Matrix Games Forums

1. How is the detection / observation / identification modeled?
Will units in this game will see and every enemy units within specific range and identify immediately, like Wargame series or usual RTS games? Or will it be more realistic? How about the friendly/foe identification, and how about vehicle identification like tank/IFV/APC?
From the screen shot, I saw the "?" mark on the unit icon, something similar from Combat Mission series. Is this means that the game has semi-detected phase of identification like Combat Mission do?

2. Damage model?
Will the units will have a health bar or not? Also, how's the armor penetration modeled, and what kind of data was used? Does the armor penetration distinguish part-by-part like Steel beasts pro?

3. Resupply/logistics and repair on the field?
How the resupply / logistics / repair are modeled in this game? Or they are not existing?

4. Usual battle size
How big unit the player controls? Battalion? Regiment? Brigade? Or Division?

5. Any way to ease the burden of micro control?
This depends on how good the AI is, and this discussion can be linked to the AI discussion, but I wish there's a way to reduce the burden of micro management. I understand that the micro management is kinda key of RTS genre, but if it is too much, it will make players easily tired, making huge learning curve or skill curve for the game. This game's scale seems huge, so I'm bit worried if this game pushes players to depend on micro management. For example, if player is required to detect the dangerous situation for each tanks and control several tanks/vehicle to deploy smoke one by one by hand during the middle of the battle, that would not be a fun experience. Some sort of automation of control is essential.

Graviteam Tactics and Scourge of War: Waterloo is a good example, which tried to reduce micro management burden. Player give orders to units (company, platoon or etc) and units/subunits controlled by AI will perform all micro managements to follow player's order.

One other example is Combat Mission. There, no one plays CM series in real time, whether single campaign or PBEM multi. From my experience, almost everyone play CM series with 1-min turn-based, and only very small battles are affordable with real time control. This is because of micro management trap. Amount of micro management is too much even with company size battle, especially if it is involved with mechanized infantry, which requires loading and unloading of infantry from vehicle as well as requisition of infantry ammo from vehicles.

If it is turn-based it doesn't matter, but if it is RTS, this can be a matter. Because no one wants to see the game where a player with fast mouse speed wins the game, rather than a player with strategy and tactical sense wins the game, especially for the military / historical game.

ORIGINAL: exsonic01

1. How is the detection / observation / identification modeled?
Will units in this game will see and every enemy units within specific range and identify immediately, like Wargame series or usual RTS games? Or will it be more realistic? How about the friendly/foe identification, and how about vehicle identification like tank/IFV/APC?
From the screen shot, I saw the "?" mark on the unit icon, something similar from Combat Mission series. Is this means that the game has semi-detected phase of identification like Combat Mission do?

The maps are made of 30x30 meter cells. The cells have a ground elevation value, and the object type (trees, buildings, rocks etc.) have their separate height value. The observer unit is usually 2 meters above the ground level. If the observer enters a building it's lifted to the building roof level. The ground objects have a density value, and depending on it the LOS is blocked up to 100% when it hits the object. For example, buildings always block 100% of the LOS. A dense forest blocks less, and sparse trees are even easier to see through. It's possible for the observer to be on a hill and see another hill beyond a valley with buildings.

Units need to be identified as hostile before they can be engaged. There are 'neutral' units scattered around the battlefield, so you cannot always be sure that a new visual contact is hostile. When a unit fires it triggers a chain reaction, automatically marking the units around it as 'known hostile'. For example, if you have a column of vehicles and one of them fires, the enemy can then engage any of them.

Vehicles have two states of identification before becoming fully identified: 'vehicle' and 'wheeled/tracked/half-tracked vehicle'. Other ground units are know as 'fortification', 'gun', 'mortar' or 'troops'.

2. Damage model?
Will the units will have a health bar or not? Also, how's the armor penetration modeled, and what kind of data was used? Does the armor penetration distinguish part-by-part like Steel beasts pro?

Vehicles have hull/turret front/side/rear/top armor protection values, in millimeters. There are different values against KE, CE and tandem HEAT rounds. The armor shape can be 'simple' or 'complex'. The latter adds some randomization to the impact angle. Beyond armor, there's the survivability value, ranging from 'poor' to 'excellent'. This attribute functions a bit like 'hit points' in some games, but usually goes down very fast or instantly, especially when hit by a large caliber weapon. After taking damage the unit performance and abilities are degraded (mobility, night vision, weapons etc.).

3. Resupply/logistics and repair on the field?
How the resupply / logistics / repair are modeled in this game? Or they are not existing?

There's no resupply. I think these are probably outside the scope of this game. The units can have stowed ammunition that is used to replenish the ready ammunition (MG ammo boxes, cannon rounds or missiles stored in different parts of the vehicle etc.).

4. Usual battle size
How big unit the player controls? Battalion? Regiment? Brigade? Or Division?

The battle maps range from about 2x2 kilometers to about 15x15 kilometers. There can be hundreds of units per side, perhaps a regiment or brigade.

5. Any way to ease the burden of micro control?
This depends on how good the AI is, and this discussion can be linked to the AI discussion, but I wish there's a way to reduce the burden of micro management. I understand that the micro management is kinda key of RTS genre, but if it is too much, it will make players easily tired, making huge learning curve or skill curve for the game. This game's scale seems huge, so I'm bit worried if this game pushes players to depend on micro management. For example, if player is required to detect the dangerous situation for each tanks and control several tanks/vehicle to deploy smoke one by one by hand during the middle of the battle, that would not be a fun experience. Some sort of automation of control is essential.

Graviteam Tactics and Scourge of War: Waterloo is a good example, which tried to reduce micro management burden. Player give orders to units (company, platoon or etc) and units/subunits controlled by AI will perform all micro managements to follow player's order.

The game can be played by assigning orders to platoons, companies and sections. Usually it's not necessary, or recommended by me, to go to the unit level and check the LOS for every individual unit and carefully place them to the optimal positions. The command delay prevents the player from having the maximum benefit by doing it, and most of the time the AI opponent controls full formations, not individual units. The in-game formations (platoon, companies, sections) are not textbook companies or such with all their support weapons, but instead they're maneuver groups that are optimized for gameplay. For example, to build a full company you select the platoons, the HQ section and then the support sections (mortars, extra MGs etc.).

