US firepower vs WP firepower

Matrix Games and Simulations Canada combine and completely remake two classic NATO vs. Warsaw Pact wargames into a new classic. Based on the original wargames “Main Battle Tank: North Germany” and “Main Battle Tank: Central Germany”, Flashpoint Germany is a new grand tactical wargame of modern combat. Every aspect of modern grand tactical warfare is included, from advanced armor, air and helicopters to chemical and tactical nuclear weapons. Step into the most dangerous war.. . that never was.

Moderators: IronManBeta, CapnDarwin

Real and Simulated Wars
Posts: 453
Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2003 9:11 pm
Contact:

US firepower vs WP firepower

Post by Real and Simulated Wars »

Ey guys,
I am a single player type of guy (crazy week work schedule, two kids, wife, etc). So I am sentenced to play the single player part of all games I have. I am not disheartened for this because I am also interested in AI applied to military-themed computer games, a fascinating topic that appears to be also in the crosshairs of people from the US Army, Navy and Air Force.
I already played the two first US V Corps scenarios and got two decisive victories. WP runners got below the 20% or something and the scenarios ended. I still recall the scary sight of a WP mech. company coming towards my forces during my first scenario. "I am in deep caca!", I thought. But I tell you, now I don't loose my nerve because I know that a US tank platoon can deal with a WP mech. company very easily. I know I am no genius because in most of my other wargames I suck. I suppose that my victories are due to that in FPG my US platoons shoot at entire WP companies and wipe them out without them responding in time. Sometimes the fire of two of my US tank platoons firing from different positions at the same WP mech. company and easily deplete them to 2 or 3 runners in a single turn.
I admit I am completely ignorant of the Cold War warfare. I am using the hardware inspector to learn about equipment. When it comes to tactics and doctrine I am also very ignorant. I have only read about the Air Land Battle, the doctrinal son of the Cold War.
I don't think that the WP AI in FPG is either bad or weak. Heck, bringing down company-sized teams to face my platoons is a reasonable choice. The AI avenues of approach are interesting too: in one game I noticed that it was trying a pincer move to occupy a sector. The AI also is sometimes sneaky trying to advance through woods. I also like how aggressive the AI is: I have seen it not willing to stop after it took over a sector. Good stuff.
So the questions are: why NATO is so superior in the firefight? Hardware? Training? Was WWIII supposed to be in this way?
Your feedback is appreciated.
User avatar
rhondabrwn
Posts: 2570
Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2004 12:47 am
Location: Snowflake, Arizona

RE: US firepower vs WP firepower

Post by rhondabrwn »

[/quote]
So the questions are: why NATO is so superior in the firefight? Hardware? Training? Was WWIII supposed to be in this way?
Your feedback is appreciated.

WW III was definitely supposed to be a conflict pitting quantity (the WP) versus quality (NATO). If you look at Gulf War I and the way American firepower crushed the Soviet equipped Iraqi army with virtually no losses, you can get a feel for how an outnumbered allied force was expected to stand up to a Soviet force outnumbering them by as much as 4 to 1 in Germany.

After the collapse of the Soviet Union, it was quickly revealed that their huge armies were never the threat that we feared they might be.

Flashpoint Germany has it about right. Head on assaults by the WP will fail with horrendous losses, while careful maneuvering can improve their chances. I did play my second tutorial game as the WP and a single WP mech unit actually managed to inflict significant losses on the 11th Armored Cav when the AI foolishly charged in to attack. Meanwhile, the other two companies were maneuvering around the US flank and came crashing down on the NATO rear and finished wiping out the American forces and then racing for the objective hex. So, it is definitely possible for the WP to inflict damage, but they need to be in good defensive positions that force the NATO player to attack.

So... is it realistic... yep.

Best advice for the WP... maneuver offensively in order to fight defensively on ground of your own choosing (if possible).

Best advice for NATO... maneuver defensively to force WP to attack you on ground of your own choosing.

There is going to be a lot of advice put out on this game as we all get further into it!
Love & Peace,

Far Dareis Mai

My old Piczo site seems to be gone, so no more Navajo Nation pics :(
User avatar
Oleg Mastruko
Posts: 4534
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2000 8:00 am

RE: US firepower vs WP firepower

Post by Oleg Mastruko »

ORIGINAL: rhondabrwn
So the questions are: why NATO is so superior in the firefight? Hardware? Training? Was WWIII supposed to be in this way?
Your feedback is appreciated.
WW III was definitely supposed to be a conflict pitting quantity (the WP) versus quality (NATO). If you look at Gulf War I and the way American firepower crushed the Soviet equipped Iraqi army with virtually no losses,

Soviet training vs. Iraqi training... no contest. Iraqis were outnumbered, had whole coalition against them, were trained much worse than *best* WP divisions in Germany, AND Soviets never gave them their best stuff... and their morale and will to fight were low.

