How are we supposed to balance this game? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Flashpoint Campaigns Series >> Requested Features and Ideas



Message

horatio -> How are we supposed to balance this game? (12/29/2018 1:57:03 AM)

Is my game set to "100% Soviet fanboy is going to kick your ass?"
How can I adjust this in my settings to make the game operate historically.
NATO units take 3-4 impulses to begin hasty moves, while Soviet forces sweep across the map like Mario Bros.
NATO M-109's hit a Sov headquarters and kill, a truck. 2s6's hit dug in armored infantry and wipe out 3 bradleys and 2 squads.
Tow missiles on all platforms have about a 5-10% kill rate. At-5 Spandrels on crappy brdm's have a 70% kill rate.
M1 Abrams and Leopards have about a 5% kill rate.
Stingers have a (0%) hit rate against Hinds, I guess I need some Mujahadeen to use them correctly?
Cobras that try to move, but get "pinned," like that can happen to helo's, while every Sov unit in range moves and fires on them until they're dead from lucky shots.
Bradley's and infantry that miss with all shots, from dug in positions at point blank range, while At-5's shoot on the move and wipe them out.
Computer units that keep firing/killing after registering kills equal to 300% of their strength, with no fog of war on.
Tow's that kill one vehicle per hit, At-5's that kill 2-5 vehicles per hit.
4.2" mortars that have no effect against thin skinned brdm's and aaa.

This is not representative of the real world capabilities and statistics of these weapon systems, or national armies. How do I change my settings to make the game more realistic, rather than "Wargame of the Year," at the Soviet Veteran's Retirement Home.



WildCatNL -> RE: How are we supposed to balance this game? (12/29/2018 12:32:47 PM)

Hi,

to change the balance, you could try the following:
1. open the specific scenario, save it under a new name, then change the training level and readiness for your favorite side. See Documents\FPC Modding Guide 2 Scenarios and Campaigns.pdf in the game's folder.
2. change the weapon/system/platform data, per Documents\FPC Modding Guide 4 National Databases.pdf in the game's folder. Next, load a scenario, save it under a new name, then press "Refresh Underlying Scenario Data" button to include the updated weapon/system/platform data.

Alternatively, have a look at the AARs in our forum for scenarios where you feel NATO is underperforming. Check whether the AAR players apply their forces differently, for example, by resting them more often, keeping them near the HQ, picking favorable terrain, etc.

Enjoy!

William



Stimpak -> RE: How are we supposed to balance this game? (12/29/2018 4:40:55 PM)

Soviet units generally are inferior, but that doesn't mean that they should be underestimated! Forces don't engage in a vacuum. Terrain, tactics, weather, etc. all strongly affect the outcome of an engagement. If you're regularly taking heavy losses, then it's usually because your troops are deployed in a way that has them exposed.

As William suggested, check out the AAR forums to get a look at some good tips and tactics to try out. You can also post what you're doing and others can help.



horatio -> RE: How are we supposed to balance this game? (12/30/2018 1:18:20 AM)

Thanks man, I'll try that, but I doubt I'm going to spend a lot of time redesigning the entire game
scenario by scenario, like we're still using Windows 95.

I'm not seeing inferior Soviet units at all, more like T-80's wiping out Abrams platoons, when the M-1'a
are hitting them from the flank or rear. Sov's killing everything on the move, when NATO should be hull down,
and cleaning their clocks. M-109's doing minimal damage, while 2s6's are doing 50% casualties
on buttoned Bradley platoons. NATO forces seem to be able to manage 1 kill per salvo, or clean misses
unless its fascams or improved 155 munitions. I don't think any of these units actually use smoke dischargers, which would blind most cold war Sov units.



z1812 -> RE: How are we supposed to balance this game? (12/30/2018 2:06:58 AM)


1. Make nice cup of Tea, or beverage of your choice.

2. Read the Manual if you have not.

3. Look at the Quick Start and Tutorial.

4. Choose the Scenario you have questions about and use the option to have the computer play both sides. Watch closely.




Stimpak -> RE: How are we supposed to balance this game? (12/30/2018 2:18:56 AM)

Screenshots and saved games of the incidents you're describing also help. Then we can get a better idea of what you're referring to.



horatio -> RE: How are we supposed to balance this game? (12/31/2018 5:08:31 AM)

Ok, I'll try and do that. Still can't wrap my head around the 100%
miss rate with Stingers against Hinds, and the At-5 vs Tow discrepancy.

