Oleg Mastruko

Now come on.... I know where you're coming from but take it easy. I see him as just another game developer trying to survive in this game-developer-unfriendly world And, trying to market his game in particulary pirate-ridden part of the world, makes his job even harder. As such, I wish him luck in at least as much as I wish luck to anyone trying to survive developing games (political or otherwise). O.

There was at least one other first person game with story from the "other side", based on Q2 engine, can't recall it's name right now... As for Under Siege (game from the original post in this thread) here is the interesting interview with the developer: http://www.selectparks.net/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=74 O.

I never said Steve is "stubborn" I just said his way of discussion in recent posts here is immature and he acts like a child. In fact I am well aware we agree on many things - I think every single participant in this thread agrees on NATO being cowardly and indecisive, we may only disagree in perceived degrees of their cowardness and indecisiveness. Even if we disagree - well who cares, it's a background story for a fictional future (not historic) game. So anything goes. Martians, Chinese, Russians? Well who cares. That's why I think it should be easy to agree to disagree and proceed in friendly manner without resorting to ad hominem attacks. I don't think Steve is stubborn at all. He is one of those people who will outwardly show childish pride and flamey rhetoric, but will in fact act with great flexibility (perhaps never admitting it). He's much better as game developer than he is as debater or political analyst that's all. O.

As the game's designer I am here to watch the tires be kicked. I am looking for people to find flaws with what I've come up wiith, suggest things I haven't thought of, or improve things that would be good as is but now can be better. And that is exactly why I've stopped debating you. You tried to kick the tires and you keep stubbing your toes while claiming to have flattened the tires. What you have therefore reinforced the validity of the storyline, or at least shown that it stands up very well to the flawed arguments you have pushed at it. </font>

