US Marines

[Peter Cairns]

Steve,

I am well aware of the security situation in Syria, but the issue isn't could the US take action (including military action) in the next two years.

The issue is that, there is no realistic probability that the US could lead, let alone assemble a UN?Nato coalition to back a land invasion within two years. Hell this decade.....

The talks to let Nato take over in Afghanistan, have taken a year and with only months to go, the Dutch haven't agreed to send troops to the south, and the French and Germans have refused. On the surface it will be portrayed as Nato acting in unision but the reality on the ground will be seperate forces with narrow national remits, a classic Nato fudge.

Why for years did Nato have two Naval HQ's on the Iberian peninsula, one in spain and one in Portugal, The Soviet Threat, logistical need, no it was because the Spainish wouldn't serve under the Portugese and vica versa. Another Nato Fudge.

The two highest defence spenders as a share of GDP in Nato are greece and Turkey, why, because the are staunch defenders of peace and freedom, no it's because although things have improved in the last few years they've spent the last forfty at each others throats.

What does Nato say about that, nothing, why. because it doesn't fit in with the Public Face of the alliance.

Hell when democartic ( if abit nutty) governments in both Greece and Turkey were removed in coup's what did Nato do, Nothing absolutely nothing.

In the Balkans it took almost two years for Nato to get it's act together and take action, and when it did it was to late, badly planned and half hearted.

Anyone who thinks that Nato could get it's act together in less than 18 months sufficently to react to a crisis come to an agreement and commit to military action is living in Cuckoo land.

And as for the UN taking the lead, leaving aside the fact that current US/UN relations are almost non existant, well thats even more bizarre.

Supporting Bush in Iraq, brought down the Polish and Spanish governments might still change the Italian one and has neutered Blair. The changes of any Western European force getting involved are unlikely, right now even the UK wouldn't probably commit ( though Blair might go for one last throw of the dice in an attempt to get a place in history).

True it's only my view, but my view is that post Iraq, US/UN relations are in a mess, Nato is slow unwieldy and unresponsive and unlikely to be able to agree, there is no country in europe that would follow this US administation in too a war in Syria, sure a few politicians might, but not the public.

Mostb of those in Afghanistan and Iraq are lookwarm about them and more likely to pull out of those than sign up for something new.

Given all that and the fact that you can proceed with CM:SF exactly as it is without UN/NATO/EU support in the backstory, with any number of more plausible US and a few friends in Syria scenarios , why stick to it.

It's a bit like the BMP-3 issue, I agree that it's not commercially viable to have very possible vehicle in, I can understand( and support) leaving out issues like helicopter landings, water and amphibious op,s or civilians because of there complexity, but to dig your heals in over the only vehicle that people have expressed a real interest in seems almost perverse.

If there was a flood of sites for speciaslied versions of the T-72 ( although I accept your point that you can make a dozen variants for the effort of one unique), or if I had seen lots of post requests for vehicle after vehicle then I could understand it, but there haven't been.

Two last things, I might start a topic on who thinks the Us could assemble a coalition within 18 months to go in to Syria, if you don't mind, and secondly,

i don't want this to turn in to a fight, because a part from the fact that we agree more than we disagree, your a decent guy and I very much respect your views.

But on this one I suspect that how most europeans percieve Nato and the US and how the US percieves Nato and europe are very different. and you telling me what my continent will do from your continent, well lets just say I'd be cautious about telling you what America would do.....

Peter.

[Imperial Grunt]

Originally posted by MikeyD:

Small change of topic (with apologies)

This forum has been filled with so many photos of soldiers carrying M4 carbines we've almost forgot what an M16 looks like. I'm not entirely sure the M16 is even going to make it into CMSF!

Here's a Marine using a long barrelled M16A3 (A4?). Note the flat-top reciever and removable carrying handle. Maybe M16s in-game would be one visual difference in a Marine CMSF module.

Marine/M16

Marine riflemen are usually armed with M-16A4 rifle (as pictured). The Marine Corps choose this rifle over the M-4 as a standard infantry weapon. More accuracy, muzzle velocity, and range. In addition, most of the rifles are being equipped with the 4X ACOG (as pictured). It not only helps with accuracy, but with things like acquiring positve ID of a target.

The Army went the different route. The M-4 is the standard light infantry (and stryker) weapon. From what I have observed, the Army favors the Aimpoint site (which is great for CQB) over the ACOG.

So to answer your question, Army and Marine infantry will look different. Marine digital camoflague is different, the squad is bigger, and it will use M-16A4s and not M-4s.

Marines with LAR battalions, recon, etc...will use both the M-16A4 and the M-4 carbine.

I do not know if the game will go into this level of detail, but the Army bayonet and the USMC bayonets are different as well.

[Battlefront.com]

Peter,

No question about it that the war in Iraq has greatly diminished the standing and respect of the US all around the world, including with its previously staunch allies. Anybody that doubts that would be borderline idiot. Anybody that thinks this doesn't matter is beyond idiotic. And yeah, there are a lot of hardcore, rightwing nuts in the US that think the US doesn't need friends and that it can go it alone. They are as misinformed as they are pathetically ignorant.

There are two reasons why the scenario we envision could happen, even considering Bush's single handed destruction of 50 years worth of post WWII diplomacy in just 3 short years. The first is the obvious one... other nations have a strong incentive to invade Syria, completely independent of the US' position. The war in Iraq was opposed largely because when nations asked "what's in it for me?" the answer came back "nothing much, if anything". If the answer instead came back with a strong "we stand to gain a lot" calculation, then the differences over Iraq (and US foreign policy in general) would be dropped overnight.

The second reason for NATO, specifically, being involved is the location. Unlike Afghanistan, Syria borders NATO. This removes a lot of political and even legal issues from the table. NATO was designed to fight along its borders, it was not designed to fight in the middle of some other part of the world. Therefore, the plethora of reasons for making a NATO takeover of ISAF problematic would NOT be around, or at least as strong, if the question were about action on the borders of NATO.

To recap... CM:SF's setting has very little, if nothing, in common with Iraq. An Iraq type scenario, or even one that remotely smelled like one, would be highly improbable for a VERY long time. A sceanrio that is more like Afghanistan, but on the NATO border, is a different beast. A VERY different beast.

Steve

[Peter Cairns]

Steve,

If we are talking extrem Islamists who have access to Syrias chemical weapons and are actively giving them to groups so that they are used against US troops in Iraq, fired in to Israel, and against European tourists in Egypt and crucially TURKEY.....

Then it's a possible, though I still think, it would take Nato and the UN a year to get it's boots on, (although you have said that the Syrians have six months notice).

