First impressions here please

[Siljanus]

ORIGINAL: iberian

2) On-Map approach (Less realistic):

- If the user selects the on-map approach, the counter will appear on map as a normal reinforcement unit during the game, or at the start of it, depending on scenario design.

- Change the SOP option for helos to cover more autonomous options. For example: Search and destroy on designated area, or stealth recon a specific area, etc. A helo can do many things in half an hour, and its not too realistic to have it follow wayponts.

- Once the helo counter has spent a number of turns in the map (no more than 1.5-2 hours), have it pop a message box saying it's leaving the battle area.

- If the battle is long enough, have them return after a given number of turns.

My magic words for the developers are these : Please, oh please. Consider some of this ideas. Please, please, please.

I think I prefer the on map option since helos also served as scouts for an advancing force and I don't think there's any good way to model that abstractly. I agree with the above suggestions. The sadist in me would like to have the helos actually be forced to land in whatever square they are in once they run out of fuel (would have to be accounted for separately from ammo) forcing the player to keep a closer eye on them and pull them back to someplace safe. But I guess having them withdraw within a time period which is reasonable for a helicopter undergoing combat manuvers works too.

[iberian]

ORIGINAL: Siljanus
I think I prefer the on map option since helos also served as scouts for an advancing force and I don't think there's any good way to model that abstractly. I agree with the above suggestions. The sadist in me would like to have the helos actually be forced to land in whatever square they are in once they run out of fuel (would have to be accounted for separately from ammo) forcing the player to keep a closer eye on them and pull them back to someplace safe. But I guess having them withdraw within a time period which is reasonable for a helicopter undergoing combat manuvers works too.

To tell you the truth, though I like the game, I'm really dissappointed at the approach that was used to put helicopters on map. Sorry to be critical, but I believe the present on-map helo depiction is totally unrealistic, on the ground of loiter time, combat endurance, operating procedures, operational command, refuell and refit on map(!), etc.

There's no way a front-line battalion commander should be concerned with were to set down the helos to have them refuelled, or telling the pilots to go to that hill, then turn west, then come out of that forest and attack that unit. A battalion commander has no OPCON on attached helo assets, and no helo with infinite loiter time as in the game exists yet.

Theres simply no way to have a helo assembly area of operations for refuelling/rearming that close to the front, specially in the way of the enemy axis of advance.

It's fine to have helos on map for a purely ludic goal. It's fun to have them for gamers, but as a grand-tactical simulation, current depiction fails. It's "gamey".

As far as the recon aspects for helo operations, having them off-map is no problem. Ideally you could set them for "Recon" that area with 4 tiles range, and receive the info next turn (30 min later to simulate the info going up the brigade chain, and down to the battalion commander again). Or you could set them for do a "Search & Destroy" mission over that area, with 6 tiles of range ...

[Erik Rutins]

ORIGINAL: iberian
Theres simply no way to have a helo assembly area of operations for refuelling/rearming that close to the front, specially in the way of the enemy axis of advance.

During development, we had a lot of involvement from an ex-US Helo Pilot who flew Cobras in Germany. He indicated that in combat FARPs could be set up that close to battle and that groups of resupply vehicles would often be near enough to the helos that they could set down not too far back to the rear and refuel/rearm. For what it's worth, we're watching this discussion with interest but I thought I should chime in that the decisions made were not just based on abstract preference.

Regards,

- Erik

[Siljanus]

ORIGINAL: iberian

As far as the recon aspects for helo operations, having them off-map is no problem. Ideally you could set them for "Recon" that area with 4 tiles range, and receive the info next turn (30 min later to simulate the info going up the brigade chain, and down to the battalion commander again). Or you could set them for do a "Search & Destroy" mission over that area, with 6 tiles of range ...

This is workable, much like the way air support is modeled with different options. I have to confess though that I like having direct control of my helo units. There's nothing like ordering your attack helicopters to take position behind a ridge and waiting for an armored column to pass by.

I do like this exchange of ideas too.

[iberian]

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins
During development, we had a lot of involvement from an ex-US Helo Pilot who flew Cobras in Germany. He indicated that in combat FARPs could be set up that close to battle and that groups of resupply vehicles would often be near enough to the helos that they could set down not too far back to the rear and refuel/rearm. For what it's worth, we're watching this discussion with interest but I thought I should chime in that the decisions made were not just based on abstract preference.

Thanks for the info, Erik. The problem with the above statement is that all is relative: while 50 Kms is a long distance in game-terms (more than twice the maximum map width), it is a short distance for a real-life helo flying in a straight line in order to stop an armoured assault in the Fulda Gap.

