Finalizing CM:SF's Setting

[Battlefront.com]

Hoolaman,

While the realism of the simulation might not be any different, the "realism" or suspension-of-disbelief of the campaign could be seriously effected.

Exactly why I don't want to do Syria with an attempt at a realistic backstory. My suspension of disbelief will be shattered if I'm told that the US and its Allies managed to mass 200k soldiers on the border of Syria in 2007 (or anytime for that matter). I just see this as being as likely to happen as me winning the lottery without playing it. So for me, having a completely bunk story to back up the game's setting is a major problem for me. I'd much rather it just say "just play, have fun, and don't worry about the story of how and where it is taking place. Everything in the game is realistic no matter what little bits of text in the manual say about the setting".

So just understand that there is another way to look at the same exact issue.

Personally, I think both of us are daft. 99% of people don't know enough about Syria to really care strongly one way or another, yet 99% of the people are also not really concerned with how likely the war could take place at all. So in a way we're both arguing about something that pretty much nobody cares about

Steve

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Personally, I think both of us are daft. 99% of people don't know enough about Syria to really care strongly one way or another, yet 99% of the people are also not really concerned with how likely the war could take place at all. So in a way we're both arguing about something that pretty much nobody cares about

Steve

Will there be tripods for the M240B?

[Battlefront.com]

Dorosh,

Will there be tripods for the M240B?

Yes, but unrealistic ones. We've already made the tripod and then last week I come to find out that a company was just awarded a contract to produce a replacement tripod that is lighter and easier to carry. Oh, and it should be fielded in significant numbers before our fictional setting. So you guys are just going to have to learn to live with a bit of unrealistic equipment in CM:SF afterall

Steve

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Dorosh,

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Will there be tripods for the M240B?

Yes, but unrealistic ones. We've already made the tripod and then last week I come to find out that a company was just awarded a contract to produce a replacement tripod that is lighter and easier to carry. Oh, and it should be fielded in significant numbers before our fictional setting. So you guys are just going to have to learn to live with a bit of unrealistic equipment in CM:SF afterall

Steve </font>

[akd]

Okay, I haven't read the whole thread, but I'm going to throw out some thoughts here that are probably either redundant or offensive anyways:

1. There is no geo-politically "realistic" setting for a U.S./Europe invasion and land war in 2007, Middle East or otherwise. Any scenario that would create the necessary conditions would fall into the realm of way out there threats to global security (i.e. very immediate threat of nuclear exchange or transfer of nuclear weapon to a rogue element). Under these conditions, Syria is no more "realistic" than Iran, Pakistan, North Korea or even Russia or China (in fact, I would place Syria closer to Russia and China on this scale of plausibility).

2. We must have real-world terrain, and just changing the name on the map is pointless. And if it's just going to be desert and urban sprawl, the name on the map should be Iraq or Saudi Arabia.

3. Many of the dev comments about Syria TO&E, campaign progress, nature of conflict, etc. lead me to believe that what is really desired is a portrayal of Iraq in 2003, but that is felt too volatile of subject to visit. If you want to make a OIF I game, just do it! Otherwise, there is really nothing holding you back from depicting something totally different and "not realistic" (see plausibility threshold above).

[Battlefront.com]

Many of the dev comments about Syria TO&E, campaign progress, nature of conflict, etc. lead me to believe that what is really desired is a portrayal of Iraq in 2003, but that is felt too volatile of subject to visit.

You're right we thought it was too volitile a subject, but...

If you want to make a OIF I game, just do it!

er... dunno what you think you read, but we have never, ever, even remotely, even once, thought that doing OIF was a good basis for the game. The initial conventional phase was very one sided and everybody knows it. The unvonventional phase, which we are in right now, is not good material for a wargame of a tactical nature at CM's level. At least not the way anybody here wants to see it portrayed. So in short, it's just not a good basis for a game irrespective of all the other factors (and there are a LOT of other factors that make it a bad idea).

Steve

[PseudoSimonds]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

So for me, having a completely bunk story to back up the game's setting is a major problem for me.

So the solution is to make a bunk country and then expand the TO&E in the modules so that it'll be bunk as well? If the backstory is just a few lines of text here and there why is it so important that it be so realistic? Since the actual gameplay in the campaign won't be affected either way, which "lines of text in the manual" do you think will affect immersion more: a somewhat improbable backstory, or a completely fabricated opponent?

