New Syrian TO&E thread

[Thomm]

Originally posted by Andreas:What's the difference?

If you do not see the difference, then you do not want to see the difference, in my humble opinion.

I felt like expressing my opinion that I (personally) do not need to see suicide bombers in the computer games I play. I did not expect to convince anybody nor do I think that BFC will change their minds.

I just wrote it "for the records"!

Best regards,

Thomm

[aka_tom_w]

OK

Sorry Thomm

Now I feel bad about my "rant" about free media coverage, sorry, I did not mean to offend you.

-tom w

[Andreas]

Originally posted by Rollstoy:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Andreas:What's the difference?

If you do not see the difference, then you do not want to see the difference, in my humble opinion.</font>

[undead reindeer cavalry]

Originally posted by Rollstoy:

It is not so much a question of suicide attacks happening in reality but a question of good taste.

there have been games where you play terrorists for ages now. it's not like CMx2 will have beheading animations for captured Americans or that you get to rape and torture teenage Muslims.

I am looking forward to the comments in the press about the fact that the Syrian player can 'order martyrs to blow themselves up next to US troops'!!

are you sure that those comments won't be positive? US troops aren't too popular.

If BFC insists, they can still put that option in the training versions for the military ...

that's where i see the most likely moral dilemma. you can be 100% sure that resistance fighters will use CMSF for training and planning operations against troops occupying Iraq and Afghanistan. that is, if CMSF is good enough: i'm not sure if CMSF simulates crucial land combat aspects that weren't included in CMx1, like breaking contact with enemy forces etc.

[Sgt Joch]

It is certainly open to debate whether suicide bombers would participate in the opening phase of a US invasion of Syria, but I would rather they were included and leave it up to individual players and scenario designers to decide whether they want to use them or not.

I think they will have very little impact in CMSF, remote controlled bombs however are a different story.

[Cpl Steiner]

To be honest, I don't see the difference between a mortar or HMG attack on US forces and a suicide bomber. No civilians are involved and in both cases US forces are the target.

The way I see it, a player taking the Syrian side is really no different to training of police officers in which some officers pretend to be rioters or terrorists. The aim is to give the other player a challenging game.

[MikeyD]

I'm okay with suicide bombers (in-game, of course) as long as there's a distinction between Syrian military warfighting with proper TO&E and freelance jihadist warfighting. Remember, we should/could also get to play red-on-red battles. Red-on-Red could well involve running fights between government forces and rebel jihadist groups. In that case Syrian government forces will be the ones contending with those 'operatives' and suicide bombers - this match-up might help dilute the 'ethnic' stigma that including such forces brings with them.

[undead reindeer cavalry]

blah, come on. we all know that in CMSF we will have Al-Qaeda suicide bombers blow up US patrols, Iraqi checkpoints, market places, mosques and so forth. that's perhaps not what the game is about officially, or what those units are called in the game, but that's what players will use the game for.

[Battlefront.com]

Rollstoy,

Just because something is happening in reality and doable in game terms does not mean that it has to be included automatically.

Of course. The key is to decide if it is significant or not from a simulation of current and near future warfare in a Middle Eastern setting. If it is significant then we MUST put it in or the simulation will suffer a reality flaw. If we can't put something in due to technical reasons we try to figure a way around it. For example, we don't simulate civilians directly, but we did figure out how to simulate them abstractly to a large degree.

The facts are quite clear. Sunnis are prone to using suicide bomb tactics, Shias less so. That also partially explains the lack of suicide bombings against Israel this summer, BTW. It is also established fact that many of the suicide bombers and coordinators in Iraq today came out of or through Syria. Lastly, suicide bombers are to some degree effective against military formations. To NOT put suicide bombers in CM:SF would be unsupportable by the facts. Therefore, the case for putting them in is extremely strong and the case for leaving them out extremely weak.

How effective in a conventional combat situation? It isn't that clear since by the time the US started encountering suicide bombers in any significant way the conventional phase of OIF was effectively over. So we see the inclusion of suicide bombers in CM:SF as both logical and experimental. Just like a Stryker force has yet to engage in full combined arms conventional warfare, the full extent of asymetric response to such an attack has also not been experienced. CM:SF will allow people to expereince both and not just one.

Steve

[Sgt Joch]

The other advantage I see to including suicide bombers is that it will make the US player a bit more cautious, since he will never know in any scenario if his forces are going to run into one, something which is very realistic in the middle east.

