US Marines

[akd]

Originally posted by flamingknives:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />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.</font>

[Beastttt]

An attack to restore the previous goverment is not something that is going to draw NATO,UN,or the EU to try and get the USA to lead a charge into Syria

What would get them is a WMD attack by a crazed Syrian leader with a zelot army to follow him

I see a more posible scenario where Syria shoots it's wad on Israel(they close down not going to shoot nukes with the USA so close)take a few frieghters w/VX gas into USA east coast ports and a few meduinm ranged missiles into Europe and the UK with NBC warheads

the trying to stir up as much chaos as possible

and maybe even getting some old enemies to go at each other(could add India and Pakistan to the mix)

Now that a hornest nest has been wound up

you should have a coalition that would go into Syria and just to not leave anybody out Russia

though caught with it's armies out of place are making noise to head south to take control of everything(a reason to leave US heavy units to hold the line to the north)

leaving light units to take on the Syrians

Nato might send some light units to deal with Syria while the heavy stuff moves east to threaten the russian flank

the way I see it the only way get others to go your way is to have them in the same boat as you and in this one everybody gets slapped around and Syria is more of a side show l that starts it all like Serbia in WW I

Originally posted by 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.

[Battlefront.com]

Inteteresting thoughts about what to do about the OPFOR in subsequent Modules. FHF rightly points out that some of the argument about "same enemy, no fun" is off base. Playing on the Western Front, Eastern Front, and Italy in 1944 and 1945 has almost the same German forces in opposition.

Of all the complaints we heard about CMx1 games, I don't recall any finding fault with largely the same German forces in all three games, and almost all the same forces in the CMBB and CMAK. Sure, some TO&E differences, a few unique vehicles in each, and of course different graphics... but by and large the same.

Now, I agree that the wide diversity of German TO&E and equipment means that it takes a long time to play it all out. But with CM:SF, we are expecting most people to play as the attacking force. If the attacking force is completely different from Module to Module, then that is probably enough to interest most people. Even laying out the same exact battle (same map, enemy forces, victory conditions, etc.) with US Stryker forces swapped out for German Panzergrenadiers would be quite interesting to experience IMHO.

Because of the new concept of Titles and Modules we will not move the storyline around the world and timeframes. That involves way too much work for the effort and return of a Module. So it ain't going to happen. What we can do, besides completely swapping out the attacker, is add a few new things to the Syrian side (i.e. regional differences, like BMP-3s being in the path of the Brits but not of the Stryker force) and different terrain characteristics. For example, the US forces will come out of Iraq. The terrain there is fairly featureless at first, then getting rather hilly. An attack out of Turkey would mean fairly significant mountains. An attack through Lebanon would also be rather different.

The way to think of it is like CMBO split up into separate games based on the Allied countries. If you aren't interested in the Brits enough to buy the Brit Module, well, don't buy it. That is the whole concept behind the Modules in the first place. Instead of charging $100 for a game that includes a whole bunch of stuff a player has no interest in, he can instead pick and choose for himself.

Steve

[juan_gigante]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

For example, the US forces will come out of Iraq.

And more of the storyline for CM:SF becomes clear...

[Battlefront.com]

And more of the storyline for CM:SF becomes clear...

Since there will likely still be a sizeable stability force in place throughout 2007, it is really a no brainer. The US and UK are more able to strike out of Iraq than out of Turkey or in the Med Sea at the moment. Not to say that the stabilizing force would be the one to go into Syria. Quite the contrary, I don't think much of it could without screwing up the situation in Iraq even more. But slipping in 50,000 or more additional troops into Iraq is completely doable.

Steve

[Bigduke6]

The crux of the backstory is that Syria harbors major-league terrorists who, being terrorists, successfully kill a LOT of Europeans, and maybe Americans, thereby necessitating a U.S.-led invasion to wipe out the terrorists and the Syrian goverment that's harboring them.

I think it is here that the logic of the backstory has problems. Steve says any criticism of the backstory must show differences between Afghanistan and Syria, in terms of harboring terrorists.

Well, I think that is possible.

Afghanistan is very possibly the wildest country in the world, and in an case the wildest country in Eurasia. The inhabitants of the country have warrior and tribal traditions predating written history. Afghanistan has never been colonialised or, for practical purposes, invaded successfully.

The closest thing to a foreigner success was of course the Mongols (gotta love the Mongols) who swept in, swept onwards, and when some cities revolted against Mongol rule, as is the Afghan tradition, the Mongols returned and killed entire cities. The Mongol destruction of Herat is, to this day, considered in Afghanistan the worst thing foreigners ever did in the country. But to be honest after that the Mongols just collected tribute for a century or so, and the Afghans outside Kabul lived as they pleased, until the Mongols receded, as trying to rule the damn place was not very profitable and a huge head ache.

That's was the best foreigner invaders ever did in Afghanistan. This may explain why the Taliban leadership was willing to bet it was immune to foreign intervention. (Long term they undoubtedly were right, but that's another thread.)

Islam is not just the heart of the Afghan society, it is for practical purposes the only way Afghans receive information about the outside world. Media is pretty much ineffective in Afghanistan; excepting the wealthier citizens of cities, Afghans do not use media. They receive information from mullahs and tribal leaders. Illiteracy is rampant, and what literacy there is most commonly is received through Islam. For practical purposes, centrally-managed education has never functioned in Afghanistan.

The terrain in Afghanistan is among the most rugged inhabited by man. It is also hundreds of kilometers from sea ports or rail heads usable by modern armies.

Most important, in my opinion, is the fact that central government in Afghanistan has never existed beyond the fictional level. Foreign invasion has never worked there but one should not forget that domestic administration has not functioned there, ever, as well. It is impossible to control the Afghan population with a secret police - the bulk of the population is not registered with the central government, often speaks a totally different language than the supposed enforcers of the law from the capital, and tribal bands frequently are better-armed, and more tactically competent, than the forces the central government could send out against them.