I'll put it another way. Let's say you go with the Syria setting with a backstory that's a bit improbable. Some players will be willing to buy into it and for them it'll add a real-world immersion to the campaign. Other players won't buy into the backstory and they won't get the added immersion. On the other hand if you go with the fictional setting nobody will get that added immersion.

[Battlefront.com]

PseudoSimonds,

Since the actual gameplay in the campaign won't be affected either way, which "lines of text in the manual" do you think will affect immersion more: a somewhat improbable backstory, or a completely fabricated opponent?

Dunno, that's what we're exploring here

On the other hand if you go with the fictional setting nobody will get that added immersion.

Oh, this I totally disagree with. Anybody here play X-Com, Quake, X-Wing, etc. etc.? Completely fictional, totally immersive. Immersion is a state of mind, not a checkbox on an imperical list of features. A realistic country might help some get into the game more, it might do absolutely nothing for other people. I know tons of people were immersed in Full Spectrum Warrior, and that was not only a completely fictitious setting but it was also a crap game

Steve

[John Kettler]

Steve and prospective CM:SF players,

Before I get all serious here, I just wanted to suggest for the record that if we do wind up fighting in Dumbassistan, then the briefing should be sure to note the Leader for Life is named Eric Forman (or its Dumbassi equivalent)! Those of you not from the States may need to Google "That 70s Show" to understand this remark.

Turning to the meat of the matter, I'd like to acknowledge all the contributors now and credit them here, since I'll never be able to keep them sorted out properly in my post. Insufficient gray matter online today!

My suggestion is that you stick to Syria with the most realistic and accurate TO&E the various brains in and out of jars can come up with immediately prior to freezing the game design. Unless there's some pressing reason to the contrary (game disc will explode), this means what the Syrians have, whether you like it or not (e.g., BMD-3s in). This would form the basis for the campaign game.

I would now like to take a page from my military aerospace days and discuss a concept called excursions from the threat baseline.

When we were developing a weapon system, we had a contractually mandated threat against which we designed. This was the baseline case, against which contract fulfillment vs. the threat was measured. Sadly, this was not always the real threat, for some nasty games were played in which certain intelligence agencies, for example, arbitrarily slowed down Soviet interceptors and cut their range (to protect the B-1) or defined cruise missile threats which were obsolescent or even obsolete (to protect the Navy).

The way wiser heads handled this was to "postulate" advanced enemy systems, which often were the actual ones but with projected IOCs years down the road. We would then do our performance analyses against the contractually mandated baseline threat but would simultaneously also run

threat excursions.

At sometimes multidaylong briefings, most people would be paying attention only to the baseline,

but if you knew what was what and whom to watch,

you'd notice several people sudddenly perk up and focus intently when we covered the excursions.

You'd see these same people nod their heads and maybe even smile a little, for they knew that we really understood the problem.

This seems to me to offer a perfectly viable and credible approach to handling any number of toys in CM:SF. You already have/will have the actual

(within limits above) Syrian TO&E. This forms your threat baseline. From there, you merely have to posit reasonable situations beyond "Syria goes it alone" and see who can contribute what and how fast, using the same sort of criteria used to build the Syrian TO&E in the first place. Short of an NBC strike from Russia or some of the really exotic weaponry I've mentioned, I would imagine that the worst case would involve major Russian intervention, spearheaded by widespread Spetsnaz

attack and the bringing in of the VDV and its panoply of weapons under heavy Russian fighter cover as a screening force and demonstration of resolve prior to bringing in the real land forces.

This has the advantage of providing a reasonable basis for at least some OPFOR air attack capability. Between the baseline and this lie

lots of doables.

As suggested before, you don't really need an actual date, just the relevant military milestones. And what the doables are is a function of politics, lead time, resources and logistics.

I think, therefore, that you need to make an escalation ladder or ladders, to each of which is tied some sort of weapon set and/or forces, such as the dreaded Algerian T-90s. And remember that

in this day and age a single heavy transport can bring in enough PGMs to make life very hot indeed.

Think what the Syrians could do, for example, with even a hundred Copperheadskiys.

From a marketing standpoint, what I believe you'd wind up with would be

CM:SF Rev 0

Syria; realistic TO&E & terrain; minimal backstory/backstories (why not list several several possibilities and let the players decide which one to believe?), with campaign game using realistic TO&E. You may or may not want to include T-80s and other soon expected kit as options for scenario designers, but would probably not include it for QBs.

CM:SF Module One--?

"We're Here, But Who Invited You?