I said it many times, and will say it again - this game is *heavily* unbalanced. It is not necesarilly a bad thing (WITP, my favorite game of all times is heavily unbalanced too), it is not necesarilly ahistoric (we don't know that since WW3 never happened) but it's the way it is.

I have yet to see anyone beat me as WP, in any non-German scenario. Challenge still stands [;)] As US or Brit I beat my opponents in PBEMs with such ease, basically just hitting "End turn" in 80% of turns, and shifting forces (mostly to rest/refit them and get new ammo) and digging them in in the remaining 20%.

Is that the way it would be in Germany 1989? I wouldn't know, but I'd like to be beaten playing the US so that I can finally shut up on this issue [:D] [&o]

Oleg
Black Cat
Posts: 604
Joined: Thu Jul 04, 2002 6:46 pm

RE: US firepower vs WP firepower

Post by Black Cat »

I like the game a lot, but Oleg`s right.

Dug In units are too powerful and attacking units take too many losses.

IMHO, the defense needs toning down OR the WP need _much more_ Arty ( which needs to be more deadly ) Air Support, and sheer numbers at the point of contact.

It`s too early to tell if this is an AI issue which is programmed in, OR just a Scenario design issue, but it just does not " feel " right in that the only way the WP can win is to sit tight and dig in and wait for the NATO charge to Death or Glory, then mop up the remnents moving forward. If this super defense is hardcoded in, then the WP needs at least 3:1 if not 5:1 at point of attack, which is what they expected to have, and NATO expected to face, in the real thing

Also, and this is a big issue IMO, there needs to be much more consideration given to achiving physical objectives in terms of Victory Points and much less in terms of VP`s for unit losses.

I may lose most of the 11th. ACR, but if they inflict heavy losses on a Guards Rifle Division and keep them from getting a formed unit to an important crossroads/city/bridge I should win, (even if I have 2 Abrams and a Bradley left ) by a LOT of points for a sucessful delaying action, which is what the first few weeks of the War would have been about for NATO.

Dreams of large scale NATO counterattacks into the " Flanks" of Guards Tank Armies were just that.
User avatar
Catgh_MatrixForum
Posts: 212
Joined: Wed Mar 13, 2002 5:00 pm
Location: Durango, CO

RE: US firepower vs WP firepower

Post by Catgh_MatrixForum »

This has been an issue that has come up before. Robert has made some minor changes and is considering others at the moment to address this issue. Hang tight for a bit OK.
Real and Simulated Wars
Posts: 453
Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2003 9:11 pm
Contact:

RE: US firepower vs WP firepower

Post by Real and Simulated Wars »

Thanks everybody for your feedback.

@rhonda and Oleg:
WW III was definitely supposed to be a conflict pitting quantity (the WP) versus quality (NATO). If you look at Gulf War I and the way American firepower crushed the Soviet equipped Iraqi army with virtually no losses, ...
I agree with Oleg that the Iraqi army during the Gulf War is not a good comparison with the WP forces during the Cold War. Wether you favor the supremacy of hardware or training/doctrine as the major determinant of the outcome of modern battle, the Iraqi army at the Gulf War is not a good standard to calibrate our hypothetical WWIII scenarios in FPG. If you belong to the camp that thinks that hardware is the major factor determining modern battle outcomes, the Iraqis at the Gulf War had some similar hardware to the Russians during the Cold War. But the Iraqis used it to face an Army which was years ahead of them in technology. If you belong to the camp of people that thinks that training/doctrine is the major factor (like me), the poorly-trained Iraqis during the Gulf War are no comparison to the WP during the Cold War.
Regarding attrition in modern tank battles, I read a book a time ago ("Military Power: Explaining Victory and Defeat in Modern Battle" by Stephen Biddle) in which the author explores the before mentioned issue: what determines modern battles victories? Hardware or training? In one chapter, the author "wargamed" the battle of 73 Easting, modeling the effects of training and hardware age of both sides. Surprisingly, it comes out that "if" the Iraqis would have used a minimum of tactical skill, they would have inflicted serious losses to the American Cavalry, even with their aging equipment.
Cheers,
Real and Simulated Wars
Posts: 453
Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2003 9:11 pm
Contact:

