Good place to start...

The new Cold War turned hot wargame from On Target Simulations, now expanded with the Player's Edition! Choose the NATO or Soviet forces in one of many scenarios or two linked campaigns. No effort was spared to model modern warfare realistically, including armor, infantry, helicopters, air support, artillery, electronic warfare, chemical and nuclear weapons. An innovative new asynchronous turn order means that OODA loops and various effects on C3 are accurately modeled as never before.

Moderators: WildCatNL, cbelva, IronManBeta, CapnDarwin, IronMikeGolf, Mad Russian

WAMedic_slith
Posts: 19
Joined: Mon Nov 09, 2009 2:04 pm

Good place to start...

Post by WAMedic_slith »

So I have just recently purchased this game. After trying sooo many others I'm thinking this is exactly the game I'm looking for.

I have gone through the tutorial scenario twice..and may actually do it one more time. My question, for a new player, what are say the best 3 scenarios to start out trying (exclude the tutorial obviously)??
User avatar
Mad Russian
Posts: 13255
Joined: Sat Mar 15, 2008 9:29 pm
Location: Texas

RE: Good place to start...

Post by Mad Russian »

Any of the scenarios that start with NS or WS. Those are Best Played as NATO/Small = NS or Warsaw Pact/Small = WS.

A Time To Dance is the actual first battle of the war. Many have found it helpful,'cough', to play it.
WS Purple One is pretty basic, mostly infantry, and plays quickly as well.
Eyes, Ears and Teeth is a very fluid small unit action that has a large variety of units and still has a small unit count.

Anyone of those three are good places to start. I'm sure others will have their own favorites as well.


Good Hunting.

MR
The most expensive thing in the world is free time.

Founder of HSG scenario design group for Combat Mission.
Panzer Command Ostfront Development Team.
Flashpoint Campaigns: Red Storm Development Team.
User avatar
budd
Posts: 3070
Joined: Sat Jul 04, 2009 3:16 pm
Location: Tacoma

RE: Good place to start...

Post by budd »

I started by size, small then moved up. Probably nato also, less units mostly on the defensive.
Enjoy when you can, and endure when you must. ~Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

"Be Yourself; Everyone else is already taken" ~Oscar Wilde

*I'm in the Wargamer middle ground*
I don't buy all the wargames I want, I just buy more than I need.
davidepessach
Posts: 36
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 2:10 pm

RE: Good place to start...

Post by davidepessach »

I think I, for once, found the perfect path for beginners.
1) The tutorial
2) A time to dance
3)EET

After that, having largely won each one as NATO, I proceeded confidently to Blackhorse. In which I was sort of obliterated with a tactical loss of 37%.
User avatar
pvthudson01
Posts: 456
Joined: Tue Oct 07, 2003 8:33 pm
Location: Chicago
Contact:

RE: Good place to start...

Post by pvthudson01 »

I have a question along this line. What is the replay ability in this game? For example Combat Mission has quick battles and things like War in the East always play differently due to the scale. But this seems rather limited.
Matrix Member since 2003!
User avatar
Mad Russian
Posts: 13255
Joined: Sat Mar 15, 2008 9:29 pm
Location: Texas

RE: Good place to start...

Post by Mad Russian »

No game I've ever played has more replay value than FPC. The reason is that the AI responds to your moves. It's not choreographed and it doesn't cheat. So, every game, even of the same scenario is different.

Good Hunting.

MR
The most expensive thing in the world is free time.

Founder of HSG scenario design group for Combat Mission.
Panzer Command Ostfront Development Team.
Flashpoint Campaigns: Red Storm Development Team.
User avatar
budd
Posts: 3070
Joined: Sat Jul 04, 2009 3:16 pm
Location: Tacoma

RE: Good place to start...

Post by budd »

ORIGINAL: Patgarret77

I think I, for once, found the perfect path for beginners.
1) The tutorial
2) A time to dance
3)EET

After that, having largely won each one as NATO, I proceeded confidently to Blackhorse. In which I was sort of obliterated with a tactical loss of 37%.

did you win "a time to dance" under the new update,with limited orders...if so how many bridges were you able to blow and how the hell did you do it[:)] I'm on attempt # 10 with no joy yet. I usually know how its going by order phase 4 and it usually ain't good.
Enjoy when you can, and endure when you must. ~Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

"Be Yourself; Everyone else is already taken" ~Oscar Wilde

*I'm in the Wargamer middle ground*
I don't buy all the wargames I want, I just buy more than I need.
User avatar
ultradave
Posts: 1622
Joined: Tue Aug 20, 2013 7:01 pm
Location: Rhode Island, USA

RE: Good place to start...

Post by ultradave »

From the tutorial, graduate to "Time to Dance". It's small, good for learning, but a real challenge and lots of fun. (I've only played it as NATO).
----------------
Dave A.
"When the Boogeyman goes to sleep he checks his closet for paratroopers"
davidepessach
Posts: 36
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 2:10 pm

RE: Good place to start...

