"Civilians" in CM:SF

[Bruce70]

OK I know there will be no civilians, but that doesn't mean that there can't be "civilians". By that I mean Syrian "units" in plain clothes that may be either regulars in civilian clothes, or insurgent types. But if there are no true civilians, how do you simulate the advantages of these units.

One way this could be simulated is by having the US setup zone in the middle of the map, and allow "civilian" units to deploy (almost) anywhere. Sure, once they are spotted they are automatically IDed, but at least you don't know where they will be.

Another way would be for the Syrian player to get "civilian" reinforcements. These reinforcement could appear anywhere on the map, although for obvious reasons it would be nice if the game could make sure that they appear somewhere out of LOS.

Neither of these methods require the simulation of real civilians, but still give some of the advantages to the Syrian player.

It might also be a good idea for the Syrian player to have no control over insurgent type units (whether or not either of the two methods above are used). The challenge for the Syrian player is then how to work with and take advantage of situations caused by the AI controlled insurgents.

Even if Battlefront does not think that this is a good idea, it should still be possible for scenario designers to implement some of these. It would be even easier if the scenario editor could allow random setup/reinforcement zones.

Comments?

[Sergei]

Did Iraqi army use such tactics, and how successful were they?

[flammenwerfer]

Fedayeen militia units were used in the opening stages of OIF. Not sure if they wore uniforms or not.

[vincere]

and allow "civilian" units to deploy (almost) anywhere. Sure, once they are spotted they are automatically IDed, but at least you don't know where they will be.

was thinking the same; but maybe full ID when they open fire and perhaps still restrict deployment.

Also just occured to me X ammount of civ squads would have to count as actual civilians for fog of war reasons for US side.

[akd]

No civilians means...no civilians. The clothing is not so important. Combatants have weapons. Where they go, their arms have to go too. They don't get to be "cloaked" as they move about the map because their in civvies.

However, any sort of irregular unit should have increased abilities to infiltrate closer to U.S. forces (because they are light, independent units able to easily move through abundant urban cover).

Combatants in civilian clothes that don't have weapons are, in the context of a tactical engagement, civilians.

In game terms, if you see a unit moving, then you know it is enemy. If you don't see it, then it doesn't matter.

[akd]

n/t

[Imperial Grunt]

Originally posted by Flammenwerfer:

Fedayeen militia units were used in the opening stages of OIF. Not sure if they wore uniforms or not.

The Saddam Fedayeen did not wear uniforms, nor did the other Baathist loyalists that fought against US forces. Most Iraqi conventional units that fought were annihilated right off.

The Saddam Fedayeen were semi-organized and made thier first appearance in An-Nasiriyah. They were then encountered all the way up to Baghdad. Baghdad itself was also defended by the Special Republican Guard. Basically a Pretaorian Guard for the regime. They would fight and had alot more capability than the Saddam Fedayeen.

But no Iraqi that fought the US had any idea what US forces could bring to the table.

[Imperial Grunt]

Oh, and one thing. It was kinda funny, but the Saddam Fedeyeen would set up fighting positions with white sandbags. Never figured that one out.

[Battlefront.com]

Fedeyeen sometimes, though not sure how frequently, wore their prewar black "bad guy" outfits against the Coalition during the initial phase of OIF. But yeah, there were a lot of guys in civilian clothing in certain spots.

One difference between the conventional phase and they insurgency phase is the tactics and surrounding chaos. Currently the insurgents mill about in throngs of civilians, then attack (suicide bombing and IEDs being the favored tactic). During the opening phase of OIF, and outright flareups like Ramadi and Fallujah, the civilian cover was largely absent. So basically, anybody driving around was suspect. Anybody running was suspect. Anybody with a gun showing was more than suspect. Small groups of men looking like they were talking quietly to each other were suspect. So on an so forth. But now, during the insurgency, pretty much the weapon thing is the only true tell tale.

