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

[Thomm]

By the way, being fully aware what has been written by BFC so far I nevertheless would like to kindly ask BFC to consider a campaign for Syrian commanders!

Best regards,

Thomm

PS: This request is, of course, moot if BFC *knows* that the Syrian game experience will be too frustrating to warrant a Syrian campaign, because, for example, the Syrian player does not have enough control over this troops.

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by junk2drive:

Tom think of this story.

The current secular regime cooperates with the US and pulls back from its borders. It gives the UN/US permission to seek and destroy radical groups along those borders. The radicals decide to occupy the major cities and overthrow the government. THe US/UN assists the current government in removing these undesirables.

Are the US/UN going to bomb friendly cities first? No.

OK

I guess that is as good a "story" as any....

Thanks

-tom w

[Battlefront.com]

Strategic boming is obviously outside of CM's scope because it is, well, strategic All that would do is affect how much stuff is in the Syrian's total inventory. That wouldn't really be noticable for the Campaign we have planned. CAS, on the other hand, is tactical and therefore relevant. But we'll simulate that directly.

Smoke will play an important role in CM:SF in some ways. It's primary value is to defeat laser and optical aiming systems. It has no affect on modern class thermal sights, which is something most US weapons have an option to use.

Steve

[Snow Leopard]

Originally posted by junk2drive:

Tom think of this story.

The current secular regime cooperates with the US and pulls back from its borders. It gives the UN/US permission to seek and destroy radical groups along those borders. The radicals decide to occupy the major cities and overthrow the government. THe US/UN assists the current government in removing these undesirables.

Are the US/UN going to bomb friendly cities first? No.

It is not like a "London bombing" with dumb bombs...just attack bunkers where radicals hide out with smart bombs plus weapon platforms manned by radicals even maybe hidden WMD sites as possible Syria goverment ask for US/UN help and offer in exchange for get their nation back from radicals takeover. Again, I am so sure there will have multi Hellfire-armed UMVs patrol over hostile area to pick leaders, supplier, and whatever out plus special force snipers with 50. rifles take care of them as US/UN may not want lost more soldiers to terrorist bombs. I don't think radicals can take whole Syria nation as I am sure Arab nations will send their armed forces to help Syria Goverment out as US may not interest in send more ground force in to aviod US and Arab public angry.

[Snow Leopard]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Strategic boming is obviously outside of CM's scope because it is, well, strategic All that would do is affect how much stuff is in the Syrian's total inventory. That wouldn't really be noticable for the Campaign we have planned. CAS, on the other hand, is tactical and therefore relevant. But we'll simulate that directly.

Steve

Okay, we will wait.

[hellfish]

The only scenarios I can think of that might leave the Arab states neutral or even allied is if Syria invades Lebanon or uses WMDs.

I can think of a couple reasons they'd do either.

[M Hofbauer]

I dont see this working.

If BTS wants to re-do the drive to Bagdad, it is either going to be a lopsided affair or unrealistic.

Of course limiting the player to the Strykeout, denying him the Abrams, setting him up in the few tactical instances where there might be a real challenge goes a long way to help make it interesting, but ultimately it takes the "no phyrric vitories" - condition taken to the extreme to make it a challenge.

The iraq war was a rollover. just like everyone expected and predicted, it was not the conquering and the defeat of the iraqi army that posed a problem, but the aftermath of occupying the country.

Now keep in mind iraq at that time had one of the most powerful armies in the world.

Syrias forces are almost nothing compared to it.

So this won't work.

What BTS apparently wants is Guerilla Style warfare, with asymmetrical, unconventional, unpredictable tatctics employed by the syrians.

to quote Steve

"You can fight asymmetrically with combined arms or without. The point is the tactics are not lined up with what the other side expects and/or the response is not as effective if the combat were symmetrical. Two examples:

Assymetrical - hiding members of a military unit all around a city in small groups armed with various light weapons. At one location there is a mortar. When some sort of condition is met, the members converge on a given point and the mortar opens fire. There is a battle and then the individuals break out and go back to their hiding places.

Symetrical - units are preassembled in defensive positions waiting for an attacker to come to them. When the attacker comes a call is made and a mortar fires in support of the infantry weapons. The defending force remains in place.

Same exact weapons, somewhat similar character of the battle itself, totally different in terms of the options for the force being attacked. In the Asymmetrical setting the force finding itself under small arms and mortar fire just starts to get its wits about it as the enemy melts away on its own terms. Because they are going in many different directions at once, an organized pursuit along traditional military lines is not possible (i.e. you can not concentrate force in 10 directions at once). In the symmetrical battle it is by the book suppress, eliminate with heavy fire, then close to finish 'em off.