Each of those steps in the escalation ladder would lend itself well to a game module, creating battles with an entirely different flavor not just because of weapon differences, but different TO&Es

and probably, different terrain, too.

Returning to our notional Algerian T-90s, their path to the battlefield might be quite different than, say, the Syrian Republican Guard dug in around Damascus. Thus, they might encounter an American heavy force of M1A2s and Bradleys or maybe an Allied contingent. The nature, quantity, and availability of various forms of fire support could vary widely. Offhand, I see no reason why you couldn't provide some sort of mini campaign with each module. QBs would use the forces available, but scenario designers would have the same sort of option I described for CM:SF Rev 0.

The capstone of the series would be the worst case threat module, where you could include Chinese weapons if desired as part of that alliance I've repeatedly described, with its own hair-raising campaign, battles and QBs, together with a special feature which checks that all previous modules are installed then unlocks the campaign, battle and QB force tables so that designers and players can now access in campaigns, scenarios and QBs ALL the weapons and units in ALL the modules, each according to TO&E, using the usual CM force mix/date/region controls. Seems to me this would be the logical place, too, to put the all-up editors.

I believe the above approach would go a long way toward answering a range of objections, would give people the toys they want, would allow lots of reasonable what ifs to be explored in a realistic environment, and would provide a formidable incentive for players to buy all the modules. Would also suggest that you give serious thought to marketing between modules downloads of new tiles, buildings, bridges, etc. to better reflect the diversity of the region.

Then, awash in cash, you can contemplate having the Syrians and the Israelis go at it, by proxy in Lebanon or head to head on the Heights! (How else am I ever going to learn all that unusual Israeli armor's nomenclature and how the AFVs are used? Reading about it dosn't seem to be working!)

This isn't intended to be comprehensive, but rather, to suggest an approach basically consonant with BFC's standard approach, while maximizing customer satisfaction and revenue.

What do you think?

Regards,

John Kettler

[akd]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Many of the dev comments about Syria TO&E, campaign progress, nature of conflict, etc. lead me to believe that what is really desired is a portrayal of Iraq in 2003, but that is felt too volatile of subject to visit.

You're right we thought it was too volitile a subject, but...

If you want to make a OIF I game, just do it!

er... dunno what you think you read, but we have never, ever, even remotely, even once, thought that doing OIF was a good basis for the game. The initial conventional phase was very one sided and everybody knows it. The unvonventional phase, which we are in right now, is not good material for a wargame of a tactical nature at CM's level. At least not the way anybody here wants to see it portrayed. So in short, it's just not a good basis for a game irrespective of all the other factors (and there are a LOT of other factors that make it a bad idea).

Steve </font>

[PseudoSimonds]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

A realistic country might help some get into the game more, it might do absolutely nothing for other people.

And making it a fictional country will?

That's the point I'm getting at. Now you mentioned that you knew lots of people that were immersed in FSW. Now put FSW in a realistic setting. Would any of those people feel that the game is less immersive because of the real-world setting? I doubt it. A couple of them would probably feel an even higher sense of immersion and then add to that the players that were originally put off by the fictional enemy. Where's the drawback?

[hellfish]

The setting/backstory only applies to the campaign. It doesn't apply to the quick battles, single missions or other campaigns that might be made. If you want it to be Syria, just change the name in the briefings!

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by PseudoSimonds:

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

A realistic country might help some get into the game more, it might do absolutely nothing for other people.

And making it a fictional country will?

That's the point I'm getting at. Now you mentioned that you knew lots of people that were immersed in FSW. Now put FSW in a realistic setting. Would any of those people feel that the game is less immersive because of the real-world setting? I doubt it. A couple of them would probably feel an even higher sense of immersion and then add to that the players that were originally put off by the fictional enemy. Where's the drawback? </font>

[MoNuckah]

Just make it in Syria, but without the 'Syria' part.

Hope that helps

[Battlefront.com]

John,

Each of those steps in the escalation ladder would lend itself well to a game module, creating battles with an entirely different flavor not just because of weapon differences, but different TO&Es and probably, different terrain, too.

Yeah, but that violates are rule for Modules... no major overhaul, just additions. So no new terrain, weather effects, or major duplication of work done previously. This means that the OPFOR will not change much from Module to Module. Maybe a new something here or there, sure, but we're not suddenly going to introduce the TO&E of Iran for example. That would require all new models, a ton of new equipment, etc. Coupled with Terrain it would be like a complete, stand alone game. Not anything we are interested in. We're going back to WWII for the "new" experience.