And so on. I could go on, but my point is: Afghanistan is just about an ideal environment for a band of criminals - i.e. terrorists - to take up residence. To this day, no one knows exactly how capable the Taliban would have been in eliminating Al Qaeda on its own. It seems like they didn't try. However, if history is any guide at all, one big reason Taliban stood behind Al Qaeda was because the Taliban leadership in Kabul was unable to offer as much cash for loyalty to the Pashto, as Bin Laden and his gang.

Ok, now let's look at Syria. Same or different?

Well, different, obviously, and what's more, from any but an America/Euro-centric point of view, it's hard to find a pair of places more different than Syria and Afghanistan in Eurasia.

Syria is one of the seats of human civilization, and for practical purposes, it is one of the most urban countries in all the Islamic world. Damascus is, as has been repeatedly pointed out in these threads, most likely the oldest continuously-inhabited place on the planet. It is not just a Moslem country. Syria is a place that saw the arrival and departure, over the centuries, of the Assyrian, Persian, Ancient Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Empires, and cultures. Besides the Arab wave of the 8th century there have been the Ottomans, British, and even the French.

All those rulers and all those conquerers, and it is no suprise that Syrian government is organized, and "penetrated" down to a level of the individual, that Afghanistan never was. At mininum, government agents have been actively tracking and, when necessary, repressing the populations of Syria since at least the times of the Romans. Land ownership, in some cases, dates back to the times of Mohammed.

So if any one is assuming the Syrian government is as incapable as an Afghan "government" would be, in hunting down and eliminating an unwanted element, then that person is ignoring an awful lot of Syrian history. The tradition of more or less effective, centrally-controlled, authoritarian government ruling the area we no call Syria, is older than Christianity, and quite possibly Judaism.

Ethnically, Syria is homogeneous in a way Afghanistan never was. Check the CIA fact book for the exact numbers, but talking off the top of my head 80 per cent of the country is ethnic Arab practicing Sunni Islam. For practical purposes there never have been wars between Syrians (ok, the Druze and the Christains might qualify as an exception, but you get my point.) Thus, it it seems to me, the country's population is intolerant of foreigners making trouble in a way Afghan's population would never be: in Afghanistan, a foreigner often is your best ally against your neighbor. In Syria, you want to get ahead, you cosy up with the central government. Making friends with opponents of the central government is a losing proposition.

Intellectually, Syria is, in rough terms, about a millenium ahead of Afghanistan. Television and radio penetration of the Syrian society is pretty much total. Male completion of basic education is close to total, and critically, Syrian education is managed by the central government, which naturally gives a common world view and indeed basic patriotism impossible in Afghanistan outside the wealthy citizens of larger cities. Syrian youth listens to pop music, wears blue jeans, and overall has little personal experience with Kalshnikovs and virtually none in operating as infantry in rough terrain. However, most of them consider operation of a mobile phone or a simple computer game no big deal.

Syria's ports are ancient and have traded with the rest of the world since, well, ships have travelled the Mediterranean. Damascus university is one of the oldest in the world. And so on and so forth.

On the terrain front, Syria is Miami beach compared to Afghanistan. Distances are smaller, mountains are lower, deserts are better watered, and the coastline is one of the oldest hubs on Mediterranean trade.

Now, let's ask: "How easy would it be for a foreign group whose business was terrorism to emplace itself in Syria?"

Well, pretty obviously, very difficult indeed without the active cooperation of the Syria rulers. It is pretty much inconceivable that a foreign group could last any time at all in Syria underground; the secret police have been at their job and people do not move around much: foreigners are going to get spotted and reported. It's not like the Syrian populace is a mass of ignorant zealots ready to sell out to the best offer. Syria has a standard Arab world middle class: They watch Al Jazeera and MTV, live in apartments or houses, usually there is an (extended) family car; and if they break the law, they risk punishment at the hands of the central government. What's worse, the average Syrian thinks attacks on civilians is an evil, obscene thing: the government and the media has trained him to think so, and Israel and the West Bank are right next door. If terrorists kill off several thousand residents of a European city, the average Syrian is going to see television pictures and hear a fair sampling of explainations of why that happened.

This is not a good location for a foreign terrorist network to set up headquarters: Bin Laden has repeatedly condemned the secular, non-spiritual trends in Arab societies like Syria.

Could a foreign terrorist group buy off Syria's rulers? Potentially, certainly the Assad regime is greedy. However, the Assad regime has a long solid tradition of living on Saudi largesse, and of course pocketing a bit of that in Swiss bank accounts in the process. So, if terrorists are going to emplace themselves in Syria, it seems to me they would have to make it worth the Assad government's worth while, and that would mean both topping the Saudis, and then convincing the Assad government the terrorist group was a more profitable paymaster over the long term. It would take a lot of doing to convince any one in the Middle East to dump a Saudi cash cow.

So I just have trouble buying the backstory. The problem is not NATO participation and would the U.S. invade in the wake of a major terrorist attack, but rather, (1) could a major terrorist group set up shop in Syria ? and (2) if that group somehow got operating, and then hit a home run and pumped ten liters of Sarin through the Paris metro, would the Syrian rulers and the Syrian people stand up and say "Yeah, outstanding, now screw the West we will fight rather than hand these terrorists over to you!"

If past behavior of the Assad regime is any guide, they would never countenance the presence of an Al Quada-style group inside Syria; that's a threat to the central government. Even if they did, the idea of supporting super-effective terrorist assaults on western nations (not Lebanese politicians, they can't fight back) is just about a suicidal proposition for the Assad regime. Everything to lose, nothing to gain. So why do it?

