Backstory?

[Dirtweasle]

Ideas? Oh, yea. Just read the daily news and you can imagine several scenarios. Look here's a story form the WaPo this morning -

US, France To Isolate Syria Over Hariri Assassination

The United States and France are planning to introduce two U.N. resolutions next week aimed at holding Syria to account for meddling in Lebanon and for its alleged links to the assassination of former Lebanese prime minister Rafiq Hariri, according to several sources close to the diplomacy.

The moves would be the toughest international action ever taken against Syria and would be designed to further isolate President Bashar Assad, who for the first time is getting the cold shoulder from key Arab governments such as those in Egypt and Saudi Arabia, Western envoys said.

The impending actions will be "the perfect storm for Damascus," said a Western diplomat at the United Nations, speaking on the condition of anonymity because planning is still underway. "It's pretty clear the Syrians don't have any friends left."

[Dirtweasle]

Ideas? Oh, yea. Just read the daily news and you can imagine several scenarios. Look here's a story form the WaPo this morning -

US, France To Isolate Syria Over Hariri Assassination

The United States and France are planning to introduce two U.N. resolutions next week aimed at holding Syria to account for meddling in Lebanon and for its alleged links to the assassination of former Lebanese prime minister Rafiq Hariri, according to several sources close to the diplomacy.

The moves would be the toughest international action ever taken against Syria and would be designed to further isolate President Bashar Assad, who for the first time is getting the cold shoulder from key Arab governments such as those in Egypt and Saudi Arabia, Western envoys said.

The impending actions will be "the perfect storm for Damascus," said a Western diplomat at the United Nations, speaking on the condition of anonymity because planning is still underway. "It's pretty clear the Syrians don't have any friends left."

[M Hofbauer]

Originally posted by C'Rogers:

(if someone knows more about mobilization times and what could be thrown against Syria given like a week I would love to hear it).

So a few, fairly lightly armored and supported but highly trained, troops are sent in. (...)

well, you have Turkey in the North with all its military deployed in the east, and Israel in the South-west, and Iraq plus Saudi-Arabia to the east/south-east (Saudi-arabia has no direct border with Syria but could get there via Iraq).

All these countries have respectable powerful militaries; it's just that they are not that fast to pull the trigger as the US is.

US military hardware is not only stored in Turkey and the Gulf, it is now activated and in use, you have all that US military sitting around in Iraq looking for an "exit strategy".

That exit plan could very well lead them through Syria

So, by any stretch of imagination, there would be no dictating need to employ the Strykout, because "real" forces are available all around Syria.

As for the story, it doesnt really convince me.

So there might be an overthrow of the current Syrian government by an islamist movement - but I dont see the military fall in line with that. If anything, it is the miltary in the arab countries that is loyal to the monarch and all that keeps the monarchy from being toppled by the dissenting populace. I also don't see the neighbour states so very intent on restoring the Bath-Assad regime.

If anything, I could see a Coyle-esque "March of the Tenthousand" scenario where half of the syrian army is pro-revolution and the other half against it, with resulting patchwork of a civil war in Syria, through which the player's forces will try to cut through.

[M Hofbauer]

Originally posted by C'Rogers:

(if someone knows more about mobilization times and what could be thrown against Syria given like a week I would love to hear it).

So a few, fairly lightly armored and supported but highly trained, troops are sent in. (...)

well, you have Turkey in the North with all its military deployed in the east, and Israel in the South-west, and Iraq plus Saudi-Arabia to the east/south-east (Saudi-arabia has no direct border with Syria but could get there via Iraq).

All these countries have respectable powerful militaries; it's just that they are not that fast to pull the trigger as the US is.

US military hardware is not only stored in Turkey and the Gulf, it is now activated and in use, you have all that US military sitting around in Iraq looking for an "exit strategy".

That exit plan could very well lead them through Syria

So, by any stretch of imagination, there would be no dictating need to employ the Strykout, because "real" forces are available all around Syria.

As for the story, it doesnt really convince me.

So there might be an overthrow of the current Syrian government by an islamist movement - but I dont see the military fall in line with that. If anything, it is the miltary in the arab countries that is loyal to the monarch and all that keeps the monarchy from being toppled by the dissenting populace. I also don't see the neighbour states so very intent on restoring the Bath-Assad regime.

If anything, I could see a Coyle-esque "March of the Tenthousand" scenario where half of the syrian army is pro-revolution and the other half against it, with resulting patchwork of a civil war in Syria, through which the player's forces will try to cut through.

