The Direction of the FPC series

[british exil]

A big What If scenario, WWII ending and the Soviets are now the bad boys. Patton and Monty decide to stop the Red Army from rolling up all of Westrn Europe. WWII takes a new turn. Will the Road to Moscow suceed or will Amsterdam become a new St Petersburg?

Based on the Books, Fox on the Rhine and Fox at the Front. by Douglas Niles and Michael Dobson.

By doing this a WWII and WWIII will be one. And an end to all problems in the forum?

Mat

[nukkxx5058]

The problem is that when you guys are talking about WW3 you are actually talking about cold war turning "hot" in the 80's.

When I'm talking about WW3, I'm talking about what might come soon in real life, in 2015/16/17, ie. a conflict involving NATO vs Russia + China and starting because of a conflict in the gulf between Israel and Iran/Syria/Egypt (it was nearly here last month BTW, before Putin and Russian diplomacy made the situation to calm down !).

I really think that the potential of Flashpoint is in simulating hypothetical conflicts in a very near future with modern armament. This is at least what I'd like to play. A realistic conflict which is plausible.

Yes, WW3 (or let's call it WW4 ?) !

[Mad Russian]

ORIGINAL: nukkxx

The problem is that when you guys are talking about WW3 you are actually talking about cold war turning "hot" in the 80's.

Since that's what FPC:RS is about, yes, that's what we're talking about.

When I'm talking about WW3, I'm talking about what might come soon in real life, in 2015/16/17, ie. a conflict involving NATO vs Russia + China and starting because of a conflict in the gulf between Israel and Iran/Syria/Egypt (it was nearly here last month BTW, before Putin and Russian diplomacy made the situation to calm down !).

I really think that the potential of Flashpoint is in simulating hypothetical conflicts in a very near future with modern armament. This is at least what I'd like to play. A realistic conflict which is plausible.

Yes, WW3 (or let's call it WW4 ?) !

Call it what you will. You can create any of this with the game files. All you have to do is get CD to finish with the modding guide so you can create the units and you're off and running in whichever direction you want to go.

Good Hunting.

MR

[ComradeP]

I haven't bought FPC:RS (yet) due to not feeling entirely comfortable when playing modern warfare wargames (I dislike the long engagement ranges, electronic warfare and the high operational speed with fully motorized/mechanized forces, it's purely personal), I do think this engine has a lot of promise. I guess that being young and being born when the Cold War was almost over had a direct influence on never really being all that interested in a 1980's Cold War turned hot scenario.

When people say WWII has been done to death, they're mostly referring to some of the 1941(/winter 1941-1942) battles, Fall Blau, Uranus/Stalingrad, Zitadelle/Kursk, Korsun Pocket, Bagration and possibly Operation Konrad. However, in my opinion the battles west of the Dnepr in 1943/1944 could be very interesting with this game engine. There's usually a black hole between Korsun and Konrad, if Konrad is represented in a series, yet some of the battles aside from Korsun (Krivoi Rog, Zhitomir, the German withdrawal to Bug and Dnestr, Hube Pocket and 1st Iassy-Kishinev) are really underrepresented in my opinion.

I guess wargame designers are also conservative in the sense that they focus on improving upon an existing formula, hence all the Overlord/Market Garden/Bulge games for the western front and the aforementioned battles for the east.

I've been waiting for a good sort of operational level wargame for Korea, but the question is if the fluid periods of the war offer enough meat for numerous scenarios. It could be interesting though: first North vs South Korea with limited US support, after the North Korea and China vs South Korea and UN forces.

[stormbringer3]

I'll give my opinion. I really like this game!! Modern war is not my 1st choice and I'm one of those that think that this fantastic game engine can go WWII or Korea. WWII would be my next choice down the road, but perhaps a middle ground between those who want WWII and those who want mostly more modern would be Korea. You have WWII type weaponry but an area that has not had a lot of attention so there would be a lot of new material.

