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

[YankeeDog]

Great stuff. Thanks for posting all that, Steve.

I suspect Assymetrical victory conditions alone make it a totally different game from CMx1, and I think will add a welcome new element to gameplay.

It is certainly realistic to put severe acceptable loss restrictions on the US player, esp. in terms of casualties. That's very much in line with the political realities US military have to deal with given present American socio-economic view of combat losses. That alone goes a long way to assuaging any concerns I might have about "imbalanced" gameplay (though, to be honest, I wasn't all that worried about it anyway ).

Cheers,

YD

[Thomm]

Maybe we can switch to specifics now:

Can the RPG be fired from inside buildings? (My Gooogling produced conflicting answers!).

Also worth a look: The Syrian Player's Toy Box

Best regards,

Thomm

[Thomm]

What means will the Syrian player have for hiding his equipment?

We could not put tanks in haystacks in CMx1, for example. What about CM:SF?

Best regards,

Thomm

[Sergei]

Originally posted by Rollstoy:

Can the RPG be fired from inside buildings? (My Gooogling produced conflicting answers!).

As an anti-tank trained person, I say yes, but it depends on a) the size of the room, 'ventilation' and c) caliber of weapon. The more space around you, the bigger windows or other holes in walls and the smaller the backblast are, the safer it is. If convenient, you would break walls for this purpose.

[MikeyD]

"Can the RPG be fired from inside buildings?"

Not sure, but I think not, especially from very confined spaces (small apartment bedroom for example) Maybe if you're in a gutted warehouse. The Swiss put a lot of effort into designing a LAW-type weapon without backblast (it jettisons a ballast pack in the opposite direction of the round). That would've been a lot of wasted effort if an RPG could be fired from within a confined space all along.

[Pandur]

hmm, i wouldnt go for the official statement!

if the room seems ok for you, a tanke is near and you "have" to shoot becouse the chance would be over in half a minute later... .

i mean, think, you dont want to fight a tank afterwards, if you could destroy it relatively easy from a buliding... .

i would say you go for the shot! the only thing wich coule prevent you(i would say) is when the weapon is really designated to be used outside or you expirienced bad things in such situatons bevor.

so if you give it a rooky, he will shoot, kill the tank and probably hurt hmself, but the tank is done....

[Kurtz]

The RPG-7 uses a small charge to eject the rocket which then ignites and accelerates the rocket. It needs 2 meters clear area behind the weapon.

US Army study from 1976 [PDF file]

The info is on pp 28-29.

Recoilless weapons where the round is launched at full velocity (not rocket propelled) can generally not be fired from enclosed spaces, unless they are specifically designed this way.

[MikeyD]

From recent video footage of RPGs (and sadly there have been alot) it looks like the thing produces a pretty sharp backwards kick. Doing it in an enclosed space, I imagine the firer could do himself (and the ceiling panels above him) a bit of damage. Maybe that bulge midway down the launcher tube attenuates the backblast enough to make it survivable. CMAK tweaked the Bazooka so that if it gets fired from a building the firer gets supressed and the building often catches on fire.

By the way, GREAT link to the RPG info!

[ October 12, 2005, 11:35 AM: Message edited by: MikeyD ]

[Andreas]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

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.

I can see why Kingtiger aficionadas maybe royally p*ssed off about this.

All the best

Andreas

[Thomm]

Thanks for the link to the document! Syrian morale has just risen a notch!

[GSX]

Of course US victory is a foregone conclusion, though if I read this right, they may get their fingers burned in a few encounters.

Thats what OPFOR is there for - to train guys for the real thing, they should be winning against green troops and getting their butts kicked against the Vets.

Over the last few days I am now beginning to get the gist of this one I think.

[aka_tom_w]

Hey, and don't forget to give the Syrian's Home Field advantage!

-tom w

[Glider]

IIRC, the old German Armbrust needed just 60 cm (2') clear area. Not that we will see it in this game. Most of various RPGs are much more "hosue-sensitive".

[Efraim]

>>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<<

Dear Steve,

while I wish you all the best with your project, and hope you'll reap as much as possible, and I think you deserve it because of your beautiful CMBB game, I fail to see how the hell -to put it mildly- you can actually believe that many could care about what the "US-army expects" to see "at the tip of the spear". I don't know about the many friends here, and it isn't nothing political, but since a -long- while I personally have a hard time identifyng myself with the US-army.

In fact this very thread should make -or have made- quite clear that many would -if ever- rather care about what the syrian army expects to see "at the tip of the defence"

So give us

1) WWII simulations -better than this SF-crap

2) possibilities to build our own not americano-centric scenaios or americano-centric, I mean, let a thousand flowers blossom...

3) the capacity to CHANGE the simplistic rules you would like to impose and to improve a game tradition -battlefront quality- that you are throwing down the cliff.

Still wishing you all the best whatever you do, because of your past quality delivery.

Efraim

[Pandur]

I personally have a hard time identifyng myself with the US-army.

i think you are not the only one!

iam really happy about the game becouse you can play syria too...

and i hope they build the game, minding, that some people think this way and simply want to play a syria intead of US.

i pray to em that the syrian side doesnt get the short end

EDIT:

oh, i cant await to move down gi´s with my camel-jokey force. or at least inflict heavy losses, wich should be enough to win

ohh, i cant await the game to be finished

[hellfish]

I still fail to see how 2007 could be considered SciFi?

Any why so many people neglect to remember that it won't only have US troops in the game? I expect that the Brits and French, if not others, will make in in eventually.

