First impressions here please

[Real and Simulated Wars]

ORIGINAL: Black Cat

Since I only play against the AI I wonder how that is in attack and defense ?

Ey Cat!
Finally could get an additional half and hour of time with my FPG. Man, life if hectic if you have kids ...
I decided to make a custom scenario setted up a WP with a tank and a mounted infantry Btn (AI) vs NATO (a tank Co and a mounted infantry Co, all these under my command). Objective was a urbanized sector near NATO deployment area. I used the no-fog of war option for myself to see the AI moves.
The WP AI moved with their infantry in front, neatly spaced units to provide a screen, I guess. To my entire satisfaction, it used their infantry to enter into the urbanized area (objective sector) and then rolled up the tanks into the fight. It was very cool.
Then, (to my amusement) having all the objective sector controlled, the AI rolled into the adjacent sector (my deployment area) to basically clean it up. Good stuff! My NATO forces were not there anymore. It looked like the AI has some kind of knowledge system, which basically told it I should be there. Is this possible?
Main conclusion: AI is aggressive.

[Real and Simulated Wars]

ORIGINAL: Marc Schwanebeck

ORIGINAL: TheHellPatrol

Just got a decisive victory as WP in Scenario 1 and i don't think the two sides are unbalanced, they just play differently. NATO has better equipment and on defense, and having stealth, they are quite formidable. With the WP they have more units which call for more "movement", i crushed the defending NATO forces with a classic pincer movement. One thing some of you might have overlooked, "the WP have no chance", is the bridging/amphibious movement capabilities your units have. As per the manual, engineers are not represented "per se", but their abilities are there and accounted for.
Played the right way either force can be deadly...damn good game[8D]

It shows you have read your doctrine book very well.

NATO rocks when on defense and using it´s stealht tactics well.

WP has the equipment for the so called "bold strike" tactic. In fact most of the WP euipment of this era is built just for this tactics. Rush in, break the lines, kill rear assets (command, arty and logistic) and let the 2nd and 3rd wave wave doing the mopping up. Think Blitzkrieg tactics. In the 1970s and 1980s the WP moved over to a similiar tactic and doctrine (and adjusted it equipment accordingly), allready "developed" in 1937. However, Stalin choosed to get rid of the officers that developed this plans in his cleansing days, but that´s a different story ...........

Be keen, don´t think about possible losses and strike hard. That´s how you must play WP forces. Most probably that´s how WP Generals would have played too.

Now that you guys talked about grand-tactics, help an ignorant grunt here. Ignorance is both from lack of previous reading on warfare in the Cold War and from very little time playing FPG.
In many scenarios I played, the NATO forces have a very lethal anti-tank weapon: TOW. It is a long range weapon. The WP forces have RPGs instead, which have a very low range.
This means that NATOs best game is to keep distance and NEVER allow mounted WP infantry to get close? It looks like close combat is almost undesirable for NATO forces (?).
Your feedback is appreciated.

[Marc von Martial]

Yes true, NATO weapons shine at long distances, same for the MBT cannons. The russians btw have also ATGMs, mounted on the BMPS, and on wheeled vehicles. I´m not 100% sure if it´s implemented in FPG but the T-80 (at least some versions) of it also had ATGMs mounted. Once WP forces manage to get their mech inf close it will get dirty. The BMPs cannon can be quite lethal at close ranges.


With regards to reading, it´s almost a "classic" companion to playing FPG, I can recommend "Team Yankee". It´s out of print, but you can grab a copy on eBay or Amazon Marketplace / Z-Shops once in ahwile.

[D_ploy]

ORIGINAL: Marc Schwanebeck

With regards to reading, it´s almost a "classic" companion to playing FPG, I can recommend "Team Yankee". It´s out of print, but you can grab a copy on eBay or Amazon Marketplace / Z-Shops once in ahwile.

I also had a lot of luck with our local public library. Not only was I able to finally read "Team Yankee" but also its "big brother": Hacketts "Third World War" and also David Isbys "Armies of the NATO Central Front" (if I remember correctly). They all give some insight into this conflict.
I never thought a german public library would have those titles readily available but, as I found out in my case, I have to thank America for this since they donated the "Amerika Gedenkbibliothek" to the Berliners.