[M Hofbauer]

Originally posted by C'Rogers:

(if someone knows more about mobilization times and what could be thrown against Syria given like a week I would love to hear it).

So a few, fairly lightly armored and supported but highly trained, troops are sent in. (...)

well, you have Turkey in the North with all its military deployed in the east, and Israel in the South-west, and Iraq plus Saudi-Arabia to the east/south-east (Saudi-arabia has no direct border with Syria but could get there via Iraq).

All these countries have respectable powerful militaries; it's just that they are not that fast to pull the trigger as the US is.

US military hardware is not only stored in Turkey and the Gulf, it is now activated and in use, you have all that US military sitting around in Iraq looking for an "exit strategy".

That exit plan could very well lead them through Syria

So, by any stretch of imagination, there would be no dictating need to employ the Strykout, because "real" forces are available all around Syria.

As for the story, it doesnt really convince me.

So there might be an overthrow of the current Syrian government by an islamist movement - but I dont see the military fall in line with that. If anything, it is the miltary in the arab countries that is loyal to the monarch and all that keeps the monarchy from being toppled by the dissenting populace. I also don't see the neighbour states so very intent on restoring the Bath-Assad regime.

If anything, I could see a Coyle-esque "March of the Tenthousand" scenario where half of the syrian army is pro-revolution and the other half against it, with resulting patchwork of a civil war in Syria, through which the player's forces will try to cut through.

[kipanderson]

Hi,

My oft repeated thoughts on the back-story are two fold.

Firstly, I do not think it matters that much, it is all just an excuse it for a good punch-up using the very latest US units. There is really no more to it than that .

Secondly, if there is to be a back-story I think it matters that one is used that has the Syrians highly motivated to fight. i.e. from their perspective being invaded by an overly aggressive and interfering US. This is so that Syrian forces in CMSF can be modelled with high morale.

It is import to remember that one of the central reasons for the walkover that both Gulf War 1 and 2 against Iraq were is that 90% plus of Iraqis forces did not wish to risk their lives for Saddam. Syria with its ‘90s Russian AT weapons, and motivated to fight, would be a very different matter. In fact the 140,000 man army that invaded Iraq in Gulf War 2 would stand no chance, in my view. Nor in the real world would any western force try with much less than a 500,000-750,000 man army. An army somewhat larger than the Gulf War 1 force would be needed. Assuming the Syrians really did “not” think they were being “liberated”. Remember taking, and then holding open towns and cities, that have a will to resist, is a very numbers intensive matter in the real world. You have to be able to put an infantry squad on every street corner. As the US forces in Iraq found to their cost even with so little resistance.

The backstory I will be using is that in the closing months of his presidency Bush invades Syria in order to spread democracy and secure his legacy. But anything that motivates the Syrians to resist will do the trick .

All good fun,

All the best,

Kip.

[kipanderson]

Hi,

My oft repeated thoughts on the back-story are two fold.

Firstly, I do not think it matters that much, it is all just an excuse it for a good punch-up using the very latest US units. There is really no more to it than that .

Secondly, if there is to be a back-story I think it matters that one is used that has the Syrians highly motivated to fight. i.e. from their perspective being invaded by an overly aggressive and interfering US. This is so that Syrian forces in CMSF can be modelled with high morale.

It is import to remember that one of the central reasons for the walkover that both Gulf War 1 and 2 against Iraq were is that 90% plus of Iraqis forces did not wish to risk their lives for Saddam. Syria with its ‘90s Russian AT weapons, and motivated to fight, would be a very different matter. In fact the 140,000 man army that invaded Iraq in Gulf War 2 would stand no chance, in my view. Nor in the real world would any western force try with much less than a 500,000-750,000 man army. An army somewhat larger than the Gulf War 1 force would be needed. Assuming the Syrians really did “not” think they were being “liberated”. Remember taking, and then holding open towns and cities, that have a will to resist, is a very numbers intensive matter in the real world. You have to be able to put an infantry squad on every street corner. As the US forces in Iraq found to their cost even with so little resistance.

The backstory I will be using is that in the closing months of his presidency Bush invades Syria in order to spread democracy and secure his legacy. But anything that motivates the Syrians to resist will do the trick .

All good fun,

All the best,

Kip.

[kipanderson]

Hi,

My oft repeated thoughts on the back-story are two fold.

