Game Rule Questions

[istari6]

1) How is unit facing determined for purposes of frontal vs flank armor? In "Witch's Cauldron", I had Leopard 2A4s waiting in defensive positions overlooking avenues of approach at optimal range. T-80B1s rolled up and began knocking out my Leopards one after another at 2000+ range. I was surprised, given the T-80B1s don't have AT-11s, so I'm assuming that they were hitting the Leopards in the much weaker flank armor. But it did raise the question of how can I ensure my tanks frontal armor is pointed towards the likely avenue of approach for the initial exchange of fire? I'm also assuming that once under fire, a unit shifts its frontal armor towards the greatest threat?

2) Will towed artillery and C3 units mobility be addressed in future patches? Several times now I've sought to overrun or otherwise shatter the Soviet artillery park prior to a main offensive against entrenched Soviet infantry (to remove their fire support and reduce friendly infantry losses). Yet even when Marders and Bradleys, even Leopards roll up on towed D-30s, they're able to limber up and keep shifting in front of my oncoming platoons. I spend turns and turns chasing them around, trying to finish them off decisively, but they have a remarkable ability to limber up in minutes and race ahead of my charging MBTs, IFVs and AHs, then redeploy for more fire missions, then limber up again to stay one step ahead . Can we lengthen the time it takes to shift a towed artillery battery or deployed C3 HQ, especially when under DF?

3) Group Commands - I've been experimenting with the Limited Staff Orders rule, but the inability to give Group Orders is a real drag. I understand the idea of limiting the ability of the player to command multiple platoons and companies from different organizations with a single "order", but it doesn't make sense that I have to give the Assault order to the HQ of the Company, then separately again to each Platoon. Then I have to micromanage each platoon so they arrive coordinated in time. Very tedious. Shouldn't I be able to tell the Company HQ to Assault there, and all units under that HQ can get the same order?

Chris

[CapnDarwin]

1). There is no facing. Units are assumed to place their best armor to a threat. There are some cases where flank, rear and top are targeted. In the cases of initial contact there can be a "surprise" factor that leaves units exposed to flanking fire at the outset of the combat. In close combat <1000m there is a chance of flanking fire. In hex even more so. In hex with infantry in cities exposes top shots and rear shots.

2). This got mentioned in a meeting a week or so ago on limber and move times. We plan to improve on this setup in 2.1 and have better displacement and setup times. That should fix some of that. Also I need to look and see why the guns did not sit in place and engage in direct fire. Most Soviet arty has DF capability. May not be in the towed units or working as intended. Need to look.

3). This is a whole can of worms that has a thread devoted to it somewhere. Allowing group orders and then having a limited orders setting cancels limited orders basically. What you are looking for is the ability to issue orders to your HQs and having the subunits do your bidding, similar to command ops. We may be able to do something like that as an advanced option for 2.1. That way you can issue a directive to a company HQ like "take that bridge" and the AI runs the subs and does the job based on some simple SOP setting from the initial order. That might be feasible in 2.1.

3a). You can issue a group order to a location(s). Just can't do it with limited orders active. I play with Limited off. I'm not a fan of it and I'm already lobbying to remove it in 2.1 and replace it with a more realistic command friction/chaos mechanic were units miss orders, units fall of the command net or get jammed/spoofed, variable delays, etc. Again as an advanced option.

Hope this helps.

[MTTODD]

Hi, I have been thinking of buying this game but have been put off by some posts querying soviet excessive capabilities.

For example, question number 1 by istari6 asked if the reason his Leopard 2A4s were getting knock out at plus 2000+ ranges was because of facing issues.
This seemed a good question. I could understand the Leopards getting knocked out if they were getting hit side on for example.

CDs response while answering his question about facing issues did not then answer the reason why the Leopards were getting knocked out.

I have read previous posts asking why Soviet penetration values are the same as Western values. The answer given is that these values only apply at much shorter distances than western guns.

So how are the Leopards getting knocked out at such longer distances (2000+) ?

Appreciate any help.

[pzgndr]

ORIGINAL: Capn Darwin
3). This is a whole can of worms that has a thread devoted to it somewhere. Allowing group orders and then having a limited orders setting cancels limited orders basically.

I disagree. This is a fundamental feature that differentiates between Soviet/Warsaw Pact doctrine and NATO doctrine, which the Assault series captured pretty well. Soviets with regimental HQs/TOCs had more units to control with limited orders, so "battle drill" group orders to entire battalions or companies allowed them to make the most of their limited orders. NATO battalion TF HQs/TOCS had more flexibility with their limited orders to allow them to exercise more rapid command cycles and gain a qualitative advantage over the Soviet quantitative advantage.

