New Syrian TO&E thread

[Battlefront.com]

The old one was over the 300 post safety limit, so I closed it up and opened this one just in case there is more discussion to be had. I figure I might as well toss out something to you guys while I'm at it

From my research and that of Rudel's, it looks like the Syrians have four levels of readiness. This readiness dramatically effects the kinds of equipment they get.

Elite - Speical Forces and Airborne unit personnel. Best trained, best equipped bar none.

Regular - standing Army, including the single Republican Guards Mech Infantry Division (really an Armored Division). These guys get the best equipment, with the Republican Guards getting the top of heap, though not as good as Elite in some respects.

Reserve - generally poor readiness and using the hand-me-downs of the Regular guys.

Militia - very poor readiness and using the hand-me-downs of the Reserves.

Syrian units are fairly straight forward and easy to grasp. There are some minor differences between this or that formation, but in general the infantry type units come down to:

Special Forces - best of the best. Organized similar to regular infantry units, but with all sorts of goodies. Supposedly formed into a Division and independent Brigades, effectively they fight in smaller units.

Airborne - pretty damned good, though not at parachuting (they are para in name only!). Like Special Forces, they are spoiled [note... this is for Module 1, not initial release]. Formed into a single Divisions.

Mech Infantry - mounted in tracked or wheeled APCs, this is the vast bulk of the standing Army forces. Generally formed into Divisions, but some independent Brigades exist.

Mot Infantry - organized similar to Mech Infantry, but lacking organic transportation. When they do get it, it's trucks from a central motorpool. I think there are only one or two of these Brigades.

Infantry - designed to be static defensive units. Basically this is a huge number of trained cannon fodder dopes. All are independent Brigades.

Militia - similar to Infantry, but even worse off than Infantry. All are independent Brigades.

The quality level is roughly in this order too. However, Mech Infantry spans Republican Guard, Regular, or Reserve formations. So there is a huge qualitative range even though organizationally they aren't very different. Mot Infantry and Infantry are Reserve formations only, and therefore generally pretty poor. Militia is its own classification, but is basically Reserves with an even shorter life expectancy Obviously Special Forces and Airborne are their own beasts in all respects.

Steve

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Airborne - pretty damned good, though not at parachuting (they are para in name only!). Like Special Forces, they are spoiled [note... this is for Module 1, not initial release].

So parachute landings and helicopter insertions will be part of in-scenario activities in later modules?

[Hans]

Yes I was wondering about heliborne operations, will these be possible?

[Andreas]

Wouldn't the heli part of heli-borne happen before the scenario starts?

All the best

Andreas

[KNac]

Why? Not exactly...

A part of heli-borne forces could be reinforcements or other forces entering the battle later in the game.

[Sergei]

In a Vietnam game it might be so, but I think that in a modern battlefield, with man-portable SAM's, it'd be insane to send your transport heli's that close to the action.

[Andreas]

Quite.

All the best

Andreas

[Hans]

I could see insertion as part of the scenario, especially in raid, assault, medivac and other situations. Heliborne would now include MV-22's.

[Imperial Grunt]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

The old one was over the 300 post safety limit, so I closed it up and opened this one just in case there is more discussion to be had. I figure I might as well toss out something to you guys while I'm at it

From my research and that of Rudel's, it looks like the Syrians have four levels of readiness. This readiness dramatically effects the kinds of equipment they get.

Elite - Speical Forces and Airborne unit personnel. Best trained, best equipped bar none.

Regular - standing Army, including the single Republican Guards Mech Infantry Division (really an Armored Division). These guys get the best equipment, with the Republican Guards getting the top of heap, though not as good as Elite in some respects.

Reserve - generally poor readiness and using the hand-me-downs of the Regular guys.

Militia - very poor readiness and using the hand-me-downs of the Reserves.

Syrian units are fairly straight forward and easy to grasp. There are some minor differences between this or that formation, but in general the infantry type units come down to:

Special Forces - best of the best. Organized similar to regular infantry units, but with all sorts of goodies. Supposedly formed into a Division and independent Brigades, effectively they fight in smaller units.

Airborne - pretty damned good, though not at parachuting (they are para in name only!). Like Special Forces, they are spoiled [note... this is for Module 1, not initial release]. Formed into a single Divisions.

Mech Infantry - mounted in tracked or wheeled APCs, this is the vast bulk of the standing Army forces. Generally formed into Divisions, but some independent Brigades exist.

Mot Infantry - organized similar to Mech Infantry, but lacking organic transportation. When they do get it, it's trucks from a central motorpool. I think there are only one or two of these Brigades.

Infantry - designed to be static defensive units. Basically this is a huge number of trained cannon fodder dopes. All are independent Brigades.

Militia - similar to Infantry, but even worse off than Infantry. All are independent Brigades.

