Peter Cairns

I think the game itself will give you set equipment and for QB's or your own scenarios there will need to be a different system. I would go for three types. Performance. Values based on how good it was , ie gun accuracy armour, squad weapons, training, nationality etc, your basic CM system. Availability. Based on how common they are, so that an Rpg-7 would be a lot cheaper than an AT-4, a BMP-1 a lot cheaper than a BMP-3. This is the same essentially as the CMBB system. Price. How much the things actually cost, although you could probably equip a company with RPG-7's for the price of a Javelin team with that one. God help you trying to fight the Chinese. Peter.

As I say this might be deemed too political and if it is then by all means lock it. Do people feel that if, and terrible as it is I think we have to say when, US deaths in Iraq exceed deaths from the 9/11, attacks, it will be a psychological turning point in support for the war. I tend to think the media wil make an issue of it. Peter.

Steve, I am with you onn this one, I know a number of guys who served in Northern Ireland, including a tank commander who had to re role his men as infantry and he felt they bwere just too totally different tasks. For me the UK is better at switching roles than the US, but that doesn't mean the US can't do it or isn't doing it well, it's just that the Uk by necessity has had 25years practice. Necessity is the mother of invention so we've had to learn the hard way. Compare Uk practice in the nineties with the "Bloody Sunday" period and there is no comparison. Inn the same way the US performed better and the UK learned a lot from them in GW1 because the US had been training for it in Egypt for at leats a decade ( not invading Iraq, but fast desert warfare in general), and the UK hadn't. In addition the nature of the open lower level activity in the Shia south to the Sunni triangle means that in effect thge UK and US are fighting two different wars in the same country. Peter.

Sergi, Hell your right, i had'nt looked back at the first picture in ages, It's no where near as close as I thought in fact it's not even close at all. Must have fallen on my head and not noticed, i do that from time to time. Still i stand by what i said on gameplay being the key. Peter

Steve, Aren't you making the same judgements about Syria as Bush made about Iraq. Sure it wasn't much of a fight, but the Iraqi's put up more of a fight that many expected and there army wasn't exactly motivated or state of the art. Oh and over a decade the best part of 1 million Iranians gave there lives when they were invaded, and if that wasn't a stand up fight I'd like to know what is. Peter.

Steve, Aren't you making the same judgements about Syria as Bush made about Iraq. Sure it wasn't much of a fight, but the Iraqi's put up more of a fight that many expected and there army wasn't exactly motivated or state of the art. Oh and over a decade the best part of 1 million Iranians gave there lives when they were invaded, and if that wasn't a stand up fight I'd like to know what is. Peter.

Steve, Aren't you making the same judgements about Syria as Bush made about Iraq. Sure it wasn't much of a fight, but the Iraqi's put up more of a fight that many expected and there army wasn't exactly motivated or state of the art. Oh and over a decade the best part of 1 million Iranians gave there lives when they were invaded, and if that wasn't a stand up fight I'd like to know what is. Peter.

Sergei, Yes but I've looked at all three interfaces and CM and WW@RTS look very similiar to me. Peter.

For me the advantage of the likes of the BM-21 is it's ability to deliver a high volume in a very short space of time. I agree that conventional artillery should be dispersed and used it the direct fire AT role, but shot and scoop with BM-21's firing a 40 round salvo in the general direction of the US using mines to delay or debilitate their manouvering and then getting elsewhere before the counter battery arrives seems to be about the only way they could have any impact. I am not saying it would chage the outcome, or even be that effective, but it just might be more effective than using them in traditional lines to deliver HE. Oren, I doubt if US troops would stop to see all the pretty lights...... Peter.

None of Steves comments rule out a future game in which the Israeli's might feature, current or historical, it just won't be CMSF. Peter

Much as all of the above is usefull I always put a question mark over any report on the effectiveness of a system put out by the people trying to sell it. Peter.

