Finalizing CM:SF's Setting

[c3k]

WOOOOOOT!

Steve has JUST announced the release date: October 3rd, 10:40 A.M.

Just look upstream about 2 or 3 posts and you'll see the heavy clues he's dropped for us. Thank you, Steve.

YES! SCORE! GOL! Etc., etc.

[Guest BigAlMoho]

Originally posted by c3k:

WOOOOOOT!

Steve has JUST announced the release date: October 3rd, 10:40 A.M.

Just look upstream about 2 or 3 posts and you'll see the heavy clues he's dropped for us. Thank you, Steve.

YES! SCORE! GOL! Etc., etc.

Yes, but he is talking about 2007...

[birdstrike]

I agree with Midnight Warrior.

I play CM because of the way it recreates warfare and because of the tactical challenges it presents thereby. And if I would have to pick, I deem realistic weapons and equipment more important than maps created after real world terrain.

A certain force structure is definite. Sticking to a realistic Syrian TO&E makes sense, because it represents a coherent real-world OPFOR, simulating combat a real US or NATO force would have to go through against an opponent who is armed and trained in Soviet military doctrine and is learning from recent conflicts how to possibly defeat a high-tech opponent.

Even if it is only a 'very close approximation' of real world Syrian TO&E, it wouldn't make the game less realistic - it's not 100% real-life, but it's based on a realistic assumption.

Lable it "Combat Mission Shock Force - featuring actual, up-to-date US military equipment and sophisticated, realisitc OPFOR based on actual Syrian capabilities" and explain quickly why Syrian TO&E was picked to serve as the model, and what additional modifications to their force structure were made and why.

Terrain on the other hand can be much more generic. A hill is a hill. A village is a village. A map should simulate certain aspects of terrain, and the level of detail of a fictional map does not have to be inferior to that of a map based on a specific country. Bocage in CM1 is a challenge because it is bocage, not because it is in France. How many CM1 maps were an adequate representation of the corresponding landscape in Europe?

If there are certain terrain features in Syria that provide an interesting map, there is no point in not integrating them. But in addition you can add any terrain from basically anywhere. Or modify the terrain to enhance the mission.

IMHO it is more important to have terrain that makes the mission interesting than to have the name of a city on a street sign.

[kipanderson]

Steve,

My vote.. not that we have democracy going here of course … is certainly for Syria with a few fictional elements thrown in. i.e. some of the latest Russian designed toys that so far have only been deployed in small numbers in Russia and a few of the big budget developing nations… India for example.

By “unrealistic terrain” what I worried about was that you would abandoned Syria and use a fictional nation “with a mix of terrain features not all of which exist in Syria”. This would have badly hit the ease with which I could immerse myself in CMSF. I look forward to the settings being more time and place specific in CMX2. That goes for Syria too .

The back story does not really concern me anyway… it is terrain features and the unit and OOB mix that interests me.

As it happens I have just returned from a Weekend of Mass Slaughter which is when a house is taken over and devoted to beer, curry and wargames for a weekend. Interestingly John Salt put together a very fine command staff exercise/game… very like the Orders Phase in CMMC but in real-time… product having to be produced in a couple of hours with half a dozen players in different roles. The ambition is to combine such a real-time staff game with the outcome of the combats being decided by head-to- head play of CMX2. All going on simultaneously. (Not all the contact battles will be decide by live play…most will be decide by the umpires for obvious reasons..)

Anyway… given the above ambition you will understand why I am keen for as much flexibility in the editor, in terms map size and such, as possible.

We have done similar games before, but hope in future to take the “staff game” to a new level while maintaining the fun of some battles being resolved using CM in real time.

One can use CM for much more than just one off, 30 minute shoot-ups .

All very good fun,

All the best,

Kip.

[kipanderson]

birdstrike,

Having just read your post it is interesting how views can differ.

Realistic terrain does not bother you… it certainly does bother me .

One reason is the impact terrain has on the outcome of battles. The best example of this is the Eastern Front. I am fortunate to have a large collection of topographical maps of western Russia/ Soviet Union plus a collection of well over 5,000 photos from WWII on the Eastern Front. Using both sources to build “realistic” terrain, say in the Ukraine for a Dec’43 battle, than using realistic force ratios and mix and you end up with CMBB battles that far more closely match the outcomes you read about in the histories.

