Was it a victory? You decide!

[Battlefront.com]

Yes, very sadly no civilians. You have no idea how much we would love to get them into the game. But poorly implemented civilian modeling would be worse than no direct modeling at all. Trust me on that

However, ROE can be simualted in other ways. We can track building damage. We can perhaps even have some way to assess if the damage was warranted or not, according to some simplistic formula. Such as "dude, there was NOBODY in there and you hit it with three TOWs! Guess who isn't getting a gold star for this engagement?". I'm not entirely sure we can do stuff like this, but it is on paper already.

Cheers,

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

From what I can tell there are three distinctly different types of enemy forces in Iraq right now, though they are found in more than a dozen organizations (i.e. common types, not necessarily common objectives/motivations):

1. Hardcore, professional insurgent - many of these are Jihadists, but not necessarily. These are the ones that have lived to fight another day in other conflicts (West Bank, Lebanon, Afghanistan, Chechniya, etc.) and have moved into Iraq, or they are locals (military, organized crime, what have you) that managed to be on the better side of Darwin's laws. Either way they are skilled and not all that interested in dying. They can send others to do that for them.

2. Nutcases - these are the guys the hardcore get to do the really dumb stuff. Kinda like the older brother goading the younger one to jump off the roof because he's convinvced him that he can fly. "Take this bomb into the market, detonate it, and you'll have virgins all over you forever and ever. Me? Oh, I'm going to make sure we keep good people like yourself motivated and strapped onto explosives." These guys are low skill, one way ticket types. They only know how to do one thing and aren't supposed to have an opportunity to learn from their mistakes. Whether they succeed or fail they are expected to wind up dead.

3. Average Joes - these are folks that are pressed into service to fight the good fight, so to speak. They might aspire to be #1 or (ugh) #2, but aren't there yet. They might also be forced into service for some reason or another. Or they are being paid. There are many possibilities. Their skill sets are more varried than the other two groups, but are generally poor in terms of being able to execute sensible tactics. They are more likely to sit in one place and get a US sniper's bullet between the eyes, for example. They are also terrible shots and have very little sense of military style tactics. These guys make up the bulk of the bodies that litter the field after an engagement with the US forces. The ones that survive might make it into another couple of fights before dying, or perhaps beat the odds and become #1. Either that or they find some way to retire and avoid becoming hamburger.

What has apparently been happening, a bit more frequently than the US would like, is the organizing of the first group. There is more evidence that they are actively in the field controlling their own as well as the other two groups. As was seen in the helo example against 5-20, they aren't necessarily running around firing from the hip all the time. That might still be the individual SOP (sounds like it still is), but someone is there to tell them "that's enough! Time to move and hit them somewhere else" instead of them getting mowed down where they are (though they still have a long ways to go there). This is distinctly different from the An-Nasiriya where waves and waves of irregular forces fought without much, if any, sort of direction.

Time and time again I seen comments from lowly soldiers and officers alike, Marines and Army, about how brave but lousy the average insurgent is. They come out, fire from the hip, then duck back. They have done nothing but expose their position and hostile intent. Then they come right back out from the same spot and try to repeat the fireworks display, only to be shot at and possibly hit. If they survive they often try it AGAIN, from the same spot! One Marine sniper shot several guys in the same spot in the same way, one right after the other. For some reason they did NOT get the hint. Bravado apparently has more to do with the way Iraqis fight than does sound judgement. And in some cases drugs in the bloodstream of the insurgents certainly doesn't help the judgement factor any (though they can take multiple hits and keep on trucking).

Steve

[Caesar]

As far as penalizing the US player for excessive enemy casualties..umm...say what?

Well I did try to make allowances for my lack of real knowledge in this area. The rationale (however right or wrong) was that killing huge numbers of enemy for virtually no loss will not be reported as the excellence of the US forces but rather is more likely to be reported as 'US forces killed over 200 Syrians while rescuing their downed pilot' or some such similar tripe. This sort of report can play out quite badly to those sitting at home with nothing more dangerous than a rather vicious looking pair of toe nail clippers in the near vicinity. It would similarly play out badly on Arab TV.

Unfortunately, despite the impressive media technology available, the accuracy and objectivity standards of the modern media are appallingly low.