That could fit in with CM:SF 1 being Stryker, and the UK etc in CM:SF 2 set six months later.

Peter.

[Battlefront.com]

Any military action in Syria would be an all or nothing experience. The occupation forces might come in at different times, but the type of combat CM:SF is simulating would happen all at once. I can't think of any military scenario that would be different.

Again, you are showing a lack of imagination (you are in extremely good company). There are any number of scenarios that would get European militaries out in the field and out quickly. How about a dirty bomb on Paris or a series of Madrid/London style bombings in Berlin? There are any number of reasons why this would happen since the Islamist terrorists see pretty much everybody as a threat and a target. Europeans who think that they are safe and secure aren't. Instead they are naive and in a state of dennial. The US and British response to the threat of terrorism is questionable, but the reason for the response is untouchable.

In any case, NATO forces do not need a year to prepare for war. They need days or weeks tops. I'm not talking about mobilizing hundreds of thousands of soldiers here... just a few tens of thousands from the larger countries, a few thousand from the smaller ones. A force like this could be put together without difficulty from a military standpoint. It's the long term support of occupation duties that NATO and the EU are not inherently set up for. Since the lack of long term planning has historically not been a significant factor in determining national policy I wouldn't expect questions/concerns/doubts about the future to interrupt short term plans.

As for being an American and presuming to know how Europeans think... it isn't difficult. My background is European history, for starters. America's politics, like it not, are straight out of Europe's own history. In other words, American politics are more similar than dissimilar than European politics in general (more or less so country by country). The major reason for this is that politics are basically all about the same things (satisfying greedy self interests, mostly). I also spent a year studying and traveling in Europe. Many of my friends are European and these Forums present a wonderful way to get perspectives from the people who live in the countries I am talking about including in CM:SF. All it takes is an open mind and an ability to connect dots. Therefore, I am not presuming to know how Europeans think, more I am presuming to know how politics work. American or European politics... when you boil them down, aren't very different at all.

Steve

[ January 14, 2006, 02:55 PM: Message edited by: Battlefront.com ]

[Oleg Mastruko]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Peter,

The second reason for NATO, specifically, being involved is the location. Unlike Afghanistan, Syria borders NATO. This removes a lot of political and even legal issues from the table. NATO was designed to fight along its borders, it was not designed to fight in the middle of some other part of the world. Therefore, the plethora of reasons for making a NATO takeover of ISAF problematic would NOT be around, or at least as strong, if the question were about action on the borders of NATO.

To recap... CM:SF's setting has very little, if nothing, in common with Iraq.

Steve

Iraq borders NATO too, just like Syria. Who cares?

Frankly I find this argument laughable. Turkey is a member of NATO for one reason only, and it has (had) to do with USSR. Now with USSR threat gone, I think most NATO members view Turkey as a liability and would be happy to get rid of them. Notice the fuss that Turkeys possible inclusion in the EU raised lately?

(Also, although USSR threat is gone, Russia threat is not gone, and that, smallish reason might be enough to keep Turkey in the NATO. But Syria and Iraq might well be three continents away as far as NATO cares.)

Again, as Peter correctly noted, Turkey military is much more obsessed with their hatred for Greeks (and to a smaller degree Russians and Armenians) than with what goes on on their souhters borders. Using the "it borders NATO" logic you can stretch it a little bit and say many dozens of various conflicts on Caucasus are also "on NATO borders" Well who cares.

Not to mention Balkan. Balkan wars were on NATO borders for years and as Peter said, it took ages for NATO to even notice what goes on (let alone to react - they would never have reacted if it wasn't for the US BTW.)

Peter is 100% correct in his analysis. Personally, as much as CMx2 got me excited when I first heard about it, I could not believe the laughable scenario you took as premise for the first game in this series.

O.

[Battlefront.com]

Oleg,

Frankly I find this argument laughable. Turkey is a member of NATO for one reason only, and it has (had) to do with USSR. Now with USSR threat gone, I think most NATO members view Turkey as a liability and would be happy to get rid of them. Notice the fuss that Turkeys possible inclusion in the EU raised lately?

Exactly my point, which you apparently didn't understand. Turkey would likely want to stay out of it, NATO (in the sceanrio I outlined) would want to use it as a base. Where on Earth did you get the notion that I was talking about warm and fuzzy feelings? I'm talking about hardcore politics here.

Again, as Peter correctly noted, Turkey military is much more obsessed with their hatred for Greeks (and to a smaller degree Russians and Armenians) than with what goes on on their souhters borders.

Who said Turkey cares? I actually assume they wouldn't care (unless the regine in Syria posed a threat to themselves, which it could). However, they would care about leveraging their geographical location to benefit themselves. That's the way politics work.

Using the "it borders NATO" logic you can stretch it a little bit and say many dozens of various conflicts on Caucasus are also "on NATO borders" Well who cares.

Exactly. Nobody cares so nobody does anything. The scenario in Syria is not the same thing. Something happens that makes NATO care. It doesn't take that much imagination to figure out something that would do this, but apparently most of you have no imagination.

Not to mention Balkan. Balkan wars were on NATO borders for years and as Peter said, it took ages for NATO to even notice what goes on (let alone to react - they would never have reacted if it wasn't for the US BTW.)

This is because of politics. Nobody wanted to get in the middle of a bloody civil war. There was nothing to be gained from it. It has nothing to do with NATO's ability to carry out a mission in the Balkans. If they had chosen to they could have gone in as soon as Slovenia voted for independence. But there was no political reason to do that so it didn't happen. Only after the bloodshed in Bosnia and Croatia had reached certain levels did the Europeans get shamed into acting. They had hoped the war would burn out sooner so they wouldn't have to do anything, but it didn't and therefore they had to do something. Unfortunately, it took time to figure out what to do.

None of this happened with Afghanistan. The war was launched with hardly any notice and occupation troops from countries all over the world took part very quickly. I'd be curious for you to explain how this could have happened since you are so convinced it could not.

BTW, because of the debacle of policy towards Bosnia I would *hope* that the nations of Europe, and NATO in particular, wouldn't be so lethargic about another threat to their borders. The #1 lession that came out of the whole Bosnia mess is that wishful thinking doesn't work. I remember yelling at my TV as delegation after delegations of Europeans (and later American) officals talked about various promises by the Serbs to stop the fighting. And that these promises should be taken at face value. These men were either lying about their belief in what they were told or they didn't read many history books. Either way they have much blood on their hands.

Peter is 100% correct in his analysis.

I think he is way off base and have demonstrated exactly why. Do not confuse a lack of imagination with thoughtful analysis.

