Blofeld
-
Posts
34 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Never
Posts posted by Blofeld
-
-
I am looking forward to trying those out.Originally posted by JasonC:As for working on other things, I did the Operation Uranus pack around the same time, and I have another coming on Kutuzov (Orel counteroffensive that ends Kursk), which is being playtested. A few in that one still need briefings etc. I hope to have it on the proving grounds site by the end of the month or so.
I also did a north face of Kursk "campaign" that didn't take off as a format. I think I will revisit them and edit the forces to make them stand alone scenarios, and release that too - as a north front counterpart to 1SS-1st Day.
-
My personal preference would still be for a real world setting (even if the actual chances of a real invasion of Syria in 2007 are rather remote) rather than a fictional setting.
I doubt most potential customers will care about the backstory or even the total lack of one, as long as the game is well made.
On the other hand, I presume that whether the US forces are attacking "Syria" of "Arab country #1", the terrain, forces and gameplay will be the same and the player will not notice any diference.
Therefore the decision of whether to go with a real or fictional setting should be based solely on which way will generate more sales of CMSF. Your loyal customers will buy and enjoy the game either way and we know that more sales of CMSF means more CMx2 games coming out in the future (including maybe, CM:Vietnam
) -
Does that mean that Iran is now part of the "Coalition of the Willing"? :confused:
-
Originally posted by akd:
I don't know if my eyes are playing tricks on me, but is that soldier wearing blue shorts?
-
TIME thinks the bomb attack may signal the resurgence of Islamic resistance to the Assad regime.
Why Syria may be the real victim of the attack
That would play directly into Battlefront's original backstory of an Islamic coup in Damascus followed by a UN/NATO invasion to restore a "legitimate" government.
-
I sincerely hope not, I have little interest in invading the "Islamic Republic of Arabistan".Originally posted by Battlefront.com:Also, it is entirely possible that we will go "generic".
In real world terms, what would make you take such a step? Looking at the current international situation, I would say the chances of a real war between Syria and Israel or the USA before 2008 are very slim.
-
Wel, if an Arid CADPAT set in size 7044 jacket and 7034 trousers came my way... who knows what doors that would openOriginally posted by Battlefront.com:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Any chance Canadian troops may make it in?
</font>
-
Any chance Canadian troops may make it in?Originally posted by Battlefront.com:If things to as I would like, we'll have Modules that cover USMC, British (probably a mix of unit types), and "Mixed". By the latter I mean the plethora of nations that are built using pretty much stock equipment from the UK, Germany, and the US.
-
great job rudel.dietrich on the syrian TO&E
If Syria has 75+ BMP-3, I don't see how Battlefront can leave it out.
-
This may be irrelevant, but it shows the organization of a typical Iraqi infantry brigade down to the squad level in 1991.
I don't know how closely this matches up with Soviet TO&E, but it would give an indication whether Arab armies stick closely to the Soviet model.
from:
-
:eek: happy days are here again... :cool:Originally posted by KwazyDog:Ill add that its possible that they will be seen in an expansion pack though, particually if we find more info of their shipment to the Syrians by that point.
you know we will hold you to that, don't you.
-
That's what I thought, but it does not hurt to ask. Thanks.Originally posted by rune:No, unless someone can show that Syria beyond a resonable doubt has received them.
Rune
-
Steve, you neatly avoided answering the question
Is the T-80/90:
A) definitely out, because you don't think Syria has any or it's too late to get them into the game anyway if you want to ship before 2008; or
definitely in, because you think Syria probably has them or it would be cool to watch them brew up; orC) probably not in, but may be included if you get more reliable info; or
D) no comment.
-
The relationship between Russia and Syria has been warming up. I also found an article hinting at possible arms sales and Russian naval bases in Syria:
I don't know how reliable this analysis is, but what I really want to know is whether Syria is presumed to have T-80 and/or T-90 tanks and whether they will be included in CMSF."... In the last two years, Russia has built a closer relationship with Syria. The country is an important cash-buyer of Russian arms and an interesting partner for Russia's energy industries..."
"...When connecting these latest initiatives in Syria to Russia's good ties with Iran, it is clear that Moscow is planning on playing a stronger role in the political and diplomatic dynamics of the Middle East. Part of the plan, the port of Tartus would be transformed into a naval base for Russia’s Black Sea Fleet when it is away from the Ukrainian port of Sevastopol...."
"...Syria is Russia's most important partner in the region. Thirty-five thousand Syrians hold degrees from Russian universities. At a Kremlin reception for Syrian President Bashar Assad, Putin, referring to the Soviet era, praised the two countries' "special and sincere relations" -- and promptly forgave about $10 billion in Syrian debt accumulated over the years, principally as a result of arms purchases. Over three decades, the current president's father, Hafiz Assad, received military equipment valued at about $25 billion from the Russians. To this day, the 308,000 troops in the country's armed forces are equipped almost exclusively with Soviet gear, including 4,600 tanks, primarily T-72 and T-62 models, about 600 MIG and Sukhoi fighter jets, 170 helicopters and at least two diesel-powered submarines.
Russia has also agreed to beef up Syria's war muscle by supplying medium-range air-defence missiles, Pechora-2A, and upgrading Syria's fleet of T-72 tanks, the paper said.
