Flashpoint 2.0

<eddysterckx.TakeThisOut@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:b494094f-4a44-4c3a-bc91-cbfca13b2c45@h11g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On 25 jan, 23:12, "MJB" <mrt....TakeThisOut@OLDsguy.com> wrote:
>
> 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.

That's true. Unfortunately the US had just had one of it's worth economic
recessions since the Great one when Reagan was elected. So the
administrations demands for MORE money and then even MORE military budget
began to have a real politcal and economic toll on the nation. It was so
bad in 1989 that I took my newly minted college degree and departed for the
west coast where I had neither relatives or friends - just like so many of
my fellow citizens of Montana who simply couldn't find work where they were
born So the econmic policey of the Reagan administarion wasn't without
it's degree of economic suffering on the homefront either.

>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.

Your describing the "red storm rising" scenario popularized by Clancy's
novel. I think the near-final scene in the book when the Nato generals and
the soviet commander are negotiating the armistice is interesting. The US
general asks why the soviets invaded - he gets the answer that the USSR
faced economic ruin without more oil and that it essentally was
now-or-never. And that they had to attack before the west found out just
how weak the USSR was because how could the Soviets know what the west would
do?

The US General answered (IIRC) that if the Soviets would have asked, the
west would have sold them all the oil the USSR required.

>
> 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.

Probably true. Especially the view of the US from outside the USA.

Thanks for the insight.

--
MJB

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

>> 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.

Exactly: AGEOD BoA and ACW as separate games aren't exactly "milking".

> Just having the same missions playable with the BAOR or the Bundeswher
> versus Czechs or Poles or East Germans would have been interesting too.

The BAOR and the Bundeswher were in FP:G, but the opponent was SU only. I to
am curios to see what OOBs the two games will include.
 >> Stay informed about: Flashpoint 2.0 

"Vincenzo Beretta" <reckall.DeleteThis@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:C3nmj.88$Xg7.68@tornado.fastwebnet.it...
>>> 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.
>
> Exactly: AGEOD BoA and ACW as separate games aren't exactly "milking".
>
>> Just having the same missions playable with the BAOR or the Bundeswher
>> versus Czechs or Poles or East Germans would have been interesting too.
>
> The BAOR and the Bundeswher were in FP:G, but the opponent was SU only. I
> to am curios to see what OOBs the two games will include.

Exactly. Which is why I made the Czechs or Poles or East Germans the
specified opponent. I'm speaking only from my memory of how the armies were
expected to line-up across from each other on the east-west frontier and
what I recall the Warpac plans 'might' have been - admittedly as 'filtered'
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

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

On Jan 25, 9:49 am, "eddyster...@hotmail.com"
<eddyster....DeleteThis@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On 25 jan, 15:40, "Vincenzo Beretta" <reck....DeleteThis@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

To clarify some of the initial talk in this thread, we are doing
basically two games under the same core engine (much improved FPG
engine). David Heath approached us at Origins about revisting FPG in
the new engine. This was an added challenge because it would mean
different map art, more data in the databse, more supporting graphics,
more scenarios, etc, etc. We agreed. The Flashpoint plan has always
been to expand the series into new regions and new time periods. We
are starting after WW2 and jumping off in the Middle East and Europe.
Both games from a stand point of equipment, terrain and tactics are
different from each other which I feel is worth the separate
packaging. Ultimately it will be David and Erik deciding on how the
packaging goes. You may be able to get both together or just the one
you want. From a design end Rob and I are working to correct a nnumber
of shortfalls from FPG. The biggest of which was 3rd party support.
You could not make maps. You really couldn't edit the data. Making a
scenario was an uphill battle. The new engine and its suite of editors
will allow players to make new maps (with user edited terrain
graphics), edit the database (basic edit a new copy of the database
that you can then post for folks to use while we will still maintain a
"locked" offical version for everyone to play-PBEM, LAN etc), edit
unit graphics and sounds (with an outside program), make scenarios and
campaigns. Basically, if you don't like it or agree with it or believe
it, you can change it. The game has a very "TANKs" feel in that sense.
Both a fun game and a construction set. We expect a very active 3rd
party following this time around.

What forces do we have. "Red Storm" stay true its FPG roots with West
Germany, Britain, US and Russian forces from post war to 89. ME will
have Israel, Jordan, Syria, and Egypt out of the gate also post war to
89. We are planning to expand those forces into the near future and
also add other countries as we get this new system rolling. A ton of
work has gone into collecting the data and images for the units and
weapons for the forces above. The combined database holds about 1900
units (air and ground, tanks, arty, infantry platoons and teams) and
about 400+ weapon systems. Based on the data I have and some curves
and other formulas the basic capability of weapons and armour will be
adjusted and improved over time in code (saved with the scenario).
This will save time from attempting to cover every sub-sub variant and
design change made to every platform in the game while keeping the
effects as accurate as possible. Again if something strikes you as
odd, change it and post it.

More information should start to trickle out in the new few weeks as
we get the data integrated into the code and really start to test the
new engine and AI and squash small bugs and tweak things to get it all
right. Keep an eye peeled to the Matrix Forums for more news.

I'm off to work some more data items.

Cap'n D
 >> Stay informed about: Flashpoint 2.0 

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.