For the next game, I wish you guys would seriously reconsider implementing the Assault command & control model. Soviet regimental TOCs vs. NATO battalion TOCs. Group orders to companies and battalions, including their subordinate units within command range even if they are not in the same hex. Accumulation of TOC orders for later execution to represent staff planning. Etc. Again, all of this highlights the fundamental differences in doctrines and compels players to fight accordingly. Which is really interesting when it all works right. [8D]

[CapnDarwin]

Several things are at play at this range. Soviet AP rounds are capable of about 450-500mm pen at 2000m. Looking at the AP values in the data I will say they are off a couple points and I need to figure out why. One thing I will be doing for 2.1 is going back through all data to use newer info and resources we did not have the 5+ odd years ago when this got put together. Even with the 2-4 point variance at range that has only a small impact on the overall setup.

Back to the engagement. We are looking at a company of tanks for the Soviets (10 tanks) versus a platoon of 4 Leos. Already a 2.5 to one in shots. What is unclear from the post is the type of terrain the units are in or orders state. I can surmise the Leos are stationary and the Soviets are moving. As I stated above the Leos may have been "surprised" and taking a round of fire with flank armor being used. That will hurt. Another factor is luck. You could have had a bad day. The chance at that range for a moving Soviet with weaker stability and fire control to hit any target is lower than the Leos non-moving with good stability and fire control on a moving target. Again terrain is unknown. Soviets could have been partially masked and the Leos more in the open. That would tip the scale to the Leos taking more effective fire. The calculation in the game is based on the effective value of the pen (modified for range) the hit chance (modified by a ton of stuff) and the protection factor (a calculated value based on the frontal armor of the vehicle turret and hull). Another unknown is if the Leos were just knocked out or destroyed in his case. More likely that the Soviet rounds damaged the Leos as opposed to brewing them up.

The practicality is at 2000m or shorter any tank can knock out any other tank with a hit (within reason here T-80, T-64, M1A1, Chal1, Leo2s). What varies is the crew training, tech level of equipment, and how the tanks are used (cover, movement). And there is a roll of the dice in the calculation. Not many rolls either. Much of the model is set to be deterministic to promote similar outcomes under similar circumstances. That one roll can ruin your day if its your four tanks getting nailed.

[8D]

[Mad Russian]

ORIGINAL: MTTODD

Hi, I have been thinking of buying this game but have been put off by some posts querying soviet excessive capabilities.

For example, question number 1 by istari6 asked if the reason his Leopard 2A4s were getting knock out at plus 2000+ ranges was because of facing issues.
This seemed a good question. I could understand the Leopards getting knocked out if they were getting hit side on for example.

CDs response while answering his question about facing issues did not then answer the reason why the Leopards were getting knocked out.

I have read previous posts asking why Soviet penetration values are the same as Western values. The answer given is that these values only apply at much shorter distances than western guns.

So how are the Leopards getting knocked out at such longer distances (2000+) ?

Appreciate any help.

The Soviets would not have been a paper tiger. Here is a chart showing Depleted Uranium rounds. Without the war between these forces actually have been fought we all have different ideas of how that would have played out. We have done as much research as possible.

On these forums you will see the full range of opinions of how it works. We put ourselves on record because we took the all the weapons systems and rated them. Everyone of them. Are we right? I have no idea. The war wasn't fought. But the game is pretty close to what I thought it would look like when I was actually standing on the ground. That's my own take on it. Your take on how it would have gone is just as valid as mine.

We set it up where if you disagree enough with our values and results you can create the units for yourselves and have them engage differently than what FPC shows them doing now.


Good Hunting.

MR

[Mad Russian]

Here is a bit more information about the capabilities of Soviet tank ammunition.

DU is used by the U.S. Army in 120 mm or 105 mm cannons employed on the M1 Abrams tank. The Russian military has used DU ammunition in tank main gun ammunition since the late 1970s, mostly for the 115 mm guns in the T-62 tank and the 125 mm guns in the T-64, T-72, T-80, and T-90 tanks.

Good Hunting.

MR

[istari6]

ORIGINAL: Capn Darwin
1). There is no facing. Units are assumed to place their best armor to a threat. There are some cases where flank, rear and top are targeted. In the cases of initial contact there can be a "surprise" factor that leaves units exposed to flanking fire at the outset of the combat. In close combat <1000m there is a chance of flanking fire. In hex even more so. In hex with infantry in cities exposes top shots and rear shots.

