LUCASWILLEN05

Without getting too much into the international politics isn't the 1921 treaty between the Soviet Union and Iran still in force? Technically this could be used to involve Russia in this conflict since this treaty is one of "mutual co-operation and friendship" betwen the two nations. Iran also holds observer status with the Shanghai Co-operation Organisation which could, at some point become a formal military alliance. Member nations already have held military excercises. Although Russia and other SCO countries probably woud not intervenme in our UIC War there is always the possibility that they might and it might be interesting to allow for the possibility for wargaming purposes. Luke

Likewise. I would really need to have UK forces for Normandy before I can consider it but once they are available I would probably buy. Would be nice to see expansions covering the Med and Russian Front. On the other hand it looks like there are some good alternatives on this site. Luke

Would be good to have CMSF style games covering Cold War conflicts including Vietnam, Arab Isreali, India-Pakistan. Luke

Plenty of life here. As well as Spain on the Blue side we could have a North African theatre with additional Algerian, Morroccan, Tunisian and Libyan forces. I think this would be very much of a secondary theatre after NATO/Isreal takes Egypt, however, Spanish, Portugese, Italians could be tasked with these operations perhaps with some assistance from the Marines. I see the main operations taking place in the Middle East itself followed by final offensives into Iran. Oncer those are completed the North African front can be wrapped up assuming the UIC nations there have not sued for peace which, after the fall of Iran they probably would. I don't see Russia or China being involved in this conflict in any military sense unless other world crises erupt that drag them into war with the US but I guess it is an option to have a Russian force being deployed to help the Iranians if you really wanted one. Luke

For wargaming purposes we have to look at the worst possible case otherwise we would not have a war to fight in the first place. The UIC in my proposed scenarion is of course modeled on something like the old Arab League and United Arab Republic. A temporary alliance of conveniennce brouigfh together by extremist Islamists against Isreal and NATO (particularly the US) It would probably not be a real or lasting political union as with its predecessors. Some form of unified military command could be possible in the short term which is where our hypothetical war occurs. Ideally, for a UIC scenario I would like to see the following "Red" TOEs in addiition to Syria Egypt Jordan Saudi Arabia Iraq Iran Some of these have very modern equipment supplied by the US. We can always allow for equipment failure in the scenario design anyway. For "Blue" forces we could have some additional NATO forces such as France Italy Turkey (this one is probably essential Belgium Regional "Blue" forces would include Israel (essential for obvious reasons) Kuwait Qatar Oman United Arab Emirates Bahrain We might alternatively assume that those Gulf states were occupied by Iranian or UIC forces as part of the closure of the Straits of Hormuz which was the real start of this war. Then we can proceed directly to the first major clashes between Western/IDF armies and their UIC/Iranian enemies. Luke

An Egyptian - Libyan near future conflict would be interesting. In the UIC world scenario Libya could be allied with Egypt against Israel and NATO, You might even have a North African theatre also involving Tunisia, Algeria, Morrocco etc. This Middle East setting CMSF is set in has a lot of room for development yet and I would be willing to pay a similar price to that of the existing modules if additional modules like NATO were brought onto the market doing something along the UIC and future Arab-Israeli theme. In fact, the more modules the better for this game. Luke

Yes I agree with you about that. I suspect that the assumption for the original Syrain campaign it was assumed that the Isrealis were told to stay out of it. However, in the Uniited Islamic Capiphate campaign we are looking at a situation of all our war right accross the Middle East, In this situation one suspects a lot would change although there could still be large protests ion the home front. That however is not what the game is about. In this situation we would likely see NATO.US forces being deployed to Israel at some point. Very likely a major series of tank battles in the Sinai largely involving the Israelis, perhaps backed by NATO although that would be a secondary front for NATO. The main NATO force would likely come down from the Turkey through Syria and Iraq and some ISraeli support. While Iran might not be a formal member of the UIC they would certainly consider a temporary alliance and indeed (in the real world) seem to be working with Syria to support Hammas and Hezbollah. If, as I assume the small Gulf States such as Kuwait, Qatar and Oman remain as they are now with strong US military backing they could well face invasion before the US can deploy through the Straits of Hormuz or for the heavy mechanized forces to fight their way through Syria, Iraq, Jordan and Saudi Arabia so there could be a desperare defensive phase here for a few months. If IRan has blocked the Straits of Hormuz they will by this time have been at war with the US for some months and, once the UIC countris have been dealt with could well face a ground invasion if the current government has not fallen by this time. Anyway, while this entire conflict does seem unlikely it is a situation where things would be as hard as they could be for NATO and we would have a situation where M!A1s/M1A2s could be matched against each other and Israeli Merkavas which allows for some very interesting tank battles. Could be even tougher than facing those T90s :-) Luke

