Thanks ! Good to know that it`s me Guys. Will keep fighting and possibly tinker with the Red TOE in the scenario editor.
ORIGINAL: Richard III
I just watched this fine video AAR again and thought it worthwhile to bring it back to the top especially since I like to play NATO.
The thing is, in this scenario, or any others, I can`t seem to replicate those results NATO gets get once the shooting starts. In defensive positions in woods hexes, VS the attacking AI ( and presumably more exposed T-80`s) I am trading NATO MBT`s at 1:1 and sometimes 1:2 VS those advance 10 unit T-80 companies. If the AI stacks 2-3 companies deep with them in advance they are Death Stars. NATO Inf. and AT units in city hexes don`t do much better, which they should IMHO.
Now, I probably suck at the game, but somehow the MBT VS MBT combat die rolls _seem_ to be tilted heavily toward numbers, and not morale, terrain location factors.
Now none of this is criticism, I love the Game and I might be totally off base here but I wonder if along the development path since this vid the combat algorithms, or scenario designs, have changed.
Thank you for posting this. I see the exact opposite many times and have often wondered if combat is too slanted in NATOs favor. This tells me that it is more balanced than I thought. NATO does have an edge in technology over the Soviets. The Soviet 's tactics in overcoming this advantage is in shear numbers. I have been playing FPCRS for 15 months and have learned a lot about this game and tactics. As you play the game you will learn how to take advantage of your sides strengths. Even with NATOs technological advance, if they let the Soviets in close NATO will be in trouble.
"If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail"