Dillweed

So, I think we need a nice list of the reasons why CMSF is worth our time. Something to show to friends to get them impressed. While it isn't really our job (*cough* website *cough*), a nice 1 or 2 page summary would do wonders for the newbies. I'll get the ball rolling with the big ones Cutting edge graphics Improved urban warfare modeling 1:1 Soldier representaion Real-time capable Add your own!

Well, I was gonna stay out of this, but... If I were president in 2002 and wanted peace in the ME I would have knocked over saudi arabia and isreal. The saudi's issues have been well documented. Anyone that says Isreal hasn't done some very questionable things with the Palasinians needs to start reading the news. I'm not saying they are in the wrong morally. I think they are about equal now. Unfourtunetly, being a nation state I really think they need to hold themselves to a higher standard than a group of admitted terrorist thugs.

They just don't learn And speaking of biting off more than you can chew

You mean, the way Baghdad was a death trap? </font>

You mean, the way Baghdad was a death trap? </font>

You mean, the way Baghdad was a death trap? </font>

Last I heard Steve had said hopefullt Q1, but prolly Q2 of '06. I fully expect that to be delayed if they feel it is not ready for prime time then. Did you see this shot> http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=52;t=000543

I got one better. Our man of vision would be rotting in the ground from when the showy bully who actually became dictator put one in the back of his head 20 years ago. Lets be honest, people don't get to be dictator through prudent defensive minded means. Syria is in a bit of pickle strategically, no doubt. Here is what I'd do if I thought there was a good chance the country I was ruling was going to get freedomized in 18 months or so. *I* (not that guy in charge in 2007 of the CMSF timeline would) certainly want to have all of this in place before pulling (or giving any significant support to) any terrorist bull**** likely to stir up the international response on the scale seen in CMSF. I'm assuming there are 3 main components to the armed forces: 1) Regular Army: Not to hot, but lots of them 2) Advanced Forces: Special Forces, Special Republican Guard, what have you. Decent quality, but not terribly large. 3) Irregular: Fedayeem Sadam, Secret Police, or whatever the (presumably) Islamic forces that couped the current Assad government have. Relatively small, training is perhaps not great, but motivated. Loyal. The key is the paradigm shift to fighting a long-term unconventional war. The idea of the opening "active" combat stage isn't to defeat the allied (for lack of a better term) and kick them back over the border. That’s just not gonna happen for reaons Steve has pretty clearly laid out. The goal is to get the ball rolling on public opinion both domestically and in the allied countries. This can be accomplished by making things as messy as possible. This means urban(ized) warfare. MOUT has the advantages of: 1) Infrastructure damage: You aren’t going to be keeping it, might as well make the rebuilding as difficult as you can. 2) Civilian casualties: Get the average Syrian personally involved and reduce popular support in allied countries 3) Gives a fighting chance of killing allied soldiers: Not the main objective at this stage, but it never hurts to get the ball rolling. Remember: All we are trying to do is turn Muhammad Six-pack against the allied forces at this point. He really isn't going to care if those were Allied or Syrian shells that destroyed his house and/or killed family. The real key is the irregular forces and their loyalty. I would divide them roughly in half. I would put the first half with the regular army units to keep them in line. I'm talking serious Soviet commissar sh*t here. Officers can expect to very quickly and very brutally be held responsible for the failings of their men. I imagine this would not be an effective long term. I do believe it would work long enough for allied forces to bring their firepower to bear (with resulting collateral damage of the built up area) however. The other half would train in terrorist tactics and lay low until "active" combat ended. The more trusted advanced forces would be heavily fortified in the capital for the final push. So yes, allied forces would crush my army with a greater or lesser degree of ease (depending on how built up the areas of fighting were as well as the effectiveness of the commissars) But what would they inherit? A shattered country with a population seriously pissed off at them with terrorists waiting to spring up and train the pissed off masses. I think we've seen that the western democracies just don't have the stomach to make the sacrifices necessary to put down a large country wide rebellion. I think that all of this has happened on a much smaller, less severe, scale in Iraq more or less by accident. I believe that a strategy based on actively bringing this about would give the invading forces a significantly worse starting point that we had in May of 2003. [ December 12, 2005, 10:57 PM: Message edited by: Dillweed ]

US Army Rangers are not really out of the question from a scenario point of view, as they operate in a distinclty diffrent fashion from the other Special Operations Forces mentioned. Platoon/Company/Battalion seized assault or blocking actions are still part of their mission profile and that would fit well into CM:SF. You can't rule them out on the ground of them being part of SOCOM. But if you choose to include them or not is another thing altogether. </font>