One other example is Combat Mission. There, no one plays CM series in real time, whether single campaign or PBEM multi. From my experience, almost everyone play CM series with 1-min turn-based, and only very small battles are affordable with real time control. This is because of micro management trap. Amount of micro management is too much even with company size battle, especially if it is involved with mechanized infantry, which requires loading and unloading of infantry from vehicle as well as requisition of infantry ammo from vehicles.

If it is turn-based it doesn't matter, but if it is RTS, this can be a matter. Because no one wants to see the game where a player with fast mouse speed wins the game, rather than a player with strategy and tactical sense wins the game, especially for the military / historical game.

AB can be played in the real-time pausable mode, or in the 'round' mode with custom length turns (no pausing, no rewinding).

Thank you so much for your answer, but I have more questions XD Maybe those things could be explained in manual.

ORIGINAL: Veitikka
The maps are made of 30x30 meter cells. The cells have a ground elevation value, and the object type (trees, buildings, rocks etc.) have their separate height value. The observer unit is usually 2 meters above the ground level. If the observer enters a building it's lifted to the building roof level. The ground objects have a density value, and depending on it the LOS is blocked up to 100% when it hits the object. For example, buildings always block 100% of the LOS. A dense forest blocks less, and sparse trees are even easier to see through. It's possible for the observer to be on a hill and see another hill beyond a valley with buildings.

Units need to be identified as hostile before they can be engaged. There are 'neutral' units scattered around the battlefield, so you cannot always be sure that a new visual contact is hostile. When a unit fires it triggers a chain reaction, automatically marking the units around it as 'known hostile'. For example, if you have a column of vehicles and one of them fires, the enemy can then engage any of them.

Vehicles have two states of identification before becoming fully identified: 'vehicle' and 'wheeled/tracked/half-tracked vehicle'. Other ground units are know as 'fortification', 'gun', 'mortar' or 'troops'.

OK, I assume that this answer implies the existence of semi-detected stage of identification, or unidentified object, in AB: Units know something is there, but cannot recognize what exactly it is. That is good news, this is more realistic model than usual RTS games, where units can see and identify the enemy almost immediately if the object is within specific range. Recon and ability to detect and identify (thus training, enhanced optics and thermal sight) is really crucial factor not only in wargame but also in real world. And I think that is the one of the main difference between NATO and PACT during cold war, especially late stage of cold war.

Is there any "force shoot" command to attack the empty ground / suspicious position or unidentified unit forcefully?

Question about 30x30 square meter cell: Does this means the calculation and action on this game is processed like 30x30 m2 tile-based game, like turn-based games?

Vehicles have hull/turret front/side/rear/top armor protection values, in millimeters. There are different values against KE, CE and tandem HEAT rounds. The armor shape can be 'simple' or 'complex'. The latter adds some randomization to the impact angle. Beyond armor, there's the survivability value, ranging from 'poor' to 'excellent'. This attribute functions a bit like 'hit points' in some games, but usually goes down very fast or instantly, especially when hit by a large caliber weapon. After taking damage the unit performance and abilities are degraded (mobility, night vision, weapons etc.).

I assume that sub-system malfunction or sub-system damage is also described in AB, which could cripple the readiness of unit. Right? If it is, this is also good for realism.

Does the 'simple' or 'complex' armor means the difference between simple cast armor and composite / reactive armor?

Based on your explanation, it seems that survivability value might be assumed to something like the armor integrity, is this correct?

There's no resupply. I think these are probably outside the scope of this game. The units can have stowed ammunition that is used to replenish the ready ammunition (MG ammo boxes, cannon rounds or missiles stored in different parts of the vehicle etc.).

OK, so it will looks like Combat Mission or Close Combat.

The battle maps range from about 2x2 kilometers to about 15x15 kilometers. There can be hundreds of units per side, perhaps a regiment or brigade.

That means we could usually play from battalion size to brigade size in AB. Good to hear that.

The game can be played by assigning orders to platoons, companies and sections. Usually it's not necessary, or recommended by me, to go to the unit level and check the LOS for every individual unit and carefully place them to the optimal positions. The command delay prevents the player from having the maximum benefit by doing it, and most of the time the AI opponent controls full formations, not individual units. The in-game formations (platoon, companies, sections) are not textbook companies or such with all their support weapons, but instead they're maneuver groups that are optimized for gameplay. For example, to build a full company you select the platoons, the HQ section and then the support sections (mortars, extra MGs etc.).

OK, I understand that control in AB is usually based on squad / platoon / company level. But in some cases, LOS and survivality of single tank can be an important issue during game. During cold war, NATO forces were supposed to fight under numerical disadvantage, which means survival of single MBT "sometimes" can be a crucial matter on the battle field, even from regiment size battle. There are some good scenarios in Steel Beast Pro which could feel such situations.

From your answer, I assume that the command delay implies "action delay" of units after command from player, and the reaction time of the units can be differ which is not able to be controlled by player, is this correct?

Does the units in this game automatically perform tactical maneuvering like "shoot and scoop" from the ridge line or by the buildings? Or is this kind of control should be performed by player?

AB can be played in the real-time pausable mode, or in the 'round' mode with custom length turns (no pausing, no rewinding).

Interesting, I can understand pausable RTS mode, but not sure about 'round' mode. Could you explain a bit more about round mode? "No pausing and No rewinding" I think this means this is still RTS, not a turn-based, but commands from player can be performed only during the specific time frame after each round? Or, is this something like 1-minute turn-based mode of Combat Mission, or variable turn-time mode like Flashpoint Campaign?

ORIGINAL: exsonic01

Thank you so much for your answer, but I have more questions XD Maybe those things could be explained in manual.

