Playing the British (Full Version)

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



Message

MBot -> Playing the British (3/1/2014 1:54:17 PM)

So I held back with playing the BAOR until after the 2.03 patch, after which I went ahead to play all 4 of their scenarios. I didn't really know what to expect from the British, what their strengths and weaknesses are. Well, here is what I have found out (of course all this only relates to a first play through):


Tanks

The tanks were a major disappointment for me, both the Chieftain Mk11 and the Challenger. Their shots missed a lot and when they hit, they didn't kill a lot of vehicles. Most of my Challenger troops got hardly above a 1 K/D ratio! I didn't have such problems with the M1A1 or Leo2 at all. Readiness and movement seem to be an especial problem for the British tanks. I had fresh Challenger troops drop their readiness to red levels by moving (crawling) through woods. A practice I often do successful with US tanks is to occupy covered high ground for great defensive position. Well, I won't do that again with Challengers, they are basically combat ineffective when they get there. Do the British tanks have an especially low cross country mobility?


Infantry

This might apply to infantry in general after the 2.03 patch, but the British infantry is great. When holding urban hexes they are deadly against tanks. I also like their organization a lot, with plenty of ATGM and mortar support at various levels. Having the ATGM in the company in a separate platoon is excellent, as it allows to place them optimally. The combination of infantry and ATGM in the M2 Bradley is a bad idea in my opinion. You can either place the platoon for optimal long range ATGM fire, but then the infantry is basically ballast. Or you can place it in good infantry ambush positions, which is not optimal for ATGM. You do not have that problem with the British mechanized infantry. The Warrior on the other hand is slightly disappointing as an IFV, it hardly seems to do much damage with its 30mm cannon against other PCs.


Artillery

Artillery seems to be great with the British, as long as you do get the M109 instead of the Abbot. The M109 is nothing out of the ordinary, but mostly you do get a lot of it in small platoons. This means a lot of available ICM and FASCAM. In one mission I made 50 tank kills with artillery alone. Mortars and Artillery has been the most decisive elements for me in the British scenarios. In Hell's Crossroad, indirect fire managed to stop an attack of almost a tank regiment in a field in front of my (extremely weak) position. Not even by killing so much, but by dropping their readiness and moral right down to resupply state.


Recon

The Scimitar and Scorpions are horrible! With the US cavalry I do recon very aggressive and make a very significant amount of tank kills with M3 sections. I understand that this is not possible with the British forces. But the Scimitar and Scorpion even fail at counter-recon. I have yet to see one of them being able to kill a BRDM-2 or BRM-1K! Plus they do not have thermal sights. Basically I only use them as one-way tripwires.


Air

Air does not seem to be too bad with the British. Tornados are quite survivable and do a lot of damage if you get them. The helicopters are obviously not as good as the US ones, but the Lynx is a quite good tank killer with its TOW missiles.


What are your experiences with the BAOR?



jds1978 -> RE: Playing the British (3/1/2014 3:40:37 PM)

On 'Thors Hammer' I was able to move a group of Scimitar/Scorpions into an over watch position along the flank of the WARPAC advance and get mondo kills on their APC's at long(ish) range.

In 1989, the Chieftain is pretty long in the tooth. You have to use good cover and be ready to run once the T72's/T80's start to get within their range (aka: The patented Sir Robin Defense)

As for the Challenger, I find them at least on par with the M1 series and Leo 2's....w/o more info as to how they were used or what condition their crews were in I can't really say what is going wrong



MBot -> RE: Playing the British (3/1/2014 4:50:14 PM)

Within the context of the British scenarios, I didn't employ them any different than I would have M1 or Leo2s. It should be noted though that the terrain and weather of these scenario allows for little shooting at the extreme range. But range wasn't that much of an issue I think, since initially I received little return fire. The problem was rather that both the Chieftain and the Challenger (which share the same FCS and gun was far as I know) did very little damage. So either they missed or the shots didn't penetrate. Of course, being unable to kill a significant amount of targets, my tanks were soon killed by large amount of Soviet tanks closing the distance. My artillery saved the day in Hell's Crossroad, First Strike and Thor's Hammer, since my tanks were simply unable to contain a single Soviet advance on their own.

