Thinking of buying but..

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Thinking of buying but..

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Flashpoint Campaigns Series >> Thinking of buying but..

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Thinking of buying but.. - 12/8/2013 2:30:54 PM

MTTODD

Posts: 227
Joined: 12/1/2011
Status: offline

Hi,

Thinking of getting game but a little bit put off by forum discussion on weak NATA AA & excessive Soviet helicopter forces.

Is there a problem in the game with this ?

Was looking forward to playing game but not if it does not accurately reflect this important part of the game.

Hope someone can reassure me on this

Many thanks.

Post #: 1

RE: Thinking of buying but.. - 12/8/2013 2:48:30 PM

Mad Russian

Posts: 13256
Joined: 3/16/2008
From: Texas
Status: offline

There is no problem in the game with this. This was reality at the time.

The Soviet helicopter threat, IMO, isn't excessive, but then I made most of the scenarios. If anything, the Soviet helicopter threat is downplayed in the game, because I use far fewer Soviet helicopters, in most of the scenarios, than NATO forces would have seen. That was done for a couple of reasons, not the least of which was for play balance.

The issue is more, NATO air defense vs the helicopter threat. That is being tweaked some more and there should be an adjustment to that soon.

Good Hunting.

MR

< Message edited by Mad Russian -- 12/9/2013 3:55:59 AM >

_____________________________

The most expensive thing in the world is free time.

Founder of HSG scenario design group for Combat Mission.
Panzer Command Ostfront Development Team.
Flashpoint Campaigns: Red Storm Development Team.

(in reply to MTTODD)

Post #: 2

RE: Thinking of buying but.. - 12/8/2013 6:57:31 PM

Akmatov

Posts: 495
Joined: 7/26/2000
From: Tucson, AZ, USA
Status: offline

From reading the forums, I get the impression that the NATO lack of adequate AA is made worse by their existing AA failing to engage when they probably should. I believe that was going to addressed?

(in reply to Mad Russian)

Post #: 3

RE: Thinking of buying but.. - 12/8/2013 7:03:11 PM

Rosseau

Posts: 2757
Joined: 9/13/2009
Status: offline

IMO, it's a minor issue, if that, and you'd be doing yourself a disservice not to pick this one up. Best game out of bunch of good stuff to come out from Matrix lately.

(in reply to Akmatov)

Post #: 4

RE: Thinking of buying but.. - 12/8/2013 7:50:24 PM

Elfastball7

Posts: 36
Joined: 9/24/2013
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: rosseau

IMO, it's a minor issue, if that, and you'd be doing yourself a disservice not to pick this one up. Best game out of bunch of good stuff to come out from Matrix lately.

I am in total agreement, the defv team has acknowledged these faults and has stated that they will fix the NATO AA/AD issue.

(in reply to Rosseau)

Post #: 5

RE: Thinking of buying but.. - 12/8/2013 9:12:03 PM

Panta_slith

Posts: 318
Joined: 4/4/2002
From: Montevideo, Uruguay
Status: offline

Akmatov, if you have seen a lot of discussion concerning the helos/AD isue is because it is only of the few aspects of the game that needs a little tweaking in the upcoming patches, otherwise the game runs very, very well and improving...

BTW, not all scenarios have massive presence of helos, anyway.

(in reply to Elfastball7)

Post #: 6

RE: Thinking of buying but.. - 12/8/2013 9:29:25 PM

TheWombat_matrixforum

Posts: 469
Joined: 8/2/2003
Status: offline

Yes, the game accurately reflects the fact that in general NATO short-range air defenses, against CAS and helo aircraft, was abysmal in this timeframe, and the Pact fielded a LOT of choppers. They're not excessive, though it sure feels bad to have a formation of Hinds swarm over you, but other than the already being addressed bug with with AAA and SAMs sometimes failing to engage, the overall representation is fine.

(in reply to Panta_slith)

Post #: 7

RE: Thinking of buying but.. - 12/8/2013 10:38:10 PM

kemmo

Posts: 65
Joined: 7/16/2012
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Akmatov

From reading the forums, I get the impression that the NATO lack of adequate AA is made worse by their existing AA failing to engage when they probably should. I believe that was going to addressed?

Half way thru the last scenario in the school teacher campaign, and my Gepards have taken down 7 helicopters, sadly not before they had shot up about 15 tanks. So AA seems to be working ok,also if you can get rid of the soviet AA, Nato helicopters can be pretty nasty as well.

