LUCASWILLEN05

This is a wargame, not real life politics. I would like to see the IDF included as they are a natural opponent for the Syrians and their inclusiion would allow for otherMiddle Eastern nations in a near future setting (eg Egypt, Jordan, perhaps even Iran/Iraq) even if you limit it to a hypothetical Arab Israeli war scenario. Merkavas versus Egyptian owned M1A1s in the Sinai would be fascinating and quite evenly matched battle. You could even have US intervention options. Gaming the conflict might help educate people in regard to the military problems the IDF must face in the real world situation and thereby generate a more informed understanding of the situation. Luke

In the current Middle Eastern version it would be nice to do a near future Nisske East large scale conflict independent of any European war scenario that you might be doing.. You would need a different back story for this. After the US withdrawl from Iraq there is a series of Islamic revolutions in the Middle East which result in extremist anti western/anti Isreali governments come to power in Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon and Iraq. These governments form an "Islamic Alliance" with Iran (a situation somewhat like Total War 2006by Simon Pearson only without the WMD use in his book which I rather felt spoiled what was shaping up to be an interesting conventional war sscenario). Meanwhile Nato forces continue to fight an extended guerilla war in AfganistanThe conflict comes to a head with another Arab Isreali crisis and the Iranian closure of the Straits of Hormuz. The Gulf states, threatened by their neighours request US reinforcements but are invaded before being sufficiently reinforced. Meanwhile the Arab ISreali conflict finally erupts into all out war on Isreal;s southern, eastern and western borders. SOme US troops are sent to reinforce Isreal but most NATO troops start deployment to Turkey or to the Gulf region to defend the Gulf Arabs and to prepare for the eventual invasions of Iraq, Jordan, Syria and Iran that, it is hoped, will eventually win the war. This conflict would allow the use of a fascinating array of forces and weaponry, many of which already exist ithin the CMSF game. Additional forces and vehicles such as the Israeli Merkava, Egyptian/Iraqi M1A1s or the Iranian Zulfiqar would result in many fascinating armoured warfare scenario possibilities inm addition to existing options. You probably would not need to change the graphics much, if at all for such a conflict simulation. Luke

There are times when I have found artillery.air support to be denied when I call it in on targets that have not been spotted or properly identified. Or there is not much of a target there. If this is so I would consider the game to be behaving in a reasonable manner in real world terms as expensive munitions would not be frittered away on targets that are not really worth a fire mission.

There has been at least one airmobile assualt in Afghanistan at a place called Aghlegh undertaken by elements of the Royla Anglians made on 11 July 2007. This was an attempt to capture some Taliban bomb making teamsthought to be in the village. The LZ was within a couple of hundred meters of the compound, probably because little opposition was expected and perhaps becuae the best landing site was there, As events turned out there was no opposition. See Attack State Red p248 - 265. It would be nice to have the helicopters in game but whether this is practical or not for the program is another matter.

Also beware of RPG teams. They don't seem like much but they are small and quite easy to hide in even brush/undergrowth terrain. If they can get a close range shot at your MBTs flank or rear armour they might manage to kill it. I have done it myself when commanding the Syrians. Beware at night in particular. However, the RPG team will most likely not survive the experience. With a creeping barrage be careful not to out your infantry too close to the barrage because of the risk of shells falling short and hitting your own men. However, they also need to be close enough behind the barrage to be able to hit the enemy before their morale recovers,

Agreed Apocal and others. I suppose you could simulate unaclimatised troops in a scenario by giving them an unfit rating. As far as combat loads are concerened there seem to be limits regarding wha you can ask a squad to carry. I am rather keen on giving them lots of javelins and AT4s for use against buildings and entrenchments/bunkers but keeping a normal load of small arms ammunition.

I understand where you are coming from here but would you really want to try loading a vehicle with fuel and ammunition in the middle of a firefight bearing in mind the amount of explosives and/or flammable material you would be dealing with? While I have not yet played a campaign it might be that there was need for your command to be sent on a new mission very shortly after the battle you just completed without time to resupply. In a campaign, as in the real world, you need to consider the requirements of the next battle you will fight as well as this one and might want to look at conserving forces and supplies.