If the backstory solution is to wave the designer's magic wand, place a terrorist-friendly fundamentalist leadership in Damscus and punt the Assad family to some exile in Greece, then I just don't get how a critical mass of the Syrian population, which is after all fairly urban and modern, would put up with such lunacy. Maybe if some super-charismatic fundamentalist took over and the masses bought his lies about economic development, and ten years passed. But if the back story posits U.S. invasion in 2007, then how does all modern Syria, a place with its own pop stars fer Pete's sake, "go fundamentalist" in less than twenty months.

I just don't get it. Syria isn't Afghanistan, it isn't even close. Maybe I have a limited imagination.

[Tarquelne]

Now, let's ask: "How easy would it be for a foreign group whose business was terrorism to emplace itself in Syria?"

Reading too much into "like Afghanistan"?

Why a foreign group? Was that specified? And we know that the CM:SF background (at least according to the announcement) will include a coup in Syria.

I've been thinking that the coup would be from within Syria, that the Syrians armed forces would be motivated by nationalism. And that the terrorist act would be one commited by state-sponsord terrorists.

I still wonder just what could happen in Syria to give us such an openly and active anti-Western (or anti-Euro) government in Syria by next year. (OTOH, conspiricies within the military are always popular), but I don't think it'd require the Syrian government to be siezed by an external group, or a major shift in the culture. Just a major shift in the government. Maybe Syria is more stable than I think it is, but to me that seems unlikely but far from impossible.

I'm not sure how much popular support among the Syrian populace would really matter to CM:SF, since it's focused on convential warfare and not insurgency. The Syrian populace could very well be on the UN's side. Or whoever the "Blues" are. But that secret police apparatus you mention might make the rest of the world see an internal solution to Syria's new problems as unlikely.

The backstory element I'm having the most trouble with at the moment is the motivating attack. There's always the "They were stupid or crazy and thought thought they could escape retribution." approach, but I'm hopeing for something different.

Maybe a botched assasination attempt? What was supposed to be a low profile and deniable "execution" in another nation goes bad, resulting in a bunch of innocents getting killed. Rather than surrenduring the new Syrian regime digs in... hmm... CM:SF could have some "blue" Syrian counter-coup forces.

How's that for spicing up a future module? The pro-US/UN Syrians could fight the Russians sent to back the "bad" Syrians, as discussed in another thread.

[ January 16, 2006, 05:26 AM: Message edited by: Tarquelne ]

[Battlefront.com]

BigDuke,

Thanks for the side by side. However, most of the differences are irrelevant in terms of the backstory's requirements. To illustrate, here are the tensions within and with Syria right now:

1. Many are not pleased with Assad. I'm not talking about the rank and file civilian (though that is true too), but powerful military and political figures. The departure from Lebanon was not universally accepted within Syrian power circles. There is always potential for a coup. Several were tried against Saddam, for example, so even in tightly controlled, long running, brutal dicatorships the possibility certainly exists. Whether it manages to take power or not is another question that has no predetermined answer.

2. The messy aftermath of Lebanon is making things even worse for Syria. It would appear that major players in the Syrian government were directly responsible for Hariri's death. It is also suspected they are still messing around in Lebanon through proxies. This means Syria's image abroad is going from terrible to horrible. Those in the #1 group are no doubt concerned about this, though perhaps not for the same reasons (i.e. they don't want to look weak vs. not wanting to look nasty).

3. Syria is acting as a base of operations for terrorism outside of its borders. Has been for a long, long time. Since the terrorists have traditionally been aimed at Lebanese and Israeli targets, the Syrians have largely looked the other way. Basically, as long as the threat was pointed outward it isn't going to do much, if anything, to curb their activities.

4. Up until now the terrorists have had fairly local targets, but that appears to be changing. Hamas in particular is in expansion mode. These terrorist groups are also increasingly working with each other, very losely at present, either directly or by chance.

The rough line of events I see are as such...

1. Terrorist group, based or partly based in Syria, does something the West can not ignore.

2. Assad's government either tries to deny it like the Taliban did, or actually tries to clean out the terrorists as demanded by the West. I am thinking the latter is more likely.

3. The disgruntled elements with the government have had it. Assad screwed up Lebanon and is now caving into to the demands of Western powers.

4. Nationalism, pride, and pure stupidity drive this group to ally (I use the term losely) with the Jihadists, which are obviously also displeased with the turn of events. They launch a coup (note, an INTERNAL coup, not foreign) and succeed in toppling Assad. Assad and his cronies go into exile in Jordan.

5. The new government states that it is not going to give into Western demands and dares the West to attack. Saddam tried this tactic many, many times and it worked MOST of the time. Unfortunately for him, it didn't work very well in 2003 They think the US and UK (in particular) are too preoccupied with Iraq to do anything serious, and they feel the rest of Europe are a bunch of weenies and they won't do anything. But the "weenies" have been pushed a little bit too far and at least some, if not most, are willing to actively support the war in some way shape or form.

6. This stand against the West plays well within Syria and therefore the Coup gains more or less popular support. At least for now, and now is all that matters for a newly installed government. The stand also plays well in other Arab/Islamic countries, which reinforces the mentality that lead to the coup in the first place. In other words, they did it to make a stand, and with others patting them on the back, they figure they have clout.

7. Unfortunately for them, the new government overplays its hand, just as the Taliban did in 2001 and just like Saddam in 1990 and 2003. After much fruitless diplomacy, a war starts.

Now the conditions of the war, such as what to do about Assad in exile, are pretty tricky. Since CM:SF is not concerned about the ramifications of occupation, these details really don't matter much. However, for the story to be complete there must be some accounting for these factors.

