advanced optics and lead computing devices.
Thank you.
Cheers,

Hi,

to spot a moving target is MUCH easier than spotting a stationary target. So, the two or three seconds you need to acquire the target which moves sideways from your point of view, and to give the ballistic computer the lead is no problem.

Furthermore, a target moving sideways and offering its flank to you is no threat to you, actually.

A target which moves into your direction is a much bigger threat, but there you dont have to care about dynamic lead if you fire sabot. When firing HEAT just put the reticule a little bit below the target center. The target will drive into the round. [8D]

Cheers,

CM

[Real and Simulated Wars]

Coming from a tank officer, that has to be true! [:)]
Sorry for the confusion, but my only experience with that is from a tank simulator ("Steel Beasts") and it was always more difficult for me to hit a moving target than a stationary one. I sucked big time in that sim anyway!
So CoffeMug, you feel comfortable with the way FPG portrays armor battles now? Are we seeing realistic outcomes of armored battles here?
Thanks in advance,
Cheers,

[CoffeeMug]

ORIGINAL: Chelco

Coming from a tank officer, that has to be true! [:)]
Sorry for the confusion, but my only experience with that is from a tank simulator ("Steel Beasts") and it was always more difficult for me to hit a moving target than a stationary one. I sucked big time in that sim anyway!

hehe, I was a beta-tester of Steelbeasts. Look up the credits, my name is Volker. [:)]

Well, the major problem in Steelbeasts is that you dont have those great "cadillacs" (the "steering wheel", dunno whats the technical term in English). In a real tank aiming at a moving target is much easier that with a joystick at home. It's smooth as silk. In Steelbeasts I sucked as gunner, too. [:D]

So CoffeMug, you feel comfortable with the way FPG portrays armor battles now? Are we seeing realistic outcomes of armored battles here?

Well, I have only peacetime and simulator experience and what my tutors told me at Officers School and Tank School.

I just played about six hours, and only vs. the AI, which is very aggressive, and only NATO (no, German troops [:D]).

I really like the game, but we always have to have in mind that it will remain a game and certain abstractions have to be made. But we can try to push the developers a bit more. [8D]

Cheers,

CM

[Real and Simulated Wars]

Thanks Coffee for the feedback.
Two days ago I was planning on re-loading Steel Beasts in my computer. FPG put me in the mood for that. What a relief to hear about you experiences in that game!
Cheers,

[hank]

I too was a big Steelbeasts player. For about a year after it hit the shelves I played all the time. Created scenario's, played online, etc.

I just got burned out but I still say I'm going to buy the new version whenever it gets realeased.

Anyone know when it will be released?

hank

... my name was Hank with the SB community too.

[Oleg Mastruko]

Now that the topic stranded to something entirely different, and with so many SB guys here, I have a question: will we ever see SB2, with announced support for hardware 3D acceleration?

What put me off BIG time in SB1 was that there was no support for hard 3D acc, so the game looked crappy (no offense).

O.

[Erik Rutins]

Hey everyone,

I have to ask you that if you want to have a Steel Beasts discussion, please start a thread in the General Discussion forum. Thanks.

Regards,

- Erik

[Mike_w]

ALright, to get this topic back on track...

As you guys play more, especially PBEM, are you finding that the sides are more evenly matched than earlier games vs. AI might have led you to believe?

[HercMighty]

I am playing Oleg in a scenerio as WP and getting my butt kicked. I would spot his units and he would immediatly crush them. Any units that were left were not shooting back, so I had to pull them back. Not very fun. [:(]

[Mike_w]

Hmm, have you tried playing him in a scenario where he, as NATO has to attack? I guess what I'm trying to find out is whether WP loses becuase they are weaker or becuase the attacker is at a disadvantage and they are usually teh attacker.

[CommC]

Lets break this down into two separate questions:

1. Is the armor/gunnery model accurate?
2. Are the scenarios balanced?

The game is certainly, must be, asymetric, but it can still be balanced. I don't know the answer yet to either question, I haven't played it enough, and of course, know one really knows the capability of the cold war WP forces.

From the little I have played it, FPG designers seemed to have subscribed to the theory that the T-80 was not substantially better armored than the T-72s we fought in Iraq, and that the improved targeting of the T-80 was still not sufficient to allow it to hit US tanks while moving rapidly on the assault. Further, it looks like the FPG designers, correctly, I think have presumed that T-80s were not able to penetrate the frontal armor of M1s at any range. I think they are right on both counts.

Various scenario tests I have run using SB have shown that WP forces can defeat a defending NATO tank force if the NATO force is either overwhelmed by 3 or 4 to 1 odds, or if the WP attacker uses flanking or anvil tactics. I think this will bear out in FPG.

