Syrian TO&E thread

[John Kettler]

Steve,

Look on the bright side. You haven't spent a fortune on packaging, logos and the like with, say, Combat Mission: Syria Strike on it, so at least you're okay on that score.

Regards,

John Kettler

[Battlefront.com]

Exactly why once we make the decison there is no going back

Steve

[Blofeld]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Also, it is entirely possible that we will go "generic".

I sincerely hope not, I have little interest in invading the "Islamic Republic of Arabistan".

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.

[Battlefront.com]

The primary reason we might go generic is that so far I've had to make significant adjustments to the storyline at least 4 times. This is because current events are moving so quickly. For example, our original scenario had the force liberating Lebanon

But more importantly, every day that goes by the US and Europe are less able, and more importantly less willing, to embark on a major ground offensive and nation building exercise. Considering that Europe has been far more conservative about sending its smaller and less capable forces (see note below) abroad for decades now, it is becoming harder to picture a situation where they would come out in significant numbers. This wouldn't be an issue if the US' military wasn't maxed out and Iraq and Afghanistan were going well, but it is and they aren't. If the US were able to raise another 100k troops without political and logistics problems, the call would be for them to go and straighten out one of the existing problems not create another one.

My original storyline came at a time when things were not as they are today. Back then I could envision a scenario that would get Europe out of its shell and the US refocused on winning the "war on terror". However, like I said above, things have changed. If there was a compelling reason to take out Syria, and the list of compelling reasons has shrunk, I expect it would take the form of a strategic bombing campaign and complete blockade, not a ground war. At least not for a while. But I am not even sure it could do that because of Iran.

The West has completely botched its relationship with Iran (again). The new leadership in Iran might sound crazy, but they are far from it. If they chose to they could put the world into an economic recession in a very short time. They would suffer greatly for it, but I'm not so sure they wouldn't do it. Heck, even the threat of Iran shutting off the oil tap is enough to make the world's trading markets go nuts. So they could possibly do a ton of damage with mere words.

So the bottom line here is that within the timeframe of 2007, I do not see a way to make a realistic setting for CM:SF in Syria or anywhere else. That means if we did set it in Syria it would be nearly as fictional as setting it in some place completely made up. The only thing that would be more realistic about the Syrian setting would be the map. That's it.

There are other reasons too, but they aren't as important as the above reasoning. I personally don't want to go to a fictional setting, but every day that goes by I am less convinced that going with a real world setting would be much better. The decision has not yet been made, which means we might stick with Syria.

Now, as for my comments about Europe's forces being smaller and less capable. The smaller bit is just a matter of record since there has been a significant downsizing of active forces due to budgetary priorities. As for being less capable, that too is fairly factual. This doesn't mean that a Dutch Battalion or a Italian Brigade is a worse fighting force than it was last year (the contrary is probably true), rather they are less capable of putting themselves into a foreign battlefield and supporting themselves in significant numbers over significant periods of time. This is more true for the smaller nations, but the trend I've seen over the last few years has been towards smaller, lighter forces that can be deployed in UN missions using the logistics capabilities of other nations (like the US, Russia, the UK, and Germany). For the type of commitment that would be required for a ground assault of Syria, I just don't see how it could be accomplished with this climate of declining volunteerism, budgets, and logistics capabilities.

And I'm an optimist

Steve

[Bertram]

As for the European forces participating, it is not so much that Europe has retreated into its shell, and refuses to come out, but that we need a bit more convincing that the reasons for a war are good enough. European forces do participate in most operations currently (although in limited quantities, thats true). And I dont have the feeling that the support (in the Netherlands) for sending troops to Afghanistan is less then it used to be for previous operations. In fact I think the support is now more robust, the possibility of casualties has been discussed before the troops were send, and expectations are more realistic then they used to be for previous operations.

Europe generally will try diplomacy longer than the USA (maybe due to history) and with the way the last war was sold to us we are even more sceptical about the US arguments to join in liberating the next oppressed people.

As to logistics: the small European countries indeed have decided that it is unlikely that they will try to conquer a country on the other side of the globe (like Syria) single handed. So they adjusted their forces accordingly. As it is most smaller countries do have some logigstic capability, and (theoretically at least) together and with the larger European countries participatng they would have the means to support the troops.

[Battlefront.com]

Bertram,

As for the European forces participating, it is not so much that Europe has retreated into its shell, and refuses to come out, but that we need a bit more convincing that the reasons for a war are good enough.