I have the impression that it was an issue if readiness, which always seems rather low. So I wonder whether the British tanks have any attribute which would cause them to loose readiness at a faster rate than usual (like worse mobility)?



jds1978 -> RE: Playing the British (3/1/2014 5:22:27 PM)

quote:

I have the impression that it was an issue if readiness, which always seems rather low. So I wonder whether the British tanks have any attribute which would cause them to loose readiness at a faster rate than usual (like worse mobility)?


THIS ^^^

I know for a fact that the readiness and morale of the BAOR forces are at a bad situation in Thor's Hammer due to the scenario design (the British force consists of barely held together survivors of 3 days combat with 3rd Shock Army....the point of this scenario is to get the player to use theater nuclear weapons )

In 'BG Rhino' you have far better morale and force readiness. Plus you have both Chieftains (at set up) and Challengers (later reinforcements) to play with (plus a flight of 9 Sq Tornadoes!.) [&o]Give that one a whirl and see what happens [8D]



loki100 -> RE: Playing the British (3/1/2014 7:33:52 PM)

my feeling with BAOR is you always have something missing - which is a good reflection of the result of systemic underfunding and too much reliance on home built weapons systems.

The Chieftains, as above, are pretty old by the time of this scenario but the Challengers are a typically competent NATO tank - keep your distance, stress long range combat etc. The enduring strength lies in the infantry - they are rightly shown to be tough. In part, the problem of Northern Ireland worked in their favour here - in effect tank tactics decayed but small infantry tactics were very important.

The Thor's Hammer scenario is very different, the set up pretty much forces you towards the nuclear option.



jds1978 -> RE: Playing the British (3/1/2014 7:53:35 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: loki100

my feeling with BAOR is you always have something missing - which is a good reflection of the result of systemic underfunding and too much reliance on home built weapons systems.

The Chieftains, as above, are pretty old by the time of this scenario but the Challengers are a typically competent NATO tank - keep your distance, stress long range combat etc. The enduring strength lies in the infantry - they are rightly shown to be tough. In part, the problem of Northern Ireland worked in their favour here - in effect tank tactics decayed but small infantry tactics were very important.

The Thor's Hammer scenario is very different, the set up pretty much forces you towards the nuclear option.


I always felt that the main audience for Gen Hackett's 'The Third World War, August 1985' was the British Parliament. Throughout the 60's & 70's, the BAOR was in bad shape: a product of the nuclear trip wire strategy (ie: NATO conventional forces were to act as a temporary speed bump while the theater nuclear forces prepared the response)

I don't think Hackett did his cause any favors by loading his prose with dense military jargon (at times, the novel seems to be written by a robot for other robots to read) as I imagine his main thrust was aimed at Labour MP's who wanted disarmement and Tories addicted to the trip wire strategy



MBot -> RE: Playing the British (3/1/2014 7:57:44 PM)

Yes I do recognize that Thor's Hammer is a little bit different. I just finished it with a marginal success, without having to use the nukes. I only lost the two eastern most VPs, and was saved by my own sudden death (the bad guys were down to 34% too though). I am actually quite happy with that outcome :) That scenario is brutal because of the Soviet arty superiority. With battalion of Grad, a battalion 2S3, a 2S7 battery and a reaction time of 3 minutes, the Soviets just bombarded all my tanks down to red morale. There is nothing you can really do about that, so I have no grudge against my tankers there. What saved the day once again was some tough infantry, a couple of well placed Strikers and two very busy mortar platoons :)

I did play Rhino, but the performance of the tanks was again nothing to write home about.

Where my tanks truly stank were Hell's Crossroad and First Strike. Hell, one Challenger platoon was down to red readiness after driving from his starting point to his defensive position :) He was in assault and crossed 3 wood hexes, but I never noticed that as a problem with the US forces before.



Mad Russian -> RE: Playing the British (3/1/2014 9:34:36 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: MBot

So I held back with playing the BAOR until after the 2.03 patch, after which I went ahead to play all 4 of their scenarios. I didn't really know what to expect from the British, what their strengths and weaknesses are. Well, here is what I have found out (of course all this only relates to a first play through):


Tanks

The tanks were a major disappointment for me, both the Chieftain Mk11 and the Challenger. Their shots missed a lot and when they hit, they didn't kill a lot of vehicles. Most of my Challenger troops got hardly above a 1 K/D ratio! I didn't have such problems with the M1A1 or Leo2 at all. Readiness and movement seem to be an especial problem for the British tanks. I had fresh Challenger troops drop their readiness to red levels by moving (crawling) through woods. A practice I often do successful with US tanks is to occupy covered high ground for great defensive position. Well, I won't do that again with Challengers, they are basically combat ineffective when they get there. Do the British tanks have an especially low cross country mobility?