If you were the Syrians and knew that a US Army assault force was coming into town, which one would you choose as more effective? Asymmetrical I hope. But there are problems with this approach, the most important of which is command and control. How do you know those soldiers will come to the right places at the right time? How do you know they will come at all? What happens if some of your guys think it is time to leave the battle too early and some too late? What happens if the US force sees this and acts quickly enough to take out the stragglers?"

However, it is intended for *us* to take the role of the USofA, against the AI playing the unconventional, asymmetrical guerilla syrians.

But I just don't see how they can get the AI to conduct the "unpredictable" unconventional-creative asymmetrical tactics. If they claim (probably rightly) that they can't even model the AI conducting a US assault (which most of the time goes pretty much according to textbook...uh, Field manual, and with behavior and tactics that they trained over and over again) properly.

I also don't see how they want to model the latest line of US military hardware correct. Here we were talking and arguing over shot traps on early production Panthers or mantlet flaws on late mid-Tiger I models and their resemblence in mm of steel, and now we get modern US equipment whose characteristics are entirely confidential. BTS would have to work with educated guessing. And eben if they used obscure inside sources we would have no way to check the values.

Lastly, all this talk about asymmetrical warfare, Strykeout ACs and stuff lets me think this is foremost an infantry game. AAO scenarios going CM.

Infantry has never been the strong point of CM.

CM, with all its flaws, truly was the first game to truly excel where it came to modeling armor duels between vehicles.

There wont be much M1A2 vs. T-72 in this game.

I will keep a close, interested look at the development of this game. But for now I am not convinced (yet).

A final idea for those guys wanting to play the syringes and hoping for balanced gameplay:

since it is going to be a (hopefully ! Bush, Condoleezza and Rumsfeld - I'm keeping my fingers crossed!!) *fictional* scenario set in 2007, why not include some element to the effect that the russians or maybe the chinese or the "usual" rest of the world who are obviously going to oppose against such an invasion would aid the syrians.

the story could read along the lines that during the declining diplomatic relations between the US and syria, the looming war is strongly opposed by the chinese and russian governments.

chinese head of state shee-tee wok: "in order to deter the US from its warmongering threat to attack the innocent Syrian people, we have decided to supply the sovereign state of syria with the requested means to defend itself".

the russians, or ukrainians, could secretly supply the syrians with the latest weapon technology, which they are willing to sell to anyone for cash. Or even the french. Mind you, they are not delivering into a war zone, into an open war against the US, but months or even years before the actual war, during the gradual buildup of tensions.

or some such.

and voila you got the latest line of OpFor tanks, ATGMs and whatnot.

cheers,

M.Hofbauer

edit: edited for typos

[ October 14, 2005, 11:40 AM: Message edited by: M Hofbauer ]

[Sirocco]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />And that's something that puzzles me about your approach to the tactical problems in CM:SF. I have the feeling that what you're aiming towards is almost a representation of the drive to Baghdad, or some variation on it.

Luke can trust his feelings, but I would suggest you don't I've made it pretty clear that there will be a big difference in how the Syrians fight compared to the Iraqis. I've also made it clear that CM:SF is not OIF in disguise. We are using the opening phase of OIF, and some of the subsequent events that followed, as a meaningful starting point. What else are we supposed to use? WWII Africa vs. Rommel? Just because we're looking and talking about something that has a lot to learn from doesn't mean we're attempting to duplicate it. Far from it.

But then if the Syrians - regular and irregular - have been learning lessons from Iraq, and I assume they have, then it's precisely the things you're committed to *not* representing that would cause the US greatest difficulty, specifically suicide bombers.

Er.. no. First of all, the Syrian Army wouldn't be messing with suicide bombs. So not including them has nothing to do with anything. Since this is the only thing we are not including, I don't know what else you can be thinking of that will be missing. In fact, the Syrians will have a lot of stuff that the opening phase of OIF didn't have to deal with.</font>

[M Hofbauer]

Originally posted by Rollstoy:

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

yes and no, the same basic rules apply like those regarding the Panzerschreck.

[M Hofbauer]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Er.. no. First of all, the Syrian Army wouldn't be messing with suicide bombs. So not including them has nothing to do with anything. [/QB]

now what? first they are raghead nutjobs overturning the regular government or at least a zealotry fundamentalist syrian opposition, and now they are conventional sane rational regulars.

I find the arab's suicidal attacks highly asymmetrical. Granted, a regular syrian soldier is probably unlikely to do it - but the fanaticized members of irregular "hitler youth volkssturm"-like masses enrolled by their imams into home defence militia against the american imperialist infidel pigs sure are prime candidates.

hmmm...maybe the syrian player will have a blow-up button like in Lemmings...