Anyway, that's the rough skeleton of events that would lead up to a CM:SF conflict. Please feel free to pick it apart

One thing to keep in mind... predicting any military operation in the near future is extremely difficult. It is hard to imagine how quickly things can go from status quo to full out war. Therefore, it is quite difficult to come up with a "fool proof" storyline simply because it hasn't happened yet. Heck, people argue over past history in fundamental ways, so obviously we're entering territory that basically assumes a certain amount of "you've got to be kidding" reactions. However, of all the possible conflicts within the next couple of years, I think Syria is one of the most likely. China and Russia are absolutely bottom of the heap. Only time will tell what will really happen, so until then we have to do the best we can do with what we have

Steve

[flamingknives]

Originally posted by akd:

In sense, yes it would be. Considering the scope of WWII and the diversity of German forces (not to mention that technical equity and sometimes superiority of equipment), the comparison is not really valid. Let's say, rather, that we get a game that let's us play as a U.S. infantry division during the first month of the Normandy invasion, then six months later, a module that lets us play as a British infantry division in the same scenario, followed later by a module that lets us play as U.S./British airborne divisions in the same scenario. Yeah, that would be an incredibly dull way of going about developing additional content.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />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.

Would be very interesting if they were available upfront. It's not a toolbox if it only has one tool in it.

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.

Okay, the Syrian Army is small, outdated and not at all diverse. Plus, in said thread, Steve has already noted that they are not modelling the full diversity of an already limited TO&E. So this means either 1) they leave even more from Syrian side out of the initial module to justify "new" content for subsequent modules, or 2) they delve into the realm of fantasy and speculation regarding Syrian organization and equipment, something Steve has already indicated is not part of their design philosophy.

</font>

[akd]

Originally posted by flamingknives:

Actually, I think the Syrian set of organisation and equipment is probably much greater than any of the likely opposing forces in theatre.

Well, I suppose restricting comparisons to the potential adversaries in the immediate region of Syria does raise the relative diversity of Syrian organization and equipment a bit, but I never made such a comparison.

So you only want to play the Campaigns? If so, then anything that isn't changed every six months will be boring. I wonder why CMBO was so interesting, despite the TsO&E being largely unchanged throughout the 11 months it covered.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />

p.s. I'm not advocating that they jump right back into WWII. In fact there are other historical scenarios and possible modern ones that would be just as interesting. All I'm saying is that, if after playing U.S. vs. ass-backwards Syrians for 6 months, I'm offered the opportunity to play U.K. vs. ass-backwards Syrians, I'll probably pass. Totally uncreative way to build on this (supposedly) powerful new engine.

How about 2 years in Normandy before getting the chance to play on the Eastern Front? </font>

[flamingknives]

Originally posted by akd:

I'm sorry, but your comparison is tenuous at the best. And it is beyond me how you can see the blue vs. blue possiblities as an advantage of a Syrian opfor campaign. Where is the logic in this?

[edit]Combat Mission: Shock Force takes you from the Syrian border to Damascas throughout 2007 in a fictional near future conflict. Play as US or Syrian, with regular modules adding further forces. Battle across the desert, tackle a village or two, drive through the plains, push into the mountains, and slog it out in cities. CM provides all this and more with its scenarios and operations. And if there is a battle that isn't covered, make it up yourself with the easy to use editor. For those desiring a story-driven game, there is also a Campaign focussing on a US Stryker unit's advance.[/edit]

I guess it's all how you look at it.

I'll probably not touch the campaign, and spend my time messing around with QBs. Just as I played only a few scenarios on the CD for CMBO, CMBB and CMAK.

As for variety: look at APC/IFVs

US Army: Bradley, Stryker, M113.

Syrian Army: BMP1, BMP2, BMP3, BTRs 40, 50, 60 and 152s.

Or MBTs:

US Army: M1A1, M1A2.

Syrian Army: T72, T62, T55/54

[Drusus]

4. Nationalism, pride, and pure stupidity drive this group to ally (I use the term losely) with the Jihadists, which are obviously also displeased with the turn of events. They launch a coup (note, an INTERNAL coup, not foreign) and succeed in toppling Assad. Assad and his cronies go into exile in Jordan.

I don't know what you mean by Jihadists, but I find it unlikely that the miliraty leaders would ally with them to make the coup. After all, they don't propably need them. What the leaders of the coup need is that some of the other military leaders are with them and almoust nobody is with Assad. I think it is more likely that the coup leareds would ally with the Jihadists _after_ the coup to stabilize the country. Ofcourse my opinion might be a bit more credible if I actually knew anything about Syria...

5. The new government states that it is not going to give into Western demands and dares the West to attack. Saddam tried this tactic many, many times and it worked MOST of the time. Unfortunately for him, it didn't work very well in 2003 They think the US and UK (in particular) are too preoccupied with Iraq to do anything serious, and they feel the rest of Europe are a bunch of weenies and they won't do anything. But the "weenies" have been pushed a little bit too far and at least some, if not most, are willing to actively support the war in some way shape or form.

Interestingly enough in Spain the opposite happened. When they were attacked, they withdrew from Iraq. I think if the threat is continuous, not just one attack, and it is clear that Syria is actively supporting the terrorists and you can't get out of the "danger zone" by not supporting the war in Iraq, then why not. Attacks against France (as they are evil opressors of muslims...) would be something that most of the Europeans would see as being too much to tolerate. Attacks against UK might be seen (at least in parts of the population) as something they could have avoided if they weren't in Iraq.

7. Unfortunately for them, the new government overplays its hand, just as the Taliban did in 2001 and just like Saddam in 1990 and 2003. After much fruitless diplomacy, a war starts.

I am not trying to say that Saddam didn't overplay his hand in 2003, but I am interested to find out what exactly he did to start the war? I think he was actually more cooperative in 2003 than before, unfortunately for him the world situation had changed so that his time was over.

