Finalizing CM:SF's Setting

[kipanderson]

Hi,

Just a quick follow on..

BTW…I “realistically” think the US would find Syria a lot harder than Steve or most others seems to imagine. I will be trying for a CMMC type game with CMSF assumptions will be along the following lines.. in no particular order.

1)US can not introduce conscription/the draft for internal political reasons. Must fight the war against Syria with the standing army only.

2)The US can only put together a force of 200,000 due to commitments elsewhere.

3)Replacements will be few are far between due to the need to recruit volunteers. For campaign purposes the US gets no replacements.

4)This is not a raid, the US is hoping to “democratise” Syria, hold the country after defeating its armed forces.

5)Syria has more volunteers, from Syria itself and the Islamic world, than it knows what to do with.

6)Iran allows Syria to use it as a safe haven in which to train and equip forces. In a very short time Syria has more than one million volunteers, from all over the Islamic world, in training in Iran.

7)Russia and China have a summit at which they announce that the attack on secular Syria was unjustified and that they will support Syria with equipment and advisors. It was a step too far by the US.

8)Russia and China also announce that they are “ring fencing” the crisis over Syria and will continue to cooperate with the US over other issues on a case by case basis. This is not to be a new Cold War. But the US cannot have a blank cheque. They continue to support the war on terror…of which the invasion of Syria forms no part. Famously the US and Syrian intelligence services have cooperated in the interrogation of terror suspects.

9)The war takes a form very similar to the Vietnam War. With a mix of gorilla and conventional battles with US supply lines and support unit sunder constant attack. Iran playing the part of North Vietnam.

All very good fun ,

All the best,

Kip.

[Rod]

Sorry if this is redundant, I haven't had a chance to read all the post.

But why not use the fact that the U.S forces are stretched to the max to even the odds in Syria. Say for whatever reason boots on the ground are desperately needed in Syria. Say a high level kidnapping or maybe actionable intelligence that a nuclear weapon is in transit for use in Isreal. A stryker brigade or two is hastily moved in from Iraq all forces are rearrange to fill the void along with Iraqi forces. Fierce sand storms seriously hamper air support most of which has to fly from the gulf,the Med or Turkey. Insurgents in Iraq take advantage of the situation to further hamper movement and tie up reserves. Future modules might include a marine task force which is diverted to the Med since the Iranians are causing movement problems in the gulf. Granted the crisis would have to last long enough for the deployment.

Further escalation brings Jordan and Lebanon into the mix which further mobilizes European contries.

Just a thought. In general I would prefer the semi historical scenario using real world terrain.

That is all,

Rod

[Homo ferricus]

to combat the opinions of all the WWII fanatics, i'd like to say that i have been starving for a simulation like this and i have trouble falling asleep because of this game...

in case all the bashing of modern warfare was making steve feel that no one wants this gane

[kipanderson]

Hi,

Another quick add on.

The need for “real terrain” is close to paramount… if you can be “close to paramount” . The thought of the full horror of being expected to play over fictional terrain is sinking in and is not a very happy one. My imagination cannot make the leap. I “always” build from real terrain when do scenarios.

I lack the imagination gene… have mercy on me.. a fictional landscape I cannot cope with. As others said…call Syria…. Syria… and be done with it. Use Syria as a base and add fictional elements.

All the best,

Kip.

PS. Steve seems to be going that way anyway so I am optimistic.

[c3k]

Okay, my thoughts:

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

..., but the heart and soul of the TO&E will be Syrian no matter what. ...

Steve [/QB]

If Syrian TO&E is, as you say, "the heart and soul" why would you NOT create a backstory which is specific to Syria?

Sure, make it lighter on the plausibility aspects if you need to, but for the love of all that's holy in the Middle East, please don't send me to fight in Trigon sponsored Mid-East Republic #24.

Do you want to toss in some T-90's? Well, draft an expansion pack labelled, "CM:SF - Algerian T-90's to the Front!" and have a ball. A ball in SYRIA (or IRAN, or IRAQ, or JORDAN, or LEBANON, or SAUDI ARABIA, or YEMEN, or U.A.E, or QATAR, or you get my point.)

Regards,

Ken

[MikeyD]

Everybody's discussing what THEY want.