Personally, as much as CMx2 got me excited when I first heard about it, I could not believe the laughable scenario you took as premise for the first game in this series.

I'm sure if I described 9/11 and the invasion of Afghanistan to this Forum back in 2000 you and Peter would have called it a "laughable scenario", yet it happened. Truth is stranger than fiction, as the old saying goes. Politics is even stranger.

Steve

[ January 14, 2006, 03:15 PM: Message edited by: Battlefront.com ]

[Battlefront.com]

Peter,

I stated above that you have a lack of imagination. This should not be taken as an insult, rather as a point of debate. And on this point you have more people similar to you than dissimilar. Oleg is just one example, but I'd say the majority of people on this Forum lack the sort of imagination needed to envision the CM:SF setting. The majority of people can NOT get their heads out of Iraq. They have mostly, if not completely, forgotten about Afghanistan. They can not see that the CM:SF scenario is more like Afghanistan than Iraq, and therefore can not buy into the scenario that I've been sketching out.

Now, it is entirely possible that my scenario might never happen. I hope it doesn't. But it is as plausible as Afghanistan and the events that caused it. In fact, my scenario is even MORE plausible now because of these facts. It also makes the vision for action in Syria more "accurate" than it otherwise would have been if I were thinking this up in August of 2001.

Just remember... those who are saying that CM:SF's Syria scenario is impossible (inherently, not niggling about details) must first figure out a way to explain why Afghanistan is unique and will never happen again. So far nobody has even come close to attempting to do this. That speaks volumes all on its own.

Steve

[Oleg Mastruko]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Exactly my point, which you apparently didn't understand. Turkey would likely want to stay out of it, NATO (in the sceanrio I outlined) would want to use it as a base. Where on Earth did you get the notion that I was talking about warm and fuzzy feelings? I'm talking about hardcore politics here.

You are correct in your assumption that I don't understand - I don't

You assume NATO would be interested in "Syrian situation" because it's on "NATO borders"? (Which I don't agree with.) But you also assume THE ONLY NATO country that has Syria on it's borders - Turkey - would not be interested (which I agree with). So you are trying to say France, UK, Dutch and Germans would rush in to solve problem on someone else's border, a problem that even said bordering nation does not perceive to be a problem?

Yes I do have problems understanding this position

Who said Turkey cares? I actually assume they wouldn't care (unless the regine in Syria posed a threat to themselves, which it could). However, they would care about leveraging their geographical location to benefit themselves.

Well I don't think so. Turks have their own issues with islamist parties and sects and they would hate to be portrayed among Muslim world as "infidel's servants". Most they would agree to do is to stay aside and let others do the job, if they really insist on doing it. Which, in itself, may be enough as prelude for your beloved "Syrian scenario"

The scenario in Syria is not the same thing. Something happens that makes NATO care. It doesn't take that much imagination to figure out something that would do this, but apparently most of you have no imagination.

Name one imaginative thing that happens in Syria and that awakens Euro-NATO's interest (please don't use some fictional French prime minister love affair as casus belli )

This is because of politics. Nobody wanted to get in the middle of a bloody civil war. There was nothing to be gained from it. It has nothing to do with NATO's ability to carry out a mission in the Balkans.

Well I believe it has. I believe that even had Yugo countries be sittin' on many millions of barrels of crude black oil, NATO would be unable, or politically unwilling to move as much as little finger, just as they did in reality - until US starts doing something.

"We will not meddle in the civil war" was their good, predictably lame excuse - but notice that, once US stepped in, they were forced to support the action even if it was for Kosovo, totally uninteresting region with no oil, and no resources to speak of, and no money to be made of.

None of this happened with Afghanistan. The war was launched with hardly any notice and occupation troops from countries all over the world took part very quickly. I'd be curious for you to explain how this could have happened since you are so convinced it could not.

With all due respect, Afghanistan is a joke, compared to Iraq. Hell I would go to Afghanistan on a vacation, as some people actually do Why wouldn't some Dutch NCO do the same (and to make good money too). Even we, Croatians, have some soldiers there. They appear to be having a good time, earning dollars and playing tourist guides for Croat journalists that go there to visit them and write about them being there.

BTW, because of the debacle of policy towards Bosnia I would *hope* that the nations of Europe, and NATO in particular, wouldn't be so lethargic about another threat to their borders.

Nice, but ultimately false, totally unfounded hope. I don't think people of Srebrenica (those few that survived) would ever hope for any NATO force to do anything for them. US maybe. NATO never. Not even if they are sitting on an ocean of oil.

The #1 lession that came out of the whole Bosnia mess is that wishful thinking doesn't work. I remember yelling at my TV as delegation after delegations of Europeans (and later American) officals talked about various promises by the Serbs to stop the fighting. And that these promises should be taken at face value. These men were either lying about their belief in what they were told or they didn't read many history books. Either way they have much blood on their hands.

That's your Euro-NATO policy at work. Thinking that in Syria it would be any different is crazy.

I'm sure if I described 9/11 and the invasion of Afghanistan to this Forum back in 2000 you and Peter would have called it a "laughable scenario", yet it happened. Truth is stranger than fiction, as the old saying goes. Politics is even stranger.

"Invasion of Afghanistan" is a bit preposterous for my taste. I could buy "Invasion of Iraq", perhaps even as pretext for a game, but with all due respect to call glorified police action in Afghanistan an "invasion", and base serious, and supposedly challenging wargames around "invasion" of Afghanistan-like scenario is just a bad decision IMO. Could work for that SWAT game though

O.

[Battlefront.com]

Oleg,

You assume NATO would be interested in "Syrian situation" because it's on "NATO borders"? (Which I don't agree with.) But you also assume THE ONLY NATO country that has Syria on it's borders - Turkey - would not be interested (which I agree with). So you are trying to say France, UK, Dutch and Germans would rush in to solve problem on someone else's border, a problem that even said bordering nation does not perceive to be a problem?

The critical piece of information you are overlooking is that the problem in Syria is not confined to Syria. If it was, nobody would invade. The CM:SF scenario has a key component to it that you are simply not understanding. And that is that something happens in Europe that makes Europeans want to invade Syria, much the way something happened in the US that originated in Afghanistan. Which is why for years the horrific regime of the Taliban was ignored by the West. Nobody thought about serious military action. But 9/11 changed that. If you think 9/11 was a one time event, you are sadly mistaken.

NATO might not be involved, but there would be a lot of pressure for it to be. NATO is designed to protect the interests of its member states, so if one or more member states is attacked then NATO would obviously be considered a candidate for a response. The conflict zone being next to NATO's borders is another obvious reason.