I would assume heat has an effect on fatigue as well, particularly for NATO whose infantry are less aclimatized to the conditions in Syria. This is alos a problem for our forces in Afghanistan as eviudenced in accounts published on the campaign so far

That is true although it is also true that in the Helmand Campaign it has often been the case that fairly severe ROE have been in force at certain times. I suspect the same coule be true in Iraq, even during the initial invasion phase. Remember that the British in particular did not go charging into Basra. The Americans also did not want to cause to many casualties in the Shi;ite South and even in Central Iraq and Baghdad there was still an element of restriction as evidenced by the incident at the Palestine Hotel which was mistakenly engaged contrary to the ROE, In the case of Syria it might well be that the Coalition forces would not want large numbers of civillian casualties in urban areas, particularly with the world press covering the invasion as it certainly would be. Then there are parts of Syrai where there are valuable archeological sites or cultural monuments which NATO forces would not want to damage. Again there is precedent for this in the two Gulf Wars with protection being given to the archeological site of Babylon. If the circumstances of a tactical situation required more restrictive ROE then they would be applied even in the circumstances of the background scenario. It is up to you if you are designing a scenario to decide whether or not the situation requires ROE and, if they do, how restrictive they should be. For instance, if you are fighting in Damascus you probably would not want the Grand Mosque destroyed as this might lead to a severe anti US backlash in the Islamic world for very obvious reasons. Likewise, if you are fighting in Aleppo you would want to preserve the Citadel as this is a famous tourist attraction. In both cities you would not want to inflict massive civilian casualties or destroy the infrastructure which you, as the occupying power might well be required to repair. In these circumstances you would likely want to restrict what your forces are allowed to do in a way that you would not if you were in the open desert. Having to follow ROE could actually make the game more interesting and balanced. For instance a US HBCT against T55s backed by infantry with RPGs in an urban would norrmaly be an uninteresting walkover but if there are severe penalties restricting use of airpower, artillery and even tank main guns the scenario becomes much more interesting as you would have to deploy infantry much more and dig the ememy out the hard way with rifle and grenade. To make things even more interesting you would have a dense civillian population and units of irregulars assisting regular Syrian forces. This would show why a pitched battle for somewhere like Damascus has the potential to be a Stalingrad, rather like the similar fears about Baghdad

Some more very good points raised here. Given the scenario background NATO and the US would have an excellent case for fighting a "Just War" but such a war must be fought in a "Just" manner in order to keep the moral high ground as far as it is possible to do so. Commanders do not just have to worry about the Geneva Convention. They also need to worry about the press, some of whom are only too happy to have a field day over a destroyed hospital etc which does not make your side look too good. Even given the background to our hypothetical Syrian war at least some press and international criticism would be likely in regard to perceived unneccessary collatoral damage I agree, opponents not bound by legal and moral scruples could, and probably often do, exploit those who do have such scruples. Reading accounts of the fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan the interpretation of ROE is often a difficult question for commanders on the ground at all levels which is why it might well be realistic to have restrictions applying in oarticular scenarios, particularly in urban areas. In the open country you are much more likely to have a free fire zone where ROE are either not in force or are much mnore relaxed. In circumstances where the enemy is firing from a hospital, mosque, school etc it would be reasonable to return fire as Apocal suggests. However, as Combatintmen suggests the Geneva Convention and other international laws and morality probably will still apply meanng that response to such fire should still be proportional. Using small arms fire, LAW weapons and tank machine guns would definately be proportional but tank main guns might not be. Using air and artillery to pulverise the defenders within the building and therefore inflicting major collatoral damage to the premises probably isn't. On the other hand if the enemy have tanks around the building using tank main guns and ATGMs would likely be acceptable but air and artillery might be iffy unless you use SMART munitions but even that risks damage. However, in game terms, you are the commander and you have to make the same judgement as your real world counterpart regarding the proportionality of force you use in a specific situation and accept the consequences of your decision. There is nothing to stop you,the gamer/commander from deciding to change or ignore the ROE although the consequenes of doing so in terms of victory points penalties should at least make you think about your decision. In regard to the decison about whether ROE should be included and, if so, how severe they should be this is up to the scenario designer although he should clearly indicate what the ROE is in the scenario briefing as commanders are told in advance. The enemy may well have a fair idea of what the ROE as well but perhaps may have a little less detail.

