hellfish

My $0.02... It's certainly true that events are occurring faster than anyone can expect them to. It's only Wednesday and I've read at least three news reports originating from Syria already, all of them having some bearing on the background of CMSF. While I like the idea of having a real nation to fight against with a history to look back upon and analyze, there are some benefits to a fictional country. First, you can give them whatever you want. No more debates on BMP-3s or begging for T-80Us or T-90Ms to balance out the American technological superiority. Second, you can fudge your OPFOR organizations. Rudel has done a great job, but there are still a lot of gaps. With a fictionalized country you can tailor your enemy less to reality and more to game play and get away with it. Give OPFOR infantry companies a couple extra organic PKM machineguns or an ATGM section. Maybe the Brazilian EE-11 Urutu APC is their main wheeled AFV, as opposed to the BTR series. Third: You don't have to worry about getting anything wrong - both militarily and historically. Fourth: A lot of games have made up their own OPFOR and done very well. Look at Operation Flashpoint: Resistance (or even their new Armed Assault game). Full Spectrum Warrior (even though I think it's awful), Strike Fighters Project One (with the excellent mercenary campaign) and many others have done so, often successfully. IMHO, it doesn't take away from the credibility or enjoyability of a game if the setting is fictionalized. Hell, in OFP some modders went nuts and created police and military forces for the fictionalized countries - even going to lengths to write regimental histories as backgrounds! The main benefit of a fictionalized country for me, though, is the spark of imagination required for it. Though I've not developed a game on my own with this, I have and still do participate in mods of other games where I'm totally enthralled with creating my own little world or experiencing the other people's worlds. Thats fun for me - that excites me, especially when the others have the attention to detail to make their worlds believeable. Hell, in TOAW I edited every single scenario with my own forces - and I've got detailed Word files with their TO&Es and unit histories simply because I love using my imagination in my gaming. Now that I've said all that, I'm not against using Syria by any stretch of the imagination. I will say this tongue-in-cheek, though - my first vote for CMx2 was for a Korean setting, which will never get caught up in news events like this. They've been the same for 53 years now and nothing's changed! They're dependable enemies. And I still think a PLA expansion pack for a CMx2: Korea would have the best game title ever: Combat Mission: Enter the Dragon [ September 13, 2006, 09:33 AM: Message edited by: fytinghellfish ]

Didn't even know it existed!

I emailed Moon about that - they have no time. Someone did start a CM Wiki but there were very few people interested enough to participate. </font>

Maybe we could build a Battlefront Wiki?

Will you announce the background storyline to the game before the game is released?

I getcha with that Victoria comment - I've had the game for years and I still don't know what I'm doing. I don't think you'll have much of a problem with CMSF. BFC did a good job of helping you figure out why the T-34/43 early and the T-34/43 late were different, I don't imagine they'll have trouble helping you out with the difference between a T-55 and a T-55AM. If all else fails, just look at the point value.

I still can't tell you what the difference between a PzIVG, a PzIVH and a PzIVJ are (and what happened to the PzIVI, anyways?) yet I still play CM. Don't be a one delta ten tango - suck it up and give 'em cash monies!

I still like Multicam better than the ACUcam

I think encountering a T-72 in a narrow street will pretty much make for interesting game play. The Syrian player will just need to learn to use his armor properly. You wouldn't take a Sherman platoon against a Panther platoon in the open, would you?

It's possible, but yeah, it hasn't gone into serial production yet.

IIRC the designation is the M145 scope for the SAW.

Nope. Hence the "X" designator.

What about an operational layer?

You can't fire the PKM from the hip easily, could you? There's no handguards on the barrel. I think the RPK is more of a squad automatic weapon than a light machinegun. The RPK can't swap it's barrel, for example.

They've run tests with two RPGs fired from different distances at the same time and it successfully engaged both.

Not really. The hatch provides some cover and the turret provides a lot of cover too.

They don't have to dismount. There's a hatch on the back of the Bradley that lets the guys in back reload the launcher.

The M1A2 removed the commander's ability to fire while buttoned up. The TUSK with it's remote mount should allow it.

My vote is still for the French. Bring the Legion back to Syria!

Yeah, I was checking out the airbases. Suprisingly detailed. Still can't find the MiG-29s, tho.

Is that realistic? Wouldn't you need a map to plan an out of LOS artillery strike?

I think you overestimate the competence of the USAF (but thats OK, everyone seems to). There were several engagements in OIF when large Iraqi mechanized units got the drop on American forces, but their own incompetence doomed them to failure. Look up the Battle at Objective Peach (I think it was - my reference books are at home). A T-72 battalion ambushed US forces but their gunnery was so atrocious that the US element (A tank/Bradley company IIRC) returned fire and destroyed the Iraqis with no loss to themselves.

Out-frikkin-standing! </font>

Sounds like you just made a quick battle?

The 2S4 is a 240mm mortar - I don't think it has open sights. I think you meant 2S3.