Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: Black Cat

You also said :

ORIGINAL: Marines

I have been following the development of this sim for a long time. That being said, I was expecting a lot more when it came to depth and the immersion. I play Fulda Gap '85 and North German Plain '85 on a regular basis, perhaps I was expecting something along the same lines of those two games. etc, etc.

Since you brought those 2 Games up I assumed you wanted folks to make a comparison. But you know, it`s no big deal, since in some ways I share your disappointments with FG, and it`s not my intention to start an argument over it.

I, like Adam, would be sincerely interested in what you see as the good points in FG, and what needs to be improved.[;)]

:sigh:

For Christs sakes man...do I really need to go over this again? If you refer to my previous comments, I stated that no comparison can be made to FG and NGP '85. They are totally different games by design.

Flashpoint Germany: It is by far the greatest wargame to look at, the maps and units are great, the graphical representation as a whole is beautiful, the AI all be it flawed is decent. However, it is easily seen by all that certain aspects such as dismounted infantry are non-existent, artillery plays less of a role then it would normally be. Etcetera, etcetera... I just wan't absorbed into this sim.

Look...anyone can find flaws with a game, it just seems these are more prevalent then most. Again, I wish the best to you and yours and hope that content will be added as time progresses.

I bought both the FG '85 and NGP '85, and played them a few times, but I also bought Flashpoint Germany as soon as it went on market. As all of you say, these games are totally different, and have their strength and weakness. They also share some common problems.

I consider myself a "grognard", whatever that implies, and I'm the kind of wargamer that goes nuts when PzKpfw III Ausf.J of the early series is portrayed with an L/60 instead of a KwK 38 L/42... you get the idea. Still, I believe that most of the wargamers are "grognards", specially the ones that go through the trouble of buying products that are marketed online, and not readily available in department stores. That's why I find somewhat strange that wargame designers take steps to make the wargame "more fun", by modelling warfare in an unrealistic or simplified manner. (It's not like you are attracting 15 year old Quake gamers to Flashpoint Germany by portraying certain aspects unreallistically, because is deemed to be more fun)

As such, I don't find that Flashpoint Germany is less detailed than the above mentioned operational wargames, specially taking into account that we are dealing with Version 1.0 of the engine. Let's see where this engine ends up in a few years, or after a few patches.

My biggest gripe with FPG is the way they modelled helicopters operations, an aspect of the game that I find lacking and somewhat unrealistic, as I explained in other threads. The fact is that helo operations are somewhat artificial/simplified in FG '85 and NGP '85 too, and as such, they are also prone to "gamey" tactics. I've yet to see a wargame where modern aspects of warfare, such helo operations or electronic warfare, aren't treated in a problematic way.

On the dismounted infantry affair, I share your pain, but I don't find it too problematic. You already have mechanized infantry, that dismounts when they are given "Hold" orders. It's a wargame of mechanized warfare, and foot infantry would be interesting, but would add little to it (but if you ask me, I prefer to have them than not). Sorry, but I find helicopters that have infinite loiter time, that can refuel and rearm anywhere, anytime, a more urgent problem.

But overall, I believe that Flashpoint Germany is a good wargame, and I recommed it to any wargamer that misses the feel of the NATO/WP boardgames of the '80s.

iberian...

A couple points, if you will...I consider myself somewhat of a "grognard" as well. I will only purchase a wargame if it is complex, in-depth, realistically modelled, etc. etc. However, it still needs to be"playable" and fun. I can think of a perfect example. I have the Marine Corps training version of Close Combat. It models modern infantry/armor combat on the tactical level very realistically. Guess what? Its not fun. Which means, I don't play it anymore...modern urban warfare is so lethal, that in the game, as in life, the action is usually over in just longer than a minute. RPGs shred your squads and machine gun fire agaisnt advancing infantry is devastating. He who fires first at the most exposed will win...everytime...there is nothing fun about watching your squads disintegrate...at the same time, there is nothing fun about having to make your men crawl across the map and take "hours" to properly conceal and deploy your men to avoid the above mentioned massacre...My point is, a game should be modelled realisitcally, to a point...

