RE: The challenge factor or the lack of it in certain scenarios (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [Modern] >> FlashPoint Germany



Message

Real and Simulated Wars -> RE: The challenge factor or the lack of it in certain scenarios (3/2/2005 12:43:11 AM)

Hi John!

I get your point. And I also agree with the doctrinal accuracy you point out. If I am given command of individual WP platoons and go too fancy maneuvering them, I could create unrealistical situations. However, you could modify the command radius of the Co HQ to make it impossible to command the WP platoons outside certain range.

In "Meeting of the Titans", there is a WP unit labelled FSE (Does it stand for Forward screen element?). A formidable force, tanks, mech infantry, even AA defenses. When I play WP, I try to use it as a recon-in force unit or as a screen to fix the enemy while I maneuver. In both roles has proven useless, and I claim its failure to its aggregation in just one counter. As a recon force: why should I take an AA vehicle so close to the enemy lines? As a screen: what kind of screen do I want to mount in 500 meters of frontage?

I feel that the WP companies are like big elephants (lots of power if you are close to them, but a useless giant that, because of all its mass concentrated in a single spot, is too easy to shoot from the distance).

Cheers,



Real and Simulated Wars -> I was wrong! (3/2/2005 5:20:29 PM)

quote:

It looks like FPG is an event-driven simulation. If so, every side will likely "get the attention" of the simulation engine in a proportional way to the number of counters it has on the map. If I am right with these considerations, the simulation engine will spend the same amount of time paying attention to 4 NATO tanks than to 17 WP vehicles.


Well, that appears not to be true according to a little experiment I conducted last night.

I setted up a H2H scenario and I placed an M1 NATO tank platoon vs a T-72 WP tank company at 1500 mts from each other, both in mixed open terrain with LOS between them. I placed all the other counters far from from the subjects involved in the experiment. When the scenario starts, both M1 platoon and T-72 company are in Hold position and in LOS to each other. I then recorded how many times each side fired and how much they scored during the first half hour of simulated time (1 turn). I ran the scenario 8 times.

Results:
1) At each run NATO fired 2 times, WP fired 4 to 5 times. Note: when I say "fired X times" I mean how many times the counter would go yellow with the sound of it firing against the enemy. This is not the same that how many individual shots the simulation engine counted for that event.
2) After 8 runs (remember each run was done re-starting the scenario), NATO fired 16 times and scored 24 WP tank kills. WP fired 34 times and scored 8 tank kills. NATO average: 1.5 tank kills per firing event. WP average: 0.23 tank kills per firing event.
3) Important observation: NATO opened fire first all the times and this resulted in WP going from "Hold" to "Screen". This resulted in all firing events by WP done under "Screen" orders.

That's pretty much it. Result 1) clearly says that I was awfully wrong (see previous quote). The more runners in a unit, the more time the simulation engine will take care of them, at least into the firing event.

Cheers,



Real and Simulated Wars -> RE: I was wrong! (3/2/2005 5:34:17 PM)

Just one more short thing.
If you take all the runs together: NATO killed 24 tanks and WP killed 8 tanks. That appears to indicate that in an hypotethical, attrition only (Lanchester/Osipov) kind of battle, WP would need more than a 3/1 WP to NATO tank ratio to win.
Cheers,



Real and Simulated Wars -> RE: I was wrong! (3/2/2005 5:43:04 PM)

quote:

WP would need more than a 3/1 WP to NATO tank ratio to win.


I have never played a scenario as a NATO commander in which I had to face so much T-72 tanks. Could this be the reason why I win so comfortably as a NATO commander?



z1812 -> RE: It is disappointing. (3/2/2005 5:57:52 PM)

Hi all,

While pondering this thread and others about general A.I. issues it seems, as usual, all is relative. That is to say that one persons satisfaction with A.I. will be measured by there own ability or lack thereof.

However, objectively it is fair to say that if a scenario can be won against the A.I. by pressing the next button something is amiss.

If components of the game are not used by the A.I. as they should be, then something requires adjustment.

When the A.I. is not sufficient to do primary scenario design testing a tweak is required.

I mention these items so the initial idea of the thread does not become lost in detailed accounts of doctrine ect.

Also I am aware that the second patch is in the works as per Eric Rutins post.

I am really looking forward to patch 2.

