cassh

flamingknives said - Indeed, which gives them great operational worth and greater flexibility over SP platforms in some conditions. Try getting a battery of SP guns into a jungle or up a mountain quickly! At the tactical level the ability to be moved by medium lift helos is a great asset to any force, and it means your guns are actually very mobile little bunnies. In operational warfare air-mobility is more useful than self-propulsion in your "extraordinary force" conducting exploitation as obviously a battery of air lifted guns can deploy faster and deeper than wheeled/tracked mobility. So light-weight towed artillery is far from being obsolete.

RMC - - or a Hannibal "Murdock you crazy fool, I aint gettin' in no airplane!"

Oh yeah - love the silva/suunto compass rose - shouldn't that be in mils rather than degrees though? Sorry couldn't help myself - I'll go and get my anorak and weak lemon drink and watch trains or something...

Looking really good. Would be cool if the overhead markers used current NATO colour and shape map/c4i symbology to indicate FF, EF, unknown and neutral. e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/APP-6a#Affiliation Also a toggle for NATO APP-6A unit/map symbols rather than iconographic models in the overhead markers would be very cool in the beta or next iteration of CMx2. As Steve mentioned the game potentially being marketed as a military training tool, this would make it readily accessible to most western armed forces. Cannot wait for the game - if the alpha looks this good then it bodes very well for the finished game.

French vs. Space Lobsters A bit one-sided. French TO&E: 1x pan/fish kettle 1x bottle cooking vine blanc 1x stove 1x batch Beurre monte seasoning Finish with the coup de grace 1x bottle Sancerre. Yum yum. Bon appetite!

well if you make bone statements, expect patronising responses

enlightening stuff

RMC - Then your recollection is correct (it was an M107 I am assuming?). For rifles with an anti-material role semi-auto fire is almost sine qua non.

It looks like an interesting idea. I think they've tried to take a neutral stance - which means it becomes a bit worthy and politically-correct. I think that may hamper sales as it will seem a little dry/dull as a scenario set in Israel?Palestine. Time will tell, but best of luck and great for thinking a bit laterally.

Steve - Actually, you can control it to a certain degree. Avoiding having your picture taken clearly is relatively simple. First off, you can avoid scenarios in which photojournalists might be happy snapping. If caught on the hop you can practice many basic methods such as dipping your head, turning away, scratching your nose, talking on a phone/radio... the list goes on. However, Spec Ops guys shouldn't really be standing around at VCP anyway so there are few opportunities for the above type photos. No, that's not the case. To trained intel agencies (friendly and hostile) media channels and other open source material is filtered for data. That includes images. If you have an image of a soldier with no unit flash/insignia and interesting weapons/equipment the chances are it will be flagged and sent to the relevant section for interpretation and then a potential ID can be made. If you want to get serious about it you can tie this in with a biometric facial pattern recognition database and you can put together an accurate SF Orbat and players list which tells you which units/elements are where, intel on the deployment length/rotations, area of operation, chain of command etc. This is standard practice in intelligence work - specifically Orbat profiles. If the PIRA could run basic counter-intelligence and counter-surveillance operations then I'm sure Al Qadea and Iraqi insurgent militias can do the same. Never underestimate your enemy. In a war on terror it is naive to think the enemy might not be employing basic counter-intelligence and counter-COIN tactics - even if they don't have access to sophisticated software and data systems they can still glean useful intel that over time can become actionable. It only takes the right photo of someone in theatre to be married up with a family shopping in Fort Bragg six months later to put a family or soldier at risk. That's why you control the chances of someone taking your photo.

Los - Sorry, I applied basic soldiering logic to special forces avoiding having their photo taken unless in a controlled or censored manner - i.e. KSK here http://mitglied.lycos.de/miscstuff/KSK_pics/KSK_Humvee_closeup.jpg Looking into it I see the US Army SF command doesn't follow this basic precept! These guys avoid having their photo taken:- Delta SEALs SAS GIGN/1er RPIMa KSK Spetnaz For some reason these guys don't? (which I think is pretty f***ing dumb) Green Berets No when I said ID I meant their faces - SF shouldn't wear any uniform ID on Ops. The nature of the work undertaken by SF operators means anonymity is a key attribute. Therefore my point re the photos above is that those guys are highly unlikely to be genuine SF operators if they follow the basic rule of this type of work. Unfortunately my logic here is completely undermined by the shabby methods employed by the US Army SF command regarding their own security... The logic is, special forces should be able to operate in the knowledge that their families cannot be targeted, they cannot be coerced, that they cannot be identified on undercover ops etc. However, for some reason this basic security measure has failed to adhere in the US Army's SFGs.

