A few points from a real 3ID Tanker from 88-90 in FRG (Full Version)

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



Message

Mark Florio -> A few points from a real 3ID Tanker from 88-90 in FRG (12/26/2013 11:11:22 AM)

Hi All:

First, I love this game. It really provides the feelings of running an air-land battle in the late 80's in the FRG. I was stationed in Kitzingen with 3/63AR-3ID (Mech) and I know the terrain from the maps and the equipment pretty intimately. I do have some critiques about the game though from a military accuracy standpoint:

1). Clearing mine fields and running lanes through them was the work of blade tanks and every company had at least 1-2. This game should include that element of play as these tanks and the engineer vehicles were critical for clearing an obstacle rapidly. The Soviets and NATO had large contingents of obstacle breaching vehicles.

2). US AD arty is way too passive and ineffective. In real life, stingers and the Chapperale when employed properly gave good cover. The soviet AD conversely is way too powerful at distances. They are shooting down helo's who are nape of the earth from across the map. Just not that realistic.

3). In real world strategy, mine fields and obstacles would not be linear but more likely in depth and concentrated on high speed avenues of approach. In some maps, it looks more like a WWI battle field than a modern one.

4). in real world, the M1A1 could hit another moving tank about 80% or higher with first shot. Good crews more like 90%. The stab and the optics were much more superior than the soviets and the thermals gave it a great night advantage. Most soviet tanks were light on thermals still in the 80's. Also, Soviet tanks were light on radios and usually only the platoon or company level leaders had them. Soviet doctrine was somewhat inflexible then as a result.

5). I think that the tanks are somewhat under powered and the Bradleys fire too many TOW's. The reality is that the 25mm was the real deadly weapon against troops and APC's. they would reserve the TOW for a long range ambush against tanks rather than as the primary weapon.

6). The soviets should also be firing a lot more Arty towards pre-plotted choke points. They should also not be right up there with the first echelon troops but snug back in the woods just behind the front line firing continuously.

7). The game needs to make a provision for more defensive options such as hull-down, hull down/dug in vs hasty defense. A tank that is dug in in a prepared position is a tough nut to crack, especially if supported by dug in infantry and Arty.

8). Refueling! Tanks drank gas at a prodigious rate. Where are the HEMMIT trucks and the supply vehicles? Normally they were right behind the lead tanks and we always topped off at every pause. Ammo would be kept running forward too.

9). Another thought on tank on tank engagements. In the real world, they would be very violent and fast. A tank platoon of 4 M1A1's should be able to easily eliminate a T80 platoon that is within 2K's in about 2 minutes. A moving soviet tank couldn't fire accurately compared to western tanks. Their doctrine called for the platoon to stop and all guns to fire by volley at a singe US tank and then move again and repeat.

10). This game needs better waypoint management. We should be able to dictate speed and orders at each waypoint just like in the real world. Also, to be accurate we should be able to manage supplies with greater accuracy...tanks shouldn't run out of ammo so quickly


Anyway, I love the game but had a few points about accuracy based on my military experience. Also, when will they model the 3ID? it was the premier Mech infantry unit in the FRG in the 80's.



tombo -> RE: A few points from a real 3ID Tanker from 88-90 in FRG (12/26/2013 11:27:21 AM)

Tanker...nice feedback. hopefully these points can be added.

...whats your thoughts on the games SOP/doctrine...i miss having more direct control over the units engagements, ambush, etc. (that was available in FPG).
cheers.



CapnDarwin -> RE: A few points from a real 3ID Tanker from 88-90 in FRG (12/26/2013 4:59:45 PM)

MarneTanker, Thanks for the feedback. We do get inputs from those who served in the 80 on both sides of the fence and we value that input. We also have Steve the "Mad Russian" who was an engineer in the 80s over there on the team.

As for the questions, here goes:

1. Right now all engineering functions are abstracted. When units "hit" a minefield we have a delay while those mineclearing assets do there job and clear the obstacle. We do plan to expand engineering functions and add in discreet equipment down the road.

