Observations about playing WP

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Observations about playing WP

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

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [Modern] >> FlashPoint Germany >> Observations about playing WP

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Observations about playing WP - 1/30/2005 3:20:57 AM

Mike_w

Posts: 54
Joined: 1/30/2005
Status: offline

I've noticed two things about playing the WP.

First: It seems to me that the main advantage for the WP player, besides numbers, is the amount of artillery. However, by playing with the "limited staff" option on (thereby limiting the amount of orders you can issue) the WP player is basically unable to use his arty. Each fire mission uses one "order"; therefore, the WP player must really choose between issuing unit orders or using his arty. By taking away the arty use, the WP player is really weakened I think.

Second: Has anyone else noticed that the WP units seem to be a lot less willing to open fire than the NATO units? I have been in several situations where Ihave 3 or 4 units of armor (around 24-40 vehicles) surrounding one NATO unit of about 3-4 vehicles. All units are within 2 squres of eachother and all have acquired LOS. Usually, the NATO unit will fire first and often, attacking at least 2 of my units and inflicting about 5 or 6 casualties. In response, one of my units will return fire. WHat are the other guys waiting for? Maybe its just me as I have only played about 4 or 5 times.

I must say however, as a noobie to this type of game (i have been playing Rome: Total War for about 3 months now), I'm addicted. You guys did a great job making this game fun and accessible to non-military types like me.

Post #: 1

RE: Observations about playing WP - 1/30/2005 10:53:00 AM

iberian

Posts: 63
Joined: 1/28/2005
From: What is left of Spain after the Socialists...
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike_w
First: It seems to me that the main advantage for the WP player, besides numbers, is the amount of artillery. However, by playing with the "limited staff" option on (thereby limiting the amount of orders you can issue) the WP player is basically unable to use his arty. Each fire mission uses one "order"; therefore, the WP player must really choose between issuing unit orders or using his arty. By taking away the arty use, the WP player is really weakened I think.

Not exactly. The WP, with the Limited Staff rule on, has a limit on how many "Barrage" fire missions it can order. That doesn't mean he is unable to use the arty, since it can have them initially set in:

- Counterbattery role. The FSCC will generate "HQ stonks" and counterbattery fire missions.

- Direct support to specific units. It will generate fire-missions in support of offensive or defensive operations for a given unit and its subordinates.

If you set a battery in such a way in a turn, you will not need to give them additionaly order in the next. Yes, the WP should have lots of artillery, as in real life. But they also had a more inflexible command structure than NATO. So the Limited Staff rule is probably close to reflecting reality.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike_w
Second: Has anyone else noticed that the WP units seem to be a lot less willing to open fire than the NATO units? I have been in several situations where Ihave 3 or 4 units of armor (around 24-40 vehicles) surrounding one NATO unit of about 3-4 vehicles. All units are within 2 squres of eachother and all have acquired LOS. Usually, the NATO unit will fire first and often, attacking at least 2 of my units and inflicting about 5 or 6 casualties. In response, one of my units will return fire. WHat are the other guys waiting for? Maybe its just me as I have only played about 4 or 5 times.

It probably depends on many factors. For example, if the NATO unit has a "Hold" order, with a "Dug in" exposure, it will have 100% of its fire power available, in addition to better training and morale. If you run into it with your WP units with a "Move" order, you will only have a 40% combat strength, and your posture will be exposed. Even if you use the "Assault", with 100% combat strenght, you will be exposed... that is a receipe for disaster. I had an entire battalion of T-80 destoyed by a company of dug-in Challengers in less than an hour.

Assaulting dug-in defenders is tough, as in real life. You really have to work a lot to suppress them with artillery, and coordinate your attack with the barrage timings.

< Message edited by iberian -- 1/30/2005 8:58:33 AM >

(in reply to Mike_w)

Post #: 2

RE: Observations about playing WP - 1/30/2005 7:04:08 PM

Mike_w

Posts: 54
Joined: 1/30/2005
Status: offline

It probably depends on many factors. For example, if the NATO unit has a "Hold" order, with a "Dug in" exposure, it will have 100% of its fire power available, in addition to better training and morale. If you run into it with your WP units with a "Move" order, you will only have a 40% combat strength, and your posture will be exposed. Even if you use the "Assault", with 100% combat strenght, you will be exposed..

Ahhhh...good point. I just read this in the manual. As I play the game more i am finding it to be a lot more realistic than I first thought. Good point about the arty and setting it for "counter battery". I found that setting it on "direct support" for a HQ unit works wonders.

(in reply to Mike_w)

Post #: 3

RE: Observations about playing WP (General Comment) - 1/31/2005 4:58:39 PM

Tbird3

Posts: 21
Joined: 3/19/2002
From: Oklahoma
Status: offline

After playing many games as the WP against the AI and several PBEM and TCP/IP games I have made the following observations. (Please keep in mind that it has been quite awhile since I have had to study WP doctrine, so some of my specific comments could be slightly off).

Most of these games have been with limited staff rule in effect and MID to HIGH EW on.

