OPFOR skills

[Stagler]

Just a quick question. Are OPFOR forces coded to be really cowardly and inefficient? And are "elite" Syrian troops not as "good" as "elite" US Troops both on the same skill?

[Cuirassier]

I'm fairly certain that there are no national modifiers. Elite is elite, regardless of the army.

[LUCASWILLEN05]

Most Syrian tanks are also outclassed by the M1A2 or Challenger II tanks which is as it should be given the evidence of the two Gulf Wars. Some T-72s have Thermal Imaging as does the T90 which brings them almost to parity. A well motivated and well equipped army or Republican Gaurd unit can and wil put up a good fight against een the best NATO units. You may well still win but you could take heavy losses if you expose your weker IFVs or close the range to soon with your MBTs. Best tactic for the Syrians is to go after vehicles they can kill like Bradleys or Strykers. You can kill part or all of an infantry squad if you destroy the vehicle. The Syrians also have some excellent ATGMs which could kill an M1A2 so their caabilities here are better than those of the Iraqis in 1991 and 2003. Games can also be balanced by the use of ROE )penalties for damaging mosques etc) Attacking built up areas reduces or eliminates US range and gunnery advantages if the Syrian defence is well thought through. As the Syrians you should make up your mind to go for a points win from the start, aiming to channel NATO forces into killing zones and going after achievable kills by taking close range flank shots at tanks where you can and taking out as many IFVs as possible. If you can force NATO into violaing scenario ROE and destroying protected buildings like schools or mosques (scenario specific) you can accrue more points.

In terms of troop ratings the"Elite" Republican Gaurd are probably only as good as the old Iraqi Republican Gaurd. Elite by regional standards but in reality perhaps only Experienced. Probably they should be well motivated. But not Elite in game terms with indivuidual squads or crews rarely, if ever elite. Elite should be rare on the NATO side. The best US Marine units, Paratroopers, and Special Forces (if you use the latter on the tactical battlefield. Most NATO units should be Veteran

[Stagler]

It seems to me that even if Syrian troops are set to veteran. They are never as good as NATO troops on veteran. That is they flee when they take or veteran IFVs will pop smoke and retreat when they see a bradley. Even if they are in a BMP3 which can perfectly take on a Bradley. I was just wondering if they were coded into the game to be more "rubbish".

[Erwin]

Highly recommend that you try one of the xnt Red vs Red campaigns like ROAD TO DINAS. That should answer your questions - even those you have not yet thought of.

[flamingknives]

But a Bradley can withstand the BMP3s autocannon (missiles are slower) and the reverse is not true.

Also equipment has an effect - The NATO troops tend to be equipped with modern and effective body armour, better sights, surveillance and comms gear. This can have effects on morale due to the number of casualties caused, links to HQ units, and being able to spot the units firing on them (unspotted attackers cause more suppression)

[Stagler]

Would a Bradley be able to survive fire from the 30mm cannon on a BMP3?

I also believe the BMP3 has protection from 30mm rounds from a range of 300m on its frontal arc.

Additionally OPFOR IFVs seem reluctant to use their ATGMS vs armoured targets. It seems they open up with their 30mm first, then fire their ATGM. Instead of firing first and preserving the element of suprise. In regards to this I dont think I have ever seen a BMP3 fire its ATGM either, it always goes with autocannon, then its low pressure gun with normal cannon rounds.

[Field Marshal Blücher]

Fleeing can also be affected by "Motivation." Be sure to check that as well when you're checking these things out.

[flamingknives]

Would a Bradley be able to survive fire from the 30mm cannon on a BMP3?

I also believe the BMP3 has protection from 30mm rounds from a range of 300m on its frontal arc.

I think that the up-armoured Bradley is proof against 30mm as mounted on Russian vehicles.

The 25mm on the Bradley, firing APFSDS DU, will outperform the Russian 30mm firing AP, which IIRC is what the uparmoured BMP3 was tested against.

[LUCASWILLEN05]

It seems to me that even if Syrian troops are set to veteran. They are never as good as NATO troops on veteran. That is they flee when they take or veteran IFVs will pop smoke and retreat when they see a bradley. Even if they are in a BMP3 which can perfectly take on a Bradley. I was just wondering if they were coded into the game to be more "rubbish".

Some Syrian units might be over ratedbut that is a scenario design question. But their Russian designed vehicles are not as good as typical NA\tO equipment so perhaps what you see is crews doing the sensible thing.

[stikkypixie]

Just a quick question. Are OPFOR forces coded to be really cowardly and inefficient? And are "elite" Syrian troops not as "good" as "elite" US Troops both on the same skill?

Probably reiterating what everyone already said:

* NATO: better body armour, optics and communications -> better morale and efficiency

* Syrian: high experience, but typically low modifiers and low motivation and bad communication equipment

* Syrian vehicles worse all except BMP-3s and T-90s.

[Stagler]

Im querying this because I am trying to find a balance between the two forces for a H2H game I plan on having. I want to two forces to be roughly balanced in skill so it is more up to the player than the AI fleeing or refusing to fire.

