Sgt Joch
-
Posts
4,610 -
Joined
-
Days Won
1
Posts posted by Sgt Joch
-
-
How will the campaign work? Will it be a semi-dynamic campaign similar to the one in Jane's F/A-18 where: i) your success or failure in one scenario determines the situation in the next scenario; and ii) losses and damage are carried forward to the next scenario?Originally posted by Battlefront.com:There is no Campaign Editor for CM:SF at all. Not even for us. We're going with text files, so the plan is to document how they are assembled and allow people to make their own.
Steve
John
-
Syria with Minor Backstory and Fictional Subsection sounds perfect.
It will keep the "realists" like me happy since we have a real war against Syria, plus the flexibility to explore various "what if?" scenarios to extend the lifespan of CMSF.
-
I read the TIME artcle, but it is typical Air Force propaganda to think you can surgically take out Iran's nuclear program from the air. Since WW2, the Air Force has always overestimated what it can achieve.
There was also a good article in the New Yorker on the same subject.
Watching Lebanon: Washington's interests in Israel's war
The U.S. Air Force apparently collaborated with the IAF to shape its attack plan on Hizbollah positions, partly to test the effectiveness of a similar attack against Iranian installations.
As we know, the I.A.F. air campaign against Hezbollah was unsuccessful in taking out their positions, which required ground troops to go in. Apparently, the US Army and Marines are also worried that any air attack on Iran would inevitably lead to the commital of US ground troops.“The big question for our Air Force was how to hit a series of hard targets in Iran successfully,” the former senior intelligence official said. “Who is the closest ally of the U.S. Air Force in its planning? It’s not Congo—it’s Israel. Everybody knows that Iranian engineers have been advising Hezbollah on tunnels and underground gun emplacements. And so the Air Force went to the Israelis with some new tactics and said to them, ‘Let’s concentrate on the bombing and share what we have on Iran and what you have on Lebanon.’ ” The discussions reached the Joint Chiefs of Staff and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, he said.“The Israelis told us it would be a cheap war with many benefits,” a U.S. government consultant with close ties to Israel said. “Why oppose it? We’ll be able to hunt down and bomb missiles, tunnels, and bunkers from the air. It would be a demo for Iran.”
"The Israeli plan, according to the former senior intelligence official, was “the mirror image of what the United States has been planning for Iran.” (The initial U.S. Air Force proposals for an air attack to destroy Iran’s nuclear capacity, which included the option of intense bombing of civilian infrastructure targets inside Iran, have been resisted by the top leadership of the Army, the Navy, and the Marine Corps, according to current and former officials. They argue that the Air Force plan will not work and will inevitably lead, as in the Israeli war with Hezbollah, to the insertion of troops on the ground.)" -
Personally, I have little interest in a fictional setting, such as a US invasion of "Dumbassistan" or "Bitemestan".
I also don't think having a believable back story is a prerequisite to a successful game. Falcon 4, Jane's F/A-18 and LOMAC, to name a few, all feature real world settings and minimal or no back story to explain their "virtual" war.
We all agree that the chances of a real war between the US and Syria in the next five years, barring some unforeseen event, are slim to none, but so what? That would not detract from my enjoyment of an hypothetical invasion of Syria .
I can, however, see the advantages to going generic, if we could get more goodies to play with on the Red side in future modules and if it would increase sales of CMSF.
Have you thought about the following compromise:
1.make the game itself (i.e. interface, scenarios, quick battles) generic with US vs Red forces; but
2.make the single-player campaign in the first module a US/NATO invasion of Syria in the near future, with no back story and using Red forces, but with a Syrian TO&E and locations.
I think that would keep both the "real" and the "fictional" sides happy.
-
I'm sure Syria is feeling pretty smug these days:
1.The UN investigation into prime minister Hariri's assassination was already losing steam before the war and now appears to be pretty much on the back burner.
2. The Syrian backed Hezbollah scored a "victory" against Israel, which again improves Syria's prestige in the Arab street; and
3. more importantly, the situation in Lebanon gives Syria an opportunity to sneak back in. This is the reaction of one of Lebanon's leading politicians to Assad's speech this week, it looks like they are worried about that possibility:
Al-Hariri: Syria worse than IsraelThursday 17 August 2006, 14:48 Makka Time, 11:48 GMT
Saad al-Hariri: Lebanese reject Syria's attempt to sow discord
"The leader of Lebanon's largest parliamentary bloc has said the Syrian president's attack on Lebanese politicians is worse than the destruction wreaked by Israel.
