Slitherine

quote:

Air-land Doctrine was based on defeating the enemy throughout the depth of battlefield. You basically divide the battlefield into three areas, close, deep, and rear. The close fight was normally defined at the brigade and lower level fight (the area that FPG operates). This area is dominated by direct fire supported by the other arms. The deep fight is normally fought at the division and higher level. The intent here is to disrupt the enemy before he even arrives at the close fight! This is where you use Air interdiction, long range arty, deep strike attack aviation, and special forces to disrupt the enemy. The key to rear operations was to ensure that you are able to provide all the necessary resources to the close and deep fight. This requirement drove the need to secure your rear area and prevent it from being disrupted by the enemy. Air land battle is primarily an operational concept, not a tactical one. The tenants of air land battle were agility, initative, and depth. It fosters risk taking at the operational level (i.e., I will leave this area lightly defended so I can mass my forces at this area).

The realm of FPG is the realm of tactics. The standard saying we have in the army is that tactics are like <ahem> rear orifices, everybody has them.

Tactics are the lifeblood of the brigade, battalion, company, platoon, and squad leaders. There are certain guidelines that professionals tend to follow in reference to tactics, however, nothing is set in stone. What works in one situation will not automatically work in another one. The key things that any commander should strive for is to know himself (what assets do I have and what shape are they?), know the terrain (where is the best place to gain an advantage over the enemey?), and know the enemy (how does he operate? What are his strengths and weaknesses? Where is he located and likely to go?). If you know these things you should be able to implement a plan to defeat him. The last thing you want in tactics is flexibility. The primary means to maintain flexibility at the tactical level is to maintain a decent reserve. This should give you the ability to react to any changes on the battlefield.

Sorry for the long post but wanted to throw my 2 cents worth in a very good discussion!

Regards,

Tbird3

quote:

ORIGINAL: Siljanus

I forget which scenario I was playing as NATO but at the end of the game as I was checking over the surviving WP units I saw that the AI had a mobile missle launcher that had survived. It also was capable of carrying a nuclear payload. Will the AI ever use nukes in any of the scenarios? Would make it rather interesting...

And on that note, has the WP under AI control used gas in any of the scenarios?

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHellPatrol

As of yet i haven't seen the ai use chemicals or nukes, but what really suprises me is that when a scenario is over (i win, full fow etc. ai as WP), and i am allowed to browse the battlefield, there is always a Hind chopper(assuming the scenario has one) in/near the corner of the map. I often wonder...is it protecting the ai HQ? Why haven't i seen it in action? FOW? When the game ends it is always on the edge of the map.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Siljanus

I forget which scenario I was playing as NATO but at the end of the game as I was checking over the surviving WP units I saw that the AI had a mobile missle launcher that had survived. It also was capable of carrying a nuclear payload. Will the AI ever use nukes in any of the scenarios? Would make it rather interesting...

And on that note, has the WP under AI control used gas in any of the scenarios?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Siljanus

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHellPatrol

As of yet i haven't seen the ai use chemicals or nukes, but what really suprises me is that when a scenario is over (i win, full fow etc. ai as WP), and i am allowed to browse the battlefield, there is always a Hind chopper(assuming the scenario has one) in/near the corner of the map. I often wonder...is it protecting the ai HQ? Why haven't i seen it in action? FOW? When the game ends it is always on the edge of the map.

Heh, I've noticed the same thing as well. Next time I play I should check the WP diary at the end of the game to see if the Hind ever engaged any of my forces or if the pilot was just drunk on vodka and stayed in the rear...

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tbird3

Okay folks, my 2 cents worth on first impressions. I have played about 6 games now, both WP and NATO. ...

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nils

FPG is my first Matrixgame ever (and this is my first post in this forum, too...).

Being a big fan of the old school SimCan MBT games, I was eagerly awaiting the release of FPG. Bought it the very first day and, overall, I am impressed! The graphics are cool, the game play is challenging, and the cold war is one of my favourite wargaming subjects, making FPG a perfect computer game for me. A great new edition of a classic wargame!

Still, I was wondering why some of the features of the original MBT were dropped in the new edititon:
1. The original MBT had engineers that could lay bridges and especially minefields. They are gone now as individual units and I can't see how those are designed into other units (like dismounted infantry).
2. The order menu was simplified. Why did orders like advance, fall back and such get dropped? I always felt that they added a lot of tactical nuances to the game. Or are these choices modeled via stealth???
3. It seems the logic of formation orders has changed. I haven't played FPG enough yet to really make a comparison, but judging from the documentation, group orders in FPG helps units arriving in same location at the same time, without any regard whatsoever to tactical disposition of the individual units. Moreover, after giving a group order, you are not able to modify the waypoints of the individual units of the groups. I think that makes the coordination of large forces a lot more complicated.

