Is there a reason why the Syrians suck so badly?

[stikkypixie]

Not true - as far as I know, the standard Aimpoint found on many US weapons is a holographic sight, not a scope. Better than Iron, arguable, but still no magic.

But is this the case in the game? Because there is no difference between a US soldier and a Syrian soldier in the game given the same experience level, so it must be the equipment.

[Thomm]

Did anybody play "The Old City Hall" from the Marines module (I hope it was included)?

This one is supposed to be very tough for blue.

Best regards,

Thomm

[Secondbrooks]

Sorry. I'm ignorant dork and post this without reading topic, but it's has been stated that bullet proof vest is big factor, i think it was Moon stating so.

I dont' know how much scopes adds effectivity, but one instructor said that basically scope (aimpoint and scope both) adds effectivity of soldier's fire about twice. I never myself handled aimpoint, but i've read that even to 400 meters with good quality sight it's easy to hit targets. Even better than iron sights (and under some rare occation even better than scope). But i havent' seen confirmation from BFC how this effects to unit's firepower.

[Fat Dave]

For the Al Huqf engagement, to make it any sort of game worth playing, I had to increase the Syrian's experience to 'crack' (coupled with fanatic motivation) and increase the number of units. Anything less and the Blue AI would roll in -and over- everything. Not fun for the Syrian player

I hear a lot of 'play like Red should, and not how Blue would' when attempting to play as the Red player, yet I would like to know exactly what that means.

Holding fire till ranges are closed, ambushing en masse and 'ganging-up' on Blue vehicles are some, but unless the scenario designer has allowed for this to be a possibility i.e given the Syrians the numerical advantage, advantageous positions and the necessary experience to ' do what they are told' - not to mention the assymetrical victory conditions - then it could almost be said that the Syrian player is simply delaying the inevitable result.

Obviously, scenario design is key - and unless people make them - balanced and 'fun' Red vs Blue will be hard to come by.

[missinginreality]

RSSC - when you say "that scenario is porked" - are you referring to Al Huqf? If so, at first [second and third] playing as red yes indeed, I got nailed righteously every time; but, a change in tactics and understandings has secured consistent victory since then.

And little of it was to do with knowing the AI and more to do with tactics and strategy.

The main point I found was that Syrian regs vs US in buildings aint going anywhere; only thing to do was get into places where I could catch them running between buildings; get the BMP well hidden down the side of the map catch them unawares and take out the bradley broadside as it came through. Hide one of the platoons well away from the objective to take the Blues from behind as they moved in and another squad firing across the main route of attack. Sometimes it was a draw but it's never been an out right loss since then. Al Huqf is definitely possible from Red, just takes a lot of patience too; there were times when I was sitting twiddling my thumbs in good positions waiting for Blue to walk into the firing arcs; tempting to move to get a better position but getting caught out in the open would've been the end.

anyway, just wanted to say not to give up on that scenario; it's a great little MOUT op and I find equally enjoyable from both sides.

[RSColonel_131st]

Fat Dave, how complicated is it to change the scenario in the editor?

MissingReality - this is pretty much what I did the last time. Save the BMP for later, get the US attacked in the open, close range. Sounded like a plan to me, until the US Squads just returned fire totally unphased while my Syrian regulars shat their pants and dropped their guns.

I'll have to try the "get them in the butt" idea you suggest, but I'd at least like to see both US and Syrian Troops in that scenario on the same experience level.

[stikkypixie]

I also noticed in that scenario that the Syrians all have -1 morale modifiers. One of the reasons the break so easily I guess. And I'm guessing that because they don't wear body armour, they're more likely to suffer casualties and morale hits.

Try changing the time of the day, so that spotting and firing accuracy becomes more equal.

[Fat Dave]

Not complicated at all

Load the scenario into the editor, delete the current red forces, set the 'new' experience to the level desired, then 're-buy' the Red troops. Done.

In fact, CM:SF's editor is easy to use and great for chopping and changing existing scenarios to suit your tastes.

Good luck

[Mikkey]

Did anybody play "The Old City Hall" from the Marines module (I hope it was included)?

This one is supposed to be very tough for blue.

Best regards,

Thomm

this is single scenario or scenario from Marines campaign? I don't see it in scenario directory.

[Thomm]

this is single scenario or scenario from Marines campaign? I don't see it in scenario directory.

Single scenario (should come with the Marines module and have USMC prefix).

Best regard,

Thomm

[RSColonel_131st]

Thanks Dave, I gotta play around with that scenario then. The basic idea of having a quick game with "equal sides" sounded nice (for an CMBB oldtimer) but with some adjusted force quality it may actually be fun.

