Matrix Games Forums

There are only two big not so good moments in the game for me:

The first one is the ability for tank units destroy everything in any type of terrain and their good protection in city and forest. You no need infantry to assault in the game. Just use some tank units and you have more success. I propose to get more ability for infantry to destroy tanks and other vehicles in close terrain. For example, in the city or in the forest covering effect for vehicles may be halved versus infantry fire. Also the soldiers in close terrain may have ability to decrease distance for using AT weapons. In this case you may have the big problems for tanks and you need some own infantry to fight.

And the second moment. Some times units dies very quick (even 1 minute for platoon and 3-4 for company). I will be happy if they can covering quicker under heavy fire

Hey Alex, thanks for the post. Infantry combat is something I have stayed on top of Rob and Capn D since I joined the team. The roots of this game (Flashpoint German) was strictly a vehicle on vehicle game. FPG really didn't take into consideration infantry combat. That make FPG a simpler game. Because its ancestry, Flashpoint Campaigns reflects that bias towards armor. From my experience with other games of this type and scale, I believe that this scale is the hardest to code infantry combat. There are just too many variable at play to get a unit to "act and fight" like an infantry unit. In fact, I have not seen a game get it right yet. Knowing this bias, I really worked hard with the team and we have made lots of changes to try and get infantry to act like infantry. It is not that easy, but we have come a long way in the game. Infantry in an urban or wooded hex can usually hold it own against a purely armored until its morale and readiness starts to drop. Then it looses its edge. I have seem good ordered infantry plts throw several tank companies back while defending in an urban hex. However, once their morale/readiness falls, they either fall back or gets eliminated. If they start out with bad morale/readiness then they don't seem to do as well and break/get eliminated even quicker.
 
Your post gave me some things to think about. We are always looking to improve this engine. We feel we have a good product, but it does have it warts and rough places. And yes, I agree that infantry combat is one area that needs improvement.

Agree. The infantry in the game still needs love. We are buying it for them in large amounts during every meeting.

Good Hunting.

MR

+1

Separating dismounts and carriers that you can give different orders/postures to would help; they don't always need to be in the same hex. Dismounts should also be able to dig-in and entrench as they continue to Hold a position, providing additional cover and concealment benefits as well as some pre-stocking of additional ammunition. Conversely, dismounts moving are much more vulnerable to fire until they get to a position to Screen/Hold. Good stuff to think about!

I think we all would like to be able to separate dismounts form carriers. Rob tried to do that in the beginning, but he was not able to get the AI to work with that feature. I still don't think we are there yet. One thing to remember, the hexes are 500 meters across. I don't think that the infantry would necessarily dismount and move more than that distance from their carrier since they provide a lot of fire power for them. The only time I really want to dismount my infantry from my carriers is to attack thru a heavy forest or cross a stream that the carriers can't cross. I have seen missions like that. Right now there is no good way to similar those type missions.
 
Until Rob can work out the AI problem, I don't think we will be seeing dismounts and carriers as separate units. However, if we go to WWII or to a smaller scale (250 hexes) we may have to push hard to get there.

ORIGINAL: cbelva
I don't think we will be seeing dismounts and carriers as separate units. However, if we go to WWII or to a smaller scale (250 hexes) we may have to push hard to get there.

I can live with that (although I will argue that dismounted operations more than 500m away from the carriers was in fact something we trained to do back in the 1980s), but as you consider the new unit SOP features for v2.1 then different risk postures for the carriers could be considered. They can either be up front and a risky part of the dismount position(s), or further back in less-risky hull-down covered and concealed overwatch positions, or completely out of LOS/LOF in 'risk-free' hidden positions. And for dismounts, I meant to add something about how you could designate units in Hold to further dig-in and entrench more deliberately, assuming there is time to do this or a scenario could start dismounts in certain battle positions as dug-in or entrenched. Whatever, you should be able to set these postures separately for carriers and dismounts even if they aren't displayed as separate units. There are pros and cons for each posture, which you guys could then factor into the algorithms accordingly. It's doable. Git 'er done.

The dismounting situation is a tangled mess of game functions, AI use, gamey exploits, and doctrine enforcement. As Charles has stated we are looking at this area. In hex, the carriers are assumed to drop troops and to find supporting cover. In 2.1 we can look at some form of SOP integration that sets how supportive the APC will be. A trade between firepower and cover based on the terrain.

A huge part of what gets put in or left out of the game is determined by not only what the gamer can do but what the AI can do. Every request or feature must pass both parts of the test.

Good Hunting.

MR

ORIGINAL: cbelva...I don't think that the infantry would necessarily dismount and move more than that distance from their carrier since they provide a lot of fire power for them...

Counter reconnaissance. A mech heavy team or mech pure company is tasked with the counter-recce fight. The squads remain in the company defensive position and continue to dig while the Brads go BMP and BRDM hunting several kms out. Trained that way back then.