Saad al-Hariri, the head of the al-Mustaqbal or Future, bloc and son of the slain former prime minister, Rafiq al-Hariri, said on Thursday that Bashar al-Assad had disdained Arab kindness towards Syria and his speech on Tuesday was like a "heavy strike" against Lebanon.
Al-Hariri was responding to a speech on Tuesday by al-Assad in which he accused Lebanon's anti-Syrian groups of allying themselves with Israel, which bombarded Lebanon for 34 days.
Al-Assad had also accused the anti-Syrian bloc of wanting to sow discord in Lebanon by demanding that Hezbollah, the Syrian-backed Shia resistance group, disarm.
"Lebanon's wound [inflicted by Israel] is deep and painful, but today it has faced a deeper one from a friend [syria]," he said.
Taking advantage
While the Syrian people showed the Lebanese love and support, the Syrian government presented hatred and lies to the Beirut government, he said.
"Lebanon's wound [inflicted by Israel] is deep and painful, but today it has faced a deeper one from a friend [syria]"
Saad al-Hariri, head of the Future bloc in Lebanon
"The Syrian people are like a support for Lebanon, but the Damascus regime is taking advantage of the Arab children's blood in Qana, Gaza and Baghdad to cause strife in Lebanon, Palestine and Iraq.
"There is a neighbouring country that is threatening to shake the stability in Lebanon but we reject that.
"The victory is in Lebanese unity."
He said that those who forged that unity on March 14 would continue to protect it.
Hundreds of thousands of people rallied in central Beirut on March 14 last year against Syrian domination of Lebanese politics after the assassination of al-Hariri's father. It led to Syrian troops withdrawing from Lebanon after 29 years.
Unity versus aggression
Al-Hariri also attacked Israel in his speech to hundreds of supporters in Beirut.
"The history of Israel is full of massacres, but our history is marked by its steadiness," he said.
He applauded the resistance and the Lebanese people, saying that they were "much stronger than the Israeli aggression".
"The Israeli aggression may be able to destroy Lebanon [physically] but it cannot touch the Lebanese unity, which is what will help to rebuild the country."
[ August 17, 2006, 03:13 PM: Message edited by: JCH ]
-
This can be a tough board on new members, welcome aboard... and yes, each individual is supposed to be represented.Originally posted by Edgarhaha:I was wondering if CM:SF will display each member of a team or squad? Is the engine changing so dramatically that 3 soldiers will no longer have to represent 12? Just curious.
-
Regarding the 1973 push to Damascus, the objective was to seize the high ground just outside the suburbs to threathen the city with artillery fire. It was hoped that this would force Syria to accept a cease-fire.
However, the operation was stopped short by stronger than expected syrian resistance and the arrival of fresh Iraqi forces.
-
Have you guys seen this?
As we’re preparing to launch Hussar Game’s For Liberty – fittingly the release day is Idependence Day July 4 -some people are wondering if this is affecting our other releases, specifically Combat Mission Shock Force and Combat Mission Campaigns. It’s been said before, but I wanted to repeat it again – all of these games are developed by independent teams, and as the guys at Hussar Games are scrambling to finish the final QA for the release in a few days, Bruce Poon’s team behind CMC and our own guys (mainly Charles, Steve and Dan) behind CMSF are entirely focussed on these games and are doing nothing else.Steve is preparing to post a little update about CMSF shortly – watch this Blogfront space – and I’m trying to get Bruce to open a blog entirely dedicated to CMC at the moment so you’ll have much more day-to-day insights in the future.
This weekend I’ll be mixing free time with work and spend some time with For Liberty to test the current release candidate. For Liberty is a really classic wargame down to the bone and with a very elegant design, the kind of which seems to have been forgotten by many wargame designers who seem to prefer to stuff the game full with minuscle details and call it “depth” or “realism”. The mix of strategic decisions and tactical battles (I’m more of a tactical person, I admit) has a really unique touch to it. So this is one of those instances where testing can also be fun
And that’s not necessarily a common occurrence, believe it or not!Other than final QA, the game is complete. The game manual and other artwork (DVD box liner, CD face art) is already with the printer, and we expect to announce a formal gold master next week. As soon as that is done, Bulcsú and his team will begin work on the demo (which will be the US tutorial mission), so if all goes well, the demo will be available on or shortly after July 4 as well.