If I had been Saddam I would have destroyed the rest of the WMDs to avoid the war...

Overall I think the plot seems to be credible, the biggest problem I see with it is that the coup leaders seems to be really stupid people with no idea about international politics... If the plot is really so that they are openly supporting terrorists, it means that they actually want to start a war against USA. Then the other problem I see with this is that I don't know how likely an alliance between Jihadists and military generals is. But it might be because I don't know enough about Syria.

[Battlefront.com]

Druss,

I think it is more likely that the coup leareds would ally with the Jihadists _after_ the coup to stabilize the country. Ofcourse my opinion might be a bit more credible if I actually knew anything about Syria...

Actually, I agree That was another variant of the plot and, quite frankly, I forgot about it. At least the overt allying would happen after when it was clear they overplayed their hand. As BigDuke rightly points out, the Syrian government is largely secular by Jihadist/Islamist definitions. But the potential to use Islam as a rallying call against the West is too obvious. Saddam did it during the war with Iran and certainly did it as the buildup to OIF was heavily underway. In his case it didn't work so well for the initial phase, but it certainly has been quite difficult for the occupation phase.

Interestingly enough in Spain the opposite happened. When they were attacked, they withdrew from Iraq.

Incorrect. 75% of the Spanish people were opposed to the war and their country's involvement. The opposition specifically platformed on withdrawing from Iraq. The attacks in Madrid did nothing to change anybody's opinion about that. If no bombings had happened and the opposition won (and they very well might have), Spanish troops would have been pulled out. The bombings simply reinforced what was already there.

Also look at what happened in London. Bombings there for the same reason as bombings in Madrid. UK forces are still very much in Iraq. The population is inreasingly unhappy with any of this, but this is true in America and there have been no attacks at all.

I am not trying to say that Saddam didn't overplay his hand in 2003, but I am interested to find out what exactly he did to start the war?

He didn't do anything to start the war. All he did was help provide the excuse for the war. If he had not played games with the UN inspectors for so many years, and instead made SURE that Iraq lived up to the conditions that ended the Gulf War, the Bush/Blair reasons for war would have been clearly unfounded. As it was a large segment of both populations, and even larger segments of other countries, didn't fully believe the reasons for going to war. Just imagine what would have been the case if there was no room for doubt?

Overall I think the plot seems to be credible, the biggest problem I see with it is that the coup leaders seems to be really stupid people with no idea about international politics...

The history of the world is filled with idiots in command Just for examples, the Taliban thinking they had "plausible deniability" and regional safety, the coup plotters who tried to overthrow Gorbachev, Saddam for pissing off his former backers, Egypt when it closed the Suez, Noriega when he played both sides of the fence, the leadership of South Africa's Apartheid for thinking they could get away with the status quo forever, Ceausescu for not realizing it was over, so on and so forth. Oh yeah, the Bush and Blair Administrations for completely and utterly underestimating the costs and problems of occupying Iraq despite what history and common sense indicated was more or less likely.

If the plot is really so that they are openly supporting terrorists, it means that they actually want to start a war against USA. Then the other problem I see with this is that I don't know how likely an alliance between Jihadists and military generals is. But it might be because I don't know enough about Syria.

Under normal circumstances, an alliance would be highly unlikely. Their presence in Syria is seen as beneficial only so long as their influence locally is kept to a minimum. By extending a hand to them, even covertly, to help thwart an invasion... things would have to be pretty bad, I think.

So I guess the more likely scenario is that the coup happens without terrorist support. After the coup they realize that war is pretty much inevitable if they don't do something radical. They think perhaps they can scare off the West by demonstrating they will be 1000 times worse than Iraq to occupy. This would certainly work if there wasn't a strong reason to invade, but knowing the American mentality I can say for sure it won't do squat if America feels it needs to do it (I didn't say the average person!). Knowing what I know of major European countries, I'd say it is similar though with differen thresholds. American is said to be slow to anger, the Europeans are slow to be even mildly upset But in the end, both will fight like demons if they feel they must. Heck, look at how hard they fight even when their isn't popular support at home!

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

AKD,

Totally uncreative way to build on this (supposedly) powerful new engine.

No, it is a completely practical way The impractical way would be to spend a year making a game set in 2008 with slightly different forces in slightly different terrain instead of doing a WWII game. Or spending another year making a "toolbox" modern wargame and delaying the WWII game. Or not making anything but a matchup between US Stryker based forces and Syrians even though we have some ability to do more without screwing up the WWII version's time table.

Real life is full of choices. I think our strategy of releases is the best one out there. People will get to play out a modern scenario with several different, and might I add largely ignored, modern forces in a realistic and topical setting. Yet they will still get a WWII game within a year. Then more WWII settings before the next major release (whatever that may be) and that third release in a reasonable length of time. That is where the power of the new game engine will shine, not being distracted by major efforts to make only (relatively) minor topical changes.

Steve

[Bigduke6]

Steve,

I think current events have placed Syria close to the top of the U.S. potential target list, and if that isn't a good justification for a computer wargame, then playing with tin soldiers isn't fun.

I think your scenario is a bit overcomplicated, and so, further from RL than it needs to be. Try this on for size:

1. Somehow two to four barrels of Syrian-manufactured sarin, phosgene, mustard gas, whatever, gets into the hands of a criminal gang operating in west Syria and Lebanon, with links (like all criminal gangs in those parts) to the Syrian secret police. Not Al Qaeda at all.

2. One barrel of agent makes its way as cargo to a European seaport not exactly known for their rigorous customs efforts, and coincidentally in countries with troops in Iraq. Naples. One barrel is popped in Naples, about 1,000 dead. Europe wrings its hands. The guys in the white lab coats are sure it came from Syria, Assad denies everything.