But not the Belgians. Nobody likes the Belgians.

[Pandur]

i dont know but what should brits and french forces do in syria???

i dont think they would go there at home everyone would go crazy... .

but meybe we will see em there...

[Pandur]

stupid flood protection!

i produced a double post :confused:

[ October 12, 2005, 03:22 PM: Message edited by: Pandur ]

[Peter Cairns]

I think a key issue is that of TEMPO.

In UK terms Tempos refers to fighting the battle on yout terms and forcing the enemy to fight on your terms. if possible on your ground and a time and pace of your choosing.

In both GW1and OIF, the US could from the very outset set the tempo.

They started the conflict at a time and in a way that they choose, and from there on were able to dictate the pace for most of both conflicts.

I get the impression that a lot of people ( and even some at BF) seem to have underestimated the significance of this and assumed it for BF:SF.

If we are assuming that the background scenario requires an immediate response, then you cannot assume the level of readiness / preparedness of OIF, or the ability to initiate the conflict when it suits you.

A better analogy would be the way in which Nato was wrong footed when the Serbian response to the air attacks in Kosovo, was to start butchering civilians.

In that case the obvious response was a ground force, the trouble was, that the ground forces weren't ready and the politicans didn't have the resolve , let alone a contingency plan.

If "the **** hits the Fan" in Syria, waiting 9 months till everything is in place isn't an option, so it may well be that all the support and intel that people take for granted might not be there.

I don't want to go on about my idea of a Pakistan scenario. but if it was securing Nukes before they went missing in a civil war, waiting till everything was just right just wouldn't be an option, it would be move with what you have and make the bloody best of it.

When we get a better idea of the "Syrian Scenario" we will be able to see just how ready the US is, it could quite literally be the furthest west unit in Iraq told to cut a road to Damascus, backed by what we have to spare,

Peter.

[Vanir Ausf B]

Originally posted by Efraim:

So give us

1) WWII simulations -better than this SF-crap

You have it backwards. Modern warfare is far more interesting than WW2.

See, I can conflate my personal preference with absolute fact too!

Calling 2007 "SF" is absurd. That's not an opinion.

3) the capacity to CHANGE the simplistic rules you would like to impose and to improve a game tradition -battlefront quality- that you are throwing down the cliff.

What "simplistic" rules are you refering to? I see no reason to think CMSF will be at all simplistic. I expect it will be more complex than CMx1. Why does their choice of a non-WW2 setting imply lower quality? What is it about WW2 that makes everything associated with it higher quality?

[GSX]

What they have to spare will be serious MEGA AIRPOWER. No contest.

[Vanir Ausf B]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

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.

This is what concerns me. All of the means by which the game will be made challenging to the US player seem to apply to scenarios with a heavy emphasis on MOUT. What about multiplayer QBs, particularly those that don't feature a lot of urban terrain (I believe I read somewhere that there will be a wide variety of terrain)? I'm thinking in such games the only way to give the Syrian player a chance is with a large numerical superiority, which may not be feasible if the US force is more than a company in size.

Maybe this is what the blue on blue option is for? If so I may wait until the first module to buy, since US vs. US doesn't hold much appeal to me.

[Battlefront.com]

while I wish you all the best with your project, and hope you'll reap as much as possible, and I think you deserve it because of your beautiful CMBB game, I fail to see how the hell -to put it mildly- you can actually believe that many could care about what the "US-army expects" to see "at the tip of the spear". I don't know about the many friends here, and it isn't nothing political, but since a -long- while I personally have a hard time identifyng myself with the US-army.

I am sure that's true, but does that mean we shouldn't make it? CMBB had Finns, Italians, Hungarians, Romanians, Soviets, and Germans. If every player was required to "identify with" something to be in there the game probably would have been just the Germans fighting against nobody with nobody as an Ally. We know for a fact that a lot of CMBO customers did not buy CMBB because they "couldn't identify with" even the Soviet side, not to mention the other stuff. So by your logic CMBB should never have been made.

1) WWII simulations -better than this SF-crap

The SF comment has already been addressed. The rest of it is rather stupid since you know we aren't going to abandon CM:SF and we already have promised that the second game will be WWII. After that... all bets are off again.

2) possibilities to build our own not americano-centric scenaios or americano-centric, I mean, let a thousand flowers blossom...

We intend on doing this, just not all in one release. If you wish to pony up a couple hundred thousand Dollars we might consider doing the artwork, research, programming, and testing a bit sooner. But then again we probably not because that money still doesn't buy us time, and that is the thing we are most in need of.

3) the capacity to CHANGE the simplistic rules you would like to impose and to improve a game tradition -battlefront quality- that you are throwing down the cliff.

Not quite sure what this is all about so I really can't answer. The last bit I understand. Problem is that the WWII Bigots can't argue with the fact that a lot of people are excited about CM:SF's break from WWII. That is a fact that can not be denied, only ignored because it undermines the claim that we are making some sort of mistake (akin to hearsay).

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

In relation to earlier comments about ATGMs from inside buildings, the Javelin is capable of this. A reminder that we allowed firing from inside but with possibly casualties for things like Panzerfaust.

Other terrain is challenging besides MOUT. What won't likely be challenging is flat out open hardpack arid ground. Tht is the ideal terrain for US forces and therefore the last place the Syrians would want to be caught in.

Steve

[flammenwerfer]

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.

Will the Syrian player have combined arms at his disposal to defend or counter-attack with, or is asymmetry a given?

Thanks.

Peter