If we consult the US Army doctrinal publication FM 1-112, "Attack Helicopter Operations", in the Appendix G, Assembly Area Operations, we can read:

"An assembly area is the location where the ATKHB prepares for future operations, issues orders, accomplishes routine maintenance and completes resupply activities. The assembly area must be out of range of enemy artillery and be large enough for dispersion of the unit. Assembly areas are normally located in the corps or division rear area and in or near the aviation brigade assembly area. However, corps and division aviation brigade assets may be dispersed over large areas to avoid becoming lucrative nuclear or chemical targets."

So, excluding emergencies and unusual exceptions,combat helo resupply operations are held in the corps or divisions rear area (not the front line battalions), and that will be at least out of range of enemy artillery, which by 1989 Soviet standards means a minimum of 35-40 Kms. That is definitely off-map for Flashpoint Germany.

In addition to this, Flashpoint Germany simulates the command and control of a battalion-regimental force. As commander of such sized force, you will never micro-manage the helo assets attached to you, as you will never manage the Air units supporting you.

The more I think about the possible solutions (and believe me, I'm giving it quite a thought), the less I like the on-map approach, and the more I whish there was an off-map helo option. The Sim is designed to stress command decisions in the modern battlefield. That means:

- Setting Standard Operating Procedures to have autonomous operations by units.
- Avoiding micro-management of the units, to avoid excessive orders radio traffic.
- Limited Number of Order to simulate staff limitations.

How do you reconcile these core concepts with having to think about refuelling a couple of helos? Micro-managing on-map helos, and thinking about flying them to a "safe" tile to refuell, doesn't really fit with the above. But having them depicted with infinite loiter time, as of now, is even worse.

I'd like to thank you for watching this discussion. I'm sure you already discussed many of these items, and I hope something can be done to refine the current approach to helo units. I will contribute with everyting I can think about.

Best Regards

[Erik Rutins]

Iberian,

Well, frankly the reason for on map helos is that they're a heck of a lot of fun. While every decision is made with accuracy in mind, sometimes the rules are bent a bit when it makes for a better "game" rather than a more dry simulation. I think that the model will be looked at again, certainly in terms of the on map refuel/refit and how long they can loiter, but I believe that on map helos will be here to stay. Whether an off map option is added in a future version or release, I can't speak to but we are monitoring all threads here and listening to feedback.

Regards,

- Erik

[Siljanus]

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

Whether an off map option is added in a future version or release, I can't speak to but we are monitoring all threads here and listening to feedback.

Regards,

- Erik

Now if this can be included as an option rather than having one or the other, that would be the best of all worlds. Play the way you want! I love choices.

[iberian]

ORIGINAL: Siljanus
Now if this can be included as an option rather than having one or the other, that would be the best of all worlds. Play the way you want! I love choices.

That's the idea I proposed. Give the chance to select off-map or on-map helo operations at the game beginning, as many of the other parameters are selected (staff limitation, emercency resupply, editable unit doctrine, etc.). If a PBEM game, both parties will have to agree, as with the current realism options. If you select on-map helo, everyting "works" as of now (or with the above proposed changes, at least reducing the loiter time).

I believe having an off-map helo it's not a difficult option to implement (definitely a lot simpler than factoring Infantry units in, as many suggest). Maybe it's too late for Flashpoint Germany, but helos will need some radical redesign if this engine is going to grow in the future.

Thanks for listening.

[tinjaw]

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins
Well, frankly the reason for on map helos is that they're a heck of a lot of fun. While every decision is made with accuracy in mind, sometimes the rules are bent a bit when it makes for a better "game" rather than a more dry simulation.

I am so glad to hear you say that. I have two perspectives on this matter. The first is as a Simulations Analyst at the US Army Command and General Staff College. In this "professional" role I not only want, but often need, wargames to be extremely detailed and realistic. However, my second perspective is as a wargamer. In this "amateur" role there is no motivation to play games that aren't fun. I find that with commercial wargames (IOW not for military use) the best choice is often somewhere in between.

[Erik Rutins]

Tinjaw,

ORIGINAL: tinjaw
I am so glad to hear you say that. I have two perspectives on this matter. The first is as a Simulations Analyst at the US Army Command and General Staff College. In this "professional" role I not only want, but often need, wargames to be extremely detailed and realistic. However, my second perspective is as a wargamer. In this "amateur" role there is no motivation to play games that aren't fun. I find that with commercial wargames (IOW not for military use) the best choice is often somewhere in between.