It's possible that some of the text I'm typing here will end up in the manual [:)]

OK, I assume that this answer implies the existence of semi-detected stage of identification, or unidentified object, in AB: Units know something is there, but cannot recognize what exactly it is. That is good news, this is more realistic model than usual RTS games, where units can see and identify the enemy almost immediately if the object is within specific range. Recon and ability to detect and identify (thus training, enhanced optics and thermal sight) is really crucial factor not only in wargame but also in real world. And I think that is the one of the main difference between NATO and PACT during cold war, especially late stage of cold war.

There are at least two forms of detection/identification I forgot to mention. The muzzle flashes can be detected from a long distance, especially at night. Every type of ammunition has a 'muzzle signature' value, that affects the detection chance. The exact position is not revealed, but an estimated area where the firing unit is located. For example, you could have a scout helicopter that sees the on-map mortar muzzle flashes, and then you can use artillery flares to illuminate the area.

Ground-air radars are a fairly recent addition to the game engine. A ground unit with a radar can engage targets that are outside the visual detection range. The player can see the aircraft position and direction, that are updated every few seconds.

Is there any "force shoot" command to attack the empty ground / suspicious position or unidentified unit forcefully?

No, other that using indirect artillery or mortar fire.

Question about 30x30 square meter cell: Does this means the calculation and action on this game is processed like 30x30 m2 tile-based game, like turn-based games?

Many of the calculations use the 30x30 meter grid system, yes. For example the line of sight calculations. This allows us to have the huge maps. Currently in the system we can have only 1 unit per cell. In the future it may be increased to 2 units per cell.

I like to compare the system to Steel Panthers: they had 50 meter hexes, and a very limited number of units per hex (cannot remember the exact numbers right now).

I assume that sub-system malfunction or sub-system damage is also described in AB, which could cripple the readiness of unit. Right? If it is, this is also good for realism.

Infantry units can lose individual weapons and ammunition, but I think for vehicles the only damage type that's separated from the generic 'light' and 'heavy' damage (which affects many sub-systems, like I mentioned) is immobilization. A vehicle can become immobilized without having any other damage, and can be heavily damaged without being immobilized.

Does the 'simple' or 'complex' armor means the difference between simple cast armor and composite / reactive armor?

The 'complex' shape usually means round shapes, such as the Soviet dome turrets. Like I said, every armor side has separate KE/CE/tandem-HEAT protection values.

Based on your explanation, it seems that survivability value might be assumed to something like the armor integrity, is this correct?

I think it's more like how much critical damage the unit can tolerate. An unarmored truck can be destroyed with a few rifle or MG shots, because its survivability is low. An IFV has a higher survivability value, so the dismounts may even survive after the vehicle has been disabled by autocannon fire. However, if the level of damage after the armor has been penetrated is very high, the passengers will be killed, the vehicle starts burning and secondary explosions may follow later.

OK, I understand that control in AB is usually based on squad / platoon / company level. But in some cases, LOS and survivality of single tank can be an important issue during game. During cold war, NATO forces were supposed to fight under numerical disadvantage, which means survival of single MBT "sometimes" can be a crucial matter on the battle field, even from regiment size battle. There are some good scenarios in Steel Beast Pro which could feel such situations.

That's absolutely true, but if the human player wants to play the game like the AI opponent does then he should avoid extreme micromanaging. The game is more challenging that way, and more realistic, I would say. Ideally, the only unit that should be micromanaged is the optional 'player character' unit, that represents the player on the battlefield.

From your answer, I assume that the command delay implies "action delay" of units after command from player, and the reaction time of the units can be differ which is not able to be controlled by player, is this correct?

Yes, the command delay is the time it takes for the order to travel from the player to the unit in question. It's affected by the faction attributes, nearby HQ units, radios etc. In real life the Cold War commander would probably have had just a map and a radio, but since in the game the player has the luxury of seeing all the action everywhere in real-time, we need to have artificial means of creating friction.

Does the units in this game automatically perform tactical maneuvering like "shoot and scoop" from the ridge line or by the buildings? Or is this kind of control should be performed by player?

The only such automated behavior happens when the units are ordered to 'scout'. Then, if the unit is a vehicle, it may pop smoke and reverse out of sight.

Interesting, I can understand pausable RTS mode, but not sure about 'round' mode. Could you explain a bit more about round mode? "No pausing and No rewinding" I think this means this is still RTS, not a turn-based, but commands from player can be performed only during the specific time frame after each round? Or, is this something like 1-minute turn-based mode of Combat Mission, or variable turn-time mode like Flashpoint Campaign?

The only difference to the standard pausable real-time mode is that the player cannot pause or save the game when the round is in progress. The round length (adjusted in the scenario launch options) can be 30, 60, 90, 180 or 360 seconds. New orders can be issued anytime, during the round or between the rounds.

There are at least two forms of detection/identification I forgot to mention. The muzzle flashes can be detected from a long distance, especially at night. Every type of ammunition has a 'muzzle signature' value, that affects the detection chance. The exact position is not revealed, but an estimated area where the firing unit is located. For example, you could have a scout helicopter that sees the on-map mortar muzzle flashes, and then you can use artillery flares to illuminate the area.

Ground-air radars are a fairly recent addition to the game engine. A ground unit with a radar can engage targets that are outside the visual detection range. The player can see the aircraft position and direction, that are updated every few seconds.

Good to know about this, it is good idea to introduce some sort of unidentified status during detection. Good idea about muzzle flash, also what people usually use to recognize something (not fully identify) is sound, such as engine sound or gunfire sound. Also sudden fast movement of any objects could be easily detectable by human eye, this is what Combat Mission applied.

Ground to Air radar: is it possible to turn on and off the radar, like Serbian SAMs did during Operation Allied Force? If yes, is this automatically performed by AI or requires human control?

Speaking of detection, does the thermal sight (NATO) is introduced in this game?

No, other that using indirect artillery or mortar fire.

Any chance to introduce force-attack function to all units? At least vehicles... It is one of the old tactics since WW2: shoot to building, bunker, bush, or any suspicious position one by one before assault into town or fortified position. Israel forces used similar method during Middle East war. Force attack using rifle, machine gun, and even tank main gun to the building, and then push infantry into the objectives or other buildings. Suppress fire is one of the basic tactics during assault...