2. A high-price cruise ship filled with British, French, and German tourists is hijacked in Cypriot waters, are exposed to the agent, and several hundred more dead. Europe wrings its hands again. The white lab coat guys finger Assad again. This time he admits an unfortunate breach in the chemical weapons security, but promises everything is fine. No he won't accept inspectors, Syrian sovereignty is Syrian sovereignty, we'll handle this problem internally. Mossad meanwhile has decided the Syrian secret service is somehow involved, although exactly how is not clear.

Actually the problem is it is not at all clear how subordinate these criminal groups, and indeed the secret police working with them, are subordinate to the Assad government. Assad can't admit this, of course. Mossad knows this but it's in Israeli interest to make Assad take a hit, so they keep quiet. The U.S. and European decision makers know this as well, but they are unable to explain the subtlties of double-crossing Syrian secret police to their well-fed populaces, who are ignorant: they think terrorists are just in international organzations like the Illuminati.

So the issue gets simplified on CNN: Will Assad do what the international community wants him to do?

3. It's final formation for 5/8 Cavalry after a deployment to west Iraq, they've got the whole troop there plus their Iraqi buddies and translators and so forth. It's a national guard outfit out of central Texas. Kind of gray and drizzly, bit of breeze, every one is in their BDUs. Naturally security is out and every one's ready for the car bomb. These are pros after all. But not the invisible cloud of gas drifting for over there - guess what, U.S. sniffer dogs aren't trained to smell out poison gas traces! 5/8's protective masks are in perfect order, but over there in housing. About 150 U.S. dead, 500 Iraqis, three times the casualties.

Even worse, in the BBC has pictures of the bodies in the sand out to its sattelites; they were watching the whole thing through telephoto lenses. Terrible images of soldier after soldier sniffing, choking, and going down thrashing in the sand as the gas sweeps through their ranks. Fox is in central Texas interviewing relatives of victims hours before the White House comes up with a statement.

4. The U.S. eventually tells Assad he will take orders from the international community on how to deal with the poison gas problem, to include a shutdown of his plants by international inspectors, and he will do it now or else. Assad, knowing full well a Syria without chemical weapons is a Syria unable to stop Israel, and in any case knowing once the Americans take over he is history and will have to work for a living, says "up yours, the Arab world is behind Syria."

The U.S. invades, with however many Europeans you want to assign along with them, to destroy Syria's chemical weapons stock and its ability to produce more in the future. Europe wrings its hands but too many influential people got bumped off in the cruise ship, so they go along for the ride. The Syrian army has a great reason to fight, and loyally.

So not only do you have decent casus belli all the way around, you have Afrika Korps II in the next module. Desert-painted Leopards any one?

The advantage of this backstory, I think, is that it is straightforward. Threat identified in Syria, an existing Syrian government unable/unwilling to remove the threat, the U.S. is unable/unwilling to do anything but go to war, and in fact diplomacy will not solve the problem. No one knows how much nerve gas is loose, so you have civilian panic helping drive the decision-making process. No need to figure out how Assad got to be in exile, or how a coup took place when his whole government is set up to prevent coups.

The causes are very simple: a chaotic situation inbetween Syria and Lebanon, and deadly results for third parties because Damascus can't fully control the chaos, and nevertheless attempts to exploit it to its own ends. And then war because no one can figure out what the best way to deal with the threat, and war is the automatic last resort.

If you don't use the backstory, maybe I'll write a spy novel...nah.

[MikeyD]

When writing the backstory you should stick with the classics. One of Assad's virile young sons visits Washington, seduces the one of the Bush daughters and whisks her back to Damascus. Bush raises a grand coalition to retrieve his 'kidnapped' (cough cough) daughter. The epic battle begins.

This story has the benefit of being apolitical, and being so goofy that nobody (except Bush) could possibly take offense. It would also be a good excuse to stage a landing from the Mediterranean side. The respective commanders could have names like Col. Jimmy 'Ajax', Major 'Hector' Sanchez, Lieutenant 'Paris' Hilton. :eek:

[Battlefront.com]

BigDuke,

First, let me put one of your last comments first:

The advantage of this backstory, I think, is that it is straightforward. Threat identified in Syria, an existing Syrian government unable/unwilling to remove the threat, the U.S. is unable/unwilling to do anything but go to war, and in fact diplomacy will not solve the problem.

This is an excellent description of what the backstory needs to satisfy, whatever that story is. We need a plausible situation that puts both sides, unable and or unwilling, to do anything but engage in military conflict.

In this respect it is identical to Iraq as well as Afghanistan. What I mean by that is that Saddam was unwilling (far more than unable) to take the wind out of the US/UK's sails, which were so obviously full speed a head for war by the close of 2003. Likewise, the US/UK were not willing (far more than unable) to find alternatives to full out war. It is the most common reason for an actual conflict, though the specifics can be quite different (like Afghanistan compared to Iraq).

Now, clearly both of our stories satisfy this simple equation. Therefore, on the surface both are equally good.

My concerns about the WMD aspect are twofold:

1. WMD is the "reason" for the war in Iraq. The term itself has become quite loaded and potentially troublesome for the story from a PR standpoint. Obviously in your story the WMD actually exist and are in fact used, so that distances the story from Iraq by leaps and bounds since if Iraq had even had the weapons the public perception of the war would be significantly different. Whether they used them or not wouldn't have mattered.

2. What is Syria's incentive for letting others use something to further their own ends when it is clear that Syria will shoulder the blame and responsibility? I'm not just talking about the official government, but the Syrian elements involved in the attacks? I even have a hard time picturing them using it against the Lebanese out of fear of immediate reprecutions.