[kipanderson]

Hi,

Agree absolutely with ComradeP
However, in my opinion the battles west of the Dnepr in 1943/1944 could be very interesting with this game engine. There's usually a black hole between Korsun and Konrad, if Konrad is represented in a series, yet some of the battles aside from Korsun (Krivoi Rog, Zhitomir, the German withdrawal to Bug and Dnestr, Hube Pocket and 1st Iassy-Kishinev) are really underrepresented in my opinion.

What is sometimes called The Battle for the Ukraine... August ’43 to April ’44 is the most interesting period on The Eastern Front. Both sides are well rained... by the standards of conscript armies... well equipped and the Germans not quite yet totally overwhelmed.

Has outstanding wargame potential[:)].

All the best,
Kip.

[Leibstandarte PzD]

I usually tend to play World War II games. Mostly because having served in the "modern" army I haven't found many games that correctly model modern warfare. After having played a fair number of games of FC:RS I feel this engine does an excellent job of it. And the AI is pretty darn good most of the time as well.

So Bravo and excellent job to all involved in bringing this game to market!

All that having been said after seeing the quality of the game I'll purchase what ever packs/expansions you put out. I figure with good support (read money from us, the consumer) you will eventually get to my favorite time periods to play.

My vote would be to first flesh out the WWIII scenarios. I want to fight this AI from Alta, Norway to Athens, Greece and everywhere in between. Once WWIII is completed I'd like you gentlemen to work your way backwards in time ending with WWII. With some great Middle Eastern coverage 1947 to 2003.

[Gratch1111]

I really like the series but I would like it to be easier to edit the platforms, and understand what u do, make new ones, and make it easier to make maps and create scenarios. I still play WinSPMBT but it lacks in the gameplay that this game excels in. So take the best from that and use it in this game.

As for gameplay, amphib invasion is a start, and go modern. However when you go modern there are some things u need to add. Infantry are more powerful, if slow, drones, Also air is very lethal with laser guidences

[Rocko911]

The truth is that modern warfare (anything after ww2) is neglected in the strategy war game industry. The last thing we need is another WW2 game. I vote for a Korean War circa 1950-53 and a modern 80's version of a Korean war.

[MikeAP]

ORIGINAL: LRRP

The truth is that modern warfare (anything after ww2) is neglected in the strategy war game industry. The last thing we need is another WW2 game. I vote for a Korean War circa 1950-53 and a modern 80's version of a Korean war.

Couldn't agree more.

I think many developers go with WW2 because everything is on the table. No need for a creative back-story or designing new battle fields.

Guys like Clancy, Bond, and Coyle have written enough to give us a direction, but the modern genre is still an approach less taken.

[Mad Russian]

I think the reason WWII is so popular is that it was the largest war in history, so much has been written about it, we all know someone that participated in it. It was also the era of modern warfare.

Add all that up and it has great interest.

Good Hunting.

MR

[Lord Thag]

For me, I would be interested in more modern 'what if' scenarios, and anything WW II related. There has been some good discussion here, and I'll chime in with my two cents.

The modern era is under represented, and as Red Storm shows, it makes for a hell of a game. World war 2 may be done to death, but it makes for a very interesting subject tactically, what with all the different, constantly evolving vehicles and equipment, several sides, and fascinating battles. It may have been done to death, but it hasn't been done to death WELL, in my opinion. Combat mission and close combat do a good job with small unit tactics. The command ops series does a good job with operational warfare, but it's a very different beast from flashpoint campaigns. I haven't really liked many of the hex based ww2 games, even the highly rated ones like the Operational Art of War. Steel panthers is fun but too slow for large battles. They tend to be a bit on the dry side for me, and I think, should the developers go the ww2 route, flashpoint campaigns would end up being the defacto standard for operational ww2 games the way Combat Mission has for small unit/tactical ww2 combat. What flashpoint campaigns has in spades is intensity, tempo, and the awesomely frustrating order system, which makes for a nail biting experience.