Gotcha. I think the game does a great job of modeling the complexities of Cold War warfare. This is an immensely complicated subject, and the sheer lethality of modern weapons (and the incredible expense of the platforms) means that the modeling of each shot really matters, in a way that it doesn't quite as much for WWII warfare. So I don't envy you the challenges of tuning these variables.

Having said that, I was surprised to see 3-4 of my 13 Leopard 2s knocked out at >2000m range within minutes, hit in their elevated and covered positions overlooking the Soviet advance. With your explanation, I understand that was probably due to the "surprise" factor of the initial engagement, and the law of averages will bite everyone once in awhile. However, for future versions, if there's a way for defenders to "orient" on an axis (maybe optional ability the player can use if desired), that way we can ensure that during the initial exchange of fire, that flanks simply aren't exposed.

It's easy for players to toss out suggestions, and I imagine the challenge for the designer is how to maintain simplicity in play without getting encumbered by lots of special rules that bog down play. So there may not be a way to do this elegantly.

2). This got mentioned in a meeting a week or so ago on limber and move times. We plan to improve on this setup in 2.1 and have better displacement and setup times. That should fix some of that. Also I need to look and see why the guns did not sit in place and engage in direct fire. Most Soviet arty has DF capability. May not be in the towed units or working as intended. Need to look.

Great. Yes, I think Soviet artillery isn't defending itself at all in 2.05. I've been able to attack artillery parks multiple times and never suffered any return fire.

3). This is a whole can of worms that has a thread devoted to it somewhere. Allowing group orders and then having a limited orders setting cancels limited orders basically. What you are looking for is the ability to issue orders to your HQs and having the subunits do your bidding, similar to command ops. We may be able to do something like that as an advanced option for 2.1. That way you can issue a directive to a company HQ like "take that bridge" and the AI runs the subs and does the job based on some simple SOP setting from the initial order. That might be feasible in 2.1.

I'm not sure I agree that having group orders necessarily cancels out limited orders. They seem like separate concepts. If I have limited orders per turn, I should be able to distribute those few available actions across larger organizations than individual platoons. For example, I should be able to tell an entire company to "Assault to 2117" and have that be a single order, without having to give the same order to each separate platoon.

This would limit the commander's flexibility and ability to micromanage a battle, but still avoid the tediousness of ordering each and every single platoon to assault to the same location on the same path.

I agree that trying to have the AI manage all the subunits intelligently is a different order of challenge, and not necessary (in my view) to solve the problem.

3a). You can issue a group order to a location(s). Just can't do it with limited orders active. I play with Limited off. I'm not a fan of it and I'm already lobbying to remove it in 2.1 and replace it with a more realistic command friction/chaos mechanic were units miss orders, units fall of the command net or get jammed/spoofed, variable delays, etc. Again as an advanced option.

Ah good. Glad to hear you're also playing with Limited off . Love the ideas of where the command modeling can do in 2.1 and beyond.

Thanks for the replies.

[istari6]

ORIGINAL: MTTODD

Hi, I have been thinking of buying this game but have been put off by some posts querying soviet excessive capabilities.

For example, question number 1 by istari6 asked if the reason his Leopard 2A4s were getting knock out at plus 2000+ ranges was because of facing issues.
This seemed a good question. I could understand the Leopards getting knocked out if they were getting hit side on for example.

CDs response while answering his question about facing issues did not then answer the reason why the Leopards were getting knocked out.

I have read previous posts asking why Soviet penetration values are the same as Western values. The answer given is that these values only apply at much shorter distances than western guns.

So how are the Leopards getting knocked out at such longer distances (2000+) ?

MTTODD,

I'd strongly recommend buying this game. You've probably seen some of my recent posts asking questions about ammunition, penetration, etc. Understand that these questions arise only after playing it for probably dozens of hours since diving into it a few weeks ago, and enjoying it all the way.

My sense of FRPS after playing through all but two of the original 15 individual scenarios is that it really nails the core dynamics, and (perhaps just as important), makes for a great game. I've won many of the battles, but they required careful thought and some often nail-biting dramas to squeak through. I've suffered a few painful "Decisive Defeats", but never felt it was the game engine that screwed me over. Instead, I learned about how NOT to use Leopard 1A5s to try and stop Soviet T-80BVs (hello "Pied PIper" :>).

Bottom line, this is the rare game where I've been learning alot about one of my favorite subjects, while having a great time doing it.

Chris

[istari6]

BTW - is anyone else able to Edit your posts after submitting? I keep getting errors.