However, ROE can be simualted in other ways. We can track building damage. We can perhaps even have some way to assess if the damage was warranted or not, according to some simplistic formula. Such as "dude, there was NOBODY in there and you hit it with three TOWs! Guess who isn't getting a gold star for this engagement?". I'm not entirely sure we can do stuff like this, but it is on paper already.

Now that would be cool. That is far more selective than I would have expected. I hope you guys can get that to work.

[Imperial Grunt]

Time and time again I seen comments from lowly soldiers and officers alike, Marines and Army, about how brave but lousy the average insurgent is. They come out, fire from the hip, then duck back. They have done nothing but expose their position and hostile intent. Then they come right back out from the same spot and try to repeat the fireworks display, only to be shot at and possibly hit.

Very true. The US is fighting an enemy that believes that Allah is going to guide their bullets and magic spiders ate scores of Marines during Fallujah 1. And that is no ****.

But most insurgents do not fight until they are all spun up. The Sunni and Shia insurgents mostly just engaged with an IED, maybe stuck around for a few shots, and then take off. But there were times when they would fight. Just as stated, they were very motivated, but they just sucked as infantry.

The Jihadists are the same, but absolutely fearless. And they tend to blow up.

There are professional Islamic elements, such as mortar teams and snipers, operating and most are affiliated with AQ. But they are not in significant numbers. And these guys are being delt with as well.

As far as the game goes, the Syrian player should have access to Syrian military, Baathist loyalists (like the Saddam Feedyeen), and some Islamic jihadists, some of which may be professional.

[Battlefront.com]

Yeah, I hear you on that negative spin about combat casualties. One of the problems is that the insurgents don't wear uniforms. Without forensic tests, video footage, etc. it simply isn't possible to say who was an innocent bystander and who was an active participant. Especially beacause the medical staff attending to the wounded either assume they are all civilians and/or actively lie about their status. I've read more than one account of a patrol following a trail of blood to a medical facility, being barred at the door by doctors who tell the patrol "there is no insurgents here" only to sure enough find the guy in the flipflops and Addidas T-Shirt they shot in the leg sitting there with a chunk of his leg missing. Then the Arab media comes in and interviews the doctors complaining about raids by Americans taking the wounded "civilian" away from them.

I remember one engagement early in Iraq. Several US soldiers were hit, and I can't remember but probably killed. It was a stiff firefight. The US killed and wounded a number of the attackers. Afterwards, however, the Iraqi authorities complained about all the civilian casualties. For some reason there were about the right number of wounded and dead for that firefight, but they were all "innocent civilians".

Sadly, on more than one occasion a kid will go to pick up a weapon in the middle of a fight and falls victim to legitimate defensive fire. You know damned well that kid's body is tagged as a civilian out playing in the street and not a part of the insurgency (even if he is doing it for cash or because he was kicked out in the street by the thugs).

Not to say that innocents aren't killed in the fighting (they most certainly are), but the lack of uniforms and distortion on the insurgent's side of things really f's up the truth something wicked.

Steve

[Imperial Grunt]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Yeah, I hear you on that negative spin about combat casualties. One of the problems is that the insurgents don't wear uniforms. Without forensic tests, video footage, etc. it simply isn't possible to say who was an innocent bystander and who was an active participant. Especially beacause the medical staff attending to the wounded either assume they are all civilians and/or actively lie about their status. I've read more than one account of a patrol following a trail of blood to a medical facility, being barred at the door by doctors who tell the patrol "there is no insurgents here" only to sure enough find the guy in the flipflops and Addidas T-Shirt they shot in the leg sitting there with a chunk of his leg missing. Then the Arab media comes in and interviews the doctors complaining about raids by Americans taking the wounded "civilian" away from them.

I remember one engagement early in Iraq. Several US soldiers were hit, and I can't remember but probably killed. It was a stiff firefight. The US killed and wounded a number of the attackers. Afterwards, however, the Iraqi authorities complained about all the civilian casualties. For some reason there were about the right number of wounded and dead for that firefight, but they were all "innocent civilians".

Sadly, on more than one occasion a kid will go to pick up a weapon in the middle of a fight and falls victim to legitimate defensive fire. You know damned well that kid's body is tagged as a civilian out playing in the street and not a part of the insurgency (even if he is doing it for cash or because he was kicked out in the street by the thugs).

Not to say that innocents aren't killed in the fighting (they most certainly are), but the lack of uniforms and distortion on the insurgent's side of things really f's up the truth something wicked.

