Red Storm: Under the Hood - Questions and Comments

[CapnDarwin]

I'll look for your questions and comments on the "Under the Hood" segment here. [8D]

[Koesj]

Very interesting, can't wait to see more! How would you describe the overall soft factoring you guys have done up until now? Do 'nations' have certain global traits or is it more down to formation quality?

[CapnDarwin]

Both is the safe answer. The data files have a National tab with a number of factors covering everything from training, risk, and order flexibility to artillery and air strike delays, default name for leader and forces, counter background color, time frame, HQ values for command range, order rate, EW impact and order loss to HQ loss, Hardware quality, Artillery load outs, and Engineering values. To name most of them.

Now in the scenario editor you can adjust morale and training per unit as well as ammo and unit readiness (fatigue).

We have a lot of flexibility built in.

[Koesj]

The amount of moddability sounds awesome! Will we be able to create new nations/factions with their own traits and units? Even if not, FPC sounds like it could become one of those wargame classics [:)]

e: nevermind I just read that all my dreams will come through [;)]

[jack54]

I was not expecting anything like a laser warning 'under the hood'. Very impressive! This leads me to believe that there may be different sighting abilities for various units, optics, thermal versus IR... are there different qualities of the same type? ie Unit A having a more advanced IR than unit B.

with FC:RS being a Grand Tactical wargame I am expecting a certain degree of abstraction but this 'Under the Hood' segment has surprised me already! Thanks for taking the time to post all of this info.

[CapnDarwin]

Jack54,
Yes we rate vision systems. There are short and long range IR, night vision, thermal and eyeball. We also differentiate between iron sights, optical sights, and laser sights. We don't drill down to exact systems capabilities, but there are national ratings for electronic equipment. So a US system will generally be better than its Soviet counterpart. [8D]

[RangerX3X]

Will there be any consideration given to default radiuses? Such as if I click on a HQ unit I have the choice to set a default such as “Show Command Radius” or nothing at all, and if I select artillery enabled units something such as “Show Max Fire Area” or any preferred setting by unit capability type? This could be helpful in making the game play more fluid and reduce total amount of clicks between turn resolutions.

[CapnDarwin]

RangerX3X,

Yes we have those covered and a few more. As for being a persistent effect, once you select one, like command range, any unit you click will show the highlighted hexes of the function in question. It is not like say Harpoon with active range circles of various colors.

[jnpoint]

When my turn is calculated or running or what it is called - can I then intervene or change anything, or do I have to wait until it's done?

[Plodder]

You can't do a thing. That's why it's important to keep your units within the command and control radius and also protecting your HQs, as this will keep your turn time durations down. The shorter the better as you are a lot more flexible.

[CapnDarwin]

Plodder hits this on the money. Having a tight command cycle and proper use and tactics with the various unit types is important.

[cbelva]

Believe me, you can loose control of your command cycle if you don't listen to Plodder's advise. Nothing is more frustrating than watching your opponent get two orders phases to your one!

[baalel]

Do the calculations to determine a hit on a subunit take into account the number of subunits in the defending 'counter' or stack?
I have often noticed that the last subunit in a hex seems to take a disproportionate amount of time and incoming fire to finish off.

An example would be during my last play through of Rhino (NL-BS- ?) scenario, A Soviet Mech Inf company + HQ became caught in crossfire from 3 British Mech Inf units at a range of 1 Hex accross a river, the Sov Mech Inf and BMPs died in 2 command cycles, maybe <60 Minutes elapse, but the final 1 Strength HQ subunit lasted a further 2 hours under constant fire in the same Hex, killing 2 Brit Inf subunits, before withdrawing 'unscathed'. I have seen the same effect with single T-80s and single Sov Recon units survive well past their sell by date in similar fasion in other sessions..

[CapnDarwin]

baalel, yes we do take into account the number of units in the defending hex and also the terrain type. As units (especially infantry) are reduced in number they are hard to find and kill. In combat nobody is "unscathed". Unit readiness and ammo will be dropping all the time until the unit can rest and refit. There are also other National factors that make some units hang longer in a heavy fight versus pulling back and that can lead to long and bitter battles.

[Mad Russian]

Units are made up of a broad spectrum of experienced troops. There are those that are veterans right alongside those that are green troops. Green troops tend to become casualties much quicker than veterans. As the fighting progresses the veterans tend to be the ones left doing the fighting.