SA-18 Igla-S batteries mounted on Armored Personnel Carriers. One of the most effective missiles against low-flying aircraft on the market
Moscow has completed delivery of around $500 million worth of military hardware to Damascus and will deliver a squadron of Su-27 fighter jets in coming months. The report said that Syria has already received shipments of T-90 tanks, produced by Uralvagonzavod in Nizhniy Tagil, as well as Kornet-E and Metis-M anti-tank rocket systems, manufactured by the Tula Design Bureau. The report also said that the Gagarin Aviation Production Association in Komsomolsk-na-Amure will soon be completing a Syrian order for the delivery of 30 Su-27 fighters and the S-300 anti-aircraft missile system will probably be shipped in the near future to replace outdated S-200 and S-125s..."
"...An office of Russia's state-owned arms exporter, Rosoboronexport, in Damascus is supplying the Russians' dependable customers with new guidance systems and spare parts for tanks, modern electronics systems for MIG-21 fighter jets and ammunition. Sergei Chemesov, a Putin associate from the two men's days working for the KGB in East Germany, runs the company's Moscow headquarters. In the last seven years alone, Syria's Baathist regime has ordered Russian weapons valued at more than $1 billion, including Su-27 pursuit planes, MIG-29 fighter jets and T-80 tanks. But in a departure from Soviet days, Moscow now demands cash payment.
"... But what most concerns American military experts is the Syrian army's acquisition of about 1,000 Russian Kornet-E anti-tank guided missiles. The weapon also has the Pentagon concerned, because of its ability to turn even the most state-of-the-art Bradley armored personnel carrier into burning scrap metal from distances of up to 5.5 kilometers (3.4 miles) within seconds. About 10,000 Syrian officers have received top-rate training at both Soviet and Russian military academies, with a fresh crop of pilots and air defense specialists currently attending Russia's air force academy. ..."
Here is the link:
-
it's an interesting question. I have looked around and it is clear that sandbags are used around bunkers and strongpoints, but for trenches, the answer is not clear.
I found this article on Russian defensive doctrine in the desert, which presumably Syria would follow, which seems to imply that sandbags are used around trenches, but it's not that evident.
-
That's surprising since the ME is the one place where "sand" is easy to find.Originally posted by Battlefront.com:As for sandbags, I don't see a lot of use of them in the ME. The Western forces use them all over the place, but it looks to me that the ME use of them is more limited to bunkers than general use.
A few more questions:
- Will we see sandbags around bunkers?
- What about barbed wire?
- Finally, what are you doing about roadblocks? They are just a black slab in CMx1, but in RL can represent anything from concrete barriers to burned out cars to collapsed buildings, etc.
-
Which would make them even easier to spot since, remember, this is a simulated world and not the real deal. If we put a little camo netting over something we might as well have bullseye graphic on it as wellOriginally posted by Battlefront.com:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Cammo nets and sandbags?
The way to fix this is to have a temporary "skin" of ground terrain stretched over the top of the trench. The enemy player would see the skin until the trenches were spotted, then the skin would be removed and the player would know the trenches are there. But this is not an easy thing to do since there is no support in the code for anything even remotely like it.
Steve </font>
-
sounds very good, any screenshots coming?
-
I presume Strykers will be like german halftracks in CMx1, great for moving troops quickly around the battlefield, but highly vulnerable to any serious enemy firepower.
-
That is the eternal dilemna, how to make a simulation as realistic as possible and still keep it a fun, playable game. It will be interesting to see how BFC handles it.Originally posted by C'Rogers:The friendly fire issue actually worries me quite a bit. From a realism perspective there is too little FF, but from a game perspective it feels like there is to much at times.
Will the BFT appear somehow? or will it handled indirectly, as, for example, better command & control for the U.S. forces.Originally posted by Battlefront.com:Note that the Stryker forces at the heart of CM:SF all have BFT (Blue Force Tracker), including dismounts. While not perfect, it is a major improvement.
-
Did one of you make any changes between the two sessions?, for example:
1. was the same person hosting both times?
2. did you change your firewall or router settings?
-
It was also present in night battles in CM, to be fair, where infantry could shoot at other friendly infantry. </font>Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by First Sergeant:
"Friendly fire" is pretty rudimentary in CMx1. It is basically limited to misguided air strikes and errant off board artillery. Will it be more of a factor in CMSF?
-
"Friendly fire" is pretty rudimentary in CMx1. It is basically limited to misguided air strikes and errant off board artillery. Will it be more of a factor in CMSF?
-
I have nothing against WW2, but after 4 years of playing CMBB and CMAK, I need a break. Sure it's an interesting war, but it still represents only 6 out of the 6,000 years that humans have been killing each other in a professional manner, but I digress
)
</font>
definitely in, because you think Syria probably has them or it would be cool to watch them brew up; or
AAR from an American tanker in Iraq
in Combat Mission Shock Force 1
Posted
Steve is just chomping at the bit to let the Shia militias loose on Al-Anbar province. He is just an un-reformed cold war warrior at heart.
I actually have a different viewpoint. Siding with the Shiites will just ensure Shia dominance over Iraq. That will result in an Iraq which is allied with Iran, which also has a shiite majority. That would be unpalatable to the U.S., Israel, Saudi Arabia and yes, even Syria.
A different strategy would be to back the Sunnis. They already have a strong base in Al-Anbar. It may be a tough sell, since Sunnis have been bearing the brunt of american counter-insurgency efforts, but they also know that a permanent Shia-run government in Iraq is not in their best interests.
A Sunni led Iraq, at this point, would not be pro-U.S., but it would counterbalance Iran, which would, more or less, restore the pre-2003 balance of power in the region.
Now some people may ask: "Why go to war to replace one Sunni dictatorship with a different Sunni dictatorship?" To which I can only reply: "Welcome to the wonderful world of middle eastern politics."