So far this has been on the small scenarios with no FoW. The tutorial
went much as expected. I'll try a randomly generated game and see if
it's the same. I'm okay with a steep learning curve, but sheesh.



HeinzBaby -> RE: How are we supposed to balance this game? (12/31/2018 6:41:02 AM)

I feel your pain, AI artillery is bloody lethal regardless which side you command,
numerous times I've banged away only to hit the odd truck only to get my Platoons or Companies smashed with return fire - as you said, even unspotted in the backwoods or town centres...

There is some great advice and opinions in this thread - Flashpoint Campaigns Series >> After Action Report >> How do YOU play?



CapnDarwin -> RE: How are we supposed to balance this game? (12/31/2018 12:33:27 PM)

Horatio, there are no cheats in the game and the same combat routines apply to both sides. Without seeing a screen shot or a save game as noted above it's almost impossible to tell you why something appears wrong or off kilter to what you expect. I can say I've seen stingers kill Hinds, TOWs wreck Red armor, and blue forces trash overwhelming red forces. Planning and recon matter in this game. Use of air and artillery can be devistating force multipliers. Speeds are fast, weapons deadly and it is not easy to disengage once rounds start flying. Laying smoke to blind WP forces is always a good idea if you have the ability. Counter recon is critical. If a single BRDM at the edge of the wood spots your forces, the artillery will soon fall on them. Even if it does not kill, artillery still degrades readiness leading to degrading combat capabilities. Stick with it, check out the AARs others have done, and ask more questions. The folks on the team and players you will find here are very helpful and knowledgeable. Best of luck with the battles. [8D]



horatio -> RE: How are we supposed to balance this game? (1/1/2019 10:14:08 PM)

I built a couple of small scenarios and everything worked about as I would have expected.
I think the smaller scenarios that I was playing have just been designed to be impossible
for the NATO/Human player to win. Which is probably realistic, given the scope of the
scenario, but incredibly frustrating for a new player.



CapnDarwin -> RE: How are we supposed to balance this game? (1/2/2019 12:37:06 PM)

The game engine is built on a sliding scale for victory conditions based on the VPs (location and units) ratio to allow you as the commander to take a beating in an overmatched scenario, but still obtain a victory by doing enough damage to the enemy force and/or holding on to key VP locations. That said, the scenario balance and testing was done back in 2013 before release and there have been hundreds of bug fixes and tweaks and feature additions that some of the scenarios move faster and hit harder than they did back then. It made it impossible for our scenario guy to rebalance any of them with the game engine constantly evolving. This is an area we will be more sensitive to in Southern Storm. I am not aware of any scenario that NATO cannot win or contest with some serious work, planning, and some luck. Let us know where we can help. [8D]



Searry -> RE: How are we supposed to balance this game? (1/2/2019 5:08:04 PM)

NATO definitely have the advantage when you play "correctly" due to superior technology. Soviets just have a massive firepower advantage so it balances out.



piotre -> RE: How are we supposed to balance this game? (1/7/2019 9:41:04 PM)

You may also want to check the YouTube channel of a guy named WAZ.
He has many FC videos playing NATO, and seems quite successful in his replays.



horatio -> RE: How are we supposed to balance this game? (1/12/2019 4:52:20 AM)

I'm sorry but you guys are nuts. The scenarios in this game cheat for the computer player, I've played six so far, and they're all the same. The Human/NATO player inflicts casualties, then the computer forces start moving with impunity, just marching across the map killing everything, while the human units either don't move or don't fire. Sorry, apparently I can't attach a screenshot here, but 2 Russian tank units that drive past a dozen German units in defensive positions, without taking fire, then park themselves on a bridge over a major river, the most vulnerable position on any battlefield since the beginning of time. And from that bridge proceed to kill 3 leopards, 12 marders, 12 113's, 8 pzgr squads, 2 atgms, 2 mg3's, and a HQ while losing three tanks is completely unrealistic. No possible way that would ever occur in any imaginable real world scenario. Driving across open ground, then killing units defending in towns or on hills with a single salvo is bullshit. A HQ unit, ordered to move from the second impulse of the game, that sits there for 12 impulses until every Russian unit that passes it can take a potshot at it and wipe it out is bullshit. A Weisel reconnaissance tank section that moves one, (1) hex per impulse over roads and open ground, until it gets blasted by Russian forces that move 6-7 hexes per impulse is bullshit. This game is completely unrealistic, it's the goofiest wargame I've ever played, and I've been playing wargames since ASL, where you had to learn a manual like a legal brief. Complete waste of money, unless you want to just play your own simple, made from scratch scenarios. If you're a Soviet fanboy, this is your game, if you want some kind of modern realism, it's not.

