The Direction of the FPC series

[Mad Russian]

I see.

Good Hunting.

MR

[MikeAP]

I think it's very hard to be creative with WW2 battles. Most people want recreated battles, and want them historically accurate. I think modern combat allows the team the creative flexibility with fictional scenarios.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but in Red Storm Rising the strategic objective was for the Soviets to neutralize NATO so it could make a push on Middle Eastern oil? I think that scenario would be interesting.

[Mad Russian]

I have no problem doing historically based scenarios for WWII. I've done those by the dozen in the past. This is actually new ground for me here in FPC. This is one of the very few times I've ever made scenarios that weren't based on an actual historical event.

Hypothetical ME scenarios would be interesting. For all the reasons you point out.

What may well happen, before we are through with WWIII, is that we write the entire history of a global war. Where there are actions taking place in Asia, the Middle East, NWE and the Artic Circle all at relatively the same time.

If this gets that involved we'll publish the book as well! [&o]

Good Hunting.

MR

[22sec]

The first thing I would like to see is the addition of the Central Front combatants who were not included in the initial release. Please dont move away from a theatre or era without finishing it.

[wodin]

ORIGINAL: Mad Russian



What may well happen, before we are through with WWIII, is that we write the entire history of a global war. Where there are actions taking place in Asia, the Middle East, NWE and the Artic Circle all at relatively the same time.



MR

Sounds superb.

[deadsunwheel]

For me first and foremost I want to see the rest of the WW III scenario fleshed out. Give me Sword Point in the Mid East and an Alaskan invasion. After WW III though I would say my settings of preference would be Korea and the Middle East. This is not to say if you released a WWII kit I would take a pass on it.

[76mm]

ORIGINAL: Mad Russian
Russia 1941 and Arab/Israeli Wars 67/73 have exactly the same issue for scenario modeling. How do you dumb down one side enough to make them historically accurate and still have an interesting combat situation?

I'm not sure about this...at least the old Avalon Hill Arab-Israeli title had some pretty good battles. And the asynchronous we-go system I think would go a long way toward "dumbing down" one side while leaving an interesting combat situation.

I'm also curious that you think 1941 East Front is so unbalanced; as I'm sure you're aware many Russian tanks were far superior to the panzers, the Russians just couldn't deploy them properly. Again I think that the game system would go a long way toward addressing any imbalance issues. Not that 1941 is the most interesting period on the East Front, but I don't see it as lopsided as you do.

[wodin]

76mm well thats another tricky issue to get around..getting the Russians to perform in a historical manner even though they have the KV 1 and T34 and more of them. On paper the Germans don't stand a chance. SO you have to model superior tanks and more of them and yet still struggle and need the numbers to keep with the Germans. Just going by tank stats would mean the Germans don't stand any chance at all.

[DoubleDeuce]

I would throw my support in with those advocating for fleshing out of the WWIII situation before moving to any other 'era'. Anything between 1970-1990 would be the best period to cover thoroughly before moving on IMHO.

[Combatengineerjrgmail]

I'd like to see scenario\map packages that leverage all the research already done on 1980's weapon systems and tactics, taken to new locations.

My picks in order:

Soviet invasion of Mid East in the 1980's. Possibly the 'trigger' that started the European War. Soviets invade, US responds with 'Rapid Deployment' force.

Chinese Invasion of Soviet Far East, possibly taking advantage of Soviet push west.

North Korean Invasion of South Korea in the 1980's.

All these could be done with the existing engine. Most effort would go into research and playtesting along with a lot of map work.

You could NOT go more wrong than the Iraq-Iran war. Think WWI...zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

During this Scenario Pack time, engine development could be focused on what 'new' area you want to go into. WWII etc.

My 2 cents worth.

[Radagy]

Six Days War in 1967 was quite a different affair from Kippur War in 1973. Russians and Arabs learned a hard lesson in '67 and made a good use of it, although eventually they lost.
Speaking of these two wars as one it's not historically accurate IMHO.

[Mad Russian]

Who was speaking of these two wars as one? I said they were both hard to make good scenarios from because the Arabs were so incompetent in both. Which they were.

Good Hunting.

MR

[Radagy]

The Israelis were in big trouble in '73. After the first few days there was even a plan to threaten use nuclear weapons if put in a corner (The Samson Option). Arab performance in Kippur War was far better than in Six Days War.
It's a good starting point to think about some scenarios.

[FroBodine]

I love me some WWII battles, so I vote strongly for a WWII game, Pacific or European. Sure, WWII has been done to death, but it has NOT been done at all with this fantastic game engine. I cannot wait to see what they do with it.

More continuing campaigns and theatres in this current WWIII universe would be fantastic, too.

[GrumpyMel]

The point is that the game seems to have legs enough that it can have some real longevity and go lots of places. So it's really all about the order of priority in getting there. I see no reason to exclude WWII as there are ALOT of wargamers (like myself) that do have an interest in it. What would be novel about it, wouldn't be the subject matter but rather the game engine itself..... which is quite different from other stuff out there.

