CM:SF FAQ

[WineCape]

More complaints about we don’t wanna kill Syrians and it is morally unjust?

See here before you peruse this thread.

…It’s very easy to confuse fruit spirits with liqueurs flavoured fruit. Remember a liqueur is both sweetened & flavoured, a fruit spirit is distilled from the fruit itself.

Calvados

This is the best known of the world’s apple spirits, aka applejack in North America. It comes from Normandy and Brittany in Northern France [CMx2 v2.0] and form part of the French AC system. In all, there are 11 different regional Calvados appellations, but the best, IMHO, comes from Vallee d’Auge, just east of Caen. [sound familiar?]

This has the AC Calvados du Paus d’Auge and has to be distilled twice in copper pot stills and aged for at least 2 years. The lesser de Cidre de Normandie can be made in continuous stills and thus lacks the same flavour.

Fruit eau-de-vie

These are the results of distillation of fermented fruit, which is then aged, generally in glass carboys. [don’t get me side-tracked] As a result they take on no colour and are usually served very cold to accentuate the pure fruit flavour.

Eau-de-vie are made widely in Europe, including Slivovitz from Bosnia [CMx2 v3.0]. The finest are considered to come from Alsace and the Vosges Mountains in France, the Black Forest in Germany and the northern part of Switzerland. In Germany, the pure distilled spirit is described as Wasser. If some relevant fruit has been macerated in the spirit to give it an extra flavour, it is known as Geist.

Among the most popular fruits are kirsch (cherries), Poire Williams (pears), framboise/Himbeergeist (raspberries), de fraise (strawberries), de quetsch/Zwetschgen (blue plums) – excuse my spelling - and de mirabelle (yellow plums).

Marc & Grappa

A number of regions, particularly Champagne & Burgundy, distill marc, the residue of skins and stalks from the wine press, to produce a type of brandy called eau-de-vie-de-marc. Most wine producing countries make similar spirits. The Italian version is grappa. Apologies, this is all I could remember here.

Cognac

This is an aged brandy made from grapes grown in the Cognac region in Charente departments of western France. A protected product under Appellation Controlee or AC. Just one grape variety - AFAIK Ugni Blanc – is responsible for the vast majority of Cognac.

The Cognac region is divided into 6 growing areas (crus). Each of these areas’ terroir expresses itself assertively in the characteristics of its aged brandies. Cognac is usually a blend of eau-de-vie [see above to understand] from the 4 main areas, or, as in the case of Fine Champagne Cognac, a blend of eau-de-vie from the Grande & Petite Champagne areas.

In the final 2 areas, Bons Bois & Bois Ordinaire, the quality of the eau-de-vie produced declines due to the influence of the cool, Atlantic climate and an increase of sandy soil, as per latest research.

The base of Cognac is a wine, as said, made from Ugni Blanc grapes. The wine produced will be light, fruity and highly acidic with an alc. content of between 8-10%. 9 Litres of wine is needed to distill 1 litre of Cognac. The complete distillation process takes 24 hours to produce the eau-de-vie from the base wine.

Ageing is essential stage in establishing the character of the finished cognac. Cognac is aged in 350-litre oak casks, mostly 2 types of wood: Troncais – the wood tends to be closer-grained than Limousi oak below. The wood has less tannins then Limousin, giving vanilla aromas and a lighter finish to the end product. Limousin - the grain in this wood is more widely spaced and gives Cognac matured in them a marked woody character. Due to this wider spread, there is greater evaporation of the eau-de-vie and it will mature quicker than those aged in Troncais [forgot the KB shortcut where the “c” has a small goatee-beard].

Armagnac

An AC aged brandy made from grapes grown in the Armagnac region of Gascony in SW France. The grape variety and vinification are similar to that described in the Cognac section. Distillation of Armagnac usually takes place in a form of continuous still, called alambic armagnacais, though some producers prefer the copper pot still as used in Cognac with a double distillation.

Armagnac must, by regulation, be aged in casks of 400-litre capacity mostly from local Gascon oak (Monlezun) or from Limousin. The Monlezun casks add extra richness and colour to the eau-de-vie. Due to limited supply of local Monlezun oak, most producers use Limousin casks.

There are 4 main types of Armagnac available:

1. VS – This has been aged for a min. 1 year. Can be a little bit fiery and a sweet finish.

2. VSOP – Aged for a min. of 4 years. Will have developed the mellow character associated with Armagnac.

3. XO/Rare – Made from the finest Armagnac, the best will have complex prune & spice character and richness.

4. Vintage – from a single year, the date of bottling being mentioned on the label.

In trading terms, Armagnac has always seemed to be Cognac’s poor relation. The best examples, though, are both individual and among the finest quality brandies. The major export company is Janneau.

