Syrian Army tutorials and best scenarios for H2H

[badipaddress]

Hi,
I usually play CMSF2 with a friend of mine, we both have base game + all modules. We are trying different scenarios (usually smaller ones) but the outcome is almost always the same: who takes the Syrian Army lose badly. I've played with US Army in "Trident Valley" scenario and I achived a major victory wiping out almost all Syrian forces at the cost of just one Bradley (one got immobilized due to rough terrain) and a couple of men dead.
We are now playing "Al Huqf Engagement", I took the Syrians and US squads are unstoppable for my pixel soldiers. They have better vision, better firepower, better equipment... 
Probabily I should set up more ambushes but I really struggle with them. Do you have any advice on good tactics to play effectively Syrians in PBEM and some balanced, good scenarios for H2H? Thanks a lot for the help!

 

[domfluff]

I'm deeply suspicious of Red vs Blue in CMSF in a multiplayer sense. I'm sure it's possible to win as Red, and it's possible to have balanced scenarios, but the disparity is so large that this is extremely difficult - even in an ideal situation, you'll be working significantly harder than the Blue player to keep level.

Still, if you're up for the challenge, this is the theory:

Imagine a Quick Battle, where the enemy are a US Bradley platoon. These are three squads with attached assets, javelins and the Bradleys themselves. Each element outperforms you in every way.

The main threats in order are then:

- Javelins
- Bradleys (TOW and 25mm)
- Infantry

So, how do you take this apart in the attack?

You obviously have cheaper forces, so you can build around an infantry platoon (say, BMP-1 or BMP-2 mech infantry), and attach assets to them.

- The Syrian army is derived from the Soviet army, which means the single most important asset is your artillery. Planning a good fire mission (or missions) are critical for success. The main artillery at this level would be 120mm mortars (on or off-map), ideally with a TRP or pre-planned. This assumes great recon, since the call in times are inflexible. Mortars aren't going to hurt the Bradleys, and can't be relied on to kill the infantry, but they will do an excellent job of suppressing the Javelins, so a lighter, longer fire mission is what you're aiming for. This obviously implies taking an FO.

- The second most important asset are reconnaissance forces. Having a squad or two available for recon - even just doing a leader recon with the platoon's HQ and the FO - is tremendously important. You need to know where they are. 

- The Bradleys badly overmatch either model of BMP, so you'll need something to improve the odds. Typically Soviet platoons would have a single armour asset attached, so bung in a T-72 or T-62 there. Either should give you a chance to hole a couple of Bradleys at least, but obviously the more modern the model, the better the chance. ATGMs are also possible here - all of them can take out Bradleys, but the AT-7/AT-13 are the ones designed for use in this scenario, since they're a little more mobile. The ATGM can join in the leader recon quite effectively, especially with the better models.

- Then, when the primary threats are dealt with, the BMPs can be fully engaged. There's been a lot written on these forums about keeping a chap in the commander seat to increase spotting, but I actually disagree with that (partly as you need the space for additional attachments). You should dismount BMPs later than you would with a Bradley, keeping the troops inside for a little longer, and making use of their forward-firing smoke for cover. When deployed, the BMP and squad should (at least initially) stick within 4 action spots or so, so that they can share information with each other effectively - that way the dismounted infantry are the eyes of the BMP. The BMP-2 is a significant upgrade on the BMP-1, but points may be a premium here, and the points may be better spent on the previous assets.

The infantry attack is basically mopping up. With the co-ordinated artillery, armour and ATGM attacks you should have shifted the odds significantly in your favour, so quality differences in the infantry are wiped out by excessive firepower. Tactically, the BMP plays the role of the squad's HMG - it's a fire support asset, with the squad as the manoeuvre element.


The thing is, this is *really hard*. It's inflexible, and relies on you using all of your assets effectively and in concert, to identify and counter each threat in turn. It relies heavily on having solid recon, and if something unexpected happens, you may not have the tools to deal with it. You also need great timing and a little luck. Blue needs none of this, so the balance is firmly in their favour.

