pzgndr
Posts: 3170
Joined: 3/18/2004 From: Maryland Status: offline
|
From the other thread on scenario balance: quote:
ORIGINAL: Mad Russian Pzgndr, Don't take this the wrong way but this game is not an Assault clone. We didn't set out to copy any game. So, for you to expect, think it should maybe, or even accidentally not play like another game you really like has no bearing on how FPC plays or the functions we plan to put in it. However, there's always a 'HOWEVER' :D the features that you liked from other games that would improve this series are welcome IF they make sense for this series of games. We aren't going to work around what we've already created to implement something that was great in another game if it doesn't fit here. I had Assault all of about 2 weeks and loaned it to one of my best friends son. I never saw it again and didn't rebuy it. So, I have no idea how Assault played. In that respect I have no idea what you are referring to when you compare us to Assault. Good Hunting. MR Here are some thoughts on the Assault! game system versus FPC-RS, for discussion and consideration. Two features were important for the Command & Control rules: the sources of operations points, and the uses of operations points. Sources. US company/Soviet battalion HQs had inherent points for their units. US battalion/Soviet regimental TOCs had points for both command and planning, where unused points could be accumulated up to a limit for later execution. Some scenarios provided some additional off-board points from higher HQ. And there was a minimum default of 2 points if there was no other active source. Another interesting feature was that players would roll a die for the command ratings of each HQ and TOC, which reflected both good and bad commanders/staffs. FPC-RS aggregates all of the orders for the entire side without differentiating between the HQs and the TOCs, and there is no provision for planning. These operations points were all for 5-minute turns, which FPC-RS probably doesn't need; 10-15-minute standard turns could also work, or perhaps provide a player option for standard turns in lieu of dynamic cycles. So some of these elements could be considered for v2.1. Uses. Units did not need points to move in march formation (hasty move) or fire. Additionally, recon units, HQs and TOCs did not need to use points to move or change formation. Operations points were required when changing formation, moving in combat formation (deliberate move), replacing HQs, cross-attaching units, and rallying units. In FPC-RS terms, an assault or deliberate move should count as an order; a hasty move probably should not. Also, these actions cost 1 point when units were visible (in command range) but 2 points if not visible (out of command range). Additionally, units starting in the same hex moving together as a stack could count as a single operation. So v2.1 could reconsider what actions count as an order and what does not. The net effect of all these rules would drive players to adopt the appropriate doctrines. US/NATO forces had more operations points and thus more flexibility to do more with fewer units, but generally qualitatively better units. Soviet/Warsaw Pact forces had fewer operations points, so relied more on Soviet Battle Drill to control quantitatively more units. This was the reality of the period, and at least on the US side, we adopted AirLand Battle doctrine in the early 1980s and then trained accordingly at the NTC at Fort Irwin and the CMTC at Hohenfels. The OPFOR used Soviet doctrine. The training exercises were as realistic as we could make them, and the results were fairly balanced based on the strengths and weakness of both sides. Assault! came out in 1983 and I got into it around 1985. At the infantry officer advanced course in 1987, I used Assault! to help study what we were learning in the classroom. In Germany with 1st Armd Div, we trained at Hohenfels and I got to experience both sides. So from a gaming and classroom and practical exercise perspective, I found the Assault! game system to be pretty good. Maybe not perfect, and perhaps not totally accurate since we never got to put our respective doctrines to the ultimate test. However, I would assert that it was pretty realistic as far as it goes, and OTS should strive to implement similar features to achieve comparable effects in v2.1. At least strive to implement the most realist command & control possible and set that as the standard for game and scenario design. Player options can always make things easier by not using limited orders, or more difficult by various player handicaps or enemy bonuses. But shoot for realism as the goal.
|