RE: Helos and scenario balance (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Flashpoint Campaigns Series



Message

Panta_slith -> RE: Helos and scenario balance (11/2/2013 1:14:13 AM)

Hinds seem to be pretty tough beasts, but curiously, in a military simulator like Steel Beasts they don't seem so, you can down them rather easily.



Panta_slith -> RE: Helos and scenario balance (11/2/2013 1:15:42 AM)

I told you, choppers are far too lethal! [8D]



Mad Russian -> RE: Helos and scenario balance (11/2/2013 1:20:28 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Panta

I told you, choppers are far too lethal! [8D]


NATO needed force multipliers. That's why such weapons systems as the A10, MRL's, etc. were all designed. In most cases you find that 90% of the damage dealt to the enemy is done by a small percentage of troops. (10%)

These Apache were in the right place at the right time. NATO was depending on one of the weapons systems always being in the right place at the right time. If they weren't the line was broken.

Good Hunting.

MR



Mad Russian -> RE: Helos and scenario balance (11/2/2013 1:22:29 AM)

Here's what the battlefield looked like when we were done.

Good Hunting.

MR

[image]local://upfiles/28652/643F0D714AFD4C29986740FC68ECB161.jpg[/image]



Gratch1111 -> RE: Helos and scenario balance (11/2/2013 2:25:15 AM)

My feeling is that as Nato I have a hard time getting my AA to shoot down the WP helos, but they are much better at shooting down mine. Is this an accurate feeling as to what should happen? or am I doing something wrong with how I use my helos and AA?



Mad Russian -> RE: Helos and scenario balance (11/2/2013 2:46:37 AM)

Except for the Gepard, in the WG army, the NATO ground based Air Defense units can best be described as abysmal.

The M163 Vulcan for instance didn't even have a radar directed gun. Standoff range for the Vulcan is 2-3 hexes. The Hinds can hit you from 6.

The WP were prepared to fight without air superiority if need be. Remember that for most of WWII the Germans had air superiority on the Russian Front. They fit their ground units out with equipment that would protect them as much as possible. They were much more realistic about how this would work than NATO. Of course NATO had that huge expensive air force and the AF Generals had to justify their existence. So, the story goes that NATO's airforces would save the day.

Some stories are fairy tales. Thankfully, we don't have to see how that one really played out. The circumstantial evidence doesn't look good for the home team.

As has been pointed out before, FPC doesn't cheat. We plug in the values for the equipment with as realistic data as we can get and let the game play out from there. From what I've had a chance to play with it, and I'm in the editor too much to get to play as much as I'd like, it seems we have gotten it pretty close to factual. We took all the equipment results we could get from actual events to create the equipment data base.

CD did an outstanding job in taking all that raw data and bringing it together in a form that plays out like it does. [&o]

Good Hunting.

MR




Gratch1111 -> RE: Helos and scenario balance (11/2/2013 2:56:08 AM)

yes please keep the game true to real life, if life is unfair u deal with it as best as you can. I dont want the game to be changed for game balance. as in if wp are better with aa and helos, then make scenarios that has more AA units as Nato, dont change the mechanics of the game or the specs on the units



Mad Russian -> RE: Helos and scenario balance (11/2/2013 3:00:58 AM)

I think the differences in each nationalities armed forces is shown very well. When you go from playing one nation to another you have to learn an entirely different set of tactics to highlight their strengths and minimize their weaknesses. It's interesting to see what those strengths and weaknesses are and what you have to do to compensate for them.

Good Hunting.

MR



Gratch1111 -> RE: Helos and scenario balance (11/2/2013 3:24:13 AM)

exactly



loki100 -> RE: Helos and scenario balance (11/2/2013 9:28:26 AM)

agree, its one of the delights of this game that the 3 NATO forces and the Soviets all handle very differently.

As to AA, NATO relied too much on the assumption that overall air superiority would mean limited WP air activity and configured on that basis. May have been true in the 50s-60s but missed the impact of effective combat assault helicopters in operating in such a way as to make it pretty irrelevant who had air superiority.

The Soviets always assumed their ground formations would be operating in a hostile air environment. This actually predates even the Great Patriotic War era and goes back to the 1920s. As they developed their deep battle doctrine it was pretty clear that the bi-planes of the time would lag behind, but equally they would be operating in range of defensive aircraft. So they put a lot of thought, and equipment development, into AA at a time when most armies ignored the issue.

Never misunderestimate how conservative armed forces are, or how long past decisions influence current actions.



TheWombat_matrixforum -> RE: Helos and scenario balance (11/2/2013 4:26:01 PM)

It IS frustrating to watch the Hinds work you over, but I imagine it would have been even worse in reality. Eventually, the Hinds die off, go back for resupply, etc. Usually, I've found that if you can weather the first thrust, each successive wave of helos becomes less and less lethal. Helos are fragile--they can hit hard but they have zero staying power it seems. So, it balances out eventually.



