From: Giftzwerg Subject: FLASHPOINT GERMANY: First Impressions... [NOTE: The following is based on limited play of a few scenarios, and I haven't read the manual; I never read the manual until I've played enough to have questions to answer. Interpolate accordingly...] I was wondering how many years it would be before I said this, but Major H and TACOPS finally have a little competition for the "hearts and minds" of gamers who approach the topic as I do. TACOPS is, of course, the Gold Standard of battalion-based tactical wargames, and it's the game that FLASHPOINT GERMANY should be rightly measured against. For my money ($35), FG holds up very well. So far. What the FG design models is late-1980s-era high-density armored combat between NATO and the Warsaw Pact. Not jungle combat in Vietnam, not desert warfare in Sinai, not amphibious assaults in Cuba. What the designers have done is fairly singleminded; they've kept in everything that's central to armored/mechanized warfare, and thrown out everything else. Some people will dislike this. For instance, there's no separate infantry counters. The game behaves, for all intents and purposes, as though the six M3 fighting vehicles in an armored cavalry platoon are the *only* component of that unit. When all six M3s are destroyed, the unit "disappears." I see that this design decision has come under some fire, but on reflection, it seems perfectly reasonable, given the context of the actions being played out: (1) At the scale of the game (500 meters per gridsquare), this is the way mechanized infantry fights. They ride in their tracks, dismount to defend or assault, and get back inside. The infantry doesn't dismount and go off to fight one battle, while the MICVs ride off in another direction. TACOPS allows you do "interesting" things: like leaving the "legs" behind in a "suicide spotter" role, but FG requires a unit to fight and move as a unit. (2) This is not the kind of combat where dismounted infantry is decisive - or even all that useful. The fields and towns of The Federal Republic and positively *crawling* with T-80s, Challenger IIs, and attack helicopters. A platoon of US Marines with their M-16s and hand grenades would last about one "tick" of the combat resolution bar. This game models battles that are going to be decided by "Who has a tank company in Arschenfeld," not, "A special forces team stealthed their way into town." (3) How useful are leg units in a TACOPS scenario that models armor- heavy combat, anyhow? Not very. In big-armor TACOPS games, the infantry just gets chewed up offhandedly by the-popguns-that-can't- shoot-at-tanks-anyway. All in all, I was a little disconcerted at first, but once you get into the design and flow of play, you'll find that this is a complete non- issue. But if you're the type who'll end up pining away for the things that FG *doesn't* model, then you should look elsewhere, or await a subsequent title in the series. Anyhow. The game scale is 500 meters per grid-square. I thought I would dislike the fact that the game uses squares rather than hexes or pixels to place units, but at this scale, and considering that they've paid careful attention to movement rates and terrain in the design, this is another area where the designers avoided an issue that's probably more trouble than it's worth. Maneuver units are sections, platoons, and companies, with the overall unit being modeled probably a battalion or regimental combat team. The turn scale is interesting. It's a WEGO design, with both sides issuing commands to their units during the orders phase, and then both sides executing their moves under computer control simultaneously during the execution phase. A new wrinkle is that the turn length is variable, from 5 minutes to 30 minutes. I haven't played with this at all, and mention it apropos of nothing. The execution phase is divided into a series of "ticks" where units execute their orders and carry out combat. The graphics are boardgame-standard. NATO symbols or hardware silhouettes on colored counters atop rather a nice full-color map with a handpainted look. The interface is clean and simple; map, subordinate display panels, status bars, menu. THINGS I THINK ARE COOL. (1) The game keeps a running log of *everything* that happens, which you can print out at the end of the game. AAR aficionados should be positively overjoyed at this "why-doesn't-everyone-do-this" feature. Chrome of the brightest kind, this. (2) There's a command delay built into the