In general I agree, but there is Bosnia to consider. Europeans went kicking and screaming into that mess YEARS after it was clear to many that it was not only necessary but unavoidable. Instead it was decided to delay and put off comittments in the hope that the sides would burn themselves out. Eventually they did, but it took NATO forces and the threat of more punishment to push it over the edge. The UN mission there was a disaster because the engagement rules were, unfortunately, written by the nations contributing troops. They didn't want to get involved so they made sure they wouldn't. Unfortunately for the Netherlands, your country's name will forever be linked with the worst single result of that policy decision. I of course speak of Srebrenica.

My point is that Europe needs some pretty heavy convincing to get involved in anything. And when they do, it usually is not a big comittment. Look at Lebanon. The French tried to get away with only a few hundred troops, and yet they are probably the most under comitted military in Europe relative to its size. Raising a 15,000 man force from European nations for such an important mission such as Lebanon should have been a piece of cake. It has been anything but, especially since the US can not put any troops on the ground due to it having zero credibility in the area amongst Muslims. Which brings me to my next point...

As to logistics: the small European countries indeed have decided that it is unlikely that they will try to conquer a country on the other side of the globe (like Syria) single handed. So they adjusted their forces accordingly.

Which neuters their ability to be inherently proactive, which was my point. When Belgium offered assistance to Dafur they sent a couple of cargo planes. Not a huge comittment for such a crucial humanitarian operation, but do you know what this meant for the Belgians? The Para/Commando Brigade lost its *only* jump plane and therefore had to cancel its jump training. This is ridiculous to the extreme. I do understand that Belgium no longer needs a force of 300,000 like it had a few decades ago, but it is currently set to be less than 30,000 of all ranks in all capacities. That means they can deploy, at most, a battalion in the field at one time, with great difficulty, and heavy borrowing of other country's logistics.

What this has meant is that there is little unilateral flexibility within Europe. If one country wants to do something significant, it usually can't. If the US can't or won't do something, then Europe struggles to cobble together what it can on its own.

Europe generally will try diplomacy longer than the USA (maybe due to history) and with the way the last war was sold to us we are even more sceptical about the US arguments to join in liberating the next oppressed people.

Which is my point about why the original Syria scenario. It would have to be so obvious that the US wouldn't have to sell it at all. Even then, the reaction of the current Spanish government to the Madrid train bombings makes many wonder if even that would be enough.

Steve

[Blofeld]

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 )

[hellfish]

My $0.02...

It's certainly true that events are occurring faster than anyone can expect them to. It's only Wednesday and I've read at least three news reports originating from Syria already, all of them having some bearing on the background of CMSF.

While I like the idea of having a real nation to fight against with a history to look back upon and analyze, there are some benefits to a fictional country.

First, you can give them whatever you want. No more debates on BMP-3s or begging for T-80Us or T-90Ms to balance out the American technological superiority.

Second, you can fudge your OPFOR organizations. Rudel has done a great job, but there are still a lot of gaps. With a fictionalized country you can tailor your enemy less to reality and more to game play and get away with it. Give OPFOR infantry companies a couple extra organic PKM machineguns or an ATGM section. Maybe the Brazilian EE-11 Urutu APC is their main wheeled AFV, as opposed to the BTR series.

Third: You don't have to worry about getting anything wrong - both militarily and historically.

Fourth: A lot of games have made up their own OPFOR and done very well. Look at Operation Flashpoint: Resistance (or even their new Armed Assault game). Full Spectrum Warrior (even though I think it's awful), Strike Fighters Project One (with the excellent mercenary campaign) and many others have done so, often successfully. IMHO, it doesn't take away from the credibility or enjoyability of a game if the setting is fictionalized. Hell, in OFP some modders went nuts and created police and military forces for the fictionalized countries - even going to lengths to write regimental histories as backgrounds!

The main benefit of a fictionalized country for me, though, is the spark of imagination required for it. Though I've not developed a game on my own with this, I have and still do participate in mods of other games where I'm totally enthralled with creating my own little world or experiencing the other people's worlds. Thats fun for me - that excites me, especially when the others have the attention to detail to make their worlds believeable. Hell, in TOAW I edited every single scenario with my own forces - and I've got detailed Word files with their TO&Es and unit histories simply because I love using my imagination in my gaming.