RE: US firepower vs WP firepower

Post by Real and Simulated Wars »

Hi Cat!
ORIGINAL: Black Cat
IMHO, the defense needs toning down OR the WP need _much more_ Arty ( which needs to be more deadly ) Air Support, and sheer numbers at the point of contact.
Same feelings here. Also, an attacking WP mech. battalion rarely shoots back at my defending positions.
CoffeeMug
Posts: 95
Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2004 6:31 am
Location: Frankfurt/M, Germany

RE: US firepower vs WP firepower

Post by CoffeeMug »

ORIGINAL: Chelco

Thanks everybody for your feedback.

@rhonda and Oleg:
WW III was definitely supposed to be a conflict pitting quantity (the WP) versus quality (NATO). If you look at Gulf War I and the way American firepower crushed the Soviet equipped Iraqi army with virtually no losses, ...
I agree with Oleg that the Iraqi army during the Gulf War is not a good comparison with the WP forces during the Cold War. Wether you favor the supremacy of hardware or training/doctrine as the major determinant of the outcome of modern battle, the Iraqi army at the Gulf War is not a good standard to calibrate our hypothetical WWIII scenarios in FPG. If you belong to the camp that thinks that hardware is the major factor determining modern battle outcomes, the Iraqis at the Gulf War had some similar hardware to the Russians during the Cold War. But the Iraqis used it to face an Army which was years ahead of them in technology. If you belong to the camp of people that thinks that training/doctrine is the major factor (like me), the poorly-trained Iraqis during the Gulf War are no comparison to the WP during the Cold War.
Regarding attrition in modern tank battles, I read a book a time ago ("Military Power: Explaining Victory and Defeat in Modern Battle" by Stephen Biddle) in which the author explores the before mentioned issue: what determines modern battles victories? Hardware or training? In one chapter, the author "wargamed" the battle of 73 Easting, modeling the effects of training and hardware age of both sides. Surprisingly, it comes out that "if" the Iraqis would have used a minimum of tactical skill, they would have inflicted serious losses to the American Cavalry, even with their aging equipment.
Cheers,

Heya guys,

I dont think that you can compare the results of Op. DESERT STORM with the cold war scenario in Europe.

Though the coalition forces in DESERT STORM fought a brilliant war (recommended read: The Eyes of Orion by Alex Vernon, the story of five tank lieutenants), the iraqi opposition was simply no match, because blue air superiority fixed it all, during the first six weeks before the ground war started.

After all CCC gone by TOMAHAWK strike, Iraqi command was unable to direct and command their troops. With the IADS broken, BLUE air superiority was 100% with actually no RED flight activity (only a few aircraft seeking refuge in Iran).

After six weeks of tremendous "CAS" (BLUE pounding of RED ground combat forces; recommended read: "Vipers in the storm" by Keith Rosenkranz; a F-16 driver), organized resistance on tactical level was non-existant. Iraqi officers even cut the senews of their own soldiers to keep them from running away (source: Vernon). So you can imagine how great the will to fight was after six weeks of air attacks.

And we did not talk yet about differences in equipment quality. At night time, those T-55 and T-72 could only identify targets about 1500m, while Challengers and M1s fired on maximum distances. Those Iraqi tank troops never knew where the shots came from.

Completely different story in Middle Europe. A conflict beginning with the parties to fight about air superiority. 100% working IADS with all SAM and AAA you can think of. Equipment was much closer than, fighting ranges for tanks much shorter than in DESERT STORM, lessen the imparity in night-fighting capability. And more. [:)]

Baby is crying, wife is mad. [8D] Gotta go!

Cheers,

CM
User avatar
Oleg Mastruko
Posts: 4534
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2000 8:00 am

RE: US firepower vs WP firepower

Post by Oleg Mastruko »

ORIGINAL: CoffeeMug


I dont think that you cannot compare the results of Op. DESERT STORM with the cold war scenario in Europe.

Based on the rest of your post I'd say you wanted to say something else in your first sentence [;)]

O.
CoffeeMug
Posts: 95
Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2004 6:31 am
Location: Frankfurt/M, Germany

RE: US firepower vs WP firepower

Post by CoffeeMug »

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko
ORIGINAL: CoffeeMug


I dont think that you cannot compare the results of Op. DESERT STORM with the cold war scenario in Europe.