I think though that expanding the hypothetical "WW-III" setting to other Theatres and nationalties would be a natural first step.

After that, I'd really like to see Vietnam as there is alot of interest in it historicaly but it hasn't seen alot of games done. I think the engine would be nice for that, with the sort of detached level of control the commander has and simultaneous execution of the turn.

Eventualy I would like to see them get to WWII....how could a system that deals so well with armored combat not go to those great classic tank battles eventualy?  However, I don't think there needs to be any particular rush to get there. My 2 cents.

[Mad Russian]

ORIGINAL: Radagy

The Israelis were in big trouble in '73. After the first few days there was even a plan to threaten use nuclear weapons if put in a corner (The Samson Option). Arab performance in Kippur War was far better than in Six Days War.
It's a good starting point to think about some scenarios.

It's my understanding that the Israeli nuclear strike was in the air and about half way to Cairo when it was called back.

Good Hunting.

MR

[Hexagon]

My 2 cents.

I think that now you have the base for "modern" titles, after first DLC for Red Storm i think you can start a 2nd module... here i think is better use after hypotetical something historical and Middle east is perfect specially if you plan add to Arab-Israeli wars a DLC with Iran VS Irak and first gulf war, you can release middle east and if you want expand you have the base, if you release Vietnam first... well, i only think in Vietnam VS China war for a DLC.

After leave modern version with historical module ... i dont say no to a WWII independent game with a escale of 200-250m with more presence of infantry.

I dont say no to have "Flashpoint campaigns" and "World War campaigns" but only if work in 2 games doesnt affect them, i refer that i prefer only Flashpoint if try a WWII engine leave us with no modern and WWII titles.

PD: i see interesting to a module covering China VS Taiwan/Japan/South Korea as a complement for Red Storm... this remember me a little how Tiller Modern Campaigns have the Korea Title... maybe Korea in 1950 is better for the WWII engine, scale of combats is more WWII for me.

EDIT: i dont remember this... but the book "Red Storm" has an intereting point, the soviet idea was invade middle east... maybe a module for Flashpoint covering this as others suggest... but i think that first something historical is needed for Flashpoint.

[Mad Russian]

ORIGINAL: Hexagon

My 2 cents.

... but i think that first something historical is needed for Flashpoint.

You could be right. Maybe we alternate between historical theaters and hypothetical theaters.

Something to think about.

Good Hunting.

MR

[Hexagon]

Well, if is not WWII something well know and historical has his point hypotetical-historical alternate is an option.

I like WWII BUT is hard enter in the overexploted world of WWII... what you can do??? use the "WWII trinity" Normandy-MarketGarden-Bulge??? be a little original (Italy campaign or Berlin battle) or do something more rare like a Pacific title... i think in a "Rising sun" module covering the Japanese blitzkrieg (a Malaya campaign...), or a China campaign title or more exotic, a full hypotetical title with Japan invading in 1941 Hawai, West coast and 1946 Japan invasion.

I feel a little like a kid in a candyshop [:D] are many and good options but you need a mix between "we can do it" and profitable proyects.

[Duck Doc]

Some conflicts are more compelling to gamers than others but it really does depend on the scale.

For example, The Falklands War the is very interesting at a the macro scale because of the amphibious, naval and air elements involved. However at the 500 meter scale it was mostly a low-intensity, infantry flight more reminiscent of WWI then many would admit. I am not sure it would be fun with this game engine.

The Arab-Israeli conflict of 1973 would fit very nicely at the 500 meter scale in this game engine, especially the battles in the Sinai and on the Golan Heights. The mechanized nature of the warfare and the admixture of an air element could be modeled by the game engine very well. So could Soviet-German battles late in the WW2 because of their high intensity and modern equipment and tactics. Battles early in the War might fit well also as long as one could put up with the asymmetric nature of the forces.

However there really are few conflicts which were truly symmetrical. Examples would be the American Civil War and WWI. Most conflicts have been asymmetrical for various reasons but they have been gamed anyway. In WW2 it was often a quality-quantity asymmetry which has been a persistent element in modern conflict as well.

The asymmetry of the battles can be managed by choosing victory conditions appropriate to the asymmetrical balance of forces and adding what-if elements. For example, playing the Israeli player on the Golan against the AI beating of wave after wave could be a lot of fun because of the tension. The battles round the Chinese Farm in the Sinai and breaching the Canal defenses would work great.

If the game engine really depends on armored warfare then there really was a golden age from WW2 through the 1990's. Truly modern warfare will not be armored conflicts engaging tank-on-tank but will be infantry battles with airpower and artillery (and a lot of drone warfare) as force equalizers.

We all know these things. It really doesn't matter. One can be creative what ever the battle and make it interesting to the gamer. Build it and they will come.