Matrix Games Forums

I've just played through the first scenario of the Canadian campaign (after playing Cross Checking as the Canadian force), and I must say that playing only US scenarios leaves a very misleading impression of average NATO capabilities. Trying to replicate US ACR tactics with the Canadian force structure (Leopard 1s/M113s) simply does not work against the Soviet forces when they field BMPs and T-80s as standard units.

Not that I'm complaining; this just shows that the game does a good job of representing the differences in tank/IFV/APC generations and capabilities. But it's eye-opening nonetheless to think about possible engagements between Soviet first-echelon forces and non-US NATO troops.

Each nation has a different setup and doctrine and understanding the kit and tactics is very important in the battles. Even with the US, having M-113s instead of M2s is a big game changer. Thermal sights and night vision varies as well and plays into the game. We try to cover all aspects that a commander needs to take into account.

The Canadian campaign is one I really enjoyed. It's quite the interesting challenge figuring out how you're going to handle T-80s with older Leos.

SgtZdog wrote: Sun Apr 14, 2024 5:24 pm The Canadian campaign is one I really enjoyed. It's quite the interesting challenge figuring out how you're going to handle T-80s with older Leos.

Even the IFVs pose a challenge. I'm used to an attack by one or two tank platoons being able to overwhelm a BMP company, but with the Leo 1s my tanks are decimated by their ATGMs. I suspect that is largely due to the Leo's design philosophy (deemphasizing armor in favor of speed and maneuverability).

Zumwalt_446 wrote: Sun Apr 14, 2024 8:56 pm Even the IFVs pose a challenge. I'm used to an attack by one or two tank platoons being able to overwhelm a BMP company, but with the Leo 1s my tanks are decimated by their ATGMs. I suspect that is largely due to the Leo's design philosophy (deemphasizing armor in favor of speed and maneuverability).

I think it's a combination of design philosophy and also how old it is. Abrams and Leo 2 have significantly more armor largely because they are built at a time where ATGM becomes an almost dominant threat beyond aircraft and other tanks.

Returning to this thread with a few more questions:

1. Does the game model dug-in units (especially tanks) moving from hull-down to turret-down/hide positions and back?

2. Does the game model units moving from primary to alternate battle positions (even though they would remain in the same hex) when it comes to combat calculations?

Thanks!

1). Hull down when dug in, yes. Going turret down when equipped with a periscope and in an improved position, not yet. We want to add that case when we roll back through the combat code in May and June.

2). By default, with the 500m hex, we account for tactical repositioning during a fight, and each round of spotting and combat takes that into account.

Understood. I think capturing the "turret down" position would be especially useful in situations like this one (an older/weaker tank defending vs a more capable opponent); right now my impression is that even enfilading fire from a defensive position (i.e., firing where the defender is not spotted first) still results in return fire from the attacking tanks in the same exchange. It might also be useful to change the AI logic for choosing to engage based on the vehicle matchup (such that a light-skinned vehicle like the Leo1 might be more likely to search for unopposed engagements rather than exposing itself to an alert attacker while taking a shot.

As always, I may be getting too "down in the weeds" relative to the FPC game scale in these suggestions. So feedback is always appreciated