[Thomm]

Thanks for the good comments!

Mentioning "Kamikaze" as a WW II equivalent to suicide bombers is very convincing, as is pointing out the experimental nature of this feature, and the red-on-red scenario! Well laid out arguments.

Still, I am curious what it will be/"feel" like to order a suicide attack in the game, or to read about "how cool" the martyr units are!

Time will tell!

Best regards,

Thomm

[MikeyD]

I'm recalling all those times in CMx1 where I've been compelled to charge my squad right on top of my opponent's supressed unit in an attempt to whittle that unit down. Now in CMSF if you charge your team on top of a surpressed enemy it might result in a big 'BOOM!' :eek:

[Cpl Steiner]

On the subject of asymetric warfare, I've seen some news footage (obviously from a distant vantage point) of IEDs and VIEDs detonating in Iraq and the explosions are huge. As many as a hundred dead can result from a single explosion.

Given the massive devastation these weapons can produce, I'm wondering how the game is going to handle it. A really big IED should, in theory, produce a massive fireball, and severely damage cars and buildings for hundreds of yards. If your Stryker patrol happens to be nearby and dismounted at the time then I wouldn't expect many of them to survive.

Will there be limits, do you think, on the sorts of IEDs encountered, specifically to rule out the really big ones which could end a scenario there and then if the attack is successful?

[John Kettler]

Cpl Steiner,

While I certainly wouldn't want to be near such a blast, the fact is that a Stryker has been hit by such a blast, which rolled it over and over but didn't kill either the Stryker or the men inside.

Things tend, though, not to turn out so well when it's a Hummer, even an armored one, which gets hit this way, or an M1A2 (insert additional identifiers here). In the former case, vehicle and occupants are simply ripped apart by large explosive charges intended to defeat a tank. In the latter case, the tank's own immense mass works against it, forcing it to sit tight and take the blast, often with considerable damage to/sometimes loss of the tank and some crew casualties.

By virtue of its unique design, the Stryker seems to have blundered into the Tao of survival, being light enough to be flung away, yet tough enough to survive a substantial blast, which it's aided in by high ground clearance which rapidly attenuates blast in conjunction with the hull underside shape, which deflects a lot of it. The M1A2 by contrast, with its pancake flat underside, is an ideal blast target, but a very tough one, hence the huge detonations you're seeing.

While losing a Stryker and dismounts would certainly be offputting, given the scale of the game I doubt that it would amount to all that big a deal in a general offensive environment. That said, a whole bunch of vehicles foolishly clustered together, for whatever reason, would be an altogether different situation. Were I the Syrians, I'd be doing everything in my power to encourage and foster such situations via roadblocks, defiles, downed bridges, etc., since these things would allow me maximum leverage from whatever assets I had, whether preset explosives, Kornet E teams, or prezeroed artillery fire.

Regards,

John Kettler

[ January 31, 2007, 06:33 PM: Message edited by: John Kettler ]

[Battlefront.com]

I've seen at least one Bradley and one Abrams flipped upside down by IEDs. I'm pretty sure the biggest one we have in the game is capable of doing that.

Steve

[Andreas]

Originally posted by Rollstoy:

Thanks for the good comments!

Mentioning "Kamikaze" as a WW II equivalent to suicide bombers is very convincing, as is pointing out the experimental nature of this feature, and the red-on-red scenario! Well laid out arguments.

I explained my logic. How about you explain yours instead of useless bitchy comments?

All the best

Andreas

[Thomm]

Andreas,

Do you realize that I agree with the point you made?

No sarcasm intended in the above reply, thus the second sentence "Well laid out arguments." just to make sure.

Best regards,

Thomm

[Andreas]

No I did not - so please accept my apologies. I read it as sarcasm, which goes to tell that the old saying 'Man soll nicht immer von sich selbst auf andere schliessen', is correct.

Alles Gute

Andreas

[PFMM]

The paradox of this project is that it is engaging in the form of speculation that was the hallmark of the NATO/Warsaw pact conflict which is being overlooked.

In short a conflict which noone knows what will happen and everyone has an opinion.

At least it has T62s,T72s,etc. in it. If I mod the textures and the sound files maybe I can pretend I'm in North Germany. Will M60 tanks and M113 APCS be in the release?