Regards John



themattcurtis -> RE: The challenge factor or the lack of it in certain scenarios (3/2/2005 6:12:29 PM)

I think posting fire results between WP and NATO forces is pretty relevant to the thread if fire resolution is one of the issues over which folks are still trying to take FPG to task.

I don't know how realistic a 3-1 loss ratio is for T-72s when facing M1s in a 1989 setting. I understand that the T-72 has seen some armament upgrades in recent years, making it more of a threat to US Armor than it might have been in the late 80s. But honestly, that number doesn't make me blanche.

However, I do know the T-72s depicted in the game are not on par with modern western MBTs, so if they're fighting NATO positions, I'd expect to see a lopsided exchange. Right now, I'm playing a multiplayer game where my WP units are fielding T-80s and IFVs. On the offensive, we're losing 2 vehicles for every piece of German kit we're killing (which would be Leopard IIs).
My opponent has made the comment that my attackingunits are refusing to "die cheaply," which makes me smile [:)] and reinforces my belief that the 1.01 patch has gone a LONG way to putting resolution where it needs to be.



Erik Rutins -> RE: I was wrong! (3/2/2005 6:28:14 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chelco
Just one more short thing.
If you take all the runs together: NATO killed 24 tanks and WP killed 8 tanks. That appears to indicate that in an hypotethical, attrition only (Lanchester/Osipov) kind of battle, WP would need more than a 3/1 WP to NATO tank ratio to win.


If all combat took place at 1500 meters with one unit firing at one unit, that's probably right. As WP, you have to concentrate overwhelming force on a portion of the NATO defenses and get in closer than 1500 meters. At that point, NATO's losses become unsustainable in my experience. Getting there, though, means paying a lot of attention to terrain, using some scouting/diversion tactics and (depending on what force you're facing) using smoke.

Regards,

- Erik



Erik Rutins -> RE: It is disappointing. (3/2/2005 6:30:56 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: z1812
However, objectively it is fair to say that if a scenario can be won against the A.I. by pressing the next button something is amiss.

I am really looking forward to patch 2.


Valid comments, but I do want to point out that the "next button win" seems to mainly orient around one or two scenarios where the AI makes some poor strategic choices.

With that said, Rob is working on the AI and both 1.02 and 1.03 should have AI upgrades. The update schedule will depend on testing, as AI changes generally need a fair amount.

Regards,

- Erik



Real and Simulated Wars -> RE: I was wrong! (3/2/2005 6:47:29 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins
If all combat took place at 1500 meters with one unit firing at one unit, that's probably right. As WP, you have to concentrate overwhelming force on a portion of the NATO defenses and get in closer than 1500 meters. At that point, NATO's losses become unsustainable in my experience. Getting there, though, means paying a lot of attention to terrain, using some scouting/diversion tactics and (depending on what force you're facing) using smoke.
Regards,
- Erik


Hi Erik!
That's good advice, indeed!
What I posted were just an hypothetical situation to understand the game mechanics a bit more in detail.
I am worried if you guys will ever manage to get the WP AI to behave with such tactical finesse. Is a way complex behaviour. Not easy to do.



Marc von Martial -> RE: I was wrong! (3/2/2005 7:42:33 PM)

quote:

That's good advice, indeed!

It´s (was) WP doctrine [;)]



Real and Simulated Wars -> RE: I was wrong! (3/3/2005 1:29:21 AM)

[:o]



CarnageINC -> RE: I was wrong! (3/3/2005 8:37:27 AM)

I gotta stick my 2 cents in here. After observing several scenarios, I noticed that yes the mortars and HQ's came up with the companies they were attached to.....but the ones not attached stayed around HQ. This seems to follow Soviet doctrine somewhat....of course the mortars should stay a klick or 2 back....but Soviet commanders are suppost to lead their forces. Here's a quote from an article I read.

