Matrix Games Forums

Hello everyone and happy holidays,

I was checking the forums here so often, that I decided to download the free version again (V. 0812b) and fiddle around with it. I would like to share some observations. I am aware that the commercial version will be vastly different.

I was trying to simulate a Soviet Tank Regiment attacking a German Armoured Battalion.

1.) Command Relationships

It seems that I for some reason have to buy separate HQs, even when I buy Companies in bulk. This seems a little odd. Is this intended?
What are these HQs supposed to represent? Battalion/Regiment/Company Commanders? are we dealing with "generic" unattached Commanders exert control over all units in range?

2.) AI, OOB, and Doctrine

While manually buying Units for the enemy Tank regiment, I wasn't able to form Bn's. Is the AI Able to think in "Formations" (i.e. battalions) and apply doctrine and tactics accordingly? Or is the AI looking at their units as an unrelated bag of vehicles?

3.) Pillboxes

I would assume, that infantry that has been diging-in for long enough, has build Standing Fighting Positions with Overhead Protection. Instead, we can buy seperate manned Pillboxes. What are they supposed to represent? Where in the OOB is personel coming from to man these Pillboxes? I would recommend to remove them from the game.

4.) AI crossing water obstacles

The AI was able to cross water obstacles. I am assuming that this behaviour will not be in the commercial version of the game?

5.) OOB of FRG Panzergrenadierkompanie

During the Army structure IV, (80s) there was an independend Squad directly attached to the Company CO. This Squad seems to be missing from the OOB.

6a.) FS tab

It would be great to be able to drag a target on the map, instead of putting in the measurements in the FS tab beforehand. That way, we wouldn't need to go back to the editor to adjust the target size multiple times, if necessary.

6b.)

It seemed to me, that Rotary Wing Air Support needs to be pre-planned. Will we be able to assign BPs for the helo's in the final product mid-game?

7.) Minefields

We can currently buy either "Scatterable" Minefields, or plain "Minefields". The Scatt. Minefields are Artillery Delivered.

This is a bit misleading since all Artillery Delivered Minefields are scattered, but engineer deployed minefields might also be scattered.

Suggestion:

Giving the defender an actual time account from which he can draw and prepare positions. I.e. buy an engineer platoon, set the scenario with 6 hrs of preparation; then you can subtract the time needed to create an obstacle from that time account. If the Platoon needs 90 minutes to create an abatis, the platoon now has ~ 5:30 hrs left to work. If there's a second platoon, this platoon would still have 6 hrs left.

That has been the mechanic in the Assault boardgame, which has been published in the 80s. I am aware that this is only a mere suggestion and will not make it into the game, which is fine. I would just like to demonstrate how a game successfully implemented engineering preparations a long while back.

Cheers and take care,

A

ORIGINAL: calgar

I was trying to simulate a Soviet Tank Regiment attacking a German Armoured Battalion.

1.) Command Relationships

It seems that I for some reason have to buy separate HQs, even when I buy Companies in bulk. This seems a little odd. Is this intended?
What are these HQs supposed to represent? Battalion/Regiment/Company Commanders? are we dealing with "generic" unattached Commanders exert control over all units in range?

These HQs are company HQs, but can be used to control any unit. The reasons behind this design decision are many, but perhaps most importantly the game needs to support very varied combinations of units. For example, the player may want to have a tank platoon, a mechanized infantry platoon and an AT section, and still wants to have a HQ unit for the command bonus.

ORIGINAL: calgar

2.) AI, OOB, and Doctrine

While manually buying Units for the enemy Tank regiment, I wasn't able to form Bn's. Is the AI Able to think in "Formations" (i.e. battalions) and apply doctrine and tactics accordingly? Or is the AI looking at their units as an unrelated bag of vehicles?

The AI thinks in formations. By a "formation" I mean that group of units with a flag (a company, a platoon, a section). The AI combines the "formations" into larger groups, depending on the formation type ("tank", "foot infantry", "mech infantry", "static AT", "mobile AT" etc.). Individual formations can conduct special missions such as recon or supporting attacks or can guard an objective after it's been occupied. However, the larger AI groups are balanced combinations of whatever the AI happens to have available in the scenario, and those main groups conduct the main attack(s). You can see how this works by setting up a large map with lots of points for the AI, and then ending the game and seeing in the AAR phase how the AI has organized its assets. In the commercial version there will be a 'developer mode' that allows the user to see how the AI has planned its approaches, so the scenario designers have a better idea of what it's doing.

If I want to fight a Soviet tank battalion then I buy 3 tank companies and 3 tank HQs. Perhaps an additional tank HQ to represent the battalion HQ.

Flexibility is the basic nature of this game, so it's not possible to think in paper formations.

ORIGINAL: calgar

3.) Pillboxes

I would assume, that infantry that has been diging-in for long enough, has build Standing Fighting Positions with Overhead Protection. Instead, we can buy seperate manned Pillboxes. What are they supposed to represent? Where in the OOB is personel coming from to man these Pillboxes? I would recommend to remove them from the game.

Many tactical level games have bunkers or such with machine guns. Even Steel Beasts Pro has them, and it's used by military customers.

I'm not sure if you noticed, but the defending side can have its units "dug-in", if the scenario parameter allows it.

ORIGINAL: calgar

4.) AI crossing water obstacles

The AI was able to cross water obstacles. I am assuming that this behaviour will not be in the commercial version of the game?

The commercial version has three types of water: fordable, impassable and frozen. A scenario can use the map defaults, or force all water to be one of the three types. Impassable water did not exist in the freeware version.

ORIGINAL: calgar

5.) OOB of FRG Panzergrenadierkompanie

During the Army structure IV, (80s) there was an independend Squad directly attached to the Company CO. This Squad seems to be missing from the OOB.