[M Hofbauer]

btw, whats up with the CMSF-logo?

That thing is a bit long for an M203, isn't it ?

It generally looks weirdish somehow.

[Battlefront.com]

Well, you're drawing from the experience of the drive on Baghdad,

And Fallujah, an Anbar, and other places too. The nature and chracter of these events, over time, has changed too. And I ask you again... what experience would you have us draw from to use for CM:SF?

but you're not allowing the Syrian's to learn from the experience in Iraq, and what worked, and what didn't.

I asked you before and I'll ask you again... specifically tell me what it is we're not doing and I'm sure I'll be able to tell you that you're wrong. You mentioned Suicide Bombers only, and I told you they wouldn't be a realistic part of the Army's strategy. If you understood what it takes to get someone to blow themselves up you'd know that too.

And one of the things that works in Iraq for irregulars is suicide bombers.

The majority of Suicide Bombers have been used against civilian and other Iraqi targets, not US troops. And there is also a vast, huge difference between the effectivness of these things against a static, largely predictable, enemy force and one that is actively conducting a military engagement for the first time in a new place.

If the point is that the Syrians can only learn lessons that fit within the game framework, that's fine.

What else, besides Suicide Bombers, are we not including? Name one thing please because I'm dying to know what else we've chucked aside that you're aware of that we aren't.

But if we're going to postulate the possibilities of Syria 07 I'd say the messy stuff has more relevance over what flavour T80 or BMP to include, but, well, I'm sure it will be an interesting representation of what you choose to include.

Ahm. Have you noticed how little I've been talking about tanks and how much I've been talking about the "messy stuff"? How many threads have I been involved in where I'm discussing tank on tank warfare OTHER than to say it will not be the major emphasis of CM:SF?

Seriously man... you're reading what you want to read, not what I am writing. And since I can't be any more clear about these issues I don't know how I'm supposed to get it through to you that you're totally offbase.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

I dont see this working.

That's OK, we do

If BTS wants to re-do the drive to Bagdad, it is either going to be a lopsided affair or unrealistic.

There is a massive difference between Tactical, Operational, and Strategic levels of warfare. We are only simulating the Tactical. That is where the combat challeng lies. Operationally and Strategically, Iraq was an easy conquest as far as knocking Saddam out of power. The rest of history is still being written.

I'd also suggest reading a lot more about what CM:SF is and isn't. From your comments you clearly are missing some rather critcal facts. Don't feel bad, Sirocco has obviously read a lot on this Forum and he's still missing the point occasionally too

Lastly, all this talk about asymmetrical warfare, Strykeout ACs and stuff lets me think this is foremost an infantry game. ...

Infantry has never been the strong point of CM.

You are aware that we completely chucked out the CMx1 code and started fresh, right? So don't you think it is possible that we built CMx2 to address the shortcomings of the CMx1 engine? And that because we chose the modern setting at the same time we started coding CMx2 that would mean the game engine is designed for this type of setting?

As I have said many times already... we built the game system to simulate the realities of modern combat. Whether we will acheive this or not is yet to be seen, but I can see no reason to doubt that we can.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

Hofbauer,

now what? first they are raghead nutjobs overturning the regular government or at least a zealotry fundamentalist syrian opposition, and now they are conventional sane rational regulars.

You obviously need to learn more about suicide bombers and how they tick (to make a bad pun). A change in government doesn't mean that everybody goes and straps on some TNT to go hunting invaiders. That's just silly to even contemplate.

In a Syrian setting there would indeed be plenty of suicide bombings, just like in Iraq. They would, however, be largely spaced out over a long space of time and would be aimed primarily at non-combat targets or in non-combat settings. They are effective, but not in a battlefield sense. Therefore, in a battlefield setting they are irrelevant.

Remember that there are three VERY distinct types of settings:

1. Combat Ops

2. Peace and Stability Ops

3. Counter Insurgency Ops

What is going on in Iraq now, and for most of the last 2 years, is Counter Insurgency Ops. That is not what we're simulating with CM:SF. We are simulating Combat Ops. While there certainly is overlap, there is a lot of things which are unique to each.

Since you know your Eastern Front history it is akin to the anti-Partisan ops vs. fighting in Stalingrad. They aren't the same. We almost didn't bother with partisans in CMBB because they only sometimes fit the definition of Combat Ops. But since the scope and scale of the Eastern Front was so massive, there was a case to include partisans.