2. AD has some minor issues right now and hopefully the 2.03 update that is in the works fixes some of that. There were a couple code issues that hampered the AI with manpads and I have tweaked up the attack values on AD SAMs a bit to better reflect the warheads. This should help most systems. We are also looking into an issue with unit function getting incorrectly assigned in certain situations and this may be the cause behind unit like the Vulcan sitting idle in some cases. As for overpowered Soviet units, that's had to say. I have seen some long range shots on occasions but they have had a chance via LOS to spot. We do give helos NOE and pop-up stance consideration. At the end of the day stuff happens.

3. True, but to have a playable "game" you have to give the AI a fighting chance. We decided before launch to fix obstacles/mines to keep players from doing exactly what you are saying. You can do some approach denial by using arty mines if you have them. I think more of this will fall into place as we add discreet engineering functions.

4. All of these points are in the combat model. NATO tanks will shoot further hit more and can see at night and through smoke with thermal sights. It is this tech advantage that keeps them in the fight being outnumbered in most scenarios. We also take into account crew quality, readiness and morale of the force as the battle goes on.

5. The AI does look to make good shots with the correct weapons but it is also capable of taking the odd bad shot and the odd amazing shot based on the units state. As for tanks being underpowered, in what ways?

6. The game has both off map and on map arty assets. They will fire on located HQs and also located units. We do have plans to expand the detail in this area and reworking and adding back in pre-planned fires is something on our wish list. Alas only so many free hours in the week.

7. A lot of that is already there. Hold will dig you in. Screen is more for mask and shoot and move. One thing we want and many others is better defense orders (fallback) and orders for ambush (shoot if situation is right) kind of additional orders. There are several threads on this in the forum.

8. Simple answer abstracted out. Logistics is a world unto itself. We allow for emergency resupply and we are not tracking fuel rates. When you order a Resupply you are getting that quick pause to refuel and rearm. The most logistical we get is in campaigns when you decide repairs and replacements for he next fight.

9. A lot of various discussion on this subject abound. Which T-80. I would say you are right if we are talking T-80As or Bs, but less of a sure thing with BVs and Us. We do a good job of modeling in the effects of ERA on both HEAT and AP rounds. We do take into account, movement, stability, fire control, crew, weather, range, elevation, smoke, and cover to name a few things when combat occurs.

10. Again an area everyone wants enhanced. #1 wish list is to have independent orders for each waypoint. Timing can already be adjusted by right clicking a waypoint to bring up the editor. This is an area we will be looking to expand in a future release.

Hopefully that answers some of the questions. Feel free to ask more. Check out the forums, we have a lot of very good info in here. Enjoy the game and we will be working to add content and make it better as we go.

Thanks!



battlerbritain -> RE: A few points from a real 3ID Tanker from 88-90 in FRG (12/26/2013 6:09:37 PM)

Agree that the AD needs working on.

Right now a flight of 4 Hinds can take out most of NATO! [&:]

I've just had 1 Hind flight take out 6 Gepards, 6 Rolands, 2 Companies of Leo2s and a Company of Marders without even going back for more ammo.

The Gepards and Rolands just fired once when the Hinds were visible from 12 hexes away.

Not much point playing until this is fixed.



CapnDarwin -> RE: A few points from a real 3ID Tanker from 88-90 in FRG (12/26/2013 6:53:39 PM)

As stated a number of items have been corrected or tweaked in the AD front for 2.03. It should up the AD kills a bit against helos, especially from SAMs. The one issue we have seen raised by a player is a possible loss of unit function based on how the scenario editor is parsing out the formations. This will be high on the investigation list once the holiday winds down and we have the team back in action.

We are working hard to correct obvious errors and in some cases very odd stealthy errors like the one above. AD does work right now, just not at 100% as we would like and I still see aircraft and helos get shot down. We will get other items like additional MANPADs teams in formations as needed from higher formations and we will continue to look at reports and numbers on our end too to make sure things are working as intended.