Panta_slith -> RE: Helos and scenario balance (11/2/2013 4:58:02 PM)

Please do not think I am at all against the use of helicopters, they are an integral part of the modern battlefield and they and the CAS add the necessary third axis to the battlefield space. I just meant to say that their careless use may unbalance the scenarios to the point of making them dull or even hard to play and boring. FPC is a game, not a simulation, and as a game I (we) play it for the challenge and the fun. Recently I purchased an extremely detailed WW2 game with the hope that being so carefully modelated (its author makes military simulations) it would be interesting to play, despite the strange lack of reviews and interest in general I found after its release. That extremely detailed game showed up to be a total fiasco, even with a powerful PC every turn was long, slow and uninteresting. Its data was as accurate as it could be, but its playability was very low. After a few tries I quit and never played it again.
Of course I know many people will think differently, it is just an opinion aiming to be useful.



MikeAP -> RE: Helos and scenario balance (11/2/2013 5:17:34 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mad Russian

I think the differences in each nationalities armed forces is shown very well. When you go from playing one nation to another you have to learn an entirely different set of tactics to highlight their strengths and minimize their weaknesses. It's interesting to see what those strengths and weaknesses are and what you have to do to compensate for them.

Good Hunting.

MR


OK. So when will AH-64s be able to engage targets from 8k away like in real life?



Mad Russian -> RE: Helos and scenario balance (11/2/2013 5:21:18 PM)

I accept your opinion and am glad you voice how you feel. This scenario is not a 'fun' meeting engagement. This is an infantry defense against a Soviet Helicopter Regiment. As such, it is very different from the other scenarios. I have made a couple of tweaks to it but the basic scenario is the same. As NATO you get hammered in the opening phases of this battle. No way around it.

I understand very much the line between game and sim. The 1989 scenarios that came with this game are of my making. I'm the one that chose how to use the engine. What to highlight, when and where. I tried to give you as many scenarios and campaigns as time would allow. I only have so many different pieces of equipment to use in the scenarios. That means that they situations have to be as different as I can make them. Overall, I didn't put enough Hinds in the scenarios. The Soviets had A LOT of helicopters!!

I put just enough in the scenarios for you to get the taste of what they would have been like and to have to 'deal' with the threat.

However, in Dawns First Light you get the real deal. Well, you get half the real deal. A real Soviet Attack Helicopter Regiment would have twice as many helicopters as is in this scenario. At one point I had them in the scenario. As you might imagine, it was a tough place to be. So, I'm actually the only one that's faced the full regiment at this time. Until such time as one of you makes a scenario with them in it. I toned them down because they were too smothering.

As I said before, not every scenario is for everybody. This is not my favorite scenario either. It is one I learned a lot about how it may have felt to be under the Hind's guns and have little to say about it. For that I found the scenario interesting.

Good Hunting.

MR



Rob322 -> RE: Helos and scenario balance (11/2/2013 8:26:19 PM)

It makes me wonder how the Gulf War would've gone had the Iraqis possessed a larger, more modern air force capable of offering battle and coming closer to parity with the Coalition. My understanding is that the Vulcans simply were used in ground support role against bunkers and light vehicles.



Mad Russian -> RE: Helos and scenario balance (11/3/2013 12:23:07 AM)

From what I've read of the Iran-Iraq war I'm amazed that Iraq wanted to go to war with anyone that was using anything more technical than a single shot rifle riding around the desert on a camel.

Saddam Hussein made huge mistakes fighting with Iran, which was in total chaos when the war started. He consistently made every decision go through him, so his military genius could show through. Even then, he didn't learn the first time and came back for a rematch.

Sound like anyone else we all know and love??!!??

Good Hunting.

MR



CapnDarwin -> RE: Helos and scenario balance (11/3/2013 1:51:52 AM)

Just a quick 2.02 update update[:D]:
1. On the Helo/AD front we have fixed one bug with Radar spotting that should help AD systems shoot more.
2. We have also found and fixed a situation that was draining helo unit readiness like a vampire. They should now be more in line with other units.
3. I also fixed a data issue with the US hellfire ATGM range and name in the editor (I missed something typing data in, thanks MikeAP for the heads up).
4. The hints and resupply issues for helos are also squared away.

We are working a number of other issues and will be posting a more involved "What's New in 2.02" thread in the next couple of days.



Panta_slith -> RE: Helos and scenario balance (11/3/2013 2:17:03 AM)

Don't you guys ever rest? [:)]



Mad Russian -> RE: Helos and scenario balance (11/3/2013 2:27:17 AM)

Of course. We rest on the weekends like you guys do! [8D]

Good Hunting.