Many of the calculations use the 30x30 meter grid system, yes. For example the line of sight calculations. This allows us to have the huge maps. Currently in the system we can have only 1 unit per cell. In the future it may be increased to 2 units per cell.

I like to compare the system to Steel Panthers: they had 50 meter hexes, and a very limited number of units per hex (cannot remember the exact numbers right now).

Thanks for the explanation, I think it is reasonable to allow 2 units per 30x30 m2 cell, because in real life forces should spread out during field operation. But how's the positioning and movement of units? Units are forced to be placed on center of the cell only? Or it is natural like usual RTS games?

Infantry units can lose individual weapons and ammunition, but I think for vehicles the only damage type that's separated from the generic 'light' and 'heavy' damage (which affects many sub-systems, like I mentioned) is immobilization. A vehicle can become immobilized without having any other damage, and can be heavily damaged without being immobilized.

Are there any plans to include other damage expression except immobilization? Features like failure of FCS bring low accuracy and low detection speed, auto-loader damage (or loader KIA) bring slower reload speed, cannon damage bring low accuracy... Those are all possible scenarios during battle and will make this game more realistic.

The 'complex' shape usually means round shapes, such as the Soviet dome turrets. Like I said, every armor side has separate KE/CE/tandem-HEAT protection values.

OK, so, it seems that characteristic of composite armor or reactive armor is already considered to each vehicles, part by part.

I think it's more like how much critical damage the unit can tolerate. An unarmored truck can be destroyed with a few rifle or MG shots, because its survivability is low. An IFV has a higher survivability value, so the dismounts may even survive after the vehicle has been disabled by autocannon fire. However, if the level of damage after the armor has been penetrated is very high, the passengers will be killed, the vehicle starts burning and secondary explosions may follow later.

Aha, I see, so this 'survivability' represents the chance of survival of passengers or crews of vehicle.

That's absolutely true, but if the human player wants to play the game like the AI opponent does then he should avoid extreme micromanaging. The game is more challenging that way, and more realistic, I would say. Ideally, the only unit that should be micromanaged is the optional 'player character' unit, that represents the player on the battlefield.

I think this depends on AI. If AI is very tactical enough to perform good & proper maneuvering during assault or defense, then players would not feel any necessity to intervene. However, if AI is dull, then any players will attempt to micro manage his units to increase the chance of survival of units, and the chance to win. I think you are trying to explain that the game's scale is quite big (bigger than typical Close Combat match, or comparable to huge size Combat Mission match), so that micro management units by units would be impossible or impractical, and all control would be better to be squad ~ company level. However, no player wants to see their units behave strangely / stupidly and wasted in vain on the field, so players will soon start to fully control the movements of units, which essentially will bring micro management. In addition, even squad~company level forces needs micro, time to time. People would say:
"I could saved that unit if I intervened"
"I could win that skirmish with 0 casualty if I controlled directly"
"This game is too favorable for players with fast mouse speed and reactivity"
Then they will attempt micro manage more and more. Well, players are not always correct, but there should be some sort of consideration for such situations, when players feel the necessity for babysitting of their units and complain about that. That is why I mentioned that it would be great if there are some sort of way to ease the micro management burden.

Yes, the command delay is the time it takes for the order to travel from the player to the unit in question. It's affected by the faction attributes, nearby HQ units, radios etc. In real life the Cold War commander would probably have had just a map and a radio, but since in the game the player has the luxury of seeing all the action everywhere in real-time, we need to have artificial means of creating friction.

Thanks to let me know, this is something similar with what we see from Flashpoint Campaign Redstorm, and I think it is realistic and good idea.

The only such automated behavior happens when the units are ordered to 'scout'. Then, if the unit is a vehicle, it may pop smoke and reverse out of sight.

OK, that is good description for the screening action, which is essential for recon or AT units. But shoot and scoop of tanks is slightly different from screening maneuvering. But oh well, I wish there could be an way to improvise screening action to shoot and scoop.... Could you introduce any other such automated behavior?

The only difference to the standard pausable real-time mode is that the player cannot pause or save the game when the round is in progress. The round length (adjusted in the scenario launch options) can be 30, 60, 90, 180 or 360 seconds. New orders can be issued anytime, during the round or between the rounds.

So.... Round mode is real time mod of game, but only difference from typical pausable RTS mode is that round mode forces the pausing to only every specific amount of time (each round), right?

Thanks for your detailed answers!!!! I really wish to try this game asap XD

ORIGINAL: exsonic01

Ground to Air radar: is it possible to turn on and off the radar, like Serbian SAMs did during Operation Allied Force? If yes, is this automatically performed by AI or requires human control?

In AB the radars are always active.

Speaking of detection, does the thermal sight (NATO) is introduced in this game?

Every weapon has a 'night vision' attribute. If the NV range is 3500 meters or more then it's considered to have a thermal sight.

Any chance to introduce force-attack function to all units? At least vehicles... It is one of the old tactics since WW2: shoot to building, bunker, bush, or any suspicious position one by one before assault into town or fortified position. Israel forces used similar method during Middle East war. Force attack using rifle, machine gun, and even tank main gun to the building, and then push infantry into the objectives or other buildings. Suppress fire is one of the basic tactics during assault...

The player cannot select targets for units at all, other that setting the maximum engagement ranges and disabling the main armament use. The maps can be huge, the battles can last for hours and there's no resupply, so it's hard to imagine how the scenarios could play out if the units were wasting their ammunition by shooting at every suspicious location. Especially in larger scenarios it's very possible to run out of ammunition.

Thanks for the explanation, I think it is reasonable to allow 2 units per 30x30 m2 cell, because in real life forces should spread out during field operation. But how's the positioning and movement of units? Units are forced to be placed on center of the cell only? Or it is natural like usual RTS games?

The units and waypoints are placed in the center of the cells, but the units move smoothly. It's kind of a hybrid system.

Are there any plans to include other damage expression except immobilization? Features like failure of FCS bring low accuracy and low detection speed, auto-loader damage (or loader KIA) bring slower reload speed, cannon damage bring low accuracy... Those are all possible scenarios during battle and will make this game more realistic.

