Good place to start... (Full Version)

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



Message

WAMedic_slith -> Good place to start... (12/6/2014 6:14:27 PM)

So I have just recently purchased this game. After trying sooo many others I'm thinking this is exactly the game I'm looking for.

I have gone through the tutorial scenario twice..and may actually do it one more time. My question, for a new player, what are say the best 3 scenarios to start out trying (exclude the tutorial obviously)??



Mad Russian -> RE: Good place to start... (12/6/2014 6:21:58 PM)

Any of the scenarios that start with NS or WS. Those are Best Played as NATO/Small = NS or Warsaw Pact/Small = WS.

A Time To Dance is the actual first battle of the war. Many have found it helpful,'cough', to play it.
WS Purple One is pretty basic, mostly infantry, and plays quickly as well.
Eyes, Ears and Teeth is a very fluid small unit action that has a large variety of units and still has a small unit count.

Anyone of those three are good places to start. I'm sure others will have their own favorites as well.


Good Hunting.

MR



budd -> RE: Good place to start... (12/6/2014 7:00:20 PM)

I started by size, small then moved up. Probably nato also, less units mostly on the defensive.



davidepessach -> RE: Good place to start... (12/6/2014 7:54:23 PM)

I think I, for once, found the perfect path for beginners.
1) The tutorial
2) A time to dance
3)EET

After that, having largely won each one as NATO, I proceeded confidently to Blackhorse. In which I was sort of obliterated with a tactical loss of 37%.



pvthudson01 -> RE: Good place to start... (12/6/2014 8:08:46 PM)

I have a question along this line. What is the replay ability in this game? For example Combat Mission has quick battles and things like War in the East always play differently due to the scale. But this seems rather limited.



Mad Russian -> RE: Good place to start... (12/6/2014 8:19:27 PM)

No game I've ever played has more replay value than FPC. The reason is that the AI responds to your moves. It's not choreographed and it doesn't cheat. So, every game, even of the same scenario is different.

Good Hunting.

MR



budd -> RE: Good place to start... (12/6/2014 10:45:27 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Patgarret77

I think I, for once, found the perfect path for beginners.
1) The tutorial
2) A time to dance
3)EET

After that, having largely won each one as NATO, I proceeded confidently to Blackhorse. In which I was sort of obliterated with a tactical loss of 37%.


did you win "a time to dance" under the new update,with limited orders...if so how many bridges were you able to blow and how the hell did you do it[:)] I'm on attempt # 10 with no joy yet. I usually know how its going by order phase 4 and it usually ain't good.



ultradave -> RE: Good place to start... (12/6/2014 11:18:10 PM)

From the tutorial, graduate to "Time to Dance". It's small, good for learning, but a real challenge and lots of fun. (I've only played it as NATO).



davidepessach -> RE: Good place to start... (12/7/2014 10:24:00 PM)

I correct myself; I did not finish "A time to dance"...just managed to do pretty good.
Still I think It's a very interesting scenario.

I would give up blowing bridges; also I would give up all the VP (maybe get to them later) except the westernmost and organize all the abrams and all the bradley around north Bad Neustadt using hills and forest (and smoke of course)...pounding the russians as they walk in the city. There is no time to blow bridges or to try and stop the russians from entering BN using the three bridges. Hoping of course the russian don't get around NATO forces passing through Heustreu.
I tended to defend on the hills looking on the bridge on N279 (hexes 1415, 1515, 1614)...but this is too tough and I loose too many tanks.

Any ideas on this?



mikeCK -> RE: Good place to start... (12/7/2014 11:15:01 PM)

Little off topic but is there any likelihood that you guys will add tactical nuclear weapon use or chemical use to other scenarios besides Thor's hammer?



budd -> RE: Good place to start... (12/7/2014 11:26:26 PM)

no idea's that i haven't tried. I just blow the bridge you start on. I still think units in screen mode in good defensive terrain just don't displace, the only time i see them moving is in retreat mode. They seem to displace in open terrain but i dont see much difference between hold and screen in defensive terrain. I just tried something like you described above, managed to retake the 3000 VP north of BN but still lost too many units and hit the 30% cap, the enemy was at 50% when i hit the cap.Between the limited orders and the orders delay and a long orders cycle its a bi*ch. Its real tough to get in a good position.