An example is if you give the Soviets an AT regiment of the humble M’42 76.2mm Field Gun against a combined arms battle group of Panthers. If the Soviet player uses his brain you will soon see the Panthers destroyed/stopped. But importantly the fact that the terrain has a number of characteristics that are specific to/typical of Western Soviet Union greatly affects the out come of such engagements. Having historically accurate terrain matters… a lot .

Anyway… enough of my rantings… the entire Syrian campaign will of course not be historical. But for what might be realistic out comes you will still need realistic terrain.

I will be getting some topographical maps of Syria.

All the best,

Kip.

PS. Do not get me wrong… I enjoy the “toys” too… but used over real world terrain .

[hoolaman]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />It does seem to almost be equally silly to say there are 200k soldiers massed on the Syrian Border 'cause we said so and there are 200k soldiers on the border to unseat Assad based on some elaborate political backstory.

Which might possibly be why I've been suggesting a fictional setting is the best way to go?

Think of it another way. If someone told you one of the following, which would you have the least suspension of disbelief?:

1. The world is gong to end on the 3rd of October at 10:40 AM, Eastern Standard Time. It will come in the form of a meteor the size of a moon that has previously gone undetected by world astronomers. When it hits, all higher forms of life on Earth will cease to exist within 6 months. What will you do with your time?

2. The world is going to effectively end in October. You will have only 6 months to live after. The reason is not important, the only thing that matters is how you react to it. What will you do with your time?

3. In October you get news that you are going to die in 6 months, along with everybody else. What will you do with your time?

The same basic scenario and question is asked of you in each of the three scenarios. One has a high level of detail, one a low level of detail, and the third is purely hypothetical. The answer you give should be identical no matter which scenario you are presented with, but you might have a harder time taking one of them more seriously than the other. I know I'd have a hard time taking #1 seriously and (as you yourself pointed out) #2 is really no better. #3 is far "bullet proof" from a logic standpoint.

That being said, I'm favoring the presentation style of #2 right now for CM:SF. It is basically as unrealistic as #1, but the less details given the harder it is to find fault with it.

And as you say, this is only relevant for the Campaign since all other options are completely and utterly independent of the story no matter what it is. Heck, you can even rename units in CM:SF, so if you want to call a Syrian Rifle Company "Headhunters of Hubba-Hubba" you can. As the game's creator it's no sweat off my nose

Steve </font>

[birdstrike]

kipanderson,

I see your point.

But as you said, it's not historical. We're not playing a campaign that has been taken place in Syria and there are no battles to reenact. If that would be the case, I'd also vote for real Syrian terrain, for sure.

CMSF is about a possible 'near-future' campaign aimed at simulating certain aspects of modern warfare. If BFC had initially stated the game would be set in Iran, we'd be be quarreling over whether or not to use real Iranian terrain and no one would argue that Syria would have made a much better place to fight.

After all, even given that some aspects of the terrain in Syria differ vastly from those in Iran, we'd still have a tactical simulation of US vs. ME OPFOR (as the ME setting is somehow no longer debatable ). And as I said, if Syria (or Iran for that matter) offers a unique form of terrain that would require very unusual tactics, there is no point to have it not also in the fictional country. The map could basically be an accurate copy of the real thing.

But in general, if I hide my RPG team in an orchard on a hill, I don't care, if the orchard belongs to an arab or a persian. And I don't see the point why the game would be any better in portraying the kind warfare it aims to portray if we'd stick to a strictly Syrian terrain instead of a more generic approach.

[John Kettler]

Steve and kipanderson,

I'm no Middle East terrain grog, but I am aware that in Iraq, at least, there's some sort of hard crust

surface several inches thick which initially supports even a tank, but which then collapses, bogging the tank or what have you in thick, glutinous immobilizing mud. OIF produced instances not just of M1s bogging down in this, but Marine accounts of their AAVs being so thoroughly stuck, so deeply, that the rear hatch was rendered inoperable, forcing egress from the top. Believe it was even worse for higher ground pressure vehicles, which sank to their final drives.

Don't know what the above is called, but do either of you know whether it's also found in Syria? Judging from OIF, it put quite a dent in our maneuver scheme there. Among the spearhead assault units, ISTR an entire company team wound up in the stuff and was out of the fight for hours.

Regards,

John Kettler

[ September 18, 2006, 03:16 AM: Message edited by: John Kettler ]

[rudel.dietrich]

Only western Syria is like that John, i.e. what you would traditional call sand desert.

Most of Syria is sand/soil and very rocky and with lots of hills.

Not alot of rolling desert like you see in cartoons.

Most of Syrias desert has a soil top several inches thick and is hard packed.