Not quite, unless you believe everything TV networks serve you, which I know you do not. Most terrorists are in fact Saudi citizens (well known fact) and Al Qaida certainly does not find funding for their operations in desolate, outworldly poor hills of Afghanistan, nor is the Afgh only country they operate from and have havens in. It could well be among less important ones. I bet Pakistan and Saudi Arabia are WAAAY more important to them but we all know they are "no go" from the US standpoint. What you have (or had) in Afgh is couple half crazy piss poor fanatics armed with AK47s (at most, some probably still have Lee Enfields) thinking theirs is the only right path: good target for an "invasion" but the real evil is elsewhere and we all know it. But Ok, for the sake of discussion I'll buy the most of your above paragraph... certainly talibans hosted many bad guys which may be reason enough to get rid of them. Name one. LOL no way dude. You need to read more about Europe. We had "one of these organizations" (Al Qaida presumably) causing "many deaths and destruction" in at least two Euro cities (Madrid and London). Did it change one little iotta about Euro response to anything? No. Did we even see anything *approaching* unified Euro-NATO response to that? A resounding NO. (Unless you count demagogical and oftenly hypocritical "condemnations" from all Euro goverments.) In fact Spain begain pulling out from Iraq after that, and it was major affair internally because Spanish PM initially accussed ETA of doing something they didn't do (losing political points in the aftermath). No one else cared. London - same thing. Blair monkeying around on TV saying predictable phrases, other Euro monkeys joining in with ther "deepest condemnations". That's it. Zero, zilch, nada. So, we have to envision, like, 12 bombs with Sarin going off simoultaneously in 4-5 major Euro cities, causing half million deaths, and Syrian officials waving "howdy infidels we did it and are proud of it, we fart in your general direction come and get us idiots!" right after that? Because IMHO that is as much as it would take to kickstart Euro NATO nations into action (not all of them, but at least some). Anything less would NOT do. Still disagree VERY deeply. You are really naive about Euros. Russians could invade Ukraine, no one west of Warsaw would move a little finger. US would have to organize couple CV TFs (if there are some to spare) and MEBs (again, if there are some to spare) to discourage or stop the Russians. NATO would not move one little finger. They would negotiate with Ruskies and would eventualy reach some deal with them to pay some reasonable price for their gas (or whichever gas Ruskies decided to steal). They would never attack. In fact, I would bet some dollars most of Euros would *actively* try to stop US from meddling, if there would be any will from the Washington to actually help the Ukrainians. They would rather negotiate with Russian bulies to reach some reasonable price (for whatever Ruskies might be asking.) Poles would go ballistic thinking they are next, asking, begging NATO to do something, but Euros would hush them down, being even irritated by Polish whines. (Some Euros would even be sorry for taking Poles in the NATO - now there's this terrible obligation to defend them! ) That is how things currently stand in Europe. Steve, you're too naive about Euro politics. Speed what up? There was NEVER any action on part of Euro NATO in "real" Yugoslav wars ("real Yugoslav" is for me any conflict before Kosovo, which, by that time, was Serbian internal problem, not a "Yugoslav-wide" war). Never. Any. Action. There wasn't even an agreement among Euros about what has to be done, or whos guilty of what, after almost 6 years of low/high intensity fighting (most of it in Bosnia). By the time Kosovo conflict erupted (in 99!! ie Euros had 9 years to do "something" - anything), US finally had enough, and decided to solve Euro problems, and so they intervened, bombed Serbians etc. "Real" Yugoslav wars were long gone by that (last fighting was in 95.) and with tham any chance NATO might actually try to do something. Even Kosovo action (belated as it was) was 100% US action, initiative and realisation, with some support by (surprise surprise) Blair. US needed NATO "shroud" to give them legal backing but for all practical purposes it was US solo action. Others reluctantly followed US lead, as unwillingly as they usually do. (Had Serbs resisted little longer you'd see nation by nation losing interest and pulling out, and after that actually *begging* US to stop bombing.) Interesting "suggestions". So, what of those two you "suggest"? Yes. This is the core of the issue here. I think it is (theoretically) "possible" for them to learn from their mistakes, I just think they are very very VERY far away from ever learning about anything. To "learn from mistakes" you first have to admit there were mistakes at the first place - a process almost no organization in Europe - let alone goverment or military - went thru. (Possible exception might be Dutch, who are well aware of the shameful role their batallion under UN flag had in Srebrenica, and some heads rolled for that but it was strictly Dutch internal thing.) And, after they learn (nation by nation, which would take some years), they would need to agree on a couple things (which, again, even under ideal circumstances, would take some years to complete). So, you need either something ultra-drastic like "12 Sarin bombs in 4-5 Euro cities killing hundereds of thousands" or, like, 12 years of constant small terrorist activity in ALL of Europe, coming from ONE very identifiable place (which is never the case) to spur Euro cowards and foot-draggers into action. Just my opinion. I think you have no idea how cowardly, corrupt, disjointed, rotten and undecisive most of what we call "Europe" currently is. Now Steve, why would you stoop to that? :cool: Lets agree to disagree and leave it at that. Most of what we discuss here is hypothetical anyway. You need a scenario for a modern combat game? As far as scenarios for games go I think this Syrian affair stinks big time, and would personally prefer almost anything that comes on my mind (Korea, Iraq, Ukraine, you name it). But why would you pay any attention to what I think or say? I am not being ironic - I am really wondering why you, the developer, with plans already being decided upon long ago, waste your time responding here, instead of doing what will ultimately pay your bills? Oleg

You are correct in your assumption that I don't understand - I don't You assume NATO would be interested in "Syrian situation" because it's on "NATO borders"? (Which I don't agree with.) But you also assume THE ONLY NATO country that has Syria on it's borders - Turkey - would not be interested (which I agree with). So you are trying to say France, UK, Dutch and Germans would rush in to solve problem on someone else's border, a problem that even said bordering nation does not perceive to be a problem? Yes I do have problems understanding this position Well I don't think so. Turks have their own issues with islamist parties and sects and they would hate to be portrayed among Muslim world as "infidel's servants". Most they would agree to do is to stay aside and let others do the job, if they really insist on doing it. Which, in itself, may be enough as prelude for your beloved "Syrian scenario" Name one imaginative thing that happens in Syria and that awakens Euro-NATO's interest (please don't use some fictional French prime minister love affair as casus belli ) Well I believe it has. I believe that even had Yugo countries be sittin' on many millions of barrels of crude black oil, NATO would be unable, or politically unwilling to move as much as little finger, just as they did in reality - until US starts doing something. "We will not meddle in the civil war" was their good, predictably lame excuse - but notice that, once US stepped in, they were forced to support the action even if it was for Kosovo, totally uninteresting region with no oil, and no resources to speak of, and no money to be made of. With all due respect, Afghanistan is a joke, compared to Iraq. Hell I would go to Afghanistan on a vacation, as some people actually do Why wouldn't some Dutch NCO do the same (and to make good money too). Even we, Croatians, have some soldiers there. They appear to be having a good time, earning dollars and playing tourist guides for Croat journalists that go there to visit them and write about them being there. Nice, but ultimately false, totally unfounded hope. I don't think people of Srebrenica (those few that survived) would ever hope for any NATO force to do anything for them. US maybe. NATO never. Not even if they are sitting on an ocean of oil. That's your Euro-NATO policy at work. Thinking that in Syria it would be any different is crazy. "Invasion of Afghanistan" is a bit preposterous for my taste. I could buy "Invasion of Iraq", perhaps even as pretext for a game, but with all due respect to call glorified police action in Afghanistan an "invasion", and base serious, and supposedly challenging wargames around "invasion" of Afghanistan-like scenario is just a bad decision IMO. Could work for that SWAT game though O.

