First impressions here please

[Erik Rutins]

Jarhead,

ORIGINAL: Jarhead0331
Understood, but really...I think he started it with the "grow up" comment...I know it looks like he is a vet here and I'm new, but I don't take kindly to someone telling me not to express my opinion...besides...my post complaining about the lack of infantry was more of a joke...I didn't mean for it to offend anybody...

No hard feelings on anyone's part I hope, the reason you got the talking to was because of the language. Everyone just keep it clean and calm please. Regarding infantry - yes, we hear you! [;)]

Regards,

- Erik

[Siljanus]

In regards to future additions to the game, is it possible to have a list of kills made by each unit? You can probably decipher a bit of it in the post-battle diary but it would be interesting to see by a quick glance which platoon was the baddest of the bunch after the battle is finished.

Thanks!

[Kelm]

A last post, with this. Ok i have already done my opinion about the 'missing'dismounted infantry in the game, i will not restart another post with that, but it's true that when i bought the game, i have not thought that there would be this problem, and i think it was also a strange choice to focus only with mechanized and armored units in combat. But, despite this, the game is very pleasant to play, and after finishing the three first scenarios, i like the the diversity of the situations which they propose.

And just one last opinion, the only little other missing things, but it's maybe more a strutural problem, there is no real link between each scenarios. I have only played the three first scenarios, but after the first one, even if you have won with NATO your first encounter and loose only a few units, the second is considered that the britih armor was defeated in the first, and you must follow only the link that the designer have choosed for the game.
A great addition will be the fact to have a core unit like in steel panthers, or maybe more closest with a megacampaign and have a campaign with scenarios with multiple junctions.

I know that i'am new here, and my intentions are not to criticize free, but just to give my opinion.

[Marc von Martial]

ORIGINAL: TheHellPatrol

Just got a decisive victory as WP in Scenario 1 and i don't think the two sides are unbalanced, they just play differently. NATO has better equipment and on defense, and having stealth, they are quite formidable. With the WP they have more units which call for more "movement", i crushed the defending NATO forces with a classic pincer movement. One thing some of you might have overlooked, "the WP have no chance", is the bridging/amphibious movement capabilities your units have. As per the manual, engineers are not represented "per se", but their abilities are there and accounted for.
Played the right way either force can be deadly...damn good game[8D]

It shows you have read your doctrine book very well.

NATO rocks when on defense and using it´s stealht tactics well.

WP has the equipment for the so called "bold strike" tactic. In fact most of the WP euipment of this era is built just for this tactics. Rush in, break the lines, kill rear assets (command, arty and logistic) and let the 2nd and 3rd wave wave doing the mopping up. Think Blitzkrieg tactics. In the 1970s and 1980s the WP moved over to a similiar tactic and doctrine (and adjusted it equipment accordingly), allready "developed" in 1937. However, Stalin choosed to get rid of the officers that developed this plans in his cleansing days, but that´s a different story ...........

Be keen, don´t think about possible losses and strike hard. That´s how you must play WP forces. Most probably that´s how WP Generals would have played too.

[CoffeeMug]

Heya guys,

yesterday I bought the game and revved up my tanks for two nice tutorial 1, me as NATO, of course. [;)]

I just had had one hour, so if I did not find all the switches and complain further down, please dont shoot me.

First impression is nice! Well done, gentlemen!
The interface gives a nice feeling, though I would like a more accessible hardware inspector. Fog of war comes along nicely. You hear some thread noises and then they come.
Reactions delay is cruel as always [8D] (I have to anticipate enemy reaction more).

Now WP tactics [:D]

ORIGINAL: Marc Schwanebeck

WP has the equipment for the so called "bold strike" tactic. In fact most of the WP euipment of this era is built just for this tactics. Rush in, break the lines, kill rear assets (command, arty and logistic) and let the 2nd and 3rd wave wave doing the mopping up. Think Blitzkrieg tactics.