Meaning, we would never add "Algerian T-90s" because it would be out of context unless we added Algerian TO&E, terrain specific to Algeria, etc.

AKD,

My point being that Syria seemed to be the closest thing to Iraq that wasn't Iraq (and all those other nasty factors), and that many of the decisions regarding how the campaign would play out seemed to be arrived at by looking at Syria through the lense of OIF I (which is only natural), and tailoring the back story to fit this framework, rejecting contingencies that could lead to a campaign that developed very differently. Thus, we seemed to be heading towards a game where we played out OIF I, but as if OIF I never happened (from an operational perspective). The Syria part could be 2001-2010 (or earlier, even), but with the U.S. TO&E placing us in 2007.

Well, that's not quite it either. We wanted to do a near future war in the Middle East. We picked Syria because it seemed like it would offer an interesting setting, as opposed to Yemen, as well as a doable one, as opposed to Iran. We did not pick Syria because it was close to being like Iraq. As stated the lens, if you want to put it that way, is Afghanistan from the story perspective, not Iraq. From a military standpoint we wanted it to reflect something that was not Iraq, rather something that learned from Iraq. The recent battles in Lebanon have added to the mix of things, for example.

PseudoSimonds ,

That's the point I'm getting at. Now you mentioned that you knew lots of people that were immersed in FSW. Now put FSW in a realistic setting. Would any of those people feel that the game is less immersive because of the real-world setting? I doubt it. A couple of them would probably feel an even higher sense of immersion and then add to that the players that were originally put off by the fictional enemy. Where's the drawback?

We are more constrained in terms of what units we can add later, that's where. There might be a work around for that, but the arguments thus far have been around that central issue. Also, I doubt VERY much that any of you guys that are interested in contemporary warfare will NOT by CM:SF if we had a bit of text in the manual you don't like. Since it is just a bit of text, and you are free to make whatever you want out of it once you get it, such an action would be the height of self absorbed self righteous pigheadedness. And we would not miss all one or two people that would fall into that category So right back at you... where's the drawback?

fytinghellfish,

The setting/backstory only applies to the campaign. It doesn't apply to the quick battles, single missions or other campaigns that might be made. If you want it to be Syria, just change the name in the briefings!

For some reason this point isn't being either heard or understood. It seems such a simple one too. Also seemingly missed is my point that probably 99.5% of all CM battles ever fought were unrealistic from a setting standpoint, yet we never got any flak about that.

Steve

[ September 15, 2006, 11:30 PM: Message edited by: Battlefront.com ]

[John Kettler]

Steve,

I wasn't talking about fighting in Algeria. I was talking about using some increment of the Algerian force structure, in this case a notional T-90 force, in Syria. This was true for the proposed modules as well. My thought was that you could keep the Syrian TO&E but bring in selected units or equipment from other nations to reflect various situations in which Syria got help from outside. The beauty, of course, of having the Russians is how well they match the basic Syrian TO&E.

So, you could, in theory, hold terrain and basic TO&E constant, thus answering the problem you pointed out, while adding in some cool new items/units in manageable quantities. With the BMD-3 already in, for instance, how hard would it be to do the other BMD family vehicles?

I certainly wasn't suggesting doing Iran's TO&E from scratch! Since you brought it up, though, in all that Iranian muscle flexing news coverage a few weeks back, I was amazed to see what I thought were Chieftains (Shir Irans?) and in considerable strength. Wonder how they'd do in battle?

With the mini campaigns out, since that would likely require at least some new terrain, that issue goes away as well. I see no fundamental reason, though, why the modules couldn't introduce

add-ons, in moderation of course, for one or both sides. Wouldn't that meet your criteria as stated above?

Regards,

John Kettler

[vetacon]

Originally posted by Wisbech_lad:

If the ToE is Syrian, stick with Syria. But a minimalist back story, heck throw in T80’s/ BMP3 etc anyway in the editor, just keep them out of the campaign

Not as if we had or needed a complex backstory in CMBO…

This has to be the best option - doesn't it solve all the problems?

Gives you the extra goodies which many people are keen to have available for scenario development and removes the need to use fictional opponents (made up names, flags etc.)which will likely detract from the immersion value for some.

Where's the downside?