[Fat Dave]

Hi Colonel,

The 'equal' sides bit is the only thing which needs to be adjusted - especially in a scenario like Al Huqf. The real challenge for scenario designers is designing a balanced and fun game for a head to head battle - Red vs Blue.

Cheers

[missinginreality]

MissingReality - this is pretty much what I did the last time. Save the BMP for later, get the US attacked in the open, close range. Sounded like a plan to me, until the US Squads just returned fire totally unphased while my Syrian regulars shat their pants and dropped their guns.

I'll have to try the "get them in the butt" idea you suggest, but I'd at least like to see both US and Syrian Troops in that scenario on the same experience level.

Aye indeed mate, that's the stickler in any red plan - their loose grips on their bowels and weapons

[SlapHappy]

I've reworked Al Huqf many different ways from the Blue Perspective - retaining the original Red troop allotment setup in a defensive position (instead of meeting engagement).

I then let the Blue AI attack. Even under AI, an equal number of blue troops with a Brad can sometimes win the scenario. I often don't intervene on the Red troops behalf, so the game is basically "playing itself". The ability to AI troops to "shoot on the move" has given AI attacking troops a bit more bite....especially Blue.

[Battlefront.com]

Note that any two units, of any side, will behave exactly the same (exception coming up!) when all their stats are identical. If a Red and a Blue unit are both Regular Experience, then there is no advantage to either. But it's far more complicated than just looking at Experience.

If you have both at Regular and one is very tired, then the tired one will respond differently. If the unit isn't very fit to begin with then it is more likely to be tired if it is moving. Units with low morale will have less of a chance of sticking to the fight once engaged. So on and so forth.

I just want to make sure that everybody here understands that there is no inherent bias against Red or for Blue. The differences do generally exist, but with a little examination it should be possible to figure out what the reason is.

The Blue does have a lot of inherent advantages in the form of its equipment. The M-16 with laser designator, for example, makes it a superior weapon by far when compared to the standard AK-74 or AK-47. It is inherently a far more accurate weapon due to its barrel length, made more accurate by the gizmos stuck on it, and it can't be fired full auto. Full auto from a light weapon is practically useless in all but very close ranges, but under pressure it tends to be used more than it should be.

As for the question... what is it to play like Red? Well, here are my two cents based on a "typical" Red Force facing a mildly competent Blue player or decent Blue AI Plan...

If Red is caught maneuvering, Red is Dead. It simply doesn't have what it takes to withstand being hammered while on the move. Something will give even if casualties aren't initially a big problem. And once pinned or frightened, slaughter is often soon to follow. Blue has a TON of firepower and is likely to hit what it shoots at, whether it be an Abrams or a rife squad (especially a Marines Rifle Squad... TONS of firepower there).

The same applies to armor. Red armor is vulnerable to just about every combat unit the Blue fields in an average battle. And at pretty damned good ranges with extremely good accuracy.

Avoid getting your infantry into a fight at any range over a couple hundred meters if you can avoid it. Red units are inherently less effective at ranges greater than that for a bunch of reasons. The likely result is the same as a nun challenging a Scottsman to a drinking contest. Sure, you might get lucky and do some damage, but the odds are that all you'll do is broadcast your positions so Blue can systematically wipe them out. Chances of causing any significant harm to Blue is extremely small. This applies to Red vehicles as well, but obviously at different ranges.

Before Blue has encountered your units you should know what each is to do when it comes into contact with Blue. The two general options are to Hit and Run or Stay and Die. Rarely do I find that there is much else available to Red. If you plan on Hitting and Running, then you should have your fallback position planned out and do NOT wait too long to use it. If you do then by default you've just opted for Stay and Die because Blue will punish you for staying put. This is a big problem if you need those units for some other function. But often the case is that Stay and Die is the best course of action (er... not for the virtual soldiers, obviously ) because options for a covered retreat often don't exist.

Ambush is your biggest asset, especially in MOUT combat. It's simply not practical for Blue to kick in the door of every building and carefully assault each floor within. So figure out where Blue might go, leave some good ambush units along the path, and make sure that Blue runs into something that will hold it up in a favorable spot. The Chechens did this to the Russians during the first invasion and the results were staggeringly bad for the Russians.

Hmmmm.... oh, any Red Plan that relies heavily on maneuver and/or last minute plan alterations is almost certainly going to fail. Think of it like going to a casino. Going into a casino with a plan that you're going to beat the house and fly home in style is bad idea. It might work, but then again pigs might fly So plan on losing much of your force and figure out how you can make the losses count towards the Big Plan instead of against it. Relying on your T-62s coming in through an open portion of the map to save your bacon at the last minute is not likely going to help you out any.

Lastly... it might just be good to try exactly the opposite of what you would do if you had Blue units under your command. More often than not the opposite will do better for you.

Steve

[Meach]

I resent the racial slur of Scots being hard drinkers!!!!

