Next module will give us challenging scenarios?

[Thomm]

Originally posted by Barleyman:

In any case, my original argument is that the US army and USMC are far too strong to make any interesting scenarios which are not fantasy or scifi.

Me and my Beta Marines were just defeated totally. Dunno if the stats are final, but in the present shape those T90s can cause some severe headaches.

Best regards,

Thomm

[Paper Tiger]

"Me and my Beta Marines were just defeated totally. Dunno if the stats are final, but in the present shape those T90s can cause some severe headaches."

Tell me that there were M1s in that mission and I'll be a very happy chappie. My main problem with playing US v Syria is that, used properly, the Syrians can't touch them. If they can give the M1 a run for it's money, I'll definitely be doing more US v Syria stuff in the future.

[Thomm]

Originally posted by Paper Tiger:

Tell me that there were M1s in that mission and I'll be a very happy chappie.

Yes. Two of them. They did not get very far.

Please note that I do not want to raise any expectations, but after this Total Defeat (something that I am not used to) I just wanted to "answer" the original thread starting question.

Best regards,

Thomm

PS: other testers seem to have less problems. Perhaps it was just not my day

[Paper Tiger]

Good to hear. Don't worry, I won't press you further for any more details. I'm really looking forward to this new module.

[MikeyD]

About the old canard that keeps getting repeated that the U.S. is just too über to concoct any believable scenarios in the game. Let's remember the scale we're playing at. Company strength or under, tip-of-the-spear" engagements during a high-tempo conflict. Sure the U.S. may be winning in the 'big' picture, but there's still the ever-present mystery for each platoon of what's hiding around each bend in the road. If you still don't like the balance of Blue vs Red then simply play Blue vs Blue or Red vs Red. The game is not exactly inflexible on that score.

[Paper Tiger]

I think the game definitely moves into the realms of reality when the battles are fought in an urban environment. However, out in the countryside, I really don't buy that the US would be challenged in any significant way by the Syrians because of the US's overwhelming air superiority.

At this moment, right now, I suspect that the CIA and the US military have a fairly good idea where all the most dangerous Syrian military units are based. That's during peacetime. If a conflict loomed, their level of intel would rapily escalate to the point that they knew pretty much everything that wasn't hidden in a city. Then, once the conflict started, the Syrian airforce and anti-air defences would rapidly be taken out of the picture by cruise missiles as well as the US air assets. Once those are gone, and they WOULD go, it's already game-over for the Syrian side if he chooses to leave the relative security of his urban defences.

Any mech or armoured force attempting to move in the open after the conflict starts would be spotted by satellites or those cool little unmanned flying cameras and they'd be trashed extremely quickly. So that by the time US forces crossed the border, there wouldn't be that much left for them to do except in the cities. That's pretty much how it went in Gulf wars 1 and 2 and you only have to look at US casualty figures during the military phase of both those conflicts to see how frequently the US side was seriously challenged.

Also, accepting that sometimes, sh*t happens, in a real shooting war, not COIN Ops, it's extremely likely that any US company would be able to call on some formidable support either from tanks, (M1A2 SEPS - king of the battlefield bar none), air support or artillery. Taking these options away to create an artificial challenge just isn't realistic. It's FUN, but lets not pretend that it's realistic.

So, in my opinion, battles fought outside an urban environment between US forces and Syrian mech forces are fantasy scenarios if they're 'challenging' to the US. Since the urban combat doesn't really 'light my fire', and conventional conflict in the open does, I have chosen to play Red v Red almost exclusively for the past 6 months. However, the game really is designed primarily to be played as the US side. If you choose to play red v red, some of the omissions in the game become more obvious, i.e. AI artillery and air support.

[ChrisND]

I have a bit of this problem in my campaign. I want to have some wilderness battles, but it is patently obvious that known Syrian formations would not survive the wrath of the Air Force long enough to get into an evenly matched light infantry battle. My solution? Pretend the problem doesn't exist. Nothing else you can do, really. It is a game, after all, and realism should take second place to an entertaining scenario.

