Matrix Games Forums

Is there a setting that's as close to realistic?

If so what should the settings A B C D E F P1 and P2 be?

ORIGINAL: Rush


Is there a setting that's as close to realistic?

If so what should the settings A B C D E F P1 and P2 be?

I remove the check marks from A, C, and F.

I leave the check mark on for option F since both sides had years of opportunities to survey every sight line.

It is quite easy to override option D by issuing your own orders. So I leave it on.

I don't know if the devs see that as most "realistic" but it works for me. [:)]

Lacking better information I just set the computer to the same settings as I use.

ORIGINAL: cbelva
Not everyone plays with limited orders or sees it as more realistic. I play it with with both options. I don't believe playing with limited orders makes the scenarios unbalanced or impossible. But it does make them more challenging.

I'm not disagreeing about the balance, it's more about the focus. It's just that after a year of patience waiting for little things to get fixed, the latest recon screen issues are still frustrating and this recent realization that limited staff orders may not be THE focus of the game that I thought it was is, well... more frustrating. For me, since I was there; others may think differently and that's fine.

I don't want to be any more negative. This is a good game. v2.1 could be a great sim? Again, going forward, you guys could reconsider where the focus should be. Either go for good game with options to make it more challenging, or go for a great sim with options to turn off to make it easier. There's a subtle difference, and players need to know what the deal is. Again, FWIW, I'd prefer to see you guys go for the great sim. My 2 cents.

ORIGINAL: pzgndr

ORIGINAL: cbelva
Not everyone plays with limited orders or sees it as more realistic. I play it with with both options. I don't believe playing with limited orders makes the scenarios unbalanced or impossible. But it does make them more challenging.

I'm not disagreeing about the balance, it's more about the focus. It's just that after a year of patience waiting for little things to get fixed, the latest recon screen issues are still frustrating and this recent realization that limited staff orders may not be THE focus of the game that I thought it was is, well... more frustrating. For me, since I was there; others may think differently and that's fine.

I don't want to be any more negative. This is a good game. v2.1 could be a great sim? Again, going forward, you guys could reconsider where the focus should be. Either go for good game with options to make it more challenging, or go for a great sim with options to turn off to make it easier. There's a subtle difference, and players need to know what the deal is. Again, FWIW, I'd prefer to see you guys go for the great sim. My 2 cents.

Everybody has an opinion as to how the game would be better. Consider that there are 4 us on the development team and we all have differing opinions about how the game could be better. Multiply that times the thousands of you that now have it and there you have it.

We do the best we can with the choices we have and can make work. I actually thought the game played very well in the form we released.

Good Hunting.

MR

ORIGINAL: Mad Russian

ORIGINAL: pzgndr

ORIGINAL: cbelva
Not everyone plays with limited orders or sees it as more realistic. I play it with with both options. I don't believe playing with limited orders makes the scenarios unbalanced or impossible. But it does make them more challenging.

I'm not disagreeing about the balance, it's more about the focus. It's just that after a year of patience waiting for little things to get fixed, the latest recon screen issues are still frustrating and this recent realization that limited staff orders may not be THE focus of the game that I thought it was is, well... more frustrating. For me, since I was there; others may think differently and that's fine.

I don't want to be any more negative. This is a good game. v2.1 could be a great sim? Again, going forward, you guys could reconsider where the focus should be. Either go for good game with options to make it more challenging, or go for a great sim with options to turn off to make it easier. There's a subtle difference, and players need to know what the deal is. Again, FWIW, I'd prefer to see you guys go for the great sim. My 2 cents.

Everybody has an opinion as to how the game would be better. Consider that there are 4 us on the development team and we all have differing opinions about how the game could be better. Multiply that times the thousands of you that now have it and there you have it.

We do the best we can with the choices we have and can make work. I actually thought the game played very well in the form we released.

Good Hunting.

MR

I actually thought the game played very well in the form we released.


I would like to know MR what the settings were for you to think the game played very well in the form it was released in.
For me I would like the most realistic Simulation settings.....Is this possible?


Cheers.

ORIGINAL: Rush

I would like to know MR what the settings were for you to think the game played very well in the form it was released in.

The basic game is what I'm talking about. There is no possible way for us to determine how each of you will play the game, or what options you will or won't use. The options are there to add difficulty to the game. Some feel that the more difficult the game is the more realistic it is. I'm not sure I don't agree but I don't think that has to be exclusively the case. It depends on what level of simulation you are looking for.

For me I would like the most realistic Simulation settings.....Is this possible?

I have no idea what you consider realistic. There is a very good chance that what I consider realistic the rest of you wouldn't agree with. That's why this question is impossible to answer. There is no way know what each of you think is 'more realistic'. More realistic than what?

Good Hunting.

MR

Remember British and West German is probably a little tougher than playing as the USA. You also have to play differently.

ORIGINAL: Mad Russian
The basic game is what I'm talking about. There is no possible way for us to determine how each of you will play the game, or what options you will or won't use. The options are there to add difficulty to the game. Some feel that the more difficult the game is the more realistic it is. I'm not sure I don't agree but I don't think that has to be exclusively the case. It depends on what level of simulation you are looking for.