[Sakai007]

It is very hard to 'balance' a Blue vs. Red match in CMSF for the simple reason of force quality. In the manual it even states that a 10 - 1 kill/loss ratio for Syria is what to expect if you want to shoot it out with the western forces in a conventional style match up. To really balance a H2H match, you need to force the western troops to close with the syrians before they can engage them. I feel that the skill of forces is less important then motivation and leadership. You can have elite syrian airborne with high motivation and leadership get routed by 'average' US forces from outside the range of their weapons since US firepower is devastating at range. Those same troops could cut down an entire US platoon that walked into their field of fire.

For an H2H, red vs red or blue vs blue is the way to go for a 'chess' style match.

[Boche]

Maybe a NATO v NATO scenario... not many of those around.

[stikkypixie]

Im querying this because I am trying to find a balance between the two forces for a H2H game I plan on having. I want to two forces to be roughly balanced in skill so it is more up to the player than the AI fleeing or refusing to fire.

Make sure you don't use the "typical" settings for the troops, but set your own motivation and morale. Also remember that a typical Syrian platoon has a lot less firepower to its disposal than any NATO one and you need to adjust for that somehow.

[Field Marshal Blücher]

Make sure you don't use the "typical" settings for the troops, but set your own motivation and morale. Also remember that a typical Syrian platoon has a lot less firepower to its disposal than any NATO one and you need to adjust for that somehow.

Very true, and it's also important to note that a single Syrian platoon is in fact substantially outnumbered by most American platoons. A US Army Rifle Platoon outnumbers a Syrian Mech Rifle Platoon by about 1.3-1.4:1 and a US Marine Rifle Platoon outnumbers them by 2:1 IIRC. Therefore, a single Marine Rifle platoon has about the firepower of an entire dismounted Syrian company when you take into account the fact that their individual firepower is superior.

[LUCASWILLEN05]

You could limit US/NATO by requiring them to follow strict ROE (eg require protection of BUA. particularly buildings such as schools and mosques. You might extend the area to be protected for several hundred meters around such an area. Victory Point penalties applyfor breaking ROE depending on damage done.

Syrians could be tasked to kill specific units that they can kill with what they have available with more points for success.

You can also load the scenario in favour of the Syrians by placcing them in defence of the BUA NATO needs to take with the above limitations in place

You can always give the Syrians a points bonus on top of everything else.

In regard to training and motivation I think both are important as of course is leadership. I would suggest the combination of these factors would affect the overall quality of the unit. A Syrian Republican Gaurd unit might be well motivated with average leaders and be considered as Experrience. A smattering of individual units, some better, some worse around this base line is probably a good idea. Your typical US/Nato unit would be at least as good, probably better

[Sublime]

Well I have a few suggestions.

Get average quality US troops, dont let them get a ****load of support.

Get good quality syrians, who are well motivated. give them a good amount of support. arty only to be more realistic.

the map should be heavily built up - urban. You're going to have to run ambushes. hit and run. It's doable. Obviously the better player should be the Syrians. It'll be very difficult at best but IT IS do able. A good ambush with arty screaming in can decimate any force.

[LongLeftFlank]

To really balance a H2H match, you need to force the western troops to close with the syrians before they can engage them.

This. And the only ways to do this are:

(1) Map design to limit long distance LOS into your defense

(2) Map design to limit long distance LOS into your defense

(3) Map design to limit long distance LOS into your defense

.... plus making NATO casualties at least 60% of the victory points for both sides - BLUE gets points for minimal casualties, RED gets points for >8%(?) Blue casualties (i.e. if your battle makes the BBC/CNN feed due to a dozen or more friendly KIA, you lose the game no matter what you've done to RED). This by no means makes the game unwinnable for BLUE (unless you do something else nasty like starting his forces in the midst of an unavoidable ambush or setting a ridiculously short game time that forces him to rush). But it requires BLUE to maneuver and assault with RL skill and finesse.

[Sakai007]

Anyone willing to try the scenario "Green Game" as an H2H??? It's Blue vs. Blue, and considering the conversation here, seems right up the 'balanced' alley. I am going to d/l it, anyone who wants to try go to the repository under CMSF base game missions, or I will send it to u myself.

[Frankster65]

This. And the only ways to do this are:

(1) Map design to limit long distance LOS into your defense

(2) Map design to limit long distance LOS into your defense

(3) Map design to limit long distance LOS into your defense

.... plus making NATO casualties at least 60% of the victory points for both sides - BLUE gets points for minimal casualties, RED gets points for >8%(?) Blue casualties (i.e. if your battle makes the BBC/CNN feed due to a dozen or more friendly KIA, you lose the game no matter what you've done to RED). This by no means makes the game unwinnable for BLUE (unless you do something else nasty like starting his forces in the midst of an unavoidable ambush or setting a ridiculously short game time that forces him to rush). But it requires BLUE to maneuver and assault with RL skill and finesse.

Good points LongLeftFlank. I personally believe the map and defensivable positions for Syrians are the big factor. I have won a few games in H2H as Syrians but only if the map was really in favor of defensive positions where Blue player had to close with me. If map was open and allowd Blue to fire from long distance, my guys were usually toast.