Please give us the chance to play syria in the campaign game

[WW2Wargamer]

Hi

For fun and replay value. Please give us the chance to play syria if possible in the campaign game

Thank you

[KNac]

Not possible.

a) StratAI is allready sometimes badly done for syrian army in current campaing, US StratAI is not even present.

AI doing a successfull attack, challenging at least? Not happening any time soon.

Result: crapp campaing & zero fun

[Stew]

"Not possible" seems like a bit of exaggeration. Difficult, yes. Getting the AI to attack properly was a problem in CMx1 and that continues here in CMx2. However, the addition of scripted AI battle plans offers glimmer of hope, provided scenario designers are willing to take the time to learn to use them effectively. Six months down the road, with some more patches from BF and lots of trial and error from scenario designers, I have no doubt we'll have a range of user-designed Syrian campaigns to choose from.

Moreover, a Syrian campaign needn't be predicated simply on defending against a Blue onslaught. Even the losing side in a war is going to launch its share of counterattacks. I could see a Syrian campaign predicated on a series of Republican Guard counterattacks against overstretched U.S. lines.

[YankeeDog]

Better to create an entirely new Syrian campaign, rather that somehow force Syrian playability into the current campaign, which isn't really set up for it.

Since campaigns can be user-created, I'm sure someone will get around to it before long. . .

[Paper Tiger]

The new modules should come with new campaigns, probably only playable as the Marines and the Brits. However, Syrian campaigns will have to be designed by the community and that's going to take a LONG time. Designing a single scenario takes ages as it is.

I agree, I'd like to play as the Syrians too. The C2 challenges they face make them a difficult choice for playing. But they just don't have the staying power. It's hard to imagine a Syrian formation surviving contact with a US formation. They will just die, very quickly.

[TheNathan]

Gotta admit this is the weakest part of the whole CMSF thing. While the Syrians aren't exactly pushovers, they're punks compared to the Americans and are simply not a compelling side to play as.

The decision for a Syrian campaign still boggles the mind, as much potential as the game itself has. Iran would have been a much more solid choice if they wanted a modern mideast setting.

[jomni]

Iran uses US weapons along with Russian / Chinese ones.

[KNac]

Originally posted by Stew:

"Not possible" seems like a bit of exaggeration. Difficult, yes. Getting the AI to attack properly was a problem in CMx1 and that continues here in CMx2. However, the addition of scripted AI battle plans offers glimmer of hope, provided scenario designers are willing to take the time to learn to use them effectively. Six months down the road, with some more patches from BF and lots of trial and error from scenario designers, I have no doubt we'll have a range of user-designed Syrian campaigns to choose from.

Moreover, a Syrian campaign needn't be predicated simply on defending against a Blue onslaught. Even the losing side in a war is going to launch its share of counterattacks. I could see a Syrian campaign predicated on a series of Republican Guard counterattacks against overstretched U.S. lines.

Yes you're right, but I was thinking about the current campaing played from the other side.

It would take a long time to make that suitable, first to make the US AI attack successfully (think about mission 2 playing as the syrians, total onslaught for the US), would be actually quite difficult. But second, there aren't AI plans written even, would take some job.

And how would the camping progress if you manage to win your battles? It would be neccessary to write new battles.

Better wait for some user-made campaings, or play battles that are allready being done

[Londoner]

Originally posted by Stew:

the addition of scripted AI battle plans offers glimmer of hope, provided scenario designers are willing to take the time to learn to use them effectively.

Once the bugs are ironed out, challenging defensive scenarios (against the AI) will be entirely possible. The new scripting techniques are top notch. Yes it will take a lot of playtesting and trial and error but I'm sure we'll see some great ones in the coming months.

[Battlefront.com]

People can make Red perspective Campaigns and they can try to make one that can be played from either side. We don't recommend that for a couple of reasons, one of which is that making a balanced Campaign is a very tall order. It goes against what a Campaign is generally supposed to be. But yes, it is possible for someone to try it at least.

The Campaign that comes with CM:SF has no Blue AI Plans at all since it was never designed to be played from the Red side. Therefore, practically speaking it isn't an option.

Steve

[PrezCartman]

I'm not comfortable enough yet with the editor to try, but I think a great idea would be a Red v. Red campaign. Perhaps an Iranian civil war with the military taking on a more unconventional but numerically superior civilian resistance. To make things fun you always have the possibility of the resistance managing to seize a few weapons depots and liberate some better equipment. If you wanted something that wasn't very vehicle centric you could also simulate a wide variety of battles in Afghanistan particularly Taliban v. Northern Alliance.