Flashpoint Campaigns in WW2 - Would you buy it?

[Mad Russian]

Then you're in luck there is a new campaign coming with the update. This is Flashpoint CAMPAIGNS after all. There are also more campaigns in the works for between now and the release of Southern Storm. I would like to continue with our attempts to support the community with free content at both Thanksgiving and Christmas. We'll see how that works out but that is the plan.

Good Hunting.

MR

[Hexagon]

In my case depends of 2 factors.

The most important for me is INTHENAMEOFGOD not a Normandy-Market Garden-Bulge title!!!! i see attractive a north Africa title or a not well covered battle (Berlin for example) or The Pacific but here enter the 2nd factor.

Infantry model... i think that engine needs a way to show more details in infantry area, change abstract squad but a "container" of soldiers to cover better how squads take damage, with this engine can deal much better with more "pure" infantry battles.

I dont say NO to a WWII game but now maybe i prefer a lot more see a middle east title.

[Panta_slith]

I concur with everything Hexagon has said in the previous post!

[Hoyt Burrass]

Where do I sign up for testing?[:)]

[IronManBeta]

Thanks for this suggestion re infantry modelling! Rob

ORIGINAL: Hexagon

In my case depends of 2 factors.

The most important for me is INTHENAMEOFGOD not a Normandy-Market Garden-Bulge title!!!! i see attractive a north Africa title or a not well covered battle (Berlin for example) or The Pacific but here enter the 2nd factor.

Infantry model... i think that engine needs a way to show more details in infantry area, change abstract squad but a "container" of soldiers to cover better how squads take damage, with this engine can deal much better with more "pure" infantry battles.

I dont say NO to a WWII game but now maybe i prefer a lot more see a middle east title.

[demiller]

Would I buy it? Yes. It'd be a great WW2 engine. Would I be disappointed if the modern space hadn't been pretty thoroughly explored first? Also yes.

[WABAC]

Even if you don't put us to sleep with a Normandy invasion scenario I don't see how you move forward on this without decent naval gunfire and amphibious movement gizmos.

If it's all Soviets, Nazis, mud, and frostbite, then maybe I don't buy the game. I'm interested in Norway, Syria, Guadalcanal, the Kokoda Trail, Philippines, Sicily, Indonesia, Burma, Singapore, Torch and Tunisia, Foret de Paroy, Nordwind, Falaise, Vosges, Hurtgen, and a lot of other stuff that is seldom covered.

But if you continue to tweak the engine on post WWII scenarios it is fine with me if you do so by updating the engine while touring Scandinavia, Korea, the Middle East, and so on. As an Avalon Hill child of the 60's and an adult Central Front SPI gamer of the 80's I'm up for all of that so long as current scenarios can be modified to fit the engine updates.

I do wonder if 250 meters is short enough for WWII to avoid brewing it up in the hex. Seems like a lot would depend on the reach of the various heavy, medium, and light machine guns. IIRC (always a big if) German MG's (for example) were intended to suppress at much shorter ranges than 250 meters.

And if you got down to a shorter range we might be talking ACW, Napoleonics, and more.

I think it is time for me to step away from the computer now. [:D]

[cbelva]

The goal of the team is to keep moving this system forward with each new release. Rob and Jim have lots of great ideas, the problem is in prioritizing them and then having the time to implement them. We also want to tie specific improvements to specific releases/theaters. Time is the biggest limiting factor we have. There were other features that we would have like to included with the Red Storm release, but you would still not have the game if we had waited. We were able to implement a few of these wished for improvements in the 2.04 patch. They have changed the way I play the game. One beta tester has stated that he can't imagine going back to playing the game the way it was.

The 2.1 release should really move the system along as long as Rob can get them all the changes implemented in a timely manner.

ORIGINAL: Hexagon

Infantry model... i think that engine needs a way to show more details in infantry area, change abstract squad but a "container" of soldiers to cover better how squads take damage, with this engine can deal much better with more "pure" infantry battles.

You need to be careful what you wish for. One of the strength of this system is the balance between the way it handles abstractions and reality. The game does not track every individual bullet or ration. That is designed. Too much realism slows the game down. However, the abstractions have to be believable. I have been involved with a similar system that model infantry by the use of "containers" of soldiers. It did not model infantry any better, but in fact added new problems. And it tended to slow the game down trying to track the men and what was happening to them. The fast pace of this game is one of its strengths and I would hate to loose that while the program is slowed down trying to track too many variables.