What was the purpose of this squad?

ORIGINAL: calgar

6a.) FS tab

It would be great to be able to drag a target on the map, instead of putting in the measurements in the FS tab beforehand. That way, we wouldn't need to go back to the editor to adjust the target size multiple times, if necessary.

I think mouse dragging may not be the best solution, because in the current system the area dimensions are adjusted in 60 meter intervals. Personally I was considering using shift/ctrl + mouse wheel to adjust the area width/height while placing the target. I'm open to ideas.

ORIGINAL: calgar

6b.)

It seemed to me, that Rotary Wing Air Support needs to be pre-planned. Will we be able to assign BPs for the helo's in the final product mid-game?

I think the basics are mostly the same, but HQ units can call helicopters for close air support. An automatic battle position is placed somewhere close to the HQ unit, and the helicopter section moves there and then attacks everything hostile in sight, until called back in the air support menu.

ORIGINAL: calgar

7.) Minefields

We can currently buy either "Scatterable" Minefields, or plain "Minefields". The Scatt. Minefields are Artillery Delivered.

This is a bit misleading since all Artillery Delivered Minefields are scattered, but engineer deployed minefields might also be scattered.

What would be a better name for the artillery delivered mines? I think FASCAM refers to a branch of mines used by the US armed forces, so I wanted to use something more generic instead.

Thank you for answering.

These HQs are company HQs, but can be used to control any unit. The reasons behind this design decision are many, but perhaps most importantly the game needs to support very varied combinations of units. For example, the player may want to have a tank platoon, a mechanized infantry platoon and an AT section, and still wants to have a HQ unit for the command bonus.

I understand why you simplified it this way.

The AI thinks in formations. By a "formation" I mean that group of units with a flag (a company, a platoon, a section). The AI combines the "formations" into larger groups, depending on the formation type ("tank", "foot infantry", "mech infantry", "static AT", "mobile AT" etc.). Individual formations can conduct special missions such as recon or supporting attacks or can guard an objective after it's been occupied. However, the larger AI groups are balanced combinations of whatever the AI happens to have available in the scenario, and those main groups conduct the main attack(s). You can see how this works by setting up a large map with lots of points for the AI, and then ending the game and seeing in the AAR phase how the AI has organized its assets. In the commercial version there will be a 'developer mode' that allows the user to see how the AI has planned its approaches, so the scenario designers have a better idea of what it's doing.

If I want to fight a Soviet tank battalion then I buy 3 tank companies and 3 tank HQs. Perhaps an additional tank HQ to represent the battalion HQ.

Flexibility is the basic nature of this game, so it's not possible to think in paper formations.

Representing the BnCdr would just be cosmetic in this context, right? There is basically only "Grunt"<>Hq relationship, but no HQ<>HQ relationship, i.e. Coy to Bn?

Still, an interesting explanation of the AI. Thanks.

Many tactical level games have bunkers or such with machine guns. Even Steel Beasts Pro has them, and it's used by military customers.

I'm not sure if you noticed, but the defending side can have its units "dug-in", if the scenario parameter allows it.

I noticed that's why the Pillboxes are even more of a, let's say, "stretch". I have never played SB, but I believe your description and would have also criticised it there. That is a fundamental problem with "buying units from lists", like here, seemingly SB, or for example Combat Mission. The player is not at all bound to OOBs. A rarity system (as in CM) can alleviate that a bit, for example by stopping me from buying more than a Tank Destroyer Company as West German. Or at least should they become increasingly more expensive. Personally, I would prefere the player to be tied to a "base" OOB, i.e. a Armoured Battalion, and can from there on buy Cross-attachements that depends in price on their position in their parent's OOB.

You have the percentage values in the game, these fulfill a similar task. I respect that design desicion, although I personally feel that still leaves too much freedom. From my perspective, not every flexibility does necessarily reflect the management constrains of real life commanders.

But I understand where you are coming from and appreciate that.

What was the purpose of this squad?

I can only guess. They reduced the number of IFVs from Structure III to IV by one per platoon. Maybe someone took pitty and "added" one IFV to the Company again. We don't have these Squads around anymore, but I can find someone to ask.

Attached you will find an excerpt from documents with which German Army Officers have been trained during Army Structure IV. You can see that each Company consists of 11 IFVs. 3 per Platoon +1 Company CO + the independent Squad.

What would be a better name for the artillery delivered mines? I think FASCAM refers to a branch of mines used by the US armed forces, so I wanted to use something more generic instead.

Ground delivered and Artillery delivered.

Hope the development goes well.

Cheers,

A

I just fired up the game again. The PzGren Company HQ consists of two IFVs, so that must be the independent Squad. Good work!

Edit: This IFV carries a MANPAD Team. Not sure anymore if this is intended to be the Independent Squad. AFAIK, there were no MANPADS in German PzGren Coys.

Cheers

I don't think the player should be "tied" to anything. If you want "historical" then set up your OOB that way. This should, and will be, a very open-ended game like the initial version, where I could swap out the [;)]cannon on a T72. Well, maybe no xml editing, but OOBs should be flexible for the task.

ORIGINAL: calgar

If I want to fight a Soviet tank battalion then I buy 3 tank companies and 3 tank HQs. Perhaps an additional tank HQ to represent the battalion HQ.

Representing the BnCdr would just be cosmetic in this context, right? There is basically only "Grunt"<>Hq relationship, but no HQ<>HQ relationship, i.e. Coy to Bn?

That's correct, currently the battalion level HQs are not simulated.

You have the percentage values in the game, these fulfill a similar task. I respect that design desicion, although I personally feel that still leaves too much freedom. From my perspective, not every flexibility does necessarily reflect the management constrains of real life commanders.