Spirits

Spirits are drinks that have been produced by concentrating the alcohol present in a fermented liquid by the process of distillation. Distillation was used, AFAIK, as early as 3500 BC in the manufacture of perfumes, but it was not until circa 1100 AD that wine was first distilled to make a spirit. What makes spirit different from other alcoholic drinks is distillation; the concentrating of alcohol be separating the various components that make up fermented liquid.

This separation is possible because each of the fractions that go to make up that liquid boil, thus turning into vapours, at different temperatures. It’s therefore possible to heat the liquid to a particular temperature, and then turn them back into liquid by condensing them.

As far as spirits for human consumption are concerned, the relevant factor is that ethanol boils at about 78,5 Deg. C and water at 100 Deg. C. If the alcoholic base product is heated to around 78,5 the alcohol is boiled off leaving the other constituents, mostly water, behind. The broader the range of vapours that are condensed, the more flavour the spirit will have.

Any other moral objections regarding CM:SF? Fire away. I’ll be happy to keep this FAQ updated.

Now read this below.

Syrian challenge – a bunch of rollovers?

The Syrian force is, for the most part, motivated to resist. While the bulk of the Army would melt away (just like in Iraq) and/or made combat ineffective through strategic/operational events (airstrikes of various sorts mostly), plenty of forces would remain to cause trouble for the player's advance. Remember, the player's forces are generally the *first* to make contact, therefore the ones that get to meet the most organized, prepared, and determined resistance that the Syrians would be capable of. On a large scale this wouldn't amount to enough to change, or even significantly delay, the inevitable conquering of the country, but on a CM scale it could be rather deadly. As I said in another thread, I expect most players will get their butt's handed to them for a while judging by what most of you guys think are "acceptable losses" and "good tactics"

The challenge to the player does not come from any one thing. Far too many wargamers are under the impression that challenge primarily comes from the hardware. That is a completely false premise. If it were true then the Germans would have been defeated in France in 1940 and the war ended right there and then or the Eastern Front would have collapsed in 1941 or 1942. Equipment is only a PART of the receipt for success. So if not just the equipment, then what? Tactics, leadership, training, and speed. These are the things the player has to bring with the game. A slow thinking, uncreative, clueless about combined arms player will get smacked around by a seemingly paltry enemy force. Just like in CMx1 a bad player could lose a scenario handily, even to the AI, when a good player could sail through it. And that brings me to another important component... mission objectives. If your objective is to secure an area without taking much casualties, you will loose the game if you secure the area after suffering unacceptable losses. In another situation you might be required to recon an identify enemy targets, engaging only as necessary. If instead you decide to try and assault them and get beat up in the process, and don't really perform recon, you'll lose. Lastly, the setting, such as terrain and weather, can take everything I just mentioned and turn it on its head. What works well in an open environment at dusk won't work "as is" in an urban environment at night. Clearing out fixed defenses in uneven terrain isn't at all like dealing with an ambush of a convoy. This means you have to adapt different tactics to different environments depending on conditions outside of your control.

All of these things combine together to create challenge. They are the three major challenges that real world forces face in war; equipment, leadership, following orders, and setting (though not necessarily in that order). CMx1 did the equipment and environmental parts really well as a simulator. Leadership was also simulated extremely well compared to other games, but Relative Spotting and certain other tweaks ratchet that up another notch (or two!). The one thing that CMx1 did not simulate well at all is following orders. The mission parameters for players in the old system were extremely simplistic -> take/hold that flag. Now you'll be given clear and explicit dos/don'ts and perhaps even the order in which they need to be accomplished. Obviously these settings are up to the scenario designer since you can range all the way from "stay alive" to "take out the 3 bunkers in the NW part of the map and don't lose anybody doing it". So no worries about things becoming repetitious or unduly limiting your tactical options. In other words, you won't get "orders" like "use your Stryker ATGMs to take out the 2 tanks at these locations. Move 1st Platoon to Objective A using this route, 2nd Platoon to Objective B using this route". Way too specific and certainly not as interesting as "a UAV has spotted 2 tanks moving around 500m north of your position. Seek and destroy." The fact that the UAV didn't notice that one tank was already abandoned and that there is a platoon of Syrian Special Forces waiting for you to find out... well, that's for you to discover

We are modeling guerrilla warfare and Irregular forces. In fact, that is going to be one of the primary challenges for the US Player. What I have said is that we are not going to portray suicide bombers. They would likely play only a small role in the initial invasion, but without simulating civilians and civilian traffic, it isn't technically possible. The ONLY way suicide bombers achieve their aim is by mimicking civilians in order to get close to their target. No civilians, no cover, they are easily spotted, and even more easily eliminated.

