Flashpoint 2.0

<eddysterckx.TakeThisOut@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:a763b978-1726-4651-97ab-03b7bc125ab2@k39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> Hi,
>
> For a while it looked like Flashpoint Germany would get a single
> successor in Flashpoint : Middle East but this post
>
> http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/m.asp?m=1682783&mpage=1&key=
>
> makes it clear that the developers are looking at a dual release - one
> called Red Storm which will deal with Nato vs. Warsaw Pact 1950-1989
> and another, separate game set in the Middle East in the same period.
>

Those two subjects are both computer games I have begged for and WILL buy -
SPI's Mechwar 77 and AH's Arab-Israeli Wars were the two favorite 'armor'
boardgames of my mis-spent youth.

HurryHurryHurryHurry...

<grin>


--
MJB

Mr. Tin's Miniature Painting Workshop:
http://web.newsguy.com/Mrtinsworkshop/
 >> Stay informed about: Flashpoint 2.0 

"ERutins" <erikr RemoveThis @matrixgames.com> wrote in message
news:bec6bfee-4d90-482e-9802-11b33fdd43a2@u10g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
> The new Flashpoint design has a lot of innovative features and I hope
> it gets some more attention as more info comes out when it's closer to
> release. I think it's going to do some parts of modern war simulation
> better than they've ever been done before.

Please stop with all your nasty, sexy talk, Mr Rutins. Before I call you
just another dirty game-teaser...

<smirk>

I look forward to seeing your innovative design features close-up and I do
hope you do it better than ever before.

--
MJB

Mr. Tin's Miniature Painting Workshop:
http://web.newsguy.com/Mrtinsworkshop/
 >> Stay informed about: Flashpoint 2.0 

On 25 jan, 15:40, "Vincenzo Beretta" <reck....RemoveThis@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/m.asp?m=1682783&mpage=1&key=
>
> > makes it clear that the developers are looking at a dual release - one
> > called Red Storm which will deal with Nato vs. Warsaw Pact 1950-1989
> > and another, separate game set in the Middle East in the same period.
>
> The original Flashpoint: Germany had a very narrow focus (1989, IIRC) -
> extending the time period/OOBs back to 1950 with new features warrants a new
> game, IMHO.

Sure.

> Meanwhile, the ME game looks like the one that was announced from the
> beginning.

Yup.

My point is that they could have gone for one "Modern Warfare
1950-1989" game featuring scenarios both in Germany and the ME.

Now it's 2 games with the same engine getting released at the same
time which is bound to draw some comments. Expect sentences like
"Matrix is milking it" to appear.

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx
 >> Stay informed about: Flashpoint 2.0 

<eddysterckx DeleteThis @hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:b962fc21-5866-47e4-a702-eea2de58f7a7@y5g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> On 25 jan, 15:40, "Vincenzo Beretta" <reck... DeleteThis @hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> My point is that they could have gone for one "Modern Warfare
> 1950-1989" game featuring scenarios both in Germany and the ME.
>
> Now it's 2 games with the same engine getting released at the same
> time which is bound to draw some comments. Expect sentences like
> "Matrix is milking it" to appear.
>

I guess the 'milking' comments will have to wait until the number of
scenarios and mix of units is revealed. If the game in Europe streaches
from the Danish south to the Swiss border and the Middle East game covers
both the Eyptian, Syrian AND Jordanian fronts, I for one will be satisfied.
My issue with the orignal flashpoint game was the extremely narow focus - if
I recall correctly it only had two maps and just a few scenarios involving
just a few units. Much as I liked the subject of late 20th century warfare
(ie, 1970s & 80s), I found the scope of the original game pretty
unimaginative considering the possible alternatives. Just having the same
missions playable with the BAOR or the Bundeswher versus Czechs or Poles or
East Germans would have been interesting too.

<shrug>

I have great expectations. But I'll probably just be disappointed.

--
MJB

Mr. Tin's Miniature Painting Workshop:
http://web.newsguy.com/Mrtinsworkshop/
 >> Stay informed about: Flashpoint 2.0 

On Jan 25, 3:30 pm, "MJB" <mrt....DeleteThis@OLDsguy.com> wrote:
> by Cap Weinberg and the Regan era defense department.  But I recall the US
> Military being deployed most strongly in the most obvious 'chokepoints' (ie,
> Fulda Gap) that HAD to be taken if the Soviet invasion was to have any
> chance of success.  While the much smaller British contingent and the
> widely-varying in quality German army being deployed everywhere else.  With
> a consequence that the 'more or less willing' Warpac allies being sent where
> the Americans typically weren't.
>
> I'm probably wrong and will be promptly chastised and corrected almost
> immediately.  But that is how I remember it.
>
> --
> MJB

IIRC BOAR and Dutch up north, US and Belgians in centre, US and
Canadians in Southern Germany.
German forces spread around the front; French expected (hoped?) to
come into the south/centre.

