FASCAM - Gamey or not?

[Tbird3]

Wow, I have been playing a D85 multiplayer game and have been continually amazed at the power of FASCAM! I am currently looking at what would be about 15 KM of FASCAM fired to isolate an American Brigade. I know that this has been discussed before but I just have to say this is insane. In my military experience this is impossible. The normal use of FASCAM is to find restrictive terrain that creates chokepoints and utilize your FASCAM to reinforce the barrier nature of the terrain. The amount of ammunition required to support what is shown on my game screen would be nearly impossible. Additionally, the enemy arty would be entirely tied down in trying to fire this impossible mission. It would take a long time for arty battalions to fire the amount of FASCAM to obtain ISOLATION status over 15 KM. My major issue is the isolation status. This is not realistic and rarely obtainable in the real world. Additionally, all it takes is a single mine plow tank or a squad of engineers with grappling hooks to clear a FASCAM minefield when not under fire. This brings up my last point. Obstacles are only truly effective if they meet the holy trinity of observation, direct fire, and indirect fire coverage. Firing a FASCAM 20 KM in the rear of the enemy will have only a fleeting and limited effect. Once the lead vehicle is destroyed the convoy will simply bypass or breach the minefield. It would never isolate or even really slow down a unit that isn't under fire. In daylight you can literally drive around the individual mines especially if they are laying on a road!

Okay, venting complete. This is my recommendation. FASCAM is retained and disrupts units as they cross the minefield but they should in no way have the ability to isolate units. My measly 2 cents. Blast away fellow gamers!

[Volcano Man]

The real issue here is how much FASCAM was given to that scenario. If you are playing a campaign then these levels sound fine but then it would be a blessing in disguise for you, since your opponent pretty much just shot his entire (or most) of his FASCAM. You would now be in a situation knowing that he does not have much more remaining.

I would say that if someone wants to use it like this then it is not gamey, just a questionably tactic. In the real world, it is not that a high volume of FASCAM strikes is impossible, it is just that there is a finite amount of such munitions so they are used sparingly and saved for certain situations. By deploying all or most of it at one time, it would be a strategic mistake (unless you are on the last few turns of your scenario). Also, I just don't see how using 15 FASCAM missions is going to cause that much of a problem, all you need to do is send one unit into one of them to penetrate it and break the isolation status. So I think it is less that it would be "impossible" to do in real life, rather that such an action would actually just be wasteful use of an asset.

If you do not think it is realistic then what sort of different method do you suggest? As is often said, these things have to be kept to the abstract simple form, lest they become some over engineered and unplayable mess of a "game" like... *ahem* some other strategy games out there.

[Zemke]

TBird's point is FASCAM is a surface laid mine field, and if unobserved by the enemy, is relatively simple to clear or go around and would not isolate units when fired in open woods or terrain not restritive in the sense you have to drive on road X or through a narrow gap. Also the amount of ammo required to fire a 1 mile x 1 mile area is HUGE, and a Battalion of artillery would not be able to cover that area in enough density in three hours to isolate anything, and would only be effective in restrictive terrain to slow an advancing enemy that had to move through that area, and is cover by direct fire and indirect fire, making clearing of the mines very dangerous, thus the cumulative effects of all this slow the enemy, and then FASCAM becomes effective. But to be fired into miles of open woods...would never do what is shown in the game, and thus modeled wrong or is gamey.

[Volcano Man]

I am not denying those things, but my question is, instead of just complaining about it: how should/could it be different? I personally am not convinced that there is a problem in this area since the game has been this way for so long, it is usually a minor nuisance when someone tries to isolate a unit like this at the expense of wasting all their FASCAM, and there are simply a lot of things that are abstracted like this but, abstract as they are, they still get the job done.

In my experiences, despite the fact that FASCAM is surface scattered and not buried, not many places have grass/vegetation cut like putting greens so it is still very difficult to spot the mine until the first vehicle hits one (unless of course you are in the open desert), and actually, most modern hand laid mines are not buried at all. I only mention this because it is important to remember that a minefield (in PzC or MC) is never thought to be covering an entire 1 mile^2 area (unless it is 3x density). A minefield in a given area is generally enough to cause confusion, consternation and cautiousness to a unit to the point that it needs to reconnoiter said area to determine the exact dimensions and location of the minefield. Unless you definitively know where the minefield is and where it is not then you are not going to assume these things and drive around freely in the area. This marking of the minefield and bypass is essentially a unit penetrating it. Of course, I admit that this is all justification to fit the circumstances.

Would it take several hours to penetrate, mark, and bypass a surface laid minefield? Probably not, but a battalion of artillery could certainly place FASCAM *by the map* in strategic places which would, in game play terms, paralyze a unit until it breeched it, and all without completely and methodically saturating the area. Of course a major combat multiplier would be lost from using FASCAM in an unobserved manner such as this (since you would not be canalizing the enemy into a predesignated engagement area / kill sack), but it still would not be totally useless to do it either.

I would like to call attention to the effectiveness of FASCAM artillery strikes in Steel Beasts Pro and Pro PE (not that anyone here knows anything about this simulation). In countless military training exercises where FASCAM was deployed in the simulation, and despite it being openly visible on the ground, the AAR recorded that human units are almost always momentarily disrupted even if there is no enemy in the area (unless you have a god view of the battlefield, you are never 100% certain that there is no enemy in a given area). We can sit and evaluate the behavior of a 2D counter on a map when something like this happens, but in reality it is not that simple or, in many cases, logical. This delay and disruption becomes even worse if a tank hits a mine and is destroyed and confusion ensues on whether the vehicle took direct fire, and the requirements of tending to the disabled or dead vehicle(s) crew.

