Will 2.1 make defense significantly easier?

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Will 2.1 make defense significantly easier?

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 >> Will 2.1 make defense significantly easier?

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Will 2.1 make defense significantly easier? - 11/4/2014 5:18:08 PM

istari6

Posts: 56
Joined: 12/12/2013
Status: offline

First, let me compliment the Flashpoint team on a terrific game. Really impressed at the elegance of the design and the careful attention to accuracy at all levels. I'm learning a lot and enjoying the process :).

Having said that, I've just completed my 8th scenario (the first mission of the "Hell on Wheels" campaign). and I'm struck at the difficulties of executing a mobile defense under the current engine. Three items in particular really struck me over and over in this scenario:

1) The lack of triggers for a preplanned defensive maneuvers. As with many other scenarios, "Hell on Wheels� has NATO covering a wide front with multiple avenues of approach open to the Soviets. The front is too large to defend adequately along all routes, so I positioned my forces in good central positions with road access so they could shift quickly once the avenue of attack(s) were defined by forward recon elements. But after the 1st turn when I saw the Soviets were massing along 1-2 routes and ordered my troops to reposition to cover those route, they had to go through the entire command delay of 25-40 minutes after receiving orders, and arrived too late, with the Soviets already crossing half the map by the end of the 2nd turn. When T-80s are rolling down an autobahn, 30 minutes delay processing orders really matters! ;) Note, I'm not talking about the delay between Player turns, I'm talking about the additional unit delay once an order has been given. In reality, the initial blocking movements would have been preplanned on triggers. That capability is critical for the defender to have sufficient initial agility to respond to a Soviet offensive already running flat out on preplanned orders of their own.

--> Perhaps the defender can have 0 command delay for orders given at the end of the 1st turn only? That would simulate the fact that these were preplanned triggers arranged before the battle began, but every order after Turn 2 would have the normal command delays (since now both sides are adapting on the fly).

2) The lack of defined engagement ranges. I was able to position a company of M1A1s in front of an oncoming T-80 battalion and hoped for a devastating ambush, but they proceeded to open fire sporadically at very long range as some platoons had sight but others didn�t yet. The T-80s took some losses and halted outside effective range. The M1A1s then also began trading shots with another distant tank company at 3000+m . They rapidly ran down their ammo and had to Resupply, rendering them hors de combat at a critical moment. What I wanted was to wait in hiding until the Soviet tank battalion was fully �in the fire-sack� where multiple platoons would have LOS before opening fire. In this case, the Soviets paused, then took an alternate route forcing a far inferior and expensive battle in close country.

--> Perhaps we could set an ideal engagement range for a platoon while they are Unspotted? That way the can hold fire until either a) range is met or b) they're Spotted.

3) The lack of SOP for Recon elements to pull back before being overrun. I placed M3s and HMMVs at the edges of villages or cities on Screen with robust road networks behind them, but they still routinely were overrun and destroyed by onrushing T-80s. I just need them to identify an oncoming horde at 1000m+ and then skedaddle back home or reposition. Real scout troops would have more self-preservation instincts than Screen allows.

--> Screen seems to be the right order, but the way that Recon elements execute it is too slow and tends to draw them sideways where they're caught and killed. Could Screen be adjusted so that the standoff range is more rigorously followed to keep Recon elements out of DF range? Or is there another order that would keep recon elements on the road network for maximum mobility?

I know many of these features are being worked on for 2.1 or future versions of the engine, and that the team only has so many hours in a week. The features already implemented are really well done, but these three additions would significantly help the NATO player execute the tactics that an outnumbered force needs to survive against such a mobile and heavily armored attacker. If all three were added to 2.1 (or later versions of the engine), it would seem that mobile defense would be much more effective, perhaps even needing some scenarios to be rebalanced :). I can't think of anything similar that's missing from the attacker's "toolkit". Right now it seems that the game gives unrealistic advantages to the attacker, but perhaps there are other features missing that would benefit the Soviets?

Thanks for listening, and looking forward to Southern Storm and future releases.

Chris

< Message edited by istari6 -- 11/4/2014 6:19:51 PM >

Post #: 1

RE: Will 2.1 make defense significantly easier? - 11/4/2014 7:14:29 PM

CapnDarwin

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

Chris,

The simple answer is yes. We are looking to add some SOP, some new orders, and better mechanics for defensive fights (a withdrawal type move).

_____________________________

OTS is looking forward to Southern Storm getting released!

Cap'n Darwin aka Jim Snyder
On Target Simulations LLC

(in reply to istari6)

Post #: 2

RE: Will 2.1 make defense significantly easier? - 11/5/2014 12:52:22 AM

cbelva

Posts: 1843
Joined: 3/26/2005
Status: offline

Hey Chris,

First I want to thank you for your support of our game.

