Play balance...turkey shoot?

[aleader]

This has probably been hashed over ad nauseum somewhere else on the site, but a search didn't turn up what I was looking for. That being some assurance that this game won't be like the IRAQ thingy over there.

I don't really feel like fending off suicide bombers, booby traps, and hasty ambushes all game. I also can't see the fun in endless missions consisting of rooting out rag-tag groups of terrorists. I can understand sticking to the realistic conflict, but it doesn't strike me as 'fun' to play. A real war with Syria would be more of the same: army gets wiped out in a week, next 10 years spent 'rebuilding' (i.e. securing neigbour's oil supply ).

So I guess what I'm getting at is will there be the option to play QB's with similarly matched forces\equipment? I'm thinking Leopards\T-90's vs M1's, large scale battles, not just urban search and destroy missions. I love modern equipment and the choice BF made to go there, so can someone please allay my concerns :confused: ?

[rudel.dietrich]

Originally posted by aleader:

So I guess what I'm getting at is will there be the option to play QB's with similarly matched forces\equipment? I'm thinking Leopards\T-90's vs M1's, large scale battles, not just urban search and destroy missions. I love modern equipment and the choice BF made to go there, so can someone please allay my concerns :confused: ?

Not to speak for BF or be rude, but this game is probably not for you.

I think they are going for a realistic angle here which means that the player will spend many missions rooting out infantry armed with primative weapons.

The trick will be to keep casulties to a minimum and do it within a reasonable time frame.

You can create a straight up battle if you want and give Syria the best weapons they have in unrealistic quanities.

But I suspect it would still be a one sided affair.

You can play blue vs blue and red vs red battles and those might be fun for you and other fans of 'fair' battles.

But the truth of the matter is that the a real war would be anything but fair.

On oneside you have the US able to bring in massive amounts of firepower and the best of everything.

On the other a Syrian side who has terrian and a defenisve war to its advantage along with the advange of being able to use asymetirc warfare.

Not fair and not a walk in the park for either side.

It will be destructive and bloody.

If that does not sound fun, then this may not be the game for you.

[ September 04, 2006, 10:33 PM: Message edited by: rudel.dietrich ]

[YankeeDog]

I think Rudel's mostly answered the question, but to add my $.02:

Unless I've read Steve's comments to date totally wrong, you will not be able to pit T-90s or Leopards against M1s. AFAIK, Syrians have neither T-90s nor Leopards. Ergo, neither is likely to show up in the game.

So I wouldn't expect much in the way of interesting, open terrain armor warfare in CM:SF. This doesn't mean I think most of the scenarios provided with the game will be turkey shoots; the challenge just won't be besting comprably equipped armor forces, but rather in dealing with a canny foe that uses favorable defensive terran to force assymetrical matchups in its favor.

One consolation: BFC has intimated that they are going to allow Blue on Blue, and Red on Red as battle options. So if you want an even, armor vs. armor fight, you can play M1s vs. M1s, or T-72 vs. T-72s, etc. Hard to get more even than that. . .

Cheers,

YD

[Battlefront.com]

I think Rudel and YankeeDog have summed things up well enough. Except they forgot to point out that Syria has no oil to speak of these days

I'll post another bone about this topic. Look for thread entitled "First Scenario Bone".

Steve

[aleader]

You may be right, it may not be for me. My post may come off like I'm a wargame noob, but I'll match my record in CM PBEM victories against anyone's...ok, maybe not Fionn's . I'm just saying that soaking up the sun in an Abrams waiting to be attacked by suicide bombers might not make for the greatest gaming experience one can envision.

Slamming T-72's in SBPro with M1's is realistic when playing the Easting scenarios, but it gets old pretty quick. Much more interesting is squaring off in a MP match with M1's vs Leopards, or even T-90's on a well-designed map. I'm not saying SF won't be a stellar game, but make me a believer. You're right, an AAR may go a long way towards that Steve. I suspect though that TOW (the long-awaited 'what Close Combat could have been') may be more what I've been pining for.

And I was referring to the US attacking Syria to shore up security so that IRAQI oil may flow smoothly...to benefit the IRAQI people of course

[Battlefront.com]

Note that you can play Blue on Blue and Red on Red with CM:SF.

For the most part, CM:SF will be all about the infantry. The US overmatches any piece of hardware out there on the battlefield today when you're talking vehicle on vehicle matchups. And thanks to Javelin, it doesn't even need tanks to take out tanks at 2500m (that is if something in the sky doesn't zap it first). So very quickly any conflict with any Soviet/Russian/Chinese armed force would skip from armor to infantry combat in the blink of a tactical eye. And thanks to things like RPG-29, the US armor that shoots up the other side's stuff won't be looking forward to helping the infantry out.

