Please post reasonable thoughts on improvements.

[JudgeDredd]

ORIGINAL: Rogue187
Also, I noticed that friendly fire is an actual problem (well once) I had some Bradleys fighting with a WP group and they backed off and the Bradleys had already been given orders to move. (this was a surprise engagement) Well I had the artillery set to on call so the artillery barrage actually arrived at the same time MY units moved into the hex that the WP was. As a result I lost one Bradley. Is this supposed to happen? I doubt its a bug but it was a surprise.

Bug or not, you can't say it's not realistic!. I think it's a good feature (this is the first time I've heard it happen) and if your units are in the same hex as the enemy and arty is coming down...you could well be in line for a loss or two!

[CapnDarwin]

Throw my vote for global/selectable SOP. I'd also like to see multiselection extended to setting message traffic too.
I also like the split option for units too. In the case of WP forces the one AD unit has no real way of supporting a multi-company formation well. Split would also be nice for scouting/attack helos too. An option to spiltting would be to include sections or teams to be "bought" at scenario start and then "attach" them to a HQ.

My 2 cents

S!

Cap'n D

[AlvinS]

Bug or not, you can't say it's not realistic!. I think it's a good feature (this is the first time I've heard it happen) and if your units are in the same hex as the enemy and arty is coming down...you could well be in line for a loss or two!

I have had it happen to me. I have advanced into a hex where the enemy was, and had an artillary barrage called down on me. Ouch. Thats the price of doing business in war.

[CoffeeMug]

Heya guys!

Exellent thread, great ideas and good news on the incoming patches! Great work, Rob!

Wooot!

Cheers,

CM

[Slick91]

I’m not a player that gets into the hardcore OOB and database elements. To me the game has to be fun to play and look good graphically and that is what I love about Matrix’s war games. They don't have to be 100% correct and detailed down to the nuts and bolts. Over-engineering can be a curse in war gaming sometimes.

What I’d like to see are minor items and irrelevant to game play but would add to the look and feel of the game:

1. Individual unit kill tally to units lost. Something that would let me brows each unit or at the end of a game to see how many destroyed units each side had and how many enemy units it was able to destroy.
2. Have a small cross or smoke trail displayed that represents where a destroyed unit or individual vehicle was lost. Of course, a hot key would turn it on or off.
3. A line or other graphical symbol that links the firing unit (if spotted) to the targeted unit during the turn resolution phase.

All of these are little in scale and I hope not a huge thing to code, but I feel that they would add to the look of game play. I have really enjoyed FPG and am looking forward to the patches and any enhancements.

[Rogue187]

One more suggestion. Maybe vechicular smoke so that we don't have to wait for an artillery shot to drop smoke. I am not sure which vechicles can gernerate their own smoke, but it would be great if say the unit was to back off if the enemy gets within X distance and smoke was an option within SOP assist in a quick get away. Just a thought.

[Poliorcetes]

Artillary is a big factor in this game, and changing the chemical dispersion time will have a lot of impact.
I'm just thinking of the problem of unlimited minelets in my Non-Staff rules games (the game quickly bogs down into a maze of mines). What will happen when the you add in an 8 turn chemical barrier (consider that in 1 turn WP can lay down 21 squares of gas)? I can easily see where the game becomes a battle of competing artillary duels and everyone becomes immobilized by chemical barriers.
Currently gas is a limited use weapon that can sometimes force Nato to move from a dug in position.
If you did make it persistant perhaps there needs to be a cost like with Nukes to prevent people from going crazy with it.
I also think the minelet supply needs to be limited to help cut down on the map becoming one giant minefield.

Poliorcetes

[CapnDarwin]

I agree on the arty issues. Ammo supply really needs to be looked at or off board arty needs to be open to opposing off board counter battery fire. Would be nice if at random times you lost off board weapons to CB or they become unavalible for a time to relocate. One arty which is the meanest is the MLRS using ICM. I've wiped entire tank companies off the map with it using a scout helo to find the enemy. As with mines, a near infinite amount of MLRS ammo really turns the tide. I also agree on a penalty cost for going with gas attacks. That level of escalation on the battle field usually open the door for tac nukes.

See the FPG Support threads for a list of bugs, suggestions, and questions. (don't want the same list in two places.[:D])

S!

Cap'n D

[Mike_w]

Agreed. MAybe just limit off screen ammo so that even on the 3rd (or 4th or whatever)Rest/Refit, it can't still be replenished after you've fired a certain number of barrages. (just make it alot becuase it IS the WP's only real advantage)

[Siljanus]

ORIGINAL: Poliorcetes

Artillary is a big factor in this game, and changing the chemical dispersion time will have a lot of impact.
I'm just thinking of the problem of unlimited minelets in my Non-Staff rules games (the game quickly bogs down into a maze of mines). What will happen when the you add in an 8 turn chemical barrier (consider that in 1 turn WP can lay down 21 squares of gas)? I can easily see where the game becomes a battle of competing artillary duels and everyone becomes immobilized by chemical barriers.
Currently gas is a limited use weapon that can sometimes force Nato to move from a dug in position.
If you did make it persistant perhaps there needs to be a cost like with Nukes to prevent people from going crazy with it.
I also think the minelet supply needs to be limited to help cut down on the map becoming one giant minefield.