We'll take a look at this. The British tanks are the one place I thought they were equal to the other NATO armies.


quote:


What are your experiences with the BAOR?


BAOR is by far the toughest nation to play in the game. They have the smallest army and they have the cheapest equipment. That puts them on very shaky ground when it comes to slugging it out with the Soviets. Couple that with the wide open spaces they get to fight in and things go pear shaped for them rapidly.

The two shining spots are CAS and their commitment to catch up. The Challenger and Warrior were leaps ahead of their previous equipment packages.

Good Hunting.

MR



Tazak -> RE: Playing the British (3/2/2014 2:14:33 PM)

The L11A5 120 mm L/55 rifled tank gun is the standard main gun on both the chieftain and challenger.
Accuracy wise I think the data is fair, with the L11A5 having a slightly higher rating over the US/German as rifled are more accurate over smoothbore (Accuracy rating of 3 vs. 2), don't forget the challenger 1 holds the record for the longest tank at 5.1km (1991 using the L26 DU round).
The muzzle velocity 1,370 m/s and the fact that it uses 2 part ammo (round and charge) which limits the core projectile length both conspire to limit its penetrating values.

The 2 main rounds used (during the game time period)
L31 HESH - 460mm at any range
L23 APFSDS - 450mm at 2km

I believe the game data models the L23 round giving TG7 a AP rating of 29 which when compared to the M1A1 TG10 AP rating of 38 or the Leopard 2A4 TG10 with AP rating of 38 both of which I believe are modelled on DU rounds. (US M829 120mm DU and German 120mm DM-33 I think)
But I believe that the L26 APFSDS-DU (530mm at 2km) should be considered as available post 1984/1985. The L26 DU round was first issued in 1991 at the start of the gulf war, however development was started in 1983...does it take 8 years to introduce a tank round, I suspect not. I believe that the L26 DU round was available before 1991 but due to budget constraints it was not issued until a war time situation presented itself which I put forward that were the soviets to invade west Germany post 1983 British tank crews would've seen the L26 sooner than 1991.

As to mobility, British tanks are slow, slower than other NATO tank but this is down to the British cold war design thinking of the tank as a defensive asset relying on armour and longer engagement range (3km was the design requirement vs. 2km for other NATO tank spec's) over speed, the challenger has 56KPH speed vs. M1A1 @ 66KPH and Leopard 2A4 @ 78KPH, the suspension of the challenger is world class and it can go nearly as fast cross country as it can on roads



battlerbritain -> RE: Playing the British (3/3/2014 8:41:14 PM)

FFOT3 rules have a good database on round availability.

They cite L23 as available from 83 and L26 from 91 (as Tazak quotes).

For an earlier availability they have equivalent German and US DU rounds as available in the 89 timeframe. I'd have Brit DU as possible available in 89, but probably 90 would be more realistic.

However, I do recall from my time at Chertsey working on Challenger 2 that L26 was quite rushed to get in to service for 91. They were still working on getting the right charges for the round right up until the last minute.

And that 5km one-shot-one-hit was a HESH round from what I heard, not a Fin. It really was a 'lob-it-and-see'. [;)]

Hope this helps,

B



Tazak -> RE: Playing the British (3/3/2014 10:44:52 PM)

To play the British you need to understand our sense of humour e.g.

BAOR was based in Germany to drink cheap beer and frighten the Soviet 3rd Shock Army into not having a pop at NATO.

NATO intelligence assessments were not particularly hard work - "WP forces advancing West" covered most of it

The IGB defences were described as "The patrolled defences consisted of high fences, guard towers, dog runs, raked areas to spot foot prints, minefields and scatter guns. They certainly were formidable defences too, if only they had put the defences on the right side. All the nasties were however situated to prevent movement westward, so it would seem that the designers or builders had the plans the wrong way round."

And the BAOR view of the WP plan


[image]local://upfiles/39554/25CD698D2D594302A791153FBB931789.jpg[/image]



Mad Russian -> RE: Playing the British (3/4/2014 3:35:07 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tazak

"...don't forget the challenger 1 holds the record for the longest tank at 5.1km (1991 using the L26 DU round)."



The target was a truck if I remember correctly. It would be right about here that I would ask if you could spell the word LUCK.