One person told me that even the category purchase limits are too restrictive for the player. So, it's pretty much a matter of taste.

The new game will have auto-purchaser "availability" values for every formation a faction has. That helps the AI to pick more realistic forces.

What would be a better name for the artillery delivered mines? I think FASCAM refers to a branch of mines used by the US armed forces, so I wanted to use something more generic instead.

Ground delivered and Artillery delivered.

I'll see how well "Artillery mines/minefield" works in the UI.

ORIGINAL: calgar

I just fired up the game again. The PzGren Company HQ consists of two IFVs, so that must be the independent Squad. Good work!

Edit: This IFV carries a MANPAD Team. Not sure anymore if this is intended to be the Independent Squad. AFAIK, there were no MANPADS in German PzGren Coys.

Cheers

There has been some discussion about the company MANPADs. Perhaps our Database Specialist can chime in.

ORIGINAL: calgar
I noticed that's why the Pillboxes are even more of a, let's say, "stretch". I have never played SB, but I believe your description and would have also criticised it there. That is a fundamental problem with "buying units from lists", like here, seemingly SB, or for example Combat Mission. The player is not at all bound to OOBs. A rarity system (as in CM) can alleviate that a bit, for example by stopping me from buying more than a Tank Destroyer Company as West German. Or at least should they become increasingly more expensive. Personally, I would prefere the player to be tied to a "base" OOB, i.e. a Armoured Battalion, and can from there on buy Cross-attachements that depends in price on their position in their parent's OOB.

Pillboxes represent all kinds of small concrete or steel pillboxes and emplacements, often prefabricated, but also reinforced rock-fill wall bunkers and timber-and-earth structures. Almost every major combatant doctrinally had those for semi-permanent or permanent defensive lines (in AB, they are only available when "dug-in + fortified" is selected), used integrally with field fortifications, especially in key or exposed positions.

Their purpose is to provide supplementary fire protection during initial action against separate, advancing enemy elements. With Soviets, for example, such fortified machine-gun emplacements are built on, or in front of, the forward edge of the strongpoint. Flanking emplacements were provided for converging, flanking, and oblique fire to repulse frontal attacks.

As for manning, it is not really an issue, as a heavy weapon/fire support squads/platoon (depending on nation and doctrine) are generally used as a support group to a number of other platoons in the immediate command area/zone in question. In Armored Brigade, such formations are clearly not represented as large independent units, but as separate sections that can be acquired according to a specific mission. For example, British battalion level Drums Platoon could provide three GPMG SF sections with each consisting of two guns. In addition, up to three sniper pairs and an assault pioneer unit of up to one section could be held in the HQ company or in rifle companies or not exist depending on unit manning and the interests of commander. You cannot buy Drums Platoon as formation, but you can take extra MGs or have them manning those pillboxes.

It makes database creation a far more streamlined process (TO&E and OOB changes were very common), but most importantly it is vital for AI: for example, BTR regiments have antitank platoons (directly supporting rifle companies) within the MRBs, a feature not found in the BMP regiments, however flexible AI cannot really know without scripting that a separate AT Plt should follow a certain company. In that specific case, I decided to give BTR squads an AT-7 specialist (a peculiar exception that is also in freeware database, but it seems nobody ever cared about that). A very crude solution, but it actually works as it was intended in real life, except AT-7 teams are not following in separate vehicles.

You have the percentage values in the game, these fulfill a similar task. I respect that design desicion, although I personally feel that still leaves too much freedom. From my perspective, not every flexibility does necessarily reflect the management constrains of real life commanders.

But I understand where you are coming from and appreciate that.

I fully understand your point, we are too well aware that auto-buyer is, for example, not mindful of higher level doctrinal mixes (too much mixing of unit types: you would typically have only one generation of APC/MBT in each line formation; possibly two if modelling a unit boundary, with different equipment, and occasionally additional types of vehicle in limited numbers within support formations (including recon). Or, that while a unit may be rare - it does tend to be common in those few units equipped with it.

However, work and time involved in fixing such idiosyncracies are likely not cost-effective (particularly at this point of development): you have scenarios and manual selection if you want highly accurate OOBs.

I can only guess. They reduced the number of IFVs from Structure III to IV by one per platoon. Maybe someone took pitty and "added" one IFV to the Company again. We don't have these Squads around anymore, but I can find someone to ask.

Attached you will find an excerpt from documents with which German Army Officers have been trained during Army Structure IV. You can see that each Company consists of 11 IFVs. 3 per Platoon +1 Company CO + the independent Squad.

A Marder Company under Heeresstruktur 4 (i.e. the 1980s org) had three platoons, each with 3x Marders. There was no Platoon Commander's mount, so he and his senior NCO would each ride in one of the platoon's rifle section Marders. There were two Marders in the Company HQ – the 2nd Marder in the HQ was the company's 'Reserve Section', which was a 10th rifle section under the company commander's direct command, with a secondary reconnaissance role.

ORIGINAL: calgar


It seemed to me, that Rotary Wing Air Support needs to be pre-planned. Will we be able to assign BPs for the helo's in the final product mid-game?

Yes, it is preplanned, simply because it is how it works in actual life.
Helicopters operate in a fundamentally different way than fixed-wing close air support. Since the advent of anti-tank helicopters in the early to mid-1970s (as opposed to the gunship helicopters of Vietnam era, or similar Soviet Afganistan deviations for COIN purposes) the tactics have been more or less the same.