This is yet another abstraction in a turn based game system that is trying not to model the unburdening complexity and unplayability of something like Decisive Action. Something could no doubt be done to improve this particular aspect, and the same could be said of many other aspects of the game system. I was only trying to prod for some kind of simple and practical suggestion that might improve it; anyone can complain about something not being unrealistic. ;)

[Sgt Fury]

I think the fascam would be way better if they were non-persistent, like the chems. That is, the next turn they disappear, and are differentiated from standard minefields laid by engineers. If this were the case, probably a slightly larger alotment could be give to the at start oob's.

What do you think?

Fury

[Zemke]

I want to preface this post with the fact that I am involved in the same Danube 85 Campaign game with TBird and we are on the recieving end of this FASCAM isolation thing going on, so take what I have to say with that in mind.

I think the solution was offered at the front end, that FASCAM should not isolate a unit, but would still have the effects of a mine field otherwise.
In the example TBird cited, we are not talking about one unit, but many.

Never ever have I seen in any military staff exercise, simulation, wargame conducted by the military at Fort Leavenworth, has either side had the time or resources necessary to FASCAM 10 miles of terrain. I have also never read or heard that this was Soviet doctrine, much less NATO doctrine. It takes a lot of coordination and planning to fire one FASCAM, and we are talking about getting the right coordinates to 5-10 different artillery battalions in enough time to fire un-observed fire on trails in the woods. Even if that terrain is wooded and restrictive, to hit every trail to the point of isolation is completely unrealistic given the situation TBird is talking about, IMO.

As Fury suggested, real FASCAM is not persistent but has a time self destruct.

There is no problem if using FASCAM to delay or cover a isolated area like a bridge crossing or road intersection and other "natural" choke point, but when you are talking about miles of terrain, that completely isolates entire brigades, then there is no way I can buy into that. It may be an abstraction, but it is not an accurate one in the situation cited above. I would suggest asking an artillery man, (which I am not) how soon it would take to coordinate a fire mission like this and how long it would take to fire, and how much FASCAM ammo would require if fired by the maximum number of battalions (10), or the fewest artillery battalions (5).

Other than changing the game the only solution I see in future games would be some sort of house rule that limits un-realistic use of FASCAM. What or how that would be, I am not sure.
The link below cites un-class info/data on FASCAM.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/s...fascam.htm

[Glenn Saunders]

Guys - keep in mind a Minefield only blocks supply while it is unpenetrated - so drive one units into the minefield and the isolation will be lifted at the start of the next turn.

In a slightly related topic - now you guys can see why we don't want to allow Air attacks on Bridges. Jeez, what some people will do with the tools at their disposal! It reminds me of the guy who complained about the Axis AI in Normandy 44, only after we saw his file and could see that he had run fast AT units through the lines to sit on the Axis AI reinforcement hexes and we had neglected to make these PROTECTED entry (as this was only game #2 in the series)

Anyway - I'm way off topic now but my point is that people do things we don't expect, with game capabilities we add in an attempt to improve the series.

Glenn

[Tbird3]

Hate the player, not the game! Just kidding folks. Seriously, as I stated in the original post I have no problem with the Disruption aspect of the FASCAM. It is the Isolation [/i][/b] rule that I disagree with in game. FASCAM is a tactical level minefield not an operational minefield. Obstacles of anykind are relatively weak unless combined with observation, direct and indirect fires. FASCAM fired solely by map coordinates will be poorly placed and of minimal value. Unobserved fires tend to be ineffectual. I believe this is just another point stressing the "tactical" aspect of FASCAM.

Tbird3

[Zemke]

Guys - keep in mind a Minefield only blocks supply while it is unpenetrated - so drive one units into the minefield and the isolation will be lifted at the start of the next turn.

In a slightly related topic - now you guys can see why we don't want to allow Air attacks on Bridges. Jeez, what some people will do with the tools at their disposal! It reminds me of the guy who complained about the Axis AI in Normandy 44, only after we saw his file and could see that he had run fast AT units through the lines to sit on the Axis AI reinforcement hexes and we had neglected to make these PROTECTED entry (as this was only game #2 in the series)

Anyway - I'm way off topic now but my point is that people do things we don't expect, with game capabilities we add in an attempt to improve the series.

Glenn

Glen, appreciate your thoughts, but we have the addition problem of enemy attack helicopters sitting on the FASCAM mine fields, and all the "isolated" units are disrupted, so they cannot attack into the helos to get out. It is sort of all like one big exploitation of the game to get results that have no bearing on reality.

Disrupted or not, a ground unit when faced with certain destruction would not hesitate to "breakout" through an attack helicopter unit. Which frankly could not hold ground anyway, (and should not impede movement of ground units, another topic).

And before anyone says that disrupted units would have poor command and control due to disruption, I agree they would, but they have been retreating in the same direction for several turns, and I am sure most subordinate leaders would know the only way to friendly lines would be to attack / infiltrate through the attack helicopter screen. But again I understand the limits of the game, and this is next to impossible to model. The game it is what it is, and in the current situation it just sucks. But I love the game too, kind of like my kids...lol.

[Liebchen]

Unobserved fires tend to be ineffectual.

I may have missed some subtleties in this thread, but it seems to me that any area that is undergoing unobserved FASCAM fire is also unobserved by the supply train, itself. In other words, the supply train that does not see the dispersal of the mine ordnance, is also not in a position to pass through the terrain to deliver the supplies.

Keep in mind that our supply convoys are virtual. In real life they would would have to bop down the road, take occasional (or frequent) detours to avoid contact, hiding from enemy air interdiction, etc. So, the idea that any one-square-mile piece of acreage could automatically provide access for supply is, itself, a complete abstraction.