That being said, there is still plenty of room for improvement with the infantry model and I personally have spent a lot of my own time testing it and making recommendations to Ron and Jim. And I plan on continuing to do that as we move forward.

[Alex1812]

There are a lot of WW2 tactical games. It's not the problem to buy the new one, but as for me, the more interesting and not usual period is the Middle East wars like campaigns 1967, 1973 and 1982.

[laska2k8]

I know there's a lot of WW2 tactical wargames out there, I haven't bought this title yet but one of my friends plays this title to death and I had the opportunity to take a look it.

Well, yes it's fun, I like the engine, the turn resolution, the wego system, and I could love the game in general (the modded maps are fantastic) but only if focused in the WW2 era and especially the west and southern Europe (maybe north Africa).

Hope this game leads also in this direction.

[Phoenix100]

How much do you want? I'll buy.

[nemo7]

Definitely [:D]

[hazmaxed]

What would a good WW2 version have to have for you to drop some coin? Please comment.

Here is my "wish list" for a WW2 version. These would not all have to be available from a single release.

1. European/African and Pacific/Asian theaters covered.
2. Amphibious assaults and naval gunfire.
3. A reasonable mix of famous and less well-known battles/campaigns.
4. More "small' scenarios than are currently available in FCRS.

This being said, I would stiill probably buy a WW2 version, even if it did not have all of my wish list.

[Mad Russian]

When the basic unit is a company it's pretty hard to make small scale battles. That should be easier in WWII because there is usually much less support to add in.

I see a LOT of comments for those wanting smaller scenarios. I just don't see any forthcoming from you guys. I've done some things with scenarios over the years. I once made a 4 turn CMBB scenario on a bet that I couldn't do it. Got pretty high marks.

Smaller scenarios in a modern setting is small because of the response times and ability for both sides to escalate the action.

Good Hunting.

MR

[DoubleDeuce]

I would think with smaller battles you are going to lose a lot of the maneuver aspect, especially with modern tech and units able to wipe out other units in a very short time frame.

[wodin]

I'd want Platoon scale. 200m or 250m hex. Early East front and Early West Front. Say covering the War from Sep 39 to Dec '42. Then three more games one for East Front '43 to 45. The other the allied invasion onwards on the West Front, Africa from June 40 to end of War and Italy. Finally a Pacific War game (would need special amphibious assault mechanics, jungle warfare rules and make it interesting which might be difficult with slow attritional jungle fighting.

Make them serious monster games. So you get pretty much the war done in four games. You could then afterwards do mini expansions\DLC focusing on particular units in a particular battle\operation.

[Plodder]

What I would like to do with the WWII version is recreate the battles from the Red Gambit series. For those who haven't heard of it, it's a series of novels set in a WWIII that starts in 1945.

[Cafe]

WW2 with the FCRS engine tuned to a smaller hex size to take into account the closer engagement ranges and for better terrain matching of historical scenarios.

Rather than campaigns, a country based system of phased releases like the old SL/ASL boardgame series with attendant maps would make for a good business model in terms of release and profitability.

Besides, the WW2 era has always been popular. As a fan of most wargame eras, I wouldn't hesitate adding another WW2 title, especially with the FCRS WEGO play style.

Spin off a dev group and do it lads - you know it makes sense!

[76mm]

I would definitely buy any East Front or North Africa titles released. D-Day/Market Garden/Bulge or Pacific Theater, probably not.

[Hexagon]

Well, i think the WWII is overexploited BUT only in certain battles there are a lot of interesting battles simple not covered (i think in Berlin, Budapest, the Pacific...).

In other thread you ask for period... well, maybe is possible join all options in a single title, WWII east/west+fresh and open situation... WWIII in 1945 like The Plodder says, is not a bad option you have WWII feeling but in something "new" and very open, you can addapt it as you want like ass germans in west allies and you can set battle area where you want or who is the attacker you can create west attacking campaing or west defending campaing, same for east side.

As i say now is not my primary target a WWII based in FPC engine i prefer see a middle east title before jump to the "old friend" [:D]