[*] 1) Helicopter commander receives orders to plan for deployment on order to the designated battle position. This is a zone with a line of sight to the desired engagement area and some sort of protective terrain to hide behind. These battle positions are usually designated at brigade or higher HQs in coordination with supported units (for example, attack helicopter units in the US Army are never OPCON to an echelon below brigade). In nearly all cases, they are allocated before the battle during the mission planning process. Generally, several mission alternatives are provided, with various trigger points.
[*] 2) Helicopter refuel and rearm in a Forward Arming and Refueling Point (FARP). FARP in US doctrine is located approximately 17 to 25 kilometres from the&#8194;forward edge of the battle area (FEBA) or forward line of own troops (FLOT).
[*] 3) Helicopters loiter at a Forward Assembly Area (FAA) while waiting for a mission, usually landed and powered off to save fuel.
[*] 4) When activated for a mission, helicopters pause in a Holding Area (HA) just behind the forward battle area while final coordination and recon are conducted.
[*] 5) On final go-ahead, helicopter unit advances via covered Attack Route (AR) to their BP.
[*] 6) Within the BP, each pilot selects a Firing Position (FP).
[*] 7) Pilots execute target engagement drill:
[*]a. Spotter identifies the target in BR area. This can be a scout helicopter or some observer from the supported units.
[*]b. Target is handed off to an attack helicopter by specifying type and location.
[*]c. Attack helicopter pop-up to clear cover sufficiently to acquire the target.
[*]d. While hovering, attack helicopter identifies the target and engages.
[*]e. Upon resolution of engagement, helo drops back behind cover and proceeds to a new FP to avoid being pinned by enemy fire.
[*]f. Total time of exposure should be <20 seconds for max range SACLOS weapon such as TOW, <10 seconds for unguided ordnance like rockets.

The point is that helicopters do not cruise across the terrain looking for targets and making moving firing passes the way a fixed-wing aircraft would. Helicopters are too valuable and fragile asset to allow manoeuvre commanders to make precipitous and possibly ill-advised on-the-spot redeployment decisions. Either they come in as planned, or they abort completely.

Still, we have introduced this HQ assist command on popular demand (also to allow for a more flexible use of pure gunship helicopters like AH-1G or some Mi-8 variants), and helicopters are now significantly more survivable. If used correctly, they can change the course of battle.

ORIGINAL: Veitikka
There has been some discussion about the company MANPADs. Perhaps our Database Specialist can chime in.

Yes, there was a discussion regarding US company headquarters. At least until J-series organization in mid-to-late 1980s, there were 2 x HQ vehicles (one for the commander, and a second for his XO, and/or his supporting troops, RTO, medics, and Forward Observers). There were some instances of MANPAD sections being directly attached to company command, but otherwise, they would operate fairly independently. That is in stark contrast with Soviets, who handled MANPADs way down to platoon and section level. I guess NATO forces were more relaxed over low-level ADA in the peacetime as they usually operated under full air superiority most of the time.
We will see what will be player's feedback on the reworked database.

I very much appreciate both your in-depth answers. I am aware of the fact that the game is in late development stages; still I would like to reply and comment. I appreciate the discussion.

Original: Veitikka
That's correct, currently the battalion level HQs are not simulated.

I guess this is the first thing I hear, that would drive me away from the game. After all, it is called Armored Brigade. How is Brigade-Level leadership simulated, if not even Battalion-Level C2 is present?

Original: Veitikka

One person told me that even the category purchase limits are too restrictive for the player. So, it's pretty much a matter of taste.

The new game will have auto-purchaser "availability" values for every formation a faction has. That helps the AI to pick more realistic forces.

Yes, in the end, it is a matter of taste. You will always find people to disagree with you. So what is left in the end is a sensible decision as a designer that you can live with and that you can defend. I guess that's where your job as designer gets awefully close to military leadership.

It is good to hear about the auto-buyer feature.

Original: nikolas93TS

Pillboxes represent all kinds of small concrete or steel pillboxes and emplacements, often prefabricated, but also reinforced rock-fill wall bunkers and timber-and-earth structures. Almost every major combatant doctrinally had those for semi-permanent or permanent defensive lines (in AB, they are only available when "dug-in + fortified" is selected), used integrally with field fortifications, especially in key or exposed positions.

Their purpose is to provide supplementary fire protection during initial action against separate, advancing enemy elements. With Soviets, for example, such fortified machine-gun emplacements are built on, or in front of, the forward edge of the strongpoint. Flanking emplacements were provided for converging, flanking, and oblique fire to repulse frontal attacks.

As for manning, it is not really an issue, as a heavy weapon/fire support squads/platoon (depending on nation and doctrine) are generally used as a support group to a number of other platoons in the immediate command area/zone in question. In Armored Brigade, such formations are clearly not represented as large independent units, but as separate sections that can be acquired according to a specific mission. For example, British battalion level Drums Platoon could provide three GPMG SF sections with each consisting of two guns. In addition, up to three sniper pairs and an assault pioneer unit of up to one section could be held in the HQ company or in rifle companies or not exist depending on unit manning and the interests of commander. You cannot buy Drums Platoon as formation, but you can take extra MGs or have them manning those pillboxes.

Thank you nikolas for all your extensive answers.

I am aware of the use of "Pillboxes" and similar structures. I don't quite go d'accord with the idea, that pillboxes are the sum of all non-represented weapon teams and act sort of a "collection basin". So the number of pillboxes should depend on the number of Platoons I bought that potentially have Weapon Teams? If I don't play with fortifications, am I basically "missing" Weapon Teams since they are no longer represented by any unit?

I would maintain the position that Infantry at deployment, given a fortification Scenario, could start in "Pillboxes" and can vacate them once they move. Thanks though for elaborating your thoughts on this.

Original: nikolas93TS

It makes database creation a far more streamlined process (TO&E and OOB changes were very common), but most importantly it is vital for AI: for example, BTR regiments have antitank platoons (directly supporting rifle companies) within the MRBs, a feature not found in the BMP regiments, however flexible AI cannot really know without scripting that a separate AT Plt should follow a certain company. In that specific case, I decided to give BTR squads an AT-7 specialist (a peculiar exception that is also in freeware database, but it seems nobody ever cared about that). A very crude solution, but it actually works as it was intended in real life, except AT-7 teams are not following in separate vehicles.