Many of the FPG scenarios may be unbalanced, but I am confident they can be fixed with a little tweaking. The armor/gunnery model looks pretty good, and if it is a little bit off in some respects, it probably won't be too tough to adjust it, too.

All in all, I think FPG looks like the game I always wanted SB to be... an easy to use, accurate model of the modern battlefield. We'll have to test it with our own scenarios in PBEM.

[Oleg Mastruko]

ORIGINAL: CommC

Lets break this down into two separate questions:

1. Is the armor/gunnery model accurate?
2. Are the scenarios balanced?

I think it's "yes" on both accounts. Where the balance "breaks" is some aspects you don't mention:

a) training
b) morale (and other so called "intangibles")
c) artillery capabilities (and ammo levels)

I think (and please note I am just speculating based on experience with the game!) that there is *huge* difference between "regular" or - god forbid - "green" WP units on one side, and "veteran" US/Brit units on NATO side.

I said on beta boards and will repeat here again - I see no reason why NATO units - or any unit in the game - would be given "veteran" rating, as, strictly speaking, they are no "veterans" of any war. OK, I accept "veteran" is just a manner of speaking, what this really means is just that those units are better trained than "regular" units. But is it justified? I think it's still biased. Who's to say elite frontline WP units were not trained as well as any on the NATO side? I don't know...

Also, morale. If, or when [;)], you start playing PBEM, you'll notice that against stubborn, and well dug in NATO enemy, your WP units will usually totally collapse in morale levels somewhere 2/3 thru scenario, or even earlier. From that moment on, they are useless for all practical purposes, won't listen to orders etc. Is it realistic? I don't know, but balanced it is not [;)]

Then, there are other aspects where WP is severely limited: ICM arty ammo, minelet ammo for arty, ammo levels overall, and ammo replenishment - though I think *some* of those parameters stand, some are bit tough on them commies (lack of minelet ammo f.e., vs. truckloads of minelets for NATO).

Again, to make this story short: my challenge still stands: [;)] I am sure I can beat any WP attack in PBEM using this powerful tools: digging in, waiting, train-loads of arty droppable mines, and clicking End Turn [;)] Please prove me wrong [&o]

Oleg

[hank]

Sorry about the divergence Erik. I don't run into many SB people.

I just finished my 5th battle against the AI. Me as Nato: 3W-1L ... Me as WP: 1W-0L. I can tell this game is fairly easy to pick up the basics but very difficult to be good at.

So ... I guess I'm ready to start playing PBEM. Anyone want to have a go at it? I'll even play WP for someone to whip up on.

... and another observation:

- someone else asked about more statistics when the game was over ... I too would like to see a list of destroyed vehicles, casualties, etc.
(like M1A1-12 destroyed; M2 Bradley-24 destroyed; T80-1; etc.)

- I was wondering if the calculations the game goes through to determine a kill or not is published? In most other "hex based" games there's attack and defense strenghts; modifiers for various things like terrain, entrenched, elevation, moral, etc. etc. that modifies those attack/defense strengths; then some random variable thrown in. How does FPG resolve conflicts?

Great game ... looking forward to my first PBEM.

hank

[Mike_w]

I'l try a PBEM. If its all the same to you, I'de prefer to play WP. If your interested, set one up and send it to me

mjwilliams@quinnipiac.edu

[Crimguy]

I'm not sure how balanced it is, but I'm not an expert by any means.

The sovs were well trained, and I think it's a mistake to come to any conclusions about them based on the performace of the Iraqis (not that anyone mentioned them in this thread). The T80, from my understanding, is improved over the T72 to the extent that it has a much improved fire control system and the AT8 atgm, which has greater standoff range than the M1A1. TH AT8 should be able to disable any MBT out there, provided the person firing it has enough time to get the missile to target!. A properly led T80 platoon should be able to pack quite a punch on the battlefield. The standard soviet sabot round circa 1989 (which were probably mostly circa 1985 rounds) would have a tough time against any Chobham armor-equipped tanks (Leos and Abrams) at range (I'm making that assumption from the T72 penetration results from Gulf I.

My initial feel is that it's not terribly well balanced. The US forces seem to be a bit too fast in reacting to the enemy.

Which brings me to SB (rearing it's ugly head). That sim, which is regarded by those in the know to be one of the most accurate simulations of the modern tank out there, indicates that the sov armor, in sufficient numbers, should be able to neutralize a NATO force.

I think we'll only have an answer as someone becomes truly competent in deploying the WP units and can demonstrate it in-game. The AI isn't up to the task, but did anyone expect otherwise?

I would like to point out now that I am definitely not that "competent player." I've played enough of these games to learn that I truly suck.[8D]