gunnergoz

One can see the scenario unfolding; the minister being told by representatives of the president, "here's the gun, your family will be looked after, the president expects you to do your duty and make the trail stop right here with you..."

Not enough armor on the US side; yes, there was some there, but it was scattered in penny packets. Also, not enough opportunity for US counterattacks. Now lets talk about an action a bit farther away, but still in the same general campaign...like Celles. That might work.

Nice speed bump remover, but it won't do much for that IED buried in the wall alongside of the road, though.

Devout disclaimer disavowing disrespect, dispensing of devastating diatribe, diligent description of defiant doctrine and damning discourse doubting Dorosh's due.

I just saw this thread, having posted the following in another: IED's and/or mines can be great equalizers as we are seeing right now. I would think that the game would have to account for these in some way to be realistic. One cannot simply exclude them due to (and I think Steve would put it this way) "lack of time in the scenario to account for clearing/breaching actions." I'd want to see them employed and employable by scenario designers. So you guys beat me to it. Great minds think alike, eh? Even if they are blind as a bat.

IED's and/or mines can be great equalizers as we are seeing right now. I would think that the game would have to account for these in some way to be realistic. One cannot simply exclude them due to (and I think Steve would put it this way) "lack of time in the scenario to account for clearing/breaching actions." I'd want to see them employed and employable by scenario designers.

Scott B- Thank you, that's spot on.

Grapeshot- You have to sort of ken out what the real Syrians would do to counter such an incursion and then set up campaigns/scenarios to depict that and the US counter-moves. I doubt that the Syrians would line up nice and dumb in the desert like Saddam did in DWI. And I'm not sure that the US would get away with a "dash to Baghdad" type stroke again, if the Syrians were at all clever about it. I'd expect some surprises from both sides. That should make this game real fun if BFC gets their crystal ball warmed up right.

Yep, it's not what you have, it's how you use it (or how the other guy denies you the use of it and vice versa.) I could see a real thinking man's game (you know what I mean, Kitty )coming out of this. I'm jazzed!

GAO used to put out some very interesting monographs as well. Don't know about recently, however. Anyone read anything lately from GAO that was pertinent to our subject?

Aren't the MGS problems primarily weight oriented (as in getting 20 lbs of s__t into a 10 lb sack?) I know the army swore they wouldn't buy it if it wouldn't fit into a C-130 and now they're having to figure out how to cram it in when it's a tad too heavy. I'll bet that some wiseguy Army Armor bigshot will politely "suggest" that the flyboys upgrade the C-130 with underslung jet pods...MGS should fit then, right?

I have to vouch for that book also, it is a gem. I actually thought it was out of print (Darlington Productions seems to have disappeared off the map) so get it while you can. You won't regret it. The photos from the Russian army national tank museum (Kubinka IIRC?) are especially intriguing.

So what it comes down to is that you have to use what you have smartly, so to speak...with a modicum of sneakiness while you're at it. A particularly scary scenario for the US forces would be one where the Syrians had a combined arms force equipped with a lot of Strela type SAM's (backed up by dumb RPG's used in the anti-helo role) hidden in a fair sized town or city...especially if the civilian population was around to get in the way. The Syrians could negate the US's air advantage for a while and when the US troops closed, the battle would be a lot more equal, assuming the Syrians' C3I and troop discipline/cohesion held up. As an American TF commander facing such a scenario, I'd be thinking long and hard about my options before I set foot in the place...

How about the "house guest" used today in Iraq? Does it count? (...propane bottle + some C-4 explosive = warm adios to the occupants of the dwelling.)

Do you see youself as a tank company commander worried about dug-in enemy infantry armed with modern ATGM's in an open setting? I'd be if I wasn't equipped with UAV's and some artillery armed with ICM's. Then too, I could always go in at night and have my attached infantry (you do have attached infantry platoon(s) right?) go in ahead and sniff out the bad guys before my tanks even break cover. My point is, there are options out there that can re-balance the battlefield fairly well -- the trick is to out-option the opponent.

From BFC's announcement in a separate thread: "Well, at long last it is time to announce the setting for the first two releases of the CMx2 game engine. Obviously there has been a lot of speculation about what they would be, and most of you guessed correctly, though many guessed the order incorrectly. The two releases are, in order: 1. Near future modern warfare 2. WWII western Europe 1944/45" So, I'd say there's a very high likelihood of seeing WW2 and possibly even postwar Russia in there (think Afghanistan or Chechnya for the latter.)