Current events in the Middle East suggest that there is scope for a possible new campaign/mod series for CMSF. The back story might be that, over the next few months the Middle East revolutions continue with Jordan, Saudi Arabia and some of the other smaller states. Islamic extremists take over the revolutions. Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Syria Iraq and Iran forming the United Islamic Calphate. With the failure of the peace process and the ongoing deadlock over the Iranian nuclear issue tensions within the region and beyond escalate.The small Gulf The UIC prepares for war with Israel, threatens Turkey and closes the Persian Gulf The West finally realises the true nature of threat and builds up heavy mechanized forces in Turkey first to defend that country from a possible invasion and later to mount offensive operations. Meanwhile light forces deploy to defend the small Gulf States. US Marines and other NATO forces move into positions where they can reinforce Isreal and reinforce the Gulf States as soon as the navy can open the Straits of Hormuz. Upon the outbreak of war it is intended that US and NATO forces will sweep down form the north through Syria and Iraq to reinforce units moving into Isreal and conducting offensive operations from that quarter. Large Israeli forces will be committed against Egypt in the first instance. In the Gulf the minor allied states will be reinforced but operations will be defensive for the time bieng. Subsequent operations will involve offensives into Saudi Arabia and the eastern part of Iraq to relieve the Gulf States. Finally, if the regime has not already fallen US and NATO forces will invade Iran to effect regime change. However, the UIC has other plans and mounts a massive pre-emptive invasion of Israel before the Western buildup is complete/ Secondary offensives are simultanously opened against the Gulf States. It will take several more weeks for Western forces to be ready for their major offensive operations. Isreali and Gulf States armies will have to hold until then.

When I have zoomed in to watch a close range grenade fight what seems to happen is you get two or three men from a squad each lobbing a grenade. Of course, you don't choose when a squad throws grenades, the program does that for you. Amd of course there is a limited amount of grenades each squad has available. Troops only throw grenades when they really need to do so, such as against a dug in enemy or one in a built up area. So far as bunching is concerned maybe there is an issue there. However, the degree to which men bunch up in the game might be influenced by the current order they are operating under. Maybe closer observation of this would shed more light on the issue? Luke

Yes, I think they would. But I would love to see a CMSF Second Korean War game. I would definately give such a title serious consideration. Hint hint :-_

The game works much better with the latest patches and the combined Marines and British modules. Maximum possible force selection options and most obvious bugs appear to be ironed out. However, I would like to be aboe to exit vehicles from the battle area particularly for convoy tyow actions. A replay function would be nice if that is technically possible although I suspect it will not be given the hard coding. As a commander you would not know what was going on on the other floank unless you got on the radio and asked for a report. In game terms what you should do is zoom out and examine the whole situation from time to time rather than zooming into squad level and watching the fun form their perspective. The latter is not really what a battlegroup commander should be doing.

I like to use the assualt order myself with covering fire being given by another squad or by armoured vehicles if available. The assualt squad will automatically move by teams who I have noticed give each other covering fire as they advance. On the other hand the split squad option is useful for some things such as conducting a recon where you do not want to risk a whole squad. While this sounds callous I would rather lose just a couple of men than have the squad, a whole platoon or even a company walk into an ambush and perhaps lose the lot at least as an effective fighting force.

A feature I liked about the original CM game was that individual squads with low morale would sometimes take the option of surrendering if cirumstances justified this. Any chance of inserting this feature into CMSF in the future?

It would be nice to be able to evacuate your wounded through Medevac helicopters though it may be that this is not possible with the current programming code and graphics. May also be a trifle goulish?

Hiding Strykers is easier said than done sometimes as they are rather large beasts. .I agree with you about the Javelin with its nice top attack capabilities. Can be fun to watch *less so if you are at the rwrong end of it. Most of what the Syrians have can be dealt with .albeit with some difficulty by an Stryker brigade combat team but losses incurred can be unacceptably high against a mechanized threat. This is why attaching a platoon or two of M1A2s or providing strong air support or Apacjes can make a lot of difference. Going up against the T-72 TURMS or, even worse the T-90 is a lot more challenging if you command the Strykers. On the other hand, in the real world you only have the assets your superior commander is willing to give you and, if this is not enough, you just have to do the best you can with what you have,

Agreed. APCs, IFVs etc need to be seen as part of a combined arms package. Used well and they will support the efforts of the team in an effective way. Use them poorly, for example without the support of armour, artillery and airpower or by sending them into areas of dense terrain (woods, urban) and you will get what you deserve :-) I still don't like the Stryker though. It;s not so much the vehicle itself, it's more the lack of proper tank support. In the mechanized warfare environment a Stryler Brigade really needs either an M1A2 company or two or, failing that, helicopter gunships and artillery backed by aircraft,

You can get a rough idea from the time each scenario will last. Short scenarios eg 30 or 40 minutes tend to involve smaller forces. A look at the scenario orbat would confirm whether this was the case in any specific instance, As it happens I like a variety of scenarios being just as happy gaming a small skirmish or a large battle. Sometimes an open field tank battle, the next time perhaps an urban or close terrain type battle. Lots of variety is a good thing.

