RE: Helos and scenario balance (Full Version)

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



Message


CapnDarwin -> RE: Helos and scenario balance (11/6/2013 2:38:06 AM)

Camp Special ammo bug is fixed and will be in the 2.02 update.




pizzagrenadier -> RE: Helos and scenario balance (11/6/2013 8:40:07 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


MR, i'm still a relative newbie when it comes to cold war era warfare, can you or anyone else briefly highlight the strengths and weaknesses for each nation's army? ( there are 4 nations in all in this game right? nato side has usa, britain, germany , wp side has ussr )




wodin -> RE: Helos and scenario balance (11/6/2013 9:09:55 PM)

In a nutshell..WP has Numbers, Brits have praying, USA has quality and WG are in between Brit and USA.




cbelva -> RE: Helos and scenario balance (11/7/2013 1:34:33 AM)

Wodin, That the best summation of the differences between the nations in FPC that I have seen.




76mm -> RE: Helos and scenario balance (11/7/2013 3:13:28 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: wodin

In a nutshell..WP has Numbers, Brits have praying, USA has quality and WG are in between Brit and USA.

[:D][:D]




Mad Russian -> RE: Helos and scenario balance (11/7/2013 4:07:28 PM)

US - Rich Uncle with all the best toys.
WG - Soldiers defending their local brewery. Oh, and their families too.
UK - Poor King Richards Thin Red Line. Short of almost everything but professionalism.
Soviets - Lots toys, not necessarily the best toys, but definitely good enough to get the job done in the numbers they bring.

Good Hunting.

MR




Werezak -> RE: Helos and scenario balance (11/12/2013 12:42:25 AM)

I think this post did a really good job of describing how the WP plays differently from the others:

quote:

ORIGINAL: GloriousRuse

For the vast majority of Pact offensive operations you limit losses through mass, suppression/disruption, and speed. The ASSAULT order is one of your most useful commands.

MASS: Once you pick a spot to hit, don't piddle around piece-mealing your combat units. Throw a good 40+ vehicles into the attack and smash into your target. This allows you to cross NATO's range advantage once with a large force rather than several times with small forces, limiting the "free" kills NATO will get. Secondly, it means that you will fire back plenty as units expose themselves against your lead elements, which will suppress and degrade them as you close the distance. Finally, it ensures that in the killing ranges (under 4 hexes) you will have enough vehicles left to win the brutal close range firefight that develops.

SUPPRESSION: Use artillery. Tons of it. It will noticeably attrit infantry, and at the very least rapidly drop the readiness of NATO units to where their positional and range advantage will mean very little as they fire infrequently and inaccurately until your in knife fighting distance. A tweak on this is using a mass of attack helicopters (if you have them) to break up the formation ahead of time. A massed Hind attack immediately prior to your ground force entering the killing zone will often kill a boatload of vehicles, cause units on screen orders to move out of firing positions, and generally sow chaos. If you can time it so the hinds hit right as your moving into the long range zone, even better...most of those pesky ATGM launching vehicles will be busy shooting at the Hinds, and the tanks will generally be fleeing for their lives. You may also consider mass smoke screens.

SPEED: MOVE DELIBERATE and you are not friends...this is a massive departure from the NATO mentality. MOVE HASTY up to the last concealed position, then ASSAULT. Don't be afraid to use it for long distances. Besides limiting the time you are being shot at outside your effective range, this is one of the ways you can make up for usually having a slower C2 cycle...which in turn allows you to generate fights against NATO on the move rather than having to grind through layers of pre-emplaced defenses. Finally, it prevents NATO from disengaging and ensures that they don't have time to resupply and reorganize.

..................

All of which comes down to you having to make four or five big choices in a game, and commit to them fully. You don't have the luxury of a NATO commander to constantly re-evaluate and adjust. Your art is creating a situation so unwinnable that the NATO commander is using his cycles to re-arrange deck chairs on the Titanic.


After reading that I understood why WP puts whole companies inside a single hex. Being outgunned WP has to try to overwhelm the opposition with a wave of tanks, and accept losses. NATO seems to play a lot more deliberate, taking care of the equipment that it has.