The quality level is roughly in this order too. However, Mech Infantry spans Republican Guard, Regular, or Reserve formations. So there is a huge qualitative range even though organizationally they aren't very different. Mot Infantry and Infantry are Reserve formations only, and therefore generally pretty poor. Militia is its own classification, but is basically Reserves with an even shorter life expectancy Obviously Special Forces and Airborne are their own beasts in all respects.

Steve

Were does Hezbollah, AQ, and other Jihadist fall into this list?

[rudel.dietrich]

Originally posted by Imperial Grunt:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

The old one was over the 300 post safety limit, so I closed it up and opened this one just in case there is more discussion to be had. I figure I might as well toss out something to you guys while I'm at it

From my research and that of Rudel's, it looks like the Syrians have four levels of readiness. This readiness dramatically effects the kinds of equipment they get.

Elite - Speical Forces and Airborne unit personnel. Best trained, best equipped bar none.

Regular - standing Army, including the single Republican Guards Mech Infantry Division (really an Armored Division). These guys get the best equipment, with the Republican Guards getting the top of heap, though not as good as Elite in some respects.

Reserve - generally poor readiness and using the hand-me-downs of the Regular guys.

Militia - very poor readiness and using the hand-me-downs of the Reserves.

Syrian units are fairly straight forward and easy to grasp. There are some minor differences between this or that formation, but in general the infantry type units come down to:

Special Forces - best of the best. Organized similar to regular infantry units, but with all sorts of goodies. Supposedly formed into a Division and independent Brigades, effectively they fight in smaller units.

Airborne - pretty damned good, though not at parachuting (they are para in name only!). Like Special Forces, they are spoiled [note... this is for Module 1, not initial release]. Formed into a single Divisions.

Mech Infantry - mounted in tracked or wheeled APCs, this is the vast bulk of the standing Army forces. Generally formed into Divisions, but some independent Brigades exist.

Mot Infantry - organized similar to Mech Infantry, but lacking organic transportation. When they do get it, it's trucks from a central motorpool. I think there are only one or two of these Brigades.

Infantry - designed to be static defensive units. Basically this is a huge number of trained cannon fodder dopes. All are independent Brigades.

Militia - similar to Infantry, but even worse off than Infantry. All are independent Brigades.

The quality level is roughly in this order too. However, Mech Infantry spans Republican Guard, Regular, or Reserve formations. So there is a huge qualitative range even though organizationally they aren't very different. Mot Infantry and Infantry are Reserve formations only, and therefore generally pretty poor. Militia is its own classification, but is basically Reserves with an even shorter life expectancy Obviously Special Forces and Airborne are their own beasts in all respects.

Steve

Were does Hezbollah, AQ, and other Jihadist fall into this list? </font>

[Battlefront.com]

Yeah, these forces are just for the regular Syrian military. Irregular forces will be a part of CM:SF's initial release, but they are entirely different than the military formations I just mentioned.

For the irregular forces we are calling them "Unconventional Forces" or "Uncons" for short. These break down into four basic types:

Fighters these are more or less akin to Syrian Special Forces. They are small, lightly armed, highly motivated, and very well equipped combat troops. They are also wear "uniforms", are trained and generally experiened in small unit combat. They are, in a word, tough.

Combatants these the guys who run around in Addidas and RPGs, not knowing if they are coming or going half the time. They generally are as subtle as college kids on a beach in Florida during Spring Break, only slightly less dangerous to the public Seriously though, the Combatants are pretty much armed young men who are looking to prove themselves without much idea of how to do it correctly.

Martyrs what they lack in training and skill they make up for in a strong determination to die at any cost. These guys might not be able to shoot straight, but they also won't panic or back down from a fight. Typically this type doesn't cause more than minor problems for a conventional force that is on its toes. For a sloppy conventional force they could become a real problem. Especially if they are bombers instead of simple riflemen.

Operatives these guys pose no direct threat to you since they don't engage in combat. What they do is report what you're doing to others. If used correctly and in the right circumstances you'll never see a single one of them.

Steve

[MikeyD]

Interesting concept! I like that idea of 'operatives'. in CMx1 we always complained about having to waste a valuable combat unit just for recon. 'Operatives' should also boost the assymetric warfare feel of the game. Are we talking civilian dress for these guys?

and will 'unconventionals' get their own transport? I'm thinking civilian sedans able to hold the same as a Humvee (and importantly, using the same animations). fighters in partial civilian dress driving sedans would really be something to wrap our brains around!

[Sergei]

I would suppose operatives would be invisible to US player until somehow 'exposed' - if civilians are not shown, then unrecognised operatives shouldn't either.

[Battlefront.com]

Sergei is correct. If you handle them correctly they will remain invisible to the US player. Otherwise, you'll get them spotted and the US player will likey put some effort into getting rid of 'em. The Operatives are like any other unit, so they can have transport or be transported. Note, however, that this is a good way to get them identified. Best way to use them is stake them out in a building, probably not ground floor, with good LOS and never move them. Having a guy sitting in a wheat field in car in the middle of a map probably isn't a good idea

NOTE... this portion of the engine hasn't been written yet. The basic design has been on paper for some time now, though. I doubt it will go in exactly as I would like, however the basic concepts discussed above are likely to make it in as described.