Which decision do you think would be best for BFC's overall sales? I'd hate to say it (because its certainly not my own personal choice) but maybe its the in-your-face all out "Syria slug-fest" game. Even to the point of having a highway sign reading "to Damascus" with Strykers rolling the direction of a distant burning city. Something so audacious that it would raise the hairs on the back of your neck to see it sitting on store shelves! And if the public is horrified? Well, as the old saying goes, there's no such thing as 'bad' publicity. :eek:

[Fly Pusher]

Mr. Shirt,

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />It feels almost rude of me to say anything at all, but, if it's about Syria, why not call it Syria?

Every opinion is as valuable as another when expressed well. You passed that test This is indeed the crux of the issue. Do we need a backstory? If so, then we have to go fictional. If we don't need one, then perhaps we can stick with Syria. But if we go with Syria then we should also stick strictly to Syria's force structure. By going Fictional we get to ditch the need for a backstory as well as the requirement that we limit what can appear on the game. The thinking is without the backstory why does it matter if we call it Syria?

</font>

[Vanir Ausf B]

For me it's simple. Whatever gives me the greatest diversity of units for the most varied tactical environment. I'd be very happy if CMSF was a sort of modern combat construction kit where we could create our own conflicts. I don't care about any story or campaign.

[MikeyD]

I thought we were assuming that at least the base game will be little altered from one setting theme to the next. This being mid-September, I would not expect to see BMP-3s in the base game even if the venue was changed to U.S. invading the Crimea! T-80s? From the sounds Moon is making maybe they've already got a T-80 polygon ready to go if they find just cause to put it in.

[C'Rogers]

Steve

I think this speaks to the overall importance of the story... it isn't.

Ok maybe I am missing a term here and maybe we are all looking at the wrong issue.

How will the play of the campaign differ between if you went with a strong backstory or if you have none at all?

Would the ongoing story of the campaign be just as good regardless of the above? Would there be any major changes to how a campaign would play out and the enjoyablity of one given the different theories on backstory? If there is a weak backstory will the players still have a strong in game campaign story to follow throughout the campaign?

Personally I think the campaign would play well if you said either " ... and then US troops appeared in Syria" or "... and then Arabistan was invaded by the US" as long as from that point the players feels an interesting ongoing story for the campaign.

[Cpl Steiner]

I doubt whether the new campaign mode will need a detailed back-story. My feeling is that it will be entirely focused on what forces are carried over, where the battle takes place relative to the last, and how the objectives differ from the last. How each battle fits in to wider geopolitical events will probably be irrelevant. I doubt, for instance, that it will feature any character dialog or anything like that (although I would love to be proved wrong).

[luderbamsen]

Look, we may not always be willing to admit it, but deep down we're all just little boys who like to build a tower of blocks and then knock it over. All we want to to is shoot people and blow stuff up, gaming-wise.

CM:SF will certainly let os do that no matter what the story. And y'all DAMN WELL know you're gonna buy this game and play it religiously.

I wouldn't like to presume I speak for the majority, but I do belive that the majority of players don't really care all that much.

What really matters is, as MikeyD said, what sells.

If I must offer an opinion, I'll second the notion that since it's the Syrian TO&E, why not call it Syria? And the backstory? "US and Syria are at war because, well, because they are" the end. Good enough for me.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by C'Rogers:

Steve

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />I think this speaks to the overall importance of the story... it isn't.

Ok maybe I am missing a term here and maybe we are all looking at the wrong issue.

How will the play of the campaign differ between if you went with a strong backstory or if you have none at all? </font>

[Imperial Grunt]

OK, I vote for 3) Syria with Minimal Back-Story: -

Keep it in Syria, the background story is not the part that makes or breaks the game.

Keep the T/O and T/E for the Syrian's realistic, but have optional weapons available for scenarios, the player's choice.

Additional modules should be similar, realistic with minimum backstory and optional upgraded weapons.

For red on red and blue on blue scenarios, make the opposing sides have different looks, ie, US or Syrian forces versus "OPFOR".

And get back to work Steve....

[MikeyD]

Ooh, I hadn't thought of different looks for OPFOR play. The simplest would be to go traditional with tiny blue and red arm bands. Does CMSF have anything like a DropTeam unit designation hovering over it? The hovering designators could be blue and red and the uniforms would stay the same.

But back on topic. If they go Syria Minimal backstory what would be the sexiest way to present the game? I guess "Stryker Brigade - Woo Hoo! accuracy accuracy accuracy, forces - weapons systems - game engine game engine game engine ...and they'll even be fighting an accurate approximation of the Syrian Army."

[Sgt Joch]

Personally, I have little interest in a fictional setting, such as a US invasion of "Dumbassistan" or "Bitemestan".