I'm just saying that soaking up the sun in an Abrams waiting to be attacked by suicide bombers might not make for the greatest gaming experience one can envision.

Don't confuse Iraq with a potential matchup with Syria. Don't confuse reactionary counter insurgency with high temp combat operations. I say this because I think you are doing both Look at what happened to the IDF in Lebanon, look at what the Marines and Army went through in Fallujah. Then picture an enemy force that equipped and trained the former and learned from the latter. It's a matchup that would be so interesting that we should all hope it never, ever happens.

Steve

[C'Rogers]

A couple things that have been brought up in previous threads that didn't really get talked about here.

One of the major strengths of the US military is the strength of its command structure, while many recent opponents it has gone up against have not been not nearly on the same level. However as players will be replacing the command structure this means that the Syrians can be played much stronger than they may in an actual conflict (and as Steve is fond of sighting, people playing the US may do in a much poorer fashion).

Also CM:SF is on a much narrower time frame then previous CM games. Whether the US/UN will win the war is not really in doubt. However as the lead element in the attack the US forces are at high risk of suffering unacceptable losses. If you consider that they may also be proceeding, for whatever political reason, at a faster than safe speed the potential for a losing battle is very realistic.

Asymetrical victory conditions are also a strong element and don't necessarily equate to 'suicide bombing'. The Abrhams might be able to dominate every other Syrian tank but if losing it is considered near unacceptable the US player may not be able to fully deploy it as he would see fit if score was handled in normal CMx1 fashion.

I'm just saying that soaking up the sun in an Abrams waiting to be attacked by suicide bombers might not make for the greatest gaming experience one can envision.

I think you have the wrong idea of the game. I am very much looking forward to CM:SF but if it turns out to be anything like the way you envision it I, and I imagine most others, would be highly disappointed.

True there may be many reasons to dislike the game even though you are a fan of the other games. If you are primarily only interested in WWII, you like tank on tank battles, or prefer even on even foces in meeting engagement scenarios, yeah this doesn't seem to be playable. But if your main worry is about an insurengency based game where your biggest threat is suicide bombers I don't think CM:SF will disappoint.

But I guess the proposed AAR will shed more light.

[Cpl Steiner]

Out in the open desert I think the game will be a turkey shoot from the US perspective. However, US military planning for decades was that fighting in urban areas nullified all of its tactical and strategic advantages, and for that reason should be avoided. For years, US forces trained for a war in which urban areas would be bypassed altogether. Only relatively recently has the US finally come to the realization that in an increasingly urbanized world, street or house to house fighting cannot be avoided and therefore has to be planned for.

Thus, to my mind, the game will only become interesting in scenarios in which the US has to clear a block of a town or city. In such an environment US armour will be very vulnerable, air-power will be less effective, and it will fall largely to the infantry to flush out the enemy, house by bloody house, just as in Fallujah. This is obviously why we have had snippets from Battlefront about MOUT operations and about how detailed the urban environment will be in the new game compared to CMx1. I am looking forward to the game and to getting my ass kicked the first time I take a Stryker platoon into down-town Damascus!

[rudel.dietrich]

I also think the sucess of failure of the game will be up to scenario designers.

If they can do a good job and present challenging scenarios then I think the game will be sucessful.

I already have dozens of ideas if I can learn the scenario editor

[Darkmath]

How about some "what if" units? Since it has a fictionnal background, why not include Leopard 2 provided by the Germany (as the Iraki Supercanon in 1990 ) ?

[flamingknives]

I'd guess that it's not going to be that fictional.

Nonetheless, I expect to see USMC and probably the British Army in future modules. Maybe the Germans woould get a look-in as well, then we could play blue-on-blue to our hearts content. The "which is the best modern tank" debates would be beyond horrendous though...

[Battlefront.com]

Having the Syrians with a T-80 would be a break from reality, but going to a Leo-2 would be ridiculous

If things to as I would like, we'll have Modules that cover USMC, British (probably a mix of unit types), and "Mixed". By the latter I mean the plethora of nations that are built using pretty much stock equipment from the UK, Germany, and the US. On a personal note, I would LOVE to simualte the Italian Army. They have some top notch stuff that people hardly talk about. But I'm thinking that likely won't happen just because the timeline stretches out way too far.

Steve

[Nicdain]

On a personal note, I would LOVE to simualte the Italian Army. They have some top notch stuff that people hardly talk about.

:cool:

thanks Steve

But I'm thinking that likely won't happen just because the timeline stretches out way too far

OH NO! Not even in the very last module of CM:SF?