[Pandur]

Also, accepting that sometimes, sh*t happens, in a real shooting war, not COIN Ops, it's extremely likely that any US company would be able to call on some formidable support either from tanks, (M1A2 SEPS - king of the battlefield bar none), air support or artillery. Taking these options away to create an artificial challenge just isn't realistic. It's FUN, but lets not pretend that it's realistic.

So, in my opinion, battles fought outside an urban environment between US forces and Syrian mech forces are fantasy scenarios if they're 'challenging' to the US. Since the urban combat doesn't really 'light my fire', and conventional conflict in the open does, I have chosen to play Red v Red almost exclusively for the past 6 months. However, the game really is designed primarily to be played as the US side. If you choose to play red v red, some of the omissions in the game become more obvious, i.e. AI artillery and air support.

i found out some interessting things about that while playing "huge" maps. namely testing my own "red stream"(REDonRED) and playing "armor attacks".

you can have pretty realistic amounts of support if the map, and enemy force, is "big" enough(counts not only for blue on red here).

in the case of "red stream" you "need" it, as it would be hardly possible to win the battle when you cant bring down quiet some arty.

in "armor attacks" the US have to spread out pretty much to cover all the objectives. wich reduces the firepower every part of their force can use in their respective area. however the player doesnt have too much off map support to use there.

unfortunately, most CMSF maps around arent giant by definition. you get verry fast where the big parts of opposition is and if you can hit it with support, you will and they will be gone if you mean it.

also you are as good as never concerned by ammo supplie. but when your tanks start to run out of ammo, your Mech force lacks partly the "mech" element and so ammo supplie, and is advancing by foot while the enemy is still not dead, than casualties will pile up and challenge will rise.

in other words the day must last that long to wear down the players side. and than a little longer to hit him with his semi functional force, out of ammo and short on man, not to bad though would be frustrating

in my map you are send through a city up a valley, its fun to see how one enters the city, and how one comes out, than the mission goes on

however, for blue on red, its hard to pull that off in a map so it looks anywhere near realistic, without throwing masses of syrians at the US player. but than, armor attacks had masses and did it good. i really like that battle!

4 tanks arent "that" mighty anymore when they have to cover 5km² of uneven surface or more, when compared to the lone abrams on a 400mx500m map or so. while the 1 is quiet invincible the 4 on the big map are sometimes pressed to hold of the enemy.

drawback, bad or suboptimal FPS

[ May 22, 2008, 08:02 AM: Message edited by: Pandur ]

[Paper Tiger]

Normal Dude:

Yes, it's 100% purely subjective. I really want to play as the US side but I want to play missions that are challenging without having unrealistic conditions otherwise the 'illusion' or immersion is lost for me. But I'm just one player and the vast majority of folks who come here are quite happy with the restrictions.

Anyway, since I posted that last message, I had an idea for a mini campaign to be played as the Marines with armour support that could be both realistic AND challenging using what the Syrians should realistically have.

Pandur:

Yeah, that's definitely one way to make the mission challenging for the US player but it's hard on your CPU. But your screenshots inspired me to try something very different for my next Red v Red project. All the maps are around 2km x 1km + minimum and they're playtesting with great fps too. Because the maps are so big, I have been able to give the player a LOT of artillery to play around with, and the tank duels are brilliant too. I'm even having some fun giving the red side some air support. If only BFC could sort out the AI artillery for the Marines module, I could make this really special.

[El Hombre]

I don't think it's feasible right now, but what if BF changed the building codebase so that a removed roof or wall was considered by the engine as nonexistent?

If that were the case, then you could technically and realistically put armor inside buildings. Think about Hezbollah's artillery in 2006 hidden inside buildings, and only coming out to shoot.

Then imagine a scenario with a large map and multiple villages, rolling hills, and the possibility of really hidden (from satellites and UAVs) late model T-72s...

At that point things become realistic.

[ May 22, 2008, 11:25 PM: Message edited by: El Hombre ]