I set up a little test for SF types commanding some irregular forces and came up with a fantastic scenario idea. Basicly, I loaded up cmbo, did a random map in a "town" in april of 45. German forces had 1 platoon HQ and 1 squad of "elite" waffen SS, about the size of a A-team. They command a company of Green Volkstrum. I also gave them signifigant air support. The setup area was within the town. Against them was an American infantry battalion 45 and a company of shermans. My intent was to simulate how despite the small of very good troops the larger regular force would quickly overrun them. This is more or less what happened, with a twist. My forces were completly wiped out within about 15 mins. However the game ended in a draw! We managed to produce about 300 casualties. About a 1/3 was from the 1 9 man SS squad. As predicted ammo proved to be the critical factor for the elite troops. Not suprisingly the air support was not terribly effective. Here is my idea for a CMSF scenario: You are a Syrain regular army captain. The army has managed to pin down an alpha team (with about a platoon of irregular militia to back them up) into small town. You must take your company (supported by a platoon of T-55s) and clear them out. That you will suceed is not really in question. The goal is to do it without it being an absolute bloodbath. Not an easy task at all. Especially considering enamy air support (of considerably higher quality than in CMBO) I think this would be much more intresting than a more standard commando faire.

That sounds like it might be a good game, but ask yourself is that Combat Mission? I don't know, a SF module might be cool. But only if they can make it substantially different from the main game. 1) CM:SF Rag-tag Syrians vs mech and armored US units doesn't seem sufficiently different from 2) CM:SF(SF) VERY rag-tag syrian rebels led by small groups of Elite SF troops vs slightly less rag-tag armored and mech Syrains to warrant a module. Of course I don't make wargames, so maybe BFC can find a way. As for the last question. Because the company that made BF2 is PURE EVIL, thats why.

Agreed.

Ignoring VERY hypothetical scenarios based around features DEFINETLY not in the game *cough* civillian traffic *cough* I think the most important weapon for the Syrians will be the RPG-7. I mean the ATGMs sound nice, but they don't have lots and lots. I imagine RPG supply will not be a problem. The RPG is also fairly versitile: 1) It'll punch right through US body armor. Not to be taken lightly when just a few KIAs are a pretty big deal. 2) If those pesky chechens can take out a reactive armored t-80 with 3 RPGs, I can't imagine the stryker's slat armor will stand up much longer to several hits in the same place. The key to all this the "quantity has a quality all of its own" doctrine. A single RPG isn't likly to do much, 10 being fired at close range by semi-trained militiamen who have just popped out of cover are bound to do some damage. They arn't likly to survive to take a second shot, but there are enough RPGs and militamen so that it won't really matter. [ December 08, 2005, 09:31 PM: Message edited by: Dillweed ]

That being said, if they dedicated a whole module to SF giving them the attention they deserve with a campaign centered around them??? Who knows, might be cool. I still think if the smallest unit you control is a fire team the scale would be all wrong. I know one of thier big jobs is training of indigenous forces, tho. I could see a campaign centered around a company of SF trained militia with the nucleus being the 12 man squad.

Well ignoring the new "less is more" paridigm that BFC seems to be going by, would it really be worth it? Moving 1 squad (or more likely 2 fire teams) around doesn't seem terribly fun. Besides, I imagine modern SF is much like airborne in WW2. Very tough, extremely stubborn defenders with fairly limited attack capcity simply because the only have what they can carry on their backs with ammo being the big issue. I imagine most of their power comes from the stealth/suprise angle. I just can't see 12 "legs" (even 12 very tough well arms legs) making a memorable impression in a mech company attack. I can imagine a cool scenario where say the remanents of an SF team is pinned down and the stryker boys having to pull their asses out of the fire before they are overrun. But it seems like it would be a lot of work for 1 cool scenario. Lets not even get start on the potential for abuse in QB. [ December 08, 2005, 07:50 PM: Message edited by: Dillweed ]

*DAMN* I can't use that line again until 2008. </font>

Dunno, I expect the company commander would be riding in them either way.

Unless I'm mistaken US SFs are usually deployed in slightly oversized squads, really below the level of company/battalion game. I understand we will be seeing Syrain SF, and they will be quite a challenge.