I noticed there isn't any place to review the Flashpoint Series, I guess a bunch of one-star ratings wouldn't look so good against the "wargame of the year," award you bribed or blackmailed out of someone.



z1812 -> RE: How are we supposed to balance this game? (1/12/2019 1:47:40 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: horatio

I'm sorry but you guys are nuts. The scenarios in this game cheat for the computer player, I've played six so far, and they're all the same. The Human/NATO player inflicts casualties, then the computer forces start moving with impunity, just marching across the map killing everything, while the human units either don't move or don't fire. Sorry, apparently I can't attach a screenshot here, but 2 Russian tank units that drive past a dozen German units in defensive positions, without taking fire, then park themselves on a bridge over a major river, the most vulnerable position on any battlefield since the beginning of time. And from that bridge proceed to kill 3 leopards, 12 marders, 12 113's, 8 pzgr squads, 2 atgms, 2 mg3's, and a HQ while losing three tanks is completely unrealistic. No possible way that would ever occur in any imaginable real world scenario. Driving across open ground, then killing units defending in towns or on hills with a single salvo is bullshit. A HQ unit, ordered to move from the second impulse of the game, that sits there for 12 impulses until every Russian unit that passes it can take a potshot at it and wipe it out is bullshit. A Weisel reconnaissance tank section that moves one, (1) hex per impulse over roads and open ground, until it gets blasted by Russian forces that move 6-7 hexes per impulse is bullshit. This game is completely unrealistic, it's the goofiest wargame I've ever played, and I've been playing wargames since ASL, where you had to learn a manual like a legal brief. Complete waste of money, unless you want to just play your own simple, made from scratch scenarios. If you're a Soviet fanboy, this is your game, if you want some kind of modern realism, it's not.

I noticed there isn't any place to review the Flashpoint Series, I guess a bunch of one-star ratings wouldn't look so good against the "wargame of the year," award you bribed or blackmailed out of someone.


I also have been playing wargames for many, many, years and I, along with lots of others, find Flashpoint to be an excellent game. To complain about the game as not being up to your standard is one thing, to make baseless accusations about the developers is another. Why don't you just move along and find some forum where you can be thoughtful and positive.



HeinzBaby -> RE: How are we supposed to balance this game? (1/13/2019 5:34:21 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: horatio

I'm sorry but you guys are nuts. The scenarios in this game cheat for the computer player, I've played six so far, and they're all the same. The Human/NATO player inflicts casualties, then the computer forces start moving with impunity, just marching across the map killing everything, while the human units either don't move or don't fire. Sorry, apparently I can't attach a screenshot here, but 2 Russian tank units that drive past a dozen German units in defensive positions, without taking fire, then park themselves on a bridge over a major river, the most vulnerable position on any battlefield since the beginning of time. And from that bridge proceed to kill 3 leopards, 12 marders, 12 113's, 8 pzgr squads, 2 atgms, 2 mg3's, and a HQ while losing three tanks is completely unrealistic. No possible way that would ever occur in any imaginable real world scenario. Driving across open ground, then killing units defending in towns or on hills with a single salvo is bullshit. A HQ unit, ordered to move from the second impulse of the game, that sits there for 12 impulses until every Russian unit that passes it can take a potshot at it and wipe it out is bullshit. A Weisel reconnaissance tank section that moves one, (1) hex per impulse over roads and open ground, until it gets blasted by Russian forces that move 6-7 hexes per impulse is bullshit. This game is completely unrealistic, it's the goofiest wargame I've ever played, and I've been playing wargames since ASL, where you had to learn a manual like a legal brief. Complete waste of money, unless you want to just play your own simple, made from scratch scenarios. If you're a Soviet fanboy, this is your game, if you want some kind of modern realism, it's not.