Quote:
"The lack of western-style senior noncoms means that low level Soviet units key around their officers. Therefore a platoon almost always moves together, as a single unit. Company commanders normally join up with a platoon, often the leading one. Armored units are trained to keep moving, with infantry remaining aboard BMPs and BTRs as much as possible. Lines and wedges are favored formations in the battle area."
end quote

I don't have a problem so much as the HQ's coming forward....but the SP arty....yes...that is a problem. And the Hinds not engaging....another big problem. They use their Helo's like airborne tanks....they don't play footsy like NATO's...hiding behind terrian features....they come out of nowhere, low, fast, and in groups and do attack runs on your arse. All the while firing AT-3/5's, rockets, and 30 mm. I don't know how effect they would be, but I'm sure they would the would tear up the crunchies pretty good. I haven't a clue on how to program AI but it sure would be great if their helos could be tweeked to follow Soviet doctrine. [8D]

Now being a former Tanker back on the M1A1's I'm very baised about our equipment vs. their equipment. Iraqi's in the 1st Gulf War used mostly T-72's and Tungstun steel rounds vs. our DU rounds...no contest verus penetration ability. The Soviets would of used DU, but thier penetration values (even though there a larger calibur) are still lower than NATO's, not to mention their weapon sites, rate of fire, firing on the move and most important, their training. I think that the killing ability of early T-72/80's in this game is overrated. I liked Chelco's game study...but I think the ratio should be closer to 4-1 or 5-1 in perfect conditions ...i.e. range of about 1200 to 1800 meters, noon, not a cloud in the sky, not a hair of wind. Anything over 2000 is almost pissing in the wind for T-72's....and probably close for the early T-80s.

One last thing I noticed....or the lack there of....Soviet Artillery Preps! COME ON PEOPLE! The one thing the Soviets had to much of is Arty! The AI should be given and programed to have rolling barrages on key terrian...i.e. hilltops, towns, treelines....in their axis of advance. THIS IS A MUST! MORE ARTY FOR THE COMMIES! And when NATO is in the defense....just sitting there...after mopping up a tank company or 2 or 3....and they just sit there....and .....NOTHING HAPPENS!

The Soviets should be plasting any area that is known to contain forces. And if the going gets tuff....dump nerve, blood, blister agents all over the place. Not NATO doing that...not that they would...but it would be out of desperation...before nukes. And let me tell you....that stuff don't just go away....where talking about hours and hours for non-gas agents in "Clear weather". There should be 2 different Chem agents....gas and non-gas. This would add a great deal more realism don't you think? And another cool thing would be there duration of bad weather...ie rain, snow....WOOT!

I'm sure....very sure that Matrix Games did research on NATO vs. WP, the equipment, weapons, but I'm not so sure how indepth they went into tactical doctrine. So please, Erik Rutins or any other Admin, please if you have any control over what they put into updates, please see if the AI can be tweeked and arty/chem adjusted just a bit to more emulate the Soviet Doctrine.

*Carnage steps off the soap box and looks back*

Woooah.... a little over board.... Thank you [8|]



z1812 -> RE: It is disappointing. (3/6/2005 10:43:09 PM)

Hi All,

Once more after completing more play against the A.I. ( Nato versus WP A.I. ) here are some further observations.

1. When moving due to doctrine units do not very often move logically. That is they often move towards last known positions of enemies and they do not move in generally the same directions. I doubt that under enemy advance the components of a company would scatter.

2. The WP A.I. did not use its Artillery to much advantage.

3. There were frustrating occasions where a WP unit would move right next to a Nato unit , or into Nato's line of sight and the Nato units did not fire. Full ammo and doctrine to fire.

However I was generally pleased with the way the WP A.I. moved its units. Except of course for moving forward HQ's and artillery.

Regards John



JustinL -> RE: The challenge factor or the lack of it in certain scenarios (3/9/2005 2:50:36 AM)

From the following link:http://www.knox.army.mil/center/ocoa/ArmorMag/mj02/3MRC02.pdf
Title of article:
How to Defeat the Motorized Rifle Company
At the National Training Center:

In a one-on-one fight with an M1A1/
A2 firing at the front slope of a T-80,
and the T-80 firing at the front slope of
an M1A1/A2 with its main gun (the
most common engagement), the M1A1/
A2 is three times more likely to kill the
T-80 than the T-80 is to kill the M1A1/
A2. Even if a T-80 uses a missile
against an M1A1/A2, the M1A1/A2 is
still more lethal than the AT-8 is
against the front slope of M1A1/A2.
Against the flanks, the AT-8 has an
equivalent probability kill to the
M1A1/A2’s 120mm.