My other wish would be for current day stuff. Lots of interesting what if scenarios out there to model (which I hope to gods remain what if) with China, Israel, etc. I imagine the latter would be easier to do and would make for excellent expansions.

Ultimately, however, I've been impressed enough with Red Storm to buy whatever comes out next regardless of theater. I know quality when I see it, and FC sits on the shelf next to combat mission, close combat, harpoon, and all the other games that have outlasted their time.

[ComradeP]

One of the reasons 1980's Cold War turned hot wargames are less appealing to me, might be similar to why some of you might not like Battle of the Bulge games. The game, or the outcome, can feel a bit artificial in the case of the battle of the Bulge. It's still not entirely clear to me why the battle is so popular, considering that within reason the outcome wasn't really in doubt, only the time required to reach the outcome.

One thing that feels artificial to me about a 1980's NATO vs. Warsaw Pact wargame is that it deliberately picks the timeframe when NATO finally started to catch up with the Warsaw Pact in terms of the capabilities of its forces. As Mad Russian mentioned elsewhere, this is the timeframe where NATO started using its new force multipliers and to increase the quality of its equipment (gaining leads in electronics and technology that the Soviets couldn't match in the end) to even out the conventional quantity advantage enjoyed by the Warsaw Pact. Pick any moment in the 1950's to 1970's (when senior officers of various Western European armies published books titled "Europe defenseless?" and variations thereof with good reason), and a conventional conflict between NATO and the Warsaw Pact could quite probably have turned out really ugly for NATO.

Sure, it makes for an interesting wargame to see if the force multipliers would work, but it feels somewhat artificial that the timeframe where NATO starts to have more of a chance is picked. I do look forward to eventually playing this game and learning a bit more about how such a conflict would've played out, as I do think it will be enjoyable from a purely operational perspective. It's the time period where modern warfare shows that it has grown up.

[Mad Russian]

One thing we would like to do is possibly do the scenario set in different time frames. Do nothing to them but replace the current equipment structures and see how the different time periods would play out.

For example, A Time To Dance in 1960, 1965, 1975, 1982, 1985, etc. and the same for the rest of the scenarios.

The list of things this engine could do is limited only by our time and the communities willingness to support it.

Good Hunting.

MR

[tide1530]

I've been a big fan of John Tiller games for years. I also liked the original Flashpoint. This game is truly great and will be buying addons when they come out.

[TheWombat_matrixforum]

One benefit of doing hypotheticals is that it reduces the chance of grognards with stacks of historical documents nit-picking your every decision-e.g., the WitE thread.[;)]

[Mad Russian]

That's not hard to deal with.

I do a lot of research and try to be as accurate as possible., but at the end of the day, I make scenarios I like. When I get them where I think they play as well as I can make them, and if I think they play well enough, I share them with you.

If someone doesn't agree with my presentation of the action or my research they can freely use the editor to make their own interpretation of how they think it should be.

Good Hunting.

MR

[budd]

ORIGINAL: british exil

A big What If scenario, WWII ending and the Soviets are now the bad boys. Patton and Monty decide to stop the Red Army from rolling up all of Westrn Europe. WWII takes a new turn. Will the Road to Moscow suceed or will Amsterdam become a new St Petersburg?

Based on the Books, Fox on the Rhine and Fox at the Front. by Douglas Niles and Michael Dobson.

By doing this a WWII and WWIII will be one. And an end to all problems in the forum?

Mat

I'm with this guy. Didn't even cross my mind but this would be at the top of my list.
a what if with WW2 material, o yea.

[Combatengineerjrgmail]

ORIGINAL: ComradeP

One of the reasons 1980's Cold War turned hot wargames are less appealing to me, might be similar to why some of you might not like Battle of the Bulge games. The game, or the outcome, can feel a bit artificial in the case of the battle of the Bulge. It's still not entirely clear to me why the battle is so popular, considering that within reason the outcome wasn't really in doubt, only the time required to reach the outcome.