Firstly, I do not think it matters that much, it is all just an excuse it for a good punch-up using the very latest US units. There is really no more to it than that .

Secondly, if there is to be a back-story I think it matters that one is used that has the Syrians highly motivated to fight. i.e. from their perspective being invaded by an overly aggressive and interfering US. This is so that Syrian forces in CMSF can be modelled with high morale.

It is import to remember that one of the central reasons for the walkover that both Gulf War 1 and 2 against Iraq were is that 90% plus of Iraqis forces did not wish to risk their lives for Saddam. Syria with its ‘90s Russian AT weapons, and motivated to fight, would be a very different matter. In fact the 140,000 man army that invaded Iraq in Gulf War 2 would stand no chance, in my view. Nor in the real world would any western force try with much less than a 500,000-750,000 man army. An army somewhat larger than the Gulf War 1 force would be needed. Assuming the Syrians really did “not” think they were being “liberated”. Remember taking, and then holding open towns and cities, that have a will to resist, is a very numbers intensive matter in the real world. You have to be able to put an infantry squad on every street corner. As the US forces in Iraq found to their cost even with so little resistance.

The backstory I will be using is that in the closing months of his presidency Bush invades Syria in order to spread democracy and secure his legacy. But anything that motivates the Syrians to resist will do the trick .

All good fun,

All the best,

Kip.

[Dave H]

Originally posted by kipanderson:

The backstory I will be using is that in the closing months of his presidency Bush invades Syria in order to spread democracy and secure his legacy.

It looks like the hypothetical 2007 timeframe may not wait that long. According to the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, the skirmishing has already started. I've also read that all of the top-level Syrians in position to replace a deposed President Assad are considered much more anti-American than he is.

BFC had better hurry with the release or this imaginary "Americans versus Syrians" game may turn into a historical game after all.

[Dave H]

Originally posted by kipanderson:

The backstory I will be using is that in the closing months of his presidency Bush invades Syria in order to spread democracy and secure his legacy.

It looks like the hypothetical 2007 timeframe may not wait that long. According to the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, the skirmishing has already started. I've also read that all of the top-level Syrians in position to replace a deposed President Assad are considered much more anti-American than he is.

BFC had better hurry with the release or this imaginary "Americans versus Syrians" game may turn into a historical game after all.

[Dave H]

Originally posted by kipanderson:

The backstory I will be using is that in the closing months of his presidency Bush invades Syria in order to spread democracy and secure his legacy.

It looks like the hypothetical 2007 timeframe may not wait that long. According to the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, the skirmishing has already started. I've also read that all of the top-level Syrians in position to replace a deposed President Assad are considered much more anti-American than he is.

BFC had better hurry with the release or this imaginary "Americans versus Syrians" game may turn into a historical game after all.

[aka_tom_w]

Wednesday, October 19, 2005

Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

As I suspected six months ago, U.S. military and Bush administration civilian officials confirmed last week that U.S. forces have invaded Syria and engaged in combat with Syrian forces.

An unknown number of Syrians are acknowledged to have been killed; the number of Americans -- if any -- who have died in Syria so far has not yet been revealed by the U.S. sources, who by the way insist on remaining faceless and nameless.

The parallel with the Vietnam War, where a Nixon administration deeply involved in a losing war expanded the conflict -- fruitlessly in the event -- to neighboring Cambodia, is obvious.

(snip)

more in between

(snip)

There is some question as to how America's military leadership feels about fighting Syria too, given its already heavy commitment in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere. At least some U.S. military officials must wish that President Bush and his associates would move away from his administration's "Johnny One Note," hand-it-to-the-military approach to its problems, now to include Hurricane Katrina-type disaster relief and the newest possible duty, dealing with a bird flu epidemic.

And then there is the tired old United Nations. An invasion by one sovereign member, the United States, of the territory of another sovereign member (Syria), requires U.N. Security Council action.

What of the regional impact in the Middle East? Some observers have argued that destabilizing Syria, creating chaos there, even bringing about regime change away from the current government of President Bashar Assad, is somehow to improve Israel's security posture in the region. The argument runs that Saddam Hussein's Iraq was the biggest regional threat to Israel; Bashar Assad's Syria is second. The United States got rid of Saddam; now it should get rid of the Assad regime in Damascus.

There is more from that link if you want to read the whole article.

it was an interesting OPINION article...

