Jump to content

Is there a reason why the Syrians suck so badly?


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 115
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I don't get the problem, since in RL Blue tends to crush Red over and over. Western armies have been kicking around Arab armies for a very long time.

If it's a sim, then Blue being better isn't a problem. This isn't a reflection on the individual worth of Syrian soldiers (who are often quite brave, as Israeli and American soldiers will tell you), or the relative worth of their country. It's just reality, and it's caused by a number of factors that entire books have been written about.

I recommend "Arabs at War", by Kenneth Pollack if you want to understand why Arab armies do so poorly, especially compared to Western forces. Basically, there's a leadership deficiency. Imagine Red always being controlled by a badly scripted AI and you get an idea of what they are like in RL. Tactical leaders are discouraged from showing initiative and there is little realistic training. There's lots of anecdotal evidence from soldiers and Marines who served in Vietnam and Iraq (like Bing West) that the Iraqi army was not as proficient as the NVA.

A lot of the problems suffered by the Iraqi army in 2003 are chronicled in "The Iraqi Perspectives Report," by Kevin Woods, with excerpts from the Official US Joint Forces Command Report. Very interesting reading. Mostly, the Iraqi leadership had no clue what was actually happening. Prewar training and expectations crippled their army.

Now for designing a scenario, balance this by giving Red lots of advantages, like numbers and position. I like playing Red, and I do pretty well. It's a game of avoiding fights you can't win. Don't get into long range shootouts, since Blue is better at those. Don't expose your tanks to Blue antitank weapons. Use the unique weapons you do have, like IEDs. Hell, I put IEDs into about every scenario I make. Don't let the Blue player ban them as "cheap," since they are the number one RL threat to Blue forces. If I'm going to play a bunch of jihadists armed with nothing but AKs and holy zeal, I want my IEDs. RL insurgents don't play by Blue's rules, so why should I? Snipers, mad Taxi bombers, and spies all help you keep an eye on Blue and make them pay for invading your homeland.

Seriously though, good scenario design makes a good game. Give Red a shot of winning, even if they have to take horrendous casualties to do so. Punish Blue much more severely for any losses. That reflects reality. Even if Blue wins, Red should have a lot of fun with taxi bombs :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another plug for Pollack's "Arabs at War". It is the only one volume english language general history book dealing with the military history of the ME from the Arab side.

He covers every war in the ME from 1945, including a very good analysis of Iraqi performance against Iran in the 1980-88 war (that chapter alone should convince readers why a war against Iran is not a good idea ;)).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't get the problem, since in RL Blue tends to crush Red over and over. Western armies have been kicking around Arab armies for a very long time.

[sNIP]

Now for designing a scenario, balance this by giving Red lots of advantages, like numbers and position. I like playing Red, and I do pretty well. It's a game of avoiding fights you can't win. Don't get into long range shootouts, since Blue is better at those. Don't expose your tanks to Blue antitank weapons. Use the unique weapons you do have, like IEDs. Hell, I put IEDs into about every scenario I make. Don't let the Blue player ban them as "cheap," since they are the number one RL threat to Blue forces. If I'm going to play a bunch of jihadists armed with nothing but AKs and holy zeal, I want my IEDs. RL insurgents don't play by Blue's rules, so why should I? Snipers, mad Taxi bombers, and spies all help you keep an eye on Blue and make them pay for invading your homeland.

Seriously though, good scenario design makes a good game. Give Red a shot of winning, even if they have to take horrendous casualties to do so. Punish Blue much more severely for any losses. That reflects reality. Even if Blue wins, Red should have a lot of fun with taxi bombs :)

That's the main problem you have right here - at least Al Huqf has Red Troops of lower quality and same numbers as Blue. Basically the choice for CMSF's backdrop means that you can only play well-designed scenarios, anything else (like meeting engagements in CMBB, for example) are just suicidal for the Red player. So I don't get why Battlefront themself included a scenario that is by definition very unbalanced.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, the only thing I can say about the initial batch of scenarios released is that we did the best we could given the fact that the game was still changing significantly every day. There might have been something in the game engine at the time it was made which gave the Syrians more of an edge, but that edge has since been "corrected". It could also be that we made a mistake including that one, or it could be seen as providing a sort of lesson. It's whatever you want to conclude, I supposed :D

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Steve,

Why not simply add the thing to the BFC Bookshelf? Seems highly relevant!

Sgt Joch,

Have you read Dupuy's ELUSIVE VICTORY: The Arab-Israeli Wars 1947-1974? If yes, what did you think of it? Regarding your Iran attack being a bad idea, "Holy unending hordes of fanatical Pasdaran, Batman!"

Regards,

John Kettler

JK, I am not familiar with Dupuy's book and cannot comment but would also appreciate a review from someone who has.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I also just found out that Blue in this Scen gets three full squads, Red gets two and an AT-Team with two guys.

Blue also are engineers who can blast walls, Red can't.

Steve, I would seriously suggest to redo this thing and update it in the next patch. People who are looking for a quick, small MOUT battle can only be frustrated by this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RSColonel_131st, this battle is set up as a meeting engagement between platoons. As I said in this thread:

"The point is that a Syrian rifle platoon is certainly not equivalent to an American rifle platoon, even disregarding the disparity in training and equipment. For scenario designers in particular, don't have one Syrian platoon taking on one USMC platoon without some enormous advantage--the USMC platoon has more than 200% of its strength in numbers alone, let alone actual combat power. Similarly, for an American player, be aware that one of your companies vastly outnumbers one of theirs."

The scenario designer, quite possibly at that stage unaware of the vast differences between American and Syrian platoons, figured that a platoon vs. platoon battle would be fair. There are quite a few of the original scenarios that came with the game that could benefit from my research in that thread. There's another one with a Syrian mech company against a US mech company meeting engagement (called "Three Villages" or something like that). It's completely unbalanced even though both sides have companies, because the US has more vehicles and more soldiers. Then when you factor in that the US also has better vehicles and better soldiers, it's kind of ridiculous.

The way that I tend to approach these battles is to view them as training for the game--play them as Blue, in a nicely unbalanced battle, figure out how the game works in a relatively low-stress environment, before moving on to "Hammertime." :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just gave up a PBEM with this scenario - I have syrian AT guys on a rooftop opposite the street from US troops, but they can't see them. The US however can spot and engage my other squad on the streets below at even larger range. Even after they shoot down my squad, my AT team (who has definite LOS to that roof) can not identify the US guys.

So yeah, obviously the Syrians have no NVGs. Whoever designed that scenario must have been drunk.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...