I also don't think having a believable back story is a prerequisite to a successful game. Falcon 4, Jane's F/A-18 and LOMAC, to name a few, all feature real world settings and minimal or no back story to explain their "virtual" war.

We all agree that the chances of a real war between the US and Syria in the next five years, barring some unforeseen event, are slim to none, but so what? That would not detract from my enjoyment of an hypothetical invasion of Syria .

I can, however, see the advantages to going generic, if we could get more goodies to play with on the Red side in future modules and if it would increase sales of CMSF.

Have you thought about the following compromise:

1.make the game itself (i.e. interface, scenarios, quick battles) generic with US vs Red forces; but

2.make the single-player campaign in the first module a US/NATO invasion of Syria in the near future, with no back story and using Red forces, but with a Syrian TO&E and locations.

I think that would keep both the "real" and the "fictional" sides happy.

[Rocky Balboa]

Here's my .02,

Make a Syrian Campaign with a Syrian / US TOE in the original game.

In the first module release a TOE editor along with additional weapons and artwork that will allow scenario designers to create any near future or near history battle/campaigns as they desire.

If the TOE editor can be created and implemented before release of the original game then so much the better. :cool:

[Battlefront.com]

I think I need to say a little something about what a "story" is. All it is is some text in the manual and in briefings accompanied by a political/topographical map of the country it takes place in. That's it. The rest of the game may be very realistic or completely unrealistic independent of the story. For example, an RTS game set in WWII with rocket tanks and planes dropping infantry during tactical battles between tanks is pure fantasy even though it is set in a real historical setting. Likewise, a game like TacOps is extremely realistic but makes no pretense of being set in a real world setting. And of course you can have a game that is realistic in both story and game, such as the CM examples.

Some people here are extremely confused by this, apparently, thinking that if we call it Beeriya that somehow the units and terrain are no longer realistic because we have a bit of text in the manual that is a work of fiction. As I have said, we could call this "Mars Attacks" and the game would still play exactly the same, so how is it possible for the storyline to affect the gameplay? There is no such thing as "fictional terrain". Terrain is terrain... the make believe context (and don't forget ALL of these stories are make believe) has zero impact on this. Oh sure, it could... in that we have spaceships and large patches of quicksand that can swallow up tanks... but come on... you KNOW that isn't even remotely a possibility (until Space Lobsters that is ), so either this is being thrown out as a strawman or some people are in need of a serious adjustment of perspective. Like I've said, probably 99% of all CM games ever played were on "fictional" terrain fought by formations that have nothing what-so-ever to do with real life counterparts. Even the scenarios with real world names in them were overwhelmingly not at all even close to something that actually happened. Yet nobody had a problem with this.

So let me make this point absolutely clear... those people that are saying that a fictional setting for CM:SF will somehow have an actual, real impact on the gameplay are completely and utterly wrong. Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong. That's just a matter of established fact.

The only point that I see that is true is only true to a point. The "I don't want to play in a fictitious environment. I want to know I am attacking deep into a real country, even though it is just a bit of text that tells me this." I can understand this and it is personally the way I am too. But there is nothing preventing you players from taking CM:SF with a fictional setting and turn it into CM:SF set in Syria. Just get a map of Damascus, make a scenario from it, populate it with units that you feel would be there, and bingo... no different than if we shipped the game with a Syrian setting vs. a fictional one. No difference at all. It's just silly to claim otherwise.

Traditionally, in gaming, there are four different types of settings:

Reality

This is a story based on actual historical events. There is no "what ifs" or "alternatives", though there can be a concerted effort to predict near future combat. CMBO, BB, and AK fit this for sure. Many of Cold War style games that came out prior to 1990s fit this category too, though the majority were past and not near future. This makes up the minority of games in our general genre (war and war centric games/sims), but the most popular amongst Grogs.

Semi-Reality

The story is mostly set in some recognizable real world setting. There is a lot of stuff that the designers have made up that may, or may not, be considered "realistic" depending on one's definition and perspective (as is the case for Reality types a well). Theater of War, Medal of Honor, Battlefield 2, and more games than I can count use this type of setting. How well they achieve this is a matter of debate, but the point is that they at least position themselves in this category. This is far and above the most common type of setting for games of the sort we are discussing.

Semi-Fictional

This is the type of story that blends some elements of reality with some elements of fiction. The reality might be the storyline and the fiction might be the units, or vice versa. Castle Wolfenstein, our own DropTeam, and many others fit into this category. This is probably the second most common type.