Most of the desert area is strewn with rocks.

Several north/south mountain chains run down the country and provide rock just a few inches under the soil/sand.

The eastern 20% of the country is pretty lush and even contains some forests and plains of grass.

This is about the only area of the country that is not broken up by constant hills.

BF if they choose Syria has ALOT of terrian options.

Of course you have villages and Urban sprawl in ME fashion.

But you also have grass plains, hardwood forests, river farmland and irragation zones.

Lots of hills. Some sand desert

Some mountain terrian and even some volcanic terrain.

Then hilly desert with rocks...lots of rocks.

Here is a wikipedia article about the terrian of Syria

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geography_of_Syria

[Battlefront.com]

I think John is talking about what happened in Nasiriyah, which ironically I just wrote about in the Bogged thread that is going on right now. Basically, it was a thin crust of dirt over an open sewer/trash pit. Very specialized, man made terrain. And yes, it caused a huge problem as even the recovery vehicles got stuck. The Marines were unlucky to lose their heavy armor, but they were lucky the opposition was further up in the city otherwise they would have lost the tanks for good instead of just for the day.

Hoolaman, certainly it does cut both ways. As I've been saying all along, it depends on one's own personal perspective. Like so many things one man's concept of a great dinner is another man's concept of cruel and unusual punishment (take sheep's brains, for example ). So there is not necessarily one right answer. What I've been trying to get you, and some ohers, to recognize is that there is another way to look at this. I fully understand that there is because I tend to agree with you that having a real setting enhances the campaign. But there is an "if" and that "if" to me is how out of bounds of reality the setting is. And that's why we are having this conversation

BTW, check out this article on how a war with Iran would go, found in this week's Time Magazine. Here's a quote:

And therein lies the excruciating calculus facing the U.S. and its allies: Is the cost of confronting Iran greater than the dangers of living with a nuclear Iran? And can anything short of war persuade Tehran's fundamentalist regime to give up its dangerous game?

No one is talking about a ground invasion of Iran. Too many U.S. troops are tied down elsewhere to make it possible, and besides, it isn't necessary. If the U.S. goal is simply to stunt Iran's nuclear program, it can be done better and more safely by air.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/09/17/coverstory.tm.iran.tm/index.html

Kinda timely If you go through the minor hassles associated with reading the whole article, keep your eyes out for the comments of Zinni. For those of you who don't know who he is, you should correct that. He was one of the most informed voices speaking out against the war in Iraq before it became a foregone conclusion. Unfortunately, his predictions were pretty much spot on.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

I think people are getting things mixed up when they talk about "realistic terrain". Why? Because nobody has defined it and instead people appear to be talking about different things. Realistic terrain, in my mind, is a certain set of terrain features native to a particular place and simulated in a realistic way. Realistic terrain is not putting those features together in a way that conforms to reality in general or specific to a particular place. That would be realistic maps. This is germane to this thread because the terrain types, and portrayal, is "realistic" as it relates to Syria. Whether we call it Syria or not doesn't make any difference. Someone could make an equally realistic map no matter what we call it. Furthermore, someone could take the appropriate terrain types and make a realistic map of Jordan, Lebanon, Iraq, Turkey, Israel, and probably pretty much any other place in the Middle East, much of Africa, and the bulk of Central and even places like Mongolia. These things will be possible no matter what we say the game is all about because terrain and maps are two different things.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

BTW, nice to see BigAlMoho back in action

Steve

[hoolaman]

Steve, I can certainly see both sides of the argument, my own opinion is sort of divided between the options too.

I think it is possible to invent a scenario in which the US is obliged to make an incursion into Syria in 2007.

However to make up a remotely possible story, where the US scrapes together an invasion force, you may also have to alter things as fundamental as the quality, quantity and equipment of US forces, the quality and equipment of Syrian forces.

It is kind of like Heisenberg's Uncertainty principle; you can't observe this scenario without changing the nature of it's pieces.

If you want to have today's Syria and today's Iraq centric US forces fight each other, then go the fictional/composite middle-east country route.

[ September 17, 2006, 09:11 PM: Message edited by: Hoolaman ]

[John Kettler]

Steve,

I'm still tracking down the reference, but in doing so, I found some great stuff on scarily unreliable American radio communications during OIF. For details, please see Evan Wright's GENERATION KILL,

page 52. Let's hope the ASIP and Stryker stuff works better than this!