Post by davidepessach »

I correct myself; I did not finish "A time to dance"...just managed to do pretty good.
Still I think It's a very interesting scenario.

I would give up blowing bridges; also I would give up all the VP (maybe get to them later) except the westernmost and organize all the abrams and all the bradley around north Bad Neustadt using hills and forest (and smoke of course)...pounding the russians as they walk in the city. There is no time to blow bridges or to try and stop the russians from entering BN using the three bridges. Hoping of course the russian don't get around NATO forces passing through Heustreu.
I tended to defend on the hills looking on the bridge on N279 (hexes 1415, 1515, 1614)...but this is too tough and I loose too many tanks.

Any ideas on this?
mikeCK
Posts: 565
Joined: Tue May 20, 2008 3:26 pm

RE: Good place to start...

Post by mikeCK »

Little off topic but is there any likelihood that you guys will add tactical nuclear weapon use or chemical use to other scenarios besides Thor's hammer?
User avatar
budd
Posts: 3070
Joined: Sat Jul 04, 2009 3:16 pm
Location: Tacoma

RE: Good place to start...

Post by budd »

no idea's that i haven't tried. I just blow the bridge you start on. I still think units in screen mode in good defensive terrain just don't displace, the only time i see them moving is in retreat mode. They seem to displace in open terrain but i dont see much difference between hold and screen in defensive terrain. I just tried something like you described above, managed to retake the 3000 VP north of BN but still lost too many units and hit the 30% cap, the enemy was at 50% when i hit the cap.Between the limited orders and the orders delay and a long orders cycle its a bi*ch. Its real tough to get in a good position.
Enjoy when you can, and endure when you must. ~Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

"Be Yourself; Everyone else is already taken" ~Oscar Wilde

*I'm in the Wargamer middle ground*
I don't buy all the wargames I want, I just buy more than I need.
User avatar
Mad Russian
Posts: 13255
Joined: Sat Mar 15, 2008 9:29 pm
Location: Texas

RE: Good place to start...

Post by Mad Russian »

The scenarios are not balanced for limited orders. They are balanced for unlimited orders. I'm not sure if some of them can be beaten with limited orders or not.

More NBC will show up in one of the next few campaigns I would think.

Good Hunting.

MR
The most expensive thing in the world is free time.

Founder of HSG scenario design group for Combat Mission.
Panzer Command Ostfront Development Team.
Flashpoint Campaigns: Red Storm Development Team.
Tim James
Posts: 28
Joined: Fri Feb 28, 2014 10:52 pm

RE: Good place to start...

Post by Tim James »

The scenarios are not balanced for limited orders. They are balanced for unlimited orders. I'm not sure if some of them can be beaten with limited orders or not.
Oh my. I've been playing each scenario blind with limited orders. To be honest, I often don't use all the orders anyway since NATO is on the defensive in these small scenarios.
User avatar
DoubleDeuce
Posts: 1235
Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Crossville, TN
Contact:

RE: Good place to start...

Post by DoubleDeuce »

ORIGINAL: Tim James
The scenarios are not balanced for limited orders. They are balanced for unlimited orders. I'm not sure if some of them can be beaten with limited orders or not.
Oh my. I've been playing each scenario blind with limited orders. To be honest, I often don't use all the orders anyway since NATO is on the defensive in these small scenarios.
IMHO, that's the only way to play it. [8D]
pzgndr
Posts: 3486
Joined: Thu Mar 18, 2004 12:51 am
Location: Maryland

RE: Good place to start...

Post by pzgndr »

ORIGINAL: Mad Russian
The scenarios are not balanced for limited orders. They are balanced for unlimited orders. I'm not sure if some of them can be beaten with limited orders or not.

This begs a couple of questions. First, why not? The primary feature that makes this game appealing is the limited orders option, which ideally should highlight the doctrinal differences between NATO and Soviet/Warsaw Pact units. Second, when playing against the AI with the 'limited staff' rule in effect, is it in fact under all of the same limitations or does it get some help in some ways? I've assumed it was the same, but now I'm not too sure.

I'd like to think I'm playing a balanced game except for known/selectable handicaps or bonuses. Apparently not, unless I choose to not use the primary feature? In lieu of any more game updates after v2.08 until the next game version is released next year, if the scenarios at least could be relooked and rebalanced for limited orders that would be nice. And for v2.1, scenarios should be better balanced for limited orders as a default or whatever that feature evolves into. Not playing with the more realistic limited orders and orders delay should be considered something less than optimal and players should accept those results for what they're worth, and they don't need to be balanced.
Bill Macon
Empires in Arms Developer
Strategic Command Developer
User avatar
Mad Russian
Posts: 13255
Joined: Sat Mar 15, 2008 9:29 pm
Location: Texas

RE: Good place to start...