I haven't played RED yet, but I think your workaroudn is quite neat.

Original: nikolas93TS

I fully understand your point, we are too well aware that auto-buyer is, for example, not mindful of higher level doctrinal mixes (too much mixing of unit types: you would typically have only one generation of APC/MBT in each line formation; possibly two if modelling a unit boundary, with different equipment, and occasionally additional types of vehicle in limited numbers within support formations (including recon). Or, that while a unit may be rare - it does tend to be common in those few units equipped with it.

However, work and time involved in fixing such idiosyncracies are likely not cost-effective (particularly at this point of development): you have scenarios and manual selection if you want highly accurate OOBs.

I understand and agree

Original: nikolas93TS

A Marder Company under Heeresstruktur 4 (i.e. the 1980s org) had three platoons, each with 3x Marders. There was no Platoon Commander's mount, so he and his senior NCO would each ride in one of the platoon's rifle section Marders. There were two Marders in the Company HQ – the 2nd Marder in the HQ was the company's 'Reserve Section', which was a 10th rifle section under the company commander's direct command, with a secondary reconnaissance role.

I see, we agree on the companies OOB. Do you have sources for HStru IV and the role of the independent Squad in particular?

Original: nikolas93TS

1) Helicopter commander receives orders to plan for deployment on order to the designated battle position. This is a zone with a line of sight to the desired engagement area and some sort of protective terrain to hide behind. These battle positions are usually designated at brigade or higher HQs in coordination with supported units (for example, attack helicopter units in the US Army are never OPCON to an echelon below brigade). In nearly all cases, they are allocated before the battle during the mission planning process. Generally, several mission alternatives are provided, with various trigger points.

I see, this might be a doctrinal difference and a bit of a misunderstanding, which is my fault.

I agree that RW CAS is pre-planned in general. From my experiences, (reading reports about 80s Bn-excercises and contemporary real-life experience) the BPs are not, if deployed in support of a Bn. But that can be FRG doctrine. Your Method of Engagement is most certainly true for Brig-Level deployment. I can get behind the current in-game mechanic.

Veitikka talks about a way of HQs to call in CAS, I will have a look at that, although I am not sure wheather that is in the freeware game already?

Original: nikolas93TS

Yes, there was a discussion regarding US company headquarters. At least until J-series organization in mid-to-late 1980s, there were 2 x HQ vehicles (one for the commander, and a second for his XO, and/or his supporting troops, RTO, medics, and Forward Observers). There were some instances of MANPAD sections being directly attached to company command, but otherwise, they would operate fairly independently. That is in stark contrast with Soviets, who handled MANPADs way down to platoon and section level. I guess NATO forces were more relaxed over low-level ADA in the peacetime as they usually operated under full air superiority most of the time.
We will see what will be player's feedback on the reworked database.

I was referring to German ArmInfCoy's, not Us. The MANPAD seems to be misplaced there.

Question:

Ground Surveillance Radars?
Can the Milan of the Marder dismount with the leg units?
SMArt 155 for FRG artillery?


Best regards, happy new years,

A

ORIGINAL: calgar
I very much appreciate both your in-depth answers. I am aware of the fact that the game is in late development stages; still I would like to reply and comment. I appreciate the discussion.

Feel free to leave the comments, they are highly appreciated and can be useful later on. We have implemented a lot of suggestions that have been given by players over the last few years, and we plan to add some more: the issue is whenever they can be completed in reasonable time before the release or left for some eventual future expansions and/or releases.

I guess this is the first thing I hear, that would drive me away from the game. After all, it is called Armored Brigade. How is Brigade-Level leadership simulated, if not even Battalion-Level C2 is present?

Truth to be told, this is the first time somebody raised the issue of battalion level HQ. Can you elaborate more why you think it is important for the tactical level game and what would be your suggestion for a way to implement such HQ?

I am aware of the use of "Pillboxes" and similar structures. I don't quite go d'accord with the idea, that pillboxes are the sum of all non-represented weapon teams and act sort of a "collection basin". So the number of pillboxes should depend on the number of Platoons I bought that potentially have Weapon Teams? If I don't play with fortifications, am I basically "missing" Weapon Teams since they are no longer represented by any unit?

No, you are not missing them. You can create any combination of ATGM, machine gun, mortar etc. section to represent weapon platoon or any other formation. If we were going to implement fixed rather than flexible OOBs, that would have limited the player's options in creating scenarios. This way the player has the freedom to create formations from manuals or invent something he likes.

I would maintain the position that Infantry at deployment, given a fortification Scenario, could start in "Pillboxes" and can vacate them once they move. Thanks though for elaborating your thoughts on this.

That is actually a neat idea, but I think there are some engine limitations, as pillboxes are units and not part of the map. I think Veitikka is more qualified to answer that.

I see, we agree on the companies OOB. Do you have sources for HStru IV and the role of the independent Squad in particular?

Tankograd bilingual publications comprise most of my German source list. Bundeswehr itself also provide plenty of interesting documents, like this. Unfortunately, I am not a fluent German reader, so a good part of my notes (like that bit on secondary reconnaissance role) come from former servicemen or enthusiasts I have corresponded with over the last few years.

I see, this might be a doctrinal difference and a bit of a misunderstanding, which is my fault.
I agree that RW CAS is pre-planned in general. From my experiences, (reading reports about 80s Bn-excercises and contemporary real-life experience) the BPs are not, if deployed in support of a Bn. But that can be FRG doctrine. Your Method of Engagement is most certainly true for Brig-Level deployment. I can get behind the current in-game mechanic.