fabric of the game. Want to carry out a prepared assault? The units won't even move out for 30 minutes - if you're NATO. Warsaw Pact units can take longer. (3) You can play with command limits in place, such that a player can only dole out X orders per turn. Or you can turn this off. (4) The game keeps track of how many orders you're giving, in the form of "radio traffic" bars on the status line. Get too Byzantine in your orders - or forget to keep your headquarters units moving - and you'll soon find that those big Russian guns off to the east will give you a personal hotfoot. (5) There's a scenario editor, to include a scenario generating feature. Haven't played with this, but it's nice to see it included. (6) Digital download product, so no copy protection (license code only...) and no having a #&^%ing CD to drag about to play. Thanks, Matrix; some people (IE, me) think this is worth real money. (7) The TacAI programming that moves my own units hasn't made me rip big wads of my hair out, and I'm quite honestly a pathological pisser and moaner on this topic. Does this mean the TacAI is as good as in HTTR? The jury's still out, but I have played enough to think that it must be *pretty* good, just on the basis of the gruntin' and groanin' I'm *not* doing while I watch the TacAI move and fight my units during the WEGO phase. (8) This game seems amazingly free of troubles, quirks, issues, and other hassels. For a v1.0 product - even for a v3.0 product! - it's refreshingly clean and problem-free. THINGS THAT DIDN'T IMPRESS ME. (1) There's only about two dozen scenarios included, including British, West German, and American NATO forces, and the Usual Suspects on the WP side. The fact that there's a scenario editor - and generator - tends to mitigate this. (2) There's only four maps that ship with the game, and the scenario generator doesn't include a mapmaker. I've heard rumors that a mapmaker is going to be released, however, and - being that this isn't HPS - it's probable that it won't be a $50 standalone product. If the designers are smart (and it looks like they are), they'll just give it away. (3) I haven't see the PO/AI do anything really brilliant yet, but thus far I've played only as NATO, and the AI-as-WP really hasn't got many strategies available outside of, "Take this mongo mass of T-80s and BMPs and squish any enemies foolish enough to appear in your path." I'm not sure this is inappropriate for a WP tactic, either. SO, IS THIS GAME ANY FUN? DOES IT BEAR ANY RELATION TO REALITY? Yes. I'm having a blast, and the game appears to reflect well the realities of armored warfare; when I do something right, I'm rewarded with lots of disappearing red units, when I screw up, my own little green squares tend to evaporate with alarming swiftness. For example. Last evening I fired up a game of "Meeting of Titans," a meeting engagement that pits a US Armored Cavalry Squadron against a Soviet Guards Motor-Rifle Regiment. The Americans are arrayed in echelon down a highway northwest of a large town, while the Soviets have taken the town and are preparing to exploit westwards. The USA wins if it can shove the Russkies back without getting too bloody a nose. I decided to send A Troop south to hold along the main road, while B and D Troops advanced through a secondary road over the high ground separating me from the town/Russkies. I send my few helicopter assets to scout along the intervening hill and harass any enemies detected. C Troop (offboard on turn 1) I held in reserve. A Troop quickly encountered mechanized infantry forward echelons, and, assisted by a barrage or two from my artillery battery, drove them back and inflicted heavy losses, but at the cost of three M1s and a Bradley knocked out. The Russians seemed to be exploiting faster than I expected, though, and I decided to halt the advance of B and D Troops and set up an ambush. I arrayed B Troop in defilade along both sides of the road, and D Troop to screening posture in the center, ordered to stage a fighting retreat when the Russians appeared. The idea was good tactically, but I had the "L" key function set to off, and wasn't able to check the LOS of my units. Unfamiliarity with the map and graphics meant that my setup was less than optimal in terms of setting up this "fire sack" position. Still, the Russians were moving motor-rifle units up the road, and my retreating screen exacted a toll for their progress, and they were then caught from my units flanking the road. Stunningly