Matrix Games Forums

Good news helicopters are getting a revamp. Just had 3 flights of Hinds under fire from 6 tracked raipers and they still over flew a company of dug in infantry without loss. Engr vehicles would add a great feature to the game or the next release.

Time to Dance.

I don't know if it should be played only as American player against the Soviet AI, but there should be some adjustments made to provide the players with equal chances in case of the PBEM. First of all, I don't understand why US cycles are so long - about 40 min, once I managed to play 3 Soviet turns within one US cycle. Secondly, the Soviet firepower is impossible to counter. So I'd recommend either to remove Soviet artillery and air support, or provide the Americans with at least one battery of M-109's and a battery of Chaparrals.

.... I was stationed here in the 70's but I think some things have changed since then.

Hey, so was I. Just for Field Artillery Officer Basic Course though, and then back several years later for the advanced course. Thing is I went to the 82d Airborne, where there were no computers, just charts and darts and firing sticks (gunnery specific slide rules) - old school field artillery. Probably would have only taken a very short refresher for anyone from WW2, Korea or Vietnam to get right up to speed. Personally I loved it.

We did have FADAC at the time - but it broke when we airdropped it so we always left it behind.

I'm sure much has changed, even in the Abn FA.

I'm currently at Fort Sill and will see just what kind of artillery doctrine I can get from the US Army here.

Good Hunting.

MR

Are you there for the 45 IBCT BWFX? If so I was suppose to be there but couldn't make the exercise.

ORIGINAL: Mad Russian
I'm currently at Fort Sill and will see just what kind of artillery doctrine I can get from the US Army here.

I could prod my classmate John Rossi if you need help. [;)]

BTW, way back when as an infantry LT, I completed FAOBC and EOBC by correspondence to learn the detail of those supporting branches. Charts and darts, hooah!

I'm sort of entering late this debate. Sorry.
In my opinion scenarios need to be rebalanced NOT to make them more playable and fun, but to make them more ACCURATE. If the Soviets had way more firepower than us good guys in the Central Front, so be it. We're still here, after all, and they aren't.
What I mean is, for example:
1. Many more and more effective Soviet AD units, OK. But when a SA-11 unit is attached - say - to a Soviet recon battalion and that battalion is nearly wiped out by a dug-in British infantry company, the SA-11 unit which survives the carnage should withdraw and not embark on a wild and hopeless charge against the Brits (as happened to me);
2. Helos at tree-top level which find themselves in a concentration of enemy 155mm + fire should not remain indifferent. Just the concussion from two or three shells of that caliber landing together a few feet from a hovering helicopter at nap-of-the-earth would probably send it slamming on something.

ORIGINAL: Ginetto

In my opinion scenarios need to be rebalanced NOT to make them more playable and fun, but to make them more ACCURATE. If the Soviets had way more firepower than us good guys in the Central Front, so be it. We're still here, after all, and they aren't.

Gents: [8D]

Why not both? [&:] 1) More playable and fun 2)More accurate [:)]

I "may" play a heavily "unbalanced" scenario to "see how I can play against greatly superior odds a couple of times... but I'm certainly not going to play such an unbalanced scenario multiple times. Why? My gaming time is valuable to me and I want to maximize my "fun factor" in my gaming investment time. I want to be rewarded for utilizing superior tactics against a human opponent in an equal contest than having to fight against a scenario design that heavily favors one side over the other.

For me, a scenario that strikes a good balance between "fun" and "accurate" will enjoy a longer shelf life because of the repeat playability aspect.

It seems to me that any scenario no matter how unbalanced in terms of relative force strength can be balanced by proper setting of victory locations and values. If one side has a much larger force than put the bulk of the victory locations deep in the area controlled by the weaker side. And make a time limit that forces the stronger side to charge across open terrain in order to reach them. After all, that's all that would be expected from the weaker force anyway in real life.

ORIGINAL: GordianKnot

It seems to me that any scenario no matter how unbalanced in terms of relative force strength can be balanced by proper setting of victory locations and values. If one side has a much larger force than put the bulk of the victory locations deep in the area controlled by the weaker side. And make a time limit that forces the stronger side to charge across open terrain in order to reach them. After all, that's all that would be expected from the weaker force anyway in real life.

Exactly (although there is a caveat - let the relative force strength get too far apart and the weaker side runs out of options to do anything to influence the game).

In any case talking about realism is nonsense. All scenarios are fictional creations set in a fictional war where things are already strange and alternate-universe (where is the Dutch army?). You can do whatever you like to set up an interesting scenario? Are the forces at 50% strength because they're arriving on the battlefield after several days battle? Sure. Did the Recon regiment take a wrong turning and is going to miss the battle? Why not? Did the Red commander assign corps level artillery to support the attack in this sector?

Provided you don't break all constraints of plausibility then the only things a scenario maker should be concerned with are a) is it balanced?> and b) is it fun?

-

-

ORIGINAL: Alchenar

Provided you don't break all constraints of plausibility then the only things a scenario maker should be concerned with are a) is it balanced?> and b) is it fun?

+1

Nope, sorry but realism is not nonsense. If what we want is just another arcade shoot-em-up thing there are already plenty on the market. The fact is that we in Europe lived for 40 years in a situation where our guys were outnumbered and outgunned. When the decision was taken in the 60s not to respond immediately to a conventional attack from the East with nukes, but to have a flexible response, all of a sudden conventional war in Europe had to be addressed. The US Army, for example, dropped the pentomic division structure and adopted the heavier ROAD one.
This game takes place in that period. There is really nothing in the way of hypothetical or alternative reality. That WAS the reality. 20 years of my professional life were devoted to help find ways to allow outgunned and outnumbered allied forces to stop a conventional invasion with something more than the 1950s "tripwire" and without resorting to nuclear weapons.
If there are some of us who prefer fun at all costs, a solution would be to adopt what other MG games already have: a slider in the options tab to increase or decrease the nastiness of the side running on AI.

