Thinking of buying but..

[MTTODD]

Hi,

Thinking of getting game but a little bit put off by forum discussion on weak NATA AA & excessive Soviet helicopter forces.

Is there a problem in the game with this ?

Was looking forward to playing game but not if it does not accurately reflect this important part of the game.

Hope someone can reassure me on this

Many thanks.

[Mad Russian]

There is no problem in the game with this. This was reality at the time.

The Soviet helicopter threat, IMO, isn't excessive, but then I made most of the scenarios. If anything, the Soviet helicopter threat is downplayed in the game, because I use far fewer Soviet helicopters, in most of the scenarios, than NATO forces would have seen. That was done for a couple of reasons, not the least of which was for play balance.

The issue is more, NATO air defense vs the helicopter threat. That is being tweaked some more and there should be an adjustment to that soon.



Good Hunting.

MR

[Akmatov]

From reading the forums, I get the impression that the NATO lack of adequate AA is made worse by their existing AA failing to engage when they probably should. I believe that was going to addressed?

[Rosseau]

IMO, it's a minor issue, if that, and you'd be doing yourself a disservice not to pick this one up. Best game out of bunch of good stuff to come out from Matrix lately.

[Elfastball7]

ORIGINAL: rosseau

IMO, it's a minor issue, if that, and you'd be doing yourself a disservice not to pick this one up. Best game out of bunch of good stuff to come out from Matrix lately.

I am in total agreement, the defv team has acknowledged these faults and has stated that they will fix the NATO AA/AD issue.

[Panta_slith]

Akmatov, if you have seen a lot of discussion concerning the helos/AD isue is because it is only of the few aspects of the game that needs a little tweaking in the upcoming patches, otherwise the game runs very, very well and improving... [;)] BTW, not all scenarios have massive presence of helos, anyway.

[TheWombat_matrixforum]

Yes, the game accurately reflects the fact that in general NATO short-range air defenses, against CAS and helo aircraft, was abysmal in this timeframe, and the Pact fielded a LOT of choppers. They're not excessive, though it sure feels bad to have a formation of Hinds swarm over you, but other than the already being addressed bug with with AAA and SAMs sometimes failing to engage, the overall representation is fine.

[kemmo]

ORIGINAL: Akmatov

From reading the forums, I get the impression that the NATO lack of adequate AA is made worse by their existing AA failing to engage when they probably should. I believe that was going to addressed?

Half way thru the last scenario in the school teacher campaign, and my Gepards have taken down 7 helicopters, sadly not before they had shot up about 15 tanks. So AA seems to be working ok,also if you can get rid of the soviet AA, Nato helicopters can be pretty nasty as well.

[TheWombat_matrixforum]

Truth is, attack helicopters were invented for a reason--they work. They're vulnerable, but very good at what they do.

[Hexagon]

The game for me is a must have, part for the period and part for the great engine, of course are things that need be improved and other i dont like a lot (i see soviets excesive effective at range and the NATO ATGM not very effective) but in general is a great buy.

[Mad Russian]

NATO ATGM's may not be all that effective, depending on what they are firing at. There are various levels of E(plosive)R(eactive) A(rmor) on Soviet tanks. Some of them are very well protected against ATGM's of that time period.

Good Hunting.

MR

[pzgndr]

ORIGINAL: TheWombat
Yes, the game accurately reflects the fact that in general NATO short-range air defenses, against CAS and helo aircraft, was abysmal in this timeframe, and the Pact fielded a LOT of choppers. They're not excessive, though it sure feels bad to have a formation of Hinds swarm over you, but other than the already being addressed bug with with AAA and SAMs sometimes failing to engage, the overall representation is fine.

I question two points about the game model. First, NATO air defenses consisted of more than ADA units portrayed at the platoon level; there were Redeye/Stinger teams forward deployed with maneuver units so some inherent ADA capability could be added to company HQs or something. Also, maneuver units themselves could return fire with tank main gun rounds, 25/30mm rounds or .50 cal, so this aspect of short-range air defense could be enhanced. Which brings up the second point, Soviet doctrine would not have swarms of Hinds leading an attack into enemy territory to take on vehicles under cover. I saw this in the "Head On" scenario and was greatly surprised to watch several platoons get wiped out, under cover. Helicopter attacks versus vehicles in the open from standoff range is one thing; point blank assaults against units under cover that have not even been identified by ground recon is something else entirely. Soviet aviation would not have been so audacious as to be borderline suicidal, especially considering the first point above where stationary NATO ground units would probably fry those birds.

Again, overall the game does pretty well. I'm not questioning some devastating helicopter attacks against vehicles moving in the open. But some other things could use a little reconsideration.