In the late 80s the Leopard 2 was replacing the Leopard 1 in the
Bundeswehr. The old M48s were in some depots for the
Heimatschutzbrigaden, a kind of militia.
I served in the German Federal Border Guards from 1977 on. We were
stationed at the East German border about 50km south of the Fulda Gap.
We were often patroling the border together with GIs from the 11.ACR of
the US Army until the end of the 1980s. In our region were elements of
the 3.US Inf Div and the 12. Panzerdivision. The last M48 which I saw in
action, was in the 1960s, when I was in school. I grew up in a town
called Hammelburg, where a big Bundeswehr trainingcamp is located. For
the Bundeswehr, it was forbidden to patrol the border, but the East
Germans had their Grenztruppen there. We often saw German Mi24s
patroling, but I never saw the Russians.
After the wall went down, we were temporilary on duty in East Germany,
where I saw the Russian troops. I think, these troops would not have won
the war.

Michael
 >> Stay informed about: Flashpoint 2.0 

"M. Ziegler" <ziegler99.TakeThisOut@gmx.de> wrote in message
news:fndj49$8pu$02$1@news.t-online.com...
>
>
> In the late 80s the Leopard 2 was replacing the Leopard 1 in the
> Bundeswehr. The old M48s were in some depots for the , a kind of militia.

In the American publications of the day, 'milita' and 'national guard' and
'landstrum' seemed to be used inter-changeably, almost like a writer using a
thesarus to try and not over-use an action verb by subsituting similiarly
meaning words. So what you would call the Heimatschutzbrigaden would be
described at the 'German National Guard'. Which to American ears is a
second-line formation of reservists fully prepared to be nationalized and
gone into immediate active-duty. So our NG is assumed to be a slightly
lesser regular army formation, but not exactly milita.

> I served in the German Federal Border Guards from 1977 on. We were
> stationed at the East German border about 50km south of the Fulda Gap.
> We were often patroling the border together with GIs from the 11.ACR of
> the US Army until the end of the 1980s. In our region were elements of the
> 3.US Inf Div and the 12. Panzerdivision. The last M48 which I saw in
> action, was in the 1960s, when I was in school.

I think I said I was 'shocked' (ie, appalled) to see M48s still listed on
the ToEs. It is entirely possible that they were strictly depot-bound. It
is also possible they were at that time being used as live-fire targets for
all the documents claimed.

<weak grin>

> I grew up in a town called Hammelburg, where a big Bundeswehr trainingcamp
> is located. For the Bundeswehr, it was forbidden to patrol the border, but
> the East Germans had their Grenztruppen there. We often saw German Mi24s
> patroling, but I never saw the Russians.

What was the reason for not patroling the border? Avoid risk of provication
between rival soldiers of the then-divided Germany?

> After the wall went down, we were temporilary on duty in East Germany,
> where I saw the Russian troops. I think, these troops would not have won
> the war.
>
> Michael

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

It makes for interesting reading to compare what the Defense and State
departments were publishing in their yearly red-covered compendiums of the
Soviet threat versus what was the actually facts as now understood today.
Especially after the fall of the USSR and the opening of the various
official archives.

--
MJB

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

MJB schrieb:
> "M. Ziegler" <ziegler99 RemoveThis @gmx.de> wrote in message

>
>> I grew up in a town called Hammelburg, where a big Bundeswehr trainingcamp
>> is located. For the Bundeswehr, it was forbidden to patrol the border, but
>> the East Germans had their Grenztruppen there. We often saw German Mi24s
>> patroling, but I never saw the Russians.
>
> What was the reason for not patroling the border? Avoid risk of provication
> between rival soldiers of the then-divided Germany?
>

Here is a link, which describes my unit at that time:

http://www.eaglehorse.org/2_border_mission/surveillance_mission/survei...nce_08.


Michael
 >> Stay informed about: Flashpoint 2.0 

"M. Ziegler" <ziegler99 RemoveThis @gmx.de> wrote in message
news:fndoeb$j21$02$1@news.t-online.com...
> MJB schrieb:
>> "M. Ziegler" <ziegler99 RemoveThis @gmx.de> wrote in message
>
>
> Here is a link, which describes my unit at that time:
>
> http://www.eaglehorse.org/2_border_mission/surveillance_mission/survei...nce_08.
>
>
> Michael

Ah, you were in-effect a policeman. Now I understand. Thank you for the
link. It was very interesting reading. I also apprecaite that is was in
English - the automatic translator services for web pages can be so spotty
and quite often wrong. I cannot speak or write French at all, but I do
read it surprisingly well. And there are numerous times when I read the
english translation of a french page and go 'whoa - that's not what I think
it said..."


--
MJB

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

"MJB" <mrtinj RemoveThis @OLDsguy.com> wrote in message
news:fncvb80oro@news3.newsguy.com...

> 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 think you'll find that the Brits were in the north and the Yanks in the
south basically because that's how they invaded Germany in 1945. When they
became capable, the Belgies and the Dutch were slotted in where it made most
sense to put them.

Andy
 >> Stay informed about: Flashpoint 2.0 

"Andy Brown" <andybrn RemoveThis @es.co.nz> wrote in message
news:fndjpt$42l$1@lust.ihug.co.nz...
>
>>
> I think you'll find that the Brits were in the north and the Yanks in the
> south basically because that's how they invaded Germany in 1945. When
> they became capable, the Belgies and the Dutch were slotted in where it
> made most sense to put them.
>
> Andy

Or where the MASSIVE depots for the respective countries were built. For
the Brits their Massive depots were in Sussex or Wessex - for the Americans
not in Bavaria the supply line was noticeably longer. A Chieftan tank in
Britian had a much easier time crossing the English channel to a low
country port than an M1 on a transport ship meant to unload at LaHavre (or
anywhere else along the French coast that was handy). At least that how I
remember the war plan was supposed to go.

--
MJB

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