Iraq borders NATO too, just like Syria. Who cares? Frankly I find this argument laughable. Turkey is a member of NATO for one reason only, and it has (had) to do with USSR. Now with USSR threat gone, I think most NATO members view Turkey as a liability and would be happy to get rid of them. Notice the fuss that Turkeys possible inclusion in the EU raised lately? (Also, although USSR threat is gone, Russia threat is not gone, and that, smallish reason might be enough to keep Turkey in the NATO. But Syria and Iraq might well be three continents away as far as NATO cares.) Again, as Peter correctly noted, Turkey military is much more obsessed with their hatred for Greeks (and to a smaller degree Russians and Armenians) than with what goes on on their souhters borders. Using the "it borders NATO" logic you can stretch it a little bit and say many dozens of various conflicts on Caucasus are also "on NATO borders" Well who cares. Not to mention Balkan. Balkan wars were on NATO borders for years and as Peter said, it took ages for NATO to even notice what goes on (let alone to react - they would never have reacted if it wasn't for the US BTW.) Peter is 100% correct in his analysis. Personally, as much as CMx2 got me excited when I first heard about it, I could not believe the laughable scenario you took as premise for the first game in this series. O.

Yugoslav FASCAM ammo had 4 AT mines per rocket. Obviously, as any minefield, this is effective only when defended. Undefended minefield is merely a nuisance. O.

Don't know whether they used it operationally, but they did have the possibility (theoretically). During 80's Iraqis bought very good Yugoslav designed MLRS M-77 and M-87: http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/row/m-77.htm http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/serbia/m-77.htm http://www.pmulcahy.com/mrls/yugoslavian_mrls.htm http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/serbia/m-87.htm Some photos (with text in serbo-croat): http://naoruzanje.paracin.co.yu/orkan.html http://naoruzanje.paracin.co.yu/oganj.html Yugo arms sold to Saddam: http://www2.rnw.nl/rnw/en/currentaffairs/region/easterneurope/yug021023.html Some sources even say M-87 was developed jointly with Iraq (something I never heard about in Yugoslavia). Note also FASCAM ammo being mentioned for both (M77 and M87). I should know as I served in Yugo army in '87, in logistics (and as such I had at least passing knowledge of all ammo types then in service in Yugo army). I had longish discussions arguing that Sov forces be given FASCAM capability in certain game I beta tested Before that, I was able to win a game as NATO using practically only FASCAMs (they were that powerful). Of course strictly speaking this has nothing to with Syrians (my god why did BF choose Syrians for this game?) but I'd give them MLRS minelaying capability just to make things interesting. Oleg

Historically Muslims are ferocious opponents regardless of education levels, and I'd say on average non-Arab Muslims are much better soldiers than Arabs. Pakistanis, Iranians (Persians), Turks etc are to be reckoned with in any of the last 6-8 centuries. Arabs in 20th century though are just plain bad - with Iraqis perhaps having the best modern military tradition of all Arabs (a fact that speaks for itself). 13th SS was made of Bosnian muslims (not Arabs) - Bosnians are good soldiers, but this is Balkan quagmire, something that needs fine touch not German heavyhandedness, I am sure they would have performed well if employed against enemy they hated enough (not vs Tito guerrilas which had lots of Bosnians themselves). Some facts about obscure muslim units you perhaps didn't know... Some of the best Chinese units in WW2 were Muslim ethnic minority cavalry units. Japanese avoided them. Bosnian muslims (fathers of 13th SS guys) fought exceptionally well in Austra Hungarian army and Bosnian regiments were much feared on the WW1 Italian front (where they were - smartly - employed). O.