Physically then, the battle will look a little like:

- Recon phase. Scouts out, find the enemy, start setting up ATGMs and plotting a fire mission.
- Move the armour and BMPs into a forward position, out of sight.
- When the suppression has started, the ATGM and tank can start taking out their vehicles
- With the Bradleys mostly dealt with, the BMPs can roll up with infantry mounted, in line, and slowly advance under the cover of the tank and the continual suppression.
- At a reasonable distance (300m?) the BMPs fire smoke and dismount infantry, who move ahead of their transports. Again they advance in line and move towards the enemy positions, whilst the mortars are still falling, under cover from the MBT. Infantry and BMPs now clean up, mopping up any survivors.

[Lethaface]

Great reply by @domfluff

Playing and winning with RED forces in CMSF2 is certainly possible, also in PBEM. Obviously one needs to take into account the capability mismatch between forces.

Both the unconventional and the Syrian army do have sharp teeth, however in a direct conventional 1vs1 fight against NATO forces they don't stand a chance. Which is actually why asymmetric forces do exist in realilty, in some way at least.

Syrian conventional forces have some capabilities but one certain fronts they are very much outclassed by BLUE forces. Mainly c2 structure/organization and optics. 

So, one needs to come to the battle with a different mindset. However, in proper (complex) terrain and reasonable objectives RED can surely give BLUE a very bloody nose in CMSF2. Use the hide and target arc command to make sure your forces only open fire close, when the BLUE advantage has gone. Use kamikaze doctrine.
AT-14s, RPG-29s, VBIED, IED, enough assets to damage BLUE forces. 

A clip from a PBEM with Unconventional against USMC (QB ME). Partly due to the urban terrain I was able to force the surrender of USMC:

 

Edited November 2, 2020 by Lethaface

[Roter Stern]

9 hours ago, domfluff said:

I'm deeply suspicious of Red vs Blue in CMSF in a multiplayer sense. I'm sure it's possible to win as Red, and it's possible to have balanced scenarios, but the disparity is so large that this is extremely difficult - even in an ideal situation, you'll be working significantly harder than the Blue player to keep level.

That was my experience playing H2H back in CMSF:1 days.

While it's still possible to have fun as Red, it's either from the hopeless comedy of "10 min into the battle and my entire tank company is already on fire" or the occasional rare events such as "an Abrams parks next to a KO'ed BMP3 just as it detonates with the power of an areal bomb, KOing the M1".

My advice is to try playing Red-vs-Red - that's what we did with my few buddies a decade ago and it was a blast! Truth be told, other than running through the campaigns and some community scenarios I rarely play BLUFOR.

The beauty of RvR (and CMSF in general) is the huge variety of formations to pick from. Two types of UNCONs, Militia, Reserve Army, Regular Army, Mechanized, Airborne, Republican Guard, and nearly BLUFOR-equivalent SpecOps. Huge variety of equipment as well - T-55/62/64/72/90, BMP-1/2/3, BRDMs, BTR-60, Shilka, and of course the trusty Hilux.

Primarily however, it all comes down to lack of Javelin doom-sticks in every ISC, lack of thermal optics in every MRE Happy Meal, and lack of MBT armor made from unobtanium that can magically stop a sabot round from a 125mm cannon.

While RvR scenarios aren't very numerous, Quick Battles actually work out decent even with automatic unit purchase. If you end up playing QB's and picking your own forces, don't always go with the "default" BMP-2 Mech Infantry. Mixing and matching will provide a surprising amount of battle variety.

Militia cannon-fodder supported by SpecOps platoon with Attack Helos? That sounds fun. Buying a ton of Static T-54's when defending because they are dirt cheap? Yes please. Adding an extra 4-5 RPG teams to each of your infantry platoons? Who needs IFVs!

I just wish QB's had a option for "Any Red" force composition - so you can mix UNCONs with Syrian Army units.

p.s. And this is why I think a Red-focused module for CMSF would be amazing.

 

Edited November 2, 2020 by Roter Stern

[Erwin]

4 hours ago, Roter Stern said:

My advice is to try playing Red-vs-Red

Very good advice.  "The Road to Dinas" and "Zawiya Uprisng" are two xnt campaigns that help teach one how to handle Red forces - what their capabilities and weaknesses are.

[domfluff]

Red vs Red and Blue vs Blue are both fine in CMSF multiplayer - it's just the mixed game which I'm suspicious of. In general I think I prefer Red vs Red, but that's mostly because the more advanced stuff pushes it more towards one shot kills and heavy punishment for mistakes/random surprises.