Cheers
Oliver

[Marc von Martial]

Oh, I read Hacketts book when I was 14 or so, in a german library, in german even [;)]. Hacketts book is great, I read it again during the development of FPG, it has a nice mix of action and "boring" politics.

[Erik Rutins]

Also read Ralph Peters' "Red Army" for an excellent and slightly different perspective (written from the WP point of view).

Regards,

- Erik

[Fulcrum]

A few quick questions:

1. What does the second number mean when you select "Historic Unit Tags" for the counter information? It doesn't seem to be spelled out in the manual. Such as 2-7, 3-7, 4-7. I've figured out the first number represents the number of runners left in the unit, but for the life of me I can't extrapolate what the second number represents.

2. Is there counterbattery fire for artillery? You can detect enemy HQ's by their radio traffic, but it doesn't seem to detect on-map artillery units that are firing.

3. Finally, is it me, or does it seem like the enemy locks onto your HQ? My HQ's position was blown and the enemy started raining down arty on it. But no matter where it moved, artillery fire shifted just as quickly.

Other than that, great game guys.

[sabre100]

3. Finally, is it me, or does it seem like the enemy locks onto your HQ? My HQ's position was blown and the enemy started raining down arty on it. But no matter where it moved, artillery fire shifted just as quickly.

Yes I have noticed that as well, playing scen 1 as Nato. My HQ kept getting bombarded by WP Artillery. No matter where I moved WP seemed to know my exact HQ location even though there were no enemy units nearby to spot and radio in the location of my HQ unit as I took care of those pesky WP tanks coming in. My HQ Unit did get major bombardement however it did manage to survive and I won by a decisive victory for that scenario.

I just found it strange that they knew my location it seems at all times and were always dead on hitting that location with their shells.

[Siljanus]

ORIGINAL: sabre100

3. Finally, is it me, or does it seem like the enemy locks onto your HQ? My HQ's position was blown and the enemy started raining down arty on it. But no matter where it moved, artillery fire shifted just as quickly.

Yes I have noticed that as well, playing scen 1 as Nato. My HQ kept getting bombarded by WP Artillery. No matter where I moved WP seemed to know my exact HQ location even though there were no enemy units nearby to spot and radio in the location of my HQ unit as I took care of those pesky WP tanks coming in. My HQ Unit did get major bombardement however it did manage to survive and I won by a decisive victory for that scenario.

I just found it strange that they knew my location it seems at all times and were always dead on hitting that location with their shells.

I'm glad I'm not the only one that noticed this. But only for the first scn playing as the Brits. The first two US (non-tutorial) scenarios didn't seem to have as much shelling of my HQ's. Perhaps I moved them around more after my experience with the Brit scn. But I thought that I was moving my British HQ often enough. It was the Regimental HQ that got the tar beat out of it going from a "happy" HQ to battered remnants by the end. Even so, like Sabre100 I did pull out the win.

Probably the Russians had a spy inserted in the HQ, crafty bastards that they are...[;)]

[pahom]

They are picking up your HQ from the radio traffic. Reduce the amount of reports being sent and they will not be able to track you. If your message traffic levels are in the yellow, you have nowhere to hide.

Hope this helps,

Pahom

[Erik Rutins]

Also, the higher the EW level you are playing at, the more likely you are to be found and shelled.

Regards,

- Erik

[Catgh_MatrixForum]

You can set reports intervals within the SOP panel of the indiviual units.

[geozero]

CONGRATULATIONS MATRIX and the whole team... on the release of the game.

I wish I could have been more useful, but other tasks with Combined Arms and Combat Leader kept me from helping more.

FPG will be a very fun and intense game for sure.

[&o]

[iberian]

ORIGINAL: Poliorcetes

Then I played as the WP. Turn 2 I've just gotten my forces into Assault mode and moving when suddenly the entire British force comes charging up the valley at me in Move mode. By the end of the turn their are 25 challengers gone and my forces are at their start point to "begin" their advance.