Do think about the treats posed by mines and IEDs. They will cause casualties and could potentially be used to force the opposition into killing zones. Artillery fire is a threat although I was surpised that there seems to be no provision for Counter Battery Fire at off map targets. I guess you cannot have everything :-)

Yes, it is easy to get sucked into the small unit action. I guess you just have to remember who and what you are supposed to be in this game,i.e. a company, battlegroup or battalion level commander. Every so often it is a good idea to pause the game and zoom out to look at the whole battlefield situation or even zoom out so you can see the battle developing. In a small action where you are commanding just a platoon or two then you can really get stuck into the action although it is still important to maintain overall situational awareness. As a wargame we are never going to get total realism and certainly some aspects are going to be unrealistic. In terms of giving orders I try to develop an overall plan and give my units orders apporpriate to what I want them to do, for instance the mortars to conduct a fire mission on the village, 1st platoon will move to an overwatch position to give covering fire where needed while 3rd platoon assautlts through and clears the objective. 2nd platoon is the reserve. The M1A2 platoon will move with 3rd platoon. Then I let them get on with it while I observe developments and decide when to commit the reserve or change the plan if appropriate to do so. Try to think in terms of overall battlefield commander rather than all his subordinates.

I haven't played the Brits yet, let alone this scenario but your casualties sound as thought they are in acceptable limits. You can't make an omletter without breaking some eggs as they say. Likewise I would be surprised if I fought a battle against a halfway competent enemy and took no casualties at all. Best I have done is 1 KAA and 2 WIA and I was probably just lucky there. I have been known to get a lot more people killed on occasion and that is with the USA. There are some scenarios that are actually quite difficult such as Allah;s Fist. With M1A2s against T-72s it sounds easy bur this is deceptive. Watch out for RPGs They are more fangerous than you might think. During the First Gulf War a number of US M1A1s were actually knocked out by close range RPG shots during the night battles against the Republican Guard, The APC you lost. Was it by any chance hit near a building? If so, you might want to consider how close you want to let your vehicles get to buildings as these are good places for RPG teams to hide in or around. A favourite tactic of mine is to put RPG teams on roofs so they can get a good shiot at the roof armour of passing tanks etc. One thing I would say is that, in the real wold, it is often difficulr to see the enemy as well so the game is being realistic assuming you are playing on the harder level which I assume you do. I had a hard time with one or two of the orignal scenarios such as the one where you have to clear some insurgent types from a hospital compound. My first two or three attemprts were quite disasterous You will need to dismount your infantry at some point, particularly to clear buildings and trenches. In buildings, if you have troops equipped with explosives try blasting your way in through a wall rather than taking a door if you think the building is well defended there. Large, multi storey buildings can be particualrly hard clear. It is good to make use of off map air and artillery where you can but not near buildings like hospitals, mosques etc if this will lose you points (ROE again) As well as army manuals it can also help to read accounts of actual battles. Learn from conflicts such as the Arab Isreali Wars, Vietnam, the Gulf Wars and Afghanistan. One recent book I would particularly recommend is Attack State REdby Colonel Richard Kemp and Chris Hughes. This is an account of the Royal Anglian Regiment's 2007 tour of duty in Helmand Province 2007and has detail of many tactical engagements in the Sangin Valley . The book goes into considerable tactical detail at platoon and section level, and indeed could suggest plenty of ideas for scenaros.

Oh, and don't be Captain America :-)

Of course, the US AFV I have really come to hate is the Stryker as all its variants are far too vulnerable in a tank battle which it really does not seem designed for, The 105mm gun variant is ok but the armour is terrible. If available I would not sent the Strykers in without at least a platoon or two of M1A2s if expecting armour in the opposition. However, if the oppositon is insurgent types then the Strykers are not bad. Still vulnnerable in towns so here I think it would pay to dismount their infantry, remembering to aquire any heavy weapons like the Javelinthat you think you might need and use the vehicle's weapons to assist in suppressing enemy positions. In an urban environemnt make sure infantry and armour work together. Also, remember to use smoke particularly if the enemy has poor night vision equipment. The US, even infantry, will often have good night vision capabilites so use that advantage.