-
The article was well written and informative and no one is denying that the British Army has it's good point, but the article has a certain "we should show the colonials how it's done" quality about it which rubs us "former colonials" the wrong way.
Americans and canadians also, are a bit touchy when it comes to our former colonial masters.
In my case, it's even more inbred, my father is of irish descent and my mother is of french descent, so it's in my genes to mistrust the British.
-
very intersting...
The economist seems to think the British Army can walk on water...
-
I just finished Michael Oren's book "the Six Day War" and there are some interesting observations on the Syrian army of 1967 which could apply to CMSF.
The Israeli army captured the Golan heights in two days, on june 9th and 10th. However, the IDF faced some of the toughest fighting of the war and took alot of casualties. One IDF tank unit started june 9th with 15-16 tanks, by the end of the day, it had two left.
The Syrian army's performance was a mixed bag, some units fought bravely, some turned tail and returned to Damascus. There was wholesale desertion, especially by officers.
One story which summarizes it best is one about a brave Syrian private who alone with an AT gun knocked out two Israeli tanks. When his platoon sergeant called company HQ to report, he discovered that the company commander and all his staff had deserted.
-
In theory the modern ATGM's in the Syrian inventory (AT-14, MILAN) should be able to knock out a M1A2 at any range. The AT-14 can penetrate up to 1.2 meters of armor and the MILAN up 5-600 cm.
This site:
has some interesting info. If you look at the armor protection tables, it looks as though a AT-14 or MILAN shot at the front of a M1 might not penetrate the armor, although it would probably knockout the tank for the rest of the battle.
-
very cynical, I like it!Originally posted by MikeyD:Maybe a non-Assad 'legitimate government' backstory might work.
Free internationally-observed elections are held, Assad loses by a narrow margin. But he retains his grip on power by sending Bathist thugs into a key polling station to beat the vote counters and stop the vote, as the world looks on in horror. The decision is then thrown to the Syrian supreme court, which is coincidentally packed with Assad loyalists. The world's democracies rise up in indignation...
...nah, on second thought that scenario's just too absurd to work.
-
very cynical, I like it!Originally posted by MikeyD:Maybe a non-Assad 'legitimate government' backstory might work.
Free internationally-observed elections are held, Assad loses by a narrow margin. But he retains his grip on power by sending Bathist thugs into a key polling station to beat the vote counters and stop the vote, as the world looks on in horror. The decision is then thrown to the Syrian supreme court, which is coincidentally packed with Assad loyalists. The world's democracies rise up in indignation...
...nah, on second thought that scenario's just too absurd to work.
-
very cynical, I like it!Originally posted by MikeyD:Maybe a non-Assad 'legitimate government' backstory might work.
Free internationally-observed elections are held, Assad loses by a narrow margin. But he retains his grip on power by sending Bathist thugs into a key polling station to beat the vote counters and stop the vote, as the world looks on in horror. The decision is then thrown to the Syrian supreme court, which is coincidentally packed with Assad loyalists. The world's democracies rise up in indignation...
...nah, on second thought that scenario's just too absurd to work.
-
I agree with Peter on this one. In terms of the CMSF backstory, I can't see the UN intervening to put the Assad government back in power.
To me, a more logical backstory would be tied in to Lebanon. Syria wants to keep Lebanon as a protectorate. The US and France have been pressuring Syria to leave. The Syrian army left in april 2005, but Syria is trying to maintain control, as we can see from the Hariri assassination and that of Tueni on Monday.
For example, what about this sory:
1.In 2006, an anti-Syrian government is elected in Lebanon which starts to take concrete measures to remove Syrian influence from the lebanese government and economy;
2.The Assad government, in a bid to retain power, organises a coup by pro-syrian forces in Lebanon which topples the newly elected Lebanese government;
3.The new pro-Syrian government asks Syria for help to maintain order. Syria sends in a couple of divisions as "peacekeepers";
4. The UN security council, which sees through the Syrian game, demands that Syria leave Lebanon.
5. Assad who knows that another pullout from Lebanon could lead to an internal coup against him, stalls for time and tries to bluff his way out;
6. US and coalition forces launch a limited attack against Syria to liberate Lebanon and blunt Syrian military capability.