In my not so humble opinion, some guys are terribly subjective and prejudiced when it comes to Soviets. For instance, same guy who will use well known quote about "a rifle behind every blade of grass" as best deterrent from invading America (this quote is oftenly attributed to Yamamoto), will laugh at Soviet army for being conscript based? Well then who would hold the rifle ehind every blade of grass in America? Professional soldiers or armed citizens ie militia, ie conscripts? :cool: Again, Soviet kind of warfare is very well served by conscripts. And their post-WW2 literacy and education reached levels well above most western countries. I am not sure about motivation and morale though, proved to be undoing of many modern armies O.

My reviews of your games in local magazines speak for themselves Steve (all in high 80s), though you most probably never saw them. I was really just getting off with "you need to read more books" because I know enough of your track record as game developer to conclude you did your reading Still, your above post (first in this thread) just hit my nerve. Comparing the army that defeated Wehrmacht in WW2 to some rag-rag undisciplined third world bunch was just too much... I would also respectfully disagree with some of your notions form the last post: Actually I think Sovs had very good "weapons handling", on average. Just very recently, on some other web board we were discussing Soviet mortar and Katyusha crews, and - without going into much detail - those guys did some fantastic top notch, Olympian-athlete stuff with their equipment. Soviet mortar crews were capable of having as many as 6-8 shells in the air at one given moment, and one guy posted photo of five brother crew that held the record with (IIRC) 12 shells in the air with their 120mm mortar. Not exactly what I would call "bad weapons handling", and certainly different world from Arab armies. Sure they had their share of illiterate peasant conscripts incapable of handling Nagant rifle (oh the stuff I've seen on infantry training!!) but it's not something I would rely on to get me peaceful sleep when facing Guards Army of the First Ukrainian Front. They also adapted to the use of foreign LL equipment remarkably well. Some of their Guard divisions walked into Berlin on Sherman tanks (something, cough cough, US Army didn't do ) and aircraft like P-39, almost despised in its homeland, were loved, and used with great efficacy by Sov pilots. Also, there's this dude Zaitsev, whether legendardy or real Tactical leadership wasn't all that bad as many take it to be either, it's just that they were pitched against the army with the best tac leadership on the planet, so mano a mano vs Germans on tac level they always get worse of it, but not because they were particulary bad (certainly not as bad as any Arab army) it's because Germans were excellent on tac level so they outshadowed them. They outshadowed just about everyone else on tac level too. Information management one could also contest. There are some excellent articles from Glantz & co. that argue Soviet centralized system of information management (and information "feints" ie "maskirovka") worked very well *for Soviets* (it would probably not work very well for, say, Brits or Dutch so using western etalons is simply unfair). But it worked just fine for Sovs. In the end I'd agree about bad maintenance Tac and strategic levels aside (because I agree) I would say Sovs won the battle on most important, operational level, if we take 4 year war average. By 45 they were undisputed masters of operational level warfare. Oleg

Yeah I know. I just wanted to post "you need to read more books" for auto-erotic reasons. O.

I guess what I am trying to say is... Soviet doctrine, especially on operational level - worked very very VERY well for Soviets, '43 and later. Don't take my word for that. Just ask Guderian, Heinrici, Manstein, Paulus & co. Anyone who would try to deny this is not very clever, and anyone who would project Arab failures to mean Soviet doctrine is flawed *for Soviets* themselves is downright stupid. Due to many varied reasons, Sov doctrine may not work all that well (and usually does not) for other forces. It may not work well if applied on Arabs, Americans, Indians or Martians. Given many inherent Arab military characteristics (described among other places in the book quoted here), I doubt any known doctrine (equipment/training etc.) would have produced different results for them. Oleg

Hm, like, so what? There are tons or armies that are trained by western military advisors, equipped by western equipment, or they do their best to use western "brand of warfighting" yet they perform poorly on the field. No one (with half a brain) would use ARVN as example that American military doctrine/equipment/training is flawed. Yet, many do similar logical mistake when talking about Soviets and, say, Arabs. The fact that they wanted to use, or tried to use Sov-style "brand of warfighitng" is not enough to draw a parrallel between Sovet army and any of the Arab armies (which, among themselves, are sometimes vastly different, with very diverse track records). I just have slight problems imagining any Arab army (or all of them bunched together) doing Bagration vs German AGC.... Come to think of it I have problems imagining any force on the planet, except Soviets themselves, doing Bagration vs AGC... O.