hoolaman

Which might possibly be why I've been suggesting a fictional setting is the best way to go? Think of it another way. If someone told you one of the following, which would you have the least suspension of disbelief?: 1. The world is gong to end on the 3rd of October at 10:40 AM, Eastern Standard Time. It will come in the form of a meteor the size of a moon that has previously gone undetected by world astronomers. When it hits, all higher forms of life on Earth will cease to exist within 6 months. What will you do with your time? 2. The world is going to effectively end in October. You will have only 6 months to live after. The reason is not important, the only thing that matters is how you react to it. What will you do with your time? 3. In October you get news that you are going to die in 6 months, along with everybody else. What will you do with your time? The same basic scenario and question is asked of you in each of the three scenarios. One has a high level of detail, one a low level of detail, and the third is purely hypothetical. The answer you give should be identical no matter which scenario you are presented with, but you might have a harder time taking one of them more seriously than the other. I know I'd have a hard time taking #1 seriously and (as you yourself pointed out) #2 is really no better. #3 is far "bullet proof" from a logic standpoint. That being said, I'm favoring the presentation style of #2 right now for CM:SF. It is basically as unrealistic as #1, but the less details given the harder it is to find fault with it. And as you say, this is only relevant for the Campaign since all other options are completely and utterly independent of the story no matter what it is. Heck, you can even rename units in CM:SF, so if you want to call a Syrian Rifle Company "Headhunters of Hubba-Hubba" you can. As the game's creator it's no sweat off my nose Steve </font>

I can only assume the pun in the thread title was intended :cool:

Exactly why I don't want to do Syria with an attempt at a realistic backstory. My suspension of disbelief will be shattered if I'm told that the US and its Allies managed to mass 200k soldiers on the border of Syria in 2007 (or anytime for that matter).</font>

I think a fictionalised setting eg. "A country in the middle-east" not only makes a mockery of all the work done by BFC so far, but leaves out the finer details of the real world challenges faced by both sides. While the realism of the simulation might not be any different, the "realism" or suspension-of-disbelief of the campaign could be seriously effected. The real question with Syria is, if a coup deposed the Assad regime, who would come out to fight the US? The story changes the potential combat situation so much that it shoots itself in the foot. I would suggest, if it is going to be a real-world Syria scenario, that the Assad regime remains in power, therefore the today's Syrian TO&E is still relevant. My idea for a backstory is a hardline coup in Russia, possibly strongly backed by islamist money, begins a second cold war with the US, funneling equipment (T-80s) and nuclear and biological know-how to Syria and possibly puppetising Assad. This escalation of world tensions can bring the EU into higher readiness, and force NATO to start a hot war in Syria to eliminate the emboldened Assad

I must say BFC is very slack in updating and maintaining, and in some cases even finishing their dedicated game websites. Where is that full unit list? By their own admission the ToW website is "just a placeholder"

Are there any infantry machine guns?

Don't even try to sell me THAT lemon! </font>

Any references for this info if its going into the game?

The biggest problem with the original FTC rules is that LOS in the game is not graphically depicted. So your units can see things that you should be able to see too, but can't. Unless LOS is calculated properly in high resolution around the terrain items it won't be rewarding to play like this.

No you're not blind, I don't see it either. Nice to have a bit of a bone, but precious little meat on it so far. One thing I will say is congratulations to the Battlefront guys for getting their years of labour to a point where they consider it playable for reals. Thats gotta be a good feeling.

Now that is what I wanted to know. Excellent idea, and feel free to elaborate on how this works for relative spotting, realistic command delays, chain of communication, and the player's ability to control his units directly vs being "out of command".

What about resupply during a battle? I am guessing not, but don't know what the current plan is.

It's because the first beta game is still going! Remeber there will be 5? 10? 20? CMBB PBEMs in sequence per CMC battle, that ought to take three years or so just to finish the beta testing games.

I have repeatedly asked this question, and have yet to see anything you could describe as a forest, or even areas where tanks and vehicles cannot go. The lack of an equivalent to CM's dense brush, forest and "rough" terrains will wrongly limit the tactical abilities of infantry, and wrongly increase the tactical abilities of vehicles. Not to mention BOCAGE and sunken lanes etc. etc. etc. The following is what Moon could come up with in response to this exact question, and to be fair the accompanying explanation for those screenshots.

Um, yeah, right, I knew that. Thanks JK that explains what I am seeing, at first glance it looks like one vehicle but there are two or more, which explains the bristling armaments.