One thing that feels artificial to me about a 1980's NATO vs. Warsaw Pact wargame is that it deliberately picks the timeframe when NATO finally started to catch up with the Warsaw Pact in terms of the capabilities of its forces. As Mad Russian mentioned elsewhere, this is the timeframe where NATO started using its new force multipliers and to increase the quality of its equipment (gaining leads in electronics and technology that the Soviets couldn't match in the end) to even out the conventional quantity advantage enjoyed by the Warsaw Pact. Pick any moment in the 1950's to 1970's (when senior officers of various Western European armies published books titled "Europe defenseless?" and variations thereof with good reason), and a conventional conflict between NATO and the Warsaw Pact could quite probably have turned out really ugly for NATO.

Sure, it makes for an interesting wargame to see if the force multipliers would work, but it feels somewhat artificial that the timeframe where NATO starts to have more of a chance is picked. I do look forward to eventually playing this game and learning a bit more about how such a conflict would've played out, as I do think it will be enjoyable from a purely operational perspective. It's the time period where modern warfare shows that it has grown up.

Why would one NOT pick the most interesting period, when looking at the balance of forces, when deciding to pick a period to wargame?????

[Rocko911]

Again I think a Korean War version would make both the WW2 and Modern War guys happy as it represented that phase of going from a WW2 Army to a Modern Army in both weapons, infantry and tactics. Also it's base would limit the amount of Warsaw influence due to the fact the Chinese and Soviet Union were both pushing for influence in that area. Just my 2 cents.
Here is a list from Wikpedia
Armor[edit]

United Nations Command[edit]

USA[edit]
Medium Tank M4A3 "Sherman"
Medium Tank M4A3E8 "Sherman"
Light Tank M24 "Chaffee"
Heavy Tank M26 Pershing
M46 Patton
M36 tank destroyer

Commonwealth[edit]
Tank, Cruiser, Cromwell (A27M) (Royal Tank Regiment, 8th King's Royal Irish Hussars)
Tank, Cruiser, Centurion Mk.3 (5th Royal Tank Regiment, 5th Royal Inniskilling Dragoon Guards, 8th King's Royal Irish Hussars)
Tank, Infantry, Churchill (A22) (C Squadron 7th Royal Tank Regiment, 8th King's Royal Irish Hussars)
Medium Tank M4A3 "Sherman" (Lord Strathcona's Horse (Royal Canadians) (2nd Armoured Regiment))
Medium Tank M4A3E8 "Sherman" (Lord Strathcona's Horse (Royal Canadians) (2nd Armoured Regiment))
Tank, Cruiser, Comet (A34)
M10 Achilles
Sherman Firefly

Communist states[edit]
T-34/85
M4A2E8 Sherman "Emcha", 76 mm with HVSS (from the Soviets through Lend-Lease Act during World War II)
M5A1 Stuart (PVA)
IS-2 (PVA)

Light Vehicles[edit]

United Nations Command[edit]
105 mm Howitzer Motor Carriage M7B1/B2 Priest
105 mm Howitzer Motor Carriage M37
155 mm Gun Motor Carriage M40
203 mm Howitzer Motor Carriage M43
155 mm Howitzer Motor Carriage M41 (Gorilla)
M19 Gun Motor Carriage
M8 Greyhound Armoured Car
M29C Weasel Cargo Carrier
Armored Utility Vehicle M39
M20 Armored Utility Car
Willys Overland Jeep MB
Carrier, Personnel, Half-track M3A2
Multiple Gun Motor Carriage M16
Universal Carrier
AEC Armoured Car
Daimler Armoured Car

Communist states[edit]
BA-64 light armoured car
SU-76 self-propelled gun
GAZ-67 jeep