Veitikka talks about a way of HQs to call in CAS, I will have a look at that, although I am not sure wheather that is in the freeware game already?

No, it is a novel feature of the commercial version, together with helicopter loiter time. It allows your HQ unit to temporarily "call in" the helicopters and engage prioritary targets.

The French and German armies preferred the less versatile but more economical approach of a completely unarmoured he
the helicopter, with no additional armament, which would be used exclusively in the long-range, stand-off role. This tactic attempted to minimise damage to the helicopter from small arms fire by keeping the machine well away from the enemy lines.
But as far as know, both centralised their units, which seems to have been the trend in most nations.

However, it would be highly useful if you could share some knowledge on those exercises, documents like that are hard to come by, and I could compare them with HQ CAS feature.

Ground Surveillance Radars?

Those were mentioned in past, but nobody really proposed a functional model for them, also because often they might involve complex divisional intelligence/reconnaissance level.

Can the Milan of the Marder dismount with the leg units?

No, due to engine limitation.

SMArt 155 for FRG artillery?

No, they entered service long after the Cold War ended.

Best regards, happy new years,

A

Happy New Year to you too, and I hope you had pleasurable holidays!

Original: nikolas93TS

Truth to be told, this is the first time somebody raised the issue of battalion level HQ. Can you elaborate more why you think it is important for the tactical level game and what would be your suggestion for a way to implement such HQ?

The game is called Armored Brigade. So my mind automatically goes to Brigade/Regiment/TF level C2. That's why I was thinking that some sort of Rgt/Brig Cdr <> Battalion Commander <> Company Commander communication must be represented. Playing a TF without needing to worry about my CPs, or at least the Tactical CP which represents my physical presence on the Battlefield is just quite a bit odd since it is directly related to my ability as a commander to direct and influence the action.

As for the implementation: I am not a programmer. I could only fantasize about features. I would also in this regard strongly recommend having a look at the "Assault" Series Boardgames, of which the rules are accessible here.

Original: nikolas93TS

Tankograd bilingual publications comprise most of my German source list. Bundeswehr itself also provide plenty of interesting documents, like this. Unfortunately, I am not a fluent German reader, so a good part of my notes (like that bit on secondary reconnaissance role) come from former servicemen or enthusiasts I have corresponded with over the last few years.

Thanks for the reference.

I hit up someone who knows his way around in this period as well, a former "practitioner". He was mentioning a mixed bag of jobs for that Squad. reinforcing a TankPlt, Liason, CP work etc. But he couldn't provide any hard source. I will check my stuff. The MANPAD Team in the 0812b Version seems to be really off and I would recommend replacing it with a regular InfTeam.

nikolas93TS

However, it would be highly useful if you could share some knowledge on those exercises, documents like that are hard to come by, and I could compare them with HQ CAS feature.

I have one or two tactical excercises from the 80s that included AT-Helo deployment. I also dropped by the General Staff College Library today and requested a spicific document that sounded relevant in regards to their deployment. Alas, I leave on Sat for vacation, will deliver as soon as time allows.

Original: nikolas93TS

Those were mentioned in past, but nobody really proposed a functional model for them, also because often they might involve complex divisional intelligence/reconnaissance level.

I guess that depends on the scale you set for your game (maybe I am a bit hung up on the armored Brigade thing). As far as I remember timeline should extend into the 90s?

GSR is also an issue for ReconBn's, at least for the German one. So if you would play as an Armoured Recon Battalion Commander delaying in front of your Division, then that would mean to play a Bn that has GSR available.

As for the model: Isn't it "just" a line of sight that can detect but not ID tracked/wheeled/NOE vehicles at all times and in most weather conditions? So if I set the Scenario Visibility to 4km, GSR should still be working up to 20, except in miserable weather.

Best regards,

A

Sorry wrong forum

ORIGINAL: nikolas93TS

ORIGINAL: calgar

I would maintain the position that Infantry at deployment, given a fortification Scenario, could start in "Pillboxes" and can vacate them once they move. Thanks though for elaborating your thoughts on this.

That is actually a neat idea, but I think there are some engine limitations, as pillboxes are units and not part of the map. I think Veitikka is more qualified to answer that.

Hmm... In the game terms it would mean making the pillboxes transports that carry the infantry units. I don't see us getting into that at this point of development. The game "pillboxes" are very fragile units by the way, if there are AT weapons around. Compared to infantry units, the pillboxes have a better protection against HE area damage and small arms fire, as long as the frontal slit is not penetrated. Tanks with AP ammo make short work of them though. In the game it's much safer for infantry to remain dug-in than to enter these coffins. A dug-in position or concealing terrain allows them to ambush the enemy, unlike the pillboxes that can be spotted from a distance and have a limited field of view. The main purpose of overhead protection is to protect against air-bursts?

ORIGINAL: calgar

Original: nikolas93TS

Truth to be told, this is the first time somebody raised the issue of battalion level HQ. Can you elaborate more why you think it is important for the tactical level game and what would be your suggestion for a way to implement such HQ?

The game is called Armored Brigade. So my mind automatically goes to Brigade/Regiment/TF level C2. That's why I was thinking that some sort of Rgt/Brig Cdr <> Battalion Commander <> Company Commander communication must be represented. Playing a TF without needing to worry about my CPs, or at least the Tactical CP which represents my physical presence on the Battlefield is just quite a bit odd since it is directly related to my ability as a commander to direct and influence the action.

As for the implementation: I am not a programmer. I could only fantasize about features. I would also in this regard strongly recommend having a look at the "Assault" Series Boardgames, of which the rules are accessible here.