Wait...oh.. I DO have four bottles of whisky around my pc monitor. Three Jack D's, one 12 y/o single malt. And the JD's are all empty.

Hmmm, you have a point, Steve

[birdstrike]

Some more thoughts on tactics:

I usually try to avoid direct armor vs. armor fights and try to take out the US tanks with infantry weapons. The RPG is a fine weapon with a decent range, especially in MOUT combat.

And unless an Abrams presents its flanks or tail, I use Syrian tanks mainly to mop up the remaining infantry and deal with Strykers or Bradleys.

Also, the RPGs, besides being my primary AT weapon in MOUT, are very capable weapons against US infantry. Those thermobaric warheads wreak havoc among enemy units, no matter how experienced they are.

[Scipio]

Just my thoughts on this. Something that seems to be forgotten is the unsymetric nature of CMSF (and modern warfare in general). I think not the Syrian casualties are the core problem, but the scenario design is. If you setup a conscript syrian company vs a Marine company - what can we expect? But if you set that the US casualties may not be more than 10-15%... different piece of cake in regards of the scenario winner.

It's like the real world. The US may have the best equipted and trained forces in the world - but they still can't win the war in Afghanistan or Iraq (Russia/Chechnia is another example). I do not say that they are losing the war. But they are also far away from a victory. And I think that's something the scenario designers should keep in mind: the Syrians can not win vs the US in terms of kill ratio and such. All they can achieve is deceleration, encumbrance and frustration.

[RSColonel_131st]

Scipio, correct. The main problem is that this particular scenario (and some others) basically expect the Syrians do reach the same goals as the US side. If Al Huqf would require the US player to not go beyond 15% casualities, then the Syrians could things differently.

Steve, very good examples how to play Red. However, by your own description here, it sounds as if Syrians should never ever attack something. Because in a meeting engagement, you can hardly "ambush" the other side as you have to move yourself up to an objective, you ARE constantly manouvering, and you can't just fall back either.

I think the conclusion is simple that Al Huqf (and some of the QBs) should come with a warning to not play them as Syrians.

[TempV]

The M-16 with laser designator, for example, makes it a superior weapon by far when compared to the standard AK-74 or AK-47. It is inherently a far more accurate weapon due to its barrel length, made more accurate by the gizmos stuck on it, and it can't be fired full auto. Full auto from a light weapon is practically useless in all but very close ranges, but under pressure it tends to be used more than it should be.

I don't think that M16 inherently far more accurate weapon than AK-74. I don't even think that it is has any significant advantage comparing to AK-74 fired in semi-auto. Of course if Syrians in Shock Force fire their rifles in full-auto only, their accuracy will drop beyond 200 m. But I think their regular (not to say elite) troops should more often show fire discipline.

[meade95]

Just my thoughts on this. Something that seems to be forgotten is the unsymetric nature of CMSF (and modern warfare in general). I think not the Syrian casualties are the core problem, but the scenario design is. If you setup a conscript syrian company vs a Marine company - what can we expect? But if you set that the US casualties may not be more than 10-15%... different piece of cake in regards of the scenario winner.

It's like the real world. The US may have the best equipted and trained forces in the world - but they still can't win the war in Afghanistan or Iraq (Russia/Chechnia is another example). I do not say that they are losing the war. But they are also far away from a victory. And I think that's something the scenario designers should keep in mind: the Syrians can not win vs the US in terms of kill ratio and such. All they can achieve is deceleration, encumbrance and frustration.

I agree completely with you in regard to scenario design playing a major factor...in terms of small engagements and what is and isn't a success (for both sides). This is exactly rignt and by designers putting together casualty factors as part of the success or non-success can make missions much more enjoyable and accurate...

With that said, I disagree regarding winning the wars in Iraq and Stan. Militarily without question the U.S. has won (in the daily process of winning) both wars...and militarily wins virtually 90% of all tactical engagements even (more so in Stan).

Also, on the whole freedom and the notions of self-worth are spreading in both Iraq and Stan.... This is a huge difference (a strategic victory) not even remotely thought possible only a decade ago.......... Stan has literally come centuries forward in less than 7 years.....but of course there are going to be problems.... We are talking a country that was again, literally, living in the dark ages just a few short years ago.

Iraq is clearly (even for those opposed to the war) growing more successful by leaps and bounds on a daily basis.......

America's two biggest allies in both of these wars (for the long haul) are the notions of freedom and self-worth. For far too long these values / thoughts were denied the citizens of the ME (and this two nations particularly)..... That is changing and it is a complete and total strategic defeat for those enemies of America...... AQ has understood this reality since 04...and it is why they risked everything in Iraq. AQ understood Iraq WAS the front lines of the WOT.....and it is why they went "all in" (poker term) so to speak in Iraq.....