Regards,

John Kettler

[Moronic Max]

BTW, check out this article on how a war with Iran would go, found in this week's Time Magazine

This is the bit I found most flabbergasting:

U.S. officials believe that a campaign of several days, involving hundreds or even thousands of sorties, could set back Iran's nuclear program by two to three years

If the optimistic scenario has us putting back Iran's nuke program by a few years, why in the name of all that is holy would anyone risk the pessimistic scenario--y'know, the one that has Iran retaliation being so severe as to demand a ground invasion by American forces?

The potential costs far outweigh the potential gains.

For that matter, if the article is accurate, we can either accept that Iran will get nukes or we can go for regime change. If we go for the "hurt their program" option, we only delay the inevitable, while at the same time creating a whole slew of new problems to deal with.

[cassh]

Dan -

I repeat, no one who is going to buy this game knows the difference between Pakistani and Syrian uniforms.

Speak for yourself.

How do you propose a ground force will be deployed against a Taliban regime with nuclear weapons? As soon as any concetration occurs you just present the fanatical enemy with a strike target for their nukes.

It would be a very dull game as US airpower and seaborne deep strikes would be the only viable power projection in theatre until the nuclear threat had been neutralised. At that point Pakistan would be on its knees anyway.

The CM-Pakistan battles would pretty much all be clearing out light infantry resistance in urban or mountains - fun, but limiting. If this is what you are after why not call it Afghanistan and have real combat upon which to base these small infantry skirmishes?

[John Kettler]

Steve and kipanderson,

There are two separate problems we're discussing, but we didn't realize it. You're talking about mud caused by open sewers running across unpaved roads in Nasariyah (GENERATION KILL, p. 79), which may also be what made the amtracs I mentioned impossible to debark from, but the phenomenon I was trying to describe is called sabka,

a sand crust over tar (same ref. pp. 141-142, doubtless elsewhere, too). Sabka is supposedly very common in the Middle East. A sabka immobilized (had to be pulled out) Hummer is shown in the photo section.

Speaking of terrain, we're going to need berms from a few feet high to several stories and donkey trails only one Hummer wide. A canal tool would be good, too.

Regards,

John Kettler

[YankeeDog]

Boy, you take a long weekend trip, and miss the party. . .

well, here's my $.02:

I would vastly prefer a "Syria With Major Story" setting, though I admit I'll almost certainly buy and play the game even if BFC decides to go another way.

I have no problem with a backstory that's unlikely given current events, as long as it's a plausible "what if." Further, I think it's a viable option to incorporate fictional near-past events into a "what if" backstory.

For example, something like this:

"What if, in 2005, the US uncovered stronger evidence that Syria was directly supporting and offering safe haven to insurgent forces working in Iraq, and that, through 2006, tensions between the US in Syria continued to increase, leading up to an all-out shooting war in 2007?"

Doesn't bother me in the least that this didn't actually happen. It's believable that, in a parallel universe where history unfolded slightly differently, something like this might happen.

For me, it's much more engaging to play a campaign based on a detailed "plausible hypothetical," with real-world TO&Es, place names, etc., than some abstract "OPFOR", or just a generalized US vs. Syria, with no backstory.

But I'm sure others feel differently. Just letting my preference be known.

Cheers,

YD

[Juardis]

I'll take door number 2 for $1000 Steve.

Anything that gives future flexibility I'm all for. Especially when it comes to campaigns since unlimited fictional campaigns can be dreamed up. Heck, there's even room to make the background stories into major stories since it's all made up anyway.

[MikeyD]

Could we have our cake and eat it too? (sorry for the aphorism, I just finished eating a piece of cake.)

It sounds like some fear they may get less enjoyment out of the game if its not firmly based in some 'sort' of reality, while others fear a sufficiently believable backstory for a Syria war would be so depressing that it could turn off prospective purchasers.

as a compromise how's about the website, box top, etc. being all about the game engine, Stryker Brigade , and cool accurate weapons, with a passing nod in the direction of Syria for supplying a worthy opponent to pit our forces against. Then once we get into the scenarios and the campaign itself we find a proper hard-core backstory to hang the game on. This way the people who need a believable backstory get one, while it remains out of sight to the prospective buyer who might be turned off by a too-detailed Middle-East conflict theme.

[Battlefront.com]

Sabka... I'll have to check into it. I haven't heard of this before, but due to the sand and oil combination of the Middle East, this doesn't surprise me much. As for radios, yes... FM signals have a lot of problems in built up terrain. OIF showed that US equipment was generally very good, but not good enough. I know DARPA has been working on solutions, including one that was fielded back in early 2004 caled Breadcrumbs (small signal repeaters).