I think that's the issue here, what level of simulation we are looking for. For 1980's Germany and the very different doctrines of NATO units on one hand and the Soviets/Warsaw Pact units on the other hand, the appropriate focus of the game should be on highlighting the differences between command and control (as implemented with the limited staff orders rule and orders delays or whatever for v2.1) that should naturally lead players to employ the different doctrines. The Assault! boardgame series did this very well; I've come back to this point multiple times and Capn Darwin seems to understand it. It's not about difficulty so much as being realistic. Playing without this fundamental feature results in an unrealistic simulation of the opposing forces of the period. It may be a good game and difficulty is in the eye of the beholder, but it is not accurate. In my opinion.

Granted, even with doctrines more or less well defined, units on both sides may have: 1) employed their doctrine perfectly, 2) employed their doctrine incorrectly or incompetently, or 3) been aggressive/experienced enough to employ bold maneuvers that went a bit beyond "normal". And for the premise of this game in the late 1980s with a very hasty "come-as-you-are" setting, who knows what would have been realistic or accurate. So, it's difficult to criticize too much. The scenarios are fine. It would be nice to know they were developed with a different focus in mind, but again who's to say how our hypothetical WW-III would have played out. I don't know; nobody knows.

Personally I would very much like to see the game evolve into something more along the lines of what the Assault! boardgame game offered for command and control rules, and what the TacOps computer game offered for unit SOPs and such. I think that would be an awesome simulation game. And it would provide an appropriate focus for game design and scenario design. Let players choose to not implement the more realistic options for a "different" gaming experience if they want (maybe more difficult, maybe not), but let us at least agree that FOW rules and C2 rules as the defaults provide the more realistic experience? For additional computer opponent difficulty, let players select options for increased spotting and hit probabilities, reduced orders delays, etc. 10%, 20%, whatever. Again, my 2 cents. FWIW.

A.Enemy Units and Markers are Always Visible. Here you can choose if you want to be able to view enemy unspotted units. Note: If selected you can see them, but that does not mean that your units can see them as well. When this option is selected, it is also possible to view the reports in the enemies Tactical Operations Center by checking the option at the bottom left of the TOC dialog.




B.Emergency Resupply is Automatic. If enabled, any unit with fewer than three percent ammo remaining is automatically restored to 30% ammo stores during orders resolution. Unit orders have no effect on emergency resupply and the unit may be moving and/or fighting at the time. If this option is unchecked then the unit must be resupplied using Resupply orders.




C.Limited Staff Rule is NOT in Effect. Modern military communications are quite complex and there are constant difficulties in sending and receiving communications. It takes a certain amount of time to formulate and issue each order and to receive every acknowledgment and situation report. If this option is enabled then player will be limited to a certain number of orders that can be issued during an orders phase. Note: This rule does not apply to computer players




D.Allow Staff to Request FSCC Missions. The “FSCC” is the Fire Control Coordination Center through which artillery fire missions and air strikes are planned. If the staff is allowed to request missions then you will have that less direct control of your supporting assets but your staff may be able to take advantage of fleeting opportunities that might otherwise be missed. Note: This setting has no effect on AI players.




E.Allow Ctrl-L LOS Checks. This creates an overlay showing which hexes are visible to the currently selected unit. The player can then shift-click on an empty location and the overlay will change to show what the selected unit could from there instead.




F.Allow Browsing of Enemy Units. If enabled the player can see all the details of the spotted enemy player’s units in the unit description panel (UDP).





It seems to me that with D checked you would get the closest to "realistic" from within the options offered.

My question is, is this playable and will it give a "realistic"result? I ask purely because If Im going to invest a lot of time in a campaign I would prefer the gameplay and results to be "realistic"

Obviously checking any other settings would be IMHO be cheating.

So Has anybody played / beta tested through a campaign with these settings D checked? And if so how was the outcome?




Cheers and Merry Christmas to everyone.

I use D all the time. I also will designate arty targets. I don't just have the staff fire all missions.

I don't use C, as I feel there are improvements needed in the game engine before that particular option will realistic enough. I see that more as a challenging condition than a realism condition, at the present time.

I don't see how LOS checks are a cheat. Soldiers do that on the ground.

Gents:

I just started playing FPC-RS. My first couple games (NATO- The Pied Piper) I only checked B and E. But, IMHO having "emergency resupply is automatic" seemed a crutch for poor resupply planning... so in my future games I will only check E. Both NATO and the Soviet commanders should have a good idea of the battlefield terrain! [:)]

ORIGINAL: Mad Russian

The scenarios are not balanced for limited orders. They are balanced for unlimited orders. I'm not sure if some of them can be beaten with limited orders or not.

More NBC will show up in one of the next few campaigns I would think.

Good Hunting.

MR

Well hell - that would have been nice to know before now. Here I've been beating my head against a wall for the last 6 months playing with limited orders on - always - barely eeking out what I'd consider draws and minor victories on occasion and more often than not getting my ass handed to me and wondering how I got so stupid (wife told me 1) I was just getting old) - or if maybe 2) FPC:RS was just that good and you guys were mad scientists developing an AI to sell to the .gov and testing it out on us.