Good Hunting.

MR



Mad Russian -> RE: Playing the British (3/4/2014 3:44:17 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tazak

BAOR was based in Germany to drink cheap beer and frighten the Soviet 3rd Shock Army into not having a pop at NATO.



Right there was the problem mate. The 3rd Shock Army hadn't been around since the 50's. In the 50's it was renamed the 3rd Assault Army and then finally the 3rd "Red Banner" Combined Arms Army. By the 60's there was no more 3rd Shock Army, let alone all the way into the late 80's. [X(]

So, the British were looking to fight a unit that no longer existed. No wonder they didn't need new equipment! [:D]

Good Hunting.

MR



battlerbritain -> RE: Playing the British (3/4/2014 7:40:41 AM)

New equipment! That involves spending money!

Don't you know that your weapon was made by the lowest bidder?

That's what happens when the Army is run by accountants.



MBot -> RE: Playing the British (3/4/2014 1:03:06 PM)

So the question I have, with regards to FC:RS, do you play the British differently than the West Germans or Americans and how so?

The biggest differene I saw so far is that compared to the US forces, you can't do aggressive recon.



loki100 -> RE: Playing the British (3/4/2014 1:26:37 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tazak

BAOR was based in Germany to drink cheap beer and frighten the Soviet 3rd Shock Army into not having a pop at NATO.


Hannover wasn't called Hangover for nothing [;)]

quote:

ORIGINAL: MBot

So the question I have, with regards to FC:RS, do you play the British differently than the West Germans or Americans and how so?

The biggest differene I saw so far is that compared to the US forces, you can't do aggressive recon.


I'd say yes and best is to adopt the expected British doctrine.

It was much more defensive minded and constructed on a hard (as opposed to mobile) defense. The West Germans emphasised counterattacks and the US mobile defense. Crudely BAOR planned to put a tough battlegroup in the way of a Soviet attack and fight. So the tanks were well armoured but not that fast. Infantry tactics were to hold etc (not saying there was no manouver but the emphasis was on holding the ground).

Due to budget issues, AA was rubbish, so again if the Hinds came calling, the idea was to be well emplaced in cover rather than hope for AA to protect you. On the other hand, CAS was good, and of course this fitted a hold the ground strategy.



jds1978 -> RE: Playing the British (3/4/2014 1:30:59 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: MBot

So the question I have, with regards to FC:RS, do you play the British differently than the West Germans or Americans and how so?

The biggest differene I saw so far is that compared to the US forces, you can't do aggressive recon.


Like you, I've noticed that the recce units have to be more of a 'remain on overwatch until the Pact tanks start to get within range (and then try to run)'....w/o ATGM's, the Scimitar and Scorpions will get clobbered if they are allowed to get engaged with tanks.

The British infantry are tough as nails. Stick them in a critical place. They seem to relish the opportunity

Like all NATO tanks, the Challenger loves long range engagement (only more so). The British homemade SP arty is kind of 'meh'.....better to have the M109. The Milan ATGM is great, but relatively short ranged.

I think it all boils down to creating kill zones, but not allowing the Pact to get too close. Of course, that is the entire NATO tactical doctrine in a nutshell. I'm not sure how helpful this has been [:o]



MBot -> RE: Playing the British (3/4/2014 2:23:14 PM)

If the British doctrine is with an emphasis on holding, then it seems that I already played the Americans and West Germans very british and not much change was required [:)] Holding fixed positions seems to be the best defensive tactic in FC:RS to me. A mobile defense, retreating to subsequent positions in the rear, doesn't work that well in the game. Once a unit is engaged it will only very reluctantly disengage and only under heavy losses. If my units are going to die anyway, I rather keep them dug in and deal a little more damage than losing them trying to pull back. Counterattacks are difficult too because of Sudden Death. The scenario usually ends before I retake many objectives. So it seems I intuitively adopted the British playstyle [:)]



Mad Russian -> RE: Playing the British (3/4/2014 2:43:42 PM)

When I first started playing with the code, after all the direction rewrites that I gave to Rob(sorry Rob), I didn't know how the code would respond. So, at first, I played them all the same. It didn't take long to find out that was a really bad idea. If you follow the scenario progression, you can literally follow the code progression.