ORIGINAL: katukov

Time to Dance.

I don't know if it should be played only as American player against the Soviet AI, but there should be some adjustments made to provide the players with equal chances in case of the PBEM. First of all, I don't understand why US cycles are so long - about 40 min, once I managed to play 3 Soviet turns within one US cycle. Secondly, the Soviet firepower is impossible to counter. So I'd recommend either to remove Soviet artillery and air support, or provide the Americans with at least one battery of M-109's and a battery of Chaparrals.

because the AI has limited tactical ability its very hard to make a scenario that is balanced for solo & H2H, you need to give the AI far more than what a human needs to achieve the same results, balance for H2H and the AI doesn't stand a chance, this is especially true for smaller scenarios

to answer your question of cycle times - US forces are under heavy EW resulting in long command cycles whereas the soviets are under low or medium, this is a useful approach to hamper (i.e. more challenging) a player vs the AI without overloading the force balance or 'pulling cheap tricks' to aid the AI - although you may want to find someone to agree that the scenario is edited to lower the US EW impact (or increase the WP EW impact) and see if that makes a huge difference to H2H play (but remember the scenario is MR's and it would be polite to ask first)

ORIGINAL: Ginetto
1. Many more and more effective Soviet AD units, OK. But when a SA-11 unit is attached - say - to a Soviet recon battalion and that battalion is nearly wiped out by a dug-in British infantry company, the SA-11 unit which survives the carnage should withdraw and not embark on a wild and hopeless charge against the Brits (as happened to me);
2. Helos at tree-top level which find themselves in a concentration of enemy 155mm + fire should not remain indifferent. Just the concussion from two or three shells of that caliber landing together a few feet from a hovering helicopter at nap-of-the-earth would probably send it slamming on something.

These 'quirks' are known but I'm hopeful they'll disappear in 2.1 but in the meantime enjoy the free kills while you can

Scenario balance is very subjective, what may be very realistic to someone may be boring to someone else, likewise fun and engaging to one person may be unlikely/not plausible to someone else, and finding a balance between all the various factors is very difficult

Hey Emilio. Don't worry there are no slider in the game to increase or decrease the nastiness. The game is what it is and we have worked hard to get it as close to accurate as possible. When we talk of "rebalancing the scenarios" we are referring to getting them to play out the way the scenario designer (i.e. Mad Russian) envisioned them playing out. Since the release of this game we have continued to attempt to improve the combat model to be what we consider to be realistic. Since this was a war that was never fought, it has left our interpretation open to debate (witness all the debate on this forum). However, the changes we have made have upset some of Steve's scenarios and his intensions. We are giving him this time to go back and ensure that they are playing the way he intended for them to play.
 
Scoring and declaring a winner is not necessarily based on who won the battlefield or who has the most units at the end. In designing this game, it was understood that these scenarios are just a small part of the over all war. Your side may have triggered sudden death by losing over 70% of our force and/or you may have lost most of the victory location, but still come out on top. Why, because you hurt the enemy to the point where you have compromised his overall mission and objectives which reach beyond the scope of the battle (as envisioned by the scenario designer). In a real war, you can win the battlefield and still loose the war. As you are aware, it has happened many times throughout history. If this war had ever been fought, there would have been many men and units who would have sacrificed themselves on the battlefield in order for NATO to achieve final victory. That realism that many games do not take into account.  
 
There are also some coding issues that has a tendency to have an effect on how the game plays out. That is why at times you see AD and/or HQ units leading an attack or pressing on after their formation has been destroyed. We are aware of these issues, but they are not easy to iron out in the code--remember this is just a game and there aren't real people in these counters. Rob learned a lot in coding Flashpoint Germany years ago and he applied those lessons in Red Storm. He has also learned even more in coding Red Storm and he is hoping to apply those lessons in Southern Storm. Time will tell how successful he will be. But from what he did with Red Storm I am hopeful. My point is that some of the odd issues such as AD and HQ units continuing to fight when their formation is wiped out will have to wait unit the next version of the code.

Just remembered this about realism or plausibility, not everyone knows the various OOB's in great detail when creating scenarios or may not know where to look or is unsure about how to change the OOB's - check out the mods and scenario school forum sections, there's a wide range of advice and other tools to help people create and share their vision of how WW3 would have played out

ORIGINAL: Ginetto

If there are some of us who prefer fun at all costs, a solution would be to adopt what other MG games already have: a slider in the options tab to increase or decrease the nastiness of the side running on AI.

Gents: [8D]

At the end of the day, we are talking about a "game" that simulates a hypothetical WWIII European ground conflict.

It could have happened, but we are all grateful that it did not come down to an actual shooting war.

IMO, I see no reason why "realism" cannot go hand-in-hand with a "fun factor" too.

If a scenario designer wants to do extensive research to create a "realistic" OOB for specific combat formations, painstakingly design custom maps and write elaborate background narratives... than go for it.

On the other hand, maybe a scenario designer is more interested in putting together a less involved design... than go for it.

In the end, it all comes down to players experiencing some kind of enjoyment or "fun factor" from the scenario... or why bother playing it? [&:]

Frankly, I would love to see more players try their hand at designing FPC-RS custom scenarios! There are so few FPC-RS scenarios as it is... I would welcome more scenarios to play and I'm sure other players would too.

Tazak and Chelva. Sounds good. Thanks, guys. I really love this game. Any improvement will just add to the enjoyment.
Keep it up.

I tried to make a scenario but I couldn't find the PACT nuke units and I refuse to publish anything that doesn't have at least 5 mushroom clouds.