Combat in Flashpoint Campaign -- Video

[cbelva]

Just posted a new video showing off combat in Flashpoint Campaign. This is not related to the DAR that Steve is doing. This is from a game played earlier this week. The human player is the West Germans and the AI player is the Soviets. The Soviets are attacking and has pushed the West Germans back. This is well into the battle and the Soviets had pushed the WGs out of Rinteln. They had earlier tried to take the 140 Obj NW of the town but were thrown back. They are now driving to take the objective and hold it with 2 tank Battalions. BTW, this is being played with the fog of war off so you can see the AI's actions

The turn can be watched here: http://youtu.be/lw3BKjsVOps

[Richard III]

I just watched this fine video AAR again and thought it worthwhile to bring it back to the top especially since I like to play NATO.

The thing is, in this scenario, or any others, I can`t seem to replicate those results NATO gets get once the shooting starts. In defensive positions in woods hexes, VS the attacking AI ( and presumably more exposed T-80`s) I am trading NATO MBT`s at 1:1 and sometimes 1:2 VS those advance 10 unit T-80 companies. If the AI stacks 2-3 companies deep with them in advance they are Death Stars. NATO Inf. and AT units in city hexes don`t do much better, which they should IMHO.

Now, I probably suck at the game, but somehow the MBT VS MBT combat die rolls _seem_ to be tilted heavily toward numbers, and not morale, terrain location factors.

Now none of this is criticism, I love the Game and I might be totally off base here but I wonder if along the development path since this vid the combat algorithms, or scenario designs, have changed.

ORIGINAL: cbelva

Just posted a new video showing off combat in Flashpoint Campaign. This is not related to the DAR that Steve is doing. This is from a game played earlier this week. The human player is the West Germans and the AI player is the Soviets. The Soviets are attacking and has pushed the West Germans back. This is well into the battle and the Soviets had pushed the WGs out of Rinteln. They had earlier tried to take the 140 Obj NW of the town but were thrown back. They are now driving to take the objective and hold it with 2 tank Battalions. BTW, this is being played with the fog of war off so you can see the AI's actions

The turn can be watched here: http://youtu.be/lw3BKjsVOps

[CapnDarwin]

Richard, seeing that the vid is from July or a bit earlier, I know a number of changes were made in the combat model to fix errors found during testing. Things now may be harder, but they are more realistic in our opinion.

[Mad Russian]

Did we mention HARDER?!!? [:D]

Good Hunting.

MR

[cbelva]

ORIGINAL: Richard III

I just watched this fine video AAR again and thought it worthwhile to bring it back to the top especially since I like to play NATO.

The thing is, in this scenario, or any others, I can`t seem to replicate those results NATO gets get once the shooting starts. In defensive positions in woods hexes, VS the attacking AI ( and presumably more exposed T-80`s) I am trading NATO MBT`s at 1:1 and sometimes 1:2 VS those advance 10 unit T-80 companies. If the AI stacks 2-3 companies deep with them in advance they are Death Stars. NATO Inf. and AT units in city hexes don`t do much better, which they should IMHO.

Now, I probably suck at the game, but somehow the MBT VS MBT combat die rolls _seem_ to be tilted heavily toward numbers, and not morale, terrain location factors.

Now none of this is criticism, I love the Game and I might be totally off base here but I wonder if along the development path since this vid the combat algorithms, or scenario designs, have changed.

Thank you for posting this. I see the exact opposite many times and have often wondered if combat is too slanted in NATOs favor. This tells me that it is more balanced than I thought. NATO does have an edge in technology over the Soviets. The Soviet 's tactics in overcoming this advantage is in shear numbers. I have been playing FPCRS for 15 months and have learned a lot about this game and tactics. As you play the game you will learn how to take advantage of your sides strengths. Even with NATOs technological advance, if they let the Soviets in close NATO will be in trouble.

[Richard III]

Thanks ! Good to know that it`s me Guys. Will keep fighting and possibly tinker with the Red TOE in the scenario editor.

ORIGINAL: cbelva

ORIGINAL: Richard III

I just watched this fine video AAR again and thought it worthwhile to bring it back to the top especially since I like to play NATO.

The thing is, in this scenario, or any others, I can`t seem to replicate those results NATO gets get once the shooting starts. In defensive positions in woods hexes, VS the attacking AI ( and presumably more exposed T-80`s) I am trading NATO MBT`s at 1:1 and sometimes 1:2 VS those advance 10 unit T-80 companies. If the AI stacks 2-3 companies deep with them in advance they are Death Stars. NATO Inf. and AT units in city hexes don`t do much better, which they should IMHO.

Now, I probably suck at the game, but somehow the MBT VS MBT combat die rolls _seem_ to be tilted heavily toward numbers, and not morale, terrain location factors.

Now none of this is criticism, I love the Game and I might be totally off base here but I wonder if along the development path since this vid the combat algorithms, or scenario designs, have changed.

Thank you for posting this. I see the exact opposite many times and have often wondered if combat is too slanted in NATOs favor. This tells me that it is more balanced than I thought. NATO does have an edge in technology over the Soviets. The Soviet 's tactics in overcoming this advantage is in shear numbers. I have been playing FPCRS for 15 months and have learned a lot about this game and tactics. As you play the game you will learn how to take advantage of your sides strengths. Even with NATOs technological advance, if they let the Soviets in close NATO will be in trouble.