Sorry Steve but you are just so far from reality it's not true. Nato works by consensus not majority and always has. It is not and never will be the case that a decenting member is expelled if it opposes the majority view, although most go along with it, it works completely the other way. If a nation like Turkey, a key and major regional player in the conflict, says you can invade but you can't use or bases, then thats what you have to do, end of story. If Turkey says no what do you do. With the exception of the Greeks and the Republicans in the US, no one else in Europe is going to back expulsion, particularly so that they can go to war with syria. The three options left would be, 1) Nato seaborne with Turkey allowed to stay on the sidelines, 2) No Nato Seaborne , but made up of nato members, or 3)Nato seaborne with Turkey expelled. Given that all three amount to the same thing militarily but your option is a political disaster for Nato, and a therefore a non starter, I doubt if even the current Bush administration is daft enough to suggest let alone even attempt expulsion. Peter.

Sergei, Your right about the copy element , though having played close combat, the similarity between CM and WW2RTS seems far closer. If there is one element of WW2RTS that worried me it's this idea of being able to move crew about a vehicle to use individual talents. It seems a bit to much like micromanagement and "Gamey" and although I can see the atraction in that people might like to man their own tank and let the AI do the crew changing in others, I tend to think there is more to a tank crew than the sum of the parts. In real life start to switch unless some one couldn't function positions and performance would nose dive. in addition If someone gets taken out i think it would be the closest guy that took over rather than a debate about who does what bets. A think WW2RTS could visually and in game terms turn out to be a cross between CM and Battlefield1942, which probably means I won't like it as much as the WW2 CMSF module, but it will sell more copies. Peter.

Elsewhere I suggested that the MGS, be included as part of the game TOE, but not in any of the scenarios. You could do the same with the BMP_3, have it so you can use it in your own designed scenarios, but it would not appear in any of the CMSF ones that come with the game. Of course it could always be part of a later module, or even when done available as a seperate download. If you had CMSF and liked it would be interested in a iTUNES style facility at a $1 a vehicle.... Peter.

The general view expressed here, though it might not be accurate, tends to see the US force in CMSF comming from the East out of iraq and moving rapidly with armour and mech support towards damascus in the west. If that is the basic scenario, then an obvious follow on module would focus on the other front, A multinational sea borne operation on the coast above the Lebanon, near Tripoli moving east towards Alleppo(?). and in the more mountainous terrain near the Turkish border, With a greater emphasis on Infantry on foot than fast open mobile warfare. Given Amphibious capability the obvious candidate forces would be the USMC, the British Royal Marines and the French, as far as I am aware the Germans don't really have any capability. Whetehr or not a follow on module would include something as complex as "Water" to allow for amphibious assalt is a mute point, but BF will have to do it at some point, so if the "mechanics nad beemn done for say the WW2 game, then it need'nt be out with the scope of a module. Peter.

Oleg, One of the ways i thought they could be used is at the early stage of an engagement where they would be deployed, over the lead element when it was engaged, in to the gap between it and the follow on main body of the US force. In this way it would impeed the main force in pushing up to support the lead elements while making it more difficult for the lead recon element you were engaging to break off. It's just a theory. Peter.

However given that the UK lost a C-130 to ground fire in Iraq, depending on what passive IR guided or AAA the syrians have you might not be able to call on something that big and low at those altitudes during the period covered by CM:SF. Peter.

oren_m Any details on how many AT or AP mines a single rocket carries and the actual CEP and area a 20sec forty round volley would cover. Peter.

Steve, An idea or speculation on the impact of a thermobaric hit on external gear like optics, designators comm aerials etc. If the overpressure had an effect on these a functioning vehicle could well have it's effectiveness substantially reduced, especially in hight time operations. Peter.

Hows this for a compromise, Include the MGS in the game as part of the Stryker force TOE, but don't include it in any of the module scenarios. That way the 2007 scenario is accurate, but players can use it in there own 2008plus scenarios. Peter.

Is there any knowledge of Iraqi use of these in OIF, and if so how did they use them. Given that most of us to a degree see the Syrians best tactic as some kind of defensive hedgehog system then the ability to rapidly deploy mines to impeed a US force with manouverability and speed you can't cope with speed you can't match might be a usefull tactic. Given that we have again a wide belief that the Syrians won't effectively be able to organise or deliver accurate intense artillery against a mobile opponent, it could be that swamping an area with mines from dispersed MLRS. would be more effective, in that if you can't accurately hit a moving target then mining the area they are moving in might be a better option. In gme terms given that these are new ( they didn't have them in ww2) and it is not really doctrine to use them "in combat", should they be allowed or will they lead to "Gamey" tactics. Peter.