Based on the rest of your post I'd say you wanted to say something else in your first sentence [;)]

O.

yeah, you're right. Those spaniards are much more better in double negations. [;)]

Cheers,

CM
Mike_w
Posts: 54
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 12:22 am

RE: US firepower vs WP firepower

Post by Mike_w »

Completely different story in Middle Europe. A conflict beginning with the parties to fight about air superiority. 100% working IADS with all SAM and AAA you can think of. Equipment was much closer than, fighting ranges for tanks much shorter than in DESERT STORM, lessen the imparity in night-fighting capability. And more

Sure, but what Desert Storm did demonstrate was that the Soviet styled/equipped/ air defense system was no match for Western anti air defense warfare and doctrine. The Iraqis were equipped with top-notch equipment and many were trained by Soviet observers. Additonally, the T-72 simply could not penetrate the armor on the M-1A1/Challenger tanks at even medium ranges. What the war did show was the inherent superiority of western equipment and the superiority NATO maneuver warfare doctrine over Soviet style emphasis on mass attack and air defense to protect that assault. Not sure it realy matters whose drivin' the SOviet t-72/T-80 Tank company when it comes up on two M1A1 tank platoons with far superior night /sighting/gunnery equipment.
Real and Simulated Wars
Posts: 453
Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2003 9:11 pm
Contact:

RE: US firepower vs WP firepower

Post by Real and Simulated Wars »

Ey Mike!
In all the Gulf/Iraq War battles and operations I have read about, the Iraqis showed poor understanding of both tactics and operational art. Many people have argued that the crushing victories of the US/Coalition forces owe more to the many failures of the Iraqis than to the current US supremacy in equipment or to the current doctrine. That observation and the current passion of the Pentagon for new and expensive toys lead straight into the ongoing debate on "what works and what doesn't work" among independent military analysts.
ORIGINAL: Mike_w
Not sure it realy matters whose drivin' the SOviet t-72/T-80 Tank company when it comes up on two M1A1 tank platoons with far superior night /sighting/gunnery equipment.
In the case of the T-80, I would disagree: it would matter who is driving it and more importantly who is commanding the T-80's platoon.
Cheers,
Rob322
Posts: 618
Joined: Mon Aug 16, 2004 8:53 pm

RE: US firepower vs WP firepower

Post by Rob322 »

ORIGINAL: Mike_w
Completely different story in Middle Europe. A conflict beginning with the parties to fight about air superiority. 100% working IADS with all SAM and AAA you can think of. Equipment was much closer than, fighting ranges for tanks much shorter than in DESERT STORM, lessen the imparity in night-fighting capability. And more

Sure, but what Desert Storm did demonstrate was that the Soviet styled/equipped/ air defense system was no match for Western anti air defense warfare and doctrine. The Iraqis were equipped with top-notch equipment and many were trained by Soviet observers. Additonally, the T-72 simply could not penetrate the armor on the M-1A1/Challenger tanks at even medium ranges. What the war did show was the inherent superiority of western equipment and the superiority NATO maneuver warfare doctrine over Soviet style emphasis on mass attack and air defense to protect that assault. Not sure it realy matters whose drivin' the SOviet t-72/T-80 Tank company when it comes up on two M1A1 tank platoons with far superior night /sighting/gunnery equipment.

The Iraqis were not equipped with top notch equipment. They didn't have the latest Soviet gear, tanks, SAMS, radar, jammers, missiles, or anything. The Soviets were in the habit of selling stripped down versions of their equipment abroad, in part because they didn't trust their clients not to lose stuff and in part because the traditional bout of Russian paranoia, ie. "we may have to fight these people one day" sort of thing. Interestingly, the Iraqis kept some of their best equipped units out of battle, including some the Republican guards units that spent their time in Baghdad during the fighting.

As to the Soviet doctrine on mass attack, the Iraqis never really utilized this since they played defense all the time. Therefore, the war really doesn't repudiate it since it didn't come into play. Also, don't discount 6 weeks of air war. Forget the technical aspects but just the sheer pounding the Iraqis took which many cite as being an important factor in sapping their will to resist us. Odds are, a WW3 blitz in Europe would've involved them attacking us. There wouldn't have been a 6 week "prep" which allowed us to then slap them aside without much strain.