Well I don't think so. Turks have their own issues with islamist parties and sects and they would hate to be portrayed among Muslim world as "infidel's servants". Most they would agree to do is to stay aside and let others do the job, if they really insist on doing it. Which, in itself, may be enough as prelude for your beloved "Syrian scenario" ?

Turkey is not needed for an operation in Syria any more than it was for Iraq. So it is foolish to say so. However, it is also foolish to think that the secular Turkish government would not be concerned about a hostile Islamic state along its borders. It would even be more foolish to think that the Turkish government couldn't be "bribed" into at least providing bases of operations against Syria. The ramifications for saying "no" to certain European nations pushing for NATO action would mean not becoming a part of the EU, being kicked out of NATO, and largely being shut out from Europe. Or do you think that Turkey could snub NATO and key European nations and get all of the things it wants?

Name one imaginative thing that happens in Syria and that awakens Euro-NATO's interest (please don't use some fictional French prime minister love affair as casus belli ? )

Again, you have no imagination. I'll try to make this simple for you.

Afghanistan under the Taliban was host to a variety of terrorist organizations with proven abilities to strike outside of its borders.. Fact. One of the organizations in Afghanistan caused the deaths of thousands of civilians (mostly Americans) and billions of Dollars worth of damage. Fact. The result of this attack created a unified response that sent military forces against a country that they previously had no interest in attacking. Fact.

Now, let's see how Syria ties into this.

Syria is also host to a variety of terrorist organizations with proven abilities to strike outside of its borders. Fact. Now for some rational use of imagination...

One of these organizations might cause many deaths and large destruction outside of its borders (in Europe, let's say). The results of which cause a unified response that sends a military force against a country that it previously had no interest in attacking.

The logic here is so bloody simple it boggles my mind how anybody can't see it straight up without having it beat over their heads. It completely baffles me how even after having it beat over their heads people still refuse to see its simplistic realism.

Well I believe it has. I believe that even had Yugo countries be sittin' on many millions of barrels of crude black oil, NATO would be unable, or politically unwilling to move as much as little finger, just as they did in reality - until US starts doing something.

NATO was unwilling to do anything about Yugoslavia because there was no incentive. If all their oil or natural gas came through Croatia, and the Serbs disrupted that supply, you can bet your last Dinar that the US wouldn't have to kick their butts into action.

"We will not meddle in the civil war" was their good, predictably lame excuse - but notice that, once US stepped in, they were forced to support the action even if it was for Kosovo, totally uninteresting region with no oil, and no resources to speak of, and no money to be made of.

Opinions in Europe were changing by then. Austria and Germany were very unhappy about the influx of refugees (I know, because I was there in 1992). It was also embarrassing to have genocide being conducted within a few hour's drive or flight of major European capitals. The extent of the genocide wasn't fully known for some time. Croatia's attack on Bosnia also was a wakeup call that things were not going to get better without intervention. It just took the US to get things speeding up.

With all due respect, Afghanistan is a joke, compared to Iraq. Hell I would go to Afghanistan on a vacation, as some people actually do ?

Another reason to suggest that you are ignorant (or stupid, which is not the same thing). Afghanistan is a very unsafe place and it is getting worse. But what difference does safety after the action make on decisions to go to war in the first place? It has no bearing on anything discussed thus far.

Nice, but ultimately false, totally unfounded hope.

Perhaps, but something can only be proven false if it does/doesn't happen. Your opinion is therefore just that.

That's your Euro-NATO policy at work. Thinking that in Syria it would be any different is crazy.

So you don't think it is possible for Euro-NATO to learn from their mistakes? And in any case, if Syria was in civil war I would expect nobody would be interested in military action. But that isn't what CM:SF is about. It is about someone within Syria attacking outward. This did not happen in Bosnia, except economically and socially for a few countries (i.e. refugees). So comparisons to Bosnia are not fundamentally sound.

"Invasion of Afghanistan" is a bit preposterous for my taste. I could buy "Invasion of Iraq", perhaps even as pretext for a game, but with all due respect to call glorified police action in Afghanistan an "invasion", and base serious, and supposedly challenging wargames around "invasion" of Afghanistan-like scenario is just a bad decision IMO. Could work for that SWAT game though ?

Again, you have no idea what you are talking about. Your understanding of the politics and military actions that resulted in dozens of nations in Afghanistan appears to be horribly lacking. So it is now obvious to me why you do not "get it" about the CM:SF hypothetical scenario because you don't "get it" about actual and factual recent history. At least you are consistent.

Steve

[Oleg Mastruko]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Again, you have no imagination. I'll try to make this simple for you.

Afghanistan under the Taliban was host to a variety of terrorist organizations with proven abilities to strike outside of its borders.. Fact. One of the organizations in Afghanistan caused the deaths of thousands of civilians (mostly Americans) and billions of Dollars worth of damage. Fact. The result of this attack created a unified response that sent military forces against a country that they previously had no interest in attacking. Fact.

Not quite, unless you believe everything TV networks serve you, which I know you do not. Most terrorists are in fact Saudi citizens (well known fact) and Al Qaida certainly does not find funding for their operations in desolate, outworldly poor hills of Afghanistan, nor is the Afgh only country they operate from and have havens in. It could well be among less important ones. I bet Pakistan and Saudi Arabia are WAAAY more important to them but we all know they are "no go" from the US standpoint.

What you have (or had) in Afgh is couple half crazy piss poor fanatics armed with AK47s (at most, some probably still have Lee Enfields) thinking theirs is the only right path: good target for an "invasion" but the real evil is elsewhere and we all know it.

But Ok, for the sake of discussion I'll buy the most of your above paragraph... certainly talibans hosted many bad guys which may be reason enough to get rid of them.

Now, let's see how Syria ties into this.

Syria is also host to a variety of terrorist organizations with proven abilities to strike outside of its borders. Fact.

Name one.

One of these organizations might cause many deaths and large destruction outside of its borders (in Europe, let's say). The results of which cause a unified response that sends a military force against a country that it previously had no interest in attacking.

LOL no way dude. You need to read more about Europe.

We had "one of these organizations" (Al Qaida presumably) causing "many deaths and destruction" in at least two Euro cities (Madrid and London).

Did it change one little iotta about Euro response to anything? No. Did we even see anything *approaching* unified Euro-NATO response to that? A resounding NO. (Unless you count demagogical and oftenly hypocritical "condemnations" from all Euro goverments.) In fact Spain begain pulling out from Iraq after that, and it was major affair internally because Spanish PM initially accussed ETA of doing something they didn't do (losing political points in the aftermath). No one else cared. London - same thing. Blair monkeying around on TV saying predictable phrases, other Euro monkeys joining in with ther "deepest condemnations". That's it. Zero, zilch, nada.