Well, think about the basics: battle is about manouver, firepower and communication/command/control/intel (C3I). You win these modern scenarios by a variety of "smart thinking" techniques, e.g. getting inside the other guy's decision loop, marginalizing his technical advantages and/or closing to the point where his firepower endangers him as much as it does you. Those are just some examples. Modern combat really requires you to put some thought into battlefield analysis and logistics, as well as tactics and weapons system details. And the ability of some opponents to exert asymmetric combat values against you has to be taken into consideration as well. To "get" modern combat one will have to put a lot more thought into the process than simply sallying forth past the start line. Fortunately, modern combat leaders have a lot more resources to choose from when they have to sort out which does what to whom. I'm very curious to see what BFC does to replicate the C3I issues in the upcoming game, since simply thinking "WW2 on steroids at 2500 yds" is not going to cut it.

I'll be a lot more interested in seeing what BFC does to replicate the increasing use of small-unit UAV's on the battlefield. The tanks and infantry carrieres will be present but if this game truly models modern day urban fights, the grunts and the intel they get -- along with their organic support -- will be far more influential to the outcome. Sure, there are times when pulling up an Abrams and knocking down a house is all that's needed; but there will be many more times when you have to be more surgical and less overwhelming. And command, control and communications seem to be the modern keys to winning. Overwhelming firepower is pretty useless unless you know where to bring it to bear. If CMSF models today's urban combat adequately, imagine what a kick it will be to play the follow on WW2 games in a similar urban setting...should be very interesting to compare and contrast the techniques and tactics in each era.

Actually, Boris, I played CM because it was a tactical simulation, not simply because it was a WW2 tactical simulation. My interests are not restricted to WW2 (though that is very interesting indeed.) I doubt I'm alone in that. But you ae correct in that there are folks who are WW2 grogs to some degree of exclusion or another, and for them this change would indeed rock the boat. Fortunately for all of us, BFC has made it amply clear that both varieties of grog (generic and specialized) will have their day with the new system. It's all good.

I'll say this much, Steve...at least you got the "shock" part right. I sure hope one thing, though...that CMSF is found to be a dandy training aid for the folks in uniform and that tons of it are sold to that end. First, I want that because I want our troops to be well-prepared and able to look after themselves as they perform their missions. Secondly, the profits would hopefully enable you guys to fund lots of new and interesting modules in a relatively shorter period of time than you have historically (no pun intended.)

So, I mosey by the CMX2 board to see what snippets there may be to mull over and I find this smoking hole in the ground where innumerable BFC fanboys and WW2 junkies crashed and burned in vicious kamikazi attacks on one another, bitching over the blasphemous news that CMX2 will (gulp) not be what they expected. Can't leave you guys alone for a minute... Seriously, I was very distressed by what I saw here in the now closed "who's disappointed" thread. Sorry I couldn't get into it before it was locked. I saw enough stress psychology reactions in there to write a doctoral thesis on, and still have enough left over to fund a few studies on "civility or its absence in the face of change." There will be, to be sure, some people who will now boycott BFC products out of some sense of betrayal. There will probably be more people, however, who are going to see this upcoming product and after it comes out, will look back and wonder what all the fuss and feathers was about. In the past few years I've gotten to see this outfit and its "camp followers" evolve. I've gotten to know and like a number of you fellows and I'm glad to still be here, speaking for myself. I have great faith in the BFC team and am very much looking forward to what these guys will come up with. No other wargame design outfit out there is coming anywhere close to their devotion to their dreams, goals and ideals, as are the BFC guys. What I find most disappointing is the way that a few disappointed people managed to turn the dialogue into a politicized flame war. I thought we'd outgrown most of that, but apparently some have done a better job of it than others. I can't say as I'd be sorry to see folks who have such narrow and negative midsets, move on. Bon voyage. Anyway, I just wanted to say "attaboy" to those who remain here with a positive outlook, with enthusiasm for a new direction and keeping the faith with the BFC boys.

Barrold wins the "I know how to make you hurl your breakfast accross the keyboard" award of the day.

I expect to see less of my wife, for a while at least...

You can sure tell that there's not much in the way of CMX2 news around to be talked about...this bloody thread has gone on waaay too long. I'm making an executive decision: michael_wittman44, you're new nom de guerre is "sorry 'bout that."

I think this is describing what Governor Arnold would call a "girly men's" Combat Mission. Give me my grog fest and let the newbies earn their spurs figuring out the difference between a 75mm gun on a Sherman and a 75mm gun on a Panther, or better yet, between HVAP and APDS.