Well, I have to agree with Poliercetes here. I played the first British Scenario as Warsaw Pact, and I was puzzled by the AI behaviour. I would expect the AI to lay in ambush, and wait for my attack, but instead, the AI rushed at me through open terrain. I had Challenger turrets flying all over the place thanks to my thrusty T-80's 125mm sabotts.

In three turns I destroyed 80% of the British regiment just by pressing the "Next Turn" button. What puzzles me most, is that the AI appeared to have formed a two pincer attack: a main punch through the mentioned open valley, and a smaller one composed of a battalion mechanized infantry, from the south, after crossing the river. (This second attack was also crushed my pressing the next turn button several times).

It's to early to judge, but it appears that:

- The AI tries to be very bold. That suits more the stile of the Soviets. Attack boldly and exploit any local victory to the utmost. It maybe better to use the AI as the attacker side, even if for AI this is usually a lot harder.

- The game system may be favouring too much the advantage of laying dug-in. This maybe very realistic, but makes it very hard for the AI to cope.

- I tried to wait in ambush with WP forces, having the Allied forces attacking, and I wiped'em out too just by pressing the "next turn" and doing nothing else. So it's not a question of the units capabilities, but of the tremendous advantage of being dug-in.

I will experiment more.

[Marc von Martial]

ORIGINAL: pahom
If your message traffic levels are in the yellow, you have nowhere to hide.

You have, but you have to move a lot also.

My father served on the german RATAC and as a FO during the cold war in the Bundeswehr. He sayed once the enemy HQs send out orders and units began to move their screen was all red, it really depended on how fast the HQs switched positions and on how fast the "red land`s" FOs could assign fire missions [;)]

[hank]

A question and observations about the "I" key (information):

When I hit the "I" key it toggles through various information about a unit. As I understand it by reading the manual it is as below with just examples numbers:

initially: 4-8 ... then as you hit the "I" key:

1st: 4 ... number of primary vehicles in unit
2nd: 2M ... moral: 0 best - 7+
3rd: 5T ... training: not sure
4th: 2F ... fatigue: 0 best -6+
5th: 25A ... ammo level: not sure ... does it indicate the total rounds?
6th: HOLD ... current orders
7th: 0 s ... enemy sighted (number indicates how many)
8th: DUG ... posture
9th: 1 t ... reporting frequency (i.e., 1t=30 min.; 6t=3 hours; 1st number is how many 30 min. increments report is issued)

back to the starting number: 4-8 ... and it cycles through again

Where I say "not sure", I'm not sure what its telling me and I can't find in the manual the answer. Please help.

and the one that's got me really confused is the initial number: for example 4-8. I know "4" is the number of units but what does the "8" mean? (effective combat range? attack strength? ... )

and anything I say above please correct me if I'm wrong.

thanks

Hank ... and I really like this game ... will post other observations later after yet another battle is resolved

[iberian]

ORIGINAL: hank

...and the one that's got me really confused is the initial number: for example 4-8. I know "4" is the number of units but what does the "8" mean? (effective combat range? attack strength? ... )

The second number is supposed to reflect the "mobility" rate of the unit. The higher the better. It takes into account the speed of unit, the faster, the higher the number.

[z1812]

Hi All,

I have played through both tutorial scenarios step by step. They are very good ,understandable and direct.
I have not played the tutorial scenarios right through. I will keep them to play now that I have the "basics".

I will play them each once from both sides.

Regards John

[hank]

Observations after completing 3 battles. All Nato victories.

These comments in no way reduce my enjoyment of the game. If they get addressed that would be nice, if not it won't keep me from having fun with the game. I think its a great game. It has a great interface and each battle I complete, I enjoy it more. In fact most of these comments are just programming b.s. I've picked on.

1. The Unit Details - General Info menu always starts on the right (and I like it on the left side). I wish it would stay on the side I tell it to every time I start the game (until I tell it to move back to the right side).