Mind you, this is from memory of public sources, so I could be *very*
wrong.

Regards,

-von Schmidt
 >> Stay informed about: Flashpoint 2.0 

On 25 jan, 17:57, "MJB" <mrt....RemoveThis@OLDsguy.com> wrote:
>
> MJB: The Belgians were part of NATO. So were expected to 'particpate'.
> Don't recall them to be expected to provide much.

Belgium had around 30K men permanently deployed in Germany - 1
armoured brigade and 2 mech inf brigades - in the early eighties they
had 300+ Leopard tanks and 1200+ M-75's + 8 Sqn of combat aircraft
(F-104, Mirage) - in retrospect enough to stop a WP division or 2
cold. My wife grew up as an army brat in one of those German towns
where half the male population were Belgian soldiers.

> And the French were, well, the French.

They had 40K troops smack bang in the path of any WP offensive in
Southern Germany - officially they were not part of the defense line,
but there's no way they would have stayed out even if they wanted to.

Anyway, I hope the game has provisions for a Polish brigade or so to
change sides half way through a scenario

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx
 >> Stay informed about: Flashpoint 2.0 

"von Schmidt" <von_schmidt.TakeThisOut@mail.com> wrote in message
news:233c310e-9c47-4180-8627-c3a39a45ad91@e25g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
On Jan 25, 3:30 pm, "MJB" <mrt....TakeThisOut@OLDsguy.com> wrote:
> by Cap Weinberg and the Regan era defense department. But I recall the US
> Military being deployed most strongly in the most obvious 'chokepoints'
> (ie,
> Fulda Gap) that HAD to be taken if the Soviet invasion was to have any
> chance of success. While the much smaller British contingent and the
> widely-varying in quality German army being deployed everywhere else. With
> a consequence that the 'more or less willing' Warpac allies being sent
> where
> the Americans typically weren't.
>
> I'm probably wrong and will be promptly chastised and corrected almost
> immediately. But that is how I remember it.
>
> --
> MJB

IIRC BOAR and Dutch up north,

MJB: Linked to their supply and political centers. I seem to recall the
opinion of the capacities of the dope-smoking, long-haired Dutch reserveists
was pretty low. On the other hand, BAOR was top-notch and the defense of
the cities of the Hanse their responsiblity.

US and Belgians in centre,

MJB: The Belgians were part of NATO. So were expected to 'particpate'.
Don't recall them to be expected to provide much.

US and
Canadians in Southern Germany.

MJB: Ah, yes - the brave and resourceful Canadians. Thank you for that
necessary reminder. I was ignorant not to have mentioned them. I have the
book 'First Clash' on my bookshelves - it describes a hypothetical soviet
invasion being met by a Canadian brigade.

German forces spread around the front; French expected (hoped?) to
come into the south/centre.

MJB: What always struck me was just how badly equipped the majority of the
Bundeswher actually was when compared to the rest of Nato. Not saying the
best German equipement was 'junk' - far from it. But there just seemed to
be dammed little of it compared to what the West Germans could have expected
to face when the balloon went up. I was completely shocked when I learned
that the M48 MBT was still being used in the 2nd line German forces while at
the same time the US Army was replacing their M60s with M1 Abrams - it just
seemed mind-boggling to me.

And the French were, well, the French. The phrase 'perverse as a Frenchman'
is not without some justification - with preverse meaning the OLD
understanding of being willfully stubborn, obstinate or contrary.

<grin>

--
MJB

Mr. Tin's Miniature Painting Workshop:
http://web.newsguy.com/Mrtinsworkshop/
 >> Stay informed about: Flashpoint 2.0 

<eddysterckx RemoveThis @hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1c604f26-2bcd-484c-a73c-8c094c922793@i3g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> On 25 jan, 17:57, "MJB" <mrt... RemoveThis @OLDsguy.com> wrote:
>>
>> MJB: The Belgians were part of NATO. So were expected to 'particpate'.
>> Don't recall them to be expected to provide much.
>
> Belgium had around 30K men permanently deployed in Germany - 1
> armoured brigade and 2 mech inf brigades - in the early eighties they
> had 300+ Leopard tanks and 1200+ M-75's + 8 Sqn of combat aircraft
> (F-104, Mirage) - in retrospect enough to stop a WP division or 2
> cold. My wife grew up as an army brat in one of those German towns
> where half the male population were Belgian soldiers.

