Terrain and Combat

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

Post Reply
Jagger2002
Posts: 731
Joined: Sun May 19, 2002 9:05 pm

Terrain and Combat

Post by Jagger2002 »

Each type of terrain has mobility and visual hindrance values.

Are there other factors of the various different terrain types, beyond visual hindrance, which impact combat results? For example, visual hindrance is probably very similiar within the small wood framed houses of a village and the large buildings of a concrete city jungle. Yet the protective value of wood-framed houses is substantially less than the stout buildings of a concrete city center. So are there other factors in play beyond visual hindrance adjusting the effectiveness of defense and offense?

What about artillery craters? I put artillery on to a particular village for a substantial part of 3-4 hours before finally launching an assault on the village. On the map, the village was a great big brown smear and the village name was unreadible. My assault was a massive failure as the defending platoon easily repulsed my mech company. Now I wonder if a rubbled village is perhaps making the defense tougher. My understanding is that a rubbled urban area is much more difficult to attack than an untouched village. Should I have expected a tougher defense simply from the rubbled condition of the village?
Post Reply

Return to “Flashpoint Campaigns Classic”