Marc, you are perfectly spot on! What the Tutorial 1 lacks, with purpose I assume, is the tremendous superiority the WP forces had in artillery. I cannot remember the ratio precisely, but AFAIK it was higher than 1:5. So, a NATO victory is very probable when defending. In every training I took part in, the evasion of RED artillery fire was very important!

In the larger scenarios, if you are the WP player, PLAN and USE artillery fire missions to DESTROY, HARASS and BLIND the blue forces in their dug-in defending positions.

Cheers,

CoffeeMug

[Jarhead0331]

ORIGINAL: Kelm

A last post, with this. Ok i have already done my opinion about the 'missing'dismounted infantry in the game, i will not restart another post with that, but it's true that when i bought the game, i have not thought that there would be this problem, and i think it was also a strange choice to focus only with mechanized and armored units in combat. But, despite this, the game is very pleasant to play, and after finishing the three first scenarios, i like the the diversity of the situations which they propose.

And just one last opinion, the only little other missing things, but it's maybe more a strutural problem, there is no real link between each scenarios. I have only played the three first scenarios, but after the first one, even if you have won with NATO your first encounter and loose only a few units, the second is considered that the britih armor was defeated in the first, and you must follow only the link that the designer have choosed for the game.
A great addition will be the fact to have a core unit like in steel panthers, or maybe more closest with a megacampaign and have a campaign with scenarios with multiple junctions.

I know that i'am new here, and my intentions are not to criticize free, but just to give my opinion.

Nobody here will be surprised when I say I know exactly what you mean...As far as linking the scenarios, maybe someday they can add a feature somewhat like the campaign feature in Tiller's Tour of Duty...You are assigned a unit and the men gain experience and stick with you across a series of loosely linked scenarios...Its really not a campaign, just "very loosely" linked scenarios...but the key feature is that the units stay with you and grow in terms of experience...this single feature makes the player grow attached to his units and adds a lot to immersion...

[Tbird3]

Okay folks, my 2 cents worth on first impressions. I have played about 6 games now, both WP and NATO. All of the games have been against the AI. This is a truly elegant game system! I absolutely love the "feel" of the game. It is one of the few games that gives a pretty good sense of the "fog of war" at this level. I have been able to conduct several delays in a manner that closely mirrors my experience from actual operations. The reason I mention this is that most grand tactical games are way too sterile or bland to realistically portray the difficulty and risk involved in trying to delay, maintain contact, and NOT TO BECOME DECISIVELY ENGAGED. This game models these challenges very well! Great Job Rob and Matrix. The information flow is pretty close to what one actually experiences in a brigade or battalion tactical operations center (TOC). I am generally very impressed.

The mechanics of the manipulating information and units have been very easy and initutiative so far in my playing of the game. Lots of flexibility and very stable. The presentation of the game, ie. maps, units, sounds, etc. is clear and simple. That being said, I am the type of person that likes clarity over bells and whistles.

The game system seems to have true depth. There appears to have been a tremendous amount of both research and testing on the system. Upon review of Rob Crandalls' many posting on specifics of his programing I am very impressed. Most of all the "action" that happens during the game makes sense to me. The effects of losses on morale, the fog of war reference both friendly and enemy forces, all ring true. Overall the game seems to have a nice balance between micromanagement vs no control over the games parameters and actual game play.

On the negative side, my initial reactions are as follows: The AI appears to be relatively weak. This shouldn't come as any surprise to veteran computer wargamers. I have handily beat the AI in both offense, defense, and as both WP and NATO. However, the AI should provide enough challenge to get a player trained to go after live opponents. I truly believe this where the game will excel! The ability to either PBEM or play through the internet will make this a fun and challenging game to play.

The lack of separate dismounted infantry units is a negative. This has been addressed in other threads. All I can say here is that Rob and Matrix are aware of this issue and hope to address it.