So, we have to envision, like, 12 bombs with Sarin going off simoultaneously in 4-5 major Euro cities, causing half million deaths, and Syrian officials waving "howdy infidels we did it and are proud of it, we fart in your general direction come and get us idiots!" right after that? Because IMHO that is as much as it would take to kickstart Euro NATO nations into action (not all of them, but at least some). Anything less would NOT do.

NATO was unwilling to do anything about Yugoslavia because there was no incentive. If all their oil or natural gas came through Croatia, and the Serbs disrupted that supply, you can bet your last Dinar that the US wouldn't have to kick their butts into action.

Still disagree VERY deeply. You are really naive about Euros. Russians could invade Ukraine, no one west of Warsaw would move a little finger.

US would have to organize couple CV TFs (if there are some to spare) and MEBs (again, if there are some to spare) to discourage or stop the Russians. NATO would not move one little finger. They would negotiate with Ruskies and would eventualy reach some deal with them to pay some reasonable price for their gas (or whichever gas Ruskies decided to steal). They would never attack.

In fact, I would bet some dollars most of Euros would *actively* try to stop US from meddling, if there would be any will from the Washington to actually help the Ukrainians. They would rather negotiate with Russian bulies to reach some reasonable price (for whatever Ruskies might be asking.)

Poles would go ballistic thinking they are next, asking, begging NATO to do something, but Euros would hush them down, being even irritated by Polish whines. (Some Euros would even be sorry for taking Poles in the NATO - now there's this terrible obligation to defend them! )

That is how things currently stand in Europe. Steve, you're too naive about Euro politics.

Croatia's attack on Bosnia also was a wakeup call that things were not going to get better without intervention. It just took the US to get things speeding up.

Speed what up?

There was NEVER any action on part of Euro NATO in "real" Yugoslav wars ("real Yugoslav" is for me any conflict before Kosovo, which, by that time, was Serbian internal problem, not a "Yugoslav-wide" war). Never. Any. Action.

There wasn't even an agreement among Euros about what has to be done, or whos guilty of what, after almost 6 years of low/high intensity fighting (most of it in Bosnia).

By the time Kosovo conflict erupted (in 99!! ie Euros had 9 years to do "something" - anything), US finally had enough, and decided to solve Euro problems, and so they intervened, bombed Serbians etc. "Real" Yugoslav wars were long gone by that (last fighting was in 95.) and with tham any chance NATO might actually try to do something.

Even Kosovo action (belated as it was) was 100% US action, initiative and realisation, with some support by (surprise surprise) Blair. US needed NATO "shroud" to give them legal backing but for all practical purposes it was US solo action.

Others reluctantly followed US lead, as unwillingly as they usually do. (Had Serbs resisted little longer you'd see nation by nation losing interest and pulling out, and after that actually *begging* US to stop bombing.)

Another reason to suggest that you are ignorant (or stupid, which is not the same thing).

Interesting "suggestions". So, what of those two you "suggest"?

So you don't think it is possible for Euro-NATO to learn from their mistakes?

Yes. This is the core of the issue here. I think it is (theoretically) "possible" for them to learn from their mistakes, I just think they are very very VERY far away from ever learning about anything.

To "learn from mistakes" you first have to admit there were mistakes at the first place - a process almost no organization in Europe - let alone goverment or military - went thru. (Possible exception might be Dutch, who are well aware of the shameful role their batallion under UN flag had in Srebrenica, and some heads rolled for that but it was strictly Dutch internal thing.)

And, after they learn (nation by nation, which would take some years), they would need to agree on a couple things (which, again, even under ideal circumstances, would take some years to complete).

So, you need either something ultra-drastic like "12 Sarin bombs in 4-5 Euro cities killing hundereds of thousands" or, like, 12 years of constant small terrorist activity in ALL of Europe, coming from ONE very identifiable place (which is never the case) to spur Euro cowards and foot-draggers into action.

Just my opinion.

I think you have no idea how cowardly, corrupt, disjointed, rotten and undecisive most of what we call "Europe" currently is.

Again, you have no idea what you are talking about. Your understanding of the politics and military actions that resulted in dozens of nations in Afghanistan appears to be horribly lacking. So it is now obvious to me why you do not "get it" about the CM:SF hypothetical scenario because you don't "get it" about actual and factual recent history. At least you are consistent.

Now Steve, why would you stoop to that? :cool:

Lets agree to disagree and leave it at that. Most of what we discuss here is hypothetical anyway.

You need a scenario for a modern combat game? As far as scenarios for games go I think this Syrian affair stinks big time, and would personally prefer almost anything that comes on my mind (Korea, Iraq, Ukraine, you name it).

But why would you pay any attention to what I think or say? I am not being ironic - I am really wondering why you, the developer, with plans already being decided upon long ago, waste your time responding here, instead of doing what will ultimately pay your bills?

Oleg

[Imperial Grunt]

Syria sounds like a likely scenario to me, and definetly a plausible scenario for a wargame. Whether NATO would participate or not? Who really knows? I do agree that NATO's track record of quick-decisions is right up there with the UN's.

I hope that the CM:SF modules expand beyond the Middle East. I am so sick of sand!

Taiwan and Korea are good spots as well as even conflicts with the Chinese in Asia. We do not have to get to technical with the geo-politics, just make a realistic war simulation at the tactical level. That is what CM is all about.

From another topic, here are my comments about Taiwan and the Chinese as the "bad guys":

I think CM:SF scenarios regarding Taiwan and Chinese forces would be great. The US and Allied invasion of Taiwan might be beyond the scope of the game, but the remainder of the tactical operations conducted by III MEF and the US Army and Allied forces (to include the loyal Taiwanese forces still surviving) against the Chinese would make a great game. Same for hypothetical "land wars in Asia".

If Korea kicked off again, the same key terrain that was vital in 1950 is pretty much the same today. Critics called the US military "road bound", but any force similarily equipped would be the same. And modern Chinese mech forces would also be road bound, Chinese tanks cannot go over mountains and through jungles just like Western tanks cannot.

And besides, any MSR with a column of enemy armor will become a highway of death, no matter how many anti-aircraft missles the Chinese manufacture. They would have to keep their armor spread out significantly.