Anyone know if this poor mans root of using aluminium would work with 122mm artillery rockets. If so then there is the possibility of making a standard 40 roumd BM-21 in to a very different weapon. Another candidate of interest more to the US than Syrian would be a thermobaric warhead for a 70mm rocket that could give helicopters a more effective weapon when attacking opponents in buildings. Peter.

Setting a trip wire also kills any civilians entering the room or building, ( as does detonating the IED by scanning from outside). A trip wire also kills any of your men that move back in and given the fluid nature of MOUT and the lack of C3 and organisation of the insurgents is a real possibility. A detonation system geared specifically for the Radar detector avoids all of these and specifically targets only the enemy. Peter.

I think what will make the choice for most people between WW2RTS or CMx3 WW2, will be game play not graphics. Obviously we all want better graphics and everyone is full of support for that. Just compare the CMBO demo with CMAK. However I remember when I first played the demo of CMBO and at the time it had pretty poor graphics for evn it's day, but I was hooked. It was the game play and the scale, oh and of course that it was far more realistic in feel than anything else out there. It was game play , feel and originality that one it all those awards, not the graphics. If we end up with two WW2 tactical company level RTS' on the market at the same time, people will judge each on a wide range of issues, and graphics will only be one of them. IF WW2RTS doesn't have a quick battles or map editor as some claim it will loose out. The game with the better AI will win, especially if it has one which doesn't have your own me or a computer opponents doing stupid stuff. Finally there is the interface, from the screen shots they seem to have pretty much followed the CM template ( ie Copied), so how easy it is to tell whats going on and control your units might be a big factor. Peter.

I think people are seeing this too much like a CM1 scenario. One of the things that I am looking forward too in CMSF is aysemetric victory conditions where both sides want different things. From the US perspective of both their objectives and values it was a success. It was also a success at a higher level because when ever the insurgents loose that many people in one go ( I think from a one sided account you need to at least half it to 50 or so), it is a big loss in local capacity, they may brag afterwards but to the civilian population seeing lots of dead insurgents and a few wounded yanks tells it's own story. However I just can't see the insurgents in this as an opposing force. What I think the US was facing were a dispered armed mod, with little or no command or even pla. I suspect most as in BHD simply heard a Kiowa was down and went to see, but being militia went armed. In that respect they were simply moving towards the crass sight and fired and any americans they came across. That force of 2-3 hundred probably consisted of more than a dozen fluid and un controlled groups of between a team and a full platoon. Even then the idea that forty in one place could function like a platoon is unlikely. So in is a US victory in that they achieved there objectives, but as the insurgents almost certainly didn't consist of an organised force with any objectives other than shooting at Americans ( which is probably what brought the Kiowa down, going to close to lots of people with guns, who just shot at it),seeing it in terms of who won, distorts the situation. Now don't take offense here as i am not comparing US forces with football hooligans, but if hoolagans run amock in a shooping centre and smash windows and beat people up they can brag about it on the bus home, as a victory, because the wrecked the place and split heads. But to the people in the shopping centre it looks totally diferent, and thats asysmetric warfare, different sides with different objectives and forces, cultures and values, who can react differently to the same eventy and see the outcome in odd ways. Regardless of the grubbing the insurgents got I have no doubt that many see their fallen comrades as martyers and themselves as brave defenders of Iraq and islam because when the americans came they fought back, even if it was in effectively. Regardless of the outcome of the fight or the body count, I think it is their accounts of their bravery that Sunni Kids heads are being filled with and that doesn't bode well for the future. A huge danger in any conflict is to assume that the enemy thinks like you and has your values. I've often heard people on this forum disparage and attack both US motives and with venom the insurgents, as bloodthirsty fanatics , but I tend to try to see it as just to different types of force. Fallugia is a classic example. In US terms they stopped it being a bases for the insurgency and killed up to 1,500 insurgents. But in terms of the war the general Sunni population sees it as the destruction of a city of 250,000, both to keep them off the lectoral role so the Shia could dominate the new government and as a collective punishment of Sunni for defending there country. In that respect in terms of the political side of the conflict Fallugia can be seen as a mistake, if not a defeat. If it could have been isolated and sieged without the assault it would have been a better political policy, but I am in no position to say if that would have been practical. Peter.