Now that I've said all that, I'm not against using Syria by any stretch of the imagination.

I will say this tongue-in-cheek, though - my first vote for CMx2 was for a Korean setting, which will never get caught up in news events like this. They've been the same for 53 years now and nothing's changed! They're dependable enemies.

And I still think a PLA expansion pack for a CMx2: Korea would have the best game title ever:

Combat Mission: Enter the Dragon

[ September 13, 2006, 09:33 AM: Message edited by: fytinghellfish ]

[rudel.dietrich]

I don't think I could play a game against a fictional country.

If we go down that road lets just give the blue side Leo 2 tanks and British infatry and American air power.

Who's to say its wrong?

If the red side has T-90 tanks backed up by Brazillian APC's and Icelandic infantry all while having the air force of Belize buzzing overhead.

That would completly kill the game for me.

I think its kind of scary that the game is still wanting to be released in 2006 and the story has not even been written yet...

Time to bite the bullet, pick something and stick with it.

I can't believe you would not use Syria because it would be unrealistic if a real war broke out.

But then you want to use a totaly fictional country...hmm

All this work has been done on Syria.

I vote for sticking with them.

[hellfish]

As I said, if a fictional country with a fictional storyline could be done properly (i.e. no Leo2s fighting with Bradleys against M-60A1s and CV9040s) then it would be good. You can still base the OPFOR off of the Syrian research, but fill in the gaps and flesh it out a bit.

[rudel.dietrich]

Originally posted by fytinghellfish:

As I said, if a fictional country with a fictional storyline could be done properly (i.e. no Leo2s fighting with Bradleys against M-60A1s and CV9040s) then it would be good. You can still base the OPFOR off of the Syrian research, but fill in the gaps and flesh it out a bit.

Their arn't many gaps. I filled in most everything from the batallion level on down and over the next few days am going to start answering some of the questions I left scattered around this thread.

It seems for whatever reason BF has cold feet about what they originaly proposed to do.

[MikeyD]

"But more importantly, every day that goes by the US and Europe are less able, and more importantly less willing, to embark on a major ground offensive and nation building exercise."

...Which might be a good reason to stick to the Syria storyline! I can imagine the most diehard neocon hawk taking a spin in your 'real-world tactical' CMSF game and concluding "Oh, this isn't quite the cake-walk as I imagined it would be." Well, perhaps Rumsefld would play the game and conclude "I was right. People are indeed fungible!"

[YankeeDog]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Yes, because I will want to have you guys help shape it

Steve

Well, Steve, if you're serious about his, why not take some of the load off of yourself, and run a competition for who can come up with the best fantasy justification for a US Invasion of Syria in 2007?

Speaking as someone who occasionally actually gets paid to write plot treatments, I'd certainly be willing to give it a shot, for nothing more than bragging rights, and my name in the credits.

Cheers,

YD

[hellfish]

I'd write something as well.

[C'Rogers]

It seems for whatever reason BF has cold feet about what they originaly proposed to do.

Pretty much from the start BFC has said there are circumstances that would nix the background for the game. One of those I think would be if there was actually an ongoing war as they didn't want to model an actual occuring conflict (at least that is what my memory tells me).

One way or the other it will be US troops vs. Syrians I think, though the Syrians may be labeled something fictional, as BFC said they will remarkebly similair to Syria.

my first vote for CMx2 was for a Korean setting, which will never get caught up in news events like this.

I remember a certain country firing missiles and rockets into the Sea of Japan that would beg to differ in unpredicatablity.

Also, while neither war would be easy, I think a combined UN force would have an easier time dealing with North Korea than Syria in the long run. Barring the possible nukes of course, but in game stuff.

I do wish they would model the Korean conflict but I don't think it will happen (by don't think I mean BFC has said it won't, but I hold out some hope).

[Chelt]

How about actually using OPFOR?

Picture this – Combat Mission: Fort Irwin. The enemy drives visually-modified Sheridans. Want BMP-3s? No problem, just use M113s with bits of metal welded on. Everyone walks around wearing MILES gear. Cover is the same thing as concealment -- but every once in a while, an AI-controlled umpire unit walks around with a God Gun, dispensing hasty laser justice. Best of all, you get realistic respawns.

The next module, Combat Mission: Sudbury, introduces British and Canadian forces. New challenges include preventing your troops from succumbing to nasty Tim Horton's baked goods, and orchestrating the efficient distribution of poutine among widely-dispersed outposts.