Gibsonm my defence is that it was a "map reading" error. We were in fact targeting something outside the city but "unfortunately" someone gave the MLRS battery commander the incorrect grid refeerence which is why the MLRS strike hit that city tower block where those Syrian paramiilitary just happened to be (they were of course using the poor unfortunate civillians as human shields. My HQ lawyer will be very understanding of this particularly as the MLRS battery commander has since been disciplined. But perhaps best not to give anyone in the real world any ideas :-) In all seriousness, in the event that MLRS were to be included there would have to be strict limitations in the amount of ammunition available and long reloading times to prevent overuse and of course to reflect the real world capabilities of the weapon. In so far as the use of these weapons against urban areas they can either be left out altogether or scenario ROE victory condidtions used to reflect the legal niceties used ti punish indiscriminate use.

I had a feeling that you guys would say something like that although having just experienced something of a British defeat in Damascus (got bogged diwn in a "Damascograd" type situation and didn't have enough infantry to clear the high rise buildings the Syriians were holding) I am therefore in the mood for a little grid square removal. Perhaps I should consider applying for a commission in the Russian army instead... :-)

Just curious as to why the US does not have the MLRS available for scenarios. They do still have them though as a corps or divisonal level asset rather than belonging to the BCT directly. Perhaps they might be included in a future patch?

As we probably all know the use of combined arms tactics is what is most likely to give us victory in this game. If you spot an RPG team before it gets too close to your vehicles just hose them down. Dismounting your infantry from their APCs, IFVs etc short of the position you are planning to attack and advancing on foot while the vehicles provide covering fire is a good idea. Don;t do a Grozny and send vehicles into built up or wooded areas without at least dismounting the infantry first. If you do your are opening yourself up to be the prey in an RPG happy hunting ground.

Let us not forget the historical roots of the Arab-Isreali conflict, namely the attack, by the Arab States and the Palestinians on the newly formed state of Isreal in 1948. Whether the formation of the state of Israel as it was implemented had some flaws or could have been implemented in a manner that was more just to both sides. Israel does have a right of existance as is recognised by most states but it is equally true that the Palestinian people also need to have their rights recognised. The problem however is the hatred and extremism, perhaps on both sides and unti they are prepared to accept a compromise there can be no resolution to the conflict.

So far as CMSF is concerned it is a (reasonably realistic) simulation game. We are looking at the military aspects of such a conflict as Cabal123 says amd taking on the role of a tactical commander in a hypothetical war. If we have a hypthetical Arab=Israeli war scenario set in the near future we can pick either side. From a gaming point of view having nations such as Egypt fighting on the Arab side would give the Isreali Merkavas a particularly hard time. HAving the IDf as an optional module (like the Marines amd British) seems like the way to go to me. If you really feel you don;t like the Israelis that;s Ok, You don;t have to buy or, if you do, you can always play as the Arabs. Either way an IDF module would help increase understanding of the military aspects of the conflict.

Maybe the best solution would be for both sides to share the same land as equal citizens in a single state. Everybody would have the same rioights of citizenship eg social, educational, ecomnomic, poliitcal etc. However, given the hatred and extremism on both sides I do not see anyhting of this nature happening any time soon (if at all)

I really like John Kettler's "CMSF Armageddon" idea, particularly if it is based around the concept of a full scale coalition war scenario in the Middle East. It would be particularly fun to have an option to choose which side some of the smaller states (eg Jordan, Saudi Arabia) or even larger states like Egypt are actually on (depending on whether there has been a revolution in those countries or not) This would let you pit M1A1s against each other and against Merkavas. The NATO mod is also one I would buy and I would also buy a European conflict version of the game set in the present day/near future. Think of all the fun you could have with NATO troops fighting to defend Eastern Europe and driving into Russia, or, for that matter, Russian forces driving into Germany and perhaps other parts of Western Europe. You could also have an option of Ukranian forces allied to NATO in this scenario. You could also try the old Lehman doctrine and invade Siberia I would definately buy CMSF modules on the lines of both the above.