Post by Mad Russian »

ORIGINAL: pzgndr

ORIGINAL: Mad Russian
The scenarios are not balanced for limited orders. They are balanced for unlimited orders. I'm not sure if some of them can be beaten with limited orders or not.

This begs a couple of questions. First, why not? The primary feature that makes this game appealing is the limited orders option, which ideally should highlight the doctrinal differences between NATO and Soviet/Warsaw Pact units. Second, when playing against the AI with the 'limited staff' rule in effect, is it in fact under all of the same limitations or does it get some help in some ways? I've assumed it was the same, but now I'm not too sure.

The answer is very simple. This game comes with a basic game with optional play modes available. While you may play all your games in one of those play modes the game must work without any of those selected. Since that's the main goal for ALL GAMERS playing the game, and not just a select few, the scenarios are balanced for the basic game.

I'd like to think I'm playing a balanced game except for known/selectable handicaps or bonuses. Apparently not, unless I choose to not use the primary feature? In lieu of any more game updates after v2.08 until the next game version is released next year, if the scenarios at least could be relooked and rebalanced for limited orders that would be nice. And for v2.1, scenarios should be better balanced for limited orders as a default or whatever that feature evolves into. Not playing with the more realistic limited orders and orders delay should be considered something less than optimal and players should accept those results for what they're worth, and they don't need to be balanced.

The game is balanced for the basic game. The limited player option is just that, an option, to make game play tougher. It is not the main way we foresee the game being played. If you play using the option for limited orders it will make the game tougher to win. I have not had a chance to go back and replay every single scenario with every imaginable combination of options to make sure every single scenario is balanced for all of them. If I had been required to do that you wouldn't have played a single one of the scenarios yet because I would have still been trying to get that done for you.

The scenarios are not set so tight that by using any of the options they shouldn't be able to be beaten. I just can't say that for 100% certainty since I didn't test them with all the variety of options.

Good Hunting.

MR
The most expensive thing in the world is free time.

Founder of HSG scenario design group for Combat Mission.
Panzer Command Ostfront Development Team.
Flashpoint Campaigns: Red Storm Development Team.
User avatar
Recognition
Posts: 193
Joined: Sun Feb 24, 2002 10:00 am
Location: A Brit in Holland / UK

RE: Good place to start...

Post by Recognition »


So to clear this up for me which settings A B C D E F P1 and P2 should be UNCHECKED to get the most "realistic" game play?



Cheers.





https://twitter.com/WW1IEPER1917 INTEL i9-9900K @3600Ghz 3.60 GHz 48GB RAM
GeForce RTX 2080 Ti

pzgndr
Posts: 3486
Joined: Thu Mar 18, 2004 12:51 am
Location: Maryland

RE: Good place to start...

Post by pzgndr »

ORIGINAL: Mad Russian
The limited player option is just that, an option, to make game play tougher. It is not the main way we foresee the game being played.

Fair enough. Is this is the official OTS position going into v2.1? FWIW, the fundamental idea behind different order cycle lengths and numbers of limited staff orders is sound and allows a game like this to get into the OODA loop and best simulate how a conflict between NATO and the Soviets/Warsaw Pact would have gone. Again, going forward, I would prefer that OTS foresee the game being played with limited orders as the design default, and allow players to turn the option off to make game play easier.
Bill Macon
Empires in Arms Developer
Strategic Command Developer
User avatar
cbelva
Posts: 2189
Joined: Sat Mar 26, 2005 8:11 pm
Location: Nevada USA

RE: Good place to start...

Post by cbelva »

I don't think that is what MR is saying. He designs his scenarios to be played with what he believes are the settings the average person would use. Each person can then add or subtract the settings you want to either make the game more or less challenging. Adding limited orders is one of the settings that make the game more challenging not necessarily "unbalanced".
Charles Belva
On Target Simulations LLC
User avatar
cbelva
Posts: 2189
Joined: Sat Mar 26, 2005 8:11 pm
Location: Nevada USA

RE: Good place to start...

Post by cbelva »

ORIGINAL: pzgndr

ORIGINAL: Mad Russian
The limited player option is just that, an option, to make game play tougher. It is not the main way we foresee the game being played.

Fair enough. Is this is the official OTS position going into v2.1? FWIW, the fundamental idea behind different order cycle lengths and numbers of limited staff orders is sound and allows a game like this to get into the OODA loop and best simulate how a conflict between NATO and the Soviets/Warsaw Pact would have gone. Again, going forward, I would prefer that OTS foresee the game being played with limited orders as the design default, and allow players to turn the option off to make game play easier.
Not everyone plays with limited orders or sees it as more realistic. I play it with with both options. I don't believe playing with limited orders makes the scenarios unbalanced or impossible. But it does make them more challenging.
Charles Belva
On Target Simulations LLC
Post Reply

Return to “Flashpoint Campaigns Classic”