That is absolutely good to know and no doubt absolutely true - I did no
research what so ever before stating it. And I meant no disrespect to the
Belgian military. The people who I knew then serving with Nato - including
a major with 1st US Cav and another on the NATO staff planning cruise
missile strikes - described the Dutch as slovenly, undisciplined and
unmilitary. But the Belgians were always first-rate - well-trained, utterly
reliable and well-desciplined. They just said there never were enough of
them around to counteract the 'Dutch-effect'.

>
>> And the French were, well, the French.
>
> They had 40K troops smack bang in the path of any WP offensive in
> Southern Germany - officially they were not part of the defense line,
> but there's no way they would have stayed out even if they wanted to.
>
> Anyway, I hope the game has provisions for a Polish brigade or so to
> change sides half way through a scenario
>

I was in college in the early 1980s and was no-doubt influenced in my
opinion of the Nato allies by the US 'propaganda' of the day. When the
Reagan administration used to call for more defense spending and more
strategic weaponry to confront the Soviet Union because (and it was slyly
implied and never stated directly) that the western allies were weak,
unprepared and unwilling to resist. And that the United States had to be
prepared to defend western civilization all by themselves. Not withstanding
30,000 Belgians and 40,000 French to the contray.

<weak grin>

One of the most interesting notion I always had with the Soviets and the
Poles was how exactly where the Soviets ever going to fight on their side
anyway? One of my friends (of Estonian origin who's parents were refugees
from the USSR) always laughed at the idea of the Soviet ever being able to
get their 'allies' to even fight unless in self-defense - which required
Nato to attack first. He always insisted that the Czechs, the Poles and
probably the Bulgarians and Hungarians would have turned on the Soviets the
instant the invasion started to look bad for the USSR.

I dismissed that as nationilistc bravado of the time - he was a full-blood
Estonian and Estonia had just become a republic again. But now I'm not so
certain I was right to dismiss his assertion at the time.

--
MJB

Mr. Tin's Miniature Painting Workshop:
http://web.newsguy.com/Mrtinsworkshop/
 >> Stay informed about: Flashpoint 2.0 

"Giftzwerg" <giftzwerg999.RemoveThis@NOSPAMZ.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.2203f6a35d69a66d9897a9@news.giganews.com...
>
> Which raises the question of how zealous the average *Russian* conscript
> would be to risk his life so that the Soviet empire could include a
> bunch of ungrateful, surly western Europeans.
>

And knowing what we know now about the actual internal workings of the
Warsaw Pact, would the Soviet Union's leaders have ever even wanted to deal
with a bunch of ungrateful, surly western Europeans? It's like the French
proverb in action: "Don't wish for what you want. You just may be given
it."

--
MJB

Mr. Tin's Miniature Painting Workshop:
http://web.newsguy.com/Mrtinsworkshop/
 >> Stay informed about: Flashpoint 2.0 

In article <fnd9ua01bai DeleteThis @news3.newsguy.com>, mrtinj DeleteThis @OLDsguy.com says...

> One of the most interesting notion I always had with the Soviets and the
> Poles was how exactly where the Soviets ever going to fight on their side
> anyway? One of my friends (of Estonian origin who's parents were refugees
> from the USSR) always laughed at the idea of the Soviet ever being able to
> get their 'allies' to even fight unless in self-defense - which required
> Nato to attack first.

Which raises the question of how zealous the average *Russian* conscript
would be to risk his life so that the Soviet empire could include a
bunch of ungrateful, surly western Europeans.

--
Giftzwerg
***
"The Democrats are having the hardest time with the new [Iraq] reality.
Every candidate is committed to 'ending the war' and bringing our troops
back home. The trouble is, the war has largely ended, and precisely
because our troops are in the middle of it."
- Fareed Zakaria
 >> Stay informed about: Flashpoint 2.0 

On 25 jan, 22:54, "MJB" <mrt....TakeThisOut@OLDsguy.com> wrote:
>
> I think one of the revelations was just how 'weak' the Soviet military force
> was as compared to the 'strengths' loudly trumpeted on a yearly basis by the
> US Defense Department.
> I remember reading a book I think was titled "Feet
> of Clay" that detailed the actual combat readiness of the Soviet army in the
> early to mid 80s. The degree of corruption, brutality, mis-appropriation
> and sheer out-right criminal behavior among the various arms of the Red Army
> it alleged was astounding.

Hindsight is always 20/20

I've been leafing through that 1979 book I mentioned before and apart
from the raw numbers on just about everything it also divides WP
divisions into Cat 1 to 3 levels, with Category 3 divisions just there
to fatten the numbers - i.e. of doubtfull combat value, while all Nato
troops actually in Germany were Cat 1 or top Cat 2 in WP parlance.