I agree. Hey, if you folks are interested in anything "off the shelf" but with modifications, either for training or for historical education, contact me or David Heath (davidh@matrixgames.com). [8D]

Regards,

- Erik

[iberian]

I'm also totally in favour of the "fun factor" in wargames, the problem is that, like everything else in life, the idea of fun is different to each person. For me, the current portrayal of helo operations is not fun [:)] That doesn't mean I don't like the game. To the contrary, I love it and recomment it heartly. But I believe some core concepts could me made better, changed or modified, and as a result, the game would be even more fun.

As a customer, I find really exciting and rewarding knowing that developers and producers of this product are listening to every idea and discussion. I couldn't ask for anything more.

[IronManBeta]

ORIGINAL: geozero

CONGRATULATIONS MATRIX and the whole team... on the release of the game.

I wish I could have been more useful, but other tasks with Combined Arms and Combat Leader kept me from helping more.

FPG will be a very fun and intense game for sure.

[&o]

You made a host of valuable contributions to the testing of the game and I very much appreciate your finding the time that you did to help.

Best regards, Rob.

[IronManBeta]

I am going to work on this some more.

I spent years reading about the actions of British armor in the Western Desert in 1941 / 42 and they behaved that same way all too often. Maybe this influenced me a little....

I used to have the natural defenders in a scenario just hunker down and wait but the early testers thought that not enough was happening in the game. Sometimes they wanted to wait too for their own reasons. I upped the bias towards doing something/anything on that basis.

Of course the human brain is infinitely better at sizing up a situation like this than a computer program. Just because we can instinctively see at a glance what to do does not make it easy to write a set of rules that will duplicate that same behaviour for a computer player. I'll work some more on it though.

Thanks for the feedback BTW, this is the kind of stuff I can really use.

Cheers, Rob.

ORIGINAL: iberian

ORIGINAL: Poliorcetes

Then I played as the WP. Turn 2 I've just gotten my forces into Assault mode and moving when suddenly the entire British force comes charging up the valley at me in Move mode. By the end of the turn their are 25 challengers gone and my forces are at their start point to "begin" their advance.

Well, I have to agree with Poliercetes here. I played the first British Scenario as Warsaw Pact, and I was puzzled by the AI behaviour. I would expect the AI to lay in ambush, and wait for my attack, but instead, the AI rushed at me through open terrain. I had Challenger turrets flying all over the place thanks to my thrusty T-80's 125mm sabotts.

In three turns I destroyed 80% of the British regiment just by pressing the "Next Turn" button. What puzzles me most, is that the AI appeared to have formed a two pincer attack: a main punch through the mentioned open valley, and a smaller one composed of a battalion mechanized infantry, from the south, after crossing the river. (This second attack was also crushed my pressing the next turn button several times).

It's to early to judge, but it appears that:

- The AI tries to be very bold. That suits more the stile of the Soviets. Attack boldly and exploit any local victory to the utmost. It maybe better to use the AI as the attacker side, even if for AI this is usually a lot harder.

- The game system may be favouring too much the advantage of laying dug-in. This maybe very realistic, but makes it very hard for the AI to cope.

- I tried to wait in ambush with WP forces, having the Allied forces attacking, and I wiped'em out too just by pressing the "next turn" and doing nothing else. So it's not a question of the units capabilities, but of the tremendous advantage of being dug-in.

I will experiment more.

[CommC]

An active defense for the NATO forces is not that unrealistic. As I understand it, Air-land doctrine called for a mobile active defense which calls for maneuver to positions of advantage... take some shots at range, then retreat to attack again in another unexpected place. This would be hard to code into an AI. But certainly, a headlong rush into a prepared position is not part of the NATO doctrine, either.

Most of the sims I have seen have shown that a static, dug in defense is a loser for NATO due to arty and massed attacks by the WP. So I would like to urge caution before making the NATO AI defense too static.

[mllange]

As others have said, the style and overall feeling are quite comparable to TacOps, (better in my opinion), and that's a good thing! I've only had the game a couple of days, but the flow and pace of the game is superb. I'll avoid making comments this early in the game that will only prove me a fool, but suffice it to say -- Thumbs Up!! Excellent effort!

[Tbird3]

Iberian, I think you need to look up the definition of Foward Area Arming and Refuel Point (FAARP or FARP I believe). The assembly area is usually located outside of enemy artillery range, however, to keep combat power forward during key operations Aviators will typically deploy FAARP(s) to keep aircraft on station. They can be deployed very far forward as necessary. This might make it easier to justify loiter times etc. [:D]

Regards

Tbird3

[Tbird3]

CommC, a bit of clarification for the discussion.