Mad Russian -> RE: Good place to start... (12/8/2014 3:44:01 AM)

The scenarios are not balanced for limited orders. They are balanced for unlimited orders. I'm not sure if some of them can be beaten with limited orders or not.

More NBC will show up in one of the next few campaigns I would think.

Good Hunting.

MR



Tim James -> RE: Good place to start... (12/8/2014 4:31:21 AM)

quote:

The scenarios are not balanced for limited orders. They are balanced for unlimited orders. I'm not sure if some of them can be beaten with limited orders or not.

Oh my. I've been playing each scenario blind with limited orders. To be honest, I often don't use all the orders anyway since NATO is on the defensive in these small scenarios.



DoubleDeuce -> RE: Good place to start... (12/8/2014 2:12:04 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Tim James

quote:

The scenarios are not balanced for limited orders. They are balanced for unlimited orders. I'm not sure if some of them can be beaten with limited orders or not.

Oh my. I've been playing each scenario blind with limited orders. To be honest, I often don't use all the orders anyway since NATO is on the defensive in these small scenarios.

IMHO, that's the only way to play it. [8D]



pzgndr -> RE: Good place to start... (12/21/2014 6:29:55 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mad Russian
The scenarios are not balanced for limited orders. They are balanced for unlimited orders. I'm not sure if some of them can be beaten with limited orders or not.


This begs a couple of questions. First, why not? The primary feature that makes this game appealing is the limited orders option, which ideally should highlight the doctrinal differences between NATO and Soviet/Warsaw Pact units. Second, when playing against the AI with the 'limited staff' rule in effect, is it in fact under all of the same limitations or does it get some help in some ways? I've assumed it was the same, but now I'm not too sure.

I'd like to think I'm playing a balanced game except for known/selectable handicaps or bonuses. Apparently not, unless I choose to not use the primary feature? In lieu of any more game updates after v2.08 until the next game version is released next year, if the scenarios at least could be relooked and rebalanced for limited orders that would be nice. And for v2.1, scenarios should be better balanced for limited orders as a default or whatever that feature evolves into. Not playing with the more realistic limited orders and orders delay should be considered something less than optimal and players should accept those results for what they're worth, and they don't need to be balanced.



Mad Russian -> RE: Good place to start... (12/22/2014 12:32:17 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: pzgndr


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mad Russian
The scenarios are not balanced for limited orders. They are balanced for unlimited orders. I'm not sure if some of them can be beaten with limited orders or not.


This begs a couple of questions. First, why not? The primary feature that makes this game appealing is the limited orders option, which ideally should highlight the doctrinal differences between NATO and Soviet/Warsaw Pact units. Second, when playing against the AI with the 'limited staff' rule in effect, is it in fact under all of the same limitations or does it get some help in some ways? I've assumed it was the same, but now I'm not too sure.


The answer is very simple. This game comes with a basic game with optional play modes available. While you may play all your games in one of those play modes the game must work without any of those selected. Since that's the main goal for ALL GAMERS playing the game, and not just a select few, the scenarios are balanced for the basic game.


quote:


I'd like to think I'm playing a balanced game except for known/selectable handicaps or bonuses. Apparently not, unless I choose to not use the primary feature? In lieu of any more game updates after v2.08 until the next game version is released next year, if the scenarios at least could be relooked and rebalanced for limited orders that would be nice. And for v2.1, scenarios should be better balanced for limited orders as a default or whatever that feature evolves into. Not playing with the more realistic limited orders and orders delay should be considered something less than optimal and players should accept those results for what they're worth, and they don't need to be balanced.


The game is balanced for the basic game. The limited player option is just that, an option, to make game play tougher. It is not the main way we foresee the game being played. If you play using the option for limited orders it will make the game tougher to win. I have not had a chance to go back and replay every single scenario with every imaginable combination of options to make sure every single scenario is balanced for all of them. If I had been required to do that you wouldn't have played a single one of the scenarios yet because I would have still been trying to get that done for you.