Lastly, is there a way to print out the scenario maps? Pre-planning your battle is a big part of FPG and a hardcopy might help in this task.

Cheers,
Nils

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chelco

quote:

ORIGINAL: Black Cat

Since I only play against the AI I wonder how that is in attack and defense ?

Ey Cat!
Finally could get an additional half and hour of time with my FPG. Man, life if hectic if you have kids ...
I decided to make a custom scenario setted up a WP with a tank and a mounted infantry Btn (AI) vs NATO (a tank Co and a mounted infantry Co, all these under my command). Objective was a urbanized sector near NATO deployment area. I used the no-fog of war option for myself to see the AI moves.
The WP AI moved with their infantry in front, neatly spaced units to provide a screen, I guess. To my entire satisfaction, it used their infantry to enter into the urbanized area (objective sector) and then rolled up the tanks into the fight. It was very cool.
Then, (to my amusement) having all the objective sector controlled, the AI rolled into the adjacent sector (my deployment area) to basically clean it up. Good stuff! My NATO forces were not there anymore. It looked like the AI has some kind of knowledge system, which basically told it I should be there. Is this possible?
Main conclusion: AI is aggressive.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marc Schwanebeck

Yes true, NATO weapons shine at long distances, same for the MBT cannons. The russians btw have also ATGMs, mounted on the BMPS, and on wheeled vehicles. I´m not 100% sure if it´s implemented in FPG but the T-80 (at least some versions) of it also had ATGMs mounted. Once WP forces manage to get their mech inf close it will get dirty. The BMPs cannon can be quite lethal at close ranges.


With regards to reading, it´s almost a "classic" companion to playing FPG, I can recommend "Team Yankee". It´s out of print, but you can grab a copy on eBay or Amazon Marketplace / Z-Shops once in ahwile.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Fulcrum

A few quick questions:

1. What does the second number mean when you select "Historic Unit Tags" for the counter information? It doesn't seem to be spelled out in the manual. Such as 2-7, 3-7, 4-7. I've figured out the first number represents the number of runners left in the unit, but for the life of me I can't extrapolate what the second number represents.

2. Is there counterbattery fire for artillery? You can detect enemy HQ's by their radio traffic, but it doesn't seem to detect on-map artillery units that are firing.

3. Finally, is it me, or does it seem like the enemy locks onto your HQ? My HQ's position was blown and the enemy started raining down arty on it. But no matter where it moved, artillery fire shifted just as quickly.

Other than that, great game guys.

quote:

ORIGINAL: RobertCrandall

Ah, helicopters. They can be devastating if they obtain surprise but are sitting ducks if they don't. I got tired of seeing them all shot down within 15 - 60 minutes of first moving so I tightened up their employment considerably. They are now more a 'reserve of last resort' and are kept for only certain kinds of high-payoff, low-risk strikes. Your particular games may not have triggered it in which case their loitering at the map edge would not be irrational. On the other hand, I might just check it again and bump up the general aggression level if the side is visibly losing. Given that the premise of the game is a short war - go for broke and count the losses when its over - it might make more sense to take a 'use it or lose it' attitude on the part of the AI.

I'll take a look.

Cheers, Rob.

quote:

Hi Mike, I agree with you. Air/Land Battle doctrine was born after the Cold War.

quote:

Call me old fashioned but I just could not bear the idea of the computer dropping nuclear weapons on people, even simulated people. Maybe I watched the Terminator movie too many times, or maybe I just had trouble coming up with a rational way to control it and not lose VPs in the process. Anyway, the target aquisition routine for nuclear weapons is not likely to find many tempting targets and not fire very often at all. For version 1.01 of the game I might make it a little less rational but don't quote me on that!

quote:

ORIGINAL: RobertCrandall

Five GREAT posts of Robert snipped

quote:

ORIGINAL: gsol69

Interesting game system here, one thing I miss is individualized silhouettes for each type of hardware platform. I was a big fan of the old Avalon Hill Panzer Blitz & Panzer Leader WWII games, and one thing that kept me coming back for more was the silhouette of the Panzer IV-G and the Tiger Tanks. Being able to uniquely identify each unit by its silhouette (as opposed to all tanks having the same generic "armor" icon) made that experience a whole lot more enjoyable for me. Just wanted to get in my 2 cents.
Nice job on the whole, please consider releasing mod tools so the user community may be able to add customized silhouettes at a later time. Thanks!

quote:

ORIGINAL: CoffeeMug

Group hug!