2. Explosion graphics: It appears the graphic routine captures a piece of the map as a background for the explosion clouds. The clouds are great but it appears its picking the map graphics from the grid five squares to the left of where the explosion is occuring. *** what gives ... tonight the explosion did perfect ... ??? I must be going crazy.

3. S.O.P.: There needs to be some way to change S.O.P. when they've been locked in the game setup after they've changed because of some action by the player (i.e. assault sets enemy distance to zero and range to 5000m). I haven't found a way to change them during the game unless they were not locked in the game setup. (have I missed something?)

4. Message Traffic bars run into their labels. This happens only on my laptop. (is fine on my 19" Flat screen crt)

5. When I first started playing I thought it might be good to flash a line (red or white) from an attacking unit counter to the target counter. But after watching hundreds of attacks now, it became apparent how the system always highlights the attacker then the target. I don't know if a flashing line would make it better or not ?? (I thought of this because that's the way Highway to the Reich works.)

6. I've read some of the debate over engineers. I guess I would prefer engineers have their own counters and be the only units capable of certain activities; like pontoon bridges. And I would like to see them build strongpoints with the requirement that they be in a hex several turns; long enough to reasonably have the time to trench or fortify an area.

7. Helo refuel and refit: designate specific hexes along the map border for helos to move to and stay for specific numbers of turns to get refurbished. If you try to move before refit pop a warning box up.

8.
-I've had a few games where the following happened:
-I would do my planning
-hit the resolve button (clock)
-I would get the confirmation that resolve phase would begin
-Immediately another popup would appear stating the resolve phase was over and planning phase begins (but nothing happened)
-If I hit the (clock) resolve button again it woud pop up the confirmation then go on through the resolve phase (battle)
-... I've wondered if it had any thing to do with me letting the alert that the resolve phase was over expire on its own

I don't normally post extensive comments like this but I really like the game and want it to continue developing.

Hank

[iberian]

ORIGINAL: hank
7. Helo refuel and refit: designate specific hexes along the map border for helos to move to and stay for specific numbers of turns to get refurbished. If you try to move before refit pop a warning box up.

That could be a possible solution, but I find it also problematic. For example:

a) if you make the specific hexes on the map border fixed, after playing the scenario for a couple of times, or opening it with the editor, everybody will know were the enemy has to set down their helos. You just have to set one off-map artillery battery for tree barrage neutralizing fire-missions against these hexes, and sooner or later you can kiss goodbye your helos. (I shake at the effect of a real-life barrage fired by battery of eight 152mm howitzers during a refuelling/rearming operation. Talk about fireworks.)

b) if you make the specific hexes random, and tell their position to the player at the start of the game, you may end up having very unrealistic hexes for refuelling helos. Refuelling in a hex river, in the middle of a forest, or in a city hex. You see the trend. The problem with this approach is that in real-life, excluding emergencies, nobody will refuel and rearm that close to the edge of the battle area. That's not the way it works in real life.

My approach would be different:

1) Abstract approach (More realistic):

- Give the option at the start of the game to have helo-operations abstracted, as with the other air units.

- If the scenario has a helo counter, and the user wants the abstract option, then have the program automatically remove it and set it as a unit in the air unit menu.

- Then have the player call them as an air unit. The difference would be they have a larger search area (6 hexes instead of 2), and they have a slower recycle time (insteead of 20-30 min for air-units, make it 40-60min).


2) On-Map approach (Less realistic):

- If the user selects the on-map approach, the counter will appear on map as a normal reinforcement unit during the game, or at the start of it, depending on scenario design.

- Change the SOP option for helos to cover more autonomous options. For example: Search and destroy on designated area, or stealth recon a specific area, etc. A helo can do many things in half an hour, and its not too realistic to have it follow wayponts.

- Once the helo counter has spent a number of turns in the map (no more than 1.5-2 hours), have it pop a message box saying it's leaving the battle area.

- If the battle is long enough, have them return after a given number of turns.

My magic words for the developers are these : Please, oh please. Consider some of this ideas. Please, please, please.