The greatest differential between
weapons systems exists between the
M1A1/A2 and the visually modified T-
80. Because the M1A1/A2 has stabilization,
it can fire on the move. In contrast,
a visually modified T-80 lacks
stabilization and must stop before it
fires its MILES laser. The M1A1/A2
also has a tremendous advantage with
its range. According to the SAWE/
MILES II Handbook, the range of the
120mm main gun of an M1A1/A2 is
3750m, whereas the range of the T-80’s
125mm main gun is 2500m. In practice,
most T-80 lasers cannot kill targets
beyond 2000m. As a result, the M1A1/
A2 has nearly twice the range of a T-80
on the MILES battlefield. While the T-
80 does have a complement of five AT-
8 missiles with a similar range to that
of the M1A1/A2 main gun, the limited
number of missiles fails to
establish range parity during
longer engagements and the
T-80 must expose itself for
ten seconds to guide its missile
toward a target.



Real and Simulated Wars -> RE: The challenge factor or the lack of it in certain scenarios (3/9/2005 6:11:13 PM)

Thanks GamerGuy!
Wonderful post. I have to change my mindset regarding NATO vs WP equipment quality.
Cheers,



JustinL -> RE: The challenge factor or the lack of it in certain scenarios (3/9/2005 8:56:03 PM)

Chelco,

What's interesting here is that one basic problem with WP vs. NATO scenarios may be, as suggested earlier, a question of numbers. Assuming that those ratios are true, approx. a 3:1 kill ratio, then balanced scenarios would need to reflect that kill ratio in order to be challenging for a NATO player.

I remember an old game, Firefight, which I used to play as a youngster against a guy in the Pentagon. I only learned later what he was involved in there - he's now retired - but even in that game NATO seemed to do very well.

Possibly, Warsaw Pact numbers could not have compensated for their qualitative inferiority. The argument is also made that the Gulf War and the use of Soviet equipment in other settings did not reflect actual Soviet capability (export models, etc.) Just browsing some books I have here Iraqi gunnery was poor in 1991.

Perhaps we had much less to fear from a conventional Soviet attack in Western Europe than we thought.

For example:
Israelis, in 1967 "On Wednesday, June 7, the 7th Armored Brigade engaged a massive Egyptian presence at el Hama and Bir El Hama obliterating dozens of Egyptian T-34s, SU-100s , and T-54/55s...At ranges of 1,500 meters and beyond, tanks from the 82nd and 79th destroyed hundreds of Egyptian tanks and endured very few casualties."

Admittedly this example is again not against Soviet forces but against Egyptian forces with inferior training.

Still, Western doctrine seemed based, on my rough reading of some material, on one-shot, one-kill at long range. No western force has been defeated in an armor battle against a Russian-equipped force since WWII. Is that correct?

What's also interesting is that Israeli tanks didn't have a consistent qualitative advantage in 1967.

Just some observations.



Real and Simulated Wars -> RE: The challenge factor or the lack of it in certain scenarios (3/9/2005 11:28:11 PM)

Hi again GamerGuy,
I really appreciate your post. As a total ignorant of warfare and equipment in this era, I was starting to become a complainer about this particular issue of weapons capabilities.
Thanks to you and to all other people for pulverizing my misconceptions.

quote:

ORIGINAL: GamerGuy
What's interesting here is that one basic problem with WP vs. NATO scenarios may be, as suggested earlier, a question of numbers. Assuming that those ratios are true, approx. a 3:1 kill ratio, then balanced scenarios would need to reflect that kill ratio in order to be challenging for a NATO player.

According to some artificial tests I have performed with the FPG game, a T-72 scores 0.23 tank kills per firing event at 1500m. The M1 scores 1.5 tank kills at the same range. I am compiling data for the T-80 against the M1 and the T-80 scores way better. I will post these data when they are ready (I discovered some flaws in the experiment design). I am leaning towards even more numerical advantage for WP in order to offer a challenge for NATO solitaire play.

quote:

I remember an old game, Firefight, which I used to play as a youngster against a guy in the Pentagon. I only learned later what he was involved in there - he's now retired - but even in that game NATO seemed to do very well.

That's interesting. Was he gaming just for fun? What were his comments about the particular game you guys played?



quote:

Possibly, Warsaw Pact numbers could not have compensated for their qualitative inferiority. The argument is also made that the Gulf War and the use of Soviet equipment in other settings did not reflect actual Soviet capability (export models, etc.) Just browsing some books I have here Iraqi gunnery was poor in 1991.


quote:


Perhaps we had much less to fear from a conventional Soviet attack in Western Europe than we thought.


CarnageINC has posted some frightening numbers in his thread "My thoughts on Soviet Doctrine". It looks like the threat was mainly numerical superiority.

Cheers,



Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
8.953125