Yes the officers were trained by the Soviets but training doesn't count for everything. Saddam was known to kill generals who were too successful on the battlefield as they might constitute a threat to his power. Many of his immediate underlings were boot licking lackeys who either got their jobs because they A) knew someone rather than something about war or B) knew something about war but also knew when to keep their mouths shut and generally did as they were told. Those who asked too many questions or demonstrated too much independent thinking/initiative were not going to do well in that system. While Soviet society was certainly not free, it seems that post Stalin governments were not as open to absolute terror as Saddam was and it's reasonable to expect Soviet officers would've performed far better than the Iraqis did.

This is not to say that the Soviets had superior equipment or training or soliders but just simply that what we faced in Kuwait was not the same animal we would've had to have faced off with in Germany.
Real and Simulated Wars
Posts: 453
Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2003 9:11 pm
Contact:

RE: US firepower vs WP firepower

Post by Real and Simulated Wars »

Hi Rob,
ORIGINAL: Rob322
This is not to say that the Soviets had superior equipment or training or soliders but just simply that what we faced in Kuwait was not the same animal we would've had to have faced off with in Germany.

Exactly! Your phrase is just what I wanted to say. You write more clearly than me.
Cheers,
Mike_w
Posts: 54
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 12:22 am

RE: US firepower vs WP firepower

Post by Mike_w »

In the case of the T-80, I would disagree: it would matter who is driving it and more importantly who is commanding the T-80's platoon.

I agree that the Iraqis had a poor understanding of tactics, but once the battle was joined, I'm just not convinced that Soviet equipment (even the T-80 which was not existing in sufficint numbers in 1989 to replace many T-72 units) could stand toe to toe with the NATO equipment. It lacked the armor, night vision and targeting systems (and hence range/accuracy) of its NATO counterpart. Additionally, the Soviet reliance on central leadership and a rigid command structure that did not encourage non-staff officers to make command decisions would have cost them as dearly as the Iraqis who copied it. Command and control would have been similarly limited in a NATO/WP conflict. (This is modeled well in the game BTW) NAto doctrine, training, and equipment were far superior to the Warsaw Pact; enough to overcome numerical inferiority I believe.

As for your original post about the ability of NATO units to simply "light up" numerous WP units, I noticed this too. Recently though, I played the "titans" scenario as the WP defenders. The AI as NATO smashed right in to a well set-up ambush. During the fight, I'm not even sure any of the NATO units really got a shot off. As it was pointed out to me in another post, when your units are moving, they are only using 25% of combat strength. When they are holding, they use 100%. Thats why a defender gets off far more shots.

Who knows, a few more rounds against the AI and I make take the "Oleg challenge"!! [:D]
Real and Simulated Wars
Posts: 453
Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2003 9:11 pm
Contact:

RE: US firepower vs WP firepower

Post by Real and Simulated Wars »

Hi Mike!
This is an interesting debate. Keep it coming!
As for your latest comment on you playin the "titans" scenario as WP, I think that you make a very good point. It would be nice that the AI would change from "move" to "hold" when hopelessly caught in the open so they have a chance to fire back. I don't think that the SOP covers that even for your own forces. Does it?
Mike_w
Posts: 54
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 12:22 am

RE: US firepower vs WP firepower

Post by Mike_w »

I don't think so. Best I have been able to do is set my SOP so that when a unit comes into contact, it backs off past 2500 meters. This usually backs it out of range and then next turn, I set it to hold and wait for the pursuer. Unfortunately (or fortuantely for my units), the AI is VERY aggressive and will usually keep attacking. I am sure a human player would be more patient.

Also, i am playing around with the "direct support" option for my artillery. It seems to work well as whenever there is enemy contact with teh supported unit/s, the artillery opens up and, at minimum, delays movement of the enemy. Set the arty unit to "directly support" the HQ unit commanding your advancing company. That way, if any unit in that company comes under attack, the artillery will fire on the enemy unit, delay it and allow you to "hold". Great thing about this game is the tactical options available. I love it!
Real and Simulated Wars
Posts: 453
Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2003 9:11 pm
Contact:

RE: US firepower vs WP firepower

Post by Real and Simulated Wars »

Ey Mike,
Good points on tactics. A follow up:
ORIGINAL: Mike_w
I don't think so. Best I have been able to do is set my SOP so that when a unit comes into contact, it backs off past 2500 meters. This usually backs it out of range and then next turn, I set it to hold and wait for the pursuer.
What do you do when attacking? This setting would bog you down very easily.
Unfortunately (or fortuantely for my units), the AI is VERY aggressive and will usually keep attacking. I am sure a human player would be more patient.
That's very true. Unfortunely, the AI will continue to move and be wiped out because while moving does not have enough firepower.
Another question: Units that are moving are supposed to be more exposed to target acquisition but are also supposed to be harder to hit. Is that taken into consideration for FPG?
Also, i am playing around with the "direct support" option for my artillery. It seems to work well as whenever there is enemy contact with teh supported unit/s, the artillery opens up and, at minimum, delays movement of the enemy. Set the arty unit to "directly support" the HQ unit commanding your advancing company. That way, if any unit in that company comes under attack, the artillery will fire on the enemy unit, delay it and allow you to "hold".