> And directly contradicted everything the US
> Goverment was stating about the same military organization.

The numbers were there - the WP had 3 times as many tanks as Nato -
even given the better quality of Nato tanks and crews that's an awful
lot of hardware. Today, after Desert Storm, we've learned that a
quality tank can destroy multiple enemy tanks without even getting a
scratch, but the experience back then was that WWII German tanks
though also quality wise better *lost* against the more numerous
Allied Shermans. So it's 3-1 in tanks with the quality edge on our
side - is that enough to stop them or not ? Nobody knew.

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx
 >> Stay informed about: Flashpoint 2.0 

On 25 jan, 23:12, "MJB" <mrt....RemoveThis@OLDsguy.com> wrote:
> <eddyster....RemoveThis@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > Yeah, "Reagan defeated Communism" is not a popular stance
>
> I fault 'Uncle Ronnie' for many things in both his social and economic
> policies. But his goal of defeating the USSR through bankruptcy, not war,
> was a brilliant success. Whether that success was an accidental consequence
> or a planned effect is another issue entirely.

The plan was clearly to outperform the WP countries on the
technological, thus economical side of things - economic analysts were
also clearly saying the WP was at it's limit on what it could spend on
defence, the West wasn't. It was even said that the WP's only option
would be to go to war, because the odds weren't going to get any
better from here on. It was then or never. What nobody dared to dream
back then was that it would not only be never, but that it would be
the final straw that broke the camel's back.

What Reagan did was give the US it's confidence back after Vietnam -
maybe you couldn't observe that, but outsiders could - including the
non-Russian WP countries.

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx
 >> Stay informed about: Flashpoint 2.0 

<eddysterckx.TakeThisOut@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:5a7e5ae1-3fc8-4815-8dc2-46bb3d89ec20@x69g2000hsx.googlegroups.com...
> On 25 jan, 21:21, "MJB" <mrt....TakeThisOut@OLDsguy.com> wrote:
>
> What you also got to realize is that in a draft system like we had
> back then - with most guys doing their military duty *after* college -
> the average soldier was better educated (and older) than in a purely
> volunteer force. A lot of them already had a civilian job too. I was
> 23 when I went in and there were plenty of people my age in my
> platoon. It's not that we discussed Plato at night, but there's a
> difference.

Not so different as back then. My Dad was 23 and married two years when he
volunteered for the Navy, rather than be drafted into the Army. He was also
the youngest journeyman electrician ever given a card in the state of
Montana, so the Navy made him a chief electrician's mate on a destroyer
right after the end of the Korean War.

..
>>
>> All true. And not always understood.
>
> Yeah, "Reagan defeated Communism" is not a popular stance

I fault 'Uncle Ronnie' for many things in both his social and economic
policies. But his goal of defeating the USSR through bankruptcy, not war,
was a brilliant success. Whether that success was an accidental consequence
or a planned effect is another issue entirely.

>
> They knew - hell, even we knew it back then - if Nato invaded them
> they'd fight, but if the WP attacked all bets were of.

Yeah, it was sort of odd growing-up in an era where the Red Menace was shown
on a political map as this solid block of blood-red from central germany to
the Pacific ocean with the hammer and sickle imposed upon it. With even
Yugoslavia and Poland and Czechoslovakia shown the same menacing shade.
While in reality they were probably a sort of paleish crimson. Not to
mention how Nato 'allies' like France and Italy and Greece were sort of
pinkish, even when they were nominally on our side.

<smirk>

>
> Or to play a game about

Especially as it's now completely hypothetical and some of the countries
that could have been involved NO LONGER EXIST. It's really just a game of
red versus blue so far as the actual possible particpants are concerned.

>
> I just went looking for that book "The Third World War" by Hacket but
> seem to have misplaced it. I have the re-edition too - somewhere.
>

I probably have it too. One of the more interesting books written on US
military training in the late 80s was titled "Dragons at War" - not
Dragoons, but dragons as in fire-breathing reptiles. It described a
National Guard armor units two-week training in the California or Nevada
desert where they 'fought' (using laser sensing equipment) against the
Army's elite OPFOR unit that was equipped with actual or mock-Soviet
equipment and that used then current Soviet tactical doctrine. What was
remarkable to me was that almost without exception the OPFOR - which
admittedly knew the ground and had been doing this for quite a while -
repeatedly kicked the US reservest's asses. It wasn't even close.

--
MJB

Mr. Tin's Miniature Painting Workshop:
http://web.newsguy.com/Mrtinsworkshop/
 >> Stay informed about: Flashpoint 2.0