[c3k]

Gents,

In "Thunder Run" there are various accounts of U.S. combat force reaction to being approached by various non-uniformed personnel. Force protection was paramount. Many vehicles were literally shredded by focused firepower.

I would hope that any inclusion of non-uniformed combatants would be balanced by the different ROE of an invasion force in combat vice a police force trying to achieve social stability.

Regards,

Ken

[Battlefront.com]

PFMM,

In short a conflict which noone knows what will happen and everyone has an opinion.

Mostly correct. What we do know is that the next conflict will not look like the last one. That's a general rule of thumb for warfare, but one that is unquestionable at this point. So while we don't know exactly how a near future conventional conflict with Syria will look, we do know what it won't look like and have some pretty good hints as to what it will look like.

c3k,

I would hope that any inclusion of non-uniformed combatants would be balanced by the different ROE of an invasion force in combat vice a police force trying to achieve social stability.

Yup, absolutely. The ROE are certainly more "shoot first, let others ask questions later" than the sort of "wave first, yell second, point weapon third, shoot to warn fourth, and shoot to wound fifth, then get asked questions by everybody about all actions for the next 2 years" type of ROE that is in place in Iraq today.

Steve

[Cpl Steiner]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

absolutely. The ROE are certainly more "shoot first, let others ask questions later" than the sort of "wave first, yell second, point weapon third, shoot to warn fourth, and shoot to wound fifth, then get asked questions by everybody about all actions for the next 2 years" type of ROE that is in place in Iraq today.Steve

This reminds me of a case in Northern Ireland when a soldier had to face charges of breaking his ROE. A bunch of joy-riders in a stolen car had crashed through his checkpoint and the soldier had fired at the speeding vehicle as it approached and then sped passed. He'd fired several rounds through the front window, a couple into the side windows as it passed him and one into the rear window as it sped on down the road. It was ruled in court that the rounds fired into the front and side were OK but the last one into the rear of the vehicle was a breach of his ROE because the vehicle was moving away from him and thus posed no threat.

Can you imagine the guy dodging the vehicle and firing at it in the believe he was under terrorist attack stopping in the split second it passed him because, obviously, he was now no longer acting in self-defence. Is it any wonder that people feel the Law is an ass!

[Wisbech_lad]

"In short, the US won't do a half assed, knee jerk attack against a major foe like Israel did.

Steve "

Uhm, doesn't that sum up the whole OIF thing? Except that Iraq wasn't a major foe...

[Battlefront.com]

Wisbech_lad

Uhm, doesn't that sum up the whole OIF thing? Except that Iraq wasn't a major foe...

On the contrary, Iraq was a major foe. And the completely, undisputed fact is that the initial military assault on Iraq was a spectacular success and wasn't done half assed at all. It wasn't knee jerk either, since it is long established fact that war prep time was at least 6 active months (contrary to public statements at the time) plus about 12 years of day dreaming on the part of the planners (note I didn't say 12 years of planning).

What happened *after* the attack was very different. It wasn't even half assed... it was flat as a pancake, negative booty assed Then when it was pointed out that the nation building part had no ass everybody who said this was called a traitor and ill informed. Then things got ugly.

So I stand behind my statement 110%. If someone wants to make a case for the US going into a country like Syria in a half assed, knee jerk way like Israel went into Lebanon, they're going to have to show some basis for such a break with the US military's fairly recent mentality and history (at least post Vietnam). They'll either go in with both feet a pounding, send in the Air Force, or do nothing. What happens after that, again, is an open question. But CM isn't concerned with the latter, only the former.

Steve

[Andreas]

Originally posted by Wisbech_lad:

"In short, the US won't do a half assed, knee jerk attack against a major foe like Israel did.

Steve "

Uhm, doesn't that sum up the whole OIF thing? Except that Iraq wasn't a major foe...

The IDF failed at getting past the defenses thrown up by Hizbollah. The Americans are still in Bagdad.

Strategically, both were half-assed adventures. Operationally, only the IDF went in half-assed, while the US had a sound plan that worked. Tactically, they both knew what they were doing and had the edge, but the IDF came off looking the worse for wear more often than the US Army on its way to Bagdad.

That's my simplistic comparison based on no in-depth analysis at all.

All the best

Andreas

[ February 02, 2007, 01:23 AM: Message edited by: Andreas ]