Thanks for this tip. I have never went into the details of artillery, mainly because it was so easy as a US commander to wipe out the WP forces with litlle artillery support. I wish the AI would be able to use the same procedure while assaulting or defending.
Great thing about this game is the tactical options available. I love it!
The same here!
Thanks for your feedback.
Cheers,
User avatar
Oleg Mastruko
Posts: 4534
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2000 8:00 am

RE: US firepower vs WP firepower

Post by Oleg Mastruko »

ORIGINAL: Mike_w

The AI as NATO smashed right in to a well set-up ambush. During the fight, I'm not even sure any of the NATO units really got a shot off. As it was pointed out to me in another post, when your units are moving, they are only using 25% of combat strength. When they are holding, they use 100%. Thats why a defender gets off far more shots.

Who knows, a few more rounds against the AI and I make take the "Oleg challenge"!! [:D]

Well what you described falls into "AI being stupid" cathegory. You have to be real stupid to go on attack as NATO in 90% of scenarios, since your tasking is very clear: you have to DEFEND vs. WP onslaught. So why would you want to attack and expose yourself to WP defensive barrages?

Note, I am not saying AI in this game is stupid, I didn't test it myself (I always prefer PBEM anyway), but most of scenarios, if playing vs. PC, are recommended to be played as NATO human vs. WP AI - it says so in the scenario briefings, so if NATO AI disappoints, you can't really complain... there is always a limit in what AI can do, so please note I am not being displeased with AI performance in this game in any way shape or form. I do, though, expect humans to do better [:D] but I am not sure thay can (as WP).

So, what I am commenting is human vs. human play.

In 80% of situations all NATO human (or clever AI) commander has to do is dig in his units, and click "End turn", occasionally taking care to replenish ammo his frontline units spent on swapping WP tanks like flies. If development of this game continues, as I am sure it will, whoever programs the AI will come to conclusion that NATO AI has to be made to dig in and wait [;)]

Most of the comments about playbalance comment that it's not really WP being weak here, but rather any attacker, be it NATO or WP. May be so, but this is kinda moot point for me, since this is WW3 we talk about, and attacker equals WP. NATO wasn't expected to march on Prague in case of WW3. If all you have to do to defeat attacker (ie. WP) is to dig in and click End turn, then we all have to agree - it is unbalanced game.

I know many here are ex-NATO tankers and whatnot, and I expect you to show a healthy dose of disrespect for "derelict Russian systems" [;)] and "badly led WP hordes" [:D]. Perhaps those feelings are founded after all but to me, we have issue of making the game somewhat balanced and fun to play from both sides, in PBEM. That's all I am saying.

Oleg
Mike_w
Posts: 54
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 12:22 am

RE: US firepower vs WP firepower

Post by Mike_w »

Good points Oleg. Let me say that I am not complaining about the AI. I am only noting that it always attacks. Therefor, if you are defending, you will get off alot more shots than the AI will. Besides, I don't want to play NATO; I want to play WP so I can beat you[:D]

I would never suggest that the WP equipment was derelict. In fact, it was quite good at doing what it was designed to do. I just believe that its inferiority to NATO equipment would not have been overcome by the numerical superiority
What do you do when attacking? This setting would bog you down very easily
.

Chelco,
Well, yes it does bog me down. But I figure if I can bait the defensive player (so far the AI) into chasing my retreating units, I can take them out. It takes time, that's for sure. Not sure if I could ever get it to work against a human player. I DEFINETLY recommend working and practicing alot with arty if you plan on playing WP (thats why I love WP).

I would love to command a WP assault agaisnt a NATO defense but the AI won't stay on defense....having said that, although I am still trying to learn the system, let me know if you want to try a PBEM game. I have never played one but I'm interested to see how this is against a human opponent.

mjwilliams@quinnipiac.edu
Post Reply

Return to “FlashPoint Germany”