[bwgulley]

Capt Johnson is relaxing at home after spending the last 9 months in Iraq and life is good again. But all he sees on TV is more bad news about the lastest "crisis" in the middle east. Bigger than crap the phone rings and the battilion commander is calling all the senior NCO's and officers in for a planning meeting. A few days later the "excute" order comes down and back on a plane they go. The flightline is filled with tears as mothers, fathers, brothers, and sisters load up. Capt Johnson was lucky as no one from his company was killed last time around in Iraq. But this looks serious and he prays this "show of force" will convince Sryians to back down. Arriving in theater things look grim indeed, they quickly deploy to the front and get everyone and everything in fighting shape. Word comes down from the top, tomorrow evening at 2030 the ballon goes up and the game is on.

Thats your backstory, the campaign is about a small base unit and how it fight, dies or lives. The solider don't really understand why he's there or care for that matter all he wants to do is go home in one piece.

Who cares about all the geopolitical crap it's about Capt Johnson and if he can keep his men alive and complete his objectives.

Scenarios are a different story, no backstory needed just fire away.

[mav1]

After reading most of the comments of others, I came to the conclusion of a Syria campaign with a minimal story with extra equipment like T 80's.

This option was not given by Steve, but it sounds like a compramise to keep most people happy.

[ September 16, 2006, 04:16 AM: Message edited by: mav1 ]

[cassh]

I've been looking closely at terrain in Syria using "Google Earth" and for me I'd like the first game's single player campaign to be set there as it presents some really interesting challenges.

As long as the enemy force has a realistic TO&E and operates in a way consistent to their abilities and doctrine I'll be a happy bunny.

[PseudoSimonds]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

We are more constrained in terms of what units we can add later, that's where.

No you aren't. You add more units to the editor than are available in the campaign. That's it. If this was such a concern why was Syria chosen as the setting in the first place? :confused:

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Also, I doubt VERY much that any of you guys that are interested in contemporary warfare will NOT by CM:SF if we had a bit of text in the manual you don't like.

That is true but that's not the point. It's about enjoyment and immersion. Will weird people like me enjoy the campaign more if you use real world settings and locales? Yes. Will anyone enjoy the campaign less if you use real world settings and locales? No.

So to recap, you can still have all the cool fancy units that people want by just making them available in the editor. No drawback. Additionally you will be adding some enjoyment to the campaign for some players. No drawback.

[PseudoSimonds]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by PseudoSimonds:

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

A realistic country might help some get into the game more, it might do absolutely nothing for other people.

And making it a fictional country will?

That's the point I'm getting at. Now you mentioned that you knew lots of people that were immersed in FSW. Now put FSW in a realistic setting. Would any of those people feel that the game is less immersive because of the real-world setting? I doubt it. A couple of them would probably feel an even higher sense of immersion and then add to that the players that were originally put off by the fictional enemy. Where's the drawback? </font>

[C'Rogers]

This option was not given by Steve, but it sounds like a compramise to keep most people happy.

I don't think BFC has ever been much for the compromise option.

[vetacon]

Originally posted by C'Rogers:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />This option was not given by Steve, but it sounds like a compramise to keep most people happy.

I don't think BFC has ever been much for the compromise option. </font>

[luderbamsen]

For me at least, it all boils down to how you define "realistic", and I contend that any such definition will never be clearly defined, nor set in stone.

As far as I'm concerned, the top priority is that the units (infantry, vechiles e.c.t.) are made as realistic as possible. The Abrams has the pros and cons of an Abrams, the T-72 works like a T-72 e.c.t.

I like the fact that a real country is used, because it makes everything more defineable. Their troops behave like Syrian troops and so on. On the other hand, I don't mind having a few T-80's, BMP-3's e.c.t. thrown in for good measure, as long as these units are represented realistically.

For that matter, if CM:SF was set in 2020 and BFC had come up with their best estimate of how the vaunted Future Combat Systems would work, I'd still consider it realistic. I would also consider any blue vs. blue/red vs. red (or US vs. Canada for that matter) scenario realistic, as long as the units are realistic and don't start sporting plasma guns or other such dribble.

I've played tons of CMx1 scenarios that most certainly never happened in real life (as I'm sure most of you have), but I've never considered them to be "unrealistic" as such. And be assured that I'll do the same with CM:SF.

I'm very grateful that BFC cares what we think, but again, what really really matters is which scenario sells.

So I say let BFC give it their best shot, and leave open the option for us to nudge it in either direction as each of us see fit (e.g. add/remove T-80's and whatnot).

Respectfully

luderbamsen