So that leaves the Chinese in pretty much the same situation operationally today as they are in 1950. Many divisions of infantry with alot of infantry weapons. Thier artillery would not last long against US MRLS and air. Certainly their weapons are more modern, but so is that of the US and Allies. There is no doubt that the Chinese would use the warfighting techniques that they are good at to minimize US firepower and maneuver capabilities, just as they did in the Korean war. And there is no doubt that many US battalions would be virtually annhilated, but not without a significant price to be paid by the Chinese as well. And the US and Allies will be able to maneuver more forces faster to react to a Chinese offensive than the Chinese would be able to exploit the tactical success of any victory. So that is the what I mean about the near absolute in a US Army/US military victory against any enemy it may face, to include the Chinese, withholding any political influences.

The 25th Light Infantry division would probably not be deployed with National Guard brigades to fight Chinese forces. It would more likely be a Marine Expeditionary Force (consisting of 3rd Marine Division and elements of the 1st Marine Division, plus a Marine Air Wing), with a US Army Corps consisting of something like the 25th Infantry Division (light), a brigade from the 82nd Airborne, the 101st Air Assault Division, and 3rd Infantry Division (mech). Not to mention the US Navy and Airforce squadrons. And more US Corps could be on the way.

Below is part from the book "This Kind of War" by T.R. Fehrenbach. Outstanding book. The author was a US Army colonel and he commanded US Army units in Korea. I carried this section with me to read while in OIF 1 and 2 for when I thought things were kinda tough.

The capabilites of US infantry weapon technology to Chinese weapons technology was much closer then than it is now. So imagine the battle with the exact same people on both sides, with the same tactical deployments, but armed with 2006 weapons....

On 27 November, as the 7th Marines attacked westward from Yudam-ni, the 5th Marines moved west of the reservoir and joined them. It had first been planned to move only two battalions through Toktong Pass, following with the third on 28 November, but at the earnest suggestion of the motor transport officer, the entire regiment moved together. Thus, at nightfall on 27 November, two full regiments of Marines, less one company holding the high ground above the pass, and a weapons company left at Hajam, were able to operate in conjunction at Yudam-ni.

Before the night passed, both regiments were deep in crisis.

Again the story of one company, one platoon, tells the story of all.

At dark, the seventy men of First Lieutenant John Yancey’s platoon of Easy Company, 7th Marines (my note: all Marine battalions have the same company designations, so Easy, or Echo as it is now called, would be in 2nd battalion, labeled 2/7) was dug in the frozen earth facing north along the brush, rocky slopes of Hill 1282. Each foxhole, painfully scrabbled out of the frozen shale, held two men, and machineguns protected the flanks. Yancey’s platoon was in the middle of the hill, with Bye’s to his left, Clement’s to his right. Behind Yancey’s position the company skipper, Captain Walter Phillips, was positioned with his exec, Lieutenant Ball, to fight the company.

The moon came up, huge and swollen, rising clear and bright over the swirling ground mists. It came up behind Easy Company, silhouetting the company positions for the enemy, but not throwing enough light along the dark corridors to reveal the lurking Chinese. On the hill, the temperature had dropped to twenty below.

Easy’s men heard monstrous shuffling sounds through the dark, as thousands of boots stamping in the snow. They heard sounds, but they could see only ghostly moon shadows.

Yancey asked Ball, on the mortars, to fire star shells.

Ball had little 81 ammo, but he tried. The flares wouldn’t work-lifted from crates stamped “1942”, they fizzled miserably.

“Oh Goddam”, Yancey said. Yancey, as reservist, had been a liquor-store operator in Little Rock when the war broke. He had a baby, born on the day he went ashore at Inchon, whom he had never seen. He had a Navy Cross from Guadalcanal, and he had washed off the mud of Okinawa. He did not consider himself a fighting man. But he had learned his own lessons in a hard school, the hardest there was.

The ranks of the Marines were now diluted with reservists, at least 50 percent. Few of them were mentally prepared to fight, or physically hardened to war. Inchon, luckily had been easy.

But now, on the frozen hills above Yudam-ni, the Marines, regular and reservist alike, faced reality.

Because their officers were tough-minded, because their discipline was tight, and because their espirit- that indefinable emotion of a fighting man for his standard, his regiment, and the men around him, was unbroken- weak and strong alike, they would face it well.

The enemy mortars fell first, bursting with pin-point precision among the foxholes on the forward slope of Hill 1282. Then, in the moonlit hills, bugles racketed, purple flares soared high and popped. The shadows suddenly became men, running at Marine lines.

The Chinese did not scream and shout like the North Koreans. They did not come in one overwhelming mass. They came in squads, yards apart, firing, hurling hand grenades, flailing at the thin line across the hill, probing for a weak spot across which they could pour down into the valley beyond.

Again and again they were stopped; again and again the Chinese bugles plaintively noised the recall. The icy slopes were now littered with sprawled figures in long white snow capes.

Again and again, while the Marine’s guns grew hot, they came back to flail at the hill. Looking down into the shadowy valley, Yancey could see hundreds of orange pinpoints of light, as the enemy sprayed his hill with lead.

The night seemed endless. A grenade exploded close to Yancey, driving metal fragments through his face to lodge behind his nose. Many of his men were hit. Those who could stand continued fighting; those badly hurt were dragged some twenty yards behind the company position, where a hospital corpsman worked over them in the snow.

There was no shouting or crying. Now and then a man gasped, “oh Jesus, I’m hit” or, “Mother of God!” and fell down.

The attacks whipped the hill. By the early hours of morning, most of Easy’s men had frozen noses or frozen feet in addition to their combat wounds. Yancey’s blood froze to his moustache, dried across his stubbled face. Snorting for breath through his damaged nose, he had trouble breathing.

Slowly, painfully, day began to spread over the bleak hills. Now, Yancey thought, surely it must get better, with daylight.

Instead, things grew worse.

A fresh wave of Chinese, in company strength, charged the hill. Yancey’s men fired everything they had-rifles, carbines, machineguns. The Chinese fell in rows, but some came on. At his line of holes, John Yancey met them with as many of his men as he could muster, included many of his wounded. Somehow, he threw them back.

The platoon, all Easy Company was in desperate straits. Captain Phillips, who had carried ammunition to Yancey’s platoon during the night, and who had said again and again, “You’re doing okay, men, you’re doing okay!” took a bayoneted rifle, and ran out to the front of Yancey’s line.

“This is Easy Company!” Walt Phillips said. “Easy Company holds here!” He thrust the bayonet deep into the snowy ground; the rifle butt swayed back and forth in the cold wind, a marker of defiance, a flag to stand by.

The wounded lay helplessly behind Easy Company; there was no way to get them out. And Easy Company was not going to leave its own.