Personally I prefer explanation 2). Then again - I've been playing wargames since 1961 or so - so maybe I'm just getting old.

Either way - ya shud'a told us.

ORIGINAL: Matrix Ad Hype

Flashpoint Campaigns: Red Storm features an innovative asynchronous turn structure that models the OODA loop

That's the 1st sentence in the ad describing the game's features - the 1st sentence.

And it's a good one. Few, maybe no wargames try to sim the OODA loop. RS does it fairly well with the limited orders features. It's why I bought the game. It's what makes RS one of the best there is at the scale it simulates IMO.

And I honestly don't mind getting my ass handed to me by an AI - it happens often enough that over the years I've gotten used to it.

But to be told by a dev that the scenarios weren't really designed/balanced to be played with the primary selling feature of the game...

Argghghghghgh!

Might want to consider putting a caveat in the scenario descriptions shown in game that a scenario is not balanced for limited orders play and only those players who can take an ass whuppin' should play that way - especiall OLD FARTS like me! [:D]

ORIGINAL: Werewolf1326
Well hell - that would have been nice to know before now. Here I've been beating my head against a wall for the last 6 months playing with limited orders on - always - barely eeking out what I'd consider draws and minor victories on occasion and more often than not getting my ass handed to me and wondering how I got so stupid

Too funny. I'm glad to see I'm not the only one to notice this! [:D]

I play limited orders all the time. Win some and lose some.

ORIGINAL: Werewolf1326

ORIGINAL: Mad Russian

The scenarios are not balanced for limited orders. They are balanced for unlimited orders. I'm not sure if some of them can be beaten with limited orders or not.

More NBC will show up in one of the next few campaigns I would think.

Good Hunting.

MR

Well hell - that would have been nice to know before now. Here I've been beating my head against a wall for the last 6 months playing with limited orders on - always - barely eeking out what I'd consider draws and minor victories on occasion and more often than not getting my ass handed to me and wondering how I got so stupid (wife told me 1) I was just getting old) - or if maybe 2) FPC:RS was just that good and you guys were mad scientists developing an AI to sell to the .gov and testing it out on us.

Personally I prefer explanation 2). Then again - I've been playing wargames since 1961 or so - so maybe I'm just getting old.

Either way - ya shud'a told us.

What I did tell you was that I consider a draw a win!!! [:D]


I play the scenarios until I get a draw. Which for the rest of you isn't all that hard because you play the game all the time. I only play the game while I'm playtesting the scenarios or on the other odd occasion. So, with that in mind, when you play with limited orders that should tighten up the game to where it is a bit tougher.

As to having told you...we did tell you. Limited orders are an OPTION. Options are not normal game play they are there to give you options to normal game play. That's exactly how we look at them.

But just in case, are there any other terms in the game we need to explain at this time??? Because my wife must know your wife and I have gotten the same comments you've gotten! [&:] And we really couldn't stand for them to have a number 3. on that list! [:D]

Good Hunting.

MR

ORIGINAL: Werewolf1326

But to be told by a dev that the scenarios weren't really designed/balanced to be played with the primary selling feature of the game...

Gentlemen, Limited Orders is an OPTION. Options are there to change the basic gameplay. In this case to tighten up the scenarios when they are too easy for you. I understand that you think I should have tested them each and everyone for all possible options in the game. Which is totally unrealistic, nobody does that before release, you wouldn't have seen this game to being playing it for two more years yet, we would have all stopped playing the game before that time and moved on to another project.

Argghghghghgh!

Might want to consider putting a caveat in the scenario descriptions shown in game that a scenario is not balanced for limited orders play and only those players who can take an ass whuppin' should play that way - especiall OLD FARTS like me! [:D]

The fact that Limited Orders is an option says exactly that. The level the scenarios were playtested to allows for Limited Orders to do just what it's intended to do. To tighten up the AI's gameplay with an OPTION to the gamer to decide if they want it to be tougher or not.[:D]

Best of luck with your playing style against the AI or an opponent!![8D]

Good Hunting.

MR

Just got my butt handed to me playing the Germans in The Witches Couldron. Good thing I kept all those options checked [:)] I'll have to figure out another approach to the scenario.

Mad Russian
This game comes with a basic game with optional play modes available. While you may play all your games in one of those play modes the game must work without any of those selected. Since that's the main goal for ALL GAMERS playing the game, and not just a select few, the scenarios are balanced for the basic game.

Mad Russian
The game is balanced for the basic game. The limited player option is just that, an option, to make game play tougher. It is not the main way we foresee the game being played.

OK, I am confused. [&:]

There is a list of Game Play Options. You must put a check mark next to the desired optional play modes. You state that the game must work without any of those selected.

Game Play Option 'C' - 'Limited Staff' rule is NOT in effect.

So, with NO Game Play Options selected, the Limited Staff rule IS in effect and is part of the basic game - correct? [&:]

Therefore, should not all scenarios have been play tested with the Limited Staff rule?

Help me out here.