I was an officer in the army during the 80s and spent time as an asst S-3 for a Cav Squadron and then for a Mech Brigade. It seams to me that there is some confusion over the active defense and how it was applied. And at this level of the game the active defense has already been played out. You units are deployed because that is where the G-2/S-2 has deduced that the enemy is attacking in that area. Also, once a unit is engaged, there is no active defense. It is very hard and dangerous to pull a unit out of the line when they are underfire. As in real life, if you wait too long to pull your units, (ie give them the order to pull out) then you put them at risk. And it does take time for an order to filter down to the individual squads and vehicles.

Now regarding the command delays, that has been a point of debate on the team for some time. I was one of the ones arguing for shorter command delays. But delays are realistic. Even when there is a plan in place. It is just a fact. Timing is crucial when you pull a unit and redeploy it.

As an old cav officer I have been very critical of scouts and cav. There has been a lot of discussion on the boards regarding the use of screen and how to apply it. Many people have complained that line units in screen were too quick to withdraw. They wanted them to stand and fight before withdrawing. The problem with the program right now is that there is a limit as to what they can do with it because when you change the screen function the change affects all units. This means that even scouts will try and stand and fight. Esp in they are in good terrain for cover. We plan on fixing that in 2.1 (at least that is what Rob and Jim have told me). I am in your camp when it comes to scouts. Let them see the enemy and then get out Dodge. They don't move as quick as I would like to see them move. The team will tell you that I have been very vocal about this. The problem is that the programing engine right now can only do so much.

As we start the 2.1 development cycle I will be watching these things closely. I have already put the team on notice

< Message edited by cbelva -- 11/5/2014 1:54:20 AM >

(in reply to istari6)

Post #: 3

RE: Will 2.1 make defense significantly easier? - 11/5/2014 2:22:36 AM

Mad Russian

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: cbelva

I am in your camp when it comes to scouts. Let them see the enemy and then get out Dodge. They don't move as quick as I would like to see them move. The team will tell you that I have been very vocal about this. The problem is that the programing engine right now can only do so much.

As we start the 2.1 development cycle I will be watching these things closely. I have already put the team on notice

+1

Good Hunting.

MR

_____________________________

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 cbelva)

Post #: 4

RE: Will 2.1 make defense significantly easier? - 11/5/2014 3:20:54 AM

IronMikeGolf

Posts: 899
Joined: 3/19/2010
Status: offline

CA1 is quite defensible.

In the south, the is a huge gunfight with a tank regiment attacking. One tank company and one mech company will handle that quite well, with light casualties. I don;t try to screen with recce in Buchholz. I use a recce plt to blow the city bridges from the Steinbeck side. They will screen quite nicely, killing tanks across the river and slowing the attack. Another recce section is tasked with blowing the bridge northeast of Holm-Seppensen.

The Steinbeck Gap gets two mech companies. Over the course of the battle, some VPs west of Steinbeck will get taken. These are easily retaken by counter-attacks by US reinforcements.

The A3 gets a mech company and a section of recce M3s. The M3's will give the lead tank company of the attacking tank regiment a bloody nose and make them deploy. This buys time for two things. First is that mech company occupying a battle position southeast of the A3/N3 intersection. Second is putting mines on the ridgeline that A3 crosses in the east.

The northernmost route is a recce fight.

The first US tanks to come as reinforcements are tasked to prepare to fight for control of A3. Their secondary task is to reinforce the fight west of Steinbeck.

It is quite possible to pull tanks out of Holm-Seppensen after the destruction of the attacking tank regt. You have to do this decisively. They can get to the Steinbeck Gap about the time the Soviets come out Steinbeck. They will need to rearm before becoming really effective. I base whether to do this on the strength of the mech company following that initial fight. The Soviets are likely to make a second attempt there is things do not go well further north.

You should be able to get a tactical victory when the Soviets hit 30% strength with 10-15% US casualties. You could extend the game and annihilate all Soviet on map forces, but it will likely cost you 30-35% casualties.

_____________________________

Jeff
Sua Sponte

(in reply to cbelva)

Post #: 5

RE: Will 2.1 make defense significantly easier? - 11/5/2014 5:04:26 PM

istari6

Posts: 56
Joined: 12/12/2013
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: cbelva

I was an officer in the army during the 80s and spent time as an asst S-3 for a Cav Squadron and then for a Mech Brigade. It seams to me that there is some confusion over the active defense and how it was applied. And at this level of the game the active defense has already been played out. You units are deployed because that is where the G-2/S-2 has deduced that the enemy is attacking in that area. Also, once a unit is engaged, there is no active defense. It is very hard and dangerous to pull a unit out of the line when they are underfire. As in real life, if you wait too long to pull your units, (ie give them the order to pull out) then you put them at risk. And it does take time for an order to filter down to the individual squads and vehicles.