The other negative that I have is the lack of engineer units with their unique capabilities on map. Rob has built into the "system" this support but I believe this is a weakness. The holy trinity in defensive operations are direct fire, indirect fire, and obstacles. The ability to synchronize these three features are the direct responsibility of both the battalion commander and the brigade commander. The challenge that the commander has reference this in the defense is that there is never enough engineers! The commander must weigh his priorities and work accordingly. I think the game tends to gloss over this challenge.

In the offense, mobility operations are crucial to the success of mission accomplishment. For example, breaching operations are ususally one of the major tasks to accomplish in order to seize the objective. The current game system does not take into account the engineer assest required to do this. SOSR (Suppress the far side, Obscure the obstacle, Secure the far side of the obstacle, and Reduce the obstacle) operations are key tenants that a battalion and brigade commander must plan and execute in the offense. Additionally, bridging and fording operations are major challenges for the battalion and brigade commander. Once again precious and usually scarce engineer units are the key to success. I hope that engineers will be further developed and incorporated in the future game system.

Okay, enough of the negatives. This is great game so far. I think I will be spending a lot of my future free time playing this game. Additionally, the very reasonable pricing of the game shouldn't frighten anyone from giving it a spin. I highly recommend it so far.

Lastly, my experience reference support of this game has been great. All of my questions and issues have been rapidily responded to on the forums. This has not been a paid political announcement! This is a great game system that I think with some tweaks could be an all time great.

Regards and see you on the battlefield!

Tbird3

[hank]

"I've been looking for this info in the threads but can't find it; and I don't want to get almost all the way through buying it before I realize I won't be able to download it all on my already crowded HD.

How large is the downloaded file?

and does it really require 400 meg of Hard Drive space as the FPG website indicates?

thanks " by Hank

"400 megs is very small compared to most games these days." by wodin

Crap.

OK ... my point did not sink in.

I would like to know what the downloaded file size is ... SO I CAN BUY IT!! ??

AND .... I wasn't complaining at all about the HD space requirements. 400 megs is fine, I just need to know if the final product actually requires the estimated 400 megs of hard drive space posted on the web site.

I may have to move other MATRIX games to another computer before I buy this one.

[CoffeeMug]

ORIGINAL: hank


I would like to know what the downloaded file size is ... SO I CAN BUY IT!! ??

I may have to move other MATRIX games to another computer before I buy this one.

To get to the point [;)], the file size of the download is 272 MB.

Cheers,

CM

[BravoZulu]

The store shows dowload sizes for the digital downloads. From the FPG purchase page:

File/Download Stats: v1.00 272 MB = 10h 29m @ 56k / 55m on 640kbps DSL, Satellite or Cable / 23m on 1.5mbps DSL or Cable

272MB looks like the tally.

[hank]

Thanks!!

I'm now off to delete stuff and get the gaming puter cleaned and ready.

hank

[JudgeDredd]

ORIGINAL: hank
AND .... I wasn't complaining at all about the HD space requirements. 400 megs is fine, I just need to know if the final product actually requires the estimated 400 megs of hard drive space posted on the web site.

The game is s few MB shy of 400 on my computer.

[Nils]

FPG is my first Matrixgame ever (and this is my first post in this forum, too...).

Being a big fan of the old school SimCan MBT games, I was eagerly awaiting the release of FPG. Bought it the very first day and, overall, I am impressed! The graphics are cool, the game play is challenging, and the cold war is one of my favourite wargaming subjects, making FPG a perfect computer game for me. A great new edition of a classic wargame!

Still, I was wondering why some of the features of the original MBT were dropped in the new edititon:
1. The original MBT had engineers that could lay bridges and especially minefields. They are gone now as individual units and I can't see how those are designed into other units (like dismounted infantry).
2. The order menu was simplified. Why did orders like advance, fall back and such get dropped? I always felt that they added a lot of tactical nuances to the game. Or are these choices modeled via stealth???
3. It seems the logic of formation orders has changed. I haven't played FPG enough yet to really make a comparison, but judging from the documentation, group orders in FPG helps units arriving in same location at the same time, without any regard whatsoever to tactical disposition of the individual units. Moreover, after giving a group order, you are not able to modify the waypoints of the individual units of the groups. I think that makes the coordination of large forces a lot more complicated.