If we want to display detailed damage such as a broken autoloader or a wounded loader guy, then every vehicle should have attributes for them; first of all, does the vehicle have such elements at all? If some aspects of the game are over-modeled and something more crucial is missing, then perhaps more realistic results can be achieved by throwing dice instead, and then finding the results from a chart. In AB, the light/heavy damage do reduce spotting capability, firing accuracy, firing speed, night vision, morale etc, even if the detailed subsystems are not simulated.

I think it's more like how much critical damage the unit can tolerate. An unarmored truck can be destroyed with a few rifle or MG shots, because its survivability is low. An IFV has a higher survivability value, so the dismounts may even survive after the vehicle has been disabled by autocannon fire. However, if the level of damage after the armor has been penetrated is very high, the passengers will be killed, the vehicle starts burning and secondary explosions may follow later.

Aha, I see, so this 'survivability' represents the chance of survival of passengers or crews of vehicle.

No. Well, in a way it does represent the crew, because the crew is a part of the vehicle. 'Survivability' is an abstracted value beyond armor. When it goes down, damage goes up.

That's absolutely true, but if the human player wants to play the game like the AI opponent does then he should avoid extreme micromanaging. The game is more challenging that way, and more realistic, I would say. Ideally, the only unit that should be micromanaged is the optional 'player character' unit, that represents the player on the battlefield.

I think this depends on AI. If AI is very tactical enough to perform good & proper maneuvering during assault or defense, then players would not feel any necessity to intervene. However, if AI is dull, then any players will attempt to micro manage his units to increase the chance of survival of units, and the chance to win. I think you are trying to explain that the game's scale is quite big (bigger than typical Close Combat match, or comparable to huge size Combat Mission match), so that micro management units by units would be impossible or impractical, and all control would be better to be squad ~ company level. However, no player wants to see their units behave strangely / stupidly and wasted in vain on the field, so players will soon start to fully control the movements of units, which essentially will bring micro management. In addition, even squad~company level forces needs micro, time to time. People would say:
"I could saved that unit if I intervened"
"I could win that skirmish with 0 casualty if I controlled directly"
"This game is too favorable for players with fast mouse speed and reactivity"
Then they will attempt micro manage more and more. Well, players are not always correct, but there should be some sort of consideration for such situations, when players feel the necessity for babysitting of their units and complain about that. That is why I mentioned that it would be great if there are some sort of way to ease the micro management burden.

Yes, I think this is a common issue in wargames. The hardcore crowd says that they want games where they're like a real commander, with very limited options and an extreme fog of war (a paper map and a microphone headset?). But, in reality, the urge to control every unit and to see and hear everything in real-time is great. In AB we offer several different ways to play the game, and we don't want to prevent the player from going to the squad/vehicle level. I do it too, I have to admit.

OK, that is good description for the screening action, which is essential for recon or AT units. But shoot and scoop of tanks is slightly different from screening maneuvering. But oh well, I wish there could be an way to improvise screening action to shoot and scoop.... Could you introduce any other such automated behavior?

Perhaps. If you'll try the game in the future and see how the system works you can come up with suggestions so we can improve the system.

So.... Round mode is real time mod of game, but only difference from typical pausable RTS mode is that round mode forces the pausing to only every specific amount of time (each round), right?

Yes.

ORIGINAL: exsonic01
In AB the radars are always active.

May I ask how SAMs reacts to wild weasel missions with anti-radiation missiles like HARM? At the later stage of cold war, those were the major part of counter-SAM strategy of both sides. So, real anti-air battery units during Cold War Eurpoe trained a lot to increase the chance of survival against anti-radar missiles. They didn't operate the radar in AO for whole time, they trained to use intermittently, engage fast and turn off radar and move. I read this from other game forum, writer was the retired veteran who served in AA unit in Europe during late 80s...

Every weapon has a 'night vision' attribute. If the NV range is 3500 meters or more then it's considered to have a thermal sight.

Thanks to let me know, so it is reflected in terms of NV stat of unit.

The player cannot select targets for units at all, other that setting the maximum engagement ranges and disabling the main armament use. The maps can be huge, the battles can last for hours and there's no resupply, so it's hard to imagine how the scenarios could play out if the units were wasting their ammunition by shooting at every suspicious location. Especially in larger scenarios it's very possible to run out of ammunition.

Even in Combat Mission or Close Combat (games without any sort of resupply/logistics for vehicle), players love to use force attack, especially to buildings with tanks or auto cannon or heavy machine gun, when they push their infantry to the town. It doesn't need to huge amount of ammo, but few tens of seconds of forced attack is usually enough for suppress fire. This also works well against ATGM teams, by interfering their aiming and guiding. Doesn't need entire belt of ammo, usually, I just gave them a few tens of seconds of suppress fire, and move/push my units quickly when they are suppressed / pinned down. Controlling ammo is also one of the task for commander. As such, suppress fire is one of the oldest tactics written in FM (field manual) of any armies. So, I think forced attack might still be a good option for players, at least for vehicles and heavy weapon teams...

But in this game, we have action delay of units anyway, so that sort of sophisticated combo of coordinated force attack + assault might not work as players intended. So I'm not sure. The only way to check is by playing, but I don't have anything, neither beta nor old free version, so all I can do is just estimating in my head XD

In addition, in Combat Mission, while it is impossible for vehicles to get resupplied and repaired, infantry can be resupplied from their vehicle, like BTR, BMP, or M2 Bradley. This is also one of the typical way to get ammo resupply on the field for mechanized infantry, at least for US Army. I'm curious if this is possible from this game too.

I read in somewhere that infantry in this game can take ammo from their fallen squadmates, sometimes their weapons, just like Close Combat, is this correct?

If we want to display detailed damage such as a broken autoloader or a wounded loader guy, then every vehicle should have attributes for them; first of all, does the vehicle have such elements at all? If some aspects of the game are over-modeled and something more crucial is missing, then perhaps more realistic results can be achieved by throwing dice instead, and then finding the results from a chart. In AB, the light/heavy damage do reduce spotting capability, firing accuracy, firing speed, night vision, morale etc, even if the detailed subsystems are not simulated.