[ September 05, 2006, 01:23 PM: Message edited by: Nicdain ]

[ParaBellum]

The "turkey shoot"-problem was quite a bit of a worry for me. Until I remembered how much fun I had playing the Red Army in the summer of 1941 or a scratch force of Volkssturm and Volksgrenadiere in 1945.

I think it will be totally up to the scenario designer to come up with challenging, yet plausible scenarios for the US side.

[Romulus]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

On a personal note, I would LOVE to simualte the Italian Army. They have some top notch stuff that people hardly talk about. But I'm thinking that likely won't happen just because the timeline stretches out way too far.

I will definitely preorder this game and I will eagerly play and enjoy it even if the Italians are not present. Anyway, being myself Italian, it would be a real pleasure if I could take the command of a Bersaglieri mechanized company or of a platoon of C1 Ariete or a squadron of B1 Centauro or if I could call in the support of an A129 Mangusta! :cool: Now I have to stop as I am salivating too much!

[hellfish]

My vote is still for the French. Bring the Legion back to Syria!

[Darkmath]

How about including some stolen/captured US material in the Syrian side?

Also, I want to see my pixel soldiers with Desert Eagle, just like in CS. Different types of bullets should be modelled : .50 AE, .357 and .44 Magnum, HE , WP, heat seeking HVAPCBCBDS, DU (distinction between U238 Pu139 and Tritium of course ) , anti-matter core bullet...

The player can choose between different firing mode : direct fire , indirect fire , not-so-indirect fire ( you don't have LOS to the target but LOF i.e firing through smoke or through building with bad guyz inside ) , counter battery fire ,counter counter battery fire and so on...

A unit with a DE in his equipment would have a close combat bonus ; when your soldier ran out of ammo with it, he can still throw the gun towards the enemy, with 100% chance of casualty.

However, only soldiers who have +2 dexterity with large hand skill can use the DE.

[Kineas]

Uh-oh.

I'm with aleader on this. I'd like big scale operations with combined arms, hordes of T72s and BMPS against Abrams and Bradleys. (Does it make me a wargame noob?) It won't be a turkey shoot if the Abrams run out of ammo...

Even if the built in scenarios will be about urban fighting I hope we get a chance to build missions like that. (Meaning: the engine can handle that kind of combat).

For this purpose we could also use some whatif units. BattleMechs aren't needed

[Winnie]

Personaly i think having these giant tank battles in the open with just a tank fest would really take away from what is going to be special about this game (as well as being seriously unrealistic)

Here we have a chance to experience what is really happening in places like Iraq these days and to try to engage in modern warfare as it really is, not as it was, or as people want it to be.

Turkey shoot for the US??? If the AAR recently posted has shown anything, is that the Syrians are going to be no pushover. They will be more challanging to play as but if used correctly are going to cause a major headache for the US forces. This game is going to be beautifuly balanced if played in the right settings/scenarios. No player wants to be up against hidden forces and ambushes but get used to it! Thats modern warefare

[Battlefront.com]

Well, one can always hope that we can make the Italians a part of CM:SF. We'll have to see!

Kineas, the engine can handle it no problem. It's just that we aren't sticking in T-80s and T-90s to make it unrealistically more interesting. So you'll see the same sort of "Turkey Shoot" matchups between Abrams and aged Soviet stuff that was seen in both wars against Iraq.

Winnie, I agree

Steve

[hellfish]

I think encountering a T-72 in a narrow street will pretty much make for interesting game play. The Syrian player will just need to learn to use his armor properly. You wouldn't take a Sherman platoon against a Panther platoon in the open, would you?

[Darkmath]

Battlefront, remember the "what if" case.

What if What if What if What if What if What if What if What if What if What if What if What if

...

OK, now you are ready to include T 95 with smoothbore 152mm gun.

Now the game is BALANCED.

[Battlefront.com]

What if they had sharks with freak'n laserbeams on their heads? Yeah... now THAT would balance it out

Steve

[Jaska.]

What about guitar wailing ninjas ? Whose side they are on ?

[YankeeDog]

I've always been more of an Infantry guy myself, so CM:SF's focus certainly doesn't dissappoint me. I'd rather see them focus on the Infantry combat model this time around, and getting it right as a basis for the future CMx2 games. Once they've got the infantry right, they can tackle something more armor-heavy in a future iteration.

But I think Blue-on-Blue, and Red-on-Red will allow some very interesting "what if" armor scenarios, anyway.

Don't get me wrong; being able to do Abrams vs. T-90 would be nice. . . Perhaps in a future module. In the meantime, I think it will be very interesting to compare and contrast what it's like fighting Abrams vs. Abrams, and then try T-55 vs. T-55 on the same terrain. . . HUGE difference range, accuracy, and situational awareness.