Ability to Create Scenarios Modelling Irregular Warfare

[Zitadelle]

Initially I was reluctant about whether I would be jumping onto the CMSF bandwagon. I figured that the game would be too much like work for me, and we all needs the breaks from the office. Now, I find myself more intrigued with the possibilities of the game, but to ensure that I could find this a useful simulation, I have a quick series of interrelated questions.

I am wondering whether the scenario editor would allow for the modelling of irregular warfare.

-- I understand that Syrians will be the primary foe, but will it be possible to model irregulars (insurgents, terrorist/extremists, etc...) as an opponent? Of course, using the scenario editor, ammunition loads, and quality of troops could be edited.

-- Will technicals be modelled?

-- Also, will be possible for modelling US "Special Forces;" and the appropriate TO&E (littlebirds, "hi-lux" trucks, etc...)?

In essence, I am not that interested in Syria as a opponent, but more interested in whether CMSF will allow for accurately modelling irregular warfare; whether involving regular USMIL (most commonly) or at times something a little different.

Thanks for any feedback.

[Battlefront.com]

Yes, a central component of CM:SF is irregular warfare. It is impossible to envision any combat scenario in that part of the world that does not have asymmetric warfare front and center. In fact, this was a discussion we had internally and externally a long time ago.

People were pushing for a straight up, conventional simulation. I asked, where are you thinking this will happen? The only ideas that came out were fantasy and overlooked other non conventional factors (uhm... like nukes) trumping the conventional aspect. So it was decided very early on that either we include a signficant irregular element to CM:SF or we skip contemporary warfare completely. I'm glad to say that we didn't go down that route

So, yes you can make scenarios that are either straight conventional, irregular only, or a mix of both. However, it is all done within the context of an active "frontline" combat environment. We are making no claims that CM:SF is well suited for simulating occupation/stability ops, though I tink it will do a pretty good job at it for the most part. Our mantra is more depth, less breadth. Trying to simulate two different combat environments, even though they have a lot of overlap, is a death sentence for our new philosophy.

Irregular forces come in two flavors in CM:SF. The first type are conventional irregular forces in the form of Syrian Special Forces. Unlike US Special Forces these guys are organized for a mix of conventional and unconventional combat on a massive scale. The second type are Terrorists, who operate in a pure unconventional fashion.

CM:SF will include IEDs, VIEDs, civilian disguised forces, technicals, and civilian vehicles as battlefield taxis. I will get into the details on this stuff another time.

We are not modeling US Special Forces and their special toys. That is not the focus of CM:SF and by distracting ourselves with stuff like this we'd never get the game out the door. The Slippery Slope is very, very slippery!

Steve

[Zitadelle]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Yes, a central component of CM:SF is irregular warfare. It is impossible to envision any combat scenario in that part of the world that does not have asymmetric warfare front and center. In fact, this was a discussion we had internally and externally a long time ago.

People were pushing for a straight up, conventional simulation. I asked, where are you thinking this will happen? The only ideas that came out were fantasy and overlooked other non conventional factors (uhm... like nukes) trumping the conventional aspect. So it was decided very early on that either we include a signficant irregular element to CM:SF or we skip contemporary warfare completely. I'm glad to say that we didn't go down that route

So, yes you can make scenarios that are either straight conventional, irregular only, or a mix of both. However, it is all done within the context of an active "frontline" combat environment. We are making no claims that CM:SF is well suited for simulating occupation/stability ops, though I tink it will do a pretty good job at it for the most part. Our mantra is more depth, less breadth. Trying to simulate two different combat environments, even though they have a lot of overlap, is a death sentence for our new philosophy.

Irregular forces come in two flavors in CM:SF. The first type are conventional irregular forces in the form of Syrian Special Forces. Unlike US Special Forces these guys are organized for a mix of conventional and unconventional combat on a massive scale. The second type are Terrorists, who operate in a pure unconventional fashion.

CM:SF will include IEDs, VIEDs, civilian disguised forces, technicals, and civilian vehicles as battlefield taxis. I will get into the details on this stuff another time.

We are not modeling US Special Forces and their special toys. That is not the focus of CM:SF and by distracting ourselves with stuff like this we'd never get the game out the door. The Slippery Slope is very, very slippery!

Steve

Steve-

Thanks for the prompt reply, and I appreciate the thought put into the answer. Having spent many years as a consultant in systems intregration, I too have experienced the slippery slope, and fully understand your position. While having a simplified TO&E for "Special Forces," it definitely isn't a must have. For scenario creation, there could definitely be other means of flexibility to create a SF-like force; although yes the "toys" would not be available. Or, some of the "toys" could probably be modelled by others means- e.g., a "hi-lux" could be modelled by either an unarmed HUMVEE or perhaps a M1025- to represent the armor and the M249.

Thanks again; and more and more I am finally interested in CMSF.

[V]

IF there are no civilians in the game, as I assume from an earlier post, then the enemy in civilian clothing is just for looks or is their some other aspect to this? Are they harder to spot or something?

Follow-up question. Can I mod a pair of Air Jordans onto my Syrian insurgents?

[SturmSebber]

Why not an Jom Kippour, or any of the other Arab-Israel conflicts? "Fairly" contemporate and more conventional.

[Homo ferricus]

Originally posted by V:

IF there are no civilians in the game, as I assume from an earlier post, then the enemy in civilian clothing is just for looks or is their some other aspect to this? Are they harder to spot or something?

I heard a suggestion on another thread that the civilian is invisible to US forces until they open fire or act suspicous enough for US soldiers to fire upon.