Why wouldn't you just throw a frag grenade in there? That is a kiling weapon in confined spaces too, and you have to keep friendlies out of the way of the blast in both cases. Oh and good news about the trench/gully/ditch capabilities of the graphics engine. If the scenario designer simply makes a square ditch in the shape of a trench, will it really behave like a custom dug trench? I mean will the game engine give the same bonuses in concealment and cover to troops inside that they should get, or will it give unpredictable results due to it being a part of the map. For example, the height grid may be define in millimetres, but is the spotting system going to ensure the guys in a hole can fire their weapons and spot and be spotted in a realistic way. I think foxholes and trenches should get special treatment as designated defensive fortifications rather than just being depressions in the map. [ August 22, 2006, 06:03 PM: Message edited by: Hoolaman ]

I totally agree. Every time I hear "Allahu Akhbar" because someone just got hurt or killed, I just want to commit acts of violence toward those sick bastards. Can't they just say "woohoo" or sumfink. So hearing that in game is not cool, but as you say, maybe realistic. p.s. A quick google search revealed that arabic is indeed the main language of Syria.

What armaments are on that Canadian LAV? I can see a main cannon, a smaller cannon above it, a coax mg and it looks like several mg gun barrels mounted on top of the turret behind the main gun, though I assume there is only one mg there. Must be a weird angle.

Nice pics, I especially like the three tone camo on the first couple. Very reminiscent of the old German patterns, and very effective even while they are sitting in the parking lot.

Does anyone know if Syria makes use of static AT guns. I know you can still buy them with modern smoothbore AT cannons attached, and I always thought the concept was no less valid now than in WW2. Especially as a cheap assymetric type way of knocking out a M1. Even better strap one on the back of a truck and you have a vehicle about as useful and survivable as a T-72

Steve, am I right if I understand that a VBIED will appear out of nowhere as a newly spotted unit that will be graphically shown as a civilian car/truck flying towards you, and known to be a threat. That wouldn't be too bad, especially if there are four or five 3d models that could be used as static parked cars as well. That would give a much better feel of a living (if deserted) urban area. OTOH, I personally wouldn't complain if VBIEDs were left out entirely. They are distasteful for one, but also because they seem to open a can of worms by way of accurate simulation. Also, would Syria use suicide attackers like this? Does Syria have martyrs waiting in line to suicide bomb US forces. Hezbollahs campaign seemed very non-suicidal, and I wonder wether a Syria would act the same. Besides, I believe simulating only static IEDs gives the same net effect as I said above. Wether on a truck or buried in garbage, the bomb has a finite chance of successfully exploding, detection or neutralisation. Just assuming the ROE involve wasting anything moving within 50m should not draw too many complaints from the player.

Yeah, wheres the bocage, or woods, or undergrowth, or springbok?

I recall an interesting comment on the number of Russian T-72 gunners who were missing their [left?] arm. Apparently the T-72 autoloader has a nasty habit of occasionally trying to stuff the gunner in the chamber. </font>

I quite like the "spy" abstraction. In game terms, a "spy" could be either used for spotting or used as a trigger point for an IED. In this way the concept could be abstracted to the point that a civilian spy could be treated like a TRP. It could be simply a point that provides spotting information, and the ability to detonate a mine in its line of sight. It needn't be depicted as a fully animated fat little syrian man to either the syrian player or the US player, to have the same game effect. In a similar way, I don't think vehicle IEDs should be simulated or at least depicted graphically, for a couple of reasons. First, during the conventional phase of the conflict, rules of engagement would very likely preclude civilian vehicles from getting within 100m of blue forces. I believe this was the case during the initial invasion in Iraq. There should be no penalty tactically or points-wise to the player for following these sensible rules of engagement. Second, it would be far more disbelief inducing to have a Toyota appear from nowhere than to have an abstracted "spy" that can detonate an IED. If they are all abstracted into one system, there will be the same net result as a VBIED. Maybe the system could work like this. A "civilian spy" can be an abstracted unit that acts as either 1. A slightly mobile spotter for intel gathering 2. A FO to detonate IEDs 3. A fast mobile suicide unit. In all three examples the graphical depiction could be abstracted, like a TRP or a chess pawn or something. In all three examples there is a chance the unit will be identified and very quickly destroyed. The Syrian player could have hordes of these little pawns and make very good use of them in a realistic manner.

So, a fragmentation grenade is primarily designed to make people giggle? Or a landmine is designed to send a sense of joy up the leg of the person stepping on it? Funny how maiming and killing aren't considered worse than non-lethal alternatives. As Daffy Duck once said, Humans Is The Craziest Peoples Steve </font>