What this means is that civilians in a combat zone provide different amounts of "cover" than they do when life is supposedly back to normal. Kinda like hiding in a field with a few bushes vs. hiding in a forest. Same fighter, same clothing, same intentions... different ability to remain unseen. A car driving fast during the operations in Fallujah was shot up as a matter of routine. Shooting a fast moving car in Fallujah today, just because it is driving fast, just doesn't happen.

We do have some clever ways to simulate some of the "home field" advantages the Syrians should have. We'll reveal them when things are further along. But for now just know that we are on top of it.

Steve

[MikeyD]

I'm reminded of the old CMBB debate when some people were hoping to be able to dress-up their Partisan units in at least semi-civilian dress (too many shared arm and leg bmps nixed that idea).

I recall BFC mentioned there might be the possiblility of something like red-on-red play in QBs. If you call one side 'resistance fighters' then the universal irregular combatant dress of ammo pouches and webbing over civilian clothing wouldn't be out of the question.

[ January 09, 2006, 08:34 AM: Message edited by: MikeyD ]

[Bruce70]

My comments were mostly directed at the scenario editor. Whether the presence of civilians or hostiles dressed as civilians are relevant to the campaign is more or less irrelevant. At some point someone is going to want to create scenarios where civilians are important. Civilians will not be included in the game for very good reasons, I am talking about how their presence can be simulated/abstracted.

akd:

LtCol West mentioned in another thread that some ROEs state that just because a civilian is carrying a weapon, it does not mean that he is fair game. So you are right, the clothing is not important, but as you say certain Syrian combatants should have additional abilities to infiltrate. Allowing them to setup behind the US player's forces or be reinforced behind the US player's forces would be one way to simulated this.

Steve:

Glad to hear that you have some plans for this. What do you think of the idea of having certain Syrian units that are always AI controlled, to simulate the problems that regulars would have cooperating with militias and so forth?

[MikeyD]

"...some ROEs state that just because a civilian is carrying a weapon, it does not mean that he is fair game."

In Iraq you've got friendly militias and hostile militias and uniformed police and secret police and bodyguards and private contractors and mercenaries and government death squads and the guy who's just watching over his brother-in-law's flower shop. And they're all carrying AKs! If you start shooting every Iraqi male for owning a gun you're liable to depopulate the place pretty quick.

[Battlefront.com]

Hi Bruce,

We've thought about the AI control thing. However, that is going to require a bit more work than we can muster for the first release. When we do CoPlay it will be a no brainer to add stuff like this. Right now having an AI and a Human on one side would be problematic from a backend standpoint.

Mikey, the problems you mention are not so much related to the movement of a frontline force through an enemy held area as it is an occupation force going about its occupation duties (which might resemble frontline activities). This gets back to the, sometimes, subtle differences between civilians during the initial phase of combat and civilians under established military occupation. Yet another reason we aren't going to do civilians this time around.

Steve

[Dawg Bonz]

"...the tactics and surrounding chaos."

"So basically, anybody driving around was suspect. Anybody running was suspect. Anybody with a gun showing was more than suspect.... civilians in a combat zone provide different amounts of "cover" than they do when life is supposedly back to normal."

Valid for a Natural Disaster as well!

RE: ".... civilians during the initial phase of combat and civilians under established military occupation."

Speaking from our post Katrina experience, once the military was deployed in force, things (blatant, open bad guy looting) got MUCH better really quick. The military presence did not stop the bad guys completely but even numb nuts stealing stuff realize that US forces were about to annihilate them right off... so there "home field" advantages got traded for more subtle stealing further out or moving to another city all together.

"..civilians in a combat zone provide different amounts of "cover" than they do when life is supposedly back to normal. Kinda like hiding in a field with a few bushes vs. hiding in a forest. Same fighter, same clothing, same intentions... different ability to remain unseen."

Reasonable and a very good description what happened with our "Natural" disaster.