CM

quote:

ORIGINAL: RobertCrandall
Driving the AI. The map is divided up into 12 sectors and each is rated (or not) for VPs for clearing or occupying. This has a really, really big impact on the AI and where it wants to send it's forces! Study this (Staff Summary F6, yes I know those little numbers are hard to read) before the game starts and you will get a huge hint on what the AI will try to do.

quote:

I'm not sure which scenario you played but I hope that the AI went into your original deployment area because there were VPs to be had there. It would have had some very general knowledge of where the center of gravity of your forces started and there is a secondary chance that it went there just because it was feeling hungry still.

quote:

The basic premise of this particular WW3 game is that it was a very short, go for broke, and devil take the hindmost war. Every hour counted and every general had to do his utmost to win it before time was up. Just sitting around was not an option!

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike_w
From what I understand, MAnuever warfare is the evolution of airland battle. It is about reinforcing success and striking where the enemy isn't to sew confusion and force an enemy out of his planned route/fighting position. By forcing him to redeploy to face a force behind him, he becomes exposed. I just wonder when this was implemented..and if I am right.

quote:

Chelco, if you Tbird or anyone knows, I'm interested as this would apply to the tactical element in this game.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike_w

Tbird3,
It seems that the current doctrine of Maneuver warfare is more applicable to the lower tacticl levels than Air/land battle. My question is, although this doctrine emerged in the late 80's, was it implemented at all by 1989? I know that it reached its "perfection" in Op. Enduring Freedom but would it be realistic to have an AI that practiced it in 1989? (if it was even possible to program). I know that the USMC was indoctrinating there junior officers and NCO's in this concept at that time...

quote:

Remember die hard Manueverist love to use the WWII wehrmacht as the shining example of manuever warfare specialists and unless I am mistaken, they lost the war.

quote:

I hope this stirs up a bit of discussion or controversy.

quote:

... Maneuver warfare is a generic phrase which I have a bit of heartburn. The concept of maneuver warfare as I have studied it is based on gaps and surfaces. The intent is that you want to bypass surfaces (enemy forces) and find the gaps (where the enemy ain't ). Wow, what an original concept!

quote:

This translates into what is called reconnassiance pull (maneuver warfare) versus attrition warfare (find the enemy and just grind him down). Personally I think this is mostly babble that cannot be clearly applied across the spectrum of warfare.

quote:

Additionally, for every "historical example" of justifiying this concept there is another one justifying attritional warfare.

quote:

IMHO a military leader must have the flexibility to recognize situations where one or the other is applicable.

quote:

Remember die hard Manueverist love to use the WWII wehrmacht as the shining example of manuever warfare specialists and unless I am mistaken, they lost the war.

quote:

The other issue with these concepts is that at what level of warfare do they apply? I argue that there is no "silver bullet" when it comes to war.

quote:

Additionally, the general concepts that apply to war are ancient and in some ways unchanging. Do you ever wonder why military leaders continue to read the "art of war"? How can one argue with the concept of combined arms? Wow, if I combine and sychronize my archers and cav with my legions I can generate more combat power than with them separately. I think that is how Alexander, Julius Caeser, and other great tactical generals have won on the battlefield. Guess what? On the modern tactical battlefield you still want to do the same thing. The phrase we use is that we want to get every dog into the fight. I want to combine/ synchronzie my tanks, my infantry, my mortars, my artillery, my engineers and my air support so that the enemy will have deal with them simualtaneously.

quote:

Moltke, Lidell-Hart, Boyd or Lind didn't invent nothing new. They just gathered the elements and put them together.
Nobody argues that combined arms is a good thing. Pitty it doesn't work very well in present-day Iraq.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chelco

Hi Mike, I agree with you. Air/Land Battle doctrine was born after the Cold War.
As for the AI, I have seen it to do some nice things:
1) When commanding WP, it deploys in groups, each one corresponding to each battalion.
2) In AI vs AI games, I have seen it to encircle enemy forces
3) Is very aggressive (sometimes a good attack is the best defense)
However, these nice aspects are overshadowed by negatives:
a) The AI happily positions its companys in an open field which is overlooked by several hills around. A formula for disaster.
b) On the attack, it brings its firepower in a piecemeal manner. You almost can forget about the value of flanking the AI while counterattacking.
c) The AI as WP: recon assets too forward in comparison to the main force.

Cheers,