OK, I can understand your efforts to simplify the system as a programmer my self (in computational chemistry). One last question about this feature: You mentioned "spotting capability, firing accuracy, firing speed, night vision, morale etc" Are those damages/effects occur all together at the same time, proportional to the degree of damage? Or do one or two of those symptoms appear randomly, according to the degree of damage?

No. Well, in a way it does represent the crew, because the crew is a part of the vehicle. 'Survivability' is an abstracted value beyond armor. When it goes down, damage goes up.

So, the Survivability is changing value which is depending on damage of the vehicle, which represents how much chance the unit can survive against the penetration. Right?

Yes, I think this is a common issue in wargames. The hardcore crowd says that they want games where they're like a real commander, with very limited options and an extreme fog of war (a paper map and a microphone headset?). But, in reality, the urge to control every unit and to see and hear everything in real-time is great. In AB we offer several different ways to play the game, and we don't want to prevent the player from going to the squad/vehicle level. I do it too, I have to admit.

Well, I like that realism actually, that is why I love games like Flashpoint Campaign Red Storm, which describes the delay of any command to any units. In FPC-RS, they even modelled the total possible number of command per a turn (for specific amount of time) which I also like. With only paper maps and radio communications, number of orders to issue will be limited per certain amount of time frame.

Based on your explanation, AB also has the action delay feature. So even though I wish to micro manage the single vehicle at the ultimate level, I assume that it would be impossible to achieve satisfactory level of micro control because of the action delay. But me and any other players will try anyway.

I also believe that any real commanders during Cold War era does not have any thing like battlefield PDA and FBCB2, but only paper map and radio. So such uncomfortable description is absolutely fine with me. I just wish the AI of this game OK enough to depict the tactical maneuvering of the vehicles and infantry for survival and maximum combat efficiency, such as screening action, shoot and scoop and etc...

Those maneuverings are usually ordered by low level commanders, like squad leader, platoon leader or commander of the vehicle. Player is taking a role of battalion or regiment commander, so such automated actions of AI would represent the "command of low-level commanders".

This way, the player with good tactics and sound strategy wins the game, rather than the player with bad tactics but fast mouse speed wins the game. Of course, some degree of mouse control is essential for real time game, but too much dependency on mouse speed is not good.

Perhaps. If you'll try the game in the future and see how the system works you can come up with suggestions so we can improve the system.

Absolutely, I wish if I can try a Beta version [:D]


Thanks for the great answers, more and more I read and write about AB, more and more I wish to try [&o]

Well, I like that realism actually, that is why I love games like Flashpoint Campaign Red Storm, which describes the delay of any command to any units. In FPC-RS, they even modelled the total possible number of command per a turn (for specific amount of time) which I also like. With only paper maps and radio communications, number of orders to issue will be limited per certain amount of time frame.

Don#t want to dwell off-topic, but FPC is anything but a good depiction of 80s warfare. The Command Delays are a joke as well, IMHO.

I don't think that games benefit from too many micro options. I personally don't want an operational layer either. Part of the fun, for me, is to be a cog in the machine and I don't enjoy wearing too many hats. But that is just me.

The no force fire issue might only be an issue when units PID obvious enemies too late. I remember a tough round of BCT Commander (Shrapnel Games), where my Supporting Force was not able to support by fire just because they couldn't PID enemy vehicles......which where in fighting positions.....and firing at them....in the middle of Death Valley.

They didn't operate the radar in AO for the whole time, they trained to use intermittently, engage fast and turn off radar and move. I read this from other game forum, writer was the retired veteran who served in AA unit in Europe during the late 80s...

DO you have a source on this? Just out of curiosity. I would be surprised if SEAD-Assets deal with AD on Bn/Rgt level. They are dealing with SAMs, but more with higher level assets. Not saying that radiating the entire time isn't dangerous, ELINT and Artillery pair well also.

The battle maps range from about 2x2 kilometers to about 15x15 kilometers. There can be hundreds of units per side, perhaps a regiment or brigade.

Perhaps? But the game is still called Armored Brigade?

if the 15km are halved in the center, then it might be quite a tide fit. If the deployment areas are again halved, for the regular and the recon deployment area, then 3,5km will be too shallow to really place a Bn-Reserve...

Regards,

A

Don#t want to dwell off-topic, but FPC is anything but a good depiction of 80s warfare. The Command Delays are a joke as well, IMHO.
I don't think that games benefit from too many micro options. I personally don't want an operational layer either. Part of the fun, for me, is to be a cog in the machine and I don't enjoy wearing too many hats. But that is just me.

I understand, even I feel that sometimes action delay in FPC-RS is too long. Devs explained lots of events are abstracted in 500m hex so it is possible to take a long time to initiate the action, but they also mentioned that they will deal with the delay time later. And game suffers from some bugs, so I'm waiting for the next series FPC-SS. It is not a perfect one, but it is still a good wargame with good future potential in several aspects. And I agree with operational layer. Regarding micro, IMO any RTS games cannot escape from micro management, but I'm not sure about AB.

The no force fire issue might only be an issue when units PID obvious enemies too late. I remember a tough round of BCT Commander (Shrapnel Games), where my Supporting Force was not able to support by fire just because they couldn't PID enemy vehicles......which where in fighting positions.....and firing at them....in the middle of Death Valley.

I agree, if any commanders know the exact position of enemy, they could easily issue a suppress fire order.

DO you have a source on this? Just out of curiosity. I would be surprised if SEAD-Assets deal with AD on Bn/Rgt level. They are dealing with SAMs, but more with higher level assets. Not saying that radiating the entire time isn't dangerous, ELINT and Artillery pair well also.

I tried to find, but failed. It was Eugen's wargame forum or FPC-RS forum. Anyway, someone mentioned about German army's example, saying they operate the radar unit by unit, every few minutes. Unit A operate for few minutes and turn off, then unit B operate for few minutes and turn off.... But he didn't mentioned about the level of unit. As far as I know, in theory, anti-radiation missiles can detect signals from field AA units as well, not only the higher level SAMs. I have no idea how the FM describes about operation so I don't know about more details. But anyway, operating radar full time is still dangerous like you mentioned, because enemy can still track the signal and send artillery or rockets or SF teams instead of ARMs.