This scenario is a mix of Afghanistan, 1979, and Kuwait, 1990.
-
I agree with Peter on this one. In terms of the CMSF backstory, I can't see the UN intervening to put the Assad government back in power.
To me, a more logical backstory would be tied in to Lebanon. Syria wants to keep Lebanon as a protectorate. The US and France have been pressuring Syria to leave. The Syrian army left in april 2005, but Syria is trying to maintain control, as we can see from the Hariri assassination and that of Tueni on Monday.
For example, what about this sory:
1.In 2006, an anti-Syrian government is elected in Lebanon which starts to take concrete measures to remove Syrian influence from the lebanese government and economy;
2.The Assad government, in a bid to retain power, organises a coup by pro-syrian forces in Lebanon which topples the newly elected Lebanese government;
3.The new pro-Syrian government asks Syria for help to maintain order. Syria sends in a couple of divisions as "peacekeepers";
4. The UN security council, which sees through the Syrian game, demands that Syria leave Lebanon.
5. Assad who knows that another pullout from Lebanon could lead to an internal coup against him, stalls for time and tries to bluff his way out;
6. US and coalition forces launch a limited attack against Syria to liberate Lebanon and blunt Syrian military capability.
This scenario is a mix of Afghanistan, 1979, and Kuwait, 1990.
-
I agree with Peter on this one. In terms of the CMSF backstory, I can't see the UN intervening to put the Assad government back in power.
To me, a more logical backstory would be tied in to Lebanon. Syria wants to keep Lebanon as a protectorate. The US and France have been pressuring Syria to leave. The Syrian army left in april 2005, but Syria is trying to maintain control, as we can see from the Hariri assassination and that of Tueni on Monday.
For example, what about this sory:
1.In 2006, an anti-Syrian government is elected in Lebanon which starts to take concrete measures to remove Syrian influence from the lebanese government and economy;
2.The Assad government, in a bid to retain power, organises a coup by pro-syrian forces in Lebanon which topples the newly elected Lebanese government;
3.The new pro-Syrian government asks Syria for help to maintain order. Syria sends in a couple of divisions as "peacekeepers";
4. The UN security council, which sees through the Syrian game, demands that Syria leave Lebanon.
5. Assad who knows that another pullout from Lebanon could lead to an internal coup against him, stalls for time and tries to bluff his way out;
6. US and coalition forces launch a limited attack against Syria to liberate Lebanon and blunt Syrian military capability.
This scenario is a mix of Afghanistan, 1979, and Kuwait, 1990.
-
What I can't figure out is how he sees what's on the screen. :confused:Originally posted by Madmatt:OK, okay, OH-KAY!!! Here, an uber-exclussive sneak peak of Charles at work.. Now quit bugging us so we can get back to work! Madmatt
-
Yes, but weren't the Arabs on his side? That's supposed to help, I think. </font>Originally posted by Bigduke6:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by JC_Hare:
It can't be that hard, old man, that chap Lawrence did it with less than a thousand men in 1918.
-
Yes, but weren't the Arabs on his side? That's supposed to help, I think. </font>Originally posted by Bigduke6:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by JC_Hare:
It can't be that hard, old man, that chap Lawrence did it with less than a thousand men in 1918.
-
Yes, but weren't the Arabs on his side? That's supposed to help, I think. </font>Originally posted by Bigduke6:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by JC_Hare:
It can't be that hard, old man, that chap Lawrence did it with less than a thousand men in 1918.
-
It can't be that hard, old man, that chap Lawrence did it with less than a thousand men in 1918.
-
It can't be that hard, old man, that chap Lawrence did it with less than a thousand men in 1918.
And that’s not necessarily a common occurrence, believe it or not!
New concept for CM:SF setting
in Combat Mission Shock Force 1
Posted
I presume this is the thread. The ability for players to create their own semi-dynamic campaigns for CMSF opens up a lot of interesting possibilities.
I assume we will also be able to create campaigns for the Red side, as well as Red v. Red and Blue v. Blue campaigns.
John