Appreciate the detailed reply! I'm an amateur, and may well be "doing it wrong." However, I probably didn't explain properly what I was attempting to execute. Agree that once a unit is within DF range and under fire, can't easily be executing lots of mobile tactics. What I was trying to do was to have recon elements along the potential avenues of attack, one US mech infantry company dug into the main town in the center, and the other three companies kilometers to the rear in "hides" astride the road network, with easy ability to reposition and assume blocking positions. I'd figured out where there were good killsacks by reviewing the map before the battle started, but I didn't have sufficient forces to garrison all at the start of the scenario. So the idea was to identify the main thrusts using recon, have the mech infantry slow the enemy if they decided to plunge through the center on the fastest route, while deploying my "hiding" companies to assume blocking positions on the Soviet axes of attack before they arrived, necessarily concentrating on some while leaving others uncovered.

(My understanding is this was one of the great benefits of the M1/M2 generation of AFV, being much faster, and thus able to execute this kind of mobile repositioning ahead of rolling Soviet columns rather than having to fight-in-place ala the older M60/M113s.)

Having all this analyzed ahead of the battle, and only needing to give a single command (defend from BP A, not BP B) shouldn't require an additional 35-40 minutes of local discussion by the troops after the order is given, particularly when the Soviets are racing down the roads at high speed.

That's why I'm suggesting that any orders given by the defender at the end of the first turn have 0 command delay, since can assume that soldiers and officers were briefed ahead of time on preplanned responses. After that first turn, then it can become the usual command delay as everyone is having to improvise. Another possibility is perhaps that there's 0 command delay for units moving from their initial positions at the start of the scenario, whatever turn that is. That would again simulate that there were plans at the start of the battle, and they're executing those, but once they've moved out of their starting positions, normal command delays would result for all subsequent orders.

Thanks,

Chris

< Message edited by istari6 -- 11/5/2014 6:15:11 PM >

(in reply to cbelva)

Post #: 6

RE: Will 2.1 make defense significantly easier? - 11/5/2014 5:11:09 PM

istari6

Posts: 56
Joined: 12/12/2013
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Iron Mike Golf

CA1 is quite defensible.

In the south, the is a huge gunfight with a tank regiment attacking. One tank company and one mech company will handle that quite well, with light casualties. I don;t try to screen with recce in Buchholz. I use a recce plt to blow the city bridges from the Steinbeck side. They will screen quite nicely, killing tanks across the river and slowing the attack. Another recce section is tasked with blowing the bridge northeast of Holm-Seppensen.

...(remainder snipped)...

IMG,

Thanks for suggestions. I agree that knowing where the Soviets will attack makes defending much easier the 2nd time, and your layout makes sense if you have foreknowledge of the Soviet focus on the southern route.

However, I've been trying to approach these scenarios as "pure" as possible, doing my best to win the first time given the information available in the briefing only, even if it's a marginal and close-fought victory :). My hope is that these scenarios aren't "puzzle missions" where it's expected that you fail over and over until you figure out the right solution by seeing the patterns of the attacker.

That's why it's so important to have recon troops that can keep their distance and report, and why defenders need ability to activate preplanned triggers at the start of the scenario, so they can be deployed to cover all potential avenues, then concentrate once the Soviet attack plan is outlined by recon and forward defenders. Good news is that it sounds like the developers are well aware and working on many of these features.

Cheers!

Chris

< Message edited by istari6 -- 11/5/2014 6:12:04 PM >

(in reply to IronMikeGolf)

Post #: 7

RE: Will 2.1 make defense significantly easier? - 11/5/2014 5:51:14 PM

IronMikeGolf

Posts: 899
Joined: 3/19/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: istari6

quote:

ORIGINAL: Iron Mike Golf

CA1 is quite defensible.

In the south, the is a huge gunfight with a tank regiment attacking. One tank company and one mech company will handle that quite well, with light casualties. I don;t try to screen with recce in Buchholz. I use a recce plt to blow the city bridges from the Steinbeck side. They will screen quite nicely, killing tanks across the river and slowing the attack. Another recce section is tasked with blowing the bridge northeast of Holm-Seppensen.

...(remainder snipped)...

IMG,

Thanks for suggestions. I agree that knowing where the Soviets will attack makes defending much easier the 2nd time, and your layout makes sense if you have foreknowledge of the Soviet focus on the southern route.

However, I've been trying to approach these scenarios as "pure" as possible, doing my best to win the first time given the information available in the briefing only, even if it's a marginal and close-fought victory :). My hope is that these scenarios aren't "puzzle missions" where it's expected that you fail over and over until you figure out the right solution by seeing the patterns of the attacker...

Cheers!