Syria has quite a decent Special Forces component from what we can tell. These guys have great equipment and will likely offer the most difficult conventional challenge. Don't be surprised to find out that they can operate at night almost as well as you can!

Regular Syrian Army forces, when properly employed (mostly on the defensive, remember) can offer up a significant challenge. They might suffer a lot of losses, but you and they don't operate under the same tolerance for losses. Sure, they might lose a platoon of tanks and 4 ATGM teams along with a host of infantry... but if you lose a couple of Stykers and half a Squad... hey, someone might wonder if you really are the kind of quality leadership the US Army expects to see at the tip of the tip of the spear.

Militias fall somewhere between Regular and Irregular. They are trained and armed like Regulars, but in reality they tend to behave more like Irregulars.

And of course, combos of these things. You might run into a small Regular Army unit that is backed up by Militia units for example. Or Special Forces acting in concert with some Irregulars. The possibilities are really endless.

So there you have it... the challenge is going to come from the combo of all these things, and more, and NOT from "my tank has bigger balls than your tank" kind of mentality. It isn't all about the equipment, though the side with the best equipment obviously has an inherent advantage. But an advantage can be easily squandered if the person in charge doesn't know what he is doing. We expect most of you to not know what you are doing for quite some time.

One small addition. Everything I said above applies to both sides. I illustrated the constraints of the US player because, for the most part, that is the one that drives the scenario's character because the US will usually be on the offensive. If you want to picture what it looks like from the Syrian side, just take the opposite. US is supposed to clear out some tanks, Syrian side is supposed to prevent it, or at least make it painful to do. Convoy ambush setting means causing as many casualties as you can with not so much emphasis on having anything of your own survive the engagement, while the US gets a big black mark against it for every single soldier lost.

No turkey shoot then?

One thing to keep in mind is the timescale. The broader the time sampling, the "easier" things look for the US side. Same thing can be said for WWII. When you look at the breakout from Normandy to the German border, for example, it looks like it was a total piece of cake. Then you read the memoirs of the guys who were doing the advance and you see that the Germans didn't just drive out of France one day and then the Allies drove to Germany the next. There were plenty of small unit engagements at the CM level.

The same is true for CM:SF. The defeat of Syria is a foregone conclusion. Militarily, in the strategic sense, it can not win a war against the US. Pretty much no potential advesary can expect to hold out for more than a couple of weeks, or months at most. But that doesn't mean they just give up and let the opposing forces walk in and assume control. As others have said, the US forces lost quite a lot of armor in OIF over the last 2 years. If they stood back and had JDAMs dropped on everything then the only explaination for the loss of armor would be friendly fire

Which side(s) are playable?

Remember that the Campaign is single player only from the US side. I am not sure if we will do a Campaign from the Syrian point of view. That might be rather difficult for us to do because offensive AI is so very, very important to making such a campaign worth playing. Seeing as real world, top trained, militaries are still trying to figure out how to fight in this very setting... it is a rather tall order to ask us to be able to code a computer to do it just as well.

However, of course the game is playable from the Syrian side in QBs and stand alone Scenarios. For QBs I see people tending more towards CMx1 style parity of forces. Highly unrealistic, but QBs have never been much like realistic anyway. Stand alone Scenarios, however, are a totally different story. All a Campaign is (tactically) is just a bunch of Scenarios strung together. Therefore, the elements that make the Campaign games fun also make the Standalone ones just as fun from a tactical standpoint.

I’ll be bored stiff with the USA’s overwhelming forces in CM:SF

And as for the superiority of US forces, yup... in the strategic and operational sense that is very true. But I wasn't aware that US forces in Iraq are bored stiff and don't find themselves challenged. One AAR I read where Marines had difficulty retrieving 3 dead squadmates from a house sure didn't sound bored or uninterested in improving their tactics...

Sincerely.

[Bonxa]

Maybe it's only me but I found the first part of this FAQ very helpfull in clearing up a few questionmarks. Thanks!

[SSgt Viljuri]

Hi Charlize!