ORIGINAL: CommC

An active defense for the NATO forces is not that unrealistic. As I understand it, Air-land doctrine called for a mobile active defense which calls for maneuver to positions of advantage... take some shots at range, then retreat to attack again in another unexpected place. This would be hard to code into an AI. But certainly, a headlong rush into a prepared position is not part of the NATO doctrine, either.

Most of the sims I have seen have shown that a static, dug in defense is a loser for NATO due to arty and massed attacks by the WP. So I would like to urge caution before making the NATO AI defense too static.

Air-land Doctrine was based on defeating the enemy throughout the depth of battlefield. You basically divide the battlefield into three areas, close, deep, and rear. The close fight was normally defined at the brigade and lower level fight (the area that FPG operates). This area is dominated by direct fire supported by the other arms. The deep fight is normally fought at the division and higher level. The intent here is to disrupt the enemy before he even arrives at the close fight! This is where you use Air interdiction, long range arty, deep strike attack aviation, and special forces to disrupt the enemy. The key to rear operations was to ensure that you are able to provide all the necessary resources to the close and deep fight. This requirement drove the need to secure your rear area and prevent it from being disrupted by the enemy. Air land battle is primarily an operational concept, not a tactical one. The tenants of air land battle were agility, initative, and depth. It fosters risk taking at the operational level (i.e., I will leave this area lightly defended so I can mass my forces at this area).

The realm of FPG is the realm of tactics. The standard saying we have in the army is that tactics are like <ahem> rear orifices, everybody has them.[:D]

Tactics are the lifeblood of the brigade, battalion, company, platoon, and squad leaders. There are certain guidelines that professionals tend to follow in reference to tactics, however, nothing is set in stone. What works in one situation will not automatically work in another one. The key things that any commander should strive for is to know himself (what assets do I have and what shape are they?), know the terrain (where is the best place to gain an advantage over the enemey?), and know the enemy (how does he operate? What are his strengths and weaknesses? Where is he located and likely to go?). If you know these things you should be able to implement a plan to defeat him. The last thing you want in tactics is flexibility. The primary means to maintain flexibility at the tactical level is to maintain a decent reserve. This should give you the ability to react to any changes on the battlefield. [;)]

Sorry for the long post but wanted to throw my 2 cents worth in a very good discussion!

Regards,

Tbird3

[hank]

Observations:

In Soviet Main Force Attack, NATO unit 3 Plt/Team D/2-67th show at having 3 M1A1 Abrams but the silhouette on the map counter shows an M113 Mech Infy.
One way or the other it needs to be.

I've noticed the map Counter for units exclusively composed of M2 Bradleys have an M113 silhouette. Can we get an M2 Bradley Silhouette for the map counters too?? [&o] You can use the silhouette from the info box on the side.

I use NATO symbology most but I do spend about half my time playing with silhouett on. I like the equipment profiles. Good graphics.

Enjoying it more and more.

hank

[Black Cat]

[quote]ORIGINAL: RobertCrandall

I am going to work on this some more.

I spent years reading about the actions of British armor in the Western Desert in 1941 / 42 and they behaved that same way all too often. Maybe this influenced me a little....

I used to have the natural defenders in a scenario just hunker down and wait but the early testers thought that not enough was happening in the game. Sometimes they wanted to wait too for their own reasons. I upped the bias towards doing something/anything on that basis.

Of course the human brain is infinitely better at sizing up a situation like this than a computer program. Just because we can instinctively see at a glance what to do does not make it easy to write a set of rules that will duplicate that same behaviour for a computer player. I'll work some more on it though.

Thanks for the feedback BTW, this is the kind of stuff I can really use.

Cheers, Rob.


Rob

I am happy that your open to working on the Defenders " Charging" issue, which IMO is the only big problem in the Game right now.

Perhaps it`s ( hopefully ) a fine tuning thing. Some Platoons staying hull down and not moving, some advance, and very rarely some " Charge ".

[iberian]

ORIGINAL: Black Cat
I am happy that your open to working on the Defenders " Charging" issue, which IMO is the only big problem in the Game right now.

Perhaps it`s ( hopefully ) a fine tuning thing. Some Platoons staying hull down and not moving, some advance, and very rarely some " Charge ".

Yes, I have to agree with you. The AI needs some urgent work to be of any use. I mean, I've seen the AI lay several minefields and then run all of his units over them. Once, playing as WP, I saw how an entire company of M1's destroyed itself running multiple times over his own minefields, while charging across an empty field to meet my entrenched guns.

I'm trying to think of any other wargame with such a weak AI, but I sincerely cannot.