[MTTODD]

Hi,

I appreciate it's not an easy task that the team has in trying to model modern warfare.

But I seem to get the impression from the mad russian that the soviet tanks are as good as the western ones. When I thought that the west had a qualitative advantage over
the soviet tanks. With the soviets having a quantitate advantage in their tanks.

They were certainly not as heavy (less armour) and their eletronics and optics were not as good.

Many thanks.

[istari6]

ORIGINAL: pzgndr

I disagree. This is a fundamental feature that differentiates between Soviet/Warsaw Pact doctrine and NATO doctrine, which the Assault series captured pretty well. Soviets with regimental HQs/TOCs had more units to control with limited orders, so "battle drill" group orders to entire battalions or companies allowed them to make the most of their limited orders. NATO battalion TF HQs/TOCS had more flexibility with their limited orders to allow them to exercise more rapid command cycles and gain a qualitative advantage over the Soviet quantitative advantage.

For the next game, I wish you guys would seriously reconsider implementing the Assault command & control model. Soviet regimental TOCs vs. NATO battalion TOCs. Group orders to companies and battalions, including their subordinate units within command range even if they are not in the same hex. Accumulation of TOC orders for later execution to represent staff planning. Etc. Again, all of this highlights the fundamental differences in doctrines and compels players to fight accordingly. Which is really interesting when it all works right. [8D]

Completely agree. I played Assault back in the day, and enjoyed how the difference in command cycles balanced some of the quantitative advantages of the Warsaw Pact side. When starting my first scenarios with FPRS ("Time to Dance" and "Blackhorse"), I was surprised to see that the command cycles were identical between NATO and the WP. I understood this was modeling the intense EW jamming at the outset of the assault, allowing the Soviets (operating on preplanned orders and battle drills) to operate at similar OODA loop speed to the jammed and surprised Americans.

However, I'm now starting my 14th scenario ("Strike First"), and I still see exactly the same situation at the start of the battle: High EW jamming causing NATO to start with exactly the same command cycle time as the Soviets. It has been the same in every scenario - nearly identical command loops at the outset. This doesn't seem as realistic three days into the fictional Red Storm, with the Soviets operating a hundred miles+ deep into West Germay, that they would still be able to jam the entire NATO command net so thoroughly that there's equivalent command speeds at the start of battle.

Chris

[istari6]

MTODD,

Think of FPRS in its current form as modeling the "worst case" scenario for NATO (short of nuclear and chemical weapon use). The fictional campaign storyline has NATO almost completely surprised by a "Bolt from the Blue" attack from a rolling start across the IGB. The Soviets execute a strategic and political maskirova and fool everyone into thinking they're pulling tank & MRDs out of East Germany, and instead turn and drive those units across the IGB into the completely surprised Americans. There's a fascinating backstory about how they've been planning this for over a year as they realize the USSR is being decisively outcompeted on economic and technological grounds, and this is their last chance to reverse the tide of history.

So NATO units are fumbling and disorganized. They're fighting massive refugee movements westward, causing most units to come into battle piecemeal. Many NATO battles start without artillery support, as supporting batteries and reinforcements are struggling eastwards. The WP has equivalent command cycles to NATO thanks to extensive and successful EW jamming. Finally, the quality of Soviet equipment is very very good in this "worst case" scenario. The T-80U is superior to anything in the West (with the exception of lacking thermal imaging), and the much more widespread T-80BV is better armored than the M1A1 (non-HA model) and has equivalent penetration power. The Hinds are lethal, and while Blowpipes were always mediocre, Stingers are also remarkably ineffective at knocking them down.

Yet none of this is unrealistic per se. It's simply giving the WP the benefit of the doubt across many of the "known unknowns" about Cold War warfare, giving them "optimistic" or "best case" values both strategically and technically.

Even with all these advantages, you can win regularly at NATO. You will get bruised every time and outright mauled occasionally , and you will be punished for any mistakes. In many ways, playing this game reminds me of what I've read about the NTC, where the OPFOR units played as the "best case" Soviet MRR, and regularly smashed the visiting American units. If you make mistakes in this game, the WP will punish you and quickly. But it makes for dramatic battles and really compelling gameplay, because this is how it might have actually been in a worst case scenario.

Chris

[istari6]

One last thought. If you're on the fence about the game, download the Google Earth plug-in and explore the scenarios. Whoever came up with the Google Earth idea deserves a special bonus . It's brilliant. Gives you the entire political and strategic backstory, allows you to see how the game maps are modeled exactly from real-world terrain in West Germany, lets you explore the units involved, etc. I hope they do this for Southern Storm and future games, it really adds a huge amount of understanding and interest to the individual scenarios. Did I mention it's free?