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

I'm starting up a new thread to start discussion on what I think is a good compromise.

Steve

[akd]

Originally posted by cassh:

Dan -

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />I repeat, no one who is going to buy this game knows the difference between Pakistani and Syrian uniforms.

Speak for yourself.

How do you propose a ground force will be deployed against a Taliban regime with nuclear weapons? As soon as any concetration occurs you just present the fanatical enemy with a strike target for their nukes.

It would be a very dull game as US airpower and seaborne deep strikes would be the only viable power projection in theatre until the nuclear threat had been neutralised. At that point Pakistan would be on its knees anyway.

The CM-Pakistan battles would pretty much all be clearing out light infantry resistance in urban or mountains - fun, but limiting. If this is what you are after why not call it Afghanistan and have real combat upon which to base these small infantry skirmishes? </font>

[Sgt Joch]

I read the TIME artcle, but it is typical Air Force propaganda to think you can surgically take out Iran's nuclear program from the air. Since WW2, the Air Force has always overestimated what it can achieve.

There was also a good article in the New Yorker on the same subject.

Watching Lebanon: Washington's interests in Israel's war

The U.S. Air Force apparently collaborated with the IAF to shape its attack plan on Hizbollah positions, partly to test the effectiveness of a similar attack against Iranian installations.

“The big question for our Air Force was how to hit a series of hard targets in Iran successfully,” the former senior intelligence official said. “Who is the closest ally of the U.S. Air Force in its planning? It’s not Congo—it’s Israel. Everybody knows that Iranian engineers have been advising Hezbollah on tunnels and underground gun emplacements. And so the Air Force went to the Israelis with some new tactics and said to them, ‘Let’s concentrate on the bombing and share what we have on Iran and what you have on Lebanon.’ ” The discussions reached the Joint Chiefs of Staff and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, he said.

“The Israelis told us it would be a cheap war with many benefits,” a U.S. government consultant with close ties to Israel said. “Why oppose it? We’ll be able to hunt down and bomb missiles, tunnels, and bunkers from the air. It would be a demo for Iran.”

As we know, the I.A.F. air campaign against Hezbollah was unsuccessful in taking out their positions, which required ground troops to go in. Apparently, the US Army and Marines are also worried that any air attack on Iran would inevitably lead to the commital of US ground troops.

"The Israeli plan, according to the former senior intelligence official, was “the mirror image of what the United States has been planning for Iran.” (The initial U.S. Air Force proposals for an air attack to destroy Iran’s nuclear capacity, which included the option of intense bombing of civilian infrastructure targets inside Iran, have been resisted by the top leadership of the Army, the Navy, and the Marine Corps, according to current and former officials. They argue that the Air Force plan will not work and will inevitably lead, as in the Israeli war with Hezbollah, to the insertion of troops on the ground.)"

[Battlefront.com]

AKD, the best way to contain a threat from Pakistan is to keep that large, loyal to power military loyal to a power that isn't Hell bent on an expansionist war. In fact, that is really the only way to deal with any threat. At any given time there are literally dozens of countries that pose long term threat to peace and stability, either regionally or globally. There is no way to deal with them all militarily, so diplomacy, economics, and cultural exchanges are really the only viable solution. This was pretty well known before the Iraq war, but now hopefully even the neocons who pushed it forward have seen the folly of nearly 2 dozen years of their own policy theory. This is not a political statement, just a statement of fact since the neocon foreign policy positions have been always out in the open.

As for the Air Force dealing with problems... well, it pretty much worked in Kosovo and ground forces were not necessary. Some have argued that the Gulf War was decided by the air and that given time the Iraqis would have withdrawn from Kuwait if they were given some sort of out. So I think it can be said that it is possible for airpower to make a practical difference. But the important point is that when you don't have a ground option, and diplomacy and/or sanctions have failed, then the air option is the only one left. It might not work out so well, but given a crappy situation with crappy options, the least crappy will just have to do.

Personally, I think the article overestimated how much good could come from a military strike and VASTLY underestimated the harm. Iran would not have to shut off its overland oil tap. They could just say that they would. That would do the trick. And if it didn't, they could turn off the pumps for 1 day and that certainly do the trick. Remember folks, if Iran's pumps go off, the oil capacity they produce can not be found elsewhere. And since the world is a very precarious balance of supply and demand at the moment, having one of the largest oil producers going offline would mean economic disaster.

Steve