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

[Justice]

Reading through this just reaffirms what I said already: this is a poor taste decision for a wargame. Already it's bringing out the worst in people.

It's not too late to repurpose this as a generic 'modern war in desert scenario' game.

And staying on topic, a wargame that doesn't take both sides of the conflict equally isn't a wargame, it's a jarhead morale booster.

[Snow Leopard]

We may want hear honest answer...Does most Syria soldiers have strong patriotism for Syria or will they mass surrender if US/European military invade Syria?

[Battlefront.com]

this is a poor taste decision for a wargame.

You forgot to say "In my opinion this is a...". Many others disagree with that point of view, not the least of which is us. Obviously We've had people argue it is poor taste to have Waffen SS and stupid to include the Italians. Each to his own should be your motto, not everybody must be just like me. Diversity is a good thing.

Already it's bringing out the worst in people.

Trolls are by definition are always at their wost. We always have, and always will, have trolls trying to get attention by making trouble. They will latch onto anything that they feel can do this, so I'm not at all concerned.

And staying on topic, a wargame that doesn't take both sides of the conflict equally isn't a wargame, it's a jarhead morale booster.

Hmmm... sounds like a rather small minded and personalized definition of what a wargame is. I consider a wargame something that simulates warfare. The content is irrelevant. And I don't know how a jarhead would have his morale boosted by a game that doesn't have Marines in it

Steve

[MERC]

Originally posted by GSX:

There were no Styker type units at the point of the spear in any of the recent Desert or other wars.

Had Strykers been fielded and available during Desert Shield, its plausible that they might have been deployed right along with the 82nd Airborne.

I have always wondered "what if" Sadaam had just kept going all the way into Saudi Arabia.

[Snow Leopard]

Originally posted by MERC:

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

There were no Styker type units at the point of the spear in any of the recent Desert or other wars.

Had Strykers been fielded and available during Desert Shield, its plausible that they might have been deployed right along with the 82nd Airborne.

I have always wondered "what if" Sadaam had just kept going all the way into Saudi Arabia. </font>

[M Hofbauer]

Originally posted by Snow Leopard:

If Saddam keep going south way into Saudi Arabia, I think it may huge mix feel along Arab poeple...will they cheer on Saddam or boo him? Maybe Iran get angry or fear as Iraq become too powerful after capture Saudi Arabia.

yes but at the same time hell would have frozen over so that the whole middle eastern lot of them would have frozen their cherished behinds off...

[Snow Leopard]

Yes and one more thing...I remembered read somewhere that different between Saddam and Osama: Saddam get money power and Osama get cult power. It will effect on arab people's choice on greed or al-Qaeda that both choice will destroy normal arab people's normal life.

[ October 24, 2005, 05:41 PM: Message edited by: Snow Leopard ]

[MERC]

Originally posted by Snow Leopard:

I didn't see any stryker brigade with 82nd Airborne but you can check that link as some already deployed at Iraq.

They are not with the 82nd.

Let me clarify my thought, had their been a Stryker brigade during Desert Shield (which there wasn't), I thik the U.S. Military would have probably deployed them along side the 82nd.

According to everything I have read on the subject, there was a real fear at the time that Sadaam would decide to go south before the heavy forces showed up.

[Sergei]

Steve seems to have the patience of a Zen Buddhist monk...

[Battlefront.com]

According to everything I have read on the subject, there was a real fear at the time that Sadaam would decide to go south before the heavy forces showed up.

True or not, I remember the US scrambling to get forces "in theater" as quickly as possible. The fact that it wasn't as quickly as needed was one of the things that made military planners think "hmmmm... maybe we need something in between Light and Heavy". The Cold War ended and the debate about large conventional forces, prepositioned for immediate use, became more and more unlikely as the years went on. Kosovo came along and, from what I can tell, that decided it.

So... since Desert Shield was one of the reasons for the eventual Transformation, including Stryker Brigades, I think it is safe to say that if such a force existed in 1990 it would have been rushed to Saudi Arabia.

Steve

[GSX]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />According to everything I have read on the subject, there was a real fear at the time that Sadaam would decide to go south before the heavy forces showed up.

True or not, I remember the US scrambling to get forces "in theater" as quickly as possible. The fact that it wasn't as quickly as needed was one of the things that made military planners think "hmmmm... maybe we need something in between Light and Heavy". The Cold War ended and the debate about large conventional forces, prepositioned for immediate use, became more and more unlikely as the years went on. Kosovo came along and, from what I can tell, that decided it.