heavy losses for the Red Army on this road, against the loss of only two Bradleys. Souring the success somewhat was the fact that I left two Cavalry platoons in place for too long, and Russian artillery quickly blanketed the area, knocking out *three* crucial M1s. In the south, my scouting helicopters soon located a mass of Soviet Guards advancing along both sides of the highway, and managed to snipe a half-dozen BMPs from the periphery. The choppers were forced to retreat after Russian SAM carriers appeared and shot down one of my AH-1s. The Russian mass soon encountered my hastily dug-in tanks and mech infantry, and their losses were heavy. Again, though, I was hampered by a quasi-ignorant setup due to unfamiliarity with terrain mapping, and my own units came under heavy Russian missile fire and started taking losses. American unit quality and defensive advantages were too much to overcome, though, and the Soviet advance quickly petered out, and then was driven back, routing towards the town. At this point, the Soviets had suffered two sharp rebuffs, and I decided to keep them backpedaling by simultaneous assaults to clear the two roads into town. I combined the more-or-less combat worthy B Troop and the badly-used remnants of D Troop for an attack eastwards along the north road, and sent A Troop along with the remaining three helicopters down the southern route. C Troop, still uncommitted, I retained as a reserve. Now the shoe was on the other foot though, and the Russians were in a position to await my attack from hastily scrabbled-out positions. I suffered heavy losses in clearing the approaches to town, but - again - US unit superiority was telling, and my units were able to get the drop on the Russians again and again. Also, the Russians were generally beginning to fold from overall losses and morale. By the time I committed my reserve to crush the last Russian defense, the writing was on the wall. Decisive victory, but losses a little too heavy under the circumstances. This is all pretty good stuff, though, and my overall impression is that this game is an *excellent* blending of realistic tactical problem- solving and wargaming fun. Tonight we'll be testing out the head-to- head capabilities built into the game, but I can't imagine it'll be any less fun to play against a human opponent. Matrix has another winner on their hands. Only time will tell if it eventually encompasses the scope that TACOPS takes in, but there's easily $35 worth of wargaming value in this game. -- Giftzwerg *** http://www.coxandforkum.com/archives/000521.html From: Giftzwerg Subject: FLASHPOINT GERMANY: Head-toHead AAR Set up a LAN game to try out FG in multiplayer mode. My opponent is Bad Bob, aka the "Klingon Attack Wedge Guy," an old-school, PANZERBLITZ- trained wild man. He usually gives a pretty good game, but this will a first effort for both of us with the new FLASHPOINT GERMANY software. Scenario is #1: "Soviet Tank Rush." I've played this one; it was my first, being a methodical fellow, but BB avoided it in solo play because of the C&C connotation of the "Tank Rush." Head-to-head, though (LAN, to be accurate, we're playing networked...), he's a dedicated Russophile and can't get enough of those big gaggles of T-80 tanks and ripple- firing BMP MICVs. The situation is simple. I've got a British armored regiment, the "Blues and Royals," about 45 Challenger I MBTs, a few Scorpion scout vehicles, A Btty RA, and a heavy off-map artillery component, 39 HAR. A two-plane Harrier element will be on-call for air support. With this powerful force, I have to defend a narrow corridor from the east sandwiched between heavy woods to the north and rivers to the south. The Soviet axis of advance is a no-brainer; the Russians will have to boogie straight down two main roads coming down the corridor. BB will be expecting me (this is one of those old-adversary "I know he knows that I know..." situations...) to use my advantage in orders-delay to come out and engage him in mobile action as far from Rensenbach (the objective) as possible. FG *really* (not to mention accurately) penalizes a player who blunders into a prepared defense, so I'll set up very simply. C Squadron[1] will block the north road in dug-in positions, while A Squadron will screen - I don't want to get forced back against the river and wiped out - the road to the south. B Squadron will deploy along the woods directly to the north to provide long-range flanking fire from an excellent vantage point. 