If/when you include civilians in CMSF, you may want to also include friendly civilians as well. Like locals who stayed to protect their property actually gave extra ammunition & back up to law enforcement... it could / did happen.

Dawg ... an irregular with abilities to infiltrate close to food

[akd]

Originally posted by Dawg Bonz:

"...the tactics and surrounding chaos."

"So basically, anybody driving around was suspect. Anybody running was suspect. Anybody with a gun showing was more than suspect.... civilians in a combat zone provide different amounts of "cover" than they do when life is supposedly back to normal."

Valid for a Natural Disaster as well!

RE: ".... civilians during the initial phase of combat and civilians under established military occupation."

Speaking from our post Katrina experience, once the military was deployed in force, things (blatant, open bad guy looting) got MUCH better really quick. The military presence did not stop the bad guys completely but even numb nuts stealing stuff realize that US forces were about to annihilate them right off... so there "home field" advantages got traded for more subtle stealing further out or moving to another city all together.

"..civilians in a combat zone provide different amounts of "cover" than they do when life is supposedly back to normal. Kinda like hiding in a field with a few bushes vs. hiding in a forest. Same fighter, same clothing, same intentions... different ability to remain unseen."

Reasonable and a very good description what happened with our "Natural" disaster.

If/when you include civilians in CMSF, you may want to also include friendly civilians as well. Like locals who stayed to protect their property actually gave extra ammunition & back up to law enforcement... it could / did happen.

Dawg ... an irregular with abilities to infiltrate close to food

Were you in New Orleans during the last year?

[Dawg Bonz]

Were you in New Orleans during the last year?

 

Yep... the last 30. Here for KATRINA's visit and the levee failure and the urban fire&floodworks that followed. Only took 7 weeks to get back home but we were lucky and still have a home... well one of them anyway.

Good to see Steve's notes re: civilians in a combat zone. When CMSF includes complex levels of civilians (good / bad guys... tourists, press, animals, etc) in an urban combat zone, things quickly become a lot more complicated than shoot the "bad guy"... although anybody with a gun showing is much more than suspect... kinda a truism I suspect around the world.

Dawg... Just released yesterday! Urban Planning Committee Final Report at http://bringneworleansback.org/

[akd]

Originally posted by Dawg Bonz:

Yep... the last 30. Here for KATRINA's visit and the levee failure and the urban fire&floodworks that followed. Only took 7 weeks to get back home but we were lucky and still have a home... well one of them anyway.

Damn. I left in '04, thankfully I guess.

[Dawg Bonz]

Come on back akd and help us rebuild smarter & 'mo betta'. The Urban Planning Committee Final Report is solid and 'forward leaning'. Lots of empty houses here cheap now. We got a 2 story 'fixer upper' if your interested. Only 7'6" of water for 2.5 weeks... but the upper floor is 'OK' ... well that is what the insurance adjuster says! Bring some 'back up' akd cause we still... almost 5 months out... have looters preying on our uninhabited homes... hundreds of thousands of uninhabited homes. No where near the immediate post K 'civilians in a combat zone'.. but no where near 'normal'.... there can only be a new normal now with only 144,000 people vs. 485,000 that have returned. Heck, only @ 10% of our local business are back. many will never come back.

The Civilians" in CM:SF thread reminded me of all the chaos in the city and just how hard it was to distinguish who was a good guy vs. bad guy... aside for the blatant arm full of stuff and some kinda weapon.... but then LOTS of folks were heavily armed those first several weeks... and very edgy... not a good combination. I can empathize with how extremely difficult the proper target ID must be in a certified combat zone like... An-Nasiriyah... where IEDs for example are part of the bad guys weaponry! I admire the US military's skill to keep as many soldiers alive and sane as possible in that toxic insurgent soup.

BFC has shown they make computer games as realistic as they can so... "Yet another reason we aren't going to do civilians this time around." Makes good sense to me. Looking fwd. to CMSF's release.

Ciao,

Dwag... my wife finally admitted my damned kayak was a good thing