So... since Desert Shield was one of the reasons for the eventual Transformation, including Stryker Brigades, I think it is safe to say that if such a force existed in 1990 it would have been rushed to Saudi Arabia.

Steve </font>

[Battlefront.com]

GSX,

The reason for this kind of force is that it is rapidly air portable and able to act as a brake on an attacking force, or recce as an attacking force in the sort of conflics you describe.

Yes.

It would not be used without the massive application of airpower in this context though.

No. Well, at least no more than any other unit would require before moving into action.

The doctrine, not my opinion, states that the SBCT can be used in all forms of operations. There is no provision in anything that I read that said it can only be used after all identified enemy positions have been neutralized from air. Quite the contrary, in fact.

I'm not sure what the problem is with conceptualizing the use of SBCT in an offensive operation. It would be treated, in some ways, no different than Bradley Infantry. The only difference is that Bradley based infantry are organically assigned to work with heavy armor. The SBCT has no organic armor, so it would have to be assigned some as part of a task force. The doctrine makes it clear that is what would happen. It would not sit around on its asses waiting for the heavy stuff to do the hard work, no more than the 82nd Airborne and 101st AAD sat around waiting.

The US military understands it does not have the luxury of having large scale forces that are only used for specific purposes. In fact, SBCT was purposefully designed to address this issue since Light and Heavy forces were too stratified to either extreme. Therefore, SBCT was designed from the ground up to do all types of offensive and defensive operations. Does it do each equally well? Certainly not. No one formation can do that. Heavy untis have their drawbacks too, as do the Light units.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

BTW, I am neither pro-Stryker nor anti-tank (or tracked APC, or whatever). I simply am interested in simulating a new force structure, with its pros and cons, in a realistic offensive operations setting. Therefore, I will doggedly defend the Stryker concept whenever I feel that someone is mischaracterizing the concept itself. Whether the concept really works as well in the CM:SF setting as US military planners say it will is a different question. However, it would be there, for sure.

Steve

[ October 25, 2005, 12:39 PM: Message edited by: Battlefront.com ]

[Midnight Warrior]

BTW, I am neither pro-Stryker nor anti-tank (or tracked APC, or whatever). I simply am interested in simulating a new force structure, with its pros and cons, in a realistic offensive operations setting.

I am hopeing this means that we will have both Strykers and M-113's in CM:SF so that we as players can make our own (humble) conclusions by employing either vehicle type and seeing how it plays out in the game for various situations.

[aka_tom_w]

AND M1A1 for the most obvious gamey combined force mix

he he

Yes, I am also hoping the Bradley IFV will be represented in its various flavours and versions, as well as the M1A2 Abrams which ought to be modeled almost for sure.

-tom w

Originally posted by Midnight Warrior:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> BTW, I am neither pro-Stryker nor anti-tank (or tracked APC, or whatever). I simply am interested in simulating a new force structure, with its pros and cons, in a realistic offensive operations setting.

I am hopeing this means that we will have both Strykers and M-113's in CM:SF so that we as players can make our own (humble) conclusions by employing either vehicle type and seeing how it plays out in the game for various situations. </font>

[junk2drive]

Yep, M113s and RPGs and a few Souteast Asia mods and...

[M Hofbauer]

Originally posted by aka_tom_w:

AND M1A1 for the most obvious gamey combined force mix

he he

Yes, I am also hoping the M-113 Bradley will be represented in its various flavours and versions, as well as the M1A1 Abrams which ought to be modeled almost for sure.

somehow I don't think we will see any "M113 Bradleys"...

plus the Abrams MBTs which we are promised to get will, IMO, probably be M1A2SEPs, so they can keep up with the Strykeouts in terms of computer malfunctions.

Midnight Warrior, the idea to include both the Stryker and "competing" other solutions in CMSF is interesting indeed - even though I dont see that happen. Either way it would have to be some advanced Gavin type of M113, not the regular old aluminum-foil oil seeve.

[Battlefront.com]

Remember that many of the advantages of the Stryker are simply not part of tactical combat. Lower maintainence, better fuel consumption rates, rapid self propelled operational realignments, etc. are some of the reasons why a wheeled vehicle was chosen over a tracked one. Putting both in the game will only show you a part of the picture.