[CapnDarwin]

We picked the 80s primarily due to the swing in technology that occurs during the time period. IR search lights to night vision to thermal sights. Improvements with range finding and ballistic computing. The cat and mouse game with guns and armor. In the game you can see the NATO quality pay off with much better long range shooting 2km plus ranges, seeing through smoke and in the dark and with stepped improvements in guns and armor. The Soviets get better too, but they rely on numbers and lower tech solutions to problem with items like Reactive Armor and tube launched ATGMs. We also hit on the command cycles and delay differences. The OOBs are company based for the Soviets and platoon based for NATO to further show NATO flexibility versus Soviet drill.

As a side note, the Battlefield Tour was done by The Plodder. A beta-tester for the team and also a map and graphics modder too. Check it out. [&o]

[MTTODD]

Thanks for all the replies.

Appreciate people responding.

Will get the game.

[Mad Russian]

ORIGINAL: MTTODD

Hi,

I appreciate it's not an easy task that the team has in trying to model modern warfare.

But I seem to get the impression from the mad russian that the soviet tanks are as good as the western ones. When I thought that the west had a qualitative advantage over
the soviet tanks. With the soviets having a quantitate advantage in their tanks.

They were certainly not as heavy (less armour) and their eletronics and optics were not as good.

Many thanks.

When you play the game you find that it pits Soviet companies against NATO platoons. The Soviets will take corresponding losses. They are not equal.

However, some that have bought the game have flat out stated that NO M1 Abrams would have been killed by any Soviet tank. That's the single most absurd comment I've ever seen made. Of course they can be knocked out by tanks armed with 125mm guns at range. Is it the same range that the Soviet tanks can be knocked out at? Probably not. Does it matter in the end? Not if they have enough tanks.

I would tell you that tank for tank NATO tanks are better. But, as you fight these battles you will find that it's a rare occasion that NATO gets to fight tank vs tank. Think of the Eastern Front in WWII and you come close to the same situation anytime the Warsaw Pact is fighting against NATO.

And yes istari6, the edit function on this site is broken.

Good Hunting.

MR

[cbelva]

There are two things that I think people either forget or fail to understand. First, this is an operational scaled game and not a tactical scaled game. It is more about maneuver and position than range, facing, or caliber. Capn D has does a herculean job in trying to actually represent these items, but there is much room to speculate still. This was a war that was never fought, but many of use either trained to fight it or worried/wondered whether it would happen. Since it was never fought, there is much we don't know as to how the war would have been fought, tactics that would have actually been used (we know the tactics that they trained to use, but they have a tendency to be changed once the bullets start flying), and how the war would have ended. We could (and do) waste many hours in speculating these things, but none of us know for sure. There are many variable that would be impossible to properly anticipate that would influence the outcome of many of the engagements. This game is Rob's and Jim's vision as to how it would have unfolded (with MR and my dissenting voices at time)/ Yes, we do debate these things in our meetings and I can safely say that none of us have won ever items we would like to see. Some of your arguments/comments in the forum have caused us to pause and rethink or position and have led to some of the changes in the game in the upcoming "Player's Edition". That is why it is named such.

The second consideration is that this is a game that is intended to place the player in the position of the Brigade Commander. In that regards I believe the game succeeds. I was a staff officer for several years in the operations section of a Mech Infantry Brigade during this period. We trained for this war. We wargamed this war. I have not seen a game that bring me back to that time like this one does. This game makes me think again like a Brigade S-3.

[MTTODD]

Yes I understand that this is a operational game and not a tactical one. But the values that represent the effectiveness of the units still matter.

And as I said there seemed to be a lot of posts questioning the excessive abilities of soviet equipment. So before I buy the game I just wanted to know that the qualitative
advantage of western equipment is modelled in the game.

Again thanks for your help.

[CapnDarwin]

Yes we have quality setting for each nation that enter into the jumble of the combat model. There are also equipment and vehicle specials that add into the equation as does unit training, readiness, and morale. And the best answer we have is you can always tweak the user data files (granted having the 4th modding guide I'm still working on would help) and make your own scenarios as well. We are also pretty easy going and reasonable people too. If you see something that look off, bring it up. I am not perfect and I'm always looking for new or better data to model from. We have updated the game with a number of user found data error corrections. Many ways to skin the cat with this game engine.