The Chinese came again. Now they stumbled over their own dead, scattered like cordwood a hundred yards down the slope. And on the hill, Americans also fell over their own dead, moving to plug the leaks in the line. Small leathery-skinned men in quilted jackets leaped into the perimeter, and over-ran the command post.

For over an hour, close-in fighting raged all over the hill. The Chinese wave was smashed, but Chinese dropped behind rocks, in holes, and fired at the Marines surrounding them.

John Yancey realized that some sort of counteraction had to be taken to push them out. He ran back of the hill, found a half dozen able men coming up as replacements. “Come with me!”

With the new men, he charged the breach in Easy’s line. His own carbine would fire only on shot at a time; the weapons of two of the replacements froze. The other four dropped with bullets in their heads-the Chinese aimed high.

Beside the CP, Lieutenant Ball, the exec, sat crossed legged in the snow, firing a rifle. Several Chinese rushed him. Ball died.

Now Yancey could find only seven men in his platoon. Reeling from exhaustion and shock, he tried to form a countercharge. As he led the survivors against the broken line, a forty-five caliber Thompson machinegun slug tore his mouth and lodged in the back of his skull. Metal sliced his right cheek, as a hand grenade knocked him down.

On his hands and knees, he found he was blind.

He heard Walt Phillips shouting, “Yancey!, Yancey!”

Somebody he never saw helped Yancey off of the hill, led him back down the rear slope. He collapsed, and woke up later in the sick bay at Yudam-ni, where his sight returned.

Behind him, on Hill 1282, Captain Walt Phillips stood by his standard until he died. Late in the afternoon, a new company relieved Easy; of its 180 men only twenty three came off.

But they held the hill.

Everywhere it had been the same. Dog Company was driven from its hill three times and three times it charged back. Captain Hull, Dog’s skipper, had fourteen men left, and he himself as many wounds.

To the east, above the pass, Barber’s Fox Company was in like shape. Barber was down, but still directing the defense.

Reality had caught up with the Marines, as with all men, but they had faced it well. Everywhere, the Marines had held.

[Battlefront.com]

Oleg, there is no point debating you. You're out of your depth. But to answer one question...

But why would you pay any attention to what I think or say? I am not being ironic - I am really wondering why you, the developer, with plans already being decided upon long ago, waste your time responding here, instead of doing what will ultimately pay your bills?

As the game's designer I am here to watch the tires be kicked. I am looking for people to find flaws with what I've come up wiith, suggest things I haven't thought of, or improve things that would be good as is but now can be better. And that is exactly why I've stopped debating you. You tried to kick the tires and you keep stubbing your toes while claiming to have flattened the tires. What you have therefore reinforced the validity of the storyline, or at least shown that it stands up very well to the flawed arguments you have pushed at it. So in your own way, you've helped make the game better.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

LTC West,

I do agree that NATO's track record of quick-decisions is right up there with the UN's.

I don't know who should be more insulted... the UN or NATO

Oh believe me, I am no fan of NATO's recent history. After watching the war in Yugoslavia unfold I found myself wondering if the Soviets had attacked Germany if NATO would have actually done anything about it or if they would have been on small boats leaving Dunkirk wondering if maybe they had dallied too long.

Whether NATO is in CM:SF or some of the NATO countries makes no difference to me, nor does it make any difference to the game. All NATO countries are participating in Afghanistan (at least I can't think of any one that didn't) and several had some role in Iraq, even though NATO was not involved in either. So if we want to put Germans, Dutch, Italians, or what have you into CM:SF, we can do so "realistically" without having NATO mentioned. The comments about Turkey also stand with or without NATO being relevant to a war in Syria, so that is also unaffected. And even if Turkey would not provide bases for military forces, as is the case in Iraq, an invasion of Syria is still completely possible (forces out of Iraq and through Lebanon via amphib ops).

So NATO in or out... it really doesn't matter. For now I still think I want to keep it part of the backstory, but if it gets yanked out at the last minute... it doesn't change anything.

Steve

[Imperial Grunt]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

LTC West,

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> I do agree that NATO's track record of quick-decisions is right up there with the UN's.

I don't know who should be more insulted... the UN or NATO

Oh believe me, I am no fan of NATO's recent history. After watching the war in Yugoslavia unfold I found myself wondering if the Soviets had attacked Germany if NATO would have actually done anything about it or if they would have been on small boats leaving Dunkirk wondering if maybe they had dallied too long.

Whether NATO is in CM:SF or some of the NATO countries makes no difference to me, nor does it make any difference to the game. All NATO countries are participating in Afghanistan (at least I can't think of any one that didn't) and several had some role in Iraq, even though NATO was not involved in either. So if we want to put Germans, Dutch, Italians, or what have you into CM:SF, we can do so "realistically" without having NATO mentioned. The comments about Turkey also stand with or without NATO being relevant to a war in Syria, so that is also unaffected. And even if Turkey would not provide bases for military forces, as is the case in Iraq, an invasion of Syria is still completely possible (forces out of Iraq and through Lebanon via amphib ops).

So NATO in or out... it really doesn't matter. For now I still think I want to keep it part of the backstory, but if it gets yanked out at the last minute... it doesn't change anything.

Steve </font>

[Oleg Mastruko]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Oleg, there is no point debating you. You're out of your depth. But to answer one question...

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />But why would you pay any attention to what I think or say? I am not being ironic - I am really wondering why you, the developer, with plans already being decided upon long ago, waste your time responding here, instead of doing what will ultimately pay your bills?

As the game's designer I am here to watch the tires be kicked. I am looking for people to find flaws with what I've come up wiith, suggest things I haven't thought of, or improve things that would be good as is but now can be better. And that is exactly why I've stopped debating you. You tried to kick the tires and you keep stubbing your toes while claiming to have flattened the tires. What you have therefore reinforced the validity of the storyline, or at least shown that it stands up very well to the flawed arguments you have pushed at it.

</font>

[Peter Cairns]

Oleg,

How can you be part of this debate and say Steve is Stubborn, it started with me questioning the probability of UN/Nato participation in Syria being probable, and Steve, defending the back story.

All along the arguement has been about possibility v probability, with me for one never denying that it was possible but viewing it as unlikely.

As you could go ahead with CM:SF with US and friends, without the UN/NATO, then they should for me drop them and go with a more realistic and believeable scenario.

We now have Steve, saying that Nato could be pulled from the back story, and given that it's just editing the text not changing the game and can be done the week before it goes to the printers depending on events, thats hardly stubborn from where I stand.

Peter.