OtherMeans said - God, I hope not. Combat should never be fair. For me the whole purpose of this game will be to see how one can fight a conventional enemy in an asymmetric manner to counter their superiority in technology and equipment. And that means real world political-military objects are present; such as causing a western army casualties having more effect on VPs, forcing western army to fight in politically sensitive areas (populated residence, mosques etc), getting hard kill on their AFVs. This is what any decent Syrian commander would seek to do – so why would we not want this modelled in the game? If we don't reflect these real world issues that face military commanders then why simulate this combat at all - bring on the space lobsters!

Los - Taking them is one thing - letting the get into the public domain uncensored so you can be identified is dumb for any operator.

rudel.dietrich - likewise! Los - Or have his photo taken...?

Pad152 said - Steve said - Regarding the issue you’ve raised in the quotes above about a friendly unit getting engaged/engaging an enemy without the player knowing. Can I make a request/suggestion that may solve this problem/dilemma? In real world military SOP you have what is called a “Contact Report”, whereby you call in to your superior unit HQ/CP to report a contact (an exchange of fire) with the enemy and briefly outline who what where etc. so that they can get a picture of what is going on. Why not simply utilise this real world procedure and have a ticker-tape wire flash up in the form of a textual contact report that can be clicked on to take you to the unit. “CONTACT: Charlie-Two-One taking machine gun fire from north-east.” “CONTACT: Charlie-Two-One enemy infantry element platoon strength engaged 300m our south.” It is a simple event log with variables for [FF call sign/ID], [enemy unit type?], [enemy unit size?], [direction?], [distance?], [type of fire?] with the question marks being answered when know. Anyway just a thought!

Scipio said - If you read what is written above you would find it difficult to support that view. Having spent a fair bit of time in Germany and trained with Bundeswehr units in various NATO patrolling exercises I’d have to say that I wholly disagree with the view that you state I allegedly espouse. But if it makes you feel better to think I don’t like Germans – well, believe what you will. I think I can live with it. I know myself, and what I really think, and that’s all that matters. I merely take the view that German ground forces are about the least likely in Europe to see conventional MIC combat in the near future. As I stated above quite clearly – I expect them to be taking on a greater number of peace keeping roles in line with their size, power and stature in the international states system. Yes – and as I clearly stated (in fact my main point) they are conducting “peace keeping” missions in each one of those theatres. Hence why we were discussing the nature of the German constitution and its restrictions on foreign interventions and when and where this is now possible. This is where Steve corrected me and referred me to the sticky where it clearly says the CMSF scenario is working on the basis that it is a United Nations mandated intervention – which makes the use of German forces entirely legal. Therefore, a German mechanised battlegroup is as feasible as any other nations in this scenario.

The German government (Kohl’s Christian Democrats – right of centre conservatives) wouldn’t even let USAF sorties use their airspace for the attack on Lybia when US service personal were slaughtered in a German nightclub bombing - so how is that any different? A panzer grenadier brigade is a much more significant contribution than mere overflight! As you’ve only just decided on the level of backstory to proceed with and that it will actually be set in Syria could you indicate where you have previously mentioned the scenario is a UN mandated intervention arising from an attack on a NATO country? Have I missed something or was this all under wraps? If you want to put in German kit and TO&E in because it suits marketing aims or you just like it, or as a doctrinal/tactical exercise and training device it makes most sense and makes for interesting battles then just say so. I’m not saying a German module wouldn’t be cool; it just wouldn’t be realistic!