Steve

Which is why the game HAS to model civilians mixed in with the enemy somehow! There has to be a way.

The Syrians would take advantage of every tactic they could to ensure regime survival. So anything the can do to survive and cause a political decision to stop the US and get the US to withdraw, is the Syrian's overiding goal.

[Bigduke6]

One partial solution would be to model media the same way as a UAV or a spotter, i.e., it moves around outside the control of the U.S. player, and has a LOS. However, if this particular viewer sees casualties of any kind - U.S., Syrian, inflicted, or just bodies - then that's VPs for the Syrians and lost VPs for the U.S. side. The logic is that the image of a bloodless conflict is so much in the U.S. side's interest, and against the Syrian side's interest, that any exposure of bloodletting helps the Syrians and harms the U.S.

For extra flavor allow the U.S. player to move around a U.S. camera crew, the A/I to move around, say, an Italian camera crew, and the Syrian player to move around an Arab camera crew. The crews can get hit and die just like an AT team, and are roughly as mobile. You could even give the crews combat ratings for reacting to fire; you can say what you want about Al Jazeera, but the fact is the guys they have on the ground have been under fire repeatedly, and if you look at some of their combat footage it's hard to believe they would have a "combat rating" of anything less than veteran, and maybe even crack or elite. We're talking big brass ones.

A smart Syrian player could play that, just as the anti-U.S. forces do in real life, by trying their best to have casualties occur where the media can see it.

[Drusus]

About the insurgents ability to fight. I am sure they are learning to fight in a way that is most effective to them. Darwin and all... In Afghanistan the fighting is much different. That country has a history of fighting guerilla style. And if I understand correctly they don't usually take too much casualties, at least not in the firefights. Certainly not fighting in the same style as the Iraqi insurgents. I don't know how effective their style of fighting is against US forces, but at least it is better for the Afgans fighting.

And about the victory conditions. If you have operational and strategical objectives it is fine. But think about the ranger scenario. How should that scenario be made with the operational and strategical objectives so that 1) the tactical objectives are what they really were in WWII, 2) the operational and strategical objectives are realistic 3) the battle is fought to the last ranger and 4) the mission briefing and objectives do not give any hint about what will happen. In reality their operational and strategical objectives were _not_ to cause as many casualties as possible and to delay the enemy as long as possible. Their objective was to take the village. Now you possibly could do all this with hidden operational and strategical objectives.

But I think it might be more realistic and simple to have the end result calculated based on the idea of how well did the player do given the situation. Maybe the difference isn't that big to the tactical and strategical objectives from the end result point of view. And ofcourse it is a whole different thing to think which one is easier to implement. At least in human made scenarios both should be doable.

[Drusus]

I don't like the camera crew idea. It is not how it happens in real life. It is annoying to lose a battle because AI happened to move that camera crew so that it can see the casualties. Like throwing dices to see if you lose the battle or not. By the way this is why I don't like Tigers in small battles. You have too much to lose in one moment of bad luck. Also the camera crew is fearsome in the insurgency stage, not in the high intensity fighting stage. And last point: What should the US player do with it's camera crew? Send it out to get killed, minus points for the Syrians? Send it to the corner of the map, no pictures from there? Maybe they get angry and write negatively... In short, I don't like the idea.

[c3k]

Gents,

Regarding excessive damage, I keep reading about large hits against U.S. victory points for damaging mosques. Phooey!!

Here's my idea, a refining of the concept proposed by Steve, above; mosques have no inherently positive or negative value: the value depends on the post-battle results. If a mosque is destroyed, but contains weapons (abandoned mortars, tanks, etc.), surrendered troops (armed), or dead fighters (again, assumed to have weapons), then the U.S. does not suffer a point loss. If the mosque is destroyed and there are NO enemy units in it post-game, then the U.S. suffers a point loss.

This would motivate the Syrian to use mosques in much the same way it would appear they're being used in Iraq: a centralized public building with storage space and an aura of protection. If a fight kicks off, just make sure it's evacuated before you guide the media (western and arab) to show the damage and dead (who were innocently praying with the imam when the crusading westerners wantonly murdered them - yeah, right.).

So, stuff a mosque with hidden units, use them to spring an ambush. As the return fire mounts, escape with all your gear. U.S. loses.