Hexagon -> RE: A few points from a real 3ID Tanker from 88-90 in FRG (12/27/2013 10:41:17 AM)

Well, the armor action is "slower" than in real life but i dont see this bad (maybe add an option to activate double casualties in tanks/armored is interesting to have more realistic games), the problem is that in game looks like the soviets are excesive effective in antitank combat over 2.000m, i think the ATGM are not impresive over 2.000m specially NATO ATGM units add to this the good performance of soviet tanks at or over 2.000m and i feel like soviet AT performance is closer to the teorical and NATO performance is a nerfed realistic performance.

Yep, i ask to for the use of specific antimine units but as they say first intention is has the game on our hadns and improve it step by step, add details and reduce abstraction needs time and feedback.



Mark Florio -> RE: A few points from a real 3ID Tanker from 88-90 in FRG (12/27/2013 11:30:41 AM)

Hi Cap'n Darwin,

Thanks for replying to my message! I agree with all of your proposed additions and think that the game is wonderful. I have been playing pretty much continuously for the past 3 weeks. I look forward to more updates.



pzgndr -> RE: A few points from a real 3ID Tanker from 88-90 in FRG (12/27/2013 1:40:02 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: MarneTanker
I agree with all of your proposed additions and think that the game is wonderful.


Ditto, +1. Really looking forward to some game improvements for #s 2, 7 and 10. That will help a lot!



CapnDarwin -> RE: A few points from a real 3ID Tanker from 88-90 in FRG (12/27/2013 3:24:04 PM)

#2 was getting worked on last night and more today. Also found an odd bug where certain 0% hits where not getting filtered out. All fixed for 2.03. Also did some sound work to fix the helo sound and also a new arty strike sound is in the works to go along with the fixed sound timing for arty.



Dorb -> RE: A few points from a real 3ID Tanker from 88-90 in FRG (12/27/2013 10:51:57 PM)

The war that never was and we will never know for sure. I can't imagine the request you get from both sides stating how it would have went down and what their simulations and training showed. - And thank god...[;)]

I still recall Desert Storm and how they figured the invasion of Iraq was going to play out... and didn't.

Keep up the great work.



DoubleDeuce -> RE: A few points from a real 3ID Tanker from 88-90 in FRG (12/28/2013 1:39:29 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Dorb

The war that never was and we will never know for sure. I can't imagine the request you get from both sides stating how it would have went down and what their simulations and training showed. - And thank god...[;)]

Exactly, we are basically wargaming, wargaming. Its all theory till you put steel on steel where the targets shoot back with real bullets.



Mad Russian -> RE: A few points from a real 3ID Tanker from 88-90 in FRG (12/28/2013 2:04:24 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dorb

The war that never was and we will never know for sure. I can't imagine the request you get from both sides stating how it would have went down and what their simulations and training showed. - And thank god...[;)]



We get a few comments from time to time. [sm=innocent0009.gif]

For the most part, we have spent decades in Cold War research between the 4 of us. All that research came into focus in the game. I think it's as accurate as anything else that has been or is being presented. We have access to most of the studies done. Hundreds of books and articles on the subject and after all that, we are wargamers too! [:D]

Good Hunting.

MR



CapnDarwin -> RE: A few points from a real 3ID Tanker from 88-90 in FRG (12/28/2013 3:02:48 PM)

I'll just jump in and say the data all flows through the same code. We don't a nerfed NATO routine or an OP soviet routine in the game. The data is the best of all the resources we can find (all unclassified, but there is some very good stuff out there) and I'm an engineer by day job. I live for models, tables, charts, and code.