The scenarios are not set so tight that by using any of the options they shouldn't be able to be beaten. I just can't say that for 100% certainty since I didn't test them with all the variety of options.

Good Hunting.

MR



Recognition -> RE: Good place to start... (12/22/2014 10:47:00 AM)


So to clear this up for me which settings A B C D E F P1 and P2 should be UNCHECKED to get the most "realistic" game play?



Cheers.








pzgndr -> RE: Good place to start... (12/22/2014 11:45:37 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mad Russian
The limited player option is just that, an option, to make game play tougher. It is not the main way we foresee the game being played.


Fair enough. Is this is the official OTS position going into v2.1? FWIW, the fundamental idea behind different order cycle lengths and numbers of limited staff orders is sound and allows a game like this to get into the OODA loop and best simulate how a conflict between NATO and the Soviets/Warsaw Pact would have gone. Again, going forward, I would prefer that OTS foresee the game being played with limited orders as the design default, and allow players to turn the option off to make game play easier.



cbelva -> RE: Good place to start... (12/22/2014 11:58:32 AM)

I don't think that is what MR is saying. He designs his scenarios to be played with what he believes are the settings the average person would use. Each person can then add or subtract the settings you want to either make the game more or less challenging. Adding limited orders is one of the settings that make the game more challenging not necessarily "unbalanced".



cbelva -> RE: Good place to start... (12/22/2014 12:08:03 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: pzgndr


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mad Russian
The limited player option is just that, an option, to make game play tougher. It is not the main way we foresee the game being played.


Fair enough. Is this is the official OTS position going into v2.1? FWIW, the fundamental idea behind different order cycle lengths and numbers of limited staff orders is sound and allows a game like this to get into the OODA loop and best simulate how a conflict between NATO and the Soviets/Warsaw Pact would have gone. Again, going forward, I would prefer that OTS foresee the game being played with limited orders as the design default, and allow players to turn the option off to make game play easier.

Not everyone plays with limited orders or sees it as more realistic. I play it with with both options. I don't believe playing with limited orders makes the scenarios unbalanced or impossible. But it does make them more challenging.



Recognition -> RE: Good place to start... (12/22/2014 12:40:22 PM)


Is there a setting that's as close to realistic?

If so what should the settings A B C D E F P1 and P2 be?



WABAC -> RE: Good place to start... (12/22/2014 1:51:16 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Rush


Is there a setting that's as close to realistic?

If so what should the settings A B C D E F P1 and P2 be?


I remove the check marks from A, C, and F.

I leave the check mark on for option F since both sides had years of opportunities to survey every sight line.

It is quite easy to override option D by issuing your own orders. So I leave it on.

I don't know if the devs see that as most "realistic" but it works for me. [:)]

Lacking better information I just set the computer to the same settings as I use.



pzgndr -> RE: Good place to start... (12/23/2014 12:27:58 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: cbelva
Not everyone plays with limited orders or sees it as more realistic. I play it with with both options. I don't believe playing with limited orders makes the scenarios unbalanced or impossible. But it does make them more challenging.


I'm not disagreeing about the balance, it's more about the focus. It's just that after a year of patience waiting for little things to get fixed, the latest recon screen issues are still frustrating and this recent realization that limited staff orders may not be THE focus of the game that I thought it was is, well... more frustrating. For me, since I was there; others may think differently and that's fine.

I don't want to be any more negative. This is a good game. v2.1 could be a great sim? Again, going forward, you guys could reconsider where the focus should be. Either go for good game with options to make it more challenging, or go for a great sim with options to turn off to make it easier. There's a subtle difference, and players need to know what the deal is. Again, FWIW, I'd prefer to see you guys go for the great sim. My 2 cents.



Mad Russian -> RE: Good place to start... (12/23/2014 1:34:27 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: pzgndr


quote:

ORIGINAL: cbelva
Not everyone plays with limited orders or sees it as more realistic. I play it with with both options. I don't believe playing with limited orders makes the scenarios unbalanced or impossible. But it does make them more challenging.