Something to remember is this is not WW2. The syrians don't have to "beat" the US to win tacticly. You just have to make them look bad on CNN. 1) Kill anything with a serious look antenna a quickly as you can. This includes: ATGMing what appear to be command stykers. Sniping/RPGing radiomen. As an added bonus radiomen are most likely to be around the officers/senior NCOs. This hinders calling in support. 2) Hole up in buildings (preferably schools/mosques and other building the US will be slightly more hesitant to just rubblize) and make dismounts come to you. Engage at very close range. Is not likely that this will very sucessful, but it will be messy. 3) If you must attack attack with RPG squads firing in volleys at close range. Fedayeem (sp?) Sadam used this tactic against the marines in Nasaria. Once again, this really isn't going to be sucessful in a "rout the enamy and take the ground" kinda way. The FS did manage to inflict some serious causualties and have it look pretty bad. IIRC 1/2 of all the USMC KIAs happened in 36 hours of fighting in "ambush alley"

Another clarification: When I mean popular, I mean popular for "traditional" PC games. While it would be nice, I don't think the CMx2 series is going to be as popular as the "mass market" games, say, the Sims or halo. That being said, however, I don't think we can dismiss the potential for more realistic wargames to become popular in the RTS market. Certainly wargames were once quite popular (avalon hill anyone?) Even more important there has been several hits recently that suggest there is a market for realistic (albeit somewhat simplified) combat modeling. Full Spectrum Warrior, the Brothers in Arms series and to a lesser extent the America's Army game/recruiting tool. Take BIA for example, the infantry modeling really isn't to bad, tactics wise 1) against other infantry: pin, flank, destroy 2) armor: stay the F-word away if you have no anti-tank weps, otherwise approach from blind spots and bazooka/p-faust 3) Artillery: push through initial casualties to cover if in the open, otherwise keep your head down. Following these tips if leading an airborne platoon in CMBO would certainly be a good start, if not the end all be all. So, there is potential for increased sales past the current market. I think what’s been holding real WGs back is their crustiness. Slow ponderous turns, crappy graphics, steep learning curves. Obviously there is a fair number of younger people playing, so I think their is hope. But the original question remains: Is popularity good? Most subcultures don't tend to do so well once they become popular. Too much money, to many suits trying to influence the product. I do really think we have the potential to get some really kick ass games out it tho. Sure, BFC makes excellent games now, with their limited means and no real competition (at least nobody truly innovating like they are.) Just imagine tho what they could do with 10 times the budget with several other high profile studios for the to be err... influenced by. To be fair, I think the best chance wargames have currently appears to be Drop Team. It sounds like a great easy to approach little game. It will certainly bring people into this website, and who know how many will be sucked into some of BFC's more hardcore faire?

I'm 20, in case that wasn't clear.

I like both types as well. I'm just hoping that CMSF is a more mainstream sucess as it would bring about more intrest in real wargames.

So this occured to me a few weeks ago. I was wondering others' opinions. Ask the average "strategy game" player and he (lets be honest here) will tell you that he would prefer a game to be more realistic. Unfortunetly for most a real time game where you "build" infantry and they blast away at each other from a few feet until their hit point reach 0 (starcraft) is considered more realistic than a tactical wargame (CMBO). One simple reason "turns feel fake." So now we have CMSF with: 1) Real time play 2) Good (or at least decent) graphics 3) A setting similar to the one they see on TV I think CMSF has the potential to be a hit in the strategy gamer market. My question is this a good or a bad thing for the community? Now obviously its a good thing for Battlefront. They make exellent game and I think they deserve to make a boatload of money. Some 15 year old (no offense stoat) telling me to suck as he atgms my command styker doesn't seem to be to great. But I think to be honest its a price we have to pay for an expanded community. Wargamming I think is getting a little crusty, some young blood would do us all good. So here is the poll: Who here is under 30? 25?

Don't think "Civillians are not being modeled" think "civillians are being modeled abstractly" with the aformentioned points hit for destroying certain structures. I don't think the cell phone thingy would work either. I know the communications system is one of the first things we hit. While we might keep the cell phone system up at first (to see if we can catch leaders being dumb enough to use it) I imagine we'd bomb it to hell pretty fast if it became clear it was being used by military forces. Steve: Think you could give every civ building a minor penalty for being destroyed. Just a very small points hit, so that if one were to take down 3 or 4 houses it wouldn't matter. But doing "the whole *#&$ing village" with MGSes and f-16s would take a considerable bite out of the final score.