Fictional

No pretense of reality in the sense that the story, events, units, weapons, physics, etc. are all pretty much invented from imagination. There generally are some elements that jibe with real life, often time basic physics, but by and large there isn't much tie to anything any of us would call realistic. Games like Command and Conquer, Half-Life, Quake, and massive numbers of others fit into this category. It is certainly the most prevalent setting type game wide (I mean, what is PacMan for example? ), but it is probably the least common for the types of games we're talking about.

The sort of storylines we're thinking of for CM:SF is either Reality (the original Syrian setting) or Semi-Reality (either Syria Lite or Fictional). Because we don't see any way to make the storyline work without so completely departing from reality, or having reality change on us after we've got the game done, we really don't want to go with the strict Reality setting. Instead we are heavily leaning towards Semi-Reality. Therefore, the differences between the two aren't really all that great since they are in the same general category.

Steve

[ September 15, 2006, 07:08 PM: Message edited by: Battlefront.com ]

[Battlefront.com]

Kip,

BTW…I “realistically” think the US would find Syria a lot harder than Steve or most others seems to imagine

Uh... I'm the one that is saying that it is so difficult to imagine that it is impossible for it to happen, hence my shying away from making an unbelievably falwed backstory Also, I'm the one that has been saying since Day One that this will be a tactically difficult fight for the US player. Lastly, there is my AAR I did a couple of weeks ago where I got my ass kicked. Suffice to say, I don't know why you think I don't feel a real life attack on Syria would be a piece of cake.

Steve

[rudel.dietrich]

Good points Steve

But as I said a page ago, unless you have realistic TO&E then the game can never be totaly realistic.

Otherwise you have a fantasy game with nice models and a really good armour penetration table.

But as you have said, no matter what you are going to have that.

No whether it will be labled as Syria or 'Country 2139C'

We don't know

[hellfish]

As long as no retarded elves or orcs are involved, it's not a fantasy game.

[hoolaman]

I think a fictionalised setting eg. "A country in the middle-east" not only makes a mockery of all the work done by BFC so far, but leaves out the finer details of the real world challenges faced by both sides.

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

The real question with Syria is, if a coup deposed the Assad regime, who would come out to fight the US? The story changes the potential combat situation so much that it shoots itself in the foot.

I would suggest, if it is going to be a real-world Syria scenario, that the Assad regime remains in power, therefore the today's Syrian TO&E is still relevant.

My idea for a backstory is a hardline coup in Russia, possibly strongly backed by islamist money, begins a second cold war with the US, funneling equipment (T-80s) and nuclear and biological know-how to Syria and possibly puppetising Assad. This escalation of world tensions can bring the EU into higher readiness, and force NATO to start a hot war in Syria to eliminate the emboldened Assad

[Battlefront.com]

Rudel,

But as you have said, no matter what you are going to have that.

Yup

Fishy,

As long as no retarded elves or orcs are involved, it's not a fantasy game.

So our planned Mensa Orc unit is OK? Super

Steve

[securityguard]

I found one of the greatest draws of CM was the absurdity of the detail. I loved going through all the different countries TO&E and seeing what they really used in action.

I think Syria with minimal story would be my vote. I like to learn what they would use, how they would organize themselves, etc. I actually found the original CM educational because it gave me an excuse to open a book once and awhile to read about events and equipment.

[Holo]

I would go for "Syria with minimal story", although this is not quite to my usual liking.

My preference for war game settings are either "high-level" semi-reality conflicts or historical wars. But this is not Big Army vs. Big Army game setting, like BF2's US vs. MEC / US vs. China, or "what if happened" 70's NATO vs. USSR, or "all items included" fictional NATO-Russia vs. China-MEC or anything similar of the "epic" size, what might be what most players would like to see (including myself), and also it's not WWI, WWII, Hannibal vs. Rome or Napoleon vs. Europe or whatever historic.

I think it's a bit late to make this game fictional all around ME conflict that would include every piece of equipment there is out there just to satisfy everyone's expectations, still, hard-locking story in "reality" Syria is closing doors for lot of further options, and no matter how much story is convincing and plausible, if you're not a prophet to see the future, it would still be fictional, so at the end you still have a fictional setting, but without all the high-tech possibilities.

So, "Syria with minimal story" for me gives a compromise of real setting which is in the line with CM:SF development up until now, but leaves open doors for future modules, if you're ready to go bit more "fictional" and base modules on possible speculations, thus giving an option for Russia module, Europe module or IDF module. Than you can have lots of high-tech, and still have original "true" setting.