(in reply to Akmatov)

Post #: 8

RE: Thinking of buying but.. - 12/9/2013 12:45:14 AM

TheWombat_matrixforum

Posts: 469
Joined: 8/2/2003
Status: offline

Truth is, attack helicopters were invented for a reason--they work. They're vulnerable, but very good at what they do.

(in reply to kemmo)

Post #: 9

RE: Thinking of buying but.. - 12/9/2013 9:03:53 AM

Hexagon

Posts: 1133
Joined: 6/14/2009
Status: offline

The game for me is a must have, part for the period and part for the great engine, of course are things that need be improved and other i dont like a lot (i see soviets excesive effective at range and the NATO ATGM not very effective) but in general is a great buy.

(in reply to TheWombat_matrixforum)

Post #: 10

RE: Thinking of buying but.. - 12/9/2013 1:08:05 PM

Mad Russian

Posts: 13256
Joined: 3/16/2008
From: Texas
Status: offline

NATO ATGM's may not be all that effective, depending on what they are firing at. There are various levels of E(plosive)R(eactive) A(rmor) on Soviet tanks. Some of them are very well protected against ATGM's of that time period.

Good Hunting.

MR

< Message edited by Mad Russian -- 12/9/2013 2:14:20 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to Hexagon)

Post #: 11

RE: Thinking of buying but.. - 12/9/2013 1:54:49 PM

pzgndr

Posts: 3170
Joined: 3/18/2004
From: Maryland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheWombat
Yes, the game accurately reflects the fact that in general NATO short-range air defenses, against CAS and helo aircraft, was abysmal in this timeframe, and the Pact fielded a LOT of choppers. They're not excessive, though it sure feels bad to have a formation of Hinds swarm over you, but other than the already being addressed bug with with AAA and SAMs sometimes failing to engage, the overall representation is fine.

I question two points about the game model. First, NATO air defenses consisted of more than ADA units portrayed at the platoon level; there were Redeye/Stinger teams forward deployed with maneuver units so some inherent ADA capability could be added to company HQs or something. Also, maneuver units themselves could return fire with tank main gun rounds, 25/30mm rounds or .50 cal, so this aspect of short-range air defense could be enhanced. Which brings up the second point, Soviet doctrine would not have swarms of Hinds leading an attack into enemy territory to take on vehicles under cover. I saw this in the "Head On" scenario and was greatly surprised to watch several platoons get wiped out, under cover. Helicopter attacks versus vehicles in the open from standoff range is one thing; point blank assaults against units under cover that have not even been identified by ground recon is something else entirely. Soviet aviation would not have been so audacious as to be borderline suicidal, especially considering the first point above where stationary NATO ground units would probably fry those birds.

Again, overall the game does pretty well. I'm not questioning some devastating helicopter attacks against vehicles moving in the open. But some other things could use a little reconsideration.

(in reply to TheWombat_matrixforum)

Post #: 12

RE: Thinking of buying but.. - 12/9/2013 1:58:55 PM

Hexagon

Posts: 1133
Joined: 6/14/2009
Status: offline

Well, if ATGM in 15 minutes only kill 1 or 2 T-72B/T-64B1 at 2.000m... and i talk about 3 M150 and 3 M3 in 3 units shooting the same company from 3 angles and lose 1 or 2 M150... i feel that soviets are closer to teorical performance and NATO to a "nerfed" teorical or a real performance, not in all areas but sure in ATGM and hit rate.

Maybe one option is add the option to see more info in attack, not only see kills/damage you can see when a tank receive a hit and doesnt suffer damage (and maybe other thing i think see is not a bad idea is % of hit or % of kill).

< Message edited by Hexagon -- 12/9/2013 3:01:03 PM >

(in reply to Mad Russian)

Post #: 13

RE: Thinking of buying but.. - 12/9/2013 3:41:25 PM

TheWombat_matrixforum

Posts: 469
Joined: 8/2/2003
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: pzgndr

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheWombat
Yes, the game accurately reflects the fact that in general NATO short-range air defenses, against CAS and helo aircraft, was abysmal in this timeframe, and the Pact fielded a LOT of choppers. They're not excessive, though it sure feels bad to have a formation of Hinds swarm over you, but other than the already being addressed bug with with AAA and SAMs sometimes failing to engage, the overall representation is fine.