I'm not disagreeing about the balance, it's more about the focus. It's just that after a year of patience waiting for little things to get fixed, the latest recon screen issues are still frustrating and this recent realization that limited staff orders may not be THE focus of the game that I thought it was is, well... more frustrating. For me, since I was there; others may think differently and that's fine.

I don't want to be any more negative. This is a good game. v2.1 could be a great sim? Again, going forward, you guys could reconsider where the focus should be. Either go for good game with options to make it more challenging, or go for a great sim with options to turn off to make it easier. There's a subtle difference, and players need to know what the deal is. Again, FWIW, I'd prefer to see you guys go for the great sim. My 2 cents.


Everybody has an opinion as to how the game would be better. Consider that there are 4 us on the development team and we all have differing opinions about how the game could be better. Multiply that times the thousands of you that now have it and there you have it.

We do the best we can with the choices we have and can make work. I actually thought the game played very well in the form we released.

Good Hunting.

MR



Recognition -> RE: Good place to start... (12/23/2014 5:32:57 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mad Russian


quote:

ORIGINAL: pzgndr


quote:

ORIGINAL: cbelva
Not everyone plays with limited orders or sees it as more realistic. I play it with with both options. I don't believe playing with limited orders makes the scenarios unbalanced or impossible. But it does make them more challenging.


I'm not disagreeing about the balance, it's more about the focus. It's just that after a year of patience waiting for little things to get fixed, the latest recon screen issues are still frustrating and this recent realization that limited staff orders may not be THE focus of the game that I thought it was is, well... more frustrating. For me, since I was there; others may think differently and that's fine.

I don't want to be any more negative. This is a good game. v2.1 could be a great sim? Again, going forward, you guys could reconsider where the focus should be. Either go for good game with options to make it more challenging, or go for a great sim with options to turn off to make it easier. There's a subtle difference, and players need to know what the deal is. Again, FWIW, I'd prefer to see you guys go for the great sim. My 2 cents.


Everybody has an opinion as to how the game would be better. Consider that there are 4 us on the development team and we all have differing opinions about how the game could be better. Multiply that times the thousands of you that now have it and there you have it.

We do the best we can with the choices we have and can make work. I actually thought the game played very well in the form we released.

Good Hunting.

MR



I actually thought the game played very well in the form we released.


I would like to know MR what the settings were for you to think the game played very well in the form it was released in.
For me I would like the most realistic Simulation settings.....Is this possible?


Cheers.



Mad Russian -> RE: Good place to start... (12/24/2014 12:12:32 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rush

I would like to know MR what the settings were for you to think the game played very well in the form it was released in.



The basic game is what I'm talking about. There is no possible way for us to determine how each of you will play the game, or what options you will or won't use. The options are there to add difficulty to the game. Some feel that the more difficult the game is the more realistic it is. I'm not sure I don't agree but I don't think that has to be exclusively the case. It depends on what level of simulation you are looking for.


quote:


For me I would like the most realistic Simulation settings.....Is this possible?


I have no idea what you consider realistic. There is a very good chance that what I consider realistic the rest of you wouldn't agree with. That's why this question is impossible to answer. There is no way know what each of you think is 'more realistic'. More realistic than what?

Good Hunting.

MR



wodin -> RE: Good place to start... (12/24/2014 10:57:51 AM)

Remember British and West German is probably a little tougher than playing as the USA. You also have to play differently.



pzgndr -> RE: Good place to start... (12/24/2014 1:38:18 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mad Russian
The basic game is what I'm talking about. There is no possible way for us to determine how each of you will play the game, or what options you will or won't use. The options are there to add difficulty to the game. Some feel that the more difficult the game is the more realistic it is. I'm not sure I don't agree but I don't think that has to be exclusively the case. It depends on what level of simulation you are looking for.


