BFC Please sketch the game from the Syrian point of view!

[Thomm]

Hi guys!

It is clear to me that I will buy CMx2 although the setting is one that I have yet to get used to.

For some reason that I cannot exactly justify I am more drawn to the Syrian side of the scenario. Maybe it is an "underdog" sort of thing, maybe it is because I do not associate anything "evil" with the Syrians due to lack of proper political education. Maybe I am curious about the obscure equipment the Syrians will have. (Cannot wait to employ those heavy Soviet AA MGs!)

So, suppose I want to play Syrians, what is expecting me? It seems to me that it is somehow like playing Axis in WW2, that is, the *strategic* outcome is known or at least predictable. Or is it not?!

Will you attempt to create Syrian missions that are actually interesting and "fair"? Will it be possible to win as Syrians in a "fair" way? That is by soldiering and not by acts of terrorism?

Will you re-consider a Syrian campaign?

In short: Will it be FUN to play Syrians?

Best regards,

Thomm

[RSColonel_131st]

I think for playing as the Syrian Commander, you would do well to think in terms of Guerilla Warfare.

Hit and Run Tactics, causing as much casualitys on the US side as you can without trying to hold ground.

As far as I recall reading we will see new sets of victory conditions, like for example "US must escort convoy from A to B and casualitys can not be bigger than X for political reasons". So as a Syrian Commander, that defines fairly well how you will play.

I think some good literature on the topic may be the Mudjaheedin's way of fighting the Sovjets in Afghanistan.

I'd also like to know if we will be able to make our own Syrian Campaign if Battlefront doesn't include it. At least with the old Operations, plenty of users could create them.

[rai kitsune]

heh i'm the same here i would like to play as the syrians mostly in custom battles because i like Soviet and sino equipment better (just for the pure asthetics) and am marginally better as a player who uses ambush and defense than as a rolling force player.

[Thomm]

On a related note, I hope that the AI will not have problems handling the US forces in the sophisticated way that is expected from them!

Best regards,

Thomm

[Wisbech_lad]

Well, learning from CMAK/CMBB. Strykers are basically AC yes? Some 30/57mm AA guns should stop gamey flank rushers...

[SSgt Viljuri]

As the Syrians, we should not forget our prime directive: "Is.... m..t b. utt...y .es......!"

Hm, well... it's a bit (or tad) too political on the second thought, and not funny at all.

I apologize.

[Thomm]

Originally posted by SSgt Viljuri:

As the Syrians, we should not forget our prime directive: "Is.... m..t b. utt...y .es......!"

Well, the game is (unfortunately) about Syria BEING "invaded" or "liberated" or "pacified" (whatever), right?!

So this directive does not play a role?!?! :confused:

[aka_tom_w]

Doesn't this pretty much sum it up for the Syrian side?

The OPFOR (Opposing Forces) consist of regular Syrian Army troops, the well trained/armed Syrian Special Forces, hastily organized militias, and other non-conventional combat formations. This array of opposition allows for a host of possibilities and opportunities for vastly varied play from one scenario to another. The tactical challenges that these forces and terrain options, along with the new way we're constructing scenario parameters, present make CMx1's battles look mundane and repetitive by comparison. Rest assured that CM:SF is not an unchallenging "turkey shoot" for the US player. We'd not be making a modern game if we felt an unrealistic turkey shooter was the best we could do.

The campaign is single player only from the US side. Quick Battles and user made Scenarios (using the Editor) can be played from both sides. Additionally there is an option to play "Blue on Blue" where US forces face off against US forces.

-Steve

[Thomm]

No.

It only tells us that it is not a "turkey shoot" for the US player.

But what is the expected gameplay experience for the Syrian player??!

[General Bolt]

Will there be non-combatants standing around?

What will the effects be on combat?

If the US forces kill the civilians then they get negative points.

If the Syrians kill the civilians then the US forces get negative points.

[Martin Krejcirik]

I believe Steve said user created campaigns might be possible later.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by General Bolt:

Will there be non-combatants standing around?

What will the effects be on combat?

If the US forces kill the civilians then they get negative points.

If the Syrians kill the civilians then the US forces get negative points.

No civilians.

It's still the same CM isn't it? turn-based company level game? So the QBs and user made scenarios will still focus on a couple platoons or more per side. What's not to understand?

[RSColonel_131st]

Seems to me the original question hasn't been really answered.

I'd really like to hear from BFC how this will play out for the syrian side. The more I read, the more it seems to me their aim is not to model guerilla warfare - but then, what's left for the Syrians to score with?