Regards,

Ken

[akd]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Yes, very sadly no civilians. You have no idea how much we would love to get them into the game. But poorly implemented civilian modeling would be worse than no direct modeling at all. Trust me on that

However, ROE can be simualted in other ways. We can track building damage. We can perhaps even have some way to assess if the damage was warranted or not, according to some simplistic formula. Such as "dude, there was NOBODY in there and you hit it with three TOWs! Guess who isn't getting a gold star for this engagement?". I'm not entirely sure we can do stuff like this, but it is on paper already.

Cheers,

Steve

But would the decision to use three TOWs against the structure really be deemed a mistake: given that 1.) the commander must have had some cause think the structure posed a threat and 2.) the commander knows there are no civilians in the structure?

I think you are heading down the path of creating a game world with artificial restrictions where commanders are punished for decisions that in the real world would not even be questioned.

This is, of course, assuming you are creating a system that presumes the player is a rational commander and not a lunatic blowing up a town for ****s and giggles. Do we really need a game that accounts for such behavior?

[ January 07, 2006, 05:21 PM: Message edited by: akd ]

[akd]

Originally posted by Bigduke6:

One partial solution would be to model media the same way as a UAV or a spotter, i.e., it moves around outside the control of the U.S. player, and has a LOS. However, if this particular viewer sees casualties of any kind - U.S., Syrian, inflicted, or just bodies - then that's VPs for the Syrians and lost VPs for the U.S. side. The logic is that the image of a bloodless conflict is so much in the U.S. side's interest, and against the Syrian side's interest, that any exposure of bloodletting helps the Syrians and harms the U.S.

For extra flavor allow the U.S. player to move around a U.S. camera crew, the A/I to move around, say, an Italian camera crew, and the Syrian player to move around an Arab camera crew. The crews can get hit and die just like an AT team, and are roughly as mobile. You could even give the crews combat ratings for reacting to fire; you can say what you want about Al Jazeera, but the fact is the guys they have on the ground have been under fire repeatedly, and if you look at some of their combat footage it's hard to believe they would have a "combat rating" of anything less than veteran, and maybe even crack or elite. We're talking big brass ones.

A smart Syrian player could play that, just as the anti-U.S. forces do in real life, by trying their best to have casualties occur where the media can see it.

The only footage that the "Syrian-embedded" media could use towards a strategic end would be:

1. Dead civilians. Seeing as there are no civilians in the game, letting the other side pretend fallen combatants are civilians seems a bit unfair. Under the artificial victory conditions imposed by such a system, the Syrian player could simply choose to get all his forces killed as quickly as possible without even an attempt to accomplish a tactical goal or inflict U.S. casualties. The U.S. side then "loses" because there are 200 combatant bodies on the battlefied that the Arab media has magically transformed into civilians with their +2 Camera of Spinning.

2. Footage of U.S. casualties. Personally, the casualties are enough of a loss, and as a player, I don't really want to hear that I extra-lost because my casualties were filmed.

Anyways, if you put media on the battlefield, you put civilians on the battlefield and now we're right back where we started.

[Imperial Grunt]

Originally posted by akd:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Bigduke6:

One partial solution would be to model media the same way as a UAV or a spotter, i.e., it moves around outside the control of the U.S. player, and has a LOS. However, if this particular viewer sees casualties of any kind - U.S., Syrian, inflicted, or just bodies - then that's VPs for the Syrians and lost VPs for the U.S. side. The logic is that the image of a bloodless conflict is so much in the U.S. side's interest, and against the Syrian side's interest, that any exposure of bloodletting helps the Syrians and harms the U.S.

For extra flavor allow the U.S. player to move around a U.S. camera crew, the A/I to move around, say, an Italian camera crew, and the Syrian player to move around an Arab camera crew. The crews can get hit and die just like an AT team, and are roughly as mobile. You could even give the crews combat ratings for reacting to fire; you can say what you want about Al Jazeera, but the fact is the guys they have on the ground have been under fire repeatedly, and if you look at some of their combat footage it's hard to believe they would have a "combat rating" of anything less than veteran, and maybe even crack or elite. We're talking big brass ones.

A smart Syrian player could play that, just as the anti-U.S. forces do in real life, by trying their best to have casualties occur where the media can see it.