MR



CapnDarwin -> RE: Helos and scenario balance (11/3/2013 2:48:21 AM)

Resting, what is this strange concept you speak of...[:D]



MikeAP -> RE: Helos and scenario balance (11/3/2013 5:16:28 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Capn Darwin

3. I also fixed a data issue with the US hellfire ATGM range and name in the editor (I missed something typing data in, thanks MikeAP for the heads up).


If you want to talk ranges, I see many oddities in the data file. Cannons and small arms mostly.



Lowlaner2012 -> RE: Helos and scenario balance (11/3/2013 9:39:44 AM)

Have you any ETA on the 2.02 patch?

Thanks :)



Mad Russian -> RE: Helos and scenario balance (11/3/2013 1:15:43 PM)

Yes, after we get it tested to the point we like what we see. That shouldn't be too much longer.

Answering that question always gets me to laughing. It's like you putting your boat on the lake and me asking you how long it will be before you catch your first fish. YMMV. [sm=happy0065.gif]

Good Hunting.

MR



Lowlaner2012 -> RE: Helos and scenario balance (11/3/2013 4:15:26 PM)

I would use TNT to blow the fish out of the water, so not to long, this game has made me like explosives far to much ;)

Thanks for the reply and all your work on this great game :)




CapnDarwin -> RE: Helos and scenario balance (11/3/2013 5:02:51 PM)

ETA. When it is ready. MR is doing some scenario rebalance work and needs Rob and I to get a few things working right in order to do what he needs to do. I'm hoping we have the helo resupply issues finally put to bed. @#$%'n logic statements not doing what they should. Took a couple hours of code/test to get things working right again.

We really don't want to rush it like we did 2.01 and make more bugs.



Lowlaner2012 -> RE: Helos and scenario balance (11/3/2013 6:04:19 PM)

Ok thanks :)

Like you say best to get rid of the existing bugs and issues and not to make any more by rushing, I will put my TNT away ;)



GrumpyMel -> RE: Helos and scenario balance (11/4/2013 5:40:42 PM)

Just a quick suggestion (and forgive me if I missed this since I'm working from memory) but one thing that may help this sort of thing is with Scenario selection in addition to Size and Best Played as maybe you could put is something for "Difficulty" in the description. It would make it easier for players to select a scenario suited to thier individual taste.....particulary for those of us not really familiar with the era...or those not spending alot of time on the boards or replaying scenario's. It would give the player better opportunity to know what sort of scenario they are getting into before investing the time through trial and error. YMMV. 



Mad Russian -> RE: Helos and scenario balance (11/4/2013 7:23:33 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: GrumpyMel

... in addition to Size and Best Played as maybe you could put is something for "Difficulty" in the description.


That would work I guess, but there would only be two selections: Hard - where you play with unlimited orders and Harder - where you play with limited orders.

quote:


It would make it easier for players to select a scenario suited to thier individual taste.....particulary for those of us not really familiar with the era...or those not spending alot of time on the boards or replaying scenario's. It would give the player better opportunity to know what sort of scenario they are getting into before investing the time through trial and error. YMMV. 


I would say work your way up. Play the smaller scenarios first, follow those with the medium sized ones and finally go to the larger ones. WARNING - the first battle in the US Campaign is the only scenario in the game pack that I would consider Very Large!

That scenario has an entire US Armored Bde on the map before it's finishes. That's a lot of folks. Did I mention there are Soviet units on that map too??!! Yeah, consider if the US has an entire Armored Brigade on the map what the Soviets bring to play with.

As far as replaying the scenarios to learn more about them I rarely replay a scenario that I don't get surprised by the AI. I learn something almost every time I play the game. I would think that says more about the AI than anything else. When the scenario designer has no idea how the scenario will play each time out that's a really good AI.

Rob's Da Man!!! [&o] [&o] [&o]

Good Hunting.

MR



Fieval -> RE: Helos and scenario balance (11/5/2013 10:57:20 PM)

Having just completed the US Campaign (Shift work is interfering with my campaigning!!), I must say that it is a little bit frustrating when my AD could not hit a helo right next to it and the WP are plucking my helo's from the sky at 18000 + metres! (Very bad in scenario 5 when I actually get some helo's to play with. Those Apaches just fell from the sky though).

Also, is there a reason the US do not get any more minelets/smoke/ICM ammo after the first lot is gone? (would've be useful later in the campaign!)


Had a ball with the US, now onto the WP!



trebcourie -> RE: Helos and scenario balance (11/6/2013 2:00:17 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Fieval


Also, is there a reason the US do not get any more minelets/smoke/ICM ammo after the first lot is gone? (would've be useful later in the campaign!)




It's a known bug that will be fixed:

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3449279



Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.953125