-tom w

[ October 20, 2005, 11:25 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[aka_tom_w]

Wednesday, October 19, 2005

Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

As I suspected six months ago, U.S. military and Bush administration civilian officials confirmed last week that U.S. forces have invaded Syria and engaged in combat with Syrian forces.

An unknown number of Syrians are acknowledged to have been killed; the number of Americans -- if any -- who have died in Syria so far has not yet been revealed by the U.S. sources, who by the way insist on remaining faceless and nameless.

The parallel with the Vietnam War, where a Nixon administration deeply involved in a losing war expanded the conflict -- fruitlessly in the event -- to neighboring Cambodia, is obvious.

(snip)

more in between

(snip)

There is some question as to how America's military leadership feels about fighting Syria too, given its already heavy commitment in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere. At least some U.S. military officials must wish that President Bush and his associates would move away from his administration's "Johnny One Note," hand-it-to-the-military approach to its problems, now to include Hurricane Katrina-type disaster relief and the newest possible duty, dealing with a bird flu epidemic.

And then there is the tired old United Nations. An invasion by one sovereign member, the United States, of the territory of another sovereign member (Syria), requires U.N. Security Council action.

What of the regional impact in the Middle East? Some observers have argued that destabilizing Syria, creating chaos there, even bringing about regime change away from the current government of President Bashar Assad, is somehow to improve Israel's security posture in the region. The argument runs that Saddam Hussein's Iraq was the biggest regional threat to Israel; Bashar Assad's Syria is second. The United States got rid of Saddam; now it should get rid of the Assad regime in Damascus.

There is more from that link if you want to read the whole article.

it was an interesting OPINION article...

-tom w

[ October 20, 2005, 11:25 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[aka_tom_w]

Wednesday, October 19, 2005

Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

As I suspected six months ago, U.S. military and Bush administration civilian officials confirmed last week that U.S. forces have invaded Syria and engaged in combat with Syrian forces.

An unknown number of Syrians are acknowledged to have been killed; the number of Americans -- if any -- who have died in Syria so far has not yet been revealed by the U.S. sources, who by the way insist on remaining faceless and nameless.

The parallel with the Vietnam War, where a Nixon administration deeply involved in a losing war expanded the conflict -- fruitlessly in the event -- to neighboring Cambodia, is obvious.

(snip)

more in between

(snip)

There is some question as to how America's military leadership feels about fighting Syria too, given its already heavy commitment in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere. At least some U.S. military officials must wish that President Bush and his associates would move away from his administration's "Johnny One Note," hand-it-to-the-military approach to its problems, now to include Hurricane Katrina-type disaster relief and the newest possible duty, dealing with a bird flu epidemic.

And then there is the tired old United Nations. An invasion by one sovereign member, the United States, of the territory of another sovereign member (Syria), requires U.N. Security Council action.

What of the regional impact in the Middle East? Some observers have argued that destabilizing Syria, creating chaos there, even bringing about regime change away from the current government of President Bashar Assad, is somehow to improve Israel's security posture in the region. The argument runs that Saddam Hussein's Iraq was the biggest regional threat to Israel; Bashar Assad's Syria is second. The United States got rid of Saddam; now it should get rid of the Assad regime in Damascus.

There is more from that link if you want to read the whole article.

it was an interesting OPINION article...

-tom w

[ October 20, 2005, 11:25 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[Philippe]

I many be in a minority on this one, but I really think the game is easier to accept if there simply is no backstory whatsoever. One collection of forces just happens to be in Syria fighting another collection of forces. The reason why is better left unsaid.

[Philippe]

I many be in a minority on this one, but I really think the game is easier to accept if there simply is no backstory whatsoever. One collection of forces just happens to be in Syria fighting another collection of forces. The reason why is better left unsaid.

[Philippe]

I many be in a minority on this one, but I really think the game is easier to accept if there simply is no backstory whatsoever. One collection of forces just happens to be in Syria fighting another collection of forces. The reason why is better left unsaid.

[aka_tom_w]

Philippe, that is the EASY way to understand it for sure.

But, as a result of lots of complaints about no "campaign" in CMx1 BFC has chosen to have a "Story" and a single player (US) multibattle "operation" style campaign. I would suggest because some folks here wanted a "story line" and units that "progress" through the campaign/story, some form of backstory was needed.

BUT yeah sure it is a lot easier to just say, what the heck, it happens in Syria there are modern forces (sort of, on both sides) and they do battle, NOW BRING IT ON!

he he

-tom w

[ October 20, 2005, 12:14 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[aka_tom_w]

Philippe, that is the EASY way to understand it for sure.