I question two points about the game model. First, NATO air defenses consisted of more than ADA units portrayed at the platoon level; there were Redeye/Stinger teams forward deployed with maneuver units so some inherent ADA capability could be added to company HQs or something. Also, maneuver units themselves could return fire with tank main gun rounds, 25/30mm rounds or .50 cal, so this aspect of short-range air defense could be enhanced. Which brings up the second point, Soviet doctrine would not have swarms of Hinds leading an attack into enemy territory to take on vehicles under cover. I saw this in the "Head On" scenario and was greatly surprised to watch several platoons get wiped out, under cover. Helicopter attacks versus vehicles in the open from standoff range is one thing; point blank assaults against units under cover that have not even been identified by ground recon is something else entirely. Soviet aviation would not have been so audacious as to be borderline suicidal, especially considering the first point above where stationary NATO ground units would probably fry those birds.

Again, overall the game does pretty well. I'm not questioning some devastating helicopter attacks against vehicles moving in the open. But some other things could use a little reconsideration.

Most of your kills of Soviet helos will be from non-AA assets; those are modeled pretty well, though I don't know about MANPADS. They're in the game, but I haven't tracked how effective they are. Whether that needs to be tweaked or not is a legitimate question.

The doctrinal issue in terms of how helos are employed is another thing entirely. I'd agree that overall the game does have a weakness in implementing doctrine when the AI does stuff. Other posters have noted that they don't see textbook Pact attacks, for instance, and it is certainly a bit wonky when helos root around in the forest.

But, the hexes are 500 meters, so what seems really up close is probably not so close, so that might be part of it. Also, the scenario designer has consciously modeled engagements where things are not going as planned for either side, so perhaps that's part of the doctrinal mix. But I'd love to see more attention to this issue, for sure.

In the end though there's nothing, to me, about how the game models helicopters that makes the game unplayable, or even significantly impacts my enjoyment of it. Helos can be useful, but I've rarely had them be decisive. They may act weird sometimes, but so do ground units. It's the nature of a game like this; stuff is gonna happen that is odd.

(in reply to pzgndr)

Post #: 14

RE: Thinking of buying but.. - 12/9/2013 3:43:34 PM

TheWombat_matrixforum

Posts: 469
Joined: 8/2/2003
Status: offline

I'm pretty fascinated with the discussion about putative performance measures for things like ATGMs. There aren't too many models to use for mass employment of top line ATGMs in a northern European setting, really. There's tons of technical data, and lots of very diverse and often questionably relevant real-world examples, but nothing that really approximates what is happening in the game. I do like the idea of knowing more about what's happening--chances to hit, results of hits, etc.

(in reply to TheWombat_matrixforum)

Post #: 15

RE: Thinking of buying but.. - 12/9/2013 5:58:54 PM

pzgndr

Posts: 3170
Joined: 3/18/2004
From: Maryland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheWombat
There's tons of technical data, and lots of very diverse and often questionably relevant real-world examples

Here's one more esoteric data point. Our guys once hit a deer with an inert TOW missile at Grafenwoehr, at 2000m, at night. Bambi didn't know what hit him...

(in reply to TheWombat_matrixforum)

Post #: 16

RE: Thinking of buying but.. - 12/9/2013 6:56:32 PM

TheWombat_matrixforum

Posts: 469
Joined: 8/2/2003
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: pzgndr

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheWombat
There's tons of technical data, and lots of very diverse and often questionably relevant real-world examples

Here's one more esoteric data point. Our guys once hit a deer with an inert TOW missile at Grafenwoehr, at 2000m, at night. Bambi didn't know what hit him...

LOL, that's fairly amusing (not for the deer, I guess, but still). Though I doubt the deer had ERA....

(in reply to pzgndr)

Post #: 17

RE: Thinking of buying but.. - 12/9/2013 11:16:30 PM

Mad Russian

Posts: 13256
Joined: 3/16/2008
From: Texas
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: pzgndr

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheWombat
There's tons of technical data, and lots of very diverse and often questionably relevant real-world examples

Here's one more esoteric data point. Our guys once hit a deer with an inert TOW missile at Grafenwoehr, at 2000m, at night. Bambi didn't know what hit him...

What year was that?

Good Hunting.

MR

_____________________________

(in reply to pzgndr)

Post #: 18

RE: Thinking of buying but.. - 12/9/2013 11:36:14 PM

Akmatov

Posts: 495
Joined: 7/26/2000
From: Tucson, AZ, USA
Status: offline

Hmm, I'm thinking a furry venison doughnut and an irritated jagermeister.

< Message edited by Akmatov -- 12/10/2013 12:37:35 AM >

(in reply to Mad Russian)

Post #: 19

RE: Thinking of buying but.. - 12/9/2013 11:39:14 PM

pzgndr

Posts: 3170
Joined: 3/18/2004
From: Maryland
Status: offline

That was either 1988 or 1989, can't recall exactly. Even then we still had M113s and didn't get Bradley's until March 1990 in 1AD.