The issue with suppress fire order is that it would give an unfair advantage to the human player.

ORIGINAL: nikolas93TS
The issue with suppress fire order is that it would give an unfair advantage to the human player.

Still, suppress fire is like 101 of any army tactics, even from squad level. IMO it is fine, many other games are the same. Close combat, Combat mission, Steel beast, Wargame RD... AI cannot use forced attack but player can use it, yet I don't think there were particular difficulty problem from forced attack issue.

ORIGINAL: exsonic01

May I ask how SAMs reacts to wild weasel missions with anti-radiation missiles like HARM? At the later stage of cold war, those were the major part of counter-SAM strategy of both sides. So, real anti-air battery units during Cold War Eurpoe trained a lot to increase the chance of survival against anti-radar missiles. They didn't operate the radar in AO for whole time, they trained to use intermittently, engage fast and turn off radar and move. I read this from other game forum, writer was the retired veteran who served in AA unit in Europe during late 80s...

Personally, I'm a retired flight simmer [8D]

There are no anti-radiation missiles or other standoff weapons in AB. What we have is low-flying CAS aircraft and helicopters. I don't know much about how the operators use the radars to confuse the missiles, but perhaps it's a more complex operation than just using the on/off switch?

Even in Combat Mission or Close Combat (games without any sort of resupply/logistics for vehicle), players love to use force attack, especially to buildings with tanks or auto cannon or heavy machine gun, when they push their infantry to the town. It doesn't need to huge amount of ammo, but few tens of seconds of forced attack is usually enough for suppress fire. This also works well against ATGM teams, by interfering their aiming and guiding. Doesn't need entire belt of ammo, usually, I just gave them a few tens of seconds of suppress fire, and move/push my units quickly when they are suppressed / pinned down. Controlling ammo is also one of the task for commander. As such, suppress fire is one of the oldest tactics written in FM (field manual) of any armies. So, I think forced attack might still be a good option for players, at least for vehicles and heavy weapon teams...

I think one issue is that the mentioned games have much smaller tactical maps than AB can have. In many cases you don't know where the enemy is, and there are plenty of places where he can hide. Area suppression with indirect fire is an important part of the game though. A dug-in enemy may need to be suppressed or blinded first, before it's possible to get closer to him.

In addition, in Combat Mission, while it is impossible for vehicles to get resupplied and repaired, infantry can be resupplied from their vehicle, like BTR, BMP, or M2 Bradley. This is also one of the typical way to get ammo resupply on the field for mechanized infantry, at least for US Army. I'm curious if this is possible from this game too.

An interesting idea. Perhaps something like this can be implemented in the future.

I read in somewhere that infantry in this game can take ammo from their fallen squadmates, sometimes their weapons, just like Close Combat, is this correct?

The squad MG or other such important weapon can be taken by another soldier, if the original operator becomes a casualty.

OK, I can understand your efforts to simplify the system as a programmer my self (in computational chemistry). One last question about this feature: You mentioned "spotting capability, firing accuracy, firing speed, night vision, morale etc" Are those damages/effects occur all together at the same time, proportional to the degree of damage? Or do one or two of those symptoms appear randomly, according to the degree of damage?

From what I remember right now, the 'immobilized' state can occur without any other damage, but the other faults caused by damage appear together.

So, the Survivability is changing value which is depending on damage of the vehicle, which represents how much chance the unit can survive against the penetration. Right?

Basically yes.

ORIGINAL: calgar

The battle maps range from about 2x2 kilometers to about 15x15 kilometers. There can be hundreds of units per side, perhaps a regiment or brigade.

Perhaps? But the game is still called Armored Brigade?

How do you define a 'brigade'? For example, in Finland there's a peacetime organization called 'Armoured Brigade', that trains all the mechanized and motorized battle groups. The current game limit is more than 300 ground units per side.

if the 15km are halved in the center, then it might be quite a tide fit. If the deployment areas are again halved, for the regular and the recon deployment area, then 3,5km will be too shallow to really place a Bn-Reserve...

The deployment zone sizes are adjustable.

Personally, I'm a retired flight simmer [8D]

There are no anti-radiation missiles or other standoff weapons in AB. What we have is low-flying CAS aircraft and helicopters. I don't know much about how the operators use the radars to confuse the missiles, but perhaps it's a more complex operation than just using the on/off switch?

To my best knowledge (heard from retired M167 vulcan operator), turning-off radar is not that complicated job to do. But I don't have any experience regarding this issue, and I don't know about how other field SAMs such as Tunguska operates. Anyway, Serbians used this ambush tactics wisely during Operation Allied Force / Operation Deny Flight, and scored F16s and F117 with SA3. Maybe you can consider later.

I think one issue is that the mentioned games have much smaller tactical maps than AB can have. In many cases you don't know where the enemy is, and there are plenty of places where he can hide. Area suppression with indirect fire is an important part of the game though. A dug-in enemy may need to be suppressed or blinded first, before it's possible to get closer to him.

Thanks to let me know. But I wish if you think about this some time again, because it is player's job to control and conserve the ammo, and having forced-attack option is still good IMO. Let us have an authority to decide the forced attack or not, and consequences will be ours too. In addition, it is still one of the basic tactics written in field manual, especially during urban warfare: Machineguns and autocannons suppress possible enemy, and infantry rush and clear the building.

Additional questions!!

1) I saw that there's air to air combat in this game. How's the air to air combat described in this game? Is this RNG-based? Or player control is needed?

2) Thermal vision has one more advantage than other night visions, which makes the TC (tank commanders) or gunners see and aim through the conventional smoke, day or night. This was the one of the major game changer in late cold war. Is this depicted in here?

Thank you for your kind answers!!!

How do you define a 'brigade'? For example, in Finland there's a peacetime organization called 'Armoured Brigade', that trains all the mechanized and motorized battle groups. The current game limit is more than 300 ground units per side.