One of many spreadsheets (in this case on tab of four in the workbook) circa September 2005. Yes 2005! This was just getting a good AP formulation based on gun data of several tank guns. I've got and done a lot more since '05. There is no nerfing the equation. Math is math. The data may be wrong or off in some cases but you can start to see odd or biased data once you have enough decent data to work with. This has been repeated for ranging systems, weapon system accuracy over ranges, armour from all aspects, and the list goes on. We then take all of the this hard data modeling and roll in soft data models for training, morale, readiness and other environmental factors. The game is not looking at a sales sheet that says 80% hit rate. It knows where and when that 80% really occurs and if it really occurs. We are not playing favorites. We are looking to be as accurate as we can.

Of course if the gameplay is not what you want, go change the numbers in the USER data, build scenarios and get the fights you want to play. We want you to do that too.[;)]



[image]local://upfiles/15497/A34B9BCFEF374BCF9EECC3D6D5B5F936.jpg[/image]



Mark Florio -> RE: A few points from a real 3ID Tanker from 88-90 in FRG (12/29/2013 12:06:02 PM)

Darwin, regarding your tank gunnery accuracy, I can vouch for the data. Looks the same as what we were dealing with in 88-89. The most common range of engagement in Germany was predicted to be at 1200 meters. The effective range for a 90% shot accuracy with thermals was closer to 3000 meters though. Due to terrain, most common engagement range and what we trained for in VII Corps, Tank Table 8 and 12 was 1200 meters.



Mark Florio -> RE: A few points from a real 3ID Tanker from 88-90 in FRG (12/29/2013 12:16:39 PM)

Hi tombo,

Regarding SOP doctrine, I agree that it is an element that would enhance the game. Too often in the game, long range shots are taken at the first vehicle that appears. Whereas in real life, our tanks would remain in hull-down until the second echelon entered a kill sack then all tanks would open fire as one. Surprise; 2 shots, back to hull down, move to alternate position, pop up, 2 shots, repeat and rinse. It was also doctrine to take out the soviet antenna or lead tanks because the soviets often didn't have much tactical flexibility and a leaderless unit would tend to keep attacking into a frontal approach. Anyway, I am drifting: I think that the game AI is pretty good for the most part. I do think that there would be more air activity than I have seen portrayed in the game. For example, during REFORGER's 88 and 89, the skies were filled with NATO A-10's, F-16's and Tornados. I can remember looking up from my tank column in the woods, hiding and seeing an A-10 zoom over, flip upside down, look at us and then return later to kill 12 of 24 tanks with his wingman. We should have more air attacks in the game I think. Otherwise I love the play.



Mad Russian -> RE: A few points from a real 3ID Tanker from 88-90 in FRG (12/29/2013 3:46:50 PM)

All armies of all nations are taught to take out the leaders. It's why the US Army went to subdued rank insignia on their uniforms. They would have been taught the same thing in their training classes. For all the same reasons. Although NATO units would have done better 'leaderless' than their WP counterparts.

Good Hunting.

MR



Mark Florio -> RE: A few points from a real 3ID Tanker from 88-90 in FRG (12/30/2013 7:41:24 PM)

Hi Mad Russian, The difference is that only the leader tanks on the 64's and 72's had an antenna. In NATO tanks we all had antennas. We could differentiate their leadership. Anyway, just telling you like it was.



22sec -> RE: A few points from a real 3ID Tanker from 88-90 in FRG (12/30/2013 9:57:06 PM)

Are you saying that most Soviet tanks didn't have any radios?



Dorb -> RE: A few points from a real 3ID Tanker from 88-90 in FRG (12/30/2013 10:47:13 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: MarneTanker

Darwin, regarding your tank gunnery accuracy, I can vouch for the data. Looks the same as what we were dealing with in 88-89. The most common range of engagement in Germany was predicted to be at 1200 meters. The effective range for a 90% shot accuracy with thermals was closer to 3000 meters though. Due to terrain, most common engagement range and what we trained for in VII Corps, Tank Table 8 and 12 was 1200 meters.

quote:

I'll just jump in and say the data all flows through the same code. We don't a nerfed NATO routine or an OP soviet routine in the game. The data is the best of all the resources we can find (all unclassified, but there is some very good stuff out there) and I'm an engineer by day job. I live for models, tables, charts, and code.