Blue force modules I'd go for in order of preference and likelihood: IDF (via Israel) USMC (via Iraq) British (via Iraq) French (via Lebanon) Turks (via Turkey) Canadians Dutch Italians Australians Poles Czechs

Steve – correct. Recent amendments to German law regarding Bundeswehr deployment in EU (European Security and Defence Policy) and NATO interventions specifically mentions the Middle East, Near East (Asia minor) and Med as some of the areas of “potential interest” and these are affected if either a member nation has been attacked or a significant threat to Germany or her EU/NATO allies is present. As you say the Bundestag still needs to ratify any action. Also the Bundeswehr is being restructured to meet changing threats and the need to support foreign interventions, with three distinct ground roles – rapid intervention forces (35,000), stabilisation forces (70,000) and support, logistic and homeland forces (145,000) being formally established to be in place by 2010 – in all a scaling down from just under half a million troops to about a quarter of a million. However, the role can be best characterised as Germany playing a significant role in international peace keeping with her other partners in collective security structures providing the combat elements. This makes Germany a unlikely participant in ground combat in a Syrian in any plausible scenario (light backstory) other than “They’re there fighting, that’s all you need to know”. Realistic Triggers? Given that Syria is unlikely to have WMDs (significant threat) or attack Turkey (to trigger NATO alliance) then the only realistic deployment of German forces would be a significant act of state sponsored terrorism on German soil - which Damascus would never sanction – so we’re left we very few scenarios in which the Germans would get involved. This therefore makes them a very unlikely contender in a low/medium intensity conventional conflict that will be portrayed in CMSF. Whereas USA and UK could be drawn into a ground operation via Iraqi security issues in a highly plausible scenario given existing cross-border engagements already. Germany is trying to facilitate a role in stabilisation and peace making/keeping and wants to be as useful as they can be in collective security structures (UN, NATO, EU, WEU) – however, this often does not sit well when things require a higher degree of force and combat operations. Germany still has a considerable reticence regarding fighting in conflicts outside of western Europe and its constitutional arrangements reinforce this with strict checks and balances - so unlike the UK, they cannot go to war by executive decision alone. The German role in Afghanistan with its stabilisation forces was to help bring security and allow nation building to occur. As soon as the requirement for significant combat operations became clear the Germans and Dutch requested their UN IFOR operation be taken on by NATO. I think in many ways this is the point I am making – Germany is making considerable contributions in international and multinational collective security structures, but is an unlikely candidate to get drawn into ground combat operations. Regardless of what the other actors do, Germany is bound by the requirements of either a full UN mandate for intervention or a NATO/EU ally being attacked. This reality of the German constitution as I indicted above is the reason I think why a Bundeswehr is not a serious contender for a CMSF module – in realism terms the French, Dutch, Italians or even Poles are much more likely to be involved in combat operations than their German counterparts in any middle eastern regional conflict.

Steve said - Not true I'm afraid. Hence my comments above.

Does that mean the game is not modelling “channelling”/”walling” where in reality during MOUT engagements the rounds tend to cling to the walls along streets as the rounds are channelled down the line of the structures; so the last place you want to be is clinging to a wall? This phenomena is something MOUT tacticians are having to come to grips with as it goes against instinct and “common sense” but does save lives.

John - thanks, i'll look out for that.

rudel.dietrich said ? Cos we're still allowed to fight wars on foreign soil!! German equipment, while interesting has limited combat reality other than with the Dutch. The German constitution means the Budenswehr is a white elephant in combat terms. I don't know how many of us would buy CM-PeaceKeeper...

I think it is clear that Google Earth presents us with a level of information and detail with regard to topography that military war gamers could only fantasise about five years ago. However, it still has its limitation. I really wanted to have a look at Krak des Chevaliers (famous castle just north of Lebanon border) to plan a novelty scenario, but Google Earth's res is too low to give any topographical detail at CM level. As the urban areas are the best covered by aerial photography though this ties in nicely with the reality of modern conflicts - being mostly MOUT. Campaign Planning Main centres of gravity: </font> Damascus</font>Aleppo (Halab)</font>Homs</font>Hama</font>Euphrates valley</font> Critical vulnerabilities </font>Damascus</font>Aleppo (Halab)</font> By land we have entry via Turkey or Iraq? Iraq most likely in current situation with two thrusts - one up the Euphrates valley with Aleppo as the target, the other south west toward Damascus. If Turkey were to give access clearly as short thrust over the border to Aleppo is preferable. This is less likely and will require a decent back-story to make plausible... Because of the numerous mountain ranges that dissect the country there are many critical passes and choke points we need to draw up a short list of if we are to create meaningful, realistic, and probable locations for engagements. e.g. south of Manin on the road to Damascus - no theological intent implied! [ September 23, 2006, 12:00 AM: Message edited by: cassh ]

That's the old city - and yes it would be a nightmare - especially with the likes of the Al'Umawi Mosque (probably the third or forth most important one in Islam) in the potential combat area - any damage to that an the Islamic world would be seriously pissed off.