[Hexagon]

Well, if ATGM in 15 minutes only kill 1 or 2 T-72B/T-64B1 at 2.000m... and i talk about 3 M150 and 3 M3 in 3 units shooting the same company from 3 angles and lose 1 or 2 M150... i feel that soviets are closer to teorical performance and NATO to a "nerfed" teorical or a real performance, not in all areas but sure in ATGM and hit rate.

Maybe one option is add the option to see more info in attack, not only see kills/damage you can see when a tank receive a hit and doesnt suffer damage (and maybe other thing i think see is not a bad idea is % of hit or % of kill).

[TheWombat_matrixforum]

ORIGINAL: pzgndr

ORIGINAL: TheWombat
Yes, the game accurately reflects the fact that in general NATO short-range air defenses, against CAS and helo aircraft, was abysmal in this timeframe, and the Pact fielded a LOT of choppers. They're not excessive, though it sure feels bad to have a formation of Hinds swarm over you, but other than the already being addressed bug with with AAA and SAMs sometimes failing to engage, the overall representation is fine.

I question two points about the game model. First, NATO air defenses consisted of more than ADA units portrayed at the platoon level; there were Redeye/Stinger teams forward deployed with maneuver units so some inherent ADA capability could be added to company HQs or something. Also, maneuver units themselves could return fire with tank main gun rounds, 25/30mm rounds or .50 cal, so this aspect of short-range air defense could be enhanced. Which brings up the second point, Soviet doctrine would not have swarms of Hinds leading an attack into enemy territory to take on vehicles under cover. I saw this in the "Head On" scenario and was greatly surprised to watch several platoons get wiped out, under cover. Helicopter attacks versus vehicles in the open from standoff range is one thing; point blank assaults against units under cover that have not even been identified by ground recon is something else entirely. Soviet aviation would not have been so audacious as to be borderline suicidal, especially considering the first point above where stationary NATO ground units would probably fry those birds.

Again, overall the game does pretty well. I'm not questioning some devastating helicopter attacks against vehicles moving in the open. But some other things could use a little reconsideration.

Most of your kills of Soviet helos will be from non-AA assets; those are modeled pretty well, though I don't know about MANPADS. They're in the game, but I haven't tracked how effective they are. Whether that needs to be tweaked or not is a legitimate question.

The doctrinal issue in terms of how helos are employed is another thing entirely. I'd agree that overall the game does have a weakness in implementing doctrine when the AI does stuff. Other posters have noted that they don't see textbook Pact attacks, for instance, and it is certainly a bit wonky when helos root around in the forest.

But, the hexes are 500 meters, so what seems really up close is probably not so close, so that might be part of it. Also, the scenario designer has consciously modeled engagements where things are not going as planned for either side, so perhaps that's part of the doctrinal mix. But I'd love to see more attention to this issue, for sure.

In the end though there's nothing, to me, about how the game models helicopters that makes the game unplayable, or even significantly impacts my enjoyment of it. Helos can be useful, but I've rarely had them be decisive. They may act weird sometimes, but so do ground units. It's the nature of a game like this; stuff is gonna happen that is odd.

[TheWombat_matrixforum]

I'm pretty fascinated with the discussion about putative performance measures for things like ATGMs. There aren't too many models to use for mass employment of top line ATGMs in a northern European setting, really. There's tons of technical data, and lots of very diverse and often questionably relevant real-world examples, but nothing that really approximates what is happening in the game. I do like the idea of knowing more about what's happening--chances to hit, results of hits, etc.

[pzgndr]

ORIGINAL: TheWombat
There's tons of technical data, and lots of very diverse and often questionably relevant real-world examples

Here's one more esoteric data point. Our guys once hit a deer with an inert TOW missile at Grafenwoehr, at 2000m, at night. Bambi didn't know what hit him...

[TheWombat_matrixforum]

ORIGINAL: pzgndr

ORIGINAL: TheWombat
There's tons of technical data, and lots of very diverse and often questionably relevant real-world examples

Here's one more esoteric data point. Our guys once hit a deer with an inert TOW missile at Grafenwoehr, at 2000m, at night. Bambi didn't know what hit him...

LOL, that's fairly amusing (not for the deer, I guess, but still). Though I doubt the deer had ERA....

[Mad Russian]

ORIGINAL: pzgndr

ORIGINAL: TheWombat
There's tons of technical data, and lots of very diverse and often questionably relevant real-world examples

Here's one more esoteric data point. Our guys once hit a deer with an inert TOW missile at Grafenwoehr, at 2000m, at night. Bambi didn't know what hit him...

What year was that?

Good Hunting.

MR

[Akmatov]

Hmm, I'm thinking a furry venison doughnut and an irritated jagermeister.

[pzgndr]

That was either 1988 or 1989, can't recall exactly. Even then we still had M113s and didn't get Bradley's until March 1990 in 1AD.