[MikeyD]

Well, we've got equipment that Syria could/might field in 2007 on the other side and a Stryker Brigade and their equipment on the other. It'd be up to the scenario designers to actually shape the battlefield, and I doubt the game's far enough along for any scenarios to be started yet.

If someone builds a scenario with a dozen T72s rushing a lightly manned checkpoint at night that'll be one type of battle. If they do a patrol of M1114 Hummers rolling through a heavily built-up area that'll be another. Let's not assume Syria in 2007 will fight like Iraq in 2003. And let's not assume the U.S. Army in 2003 will be able to fight like it did in Iraq 2003 either.

With CM's scale and timeframe you could concoct pretty much any combination of forces for a battle. Of course a half hour after the scenario's finished a hypothetical F/A18 or SU-39Frogfoot strike could make any progress made by either side a moot point. But is this any different than in CMAK?

[kipanderson]

Hi,

For me the only stretch needed is to have a back-story, in the preferred BFC/CMSF jargon , that can credibly assume the Syrians are up-for-it. i.e. certainly do “not” feel they are being “liberated”. Are very keen to fight. This in turn means you can realistically assume high Syrian moral; within the context of the game.

As I have posted elsewhere I will be assuming Bush invades Syria in order to spread democracy and secure his legacy. Enough to make any Syrian wish to fight and more politically neutral than the likely official back-story.

But any back-story that allows the Syrians to have high moral will do the trick. Take your pick.

The context is that Syrians, with a will to fight, are certainly well armed enough to make a fight of any invasion from the US using forces of the size used in the 2nd Gulf War.

The two wars against Iraq should not be seen as a likely example of what would happen against a Middle Eastern country with greater will to fight. i.e. that is on the side of its own government. But we are not talking armour v armour fights.

All the best,

Kip.

[Thomm]

Trying one last bump to this thread!

Best regards,

Thomm

[RSColonel_131st]

Originally posted by MikeyD:

If someone builds a scenario with a dozen T72s rushing a lightly manned checkpoint at night that'll be one type of battle. If they do a patrol of M1114 Hummers rolling through a heavily built-up area that'll be another.

From the BFC Tidbits, it doesn't sound like they want to model anything else than "all out war", the first phase of the invasion. So, no checkpoints or Hummer Patrols.

[Kwazydog]

Thomm Ill see if Steve can give you some answers tomorrow

Dan

[Pandur]

hmm, since both sides can be played i think/hope that the syrians will have stuff/methods to bring serious headache for "team america"

and i was a bit shocked when i saw the new SF category a few days ago(and the big amount of posts allready made), and read that it will be about US vs syria...

i thoght how cheesy it is, but than it blowed into my mind that i can rout US with syria(nothing agains the US boys, but it will be funny).

so if it ends in turkey shooting(wich isnt likely), iam happy to play as a turkey, trying to avoid, loosing all my small turkeys on the field.

i say it will be funn, especially after i read winecapes thread wich opened my eyes on what BFC is planning.

good day

[Battlefront.com]

Unfortunately, there have been many threads about this same topic so my answers are scattered all over the place. I'll try to give some brief answers here though.

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

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

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.

Stuff like that

Steve

[Thomm]

Thanks for writing this up, Steve!

However, you concentrate on the challenges of the US player as seen by the US player!

This is not what I was asking for; I would like to see the same amount of thought and design effort being applied to a Syrian player. I guess one can say that the information I want is implicitly contained in this post, but the talk is (again) about the US player and only the US player.

I am terribly sorry, but from my limited information about the game I see myself rather in the position of the Syrian defender than that of the US attacker.

Will the Syrian position will get as much attention as the US position, that is, not 60 US missions and 5 Syrian missions, for example?!

Best regards,

Thomm

[Thomm]

Hehe, posted before the follow up!

[Battlefront.com]

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.

Steve

[MikeyD]

In other words, the game's NOT going to be WWII Western Front fighting dressed in different clothes. Cool!

CMBB had its partisan fighters, and a couple rear area guerilla-type scenarios appreared but I felt that aspect of the game was never fully exploited (how often did anyone actually move-by-sewer?). The old engine did manage a couple kick-arse urban battles, but the 1 room genric buildings and combatants bundled into 9 man packets rather worked against depicting confined-space fighting. A lot of imagination on the players part was needed to translate CM1 into room-to-room fighting.

And another thing. People are talking about U.S. victory being a foregone conclusion. Let's remember in OPFOR training exercises the home team ('enemy' force) using Soviet-style weapons & tactics usually kicks the guest units butt.