But, as a result of lots of complaints about no "campaign" in CMx1 BFC has chosen to have a "Story" and a single player (US) multibattle "operation" style campaign. I would suggest because some folks here wanted a "story line" and units that "progress" through the campaign/story, some form of backstory was needed.

BUT yeah sure it is a lot easier to just say, what the heck, it happens in Syria there are modern forces (sort of, on both sides) and they do battle, NOW BRING IT ON!

he he

-tom w

[ October 20, 2005, 12:14 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[aka_tom_w]

Philippe, that is the EASY way to understand it for sure.

But, as a result of lots of complaints about no "campaign" in CMx1 BFC has chosen to have a "Story" and a single player (US) multibattle "operation" style campaign. I would suggest because some folks here wanted a "story line" and units that "progress" through the campaign/story, some form of backstory was needed.

BUT yeah sure it is a lot easier to just say, what the heck, it happens in Syria there are modern forces (sort of, on both sides) and they do battle, NOW BRING IT ON!

he he

-tom w

[ October 20, 2005, 12:14 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[C'Rogers]

I many be in a minority on this one, but I really think the game is easier to accept if there simply is no backstory whatsoever. One collection of forces just happens to be in Syria fighting another collection of forces. The reason why is better left unsaid.

There does seem to two different thoughts on this. Either the back story must be awesome and unquestionably realistic (thus historical) or it really doesn't matter at all.

A lot of people have pointed out over the years that a campaign would make BFC much more marketable (usually with the example of 'I have 8 gazillion friends who would buy this if it had campaign mode'). While I don't really care for the campaign, I imagine it will make the game more marketable.

And as for those of who don't care about storyline we now have Blue vs. Blue (and hopefully with more modules you can pit USA vs. British, etc.).

[C'Rogers]

I many be in a minority on this one, but I really think the game is easier to accept if there simply is no backstory whatsoever. One collection of forces just happens to be in Syria fighting another collection of forces. The reason why is better left unsaid.

There does seem to two different thoughts on this. Either the back story must be awesome and unquestionably realistic (thus historical) or it really doesn't matter at all.

A lot of people have pointed out over the years that a campaign would make BFC much more marketable (usually with the example of 'I have 8 gazillion friends who would buy this if it had campaign mode'). While I don't really care for the campaign, I imagine it will make the game more marketable.

And as for those of who don't care about storyline we now have Blue vs. Blue (and hopefully with more modules you can pit USA vs. British, etc.).

[C'Rogers]

I many be in a minority on this one, but I really think the game is easier to accept if there simply is no backstory whatsoever. One collection of forces just happens to be in Syria fighting another collection of forces. The reason why is better left unsaid.

There does seem to two different thoughts on this. Either the back story must be awesome and unquestionably realistic (thus historical) or it really doesn't matter at all.

A lot of people have pointed out over the years that a campaign would make BFC much more marketable (usually with the example of 'I have 8 gazillion friends who would buy this if it had campaign mode'). While I don't really care for the campaign, I imagine it will make the game more marketable.

And as for those of who don't care about storyline we now have Blue vs. Blue (and hopefully with more modules you can pit USA vs. British, etc.).

[J Ruddy]

While visiting Syria on their farewell tour of the free (and not-so-free) world, soon to be ex-president, the two term wonder, George W Bush, along with "can't-keep-it-in-his-pants" Bill Clinton seriously offend Bashar al-Assad with their unending run of "Are you Syrias" and "Als-Assad Bashar" jokes, the whole episode culminating in George W trying to calm down the persident by assuring him that he is really an "Alawite" sort of fellow afterall while Billie's caught trying to peek under the serving girls Burkha... ( I was just checking to see if she's going regimental or not, is that a crime?)

[J Ruddy]

While visiting Syria on their farewell tour of the free (and not-so-free) world, soon to be ex-president, the two term wonder, George W Bush, along with "can't-keep-it-in-his-pants" Bill Clinton seriously offend Bashar al-Assad with their unending run of "Are you Syrias" and "Als-Assad Bashar" jokes, the whole episode culminating in George W trying to calm down the persident by assuring him that he is really an "Alawite" sort of fellow afterall while Billie's caught trying to peek under the serving girls Burkha... ( I was just checking to see if she's going regimental or not, is that a crime?)