I noticed there isn't any place to review the Flashpoint Series, I guess a bunch of one-star ratings wouldn't look so good against the "wargame of the year," award you bribed or blackmailed out of someone.


Pity, you could've been more precise and tell us what commands given to your Germans, or perhaps they were in 'Hasty' movement when they got ambushed..
I don't know, Artillery?, smoke? not enough info here.
But I'm sure the Soviet Tank Commanders were each awarded the 'Hero of the Soviet Union' and Generalleutnant Steiner demoted Mine Clearing Gefreiter in a Penal Battalion...

Taking a swipe at the On Target Simulation Team is a cheap trick, Flash Point Campaigns is an excellent Sim, there is a learning curve, with a damn fine AI.
There are a lot of people here (many ex-military) that have and will give plenty of advice in the Forums

but with a Rant like yours above... (or is it just trolling?), will get you nowhere.



Erik Rutins -> RE: How are we supposed to balance this game? (1/14/2019 12:44:45 PM)

Hi Horatio,

There's no bias or cheating in the game towards one side. The AI in almost all games needs some help to give a human player a good challenge, but that's not what's going on here from your description. It sounds more like units that have no line of sight or are completely disrupted in some way.

I'd suggest that there is a great wargame here that you have, for whatever reason, not yet discovered. If you have a save file of the battle where you saw the behavior you describe, your best way to proceed is to post that save file and describe the strange behavior or bug you saw and how to reproduce it. The developers can then take a look and determine what exactly is going on. In a complex game with many variables, it can otherwise be impossible to replicate a single player's experience.

Regards,

- Erik



Rincon -> RE: How are we supposed to balance this game? (1/14/2019 8:24:59 PM)

I am sorry horatio, but the only nut here is you. Empty rants here from you and in a very disrespectful manner. You couldn't be more wrong here. I am a soviet fan boy as much as you are a NATO one...[:D]...I do play mostly with the soviets and this game is very far from this. Its actually more of a simulation than a game. I have been playing this game for a long time, just came back from a break and it is still fantastic. Looking forward Southern Storm, the updates in it and other eras later. I am hoping to command more russian hardware in different eras, my personal taste. In Red Storm , as a soviet player, you fight against all odds here my friend. Lower tech in general for that specific time, 1989, lower morale, lower training, longer command cycles (one bad move you are done)...you fight NATO units and the weather both at the same time. Have a lot more impact than the dawn for NATO and its IR. You have no other choice to use terrain in other to get close and punch NATO in its face. You cant just rush to the frontline as some state here, and thats not easy when you have to guess where is that damm Abrams I cant see untill too late. Good planning and understanding game mechanics you can find your way around, take your time, learn and enjoy this simulation. every side has its ups and dawns. It has its bugs here and there, room to improve but this is a natural thing. For me there is no need to have sparkling technology in order to reach the Rhine and then the Atlantic...[:D]. The easy to play and hard to master aspect of this game it is what I like the most, I can enjoy the battles, command and not worry about too many technical details. Soviet is not a invencible force here, as it was not in real life, but it is force not to be underestimated as it was not to be in real life. Those guys know how to fight as well and are not stupid. Underestimate them and your HQ is going home in a coffin with the rest of your troops. I think the devs did represent that very well in this simulation. If this is not for you, then there is always some Call of Duty type of game for you to play. Kill waves and waves of russians for you to feel better.



Rincon -> RE: How are we supposed to balance this game? (1/14/2019 9:26:44 PM)

Lets set a PBEM and I can make sure to have you even more frustrated...I will make you write in cyrillic in no time...oh yeah....[:D]



kokovi79 -> RE: How are we supposed to balance this game? (1/28/2019 10:19:20 PM)

For the Germany Reforged scenarios, I think horatio is right.

In those scenarios with 2.0.14, Soviet tanks are almost indestructible while M1A1s are close to being useless. The M1 units fire too late, aim at the wrong targets (infantry, preferably they shoot at the smallest unit in sight), hit nothing even with high readiness levels and if they hit anything, they kill or disable too few enemy subunits. Cavalry Bradleys only scoot, but do not shoot until set on "hold". They and also infantry Bradleys use their TOW missiles way too late if at all. Only useful ground based anti-tank US units seem to be the M901 ones. Obviously, they die very quickly, but until then they at least kill some Soviet tanks.