I think that's the issue here, what level of simulation we are looking for. For 1980's Germany and the very different doctrines of NATO units on one hand and the Soviets/Warsaw Pact units on the other hand, the appropriate focus of the game should be on highlighting the differences between command and control (as implemented with the limited staff orders rule and orders delays or whatever for v2.1) that should naturally lead players to employ the different doctrines. The Assault! boardgame series did this very well; I've come back to this point multiple times and Capn Darwin seems to understand it. It's not about difficulty so much as being realistic. Playing without this fundamental feature results in an unrealistic simulation of the opposing forces of the period. It may be a good game and difficulty is in the eye of the beholder, but it is not accurate. In my opinion.

Granted, even with doctrines more or less well defined, units on both sides may have: 1) employed their doctrine perfectly, 2) employed their doctrine incorrectly or incompetently, or 3) been aggressive/experienced enough to employ bold maneuvers that went a bit beyond "normal". And for the premise of this game in the late 1980s with a very hasty "come-as-you-are" setting, who knows what would have been realistic or accurate. So, it's difficult to criticize too much. The scenarios are fine. It would be nice to know they were developed with a different focus in mind, but again who's to say how our hypothetical WW-III would have played out. I don't know; nobody knows.

Personally I would very much like to see the game evolve into something more along the lines of what the Assault! boardgame game offered for command and control rules, and what the TacOps computer game offered for unit SOPs and such. I think that would be an awesome simulation game. And it would provide an appropriate focus for game design and scenario design. Let players choose to not implement the more realistic options for a "different" gaming experience if they want (maybe more difficult, maybe not), but let us at least agree that FOW rules and C2 rules as the defaults provide the more realistic experience? For additional computer opponent difficulty, let players select options for increased spotting and hit probabilities, reduced orders delays, etc. 10%, 20%, whatever. Again, my 2 cents. FWIW.



Recognition -> RE: Good place to start... (12/24/2014 1:43:45 PM)

A.Enemy Units and Markers are Always Visible. Here you can choose if you want to be able to view enemy unspotted units. Note: If selected you can see them, but that does not mean that your units can see them as well. When this option is selected, it is also possible to view the reports in the enemies Tactical Operations Center by checking the option at the bottom left of the TOC dialog.




B.Emergency Resupply is Automatic. If enabled, any unit with fewer than three percent ammo remaining is automatically restored to 30% ammo stores during orders resolution. Unit orders have no effect on emergency resupply and the unit may be moving and/or fighting at the time. If this option is unchecked then the unit must be resupplied using Resupply orders.




C.Limited Staff Rule is NOT in Effect. Modern military communications are quite complex and there are constant difficulties in sending and receiving communications. It takes a certain amount of time to formulate and issue each order and to receive every acknowledgment and situation report. If this option is enabled then player will be limited to a certain number of orders that can be issued during an orders phase. Note: This rule does not apply to computer players




D.Allow Staff to Request FSCC Missions. The “FSCC” is the Fire Control Coordination Center through which artillery fire missions and air strikes are planned. If the staff is allowed to request missions then you will have that less direct control of your supporting assets but your staff may be able to take advantage of fleeting opportunities that might otherwise be missed. Note: This setting has no effect on AI players.




E.Allow Ctrl-L LOS Checks. This creates an overlay showing which hexes are visible to the currently selected unit. The player can then shift-click on an empty location and the overlay will change to show what the selected unit could from there instead.




F.Allow Browsing of Enemy Units. If enabled the player can see all the details of the spotted enemy player’s units in the unit description panel (UDP).





It seems to me that with D checked you would get the closest to "realistic" from within the options offered.

My question is, is this playable and will it give a "realistic"result? I ask purely because If Im going to invest a lot of time in a campaign I would prefer the gameplay and results to be "realistic"

Obviously checking any other settings would be IMHO be cheating.

So Has anybody played / beta tested through a campaign with these settings D checked? And if so how was the outcome?




Cheers and Merry Christmas to everyone.





IronMikeGolf -> RE: Good place to start... (12/24/2014 6:21:28 PM)

I use D all the time. I also will designate arty targets. I don't just have the staff fire all missions.

I don't use C, as I feel there are improvements needed in the game engine before that particular option will realistic enough. I see that more as a challenging condition than a realism condition, at the present time.

I don't see how LOS checks are a cheat. Soldiers do that on the ground.




Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.921875