We are also not going to include any fantasy vehicles. Whatever would be deployed is up for consideration, but anything that is not anticipated ready for 2007, or likely to be realistic for our setting, will not be included. It doesn't matter what it is. For example, there is a chance that the Stryker MGS won't be included simply because we aren't quite sure if it will be ready by CM:SF's setting. If we are considering not including that, even though we are focusing on the Stryker concept, then you know you shouldn't hold out hope for something like the Gavin

Steve

[Popfreak]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

And I don't know how a jarhead would have his morale boosted by a game that doesn't have Marines in it

[/QB]

Yet, bring on that 1st expansion pack!!!!!

BF, I think ya'll should have just kept mum on CMSF, until release date. I think everyone should just chill and let them finish the game before ripping it apart.

[Popfreak]

Originally posted by Muff_Soaker:

you’ll realize who pulverized the most marines since Nam in less than 5 minutes and forced a US withdrawal outa Lebanon in a New York minute.

[/QB]

Oh, and who was that, were you there?, I was

[aka_tom_w]

Steve's answer to an interview question

Gamecloud Asks:

What sorts of units will be available to control in Combat Mission: Shock Force?

Steve Grammont:

The player is assigned a Stryker Brigade Combat Team centric task force. The SBCT is a very new and innovative component of the US Army's "Transformation" to a post-Cold War military. It is a "medium" force that packs quite a punch but still needs backup forces for certain missions. For such scenarios the player will find himself in command of "heavy" forces such as Abrams Main Battle Tanks and Bradley Infantry Fighting Vehicles. Air and artillery are also available for use, depending on the scenario. Having said that, the general emphasis of the game is on small unit tactics centering around dismounted infantry. CMx1 did a great job of simulating infantry, but CMx2 does an excellent job

From this interview at this web page

-tom w

[MikeyD]

"For example, there is a chance that the Stryker MGS won't be included simply because we aren't quite sure if it will be ready by CM:SF's setting."

Okay, you got a 'gasp' out of me with that line!

As a nudge, here's text of a June 11 Army Times article:

"Stryker brigade commanders, in need of more firepower, have asked for an early fielding of the Mobile Gun System variant for street fighting in northern Iraq. But they’re going to have to do without it.

The high-tech, wheeled cannon won’t be seeing combat for at least a year after the 1st Brigade, 25th Infantry Division (SBCT) returns home this fall, Stryker program officials say. The unit is equipped with the Anti-tank Guided Missile Strykers, but the wire-guided, TOW missile system is proving to be ineffective against fast-moving insurgent forces operating in crowded neighborhoods of Mosul.

“The Stryker Brigade Combat Team needs a vehicle capable of rapidly delivering direct fire explosive projectiles in confined urban terrain,” The plan is to begin equipping Stryker brigades with the MGS in fiscal 2007. “The unit is operating at a reduced capability until they get MGS,” Fuller said, describing how 1-25 had sent an “urgent operational needs statement” in March asking that the MGS be fielded as soon as possible.

[Battlefront.com]

Yeah, I read the same article. If true then that means you guys will have the MGS to play with in CM:SF. We are, at the moment, going under the assumption that it will be ready by our setting's timeframe. Therefore, unless something dramatic comes out between now and early winter the vehicle is definitely in. If we've done the model and the simulation of it we'll not be terribly inclined to remove it

Steve

[Sergei]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

unless something dramatic comes out between now and early winter

"Early winter"? Does this mean that the game will be ready in early winter? As in, this winter?

[FAI]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

We are also not going to include any fantasy vehicles. Whatever would be deployed is up for consideration, but anything that is not anticipated ready for 2007, or likely to be realistic for our setting, will not be included. It doesn't matter what it is. For example, there is a chance that the Stryker MGS won't be included simply because we aren't quite sure if it will be ready by CM:SF's setting. If we are considering not including that, even though we are focusing on the Stryker concept, then you know you shouldn't hold out hope for something like the Gavin

Steve

Imagine someone high up in Syrian military have been an avid fan of CM. Soon we will see a Syrian shopping spree for some fancy and nasty stuffs, just in an adequate amount to make them justifiable to be included in CM:SF... Remember, how many RL IS-3 (or any other obscure weapon system) did it take to make it to CMBB?

AS a side note, if I were a Syrian military commander, I'd take a very close tab on the development of this sim..., err game.