39HAR will fire off some "minelets" in front of my positions on Turn 1, adding to the fun the Russians will have as they smack into a wall of British steel. I'll keep the onboard artillery and the Harriers in reserve. My only reserve, in fact. BB will be expecting me to keep a Squadron back as a counterattacking force, but not today; my whole force will be "up front," ready to blaze away. The opening comes and goes, with a my minelet barrages seeding the areas in front of my positions with whatever the British call FASCAM. Unknown how effective these minefields are in a practical sense - certainly they're not actual minefields - but I'm emplacing them so as to channel BB/TacAI into fields covered by multiple Challenger gun-tubes. Very quickly, though, BB shoves a Soviet tank battalion right-down-the- middle. This is a little perplexing, as he's known (the Klingon Wedge, IE) for carefully amassing overwhelming force and applying it in a single heavy blow. But I'll take what I can get. His T-80 battalion runs into a shitstorm of 120mm fire from the front and both flanks, and is quickly and decisively wiped out. Five Challengers, unfortunately, are knocked out in the melee, with C Squadron losing an entire three- tank troop in a single miserably unlucky exchange. Also, WP artillery has been pounding the shit outta my overall HQ. This is a little puzzling, as I've hardly issued a single order since initial setup, and my "traffic" meter is solidly in the green. Already, though, my B&R HQ has lost two vehicles and is "exhausted." Jeez. And *damn*. Much as I try - move, route-march, dodge-turn-parry-thrust - I can't seem to avoid the WP artillery pounding my Blues & Royals HQ. WTF?!?!?!?! Other than that, though, nothing much is happening. Of course, that's not a good sign, as it suggests that BB is quietly massing his T-80s for a "Big Push." Ah. The "minelets" might be paying off. It almost looks as though a monster stack of T-80 tanks and BMPs just fetched up against a wad of artillery-deployed mines. The turn is over, it's orders time, and I wonder if BB knows I'm spotting this huge (battalion+++ sized) stack of tanks and MICVs in a single hex. This looks like a *very* unlucky/unfortunate movement phase for him. Time to call in the Harriers and plot "neutralizing fire" from **four** artillery units. Let's see how this goes. And *how* it goes. I'm trying to maintain a poker-face, and commiserate with my friend, but ... in twenty years of wargaming, I'm not sure I can recall a turn that went so lopsidedly in my favor. The artillery from offboard positively *flattened* BB's unexpectedly exposed stack of armor and mech infantry in the north. He's quietly putting a good face on things, but my mental accountant is racking up *fifty* enemy tanks and AFVs wiped out in this incredible crossfire. The artillery, the mines, and a heavy enfilade from C Squadron has positively decimated the forces that BB dispatched against my northern flank. Of course, C Squadron has been roughly handled. Only six Challengers still running in the whole unit - including HQ - but ... *damn*. Talk about a formation that can proudly fall back, secure in the knowledge that it gave better than it got. C Squadron has been - directly or indirectly - responsible for more than 100 AFV kills. Not to get too cocky, but ... I've got him. He's done. I've have a whole Squadron (A) in the south that's lost *one* MBT, and my northern Squadron has lost *zero* MBTs. If I can fall back in the center and hold steady on the flanks, I'll soon be advancing on Moscow. Well, pretty close. The rest of the game goes pretty much as expected. Although BB has some formidable tank/mech units in reserve, it's hard to win a gunfight with British Challengers on a one-to-one basis. Given the losses he's already taken, this is an impossible task. "The game is now over with an official Decisive NATO victory." Ouch. Hard to handle when the software just pops up with this icy-cold verdict, but he's down to 100 or so steps in combat, and only 20 or so of these are tanks/MICVs. Game over. And somewhat before my probing forward elements managed to take the two maxi-areas that would have meant additional 100 VP dumps each. More, even, to be insufferable about as the rematch is discussed. Next time, I'll have to command the monster swarm O'T-80s. [1] Annoying, that British and American usage are ass-backwards in the Troop/Squadron terminology... -- Giftzwerg *** http://www.coxandforkum.com/archives/000521.html