One of many spreadsheets (in this case on tab of four in the workbook) circa September 2005. Yes 2005! This was just getting a good AP formulation based on gun data of several tank guns. I've got and done a lot more since '05. There is no nerfing the equation. Math is math. The data may be wrong or off in some cases but you can start to see odd or biased data once you have enough decent data to work with. This has been repeated for ranging systems, weapon system accuracy over ranges, armour from all aspects, and the list goes on. We then take all of the this hard data modeling and roll in soft data models for training, morale, readiness and other environmental factors. The game is not looking at a sales sheet that says 80% hit rate. It knows where and when that 80% really occurs and if it really occurs. We are not playing favorites. We are looking to be as accurate as we can.

Of course if the gameplay is not what you want, go change the numbers in the USER data, build scenarios and get the fights you want to play. We want you to do that too.






Lol, I'm sure this is type of stuff that every time I load up Steam, there is a patch for Wargame AirLand Battle too - NOT! [:D] (I swear there is something every week with that game - not sure what they are doing but something always loads)

Serious, keep up the great work and thank you.



bayonetbrant -> RE: A few points from a real 3ID Tanker from 88-90 in FRG (12/31/2013 4:14:06 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: 21SEC
Are you saying that most Soviet tanks didn't have any radios?


Doctrine was Platoon Leaders and up had radios. Wing tanks followed the platoon leader. It wasn't until well into the T72 fielding that they even started putting mounts into all the tanks.



pzgndr -> RE: A few points from a real 3ID Tanker from 88-90 in FRG (12/31/2013 12:33:56 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: bayonetbrant
quote:

ORIGINAL: 21SEC
Are you saying that most Soviet tanks didn't have any radios?

Doctrine was Platoon Leaders and up had radios. Wing tanks followed the platoon leader. It wasn't until well into the T72 fielding that they even started putting mounts into all the tanks.


When I played OPFOR at Hohenfels back in 1988, we weren't supposed to use radios below Plt Ldr and trained as a company with flag signals. That was interesting. We got used to it and it worked ok.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MarneTanker
The difference is that only the leader tanks on the 64's and 72's had an antenna.


Not just that, cuz you can't always see any antennas at long ranges, but Soviet movement doctrine had leaders in certain positions. Playing motorized rifle company commander, I was right behind the lead platoon. It was nice to see the good guys take me out first as we crested a hill and the lead platoon was allowed to pass before they opened fire. Well played!



Mad Russian -> RE: A few points from a real 3ID Tanker from 88-90 in FRG (12/31/2013 1:31:30 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: pzgndr

When I played OPFOR at Hohenfels back in 1988, we weren't supposed to use radios below Plt Ldr and trained as a company with flag signals. That was interesting. We got used to it and it worked ok.



I can just imagine how well that would have worked in an actual shooting situation. I wouldn't have wanted to be the Platoon Leader and have to be outside the turret in artillery barrages, etc. waving flags around.

"Hey, I'm over here!!"

Good Hunting.

MR



22sec -> RE: A few points from a real 3ID Tanker from 88-90 in FRG (12/31/2013 4:25:27 PM)

I respectively have to disagree with this notion that Soviet tanks in the 1980's did not include radios. Everything I have read indicates they did have radios in all of their fighting vehicles. The US Army's 1984 edition of FM-100-2-1 even states in several locations that vehicles would monitor the battalion net. I feel the evidence supports that indeed all Soviet tanks and other frontline vehicles did include a radio.



Mark Florio -> RE: A few points from a real 3ID Tanker from 88-90 in FRG (12/31/2013 6:11:31 PM)

Hey All: To clarify, soviet Plt Leader and above had radios, but not the wing tanks. Their formations were largely wedge and the leader tanks were usually out in front. Wing tanks followed the hand signals or the lead of their leadership tanks and often fired in volley at single targets to overwhelm them. Their optics were ok at short to mid range and their training was at best so-so compared to NATO crews.