(in reply to Mad Russian)

Post #: 20

RE: Thinking of buying but.. - 12/10/2013 12:34:25 AM

Mad Russian

Posts: 13256
Joined: 3/16/2008
From: Texas
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: pzgndr

That was either 1988 or 1989, can't recall exactly. Even then we still had M113s and didn't get Bradley's until March 1990 in 1AD.

Were you active duty when they made the transition to Bradley's? Do you remember when that was?

Good Hunting.

MR

_____________________________

(in reply to pzgndr)

Post #: 21

RE: Thinking of buying but.. - 12/10/2013 1:42:10 AM

pzgndr

Posts: 3170
Joined: 3/18/2004
From: Maryland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mad Russian
Were you active duty when they made the transition to Bradley's? Do you remember when that was?

I was, but transition for my unit was March 1990. I had my company command Aug 88 - Feb 90, so my last act was turning in all my M113s. Another funny story was how my Bn CO kept giving me crap about how mech was NOT like light infantry since my first assignment was in the 101st. But I got the last laugh handing over the guidon and saying although it took me 18 months I turned the company into light infantry after all.

To get back on topic a bit, being a vet of the era and having my "Been there, done that" T-shirt, the game is good and worth buying. I certainly have my thoughts about making it more realistic but those are improvement issues and not major gripes with the game itself.

(in reply to Mad Russian)

Post #: 22

RE: Thinking of buying but.. - 12/10/2013 10:11:28 AM

jday305

Posts: 161
Joined: 3/31/2013
From: Northeast Indiana
Status: offline

I saw the aftermath of a cow being run over by a M1A1 in 1989. Local rancher lost some of his head of cattle and they wandered onto Yakama military reservation in Washington state. Not pretty especially when it covered about fifty yards.

This is in responce to the deer post above.

< Message edited by jday305 -- 12/10/2013 11:12:55 AM >

_____________________________

RebelYell

"Those who don't know history are destined to repeat it."
�All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.�
Edmund Burke

(in reply to pzgndr)

Post #: 23

RE: Thinking of buying but.. - 12/10/2013 11:52:27 AM

Hexagon

Posts: 1133
Joined: 6/14/2009
Status: offline

Sure he doesnt have extra armor??? my sources inform me about a very secret soviet proyect called Object Bambimother 545, they leave the reactive armor because collateral damages were excesive

Maybe the big problem is see how ATGM units are unable to score hits at range over infatry companies or scout units... here you cant find strong armor and when attacks cant destroy enemy vehicles i think more in low hit % than in armore defeating missiles.

< Message edited by Hexagon -- 12/10/2013 12:54:00 PM >

(in reply to jday305)

Post #: 24

RE: Thinking of buying but.. - 12/10/2013 3:12:15 PM

Igbe

Posts: 25
Joined: 7/17/2002
From: Zelienople, PA
Status: offline

I debated getting Red Storm, glad I did! Matrix has released some good games the past few months but I always keep going back to Red Storm as my primary game!

(in reply to MTTODD)

Post #: 25

RE: Thinking of buying but.. - 12/10/2013 4:42:47 PM

CapnDarwin

Posts: 8467
Joined: 2/12/2005
From: Newark, OH
Status: offline

We are glad many people are enjoying the game. Rob is busy with PBEM bug fixes for the 2.03 update and I dropped 6 hours last night tracing and fixing a few bugs related to helos, AD units, and ATGMs. These will be in 2.03 as well.

So enjoy the game and talk us up with your friends.

Thanks.

_____________________________

OTS is looking forward to Southern Storm getting released!

Cap'n Darwin aka Jim Snyder
On Target Simulations LLC

(in reply to Igbe)

Post #: 26

RE: Thinking of buying but.. - 12/10/2013 7:20:48 PM

MTTODD

Posts: 227
Joined: 12/1/2011
Status: offline

Thanks for all the helpful replies.

Will get the game.

(in reply to CapnDarwin)

Post #: 27

RE: Thinking of buying but.. - 12/11/2013 12:04:36 AM

Rosseau

Posts: 2757
Joined: 9/13/2009
Status: offline

Just be sure pbem is fixed first if MP is really your thing.

(in reply to MTTODD)

Post #: 28

RE: Thinking of buying but.. - 12/11/2013 10:01:33 PM

CapnDarwin

Posts: 8467
Joined: 2/12/2005
From: Newark, OH
Status: offline

We are working right now to get 2.03 tested to see if the last of the PBEM bugs are squashed. We have to have the update done and to Matrix by Monday or the update waits until next year.