What this means is as you lose men in the unit it actually gets more experienced. When you read actions of units that have been in combat think of all the times you read where a very few held out. It's partly because of this experience factor. Another issue is that there are far less targets in the hex. Which is somewhat offset by there being less targets for the attacker to fire at.

The effect on the game is that you have units that hold when they get reduced. This is intended, we think, with good historical backing.

Good Hunting.

MR

[wodin]

I love the fact a small inf unit can hold out for awhile.. shifting stubborn defenders is another thing that makes the game.

[baalel]

Thank you for the reply, I agree for hard to hit scattered targets like infantry this makes a lot of sense. I was not too sure how true this would be for vehicles and helos as a gunner would fire at something they can see rather than throwing random sabot rounds into an area on the off chance, but the 'experience' and better cover explanation go a long way to ease my qualms.

[Mad Russian]

ORIGINAL: baalel

Thank you for the reply, I agree for hard to hit scattered targets like infantry this makes a lot of sense. I was not too sure how true this would be for vehicles and helos as a gunner would fire at something they can see rather than throwing random sabot rounds into an area on the off chance, but the 'experience' and better cover explanation go a long way to ease my qualms.

This is true. Think of the defender though. He's one of the most experienced men/crews on the battlefield to have survived this long. He's smart and intends on living to old age. They know how to use cover and concealment to their utmost advantage.

Good Hunting.

MR

[jenrick]

How is the ammunition amount figured for units? Looking at an M1A1 for instance, main gun ammo appears to be obviously 1:1 in terms of in game versus actual rounds carried. For the .50 machine gun it appears to be an abstraction for "bursts" of .50 fire, which makes perfect sense as well. My question is in regard to aircraft/rotorcraft weapons, rockets in particular. I noticed that my rocket armed Apaches in the scenario 3rd Herd, were able to stay in the fight for a LONG time before running out of ammo (in excess of an hour of fairly steady engagements with ground forces, so close to 30 attack resolutions). From everything I know of aerial rocketry employment they probably would be out in just a couple of attack resolutions involving rockets.

The US has access to the 70mm Hydra series of rockets. The Apache and Cobra both carry the 70mm Hydra and the info line for it has listed ammo 19. Now yes there is the M261 19 round rocket launcher. Is this designed to reflect a 1:1 rocket to ammo correlation? The reason I ask is that unguided rockets are not normally used as single fire weapons in a rocket engagement (the very large WP rockets are exception). They are area weapons, and are normally fired in bursts just like a cannon or machine gun.

To quote from FM 3-04.140 (Helicopter Gunnery): "1-7. Target neutralization is the standard for rocket engagements. Because rockets are most effective when fired in mass, the rocket training strategy is to train crews for neutralization engagements."

On average 4-6 rockets will probably be fired per engagement at a single vehicle type target as specified by the gunnery training tables in the FM. A large bunched up target (say a pack of trucks in march formation, or an artillery battery), would probably get the entire pod at once. This would give a US chopper 6-9 engagements per pair of rocket pods at most.

This same issue extends to the other NATO nations, and the WP as well. The smaller 80mm and 57mm WP rockets are all listed with very high ammo numbers, with one version of the Hind carrying 40 ammo of 80 mm rockets twice. Yes it's carrying 80 80mm rockets, but in reality it has maybe 15-20 point attacks worth of rockets. Not 80.

Now it's possible I'm typing all of this for naught, as I have no clue how ammo is used in an attack resolution (I'm going to assume 1 per attack resolution). If it is used in this manner, the current ammo counts for rockets and having them in single pods versus pairs is providing much more firepower then it should. Grouping them into pairs of pods and having the ammo be in bursts/volleys of rockets would provide a much greater fidelity to the simulation of aerial rocketry.

Now as noted above the WP heavy rockets, the 122mm S-13 is fired as a single rocket a lot of the time, but at fixed targets like buildings, bunkers, and soft area targets not at moving vehicles. Having this listed as 2 seperate 5 ammo weapons makes perfect sense.

-Jenrick

[CapnDarwin]

Jenrick,
Sorry. Missed this post. As you noted, big guns, missiles, bombs, and rockets are one for one tracked. Other weapons are bursts. I would agree we need to address the smaller rockets on air units. I will open a ticket to remind us to work this in the near future.