HQs will be frequently hit by artillery fire, even if I issue only very few orders and keep the HQs moving.

Even in well chosen reverse slope positions with the plan of 2 tank and one infantry company shooting at only one Soviet tank company at a time passing a ridgeline or leaving a valley, the first tank company will come closer than 2500m to my positions with at least 50% strength and start to kill my units. The rest of the battalion will follow - in worst case accompanied by some motor rifle shot magnets - and overrun my positions. Most of the Red Storm scenarios are ok, although they suffer from the targeting priority issue, too, but the Germany Reforged scenarios are close to being unplayable or require "gamey" tactics to win. In "Meeting of Titans" it worked to have two nice static fighting positions for one whole Cav Troop in each one and to keep the positions covered in smoke until all Soviets except some HQs were dead.

Not only in Germany Reforged but in all scenarios the "dug in" posture seems to have no effect, everybody just quickly dies to Soviet tank fire closer than 2500m. I cannot observe any measurable protection against artillery fire, too. If hit by 152mm HE or heavier, infantry will be very quickly obliterated, also tank subunits will quickly lose around 50% strength or more. Infantry units with high readiness levels dug in in urban terrain or forests also very quickly die to assaulting Soviet tanks while not causing much damage in return.



Rincon -> RE: How are we supposed to balance this game? (2/6/2019 6:35:46 PM)

You are really playing a different game than me. Soviet tanks are almost indestructible?...I have no clue what you are talking about. Have you guys ever searched some AARs from guys playing NATO side? I remember several examples from Waz, from Tazak and some others, fantastic ones...for me, as a soviet player, my units dies like flies if I dont play carefully.

The aiming thing is something that the devs have already stated that will be addressed in Southern Storm, but this is something that soviet units also suffer from.

Before saying everybody else here is crazy and the game is a cheat as mentioned by Horatio, I suggest you both look into some AARs from NATO side first. Even if you find somenthing that YOU think is weird, try to save some saved games files and share with the devs. There are tons of variables involved in those engagements to consider. Your description is just words as it is right now, and we can say whatever we want. I can say I am Santa Klaus.

This simulation is not perfect, real life is not an easy thing to simulate, but is way too far from a cheat or unplayable game, au contraire, is a very nice war simulation that catch a specific feel in the combat arena...that commander feal...my personal impression is that the devs here made a fantastic job, but I am not a war expert, by the way...



StuccoFresco -> RE: How are we supposed to balance this game? (2/9/2019 5:23:41 PM)

I have no clue how you are getting the idea that soviets are OP: I regularly get my ass handed to me by nato units unless in very favorable conditions or if I greatly outnumber them...



Rincon -> RE: How are we supposed to balance this game? (2/10/2019 1:48:05 PM)

You have to plan ahead and use your side strengths. At every scenario you need to find your way to a favorable condition in order to win. Both sides can have its ass handed if played otherwise and both sides play very differently. If you can only win on the soviet side in very favorable condition or greatly outnumber you dont know yet how to proprely play with WP as much as Horatio and kokovi have no idea how to play with NATO. WP has lots of disavantages against NATO in this timeframe represented in the game, 1989, thats indeed true, and playing the bad guys is a specially test to your nerves. I dont know what additional advantages Horatio and Kokovi are looking for...but you can smoke the hell out of NATO if playing carefully. Its not easy. I once finally managed to beat the British in the tutorial scenario, managed to cross the river at Nordheim and even sent Townsend in a coffin as a gift to the Queen...it took me several attempts and re-planning my strategy several times as this scenario was not designed to be beaten by the soviets.



CapnDarwin -> RE: How are we supposed to balance this game? (2/10/2019 2:07:48 PM)

[&o] Wow, Soviet victory in the tutorial mission! [&o]



StuccoFresco -> RE: How are we supposed to balance this game? (2/10/2019 2:56:41 PM)

Rincon, i wasn't replying to you, but to OP's post. I have no problems with the game right now, i feel no bias in it.


Also, why half the times the forum won't let me post?



CapnDarwin -> RE: How are we supposed to balance this game? (2/10/2019 3:47:56 PM)

Stucco, if you are having posting issues, please contact Matrix support and see if they can help.



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.75