Now, your story does have a lot of similar elements to the one we've got on paper. It is possible to combine the two, which is similar to something we toyed with a few years ago and disgarded. And that is:

1. Terrorist group within Syria gets ahold of WMD of some sort (likely a gas based agent). Probably without the direct involvement of the Syrian government, but rather criminal elements within. A couple of tins sold here and there, perhaps a barrel in one go.

2. Terrorist group uses the weapon in a separate attacks in several places within a short period of time. 100 people dead in Paris, 200 in Berlin, 50 in Amsterdam, 500 at a soccer match somewhere, etc. This is in keeping with MO of terrorist groups past and present (Red Army Faction, Al Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbolah, etc.).

3. No one event triggers the call to arms. Rather, it is the cumulative effect and the realization that it could go on indefinitely if the supply isn't shut off.

4. The source of the WMD is located through typical means of triangulation. Syria has the WMD, Syria has the connections to terrorism, and evidence is uncovered that makes it clear that is where it came from.

5. Syria is confronted and Assad tries to blow it off. He refuses to submit to inspectors or whatever is demanded of it because "we have done nothing wrong" is the offical response.

6. An ultimatum is given to Syria to hand over specific persons and to some sort of controls for their weapons (most likely the destruction of them).

Now... here is where things get kinda tricky. What happens next? Assad and his government realize that they have a choice to make. Either they act to preserve their regime and lose the WMD and face, or they lose the regime, WMD, and face. The choice at this point should be very, very plain. Therefore, two possibilities exist:

7a. If Assad and his government are complete morons, they will snub the ultimatum and prepare for war because it is clear that will happen. At this point there is no illusions about bluffing their way out of it. That was at stage #5 above and it didn't work.

7b. Assad and his government realize that this is the end of the road for them if they don't cave in. So they try and put a positive spin on it and agree to finally do as is required of them. If they were not sincere about this they would have gone with 7a since publically accepting the terms (no matter what their real intentions are of carying them out) causes all sorts of problems for them. And if they aren't sincere, the problems likely mean military action anyway.

If we go with 7a then the #8 is straight forward conflict. Nothing more to it than that. If we go with 7b, then #8 has to be a coup by people who are more proud than they are smart. This would be followed by #9 which is a military conflict.

So really, the only difference is if there is an extra stage in the story. My personal gut feeling is that Assad would cave in when it was clear there was no alternative. The fate of Saddam, hiding in a hole and then being dragged into court, would be VERY fresh in his mind. The likely fate of the regime itself would be on the minds of many who help run the regime. So I do find it difficult to imagine Assad making the same fateful mistake that Saddam made. Therefore, I personal lean towards the coup stage.

Further thoughts?

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

Hehe... Mikey, that is a good one. Since Bush's daughters are already well known troublemakers, the story should hold water!

Steve

[aka_tom_w]

Doesn't Bush have twin daughters?

So then doesn't that Assad kid need to wisk them BOTH back to Syria and then post porno pics of himself and the twin "hotties" at the prince's palace on the internet!

(that should about do it to cause an invasion I think)

he he

-tom w

[Bigduke6]

Steve,

I think Assad would fight rather than collaborate for lots of reasons:

1. Fighting is the Syrian way. The "national character" is obstreperous, self-centered, and prideful, in a way that the Lebanese and say Egyptian is not.

2. From Assad's point of view the gravy train is over the moment the Americans cross the border. If it's even U.N. inspectors, he is exposed as a weakling and a collaborator with the big powers; a very bad thing to be in a country like Syria, with its colonial tradition. His future at best is exile in Greece or Argentina somewhere for the rest of his life. Once you let people like that in, unfettered, they dismantle your secret police and system of control; because if you don't let them, there is no way they will be convinced the WMDs are safe.

3. If the Americans go in militarily, then obviously they will crush the Syrian army. But Syria is a "good Arab" nation in ways Saddam never was; they can count on Saudi support of some kind, hopefully their "Lebanese brothers" would stand by them (hah!), and most importantly the Syrian populace would stand behind Assad. They would know the deal: if WMDs got loose, it was because something dirty was going on, but whatever it was removing Assad and letting the foreigners in won't solve the problem. Also, 40 years with Israel on your border slants the mind-set.

So the hope would be to hurt the U.S. and win the insurgency. Sure Saddam got caught, but Bin Laden didn't, and Assad has friends Saddam didn't. Assad's family has fought Israel since the beginning; that's worth a lot in the Arab world. Assad could get asylum in Saudia Arabia easy, I would think, and that's a springboard to return.

With Lebanon next door you can bring people and weapons in and out of an occupied Syria almost at will; even the Israelis can't keep the Lebanese from smuggling. With Assad's secret police all over Lebanon, and indeed probably running its own mobster rings, it's a no-brainer to exploit that in resisting the Americans.

4. After all, from the Syrian POV the Iraqi insurgency seems to have every chance of succeeding in its main goal of forcing the Americans to leave Iraq.

From a practical point of view if you have a coup then you have to deal with the problem of an allegedly coherent Syrian defense effort, with the military leadership personally appointed by Assad. The brigade commanders and up, the secret police, the provincial bosses, they're all Assad appointees. Their participation in a revolt against Assad is less likely, IMO, than their support of Assad in "standing up" to the Americans.

5. Then there's the "long-term" factor. Out doesn't mean out forever. I guarantee you Saddam hasn't given up hope. Sure he's being tried, and maybe even they'll sentence him, but as long as it's not the death penalty he has a chance of a comeback. All it takes is an act of parliament, and "reversals of justice" are is very possible in a disfunctional democracy.

You would think Assad would have the same attitude: If worst comes to worst you are jailed by the Americans until such time as the Americans get tired and go away, and then your supporters free you. You can go to jail pretty fast in the Near East, but if you know the right people, you can get out even faster. And finally, he knows no other life than running Syria. That does things to a person's mind-set.