To be entirely clear, I do think it's possible to win, but you have to do all the work. You can also sometimes do everything right and still lose. In the broader sense this is true for anything "lower tier" in a competitive game.

Edited November 3, 2020 by domfluff

[badipaddress]

Thanks for all the suggestions and scenarios, I will consider doing Blue vs Blue or Red vs Red for next PBEMs.

On 11/2/2020 at 12:09 PM, domfluff said:

I'm deeply suspicious of Red vs Blue in CMSF in a multiplayer sense. I'm sure it's possible to win as Red, and it's possible to have balanced scenarios, but the disparity is so large that this is extremely difficult - even in an ideal situation, you'll be working significantly harder than the Blue player to keep level.

Thank you very much for your detailed explanation it is what I was looking for and I'll try to follow your suggestions. Just to be clear, I do not expect to win with Red in the sense of forcing Blue forces to surrender. I do understand that the disparity in terms of equipments, AFV, weapons, training. I do want to be more "competitive" with Red. At the moment for me (and my usual opponent) playing as US/NATO is "easy mode". 

On 11/2/2020 at 12:09 PM, domfluff said:

- Recon phase. Scouts out, find the enemy, start setting up ATGMs and plotting a fire mission.
- Move the armour and BMPs into a forward position, out of sight.
- When the suppression has started, the ATGM and tank can start taking out their vehicles
- With the Bradleys mostly dealt with, the BMPs can roll up with infantry mounted, in line, and slowly advance under the cover of the tank and the continual suppression.
- At a reasonable distance (300m?) the BMPs fire smoke and dismount infantry, who move ahead of their transports. Again they advance in line and move towards the enemy positions, whilst the mortars are still falling, under cover from the MBT. Infantry and BMPs now clean up, mopping up any survivors.

In my experience ATGMs are "one shot" weapons, in the sense that usually the squad carring them is discovered after the first shot and immediately suppressed / destroyed by overwhelming firepower. I need to learn how to use scout and smoke screen effectively (I admit I do not use smoke at all)

20 hours ago, Erwin said:

Very good advice.  "The Road to Dinas" and "Zawiya Uprisng" are two xnt campaigns that help teach one how to handle Red forces - what their capabilities and weaknesses are.

Road to dinas is for CMSF1, is it compatible with 2? 

 

[Vergeltungswaffe]

47 minutes ago, badipaddress said:

Road to dinas is for CMSF1, is it compatible with 2? 

 

Yes. 

You can always play scenarios or campaigns created under an earlier version or patch, but not vice versa.

[Erwin]

Exactly, one can play all the CMSF1 campaigns and scenarios in CMSF2.   You do have to be aware that they were not designed for the new CMSF2 features.  But, I have not noticed any issues and the CMSF1 ones I have tried all play very well in CMSF2. 

[domfluff]

11 hours ago, badipaddress said:

In my experience ATGMs are "one shot" weapons, in the sense that usually the squad carring them is discovered after the first shot and immediately suppressed / destroyed by overwhelming firepower. I need to learn how to use scout and smoke screen effectively (I admit I do not use smoke at all)

Yup. ATGMs are essentially one shot weapons, but if that one shot trades efficiently with a Bradley, you're up significantly.

I typically try to fire one shot then Fast move to relocate. ATGMs are best used in at least pairs, and dispersed - this creates a C2 problem to solve, but it means that you can more easily score flank shots (more important for Abrams), and can't have both assets suppressed at the same time. 

When relocating it's important to pop back up in a different position (i.e., far from the contact marker you'd be leaving behind as you break line of sight). This means when placing ATGMs it's important to think of primary and secondary positions for them, with a covered route in between. Tertiary positions are usually not needed, since if you had a chance to use them, you're probably winning already.

The BMP smoke won't block thermals, so it's no good versus Bradley's or Javelins. It will help in the infantry fight, since anything that cuts down the incoming small arms is worthwhile - in the final stages (of the optimistic scenario presented), most of the actual infantry fights will be won by the afvs - the infantry are there to spot and maybe clean up cowering targets.

Edited November 4, 2020 by domfluff