As far as dismounted infantry and helos...I really disagree with you here...When I bought this game, I wasn't under the impression that it was a game of mech. warfare...I was under the impression that it was a game of WWIII. Undeniably, dismounted infantry units would have played a huge role in NATO v. WP confrontation. Would there be helos? Sure...but helos are at least modelled in FPG. Infantry are nowhere in sight and this reduces the complexity and strategic options available greatly...I say again...how can you present a REALISTIC sim of WWIII and leave out infantry...it boggles the mind...and don't say, "infantry is modelled, they dismount when mech units halt..." That does nothing for me...remember...I like options, complexity and control...infantry is not something that should be arbitrarily gifted to the AI...

Jarhead,

By reading the description you gave about the USMC training version of Close Combat, I understand it must be and incredibly realistic sim of urban warfare. It really sounds like lots of fun, I wish it was available in the market. I would sink my Euros there without a double thought.

As far as taking hours to crawl a squad through covered terrain, I see no problem. When there's little spare time, the problem can be avoided with a save option while in game or with an accelerated time option. Weapons lethality I expect to be well modelled. A 7'62 NATO MG-3 should be able to shred a squad cought in the open. I wouldn't find any fun in finding the contrary.

To make a comparison, in the IL-2 community, there's LOTS of people who enjoy flying coop missions, spanning hundred of Km's of flight through open space tundra or the Pacific ocean. With no on-game map charts. Just navigating through a map and a clock, dead reckoning. And just to have their airplane shotdown in a few seconds after fyling during 2 hours. Not to mention the Flight Simulator community, capable of operating highly complex add-on models of Boeing 737's, following real life procedures, approach plated, SID/STAR charts, flying in real time during several hours. One would expect wargame grognards to be at least as "grognard" as this Flight Sim guys are...

PS. (Edited the Post) : As far as the foot infantry goes, I don't see any problem in having SimCan implenting it, as far as the modelled infantry operates in an realistic manner, and no some kind of "fun" portrayal of it.

Whoa! I thought that Matrix bought the license and SimCan (defunct?) had no role in the affair?

ORIGINAL: Marines

Whoa! I thought that Matrix bought the license and SimCan (defunct?) had no role in the affair?

No idea about the specifics, I only know the developer is supposed to be "Simulations Canada", as read in the official game page and the splash screen...

I know that SimCan made what FG what it really is. Flashpoint Germany is based upon two of their games, Main Battle Tank: North Germany and Main Battle Tank: Central Germany. If this is the case, and SimCan had a hand in this game I withdraw any previous opposition I had to it.

Marines,

ORIGINAL: Marines
I know that SimCan made what FG what it really is. Flashpoint Germany is based upon two of their games, Main Battle Tank: North Germany and Main Battle Tank: Central Germany. If this is the case, and SimCan had a hand in this game I withdraw any previous opposition I had to it.

I'm trying to understand this - per your comment, if FPG is mainly a Matrix project you are opposed to it, if SimCan is involved, you are not opposed to it? What did we do to you?

FYI, SimCan is involved in a licensor/advisory role and Rob Crandall worked with SimCan back in the day, so there is some continuous history involved here. The SimCan designs are indeed the strong basis and foundation for this title, as intended. Their original games were great and well worth a re-make, as many customers have commented.
Regards,

- Erik

Not at all Erik, I love Matrix and the sims you guys produce. I have a great deal of respect for SimCan and their previous work in genre, hell, I still play Red Sky At Morning and that game is over 11 years old. I'm just not satisified with Flashpoint Germany thus far, however, I know that you are committed to it and thats why I'm holding onto the game. Many of my questions and concerns have already been addressed.

Thanks for the feedback...I appreciate it. [:)]

Hello,
tinjaw wrote in that thread:

2) The main flaw in the AI was due to a simple bug where a number in a calculation was typoed in a last minute build and will be fixed in 1.01 that is due any day now.

Can anybody expand on this?

ORIGINAL: Chelco

Hello,
tinjaw wrote in that thread:

2) The main flaw in the AI was due to a simple bug where a number in a calculation was typoed in a last minute build and will be fixed in 1.01 that is due any day now.

Can anybody expand on this?

Take a look at the thread "Bestest Valentine's Ever". The developer mentions there and elsewhere about changing code to tweak the mine issue and tweaking aggressiveness to handle the tank rushes.

Thanks!