Kommissar -> RE: Helos and scenario balance (11/12/2013 2:35:53 AM)

The lowest level the Soviets generally worked with were companies. Entire companies would work as one, towards single objectives rather than the more "flexible" NATO practice of using smaller formations. Another thing to consider was the Soviet use of at least two echelons at operational and tactical levels. NATO forces not only had to contend with one mass punch, but also the follow up punch following closely on the heels of the first. Should the first echelon succeed in breaking the enemy's line, the second echelon would then exploit the breach. If the first echelon failed to crack the NATO nut, the hope was the enemy line was weakened enough for the second echelon to break through and succeed. In situations in which NATO resistance was weak or fear that NATO was ready to use weapons of mass destruction, a single echelon would be used to simply overwhelm and destroy the weakened enemy force and prevent NATO from successfully targeting fast moving Soviet tank or combined arms forces with weapons of mass destruction. If an assault on a heavily reinforced position could not be avoided, the Soviets could use 3 or more echelons in the ensuing assault.

In addition, the Soviets would also have other reserves they could use to reinforce either echelon or exploit breakthroughs (reserves were a completely different group of forces from echelons).

As others have said, using speed and mass attack at the critical weak point of the enemy line achieves the double objectives of destroying the enemy while keeping casualties to a minimum. From what I've seen playing this game, these kind of tactics work very well for the Soviet player. Soviet doctrine is to keep on the march as much as possible and avoid being forced to fully deploy. It's important to keep a high tempo in the rate of advance and only stop and deploy in cases of major assaults that are unavoidable.

If you want to make NATO pay, hammer and anvil tactics work extremely well. One forces acts like an anvil holding the bulk of the NATO forces down while an armored hammer punches through an exposed flank. The armored force then exploits the breach by driving deep into the rear of the NATO force causing absolute havoc and envelops the main NATO force, pushing it into the anvil holding it down. Hammer smashes the NATO nut against the anvil.

Theoretically, the Soviets planned their attacks with the parent organization sending out recon and forward detachments (typically two levels lower than the parent organization that sent them). This would continue down to the lower levels so that when a NATO force engaged with a smaller Soviet one, the bigger parent formation would not be far behind which would create a situation of NATO increasingly facing bigger, fresher combat groups within a few short hours of each other which would prevent NATO forces from disengaging, reinforcing, or replenishing themselves until they were simply crushed under the weight and mass firepower of this rapidly moving force. It's not simply weight of numbers though. It's also taking advantage of numerical superiority and the flexibility this provides to seek out, find, and exploit any weakness in the NATO line or strategy and rapidly reinforcing that success.




istari6 -> RE: Helos and scenario balance (12/1/2014 5:18:11 PM)

(I discovered this thread while searching for posts about helicopters and Apaches in particular. There are some good thoughts here about Hinds, NATO air defense and other relevant topics, but I couldn't find anything that directly addressed my question. So here goes...)

Is there a reason why US Army Aviation is so sparse over the battlefields in FCRS? I'm now fighting the last mission in the US campaign (Battle for Bremen), and for the first time I've received something stronger than an OH-58A Kiowa. I have 4 AH-1Fs, which are totally ineffective due to the absolutely smothering Soviet air defenses (multiple batteries of 2S6 Tunguska, SA-11, SA-15). In playing the standalone scenarios, I only remember a single scenario where I had AH-64A Apaches, although my memory may be faulty. I don't remember ever having any OH-58D Kiowas at all.

My understanding is that one of the aspects that was distinctive about the US Army versus other peers in the late 1980s was the commitment to helicopters in all forms. The US was the first to establish robust helicopter forces at a divisional level, and they introduced entire Combat Aviation Brigades at the Corps level. Yet US helicopters have been a relatively rare sight across the span of FCRS.

Is there a "background story" reason for this? Ala the limited impact of Western airpower due to the the Warsaw Pact's effectiveness in suppressing NATO airfields? Is there a game mechanic reason that led MR to limit the use of US helicopters in scenarios? Or would US helicopters have truly been this rare over the battlefield, and if so, why? I guess I'm just a little surprised at fighting five battles as 3rd Brigade in 2nd Armored Division and having very little opportunity to integrate rotary aviation with ground forces.

This isn't a critique per se, just curious if there are interesting reasons why helicopters beyond OH-58A are generally scarce in US scenarios. Always enjoy learning more about the Cold War period :)

Chris




Mad Russian -> RE: Helos and scenario balance (12/1/2014 10:35:14 PM)

US air assets of all types would have incurred tremendous attrition to do the Warsaw Pact ADA assets. If you combine that with the normal practice of suppressing air assets of all types and the Warsaw Pact's tremendous numerical advantage then you have NATO with less helicopters available. There are some scenarios where they have more than others but none where they are as dominant in numbers as the Soviets generally enjoy.

Good Hunting.

MR




Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.328125