The only footage that the "Syrian-embedded" media could use towards a strategic end would be:

1. Dead civilians. Seeing as there are no civilians in the game, letting the other side pretend fallen combatants are civilians seems a bit unfair. Under the artificial victory conditions imposed by such a system, the Syrian player could simply choose to get all his forces killed as quickly as possible without even an attempt to accomplish a tactical goal or inflict U.S. casualties. The U.S. side then "loses" because there are 200 combatant bodies on the battlefied that the Arab media has magically transformed into civilians with their +2 Camera of Spinning.

2. Footage of U.S. casualties. Personally, the casualties are enough of a loss, and as a player, I don't really want to hear that I extra-lost because my casualties were filmed.

Anyways, if you put media on the battlefield, you put civilians on the battlefield and now we're right back where we started. </font>

[Drusus]

Originally posted by akd:

But would the decision to use three TOWs against the structure really be deemed a mistake: given that 1.) the commander must have had some cause think the structure posed a threat and 2.) the commander knows there are no civilians in the structure.

I think you are heading down the path of creating a game world with artificial restrictions where commanders are punished for decisions that in the real world would not even be questioned.

This is, of course, assuming you are creating a system that presumes the player is a rational commander and not a lunatic blowing up a town for ****s and giggles. Do we really need a game that accounts for such behavior?

The assumption that the commanders are rational might mean that they will just blow up the whole village. No friendly casualties -> a perfect victory. I think that if there is a lot of enemy fighters in the area, then blowing up some houses where there is no enemy fighters isn't excessive collateral damage. Ofcourse the Syrians might think differently... But if you send in some 155mm artillery just in case there might be a lot of enemies, then that is excessive use of force and the player should be penalized. If there is no limitation, then a rational (in game terms) commander will use that artillery just in case.

I must admit that firing 3 TOWs to a building will almoust never be excessive because if you fire TOWs you propably think that there is some threat from that building. But with artillery it is clearly different. You can destroy the whole village just in case, with TOWs you propably can't.

Does somebody know the limits there was in OIF regarding use of heavy artillery in build up areas?

[Battlefront.com]

LTC West,

Sorry, no way can we put in civilians. It is just way, way too much work to do for one game. It is, in no small way, an entirely different simulation of its own. And that is exactly why we aren't simulating insurgent warfare. Irregular warfare, yes, but that is a slightly different thing. Still would benefit from the presence of civilians, but it is not required.

The likely scenario is that most of the irregulars would wait for the frontline combat forces to pass through an area without much large scale confrontation. Hit the enemy when it is weak, not when it is strong. It is something the insurgents understand very well (most of the time). Far more damage could be done to an invasion force by causing a problem for whomever follows the frontline forces. Plus, when there is an active battle the civilian cover is at its thinnest. It's when life tries to return to normal that the insurgent has his greatest amount of cover.

As for the "three TOWs in the building" example I tossed out. LTC West said it very well:

A US unit has to have positive ID before firing. Maybe there can be an interface to allow the player to override a unit's default adhearance to the ROE, but the US military will never be able to do "mad minutes" and "recon by fire", unless we get involved in a land war with someone like China.

Unlike a real commander, a game player can be as crazy as he likes UNLESS we do something to change that. Inherently if we did nothing a player could use an Abrams or a JDAM for "recon by fire" when in fact no US commander could do that and get away with it. Sure, there is gray areas sometimes with the benefit of the doubt going to the commander. However, that is not assured. There have been some pretty high profile incidences where US soldiers have been punished pretty harshly for gray area type behavior. People are looking to cover their asses.

In Iraq US forces need permission to fire certain assets at civilian structures EVEN IF THEY ARE BEING SHOT AT! Just because someone with a 9mm pistol is taking pot shots out a 3rd story window does NOT mean that a TOW gunner can fire away. Nope, he has to get on the radio and explain why it is the little twerp can't be taken out with small arms or a quick infantry assault.

When the engagements are hot and heavy, such as Fallujah, the rules get relaxed a bit because it is understood that civilian damage/casualties are unavoidable. That is the sort of thing the player in CM:SF will be facing. The ROE allows the player more flexibility than he would have in a low intensity warfare sim, but he is not free to level structures to get a better vantage point on the next street. That is no longer OK. All the detailed studies of the Russians in Grozny point out exactly why the US military has really taken this to heart.