Chris

Reading the terrain can lead you to planning a defense like this. The desired Soviet objectives can be ascertained in this version by looking at the VP locations and they make sense in a real world fashion: key road junctions and bridges.

You know you are being attacked in division strength. Looking at roads, relief, and forests yield 4 possible axes of advance that support regimental movement. The northernmost does not lead to the key objectives, so keeping an eye there should suffice. If he does come there in strength, there is time to maneuver to negate that threat.

The immediate threat is in the south.

It will take time to move through Buchholz and Steinbeck.

The A3 corridor is narrow and getting off the autobahn greatly slows Soviet movement.

The AI does a good job of executing Soviet doctrine. If you know that and read the terrain, you can avoid being surprised.

In this scenario, you start with the bulk of your firepower being mech inf. Bradleys will kill tanks and mech can successfully defend against a tank horde. You have to shape the battlefield and plan your engagement areas well. Brads need every meter of standoff the TOW gives them. If you put mech where they can't engage until the tanks are 1500m or less, the tanks will eat the mech up. If the mech opens at 3500m, you can expect 1-3 tanks to make it to the obj and the dismounts will finish them off.

Eventually, you will see the motorized rifle units come forward. M1s and M2/M3s will decimate them. Brads won't kill as many tanks as M1 plts, but I do see them routinely vaporize T72/T80 companies. You have to place them right.

_____________________________

Jeff
Sua Sponte

(in reply to istari6)

Post #: 8

RE: Will 2.1 make defense significantly easier? - 11/6/2014 12:56:28 PM

Mad Russian

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: istari6
My hope is that these scenarios aren't "puzzle missions" where it's expected that you fail over and over until you figure out the right solution by seeing the patterns of the attacker.

I don't make puzzle scenarios. In addition to that, the AI is 'active', the game doesn't cheat and it's not scripted beyond who controls the objective locations. So, each game plays differently. There isn't a single right way to fight these scenarios. There are better ways to fight them though.

quote:

That's why it's so important to have recon troops that can keep their distance and report, and why defenders need ability to activate preplanned triggers at the start of the scenario, so they can be deployed to cover all potential avenues, then concentrate once the Soviet attack plan is outlined by recon and forward defenders. Good news is that it sounds like the developers are well aware and working on many of these features.

Cheers!

Chris

The Recon SOP's we have in mind should fix most of your concerns.

Good Hunting.

MR

_____________________________

(in reply to istari6)

Post #: 9

RE: Will 2.1 make defense significantly easier? - 11/6/2014 1:22:20 PM

calgar

Posts: 121
Joined: 1/5/2012
Status: offline

Are there any ideas being discussed to revise the smokescreen mechanics?

regards,

Calgar

(in reply to Mad Russian)

Post #: 10

RE: Will 2.1 make defense significantly easier? - 11/6/2014 2:07:40 PM

Mad Russian

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

Yes.

Good Hunting.

MR

_____________________________

(in reply to calgar)

Post #: 11

RE: Will 2.1 make defense significantly easier? - 11/8/2014 8:43:52 PM

istari6

Posts: 56
Joined: 12/12/2013
Status: offline

quote:

Reading the terrain can lead you to planning a defense like this. The desired Soviet objectives can be ascertained in this version by looking at the VP locations and they make sense in a real world fashion: key road junctions and bridges.

You know you are being attacked in division strength. Looking at roads, relief, and forests yield 4 possible axes of advance that support regimental movement. The northernmost does not lead to the key objectives, so keeping an eye there should suffice. If he does come there in strength, there is time to maneuver to negate that threat.

The immediate threat is in the south.

It will take time to move through Buchholz and Steinbeck.

The A3 corridor is narrow and getting off the autobahn greatly slows Soviet movement.

The AI does a good job of executing Soviet doctrine. If you know that and read the terrain, you can avoid being surprised.

In this scenario, you start with the bulk of your firepower being mech inf. Bradleys will kill tanks and mech can successfully defend against a tank horde. You have to shape the battlefield and plan your engagement areas well. Brads need every meter of standoff the TOW gives them. If you put mech where they can't engage until the tanks are 1500m or less, the tanks will eat the mech up. If the mech opens at 3500m, you can expect 1-3 tanks to make it to the obj and the dismounts will finish them off.

Eventually, you will see the motorized rifle units come forward. M1s and M2/M3s will decimate them. Brads won't kill as many tanks as M1 plts, but I do see them routinely vaporize T72/T80 companies. You have to place them right.

IMG - been away for a few days, just saw this reply. Good points, thanks for taking the time to write them up. I don't think I realized the speed discrepancy was that great between autobahn travel vs off-road. This will help me anticipate a bit more rather than wait for recon information to determine most likely attack route. Cheers!

(in reply to IronMikeGolf)

Post #: 12