Lastly, is there a way to print out the scenario maps? Pre-planning your battle is a big part of FPG and a hardcopy might help in this task.

Cheers,
Nils

[Oleg Mastruko]

1. The original MBT had engineers that could lay bridges and especially minefields. They are gone now as individual units and I can't see how those are designed into other units (like dismounted infantry).

They're in the game but abstracted. Engineers will make a bridge whenever you order your units to cross a river. As for the minefields, you can lay ad-hoc minefields with your artillery (if you play as NATO [;)]), and there are some scenarios where you can place minefields at the start of the scenario just like you'd place any of your units.

3. It seems the logic of formation orders has changed. I haven't played FPG enough yet to really make a comparison, but judging from the documentation, group orders n FPG helps units arriving in same location at the same time, without any regard whatsoever to tactical disposition of the individual units. Moreover, after giving a group order, you are not able to modify the waypoints of the individual units of the groups. I think that makes the coordination of large forces a lot more complicated.

But you can modify waypoints and arrival times for individual units (and individual waypoints). Without it coordinated attacks would not be possible.

O.

[JudgeDredd]

The short answer is (and this isn't the official line...I'm answering as a programmer) most likely that the project outgrew itself in other departments.

This could be complexity of code, graphical demands, interface issues etc, etc.

These kind of prolems always show up for developers of projects...and they are a royal pain in the ass for the developer as well as the recipient of the software.

No-one, apart from Rob, really knows what goes on under the hood and, as such, we have no idea how long it took.

I know I've started many a project only to see it grow in features all the time...if it's commercial software, there has to be a point where you say "That's enough for this version. Now the brick work is laid, it's time to do some rendering".

I'm not sucking anyones butt, here. I just know how the programming world goes. Anyone else in the business will tell you exactly the same thing.

[TheHellPatrol]

Yes, you order your units across, what may appear to be a large body of water/river/stream etc., and they will take "x" amount of time to construct a bridge...the bigger the bridge the longer it takes. I think i works well enough and eliminates some of the minutia of wargaming[:)].

ORIGINAL: JudgeDredd
I'm not sucking anyones butt, here.

Pssst, you got something on your lip...shhhhhh![X(][;)][:D]

[JudgeDredd]

ORIGINAL: TheHellPatrol
Pssst, you got something on your lip...shhhhhh![X(][;)][:D]

Ooops! [:o]

[z1812]

Hi All,

I have just bought FPG.

The digital download ( my first ) went very smoothly without problems.

Installation and backup to CD was effortless.

As first impressions I am mentioning this as others may wonder about it. Perhaps those uncomfortable with the idea of a digital download may be re-assured by the ease with which it is accomplished.

I will add that through reading the forums I am impressed with the quick responses and action taken to remedy any problems. Reading those posts convinced me to buy digitally.

After I try the tutorial I will post my impressions of it.

Regards John

[Col.Bucky]

Being an advid wargamer,I'm very impressed with Flashpoint Germany.I hope new map options or add-on wars such as Iraq can be added in the near future.To the developers.....GREAT JOB!!!!!!!

[Poliorcetes]

+aving played the first scenario (WP Tank rush) I'm a little worried about the AI. Playing the British I was able to crush the tank rush fairly easily. First turn I laid down a 12 square Minelet tripwire to locate where the attack was coming from, and then just let my dug in challengers demolish the 4 WP thrusts.
So I figured that's how the scenario was supposed to go.
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. I haven't finished turn 3 yet but this scenario is basically over as there are only a few NATO tank units left. This could have been a brutal town assault, with both a river crossing and wide plains for me to cross. I hope the AI doesn't just charge at the nearest victory point location in every scenario.

Anyone found a way to change SOP for groups of units rather than each individual one at a time?

Poliorcetes