They went all in...and lost.... The dirty little secret was......it wasn't the U.S. who couldn't fight and effective and aggressive multi-front war.....but AQ and their allies!......and they have lost terribly in Iraq by going all in.....

[Guinnessman]

Also, the RPGs, besides being my primary AT weapon in MOUT, are very capable weapons against US infantry. Those thermobaric warheads wreak havoc among enemy units, no matter how experienced they are.

Amen to that. Flippin' RPG's at close ranges are an absolute nightmare. I've seen entire US squads almost wiped out by a single RPG. And the Syrians have so many of them! They can really tip the balance in MOUT warfare. If I'm playing as the Syrians my main priority is getting RPG's downrange to even the odds as quickly as possible - I started off trying to 'save' them for use against Strykers and the like, but they are too good not to use against infantry.

As someone who normally plays as the US, any time my lads spot an RPG gunner, it makes me extremely cautious and nervous. The side effect of this is usually an unexpected sharp decline in property values around said RPG gunner due to 'ballistic redecoration'....I am VERY wary of those things!

[Scipio]

Meade, I completly disagree to your opinion about Iraq and 'Stan'! But please excuse that I don't point it out in detail, since this is 200% off topic for this forum, and from past experience I know that it is 500% senseless for Europeans to discuss US foreign politics with US citizens . I hope you have understanding.

If you are interested into a different point of view, I recomment 'War made easy'. It's an US documentation, BTW.

[Meach]

We are not any further forward in the Stan since when we started. We don't have the manpower to hold ground. Terry is just waiting for us to pull back and he fills the vacuum.

Iraq we could be making headway with hearts and minds.

[Bigduke6]

Meade95,

Military victory is when your army imposes your political will on the enemy.

I would say that status is pretty far off by almost any definition, in both countries.

The Iraqis seem pretty much dead set against a US presence in the ME. I personally do not see the present country as anything approaching a proper democracy. Kleptocracy with major overtones of warlordism maybe, and maybe that's better than a secular dictatorship like they had before, but in any case I think the US effort to spread values like individual rights and moderation in political dicourse is pretty much a failure in Iraq. As to any success or lack of it against Al Quaeda, last I heard, Al Quaeda wasn't the reason the US invaded Iraq.

As to Afghanistan, I can only repeat what I have been saying in these threads for years: excepting the Mongols and a policy of killing all whom resist and their relatives and neighbors, no country has ever dominated Afghanistan. No country has ever defeated a Pathan insurgency, and among the losers were the British and Soviet empires. The terrain is among the most difficult in the world. Arguably, the Pathans are the greatest natural partisans the world has ever seen. In the present Pathan insurgency the Pathans have safe haven in Pakistan, where more Pathans live, in worse terrain, than in Afghanistan itself. The Pathans can cross the border at will, and the border tribes depend on the their - not any central government's - control of the border.

I do not consider a situation like that a US military success, or anything even vaguely similar to even a hint of a step towards success. It may not be obvious to the Western troops themselves, but it is screamingly obvious to the Western civilian majorities, their leaders, and Afghans of Pathan ethnicity or no that the West is unwilling to commit the resources to break Pathan tribal control of the south of country. Do not forget, negotiations already are in progress between the Taliban/Pathans and the Karzai/US regime. That is not victory, and that is not imposing your will. That is the US marking time militarily while the diplomats try and find a way out of a stalemate.

As to the arguement the US has won all its battles, I'll go along with that as long as we agree to use only the US definition of a battle. But by any other standard, like for instance the ones used by the US taxpayers to pay their bills, I will bet all my paychecks for about the next decade that the Pathans are kicking America's butt financially. Consider the cost of getting say 50 Pathans and their buddies to dig in some roadside bombs, or kill off some Karzai-appointed district officials, or maybe even mortar a US FOB somewhere. Now consider the cost to the US taxpayer for a US infantry company, with air support, supply, bases, communications, artillery, B/X, deployment, training, recruitment, medical, beans and bullets, etc. etc. so the Americans kill or otherwise force out of combat those 50 Pathans.

The US likes to say they are killing the enemy at about 50 or 100 to 1; well, if you count the beans they are probably paying about 1,000 dollars to every dollar the insurgents are spending, and I bet the reality is worse.

It is hideously expensive to maintain 1st world forces in south Afghanistan, and frankly an endless standoff where the Pathans keeps spending a few lives and the Americans keep spending bazillions of dollars is, arguably, a pretty poor strategic move for the Americans. I will of course avoid the arguement, as that is politics.

But the politics aside, one thing is clear, the situation in Afghanistan is nothing like a US victory. After all, if it were a victory the Americans could leave tomorrow, and their political will would be done.