I'll check the rule book. When it comes to the player's physical presence, the new game has an optional feature that allows the player to assign himself to any ground unit. His 'ears' in the 3D space are then fixed close to the ground level and aligned with the character unit facing. From that position you can hear all the sounds, even from undetected enemies. In the standard game mode unidentified enemies make no audible sounds. The player character unit has a static morale value and no command delay, but if the player dies then the scenario ends right there. So, this optional feature adds quite a bit to the immersion of 'being there', and there are several ways how it could be developed further. One path is to emphasize the HQ element, and perhaps make the player character a 'super HQ'. As I said, currently the player character can be any unit, so you can play as a HQ unit or an infiltrator observation/listening post or perhaps ride to a tactical hot spot in the tip of an armored wedge. Just to mention a few examples. You're not safe anywhere, because the enemy AI scouts can be moving in your rear areas.

ORIGINAL: calgar

Original: nikolas93TS

Those were mentioned in past, but nobody really proposed a functional model for them, also because often they might involve complex divisional intelligence/reconnaissance level.

I guess that depends on the scale you set for your game (maybe I am a bit hung up on the armored Brigade thing). As far as I remember timeline should extend into the 90s?

GSR is also an issue for ReconBn's, at least for the German one. So if you would play as an Armoured Recon Battalion Commander delaying in front of your Division, then that would mean to play a Bn that has GSR available.

As for the model: Isn't it "just" a line of sight that can detect but not ID tracked/wheeled/NOE vehicles at all times and in most weather conditions? So if I set the Scenario Visibility to 4km, GSR should still be working up to 20, except in miserable weather.

The game simulates pre-battle recon by revealing some of the enemy unit estimated positions when the action starts.

[/quote]

I know that I'm pretty late, but I would like to contribute something to this serious discussion. [;)]

Thanks to Veitikka, nikolas93TS and calgar, alias Icono?

The game is called Armored Brigade. So my mind automatically goes to Brigade/Regiment/TF level C2. That's why I was thinking that some sort of Rgt/Brig Cdr <> Battalion Commander <> Company Commander communication must be represented. Playing a TF without needing to worry about my CPs, or at least the Tactical CP which represents my physical presence on the Battlefield is just quite a bit odd since it is directly related to my ability as a commander to direct and influence the action.

As for the implementation: I am not a programmer. I could only fantasize about features. I would also in this regard strongly recommend having a look at the "Assault" Series Boardgames, of which the rules are accessible here.

Good point, so the player have his "own life", also have to choose a good position, not like e.g. a soviet Btl HQ in "Red Storm Rising" from Tom Clancy (Radio detected, destroyed by a massive artillery strike)


The discussion about the CAS, BP and MANPADs are a problem about the doctrin mixing from different nations, that's normal and only a "small gap".


Questions:
1. It is possible to use different locks, obstacles? Like "trees on roads" (german: "Baumsperre"), directed mines (can placed from normal inf and pioneers... And to clear this?
-> found "Vision on Enginnering Capabilities", players can use wires
2. Measurement function (m/km/yards/miles), to use a "ruler"
3. To set a supply point on big maps, to save damaged vehicles or wounded soldiers (only for the stats, no repair or heal)
3.1. And supply vehicles, for mortar vehicles, ammunition trucks, bridge laying, ...
-> found "Vision on Enginnering Capabilities"
4. More NATO Counters? Lines for planning (PL, LD, FSCL, FEBA, ...). Realisitic "artillery/pioneers(throw) delivered mines" symbols (they're oval, and activ time = max. 96 hours). Planned artillery delivered mines, but not "activ", need only 5 minutes for the MLRS Crew
5. Drawing function with mouse or pen (touch)?
6. Free Version, to rotate the map (ingame and at the "Battlegenerator"). Now: Only to play WEST-EAST, not NORTH-SOUTH or NNW-SSE, ...
7. Sorry, do you know how can I order my tank crews to drive backwards, without a rotate?

Future?
8. Maybe to use different soundfiles (greenlight from the budget of course) for different weaponssystems. Good ears = good recon
-> found "Free Version?", "...Sounds better..."
9. What is your plan for AB? Maybe actually conflicts, like ukraine conflict (NATO cold war 2.0) with modern vehicles?

Oh I see a lot of question from me. Sorry, I hope that's no problem for you.


Really good work!

Cheers

Sam

Can we download this game?

ORIGINAL: PzGrenSam

The game is called Armored Brigade. So my mind automatically goes to Brigade/Regiment/TF level C2. That's why I was thinking that some sort of Rgt/Brig Cdr <> Battalion Commander <> Company Commander communication must be represented. Playing a TF without needing to worry about my CPs, or at least the Tactical CP which represents my physical presence on the Battlefield is just quite a bit odd since it is directly related to my ability as a commander to direct and influence the action.

As for the implementation: I am not a programmer. I could only fantasize about features. I would also in this regard strongly recommend having a look at the "Assault" Series Boardgames, of which the rules are accessible here.

Good point, so the player have his "own life", also have to choose a good position, not like e.g. a soviet Btl HQ in "Red Storm Rising" from Tom Clancy (Radio detected, destroyed by a massive artillery strike)

There's the 'player character' feature that I described above. A "brilliant feature", according to the testers.

1. It is possible to use different locks, obstacles? Like "trees on roads" (german: "Baumsperre"), directed mines (can placed from normal inf and pioneers... And to clear this?
-> found "Vision on Enginnering Capabilities", players can use wires

The wire and AT obstacles should be used for simulating such things. In the game, only tanks with plows can clear them.

2. Measurement function (m/km/yards/miles), to use a "ruler"

That has been suggested. Perhaps it should be combined with the LOS tool?

3. To set a supply point on big maps, to save damaged vehicles or wounded soldiers (only for the stats, no repair or heal)

That's a very interesting idea, but as individual units don't carry on from a battle to battle, the supply points don't quite fit together with the campaign system...