The BN Co's decision to let loose artillery on An-Nasiriyah was only done after quite a long while into the battle. He waited until it was clear that there really was a need for it. In theory he could have called down artillery after the first hint of resistance. But he did not because he knew he should not. As far as I know he was not slapped on the wrist because it was so clear. However, had he done it in the morning or the day before... he'd be doing KP duty in one of the Green Zone's US based fast food joints.

Steve

[akd]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

As for the "three TOWs in the building" example I tossed out.

An Israeli officer on using multiple TOWs against a building:

Speaking from experience in leading infantry in urban operations, the officer described one situation he encountered in which a group of individuals holed up in a building were targeted with a large number of TOW missiles. "I'm a little ashamed to say just how many," he said, "but let's just say it was a lot." After the smoke had cleared, it was found that the men inside had left by a back door and run off, such was the inability of the missiles to penetrate the building.

Take some victory points away from that man!

[Drusus]

From FM 3-06.11 (MOUT):

c. Minimization of Collateral Damage and Noncombatant Casualties. A condition that commanders and leaders will be required to confront during urban operations will be minimizing collateral damage and noncombatant casualties. This will have to be balanced with mission accomplishment and the requirement to provide force protection. Commanders must be aware of the ROE and be prepared to request modifications when tactical situation requires them.

So, it is clear that collateral damage VP reductions should be in. But the real problem is ofcourse how to do it in game terms.

[Bigduke6]

Although I pretty much disagree with that article cited by LTC West about how most journos do their job in a war zone, I think the writer's on the money with the conclusion that a modern U.S. war won't "fly" (i.e., maintain support with the U.S. taxpayers) unless it's ultra-clean. Call it another aspect of asymetrical warfare. So I'm with you, CMSF should place real-life restraints on U.S. escelations of the level of violence.

One VP modifier CM already is considering is area damage; the more buildings the American knocks down, the more likely he'll take a VP hit.

I have been pushing U.S. penalties for "excess" Syrian casualties, but I can see Steve's point that would be hard to implement. So here's another idea: How 'bout effectively no U.S. VPs for killing off inept members of the Arab mob that picked up their AKs and walked into the U.S. buzz saw? I.e., all friendly casualties are not created equal.

True, in present CM it's more VP points to kill off members of crack sturmhamster units than conscript hedgehog landwehr. But I would suggest taking things a step further: No VPs at all for the U.S. for wiping out Arab mob units. This would replicate, at least, the pointlessness of getting a body count from the "Arab street." There are always more, which is realistic.

The inhibitor on the Syrian player for shoving mobs into U.S. kill zones can also be realistic: morale rules tied to Arab bodies on the ground; for every pixel corps in LOS there is a morale hit for low-grade Syrian troops. Get enough corpses, and the mob will ignore orders to go forward, which is also realistic.

By that same token the Syrian leaders can come in a wider variety of flavors. One idea is to create a "fanatic" rating for a few leaders; the idea that when you're in this guy's radius and you're Syrian, you act fanatic. The leader gets waxed, and goodbye fanaticism bonus, just like the combat or morale bonus in CM.

Also by way of P.S. I really think the Syrians would aim for an insurgency from Day 1, sort of similar to the approach the Chinese or the Yugoslavians planned against the Soviet Union or NATO during the Cold War era. I think the Syrians would absolutely incorporate civilians and media and all that insurgency stuff in their war effort from the very beginning of the war, as their only realistic strategy is to make the war painful enough to make the Americans bail over time. You could argue, same as is the strategy in Iraq.

But no civilians and the war will be conventional for the period gamed by CMSF, understood, NFQ, out.

[undead reindeer cavalry]

Originally posted by Bigduke6:

One VP modifier CM already is considering is area damage; the more buildings the American knocks down, the more likely he'll take a VP hit.

i think it should apply only to special buildings and it should apply to both sides.

The inhibitor on the Syrian player for shoving mobs into U.S. kill zones can also be realistic: morale rules tied to Arab bodies on the ground; for every pixel corps in LOS there is a morale hit for low-grade Syrian troops. Get enough corpses, and the mob will ignore orders to go forward, which is also realistic.

i don't think it's realistic. i have read far too many reports of Arab infantry fighting on when they have faced certain death. perhaps some of it has been because of lacking battlefield awareness but i don't think that's all there is to it. Westerners tend to label such enemy behaviour as fatalism.

on the other hand there appears to be a slight tendency for a minor/marginal part of US forces to panic when they experience a friendly casulty and more importantly there's the doctrinal imperative to avoid casulties.