Absence of WP Recon assets. I believe this mostly scenario related issues. The WP doctrine was not to blindly charge at the enemy. Their doctrine stressed recon at all levels. In most of scneario's that I have played you will be lucky to have a single platoon sized Combat Recon Patrol (CRP). What this doesn't account for is either the regimental recon or the divisonal recon elements. I believe the doctrinal norm was for the divisional recon to maintain about 24 to 48 hours lead ahead of the division. The regimental recon was much closer, roughly 12 hours ahead of the regiment. The next recon element was the CRP from one of the regiments battalions. Additionally, they would form up to 3 CRPs in order to cover multiple routes. The CRPs would only fight to disengage from enemy contact. Following the CRP would be the FSE or Forward Security Element which was a reinforced combined arms company sized element. The FSE was the first element of the regiment whose mission was to "fight". It's mission was to either destroy or fix the first significant NATO unit it came upon based on the intel from the leading recon elements. Following the FSE was the advance guard battalion from the regiment. This was a reinforced combined arms battalion sized unit. This unit mission was to maneuver against the enemy that the FSE fixed. As you can see reconnaissance drove WP maneuver. It is not a blind charge into the enemy's defenses.

The Divisional recon mission was to identify routes and enemy locations. The regimental recon confirmed routes and enemy locations. The key point being here is that a divisional or regimental commander would not just blindly drive his battalions to contact. If the divisional or regimental recon was even slightly effective they should be able to identify as a minimum the enemy front line trace and troop concentrations. Doctrinally, US forces allocate approximately 72 hours for a brigade deliberate defense. Obviously when comparing these two time-lines it is clear that the WP commander would have a rough ideal on where the enemy was deployed. This in turn allowed him to preplan his significant artillery support which is difficult to accomplish on the "fly" in the game. Additionally, once the enemy front line trace is identified the WP commander could then plan on where he would both mass and deploy from march formation to pre-battle to then battle formations. Another key point was the Divisional and regimental recon mission was strictly reconnaissance (sneak and peek). Their mission was to identify enemy locations and then bypass and continue to move into the enemies rear areas.

Another issue or recommendation that I would make is the ability to select multiple off board artillery units in order to mass barrage fire on a hex. If this feature exists I haven't been able to figure it out. IMHO this would facilitate the WP to get it's greatest amount of combat power into the fight while still limiting his staff flexibility.

Another issue or recommendation is the ability to task organize during the game. WP doctrine was that if a CRP or FSE was destroyed the Regimental commander would reconstitute the CRP and FSE from his assets. The ability to chop a platoon from a company to conduct a CRP mission would greatly enhance the ability of the WP to get "scouts out".

Bottomline, IMHO there is two key tenants that the WP player must utilize in order to be effective. Reconnaissance and Mass. If you can identify where the NATO player is or isn't, you can then make an intelligent decision where you want to maneuver. Ideally, if you have to make an assault you want to find that single enemy platoon or at worst a company. Once you have made the decision where you want to maneuver, mass your combat power! Deploy into Battle formation. This means that you move with a battalion in a single hex, perhaps with two battalion's abreast, in the assault mode. When you make contact you must develop overwhelming combat power to overcome the NATO advantages of being dug in with superior training and equipment. Mass your arty and air to support this assault. Put a minimum of 1/2 of your arty in the DS mode to that lead battalion. It will work but you must be careful. If you feed your forces piecemeal into the fight you will watch your regiment(s) turn into a huge flaming junkpile!

IMHO the WP is a more difficult challenge when playing a human opponent. However, it is much more satisifying when you are successful!

Regards,

Tbird3

(in reply to Mike_w)

Post #: 4

RE: Observations about playing WP (General Comment) - 2/7/2005 12:02:11 AM

Tbird3

Posts: 21
Joined: 3/19/2002
From: Oklahoma
Status: offline

Bump. I hope some other WP players can add some insight how to best utilize this force.

Regards,

Tbird3

(in reply to Tbird3)

Post #: 5

RE: Observations about playing WP (General Comment) - 2/7/2005 6:20:33 AM

Mike_w

Posts: 54
Joined: 1/30/2005
Status: offline

Well, I don't know much about WP doctrine in detail. I am rather frustrated with the lack of recon assets. I'm reduced to picking a weak Mechanized infantry unit and using them as a guinea pig. Combine that with ageneral lack of WP air assets including Helos...and a WP player pretty much must recon by arty fire and hope something moves.

(in reply to Tbird3)

Post #: 6

RE: Observations about playing WP (General Comment) - 2/7/2005 12:36:05 PM

CoffeeMug

Posts: 95
Joined: 7/13/2004
From: Frankfurt/M, Germany
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tbird3
premium post snipped

Wow! What a post! That' a gold nugget!

I posted a few days ago about the importance of artillery and recon forces to the WP war effort, but this one is perfect! My memory does not serve me that well, but what TBird wrote makes perfect sense to what I remember from Officer School.

Thanks, TBird!

Cheers,

CM

_____________________________

(in reply to Tbird3)

Post #: 7

RE: Observations about playing WP (General Comment) - 2/7/2005 12:40:44 PM

CoffeeMug

Posts: 95
Joined: 7/13/2004
From: Frankfurt/M, Germany
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike_w

Well, I don't know much about WP doctrine in detail. I am rather frustrated with the lack of recon assets. I'm reduced to picking a weak Mechanized infantry unit and using them as a guinea pig. Combine that with ageneral lack of WP air assets including Helos...and a WP player pretty much must recon by arty fire and hope something moves.

Heya Mike,

that's the way I use my NATO tank platoons, too, to get some recon info about whats going on in front of my FEBA. I usually order them to a position with long LOS and change SOP to something like "retreat without firing when enemy is closer than 4000". So you get some info without losing too many forces.

The problem is that often those platoons are in the way of the early WP stampede and are lost.

Cheers,

CM

< Message edited by CoffeeMug -- 2/8/2005 8:35:50 AM >

_____________________________

(in reply to Mike_w)

Post #: 8