While new to CMSF I have a lot of miniature wargaming experience and read a lot of military history including present day conflicts which I draw upon to help with the tactics here. I find fire and manouvre tactics work well in suppressing enemy fire but caution must be balanced with agression as too much of the latter results in higher casualties. For NATO forces in this combat environment anything much over 10% is something I would regard as bad. More than 20 or 30% I would regard as a failure as I, as their commander, would be responsible for my men as others pointed out earlier, It is a good idea to read the scenario briefing carefully as this may contain important information you need to know, for example any Rules of Emgagement. Gratuitously blasting that local mosque, school or hospital contrary to your ROE might be a very bad thing cis a vis your victory conditions. Where you can employ targeted air and artillery support - but not too close to your own troops. Don't drive unsupported armoured vehicles into urban areas. Remember what happened to the Russians in Grozny a few years ago. When fighting insurgents remember that they will often have IEDs and even suicide bombers. Some insurgent types can be very hard to spotSome of them may well be fanatical as well. This can do a lot of damage to your force so don't undersestimate this apparently lightly equipped force. If playing as the Syrians it is probably not healthy to get involved in a shooting match with M1A2s and Apaches unless you have the Syrian equipment and perhaps not even then. Target what you can kill such as Bradleys, Strikers and dismounted infantry. Use the terrain to suck the NATO forces into a close range firefight where it is more difficullt for them to call in air and artillery support for fear of hitting their own troops. Use the Viet Cong/NVA style "hugging" tactic to make this even more effective. Fight in close terrain such as built up areas, using the cover to protect your own forces and try to deny it to the NATO forces who are more vulnerable in the open streets. An RPG at close range might well knock out even an M1A2 if fired into the right target aspect (eg flank or roof armour) while the poor old Striker is meat on the table. Where you can use mines and IEDs, particularly to funnel NATO forces into a killing zone. In short, for the Syrians, think like a guerilla.

Good points raised by Apocal and F.M. Blucher. In scenario design terms it would be important to be explicit regarding any scenario ROE in the briefing as commanders would be made well aware of thier real liife ROE, Of course, if someone does not read their briefing carefully that is their fault :-) Consequences sould be made clear (eg damage to the mosque could result in negative press coverage particularly in the Arab World and in our own media and may further antagonise the local population leading to increased support for the insurgents) It is important, as APocal sugggests, not to go OTT with this as following your ROE should be only one of the scenario aims. Others might be keeping Coalition casualties low, capturing terrain and destroying enemy forces. A good scenario with ROE should probably have a tension between these competing aims. As long as you do not set ROE penalties too high the Coaltion player should still win even if he breaks his ROE. It is mean of scenario designers to put enemy forces in restricted ROE areas but this is often what their real life counterparts do. Given the technological disparity that can often exist between Coalition and Syrian forces this could be a useful scenario balancing tool making for a most challenging game for both sides if used effectively

Often I have read of US, UK forces etc having to operate according to fairly severe Rules of Engagement in operations in Afghanistan and Iraq. It strikes me that they would likely have to do the same in the Syrian campaign depicted in CMSF. As well as the usual schools, hospitals, mosques and similar there would also be sites of great historical or cultural value such as the Citadel of Aleppo that might also have to be covered by ROE. Something similar did happen during the Iraq campaign with limitations on actions that could be undertaken around anceint archeological sites such as Ur and Babylon so it could be argued that historical precedent exists, It strikes me that the Preserve objective instruction would be a great tool for simulating this with heavy victory point penalties incured in the event that Coalition Forces cuase damage. Of course, the Syrian side would be aware of this but would incur no penalty if the sites are damaged. The Syrians of course would be able to exploit the Coalition ROE by taking up positions in and around such sites thereby forcing a choice between using heavy weapons (risking damage or destruction of such sites) or incurrring higher casualties. This could often be linked to a scenario requirement that Coalition casualties are kept low simulating public opinion at home being negatively influenced by increasing casualties and potentially damage to valuable sites, higher casualties among Syrian civilians etc. Could make for some very difficult choices for Coalition players and some very interesting scenarios based around these issues. Luke

I noticed that there are no rivers in the terrain editor, an omission that I am quite curious about as there are rivers and irrigation channels in parts of Syria. Also it would be nice to have a greater variety of choice for the month and year a battle takes place in order to vary the scenario and bearing in mind that, as in Iraq and Afghanistan, Coalition forces could become bogged down in a counter insurgency after the initial invasion. Maybe the designers could consider including these modifications in a future patch?

New to this forum and relatively new to CMSF and I woukld like to say, despite some of the critics, it is a great moderns simulation game. For future development and bearing in mind the technical issues it would be great to see something on a near future Arab Isreali War. Pitting Egyptian M1A1s against Isreali Merkavas as well as the Syrians as well as incorporating the intervention option for US and other powers could give some fascinating scenarios. Since there qppear to be technical limitations limiting the game to the Middle East perhaps scenarios such as the Arab Isreali Wars between 1956 and 1982, a 1980s Soviet Invasion of Iran, the Gulf Wars of 1991 and 2003 could be a good way to go. In terms of my other "wish list" items a version dealing with European conflict either during the 1980s or perhaps in the near fture, a Second Korean War, the Vietnam War etc would be nice to have.