Also by way of P.S. I really think the Syrians would aim for an insurgency from Day 1, sort of similar to the approach the Chinese or the Yugoslavians planned against the Soviet Union or NATO during the Cold War era. I think the Syrians would absolutely incorporate civilians and media and all that insurgency stuff in their war effort from the very beginning of the war, as their only realistic strategy is to make the war painful enough to make the Americans bail over time. You could argue, same as is the strategy in Iraq.

the current Syrian doctrine is that of low-signature light forces, or "regular irregular forces" as one poster commented. i don't think that mobs with AKs and some RGPs are capable of such operations. no doubt occupied territory would face insurgency, but certainly Syrian forces would do their best to first prevent an occupation from taking place.

[Drusus]

Originally posted by undead reindeer cavalry:

i think it should apply only to special buildings and it should apply to both sides.

I think there should be special buildings which are to be not touched. If you do you will take a severe VP hit. This means also that the Syrians should not position forces in them. And then there should be the VPs from collateral damage.

Why not both sides, but the enemy the Syrians are going to have in the battles is propably always so big that it warrants a lot of damage. The situation is much different if there are only three snipers in the village.

[Sergei]

Originally posted by undead reindeer cavalry:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Bigduke6:

One VP modifier CM already is considering is area damage; the more buildings the American knocks down, the more likely he'll take a VP hit.

i think it should apply only to special buildings and it should apply to both sides.</font>

[undead reindeer cavalry]

Originally posted by Drusus:

I think there should be special buildings which are to be not touched. If you do you will take a severe VP hit. This means also that the Syrians should not position forces in them. And then there should be the VPs from collateral damage.

i like the idea that you get VP hit if you position troops in certain buildings.

Why not both sides, but the enemy the Syrians are going to have in the battles is propably always so big that it warrants a lot of damage. The situation is much different if there are only three snipers in the village.

i'm not sure if i understand what you mean. do you mean that in battles the US side will have more forces than the Syrians and so Syrians are free to cause more damage? surely Syrians should have more forces to make the battles interesting, as the US forces are better trained and equipped?

[Andrew H.]

Originally posted by Bigduke6:

Although I pretty much disagree with that article cited by LTC West about how most journos do their job in a war zone, I think the writer's on the money with the conclusion that a modern U.S. war won't "fly" (i.e., maintain support with the U.S. taxpayers) unless it's ultra-clean.

I'll go beyond disagreeing with the article and call it offensive, anti-democratic, politically motivated, and dishonest. The problem with the war in Iraq, of course, is that many people don't support it - and of those who do support it, their support is not deep. It's not because of casualties that they don't support it, but because the war was sold as: (1) a war to stop Saddam's production of WMDs; (2) secondarily, as a war to stop Saddam; and (3) a war that not only would be over quickly, but a war that was over 18 mos. ago.

Against this backdrop - yeah, the US population is sensitive to casualties...there is little to no support for having the troops stay for the long term, and while most people probably do not support precipitously pulling out, they do want the troops home as soon as possible. So in this particular situation involving a war that, had the true facts been known would have had little support, yeah, the US public is sensitive to casualties. If troops were finding crude nuclear labs and sarin factories, people would be much more supportive of the war and much less sensitive to casualties.

Blaming journalists for the lack of support of the war is basically intellectually dishonest scapegoating...although if the writer wanted to blame the journalists for insufficiently investigating the administrations claims that led us into this war. Well, he would have a point.

[undead reindeer cavalry]

Originally posted by Sergei:

IMHO the planned % system is better. It doesn't matter if you destroy a few buildings (preferably those where the defenders are in)... but if you destroy half the block just as a precaution, it will be different.

i guess you are right. perhaps different houses can add different number of percentages tho.

[Drusus]

URC,

What I meant was that there are propably going to be battles where your mission is to secure a village in which there are 3 snipers. You have a Styker company with CAS and Artillery support. In this situation using artillery at all is excessive. But the Syrians are propably always going to fight battles where their enemy is big. At least a platoon or something like that. I must admit that there certainly could be battles where the Syrians must take collateral damage in account. Different thing is that it is possible that in many battles they don't have anything to cause excessive amounts of collateral damage. Many times no Artillery and always no Air support.