4. More NATO Counters? Lines for planning (PL, LD, FSCL, FEBA, ...). Realisitic "artillery/pioneers(throw) delivered mines" symbols (they're oval, and activ time = max. 96 hours). Planned artillery delivered mines, but not "activ", need only 5 minutes for the MLRS Crew

The game has planned artillery delivered mines.

Perhaps later it will be possible for the user to add NATO symbols to the map.

5. Drawing function with mouse or pen (touch)?

I wonder what would be the platform? iPad?

6. Free Version, to rotate the map (ingame and at the "Battlegenerator"). Now: Only to play WEST-EAST, not NORTH-SOUTH or NNW-SSE, ...

A scenario can have 'no-go zones' that make it more asymmetric.

7. Sorry, do you know how can I order my tank crews to drive backwards, without a rotate?

Use the 'reverse' waypoint.

Future?
8. Maybe to use different soundfiles (greenlight from the budget of course) for different weaponssystems. Good ears = good recon
-> found "Free Version?", "...Sounds better..."

That would be great, but even getting good quality generic sounds can be a challenge.

9. What is your plan for AB? Maybe actually conflicts, like ukraine conflict (NATO cold war 2.0) with modern vehicles?

There's no clear plan... I think first the current 1965-1991 will get more content. Then, perhaps the Arab-Israeli wars or NATO 2000+. I don't know yet.

Thanks for answering my questions. It is really nice to read your post.

quote:
ORIGINAL: PzGrenSam

quote:
The game is called Armored Brigade. So my mind automatically goes to Brigade/Regiment/TF level C2. That's why I was thinking that some sort of Rgt/Brig Cdr <> Battalion Commander <> Company Commander communication must be represented. Playing a TF without needing to worry about my CPs, or at least the Tactical CP which represents my physical presence on the Battlefield is just quite a bit odd since it is directly related to my ability as a commander to direct and influence the action.

As for the implementation: I am not a programmer. I could only fantasize about features. I would also in this regard strongly recommend having a look at the "Assault" Series Boardgames, of which the rules are accessible here.


Good point, so the player have his "own life", also have to choose a good position, not like e.g. a soviet Btl HQ in "Red Storm Rising" from Tom Clancy (Radio detected, destroyed by a massive artillery strike)


There's the 'player character' feature that I described above. A "brilliant feature", according to the testers.

Nice!

quote:
1. It is possible to use different locks, obstacles? Like "trees on roads" (german: "Baumsperre"), directed mines (can placed from normal inf and pioneers... And to clear this?
-> found "Vision on Enginnering Capabilities", players can use wires


The wire and AT obstacles should be used for simulating such things. In the game, only tanks with plows can clear them.

I understand, good work!

quote:
2. Measurement function (m/km/yards/miles), to use a "ruler"


That has been suggested. Perhaps it should be combined with the LOS tool?

Oh yes, why not? When it is possible of course.

Maybe like the tool from Steel Division, but only in 2d

An old video from me, describe the tool function in german (at 7:06)

[Can't link sth, You are not allowed to post links, emails or phone numbers for 7 days from the date of your tenth post.]
I will try to send the link or scroll down to the "Attachment(1)".

quote:
3. To set a supply point on big maps, to save damaged vehicles or wounded soldiers (only for the stats, no repair or heal)


That's a very interesting idea, but as individual units don't carry on from a battle to battle, the supply points don't quite fit together with the campaign system...

Or to give up damaged vehicles
Oh ok, but it's only an idea and not important for me.

quote:
4. More NATO Counters? Lines for planning (PL, LD, FSCL, FEBA, ...). Realisitic "artillery/pioneers(throw) delivered mines" symbols (they're oval, and activ time = max. 96 hours). Planned artillery delivered mines, but not "activ", need only 5 minutes for the MLRS Crew


The game has planned artillery delivered mines.

Perhaps later it will be possible for the user to add NATO symbols to the map.

Very good! When you need some detailed information about "planned artillery delivered mines", feel free to contact me.

quote:
5. Drawing function with mouse or pen (touch)?


I wonder what would be the platform? iPad?

No iPad, I mean my Surface 3 Pro (i5-4300U (1,9-2,9 GHz, 4 GB LPDDR3 RAM, 2160 x 1440 Resolution, Windows 10). I played your game in a train. So it could be a cool function, when players draw on the map.
Example: Planing of, artillery delivered mines, Counterattacks, next steps, ...
Or maybe a function like ARMA, to place own markers/symbols/etc.

quote:
6. Free Version, to rotate the map (ingame and at the "Battlegenerator"). Now: Only to play WEST-EAST, not NORTH-SOUTH or NNW-SSE, ...


A scenario can have 'no-go zones' that make it more asymmetric.

I mean an engine feature, to get a better overview, when a player rotate the map.

quote:
7. Sorry, do you know how can I order my tank crews to drive backwards, without a rotate?


Use the 'reverse' waypoint.

Thanks!


[Can't quote, You are not allowed to post links, emails or phone numbers for 7 days from the date of your tenth post.]

Your future plans are understandable, I'm happy for that


After a good round in AB (0812b), I've got two new question. I hope that's no problem for you.

It is possible to order a coordinate fire raid? Example: Own tank platoon in position (or defend order), enemy come close to 2500m, so all own tanks have to fire simultaneously. So the enemy will be destroyed (30% totally kill) really fast.

Furthermore have got the AI a "retreat tactic"? Losses, damaged parts, few ammunition, superior enemy (tanks vs inf, open field)?
- dest - destroy 30% totally kill, little more they should regroup or go home
- sup - supress 10% totally kill
- harass - harass 10% totally kill

Cheers

Sam