[Splinty]

5. Then there's the "long-term" factor. Out doesn't mean out forever. I guarantee you Saddam hasn't given up hope. Sure he's being tried, and maybe even they'll sentence him, but as long as it's not the death penalty he has a chance of a comeback. All it takes is an act of parliament, and "reversals of justice" are is very possible in a disfunctional democracy.

I'm pretty sure that Saddam is going to hang. The new Iraqi Government (such as it is)DOES have a death penalty. And the Shiites and Kurds wouldn't stand for him getting just life in prison.

[Imperial Grunt]

Here is a cool video of 3rd Bn, 1st Marines during Fallujah 2. I hope the combat in CM:SF looks like this.

Takes a minute to load but worth it.

3/1 in Fallujah

[Drusus]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Incorrect. 75% of the Spanish people were opposed to the war and their country's involvement. The opposition specifically platformed on withdrawing from Iraq. The attacks in Madrid did nothing to change anybody's opinion about that. If no bombings had happened and the opposition won (and they very well might have), Spanish troops would have been pulled out. The bombings simply reinforced what was already there.

Also look at what happened in London. Bombings there for the same reason as bombings in Madrid. UK forces are still very much in Iraq. The population is inreasingly unhappy with any of this, but this is true in America and there have been no attacks at all.

On the other hand these attacks didn't raise a lot of will to fight against the terrorists on their soil. This is what your storyline needs to happen. As said before I think it can happen. I think the terrorist attacks need to be accompanied by a declaration of war. And they need to target also countries which didn't do anything to deserve it. In short, I think it should be clear to the governments of the countries that their only way to stop the attacks is to attack Syria. After all, europeans do have a very strong tendency to go for diplomatical solutions. Seal of Syria and wait for

revolution. Or miracle...

The history of the world is filled with idiots in command Just for examples, the Taliban thinking they had "plausible deniability" and regional safety, the coup plotters who tried to overthrow Gorbachev, Saddam for pissing off his former backers, Egypt when it closed the Suez, Noriega when he played both sides of the fence, the leadership of South Africa's Apartheid for thinking they could get away with the status quo forever, Ceausescu for not realizing it was over, so on and so forth. Oh yeah, the Bush and Blair Administrations for completely and utterly underestimating the costs and problems of occupying Iraq despite what history and common sense indicated was more or less likely.

Many times even smart people do stupid things. Usually they calculate things wrong. Attacking Russia has been many times that stupid thing. One has to take into account that sometimes the things that seems to be absolutely stupid might only be so when looking from a distance. With the knowledge the leaders had in the situation they were it might have seem to be a smart thing, but whoops... Also in the situation the leaders are it might be that they have no other choice that continue to hope things will continue to be well, even if it is clear that it is all over.

Now the problem that I see with the storyline is that the Syrian commanders seems to be suicidical, not only stupid or calculating wrong. What I mean that if you stand in front of a train moving 100km/h and hope it will stop, it is suicidical. If you think that you can drive over that crossing fast enough to not be hitten by the train that is stupid. And this kind of calculating wrong is suprisingly common, actually I think it is the way most train accidents happen in Finland.

I think that if the leaders of Syria are supporting Jihadists who are attacking European countries and declaring a terror war against Europe then that is suicidical. Like standing in front of a train. They must know that at least the US has no other option than attacking a country that is openly supporting terrorists who have done attacks against masses of civilians, maybe with WMDs. The Bush administration has been so strongly against terrorism that if they would leave Syria alone in this kind of situation, well, I can't even imagine what would happen.

So there are two different paths I can see. The first one is that the leaders already know that they are going to be attacked. So they want the support of the Jihadists in the war. They just hope that they can exist still another day... They know that the end is coming but all their choices are bad. So fight till the last soldier so that the generals can live one day more... And why not support the Jihadists too, so that even they are fighting for the generals.

The other way is that they calculate wrong. Maybe they support the Jihadists hoping that they won't do anything else than speak and support the war in Iraq. The generals support the Jihadists because they need every bit of support to stop the "Assadists" to do a counter revolution. Being with Jihadists that support the AIF in Iraq could still be something that they could hope to get away with. Then the Jihadists decide to take one step further and with the help of one of the generals (there must be a crazy general in the storyline, after all...), they get WMDs and use them in Europe. Suddenly a war against Syria seems likely. Backing out of this situation might be impossible to do. If you try to, you will lose the only supporters you have left in Syria. If you don't you will be attacked by NATO. Well, we all know what they are going to do.

[Cpl Steiner]

Originally posted by LtCol West:

Here is a cool video of 3rd Bn, 1st Marines during Fallujah 2. I hope the combat in CM:SF looks like this.

Takes a minute to load but worth it.

3/1 in Fallujah

Interesting to see one of the Marines using a captured AK. Probably just for the camera, but it would be nice if CM:SF had the option of including a few captured weapons.

By the way, all this discussion about the backstory has centered on what would be a plausible reason for Syria to piss off the West.

Why not turn it around and think of plausible reasons why the West would like "regime-change" in Syria.

I don't mean to sound too cynical, but a good plot would be that the West wants a pipeline through the country or something and cooks up the evidence to invade!

Seriously though, maybe some sort of twist at the end of the campaign could suggest that not all that the player was told about the war was necessarily true.

[akd]

Originally posted by Cpl Steiner:

Interesting to see one of the Marines using a captured AK. Probably just for the camera, but it would be nice if CM:SF had the option of including a few captured weapons.

From "What Our NCOs Are Saying: Combat-Veteran Marines Relay Experiences at Lessons-Learned Conference," Leatherneck, December 2005:

Nearly all of the NCOs (all of the infantry NCOs) had received training in enemy weapons prior to combat operations. They used captured AK47s from time to time, particularly when they perceived a need to fire through walls or ceilings.