In CM:SF the lines have been blurred more than they were in WWII, but basically things have not changed all that much. Combat Ops are still distinct and different from the other two. However, we are simulating that the Syrians are going to blur the distinction even more than it is already. However, for the reasons I've detailed Suicide Bombing would not likely be a major, or even significant, part of that strategy. They'd save that for the Insurgency phase. And yes, that is something I am sure they would do.

Steve

[Sirocco]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Well, you're drawing from the experience of the drive on Baghdad,

And Fallujah, an Anbar, and other places too. The nature and chracter of these events, over time, has changed too. And I ask you again... what experience would you have us draw from to use for CM:SF?

but you're not allowing the Syrian's to learn from the experience in Iraq, and what worked, and what didn't.

I asked you before and I'll ask you again... specifically tell me what it is we're not doing and I'm sure I'll be able to tell you that you're wrong. You mentioned Suicide Bombers only, and I told you they wouldn't be a realistic part of the Army's strategy. If you understood what it takes to get someone to blow themselves up you'd know that too.

And one of the things that works in Iraq for irregulars is suicide bombers.

The majority of Suicide Bombers have been used against civilian and other Iraqi targets, not US troops. And there is also a vast, huge difference between the effectivness of these things against a static, largely predictable, enemy force and one that is actively conducting a military engagement for the first time in a new place.

If the point is that the Syrians can only learn lessons that fit within the game framework, that's fine.

What else, besides Suicide Bombers, are we not including? Name one thing please because I'm dying to know what else we've chucked aside that you're aware of that we aren't.

But if we're going to postulate the possibilities of Syria 07 I'd say the messy stuff has more relevance over what flavour T80 or BMP to include, but, well, I'm sure it will be an interesting representation of what you choose to include.

Ahm. Have you noticed how little I've been talking about tanks and how much I've been talking about the "messy stuff"? How many threads have I been involved in where I'm discussing tank on tank warfare OTHER than to say it will not be the major emphasis of CM:SF?

Seriously man... you're reading what you want to read, not what I am writing. And since I can't be any more clear about these issues I don't know how I'm supposed to get it through to you that you're totally offbase.

</font>

[Battlefront.com]

Oh, and that is a M16 with M203 launcher. It is indeed that long. Here is a picture of it:

The dimensions might still need some tweaking (the above shot is first pass), but it can't be that far off.

We still need to put on all the fancy gizmos though!

Steve

[ October 14, 2005, 12:04 PM: Message edited by: Battlefront.com ]

[Battlefront.com]

If I was a Syrian irregular I'd be using hit and run tactics from within the civilian population to make striking back more "messy" for the US side. But then that's hardly a novel approach.

Ah, yes, civilians. Yes indeed... an element that can complicate military ops (for both sides) quite a lot. Unfortunately, to include them is like an entire game within a game. Love to include them, can not do so yet.

OK, well, this is an element (unlike Suicide Bombers) that would likely grant the Syrian side some extra tactics in some situations (MOUT in particular) that we sadly can not include do to the issues surrounding the inclusion of civilians. Which is one reason why the DoD is so interested in simulations with civilians in them... they don't exist in any meaningful way that I know of. I met with a couple different groups of people making DoD simulations and they're still trying to figure out how to do it. We might beat them to the punch, along with everybody else, but it won't be with CM:SF.

And when I mentioned T80's and BMP's, I was referring in most part to posters, not to anyone from BFC. Perhaps I should have made that clear.

Ah, thanks for the clarification. Indeed, a lot of people are having a hard time picturing a game where tank on tank combat isn't the central part of the combat. Oddly enough, after 2 years of intensive work on modern warfare I am having the opposite problem

We'll just see how it works out. I've stated before that I'll reserve final judgment for the demo.

We wouldn't want it to be anything but. Just remember that at the moment all we have to go on is speculative criticism and speculative support. Not even we can tell you guys how the game will turn out until it is done. Obviously we have a pretty good feeling that it will come out great, but to say that at this point would be baseless.

Steve

[aka_tom_w]

re: the issues surrounding the inclusion of civilians. Which is one reason why the DoD is so interested in simulations with civilians in them... they don't exist in any meaningful way that I know of. I met with a couple different groups of people making DoD simulations and they're still trying to figure out how to do it. We might beat them to the punch,

Now you should be working with Maxis!

The makers of Sim City thats what you "should" be doing

I can see it now CMx2 Release title #3

SimCity Meets CM:SF

Just use EVERYTHING about the SimCity game engine, add some sand and the appropriate apparel and throw in all the data and models for AFV's and soldiers and you should be set.

Hell, at some point in SimCity they give you the option of adding a Military Base for extra funding to your City. But those military bases are SO Politically Correct and so CIVILIZED and cute they are disgusting. BFC could do the military aspect of the game for them IT WOULD BE HUGE!