Steve

[aka_tom_w]

NOTE... this portion of the engine hasn't been written yet. The basic design has been on paper for some time now, though. I doubt it will go in exactly as I would like, however the basic concepts discussed above are likely to make it in as described.

:eek:

WOW :eek:

um

" this portion of the engine hasn't been written yet."

If you plan to do that justice then it sounds like we are ate least 4-6 months away from a release date. (please tell me I am mistaken)

Maybe I am wrong, and this part of the game engine won't take more then a few days to a week to code, but I am just guessing that play testing this aspect of the simulation will take a heck of a LOT more time than that.

hmmm

(sounds great though!)

-tom w

[PAEZ]

I must admit that knowing that there is still code to be made, makes me uneasy but on the other hand "Uncons" and "Operatives" seems like a great idea to wait a bit longer for.

You guys rock

[Cpl Steiner]

The whole idea of "Operatives" implies the use of civilian disguise, otherwise they are no different to a uniformed sniper or small team. I know from previous posts that although civilians aren't directly shown in the game, the game engine takes account of small numbers of people for cover and concealment of things like VIEDs. In other words, in some situations and some scenarios, civilian activity is supposed to make it possible for US forces to be hit by VIEDs and the like.

However, will the player have some indication of how likely it is that his operative will be spotted? In reality an operative would see civilians and know he had a good chance of blending in with them but the player will not have this advantage.

Perhaps these civilian-disguised enemy fighters might have some sort of "stealth bar" showing how much they are managing to blend in. If the bar drops you know that the game is simulating a lack of civilian "cover" and thus a higher likelihood of being spotted.

Whilst on the subject, how about turning the tables on the Syrians and having some CIA or SAS spooks dressed in civilian clothing scouting out the enemy? It may sound far-fetched but I'm pretty sure such things are going on right now in Iraq. For instance, the capture and rescue of two SAS men from an Iraqi police station not long ago was probably after such a mission.

[JonS]

How long before "Uncons" get renamed to "Unicorns"?

[YankeeDog]

Originally posted by JonS:

How long before "Uncons" get renamed to "Unicorns"?

I would say about, oh. . . nine minutes ago.

[JonS]

[Imperial Grunt]

Damn..now we got unicorns running around. What's next elves and orcs? Please, someone call in lots and lots of napalm.

[Battlefront.com]

Dont worry about things not yet coded. At this stage of development there are lots of things uncoded yet. Same was true for the other CM games. The important steps have already been taken, and those are the ones that would have tripped up this feature:

1. Designing the feature to work within the game's simulated environment.

2. Designing the feature to work within the game's UI.

These steps took me weeks, if not months, to work through even before the lengthy discussions and design revisions with Charles happened. But all that is long behind it.

Note that IEDs are already in the game, and they were the real difficult piece to add. Only the Operatives involve custom code of any note. We're just waiting for the opening in his full scheudle to put this stuff in. That time is coming up rapidly and probably won't take more than a few days of his time. If we hadn't done the other stuff ahead of time, this would be impossible to do so quickly.

Steve

[MikeyD]

About Martyrs, Operatives and civilian dress, I didn't imagine them to blending into the non-existant populace in-game. I was thinking more Hamas-style (or IRA-style) black balaclava over the head and webbing & ammo pouches over slacks & shirt. Maybe even with rattly old sneakers on their feet! They'd stand out like a sore thumb ifrom noncombatants. Their dress would be distinct from regular army uniform but they'd still be recognizable fighters. The Syrian soldier polygon isn't as bulky as the U.S. Simply reskinning the uniform to something less 'official' might be a simple task (though deleting the helmet from the polygon and adding the balaclava sounds like a pain).

And yes, driving your irregular units around open country in plain sight would be some exponential form of dumb. I was thinking more along the line of using sedan/truck movement to get your non-mechanized people from one side of a big map to the other without going for a twenty minute walk. Like the use of trucks in CMx1

[ January 24, 2007, 11:41 AM: Message edited by: MikeyD ]

[Sergei]

I could be wrong with this, but I think that fighters, combatants and martyrs would be quite easily spotted even from a crowd. Why?

a) there's these things they're carrying, like Kalashnikovs. In West Bank and Iraq, children with toy guns or reporters with shoulder-held video cameras have been targetted and killed by soldiers wary of enemy fighters using civilian disguise.

the crowd realizes that mingling too intimately with them might not exactly earn bonuses to their life insurance policy, so they will scatter away from their vicinity.

c) civilian men caught in a battlezone tend to act differently from resistance fighters.

[aka_tom_w]

Will this be the first game to have "operatives" in a unconventional combat role in a video war game? (simulation)

That sounds like quite an inovative feature for a war game?

(revolutionary maybe?)

Has it been done like this before in any other games?

(none that I know of)

-tomw w