I have to admit that I would have thought of typical NATO Brigades, in simplest terms meaning the smallest unit capable of combined arms operations in the context of the cold war, since that is the game's era.

Not sure how exciting it would be to play finish peacetime organizations?

That is beside the point anyway. I just found it an interesting statement, no offence intended, that a game called Armored Brigade may perhaps allow a player to play a ....Brigade. Whether this means west-European flavoured brigades or, well, finish peacetime organizations.

Cheers

Size of the brigade might vary depending on period, nation or conditions (es: most Yugoslav peacetime brigade numbered around 1,500-2,000 men, and rest was supposed to be mobilized, but that pretty much never happened as the country dissolved in the civil war), and there are other extremes like IIRC Swiss or Austrian brigades numbering as much as 11.000 men, which is division equivalent in many other nations. So, technically it is not a wrong statement. Secondly, imagine if game was named Armored Battalion..

Hi,

This is so far besides the point, sorry, but since there seems to be an interest to discuss this.

I am aware that Brigades vary in size. If the statement is something to the extent of "the player may perhaps field brigades", then it is still a peculiar statement to make since this encompasses any brigade. So yes, I would expect to be able to field any brigade, because I don't have to go into the extremes to invalidate the statement.

AFAIK, the game comes with three maps: Finland, Northern Plains and Fulda Gap. Why would I care about the few outliers on this matter to justify the title of the game? What does Switzerland have to do with this game? Do you want to tell me that Yugoslav Brigades are referred to in the title? Is there a hidden game mode to play finnish doctors, processing recruits and asking them what allergies they have in peacetime?

Secondly, imagine if game was named Armored Battalion..

Um, like Armored Task Force by Shrapnel Games?

I guess the game would have a more accurate title then?

No really. The name is not important to me, but the defences are a bit....funny.

Cheers

ORIGINAL: exsonic01
To my best knowledge (heard from retired M167 vulcan operator), turning-off radar is not that complicated job to do. But I don't have any experience regarding this issue, and I don't know about how other field SAMs such as Tunguska operates. Anyway, Serbians used this ambush tactics wisely during Operation Allied Force / Operation Deny Flight, and scored F16s and F117 with SA3. Maybe you can consider later.

M163 VADS uses only a ranging radar, which should make it pretty immune to SEAD as it is operated only when estimating the range to the target at relatively short distance. Also, since SEAD missiles of the era guide themselves on to specific radar emitter they locked on prior to launch, if emitter is moving it often means it has ceased emitting, which will lead the missile losing track.

High training standards, mobility, discipline, radio silence, and lures saved Serbian anti-aircraft crews from certain death their Iraqi or other Arab colleagues faced in other conflicts when opposing Western air forces. For comparison, NATO forces launched 743 AGM-88 HARM anti-radiation missile rounds for very little effect – around one third of the number used to totally cripple Iraq’s much larger air defense system in 1991.

In any case, radar operations are novelty in Armored Brigade and they are extremely simplified, and primary force for introducing them was to allow for some important tactical systems like SA-8 or Tunguska to be introduced and to allow for night-time AA deference. There is no doubt we will try to improve some aspects in future, with feedback of the community and hopefully some radar experts.

Thanks to let me know. But I wish if you think about this some time again, because it is player's job to control and conserve the ammo, and having forced-attack option is still good IMO. Let us have an authority to decide the forced attack or not, and consequences will be ours too. In addition, it is still one of the basic tactics written in field manual, especially during urban warfare: Machineguns and autocannons suppress possible enemy, and infantry rush and clear the building.

I can assure you we are well aware of direct-fire suppression importance, but we are also aware of the limits of AI. If this was a human-vs-human game, forced-attack would be a must, however until we teach AI to use it effectively that feature has to stay on hold because it would give human player an unfair advantage. For example in older Close Combat games you could cue on exact enemy position by observing tracers, which AI was not able to do and therefore was penalized. I think forced-attack could be used to same effect.

Additional questions!!

1) I saw that there's air to air combat in this game. How's the air to air combat described in this game? Is this RNG-based? Or player control is needed?

Air-to-air combat can happen if two or more opposing flights are present on map, and posses suitable weapons like air-to-air missiles. Aircraft will try to engage hostile targets automatically.

2) Thermal vision has one more advantage than other night visions, which makes the TC (tank commanders) or gunners see and aim through the conventional smoke, day or night. This was the one of the major game changer in late cold war. Is this depicted in here?

Yes, thermal sight are modeled. There is also TI blocking smoke.

ORIGINAL: calgar

Hi,

This is so far besides the point, sorry, but since there seems to be an interest to discuss this.

I am aware that Brigades vary in size. If the statement is something to the extent of "the player may perhaps field brigades", then it is still a peculiar statement to make since this encompasses anybrigade. So yes, I would expect to be able to field anybrigade, because I don't have to go into the extremes to invalidate the statement.

AFAIK, the game comes with three maps: Finland, Northern Plains and Fulda Gap. Why would I care about the few outliers on this matter to justify the title of the game? What does Switzerland have to do with this game? Do you want to tell me that Yugoslav Brigades are referred to in the title? Is there a hidden game mode to play finnish doctors, processing recruits and asking them what allergies they have in peacetime?

Secondly, imagine if game was named Armored Battalion..

Um, like Armored Task Force by Shrapnel Games?

I guess the game would have a more accurate title then?

No really. The name is not important to me, but the defences are a bit....funny.

Cheers

Half-Life. Neither the plot nor the game-play has anything to do with radioactive decay.

Well, I think it is important to note that a brigade might vary in size from like 1,500 to 11,000 men. Another thing to keep in mind is that fighting component is only part of the manpower - you have many other elements (radio, intelligence, maintenance etc.). Somebody experienced with Finnish, ex-Yugoslav or Israeli concept of brigade size will be totally fine with the game title, a Swiss might not be. Also, virtually any map or nation can (and we hope eventually will) be added to the game so I don't really see all that fuss. I don't recall this point was ever brought up in last 10 year.

Let's put this to rest as unnecessary investment of energy.