Poliorcetes

I'd think that chemical attacks would be a double edged sword since you may have to move your forces through the very squares that you have just contaminated. Of course, this gives obvious advantages to the defender. But I still like the concept of some persistant contamination. Perhaps for every turn that passes, the penalty effects on units are diminished. Also, ammo stocks of gas could be limited so either it would take longer to resupply such munitions or once they're gone, they're gone.

[Adam Parker]

ORIGINAL: Mike_w

Agreed. MAybe just limit off screen ammo so that even on the 3rd (or 4th or whatever)Rest/Refit, it can't still be replenished after you've fired a certain number of barrages. (just make it alot becuase it IS the WP's only real advantage)

Mike, what is the time duration of the average scenario? That should be the determining factor imo.

There are some series where issues like these can be significant. Squad Battles for example where rocket equipped infantry can fire ad infinitum slogging through the jungle with their RPG's and LAW's.

At this scale though, it seems that Robert wants to omit the need to chrome relating to supply and I actually agree with it. Unnecessary ad hoc and obtuse supply rules can kill a game. However, one would expect Electronic Warfare to delay or impact arty effectiveness.

Is everyone saying that arty is too easy to bring down and too constant?

Adam.

[Poliorcetes]

Artillary under the non-Staff rules can be overwhelming, depending on the scenario. Tank Rush is an obvious example of where Nato's offboard arty, if given unlimited orders, can turn the map into a giant minefield (12 squares a turn). And Nato can win the game without advancing, so you quickly get into a race where the WP has to try to rush past your mine lines and the keep moving before you surround him again with mines (I have a game with a map full of mine "squares", where I surrounded the WP units in 1-2 turns with mines in any direction they go, and I haven't run low on ammo yet).

Persistant Chemicals would give an even bigger problem. You can win just by being inside a quadrant. So one tactic would be to use the WP arty (7 offboard in Tank rush) to totally fill the surrounding quadrants with gas except for a corridor for your group to rush through. And if you know where Nato starts you could utterly gas his entire starting force and reinforcements.
In my opinion there seems to be a huge supply of gas and Minelets ammo, which even if accurate can quickly tilt the game balance without order limitations (Staff option On).

Poliorcetes

[sarjen]

ORIGINAL: Adam Parker

Is everyone saying that arty is too easy to bring down and too constant?

Adam.

Artillery should have limited ammo with two or three supply options.

[John21b]

ORIGINAL: sarjen

ORIGINAL: Adam Parker

Is everyone saying that arty is too easy to bring down and too constant?

Adam.

Artillery should have limited ammo with two or three supply options.

I agree, in my talks as an Engineer with the Arty guys, the hated to fire SCATMINES. In order to lay an effective field they needed to stay put to long. Plus their basic load for SCATMINES was not very big >5% if I remember. I don't think a BN could put anywhere near the number of minfields that have been popping up in the Game.

[CoffeeMug]

Hi all,

when it comes to arty utilization, then ammo and availability should be the limiting factor, not orders.

Please have in mind that from a certain SP arty forcs about one third is available only, the others are moving (counter battery fire), resting and taking ammo etc.). Ok, you have more than this in the first hour of WW3 but after that the "moving" stuff kicks in.

And dont forget that as a battalion you have to share the SP arty battalion of your brigade with two to three other fighting battalions.

Cheers,

CM

[John21b]

ORIGINAL: CoffeeMug

Hi all,

when it comes to arty utilization, then ammo and availability should be the limiting factor, not orders.

Please have in mind that from a certain SP arty forcs about one third is available only, the others are moving (counter battery fire), resting and taking ammo etc.). Ok, you have more than this in the first hour of WW3 but after that the "moving" stuff kicks in.

And dont forget that as a battalion you have to share the SP arty battalion of your brigade with two to three other fighting battalions.

Cheers,

CM

Yup, NATO (US not sure about others) one Direct Support BN (155mm SP) per Combat BDE. If your BDE is the priority or in dicy situation you could count on GS and GS Reinf fire from another BN or two. Div MLRS was 80% to Counter Battery fire.

WP is a different story. Main Division in a main attack Army could conceivabley have a RAG, DAG + AAG or two. Possibly 10-20 BN's in support. However if you are not that main effort you could get jack.

John

[harlikwin]

I'd mainly like to see some sort of option to link scenarios together in some sort of mini campaign, utilizing a "core" force that would be kept track of and might be randomly reinforcable. i.e. you win the battle but loose 20% of your force, you might get 10% of them back or something.

[leastonh1]

ORIGINAL: harlikwin
I'd mainly like to see some sort of option to link scenarios together in some sort of mini campaign, utilizing a "core" force that would be kept track of and might be randomly reinforcable. i.e. you win the battle but loose 20% of your force, you might get 10% of them back or something.

Good idea. I also like the idea of a campaign module How about promoting units between scenarios too if there's a campaign, say from green or replacements to veteran with limitations on accuracy and morale?

Regards,
Jim.

[kmb]

sounds awesome

[Poliorcetes]

Weather forecast. Its strange with the weather option on, you never have any idea of what the day's weather is going to be like. This could be a major factor in planning of there was an 80% chance of rain. Of course weather forecasts aren't always right . . .

Poliorcetes