Yeah Thats the Ticket Shotgun wedding BFC and Maxis!

NOW Maxis does know how to model Sim Civilians you have to give them THAT!

he he he

-tom w

[Darren J Pierson]

I am speaking w/o any special knowledge of Syria, but isn't it a bit of a stretch to assume that the Syrian forces would endanger their own civilians? I realize the question involves irregulars, but wouldn't the connection between people and army be important? As I said, I don't know if the Syrian people would accept this or not? I'm just wondering if using civies maybe should, at least on occasion, hurt the Syrian score.

[M Hofbauer]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Oh, and that is a M16 with M203 launcher. It is indeed that long. Here is a picture of it:

The dimensions might still need some tweaking (the above shot is first pass), but it can't be that far off.

We still need to put on all the fancy gizmos though!

Steve

Steve,

short on time here. Will reply to the other post next week (some misunderstandings there).

You're right about the length of the M203.

what threw me off (and made it appear "somehow wrong" to me) is the lack of correct heat shields (incl cooling vents) and the rifling of the M203 tube plus the lack of the M203-sights behind the regular sights.

all this makes the weapon look cleaner and more "sleek" and hence lengthy.

my mistake.

M.Hofbauer

btw I like that pic.

3rd ID.

rock of the marne.

they were here in Würzburg and Schweinfurt for a long time (until they changed for the 1 ID couple of years ago), I basically grew up with the square with four blue stripes.

[hellfish]

The M203, when mounted on an M16A4 rifle, doesn't have the heat shield. The M16A4 has the Pitcatinny Rail system, so the grenade launcher, and damn near everything else on it can be taken off pretty easily.

It'll be interesting to see how BFC models all the variations on the M4 and M16s.

[RSColonel_131st]

Okay, me again with all the same concerns again

I may be wrong (and some certainly will tell me so)...but...the key problem in "balancing" the syrian side to me still seems to be the lack of civilians.

As far as I understand it, asymetrical warfare without civilians just doesn't work very well. Irregulars, ambush-groups etc. like to hide behind the general population. The fact that you can't bomb entire citys because civilians live there is the only reason the US has such problems in Iraq, or not?

For a small experiment, imagine the current OIF Situation if there were NO civilians left in Iraq. If everyone who isn't US or NATO would automatically be an enemy. If you're riding in a convoy and you see other people you'd automatically open fire - no easy ambushes anymore. If the Irregulars have a strongpoint in a city, just shell/bomb the hell out of the city.

Does that seem a valid point? Then, if that point is true - there aren't many asymetric tactics left for the Syrians. And in a conventional, symetric fight they will always lose.

In other words, I still can't get my head around the idea how this game will be fun to play as Syrian Commander. The only thing handicapping the US Player will be the boundary of acceptable casuality rates and trying not to get over that. But that isn't a lot.

Oh, and for a positive idea: Would it be possible, if not to include civilians, to at least "fake them" in the following way:

What if a syrian irregular could not be shot at before he starts his first obviously hostile actions or displays obvious signs of being a guerilla?

Meaning, the US Player will obviously know that this is an enemy unit he's seeing, but the Tac AI could be made to not allow firing orders on someone who "looks like a civilian" until the guy raises an AK-47 and starts peppering the US Units.

This would, without the need to model civilians walking the streets, allow irregular syrian units to "hide" behind civilian behaviour. I'd be similar to a soundcontact in CMBB, where you know something is there, but you can't give targeting orders.

[ October 14, 2005, 02:49 PM: Message edited by: RSColonel_131st ]

[Joshik]

Forgive me - I'm sure this must have been brought up already -

... but how can you focus on Syria without including big tank battles on the Golan Heights against the IDF... Merkavas vs. T-82s?

[flammenwerfer]

Originally posted by Joshik:

Forgive me - I'm sure this must have been brought up already -

... but how can you focus on Syria without including big tank battles on the Golan Heights against the IDF... Merkavas vs. T-82s?

You're going to have to wait for the IDF Module.

[Kwazydog]

Originally posted by fytinghellfish:

The M203, when mounted on an M16A4 rifle, doesn't have the heat shield. The M16A4 has the Pitcatinny Rail system, so the grenade launcher, and damn near everything else on it can be taken off pretty easily.

Yup, was just going to mention this, you can actually somewhat see this in the photo Steve posted above, too

I also found many where the 230 sight wasnt attached either but we can certainly add this if its use is the norm. The weapon dimensions are all made off of a blueprint and to the correct scale (we can measure to the mm in the new engine) but I will double check to be sure.

Dan