Then, in, Combat Mission: Urban Warrior, a Marine landing force storms ashore in a fog-bound coastal California town. Here, the most deadly enemy unit is the Arrogant Humvee Driver, and its less-heavily-protected but more agile relative, the Distracted H2 Driver with Cellphone.

For a return to historical models, there's Combat Mission: Louisiana Maneuvers. Everyone who thought that tank destroyers never got a chance in the original CM series gets the opportunity to settle the score. Take command of a provisional Tank Attacker force and smash those Red armored spearheads. Marvel at the details of faded tobacco signs on barns and the old glass-topped gas pumps in front of the general stores. Listen to the smooth drawl of the natives when your hopelessly-lost troops stop to ask for directions.

Cold War gone hot? Combat Mission: Aggressor Force, whose Esperanto-speaking members wearing Circle Trigon insignia try to take over Kansas.

Endless possibilities.

[edit: silly English grammar.]

[Andrew H.]

I do find hypothetical forces/countries much less engaging than real ones - I think that's why I had trouble getting into tac ops.

But as a compromise, you could set CMSF in Styria.

There are several advantages - not only is the country beautiful, but it would also give you a significant headstart on CMx2 WWII.

Plus, the language is almost comprehensible to German speakers.

[flammenwerfer]

I think its kind of scary that the game is still wanting to be released in 2006 and the story has not even been written yet...

Time to bite the bullet, pick something and stick with it.

I can't believe you would not use Syria because it would be unrealistic if a real war broke out.

But then you want to use a totaly fictional country...hmm

All this work has been done on Syria.

I vote for sticking with them. [/QB]

I agree with this. Syria not Syriana.

If the real events on the ground change- so what. It will surely give scenario designers more material to work with.

[Battlefront.com]

Thanks for the follow up comments. I'm going to start up a pros/cons thread pretty soon so we can consolidate the thinking on this into one thread (there are currently 2 in progress). But first I wanted to address the points that Rudel brought up:

I don't think I could play a game against a fictional country.

I'm sorry to hear that, but I do think you are blowing things out of proportion.

If we go down that road lets just give the blue side Leo 2 tanks and British infatry and American air power.

Who's to say its wrong?

We do We have no interest in making pure fantasy matchups in a Middle East setting. There is no chance of an Abrams coming up against a Leo 2. There is no chance of the OPFOR having air support. There is no chance of many other things that people can think of. So all we have to say is "no" and it doesn't happen. But something like a T-80 could, in theory, happen. In fact the recent news reports indicate that the Syrians themselves might have T-80s within a relatively short time now that supposedly their credit problem has been addressed.

I think its kind of scary that the game is still wanting to be released in 2006 and the story has not even been written yet...

Time to bite the bullet, pick something and stick with it.

As I said, the time is almost here when we do have to pick something and stick with it. But it isn't here yet. No matter what the game that we release will look like a war against Syria. It might not be called Syria and there might be some minor TO&E differences, but we are too far along to make a radical change (for example to North Korea).

I can't believe you would not use Syria because it would be unrealistic if a real war broke out.

But then you want to use a totaly fictional country...hmm

It is completely logical since in both cases our setting is a work fiction. The only thing more realistic about the Syrian setting is that we are identifying a real country and real geographical places. As I've outlined, it is likely that all major assumptions we must make to have the setting work from a game standpoint are likely about as realistic as a game of US Stryker units vs. aliens (the green kind from Mars, not the Mexican variety that is so much in the news these days ). In fact, I hope with all my might that we ARE wrong since I think another large scale war would set the world back to the 19th Century (I feel we are already set back to the 20th Century).

Another thought... what if Syria collapsed in January 2007 and was taken over by pro-Western reformists? Or how about the US abandons Al Anbar in mid 2007 and we have the player's force launching from that region? Our setting will be more fictional than a fictional setting. THAT is what has renewed my interest in a fictional setting (as C'Rogers pointed out, this has always been on the table since day one, so it isn't new). Keeping in mind that CMBO is still selling six years after release, we decided to accept that CM:SF's storyline, if based on Syria or another real country, would be outdated in 1-2 years at best. Yet as we are fast approaching the point of no return on the backstory and setting I am not at all confident we can even make it to release without it being trashed.