SIDE NOTE: A Time to Dance has been played hundreds of times by the team. The first time Jim and Rob played the scenario there was a conference call and I was asked why I had units appearing in the middle of the map. That didn't really seem like a good idea. I explained, that there is a US base there, that the 11th ACR is activating from. That as they come online and then you get to take charge of them.

As many times as it's been played it still surprises us with the results at times. It is often the scenario used to run a test of code issues on. Because it's been played so much and it's so small we can run tests with it and get results from a known parameter. We know what it's done in the past. At least for the most part...[:D]


As each scenario activated, it added in another section of code to cover what features were being presented in the scenario. The result of that was, we all learned to play the Americans first. The first 8 scenarios done were the Americans. Then came the West Germans. BIG SURPRISE! They aren't American forces in Leos!! [X(]

Okay, have to learn to fight with them. If the game is worthwhile, the real life tactics should work best. We have the units and terrain as best we can model, which should mean the WG tactics should be the best to try. Starting from there we found those actually did work best. Along in here Charles joined the team and he was also surprised to find the difference in game play between nationalities. That was great!!! Rob and Jim have done their job!!! [&o]

After the WG scenarios came the British. How were they going to play. BIG SURPRISE! They didn't play anything like either the American or West German forces.

There are two reasons they all play differently. First is terrain. The areas I chose to include in the map were intentionally different. They were chosen to present as large a pool of different terrain maps as possible. This would get scenario designers started immediately; without having to rely on just a few maps. Second, their missions are all different, which means their equipment mix is different. Couple the terrain they were to defend, with the equipment they had to defend it with and you get the tactics they came up with to do the job. Add those all together and you pretty much have how Flashpoint Campaigns: Red Storm plays as NATO.

But, we didn't stop there. We then went back and looked at how the AI works and what would be the best scenarios to convert to be played from the Warsaw Pact side. The AI was intended to primarily be an attack AI so we can't put NATO in defensive posture, that will come in later versions of the game, so, what would work? The Meeting Engagements (ME's)! All of the scenarios are theoretically okay for head to head play but some are very unbalanced in favor of the Soviets as far as play balance goes. With the game coming together fast and a customer base and publisher wanting the game NOW we playtested deep into the night.

What you see is 4 nations armed forces. Each of them pretty much use real world, for the time, tactics to fight and win. Each scenario was specifically designed to highlight a part of the game. They were then balanced as much as time allowed. The terrain, equipment and situations were all there. Those were then bundled up into the 2 campaigns and those scenarios also had their own maps and situations. They were playtested down to the last hour before release. That's what you have now.

We think all four nations play well. Each is different in mission, equipment and the tactics.

Hope that helps.

Good Hunting.

MR



Squid -> RE: Playing the British (3/6/2014 7:41:28 AM)

Does anyone have some documentation on German and BAOR doctrine or a link to where it might be found on the internet?



jds1978 -> RE: Playing the British (3/6/2014 1:42:01 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Squid

Does anyone have some documentation on German and BAOR doctrine or a link to where it might be found on the internet?



I spent over an hour looking for anything related to BAOR doctrine in the 1980's. No hard copy to be found (there were a few under firewall....accessible for Br Army and MOD types, but not general public) The British govt seems a bit stingy compared to the US in terms of free info (even decades old)....I'd always heard about this phenomena when talking to Brits as they seem to admire the US's relative govt. transparency, but never ran into it first hand.

There were some tid bits though: In the late 1980's, the BAOR was looking into incorporating parts of the Air/Land Battle Doctrine into their operational framework. This is unfortunately outside the scope of FPCRS (would be useful in TOAWIII, though)



jds1978 -> RE: Playing the British (3/6/2014 2:44:12 PM)

Here are some old vids showing platoon level tactics (mostly too granular for our scale....but still interesting)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3zo5f6l-ZP4(pt.1 Combined Armor/Infantry)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pDAQV4fMaUk(pt. 2 " " ")




Squid -> RE: Playing the British (3/6/2014 3:05:57 PM)

Thanks jds, actually I managed to find those today. They are very interesting and the safety ones are hard not to chuckle at. I think its the commentary thats the best.




Tazak -> RE: Playing the British (3/6/2014 7:32:19 PM)

Try this link it from 2010 but taken from the forword
"At the heart of this doctrine are two central ideas: the Manoeuvrist Approach and Mission Command. These tenets are as useful now as they were when first articulated in the Army’s doctrine in 1989"

Otherwise the only public place is the Kings College in London as part of the Liddell Hart Collection



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.765625