Also, in the maneuvers that we observed and in playing OPFOR at Hohenfels we did train and follow Soviet doctrine. When I started my tour in 3ID in 88, they were just transitioning their front line units to the T80. Our expectations were that we would see some T80's, more T72's and a ton of T64's in the follow-up echelons, and of course in the Warsaw Pact units.



Mark Florio -> RE: A few points from a real 3ID Tanker from 88-90 in FRG (12/31/2013 6:13:06 PM)

NATO troops often had to work without radios too during ECM hits. I remember a Hohenfels rotation where we were hit with ECM for a full day and I had to signal with hands and arms and some creative shouting across the turrets!



Tazak -> RE: A few points from a real 3ID Tanker from 88-90 in FRG (12/31/2013 8:03:08 PM)

Have to join 21SEC in disagreeing - US Army manual FM100 2-1 - section 3 command and control, flick to section 3-15, it clearly indicates all tanks have radios. Key quote from the section is:

"all of the battalion's tanks may monitor the battalion VHF (FM) command net and receive orders from the battalion commander"

If they could transmit as well as receive is a better debate point.



bayonetbrant -> RE: A few points from a real 3ID Tanker from 88-90 in FRG (12/31/2013 9:16:43 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: 21SEC
Everything I have read indicates they did have radios in all of their fighting vehicles. The US Army's 1984 edition of FM-100-2-1 even states in several locations that vehicles would monitor the battalion net. I feel the evidence supports that indeed all Soviet tanks and other frontline vehicles did include a radio.


Well, I'm basing my assessment not only on translations of soviet doctrine lying around my parents' house (dad was a FAO) but also on the photos from the CFE inspections they had include interior photos of T64s and T72s, most of which had no radio mounts in them. I've seen the photos, and some of the tanks - no radio mounts = no radios.



Mark Florio -> RE: A few points from a real 3ID Tanker from 88-90 in FRG (1/1/2014 12:47:15 PM)

FM100-2-1 has been wrong in the past and as we now know the truth behind the real Soviet capabilities today we learn that the Soviets weren't thinking offensive at all. They were assuming that we would attack them. Their offensive plans were transitional based on converting to an offensive at opportunity (Same as NATO strategy). My point, at risk of sounding snarky is that the manuals were often written based on what we thought the enemy was capable of rather than what they really were capable of doing. It is called worst case scenario planning...i.e. Soviet tanks had constant commo from Battalion level leadership. The reality is different as is the quality of the troops that we were facing. Remember, the Soviets were dealing with many different language barriers even within the same units making command and control very challenging. The FM100-2-1 is very accurate in showing formations and assumptions based on strategic intent. In either case, relying only on old manuals can present some unrealistic assessments of capabilities. It is a fact that in the early 80's, the vast majority of 2/3rd echelon tanks were 62/64's and 72's. very few 80's were in front line service. Even as far as 1989, probably still 50% of the Soviet tanks were still older models.

I think that if you ask other servicemen, particularly those who served in the Mechanized divisions in FRG you will probably find similar comments. For the record, I was an M1A1 Platoon leader, S3 Staff officer (where I was the liaison with 12Pz Division). I was with 2/63AR in 2Bde, 3ID "Rock of the Marne".



Mark Florio -> RE: A few points from a real 3ID Tanker from 88-90 in FRG (1/1/2014 12:48:36 PM)

Correction, 3/63AR! I should check my spelling!



pzgndr -> RE: A few points from a real 3ID Tanker from 88-90 in FRG (1/1/2014 1:20:31 PM)

At the scale of this game, it is pretty much irrelevant about radios in individual vehicles. Soviet command and control had its limitations beyond communications; e.g., no NCO corps like NATO, etc. The game is doing ok trying to capture the essence of limited orders for each side.



Page: [1] 2 3 4   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.96875