As an aside, as a historian and military historian I hate "what ifs" that require the abandonment of commonsense and undeniable historical forces in order for that setting to work. What if the Third Reich was still around today? What if NATO and the Soviets had a conventional conflict in 1978? What if the Germans had V Weapons in 1939? This sort of stuff is, at best, fun to toss around in a Forum. It is not something I would want to make a game out of.

All this work has been done on Syria.

I vote for sticking with them.

Noted Keep in mind that no matter what, though, CM:SF will play identically whether it is Syria or Fictional Arab State #23. There might be some hardware in there that the Syrians don't currently have, but it isn't anything that they couldn't theoretically have. And of course if you don't want to play with that stuff, then don't since there is an Editor and a Quick Battle option.

Steve

[rune]

After reading this, this could be the reason to go to war.

Broadband Not So Hot in Syria

10,000 users, 2 million on a waiting list

Posted 2006-09-14 08:41:31 by Karl

Yes, we didn't know Syria had only 10,000 broadband customers either. The nation's engaged in a $200 million plan to upgrade the nation's telecom infrastructure, left dysfunctional after "decades of bureaucracy." There are currently 350,000 dial-up users in the country of 19 million, with two million Syrians on a waiting list for a fixed-line connection. The Ministry runs the country's sole landline network operator, the Syrian Telecommunication Establishment (STE), and oversees two private wireless operators, Syriatel and Areeba.

At least we know that not a lot will be coming here to buy the game.

Rune

[Wicky]

Imagine the AARs here if Syrian troops buy CM:SF and play TCIP games against US forces in Iraq!

Taunts*, cross border reprisal raids, escalating into full blown combat could be the background story.

* "Your mutha is a Syrian hamster"

[luderbamsen]

Are you all turning into a bunch of old women? (no offense to the ladies on this forum intended). Have you lost all confidence in BFC? Who do you think you're dealing with here? Ubisoft?

You all know very well that unless the entire staff at BFC has gone completely bonkers, CM:SF will have all the realism you can handle and then some. If you still have doubts, read this thread again.

I can't count the number of CMBB missions I cobbled together that had hordes of Jagdtigers (more than were ever made) charging 1941 vintage Soviet forces. I enjoyed goofing around with these scenarios, not the least because I knew I could always "run home to mama" for a healthy dose of realism and authenticity.

Steve , just choose whatever works best. If putting "US vs. Syria" on the label will get you more sales, do it. If a generic "Middle East Nation" gives you better options gaming-wise, go for it. We'll trust you to do your best to get it right.

Once you got some modules going, you should consider a "Silly Edition" (I'm deadly serious about this, honestly) where we can swap units among nations as we please (if technically feasible, that is), matching British infantry with T-55's and Bradleys or whatever we can come up with.

For one thing, it'll get the "Can we have a Luxemburg vs. Tonga module please" crowd off your back. And if we get bored with it, we can always run back to mama (standard CM:SF).

Respectfully

luderbamsen

[ September 14, 2006, 08:06 AM: Message edited by: luderbamsen ]

[c3k]

So far, Trap One has the best idea.

Regards,

Ken

[MikeyD]

Let's assume that everyone currently on the board is going to know the Red Team in the game is 'really' Syria. If nothing else changes in the game itself, let's ponder which approach to the backstory will sell the most units for BFC!

Will America kicks Syria's Arse attract or repell more players? This isn't a rhetorical question. The highly offensive "Grand Theft Auto" is a best seller. Does controversy = sales?

Will America becomes Embroiled in another Complex regional Conflict attract or repel more players? This is the 'Syria taken over by extremeists and we invade to restore the legitimate government' kinda backstory. This backstory will be the most useful for interesting scenario design, but may be shunned by war-weary purchasers.

Will Kick the Tires and Take Her for a Spin attract or repel more players? This is the most upbeat of the themes, trying out the new 'New Army' with some OPFOR battles. One imagines rural 17 year olds in ROTC wanting to give the game a look. The downside might be uninspiring scenario stories.

I can almost imagine Its Only a Game being BFC's choice. 'We built a really cool game engine - our first title is Stryker Brigade versus Syria because we thought it'd be challenging fun'. Consciously separate yourself from the real world - we're not really invading Syria, we're just playing a fun game. Stressing game engine game engine game engine. Not the most popular choice for the historical wargame crowd, I suspect.

[Battlefront.com]

Mikey,

Yes, that is a possibility. I'll start up a new thread to discuss the options in one place instead of the current two. Stay tuned

Steve