[Oleg Mastruko]

Originally posted by Peter Cairns:

We now have Steve, saying that Nato could be pulled from the back story, and given that it's just editing the text not changing the game and can be done the week before it goes to the printers depending on events, thats hardly stubborn from where I stand.

I never said Steve is "stubborn" I just said his way of discussion in recent posts here is immature and he acts like a child. In fact I am well aware we agree on many things - I think every single participant in this thread agrees on NATO being cowardly and indecisive, we may only disagree in perceived degrees of their cowardness and indecisiveness.

Even if we disagree - well who cares, it's a background story for a fictional future (not historic) game. So anything goes. Martians, Chinese, Russians? Well who cares. That's why I think it should be easy to agree to disagree and proceed in friendly manner without resorting to ad hominem attacks.

I don't think Steve is stubborn at all. He is one of those people who will outwardly show childish pride and flamey rhetoric, but will in fact act with great flexibility (perhaps never admitting it). He's much better as game developer than he is as debater or political analyst that's all.

O.

[Peter Cairns]

Well I don't agree that Nato is cowardly, but as an alliance of soverign nations that acts by consensus and unanimity it unfortunately moves only as far and as fast as the most reluctant member, as does the UN.

The problem for both isn't cowardice it's inertia, it just takes so long to get anything done, even when they can all agree to do something. When there was one obvious and simple threat that they could all agree on, ie the Soviet Union, it was fine ( though even then slow and piecemeal), but now in a rapidly changing and multipolar world, it's damn near impossible.

Today, for meanyway, Nato's principle objective is the preservation of Nato and it's unity, Like many big organisations having lost it's purpose it simply tries to perpetuate it's own existance, it has gone from being a means to an end, to an end in itself.

Thats why i think it would agree to let Turkey sit on the sidelines., It would put a higher value on the appearance of unity , even if in like Kosovo and, I feel Afghanistan in the comming years, it compromised military effectiveness.

Peter.

[Battlefront.com]

Oleg,

I never said Steve is "stubborn" I just said his way of discussion in recent posts here is immature and he acts like a child.

Funny, that is how I see your arguments. I addressed every single point of substance with counter substance. I have dodged nothing nor glossed over anything. If you wish to point out where I have disregarded rational points in favor of irrational (childish) responses, go right ahead and point them out.

Peter,

I also agree. With NATO is all about inertia. NATO has still not figured out what it is all about in this post Cold War era. When a pressing situation comes up, they tend to debate. When the pressing situation becomes less pressing, they relax and let the debate peter out. At least that is the way it looks to me. Otherwise I can not explain why 15 years later NATO hasn't presented a clear and deliberate view of its role for the future.

My prediction would be that if a major attack happened within Europe, and a host terrorist state was found responsible, I would expect NATO to act if the affected states requested such action (Spain did not do this after the Madrid bombings, for example). I would not expect, however, for this to clear up NATO's role in general. I think the endless debate would continue long after.

Steve

[Drusus]

I have a feeling that the storyline is going to have a terrorist attack within Europe and Syria will be found responsible. NATO will act based on this...

[akd]

Okay, I'm going to throw in my tidbit regarding storyline vs. game design. Now, as I understand it, the storyline is largely irrelevant to the first CM:SF release. It doesn't really matter what the storyline is, we'll be fighting Syrian regulars and irregulars at the tactical level of a Stryker Bridage's operations.

Now here is my concern: the backstory is, however, important to subsequent releases (although not really the possible inclusion of Marines). So we need NATO participation to include the U.K. and Germany and this participation requires a different storyline than would be needed for only a U.S. campaign. Here's why I think this is bad: will the second release of CM:SF really be U.S. Marines vs. the same Syrian opposition in the same environment, the third be U.K. forces versus the same Syrian opposition in the same environment, and the fourth release German forces versus the same Syrian opposition in the same environment?

In my opinion, dull, dull, dull. If the system is really so modular and adaptable, why not jump right into a completely different scenario for the subsequent release?

[ January 15, 2006, 10:56 AM: Message edited by: akd ]

[Sergei]

Originally posted by akd:

In my opinion, dull, dull, dull. If the system is really so modular and adaptable, why not jump right into a completely different scenario for the subsequent release?

Because a new OPFOR & new environment = more work = bigger delay & price tag. The idea for a module would be that it is smaller, and cheaper, than a whole new game.

But I would agree - why waste time with modules when you could jump right back to WW2 after the initial release!

[Peter Cairns]

I am for an amphibious modules, as I've said, US Marines, Royal marines, French and Italians. In terms of Nations and forces thats enough for a module, ( although no Leopard 2's Iam afraid).

I think water rules and amphib units would be needed if the module was to attract people rather than just new units.

As to why not just WW2, I think BF really want to expand there product line and customer base, and are hoping that a lot of people will buy CM:SF that won't buy a WW2 game and will as time progresses want to give them more of what they want.

Peter.

[flamingknives]

Originally posted by akd:

Okay, I'm going to throw in my tidbit regarding storyline vs. game design. Now, as I understand it, the storyline is largely irrelevant to the first CM:SF release. It doesn't really matter what the storyline is, we'll be fighting Syrian regulars and irregulars at the tactical level of a Stryker Bridage's operations.

Now here is my concern: the backstory is, however, important to subsequent releases (although not really the possible inclusion of Marines). So we need NATO participation to include the U.K. and Germany and this participation requires a different storyline than would be needed for only a U.S. campaign. Here's why I think this is bad: will the second release of CM:SF really be U.S. Marines vs. the same Syrian opposition in the same environment, the third be U.K. forces versus the same Syrian opposition in the same environment, and the fourth release German forces versus the same Syrian opposition in the same environment?

In my opinion, dull, dull, dull. If the system is really so modular and adaptable, why not jump right into a completely different scenario for the subsequent release?

If a WW2 game were released with only US Vs. Germans, would the inclusion of commonwealth units be dull, dull, dull? After all, they'll be fighting the same enemy, same tactics, yada yada.

Nonsense.

Quite apart from anything else, a different toolbox will give different solutions. For example, if the UK were incorporated into a CM:SF modules, you might find that where the Bradley has TOW missiles, Warriors (UK IFV) only has a cannon, and that isn't stabilised. Also the Challenger 2's HESH round could make urban combat very different, and off-map Brimstone salvoes could make a huge difference.

However, that would not stand on it's own. Steve has mentioned in the MGS News thread that different units in different modules are likely to encounter different Syrian units. Therefore it might be possible to see addition Syrian units in later modules.

Additionally, there are user-made scenarios which may possibly be blue-on-blue., red-on-red etc.