New concept for CM:SF setting

[Finnius Mack]

I'm new to the CM series (demos only, actually) but my vote is for Syria with Minor Backstory and Fictional Subsection.

What drew me in and has me intending to purchase CMSF is the attention to detail and realistic modeling that the BF team puts in. However, I see where playing a little fast and loose with the OPFOR units would make user based scenarios more varied, which would be a good thing.

Looking forward to the game,

[Dirtweasle]

Suggestion on the backstory -

Early May 2007 - Hezbollah renews Rocket Attacks against Israel, firing from and conducting cross border raids from Southern Lebanon.

Early May Cont'd - The IDF having learned a lesson from the Summer of '06 batters Hezbollah forces badly. Hezbollah camps, training bases, and supply depots are taken under heavy attack from the air. Hezbollah Militia leadership is caught at a conference, successfully targeted and largely attrited.

later, still May Cont'd - In Lebanon Hezbollah political influence has been greatly reduced. Seeing a political opportunity Hezbollah training camps are closed and the Lebanese Regular Army denies Hezbollah Militiamen easy retreat into their traditional "safe haven". Competing Militias having begun to re-arm in late 2006 threaten the Hez from the north as well. Hez forces are now practically cut off. In response, Syria grants Hezbollah Militia forces humanitarian sanctuary South of Damascus. Israel protests Syria involvement and unsatisfactory resolution of the Hezbollah question. Syria warns their army to prepare for deployment.

June - Hezbollah leaders embittered by defeat quickly reconstitute and deploy several Scud C launchers. On June 6th they fire a volley across the Syrian border into Israel.

June Cont'd - IDF warplanes sortie and begin taking suspected Hezbollah targets in Syria under fire. Syrian SAM sites down an unarmed Kfir RC-2 recce plane as well as pair of newer F-16Is.

June Cont'd - Syrian MiG 29s take to the sky to defend their airspace. Syrian Army forces go on their highest stage of alert. Armored brigades and mechanized infantry brigade s from Syria 1st and 2nd Corps move out from their lagers and deploy South of the capital and into the Golan Hts. The sky is filled with contrails and the sound of aerial combat is heard from An Nabk to At Tanf.

June COnt'd - IDF detects several MiG-29SMTs taking off from, forming up and apparently acting in coordination with many MiG-23BNs and escorted by their MiG-23 and Mig-29 Fighter variants. Israel fighters catch them in Syrian airspace forming up, break up the impending attack, and either force them into a mad dash retreat or destroy them in the air.

June Cont'd - Israel's strong protests fall on deaf ears.

Mid June - During the period of no moon the IDF launches a major preemptive defensive attack against the Syrian Corps to mixed results. Israeli forces pound the Syrians and appear to storm through the initial Syrian defenses. Commander of the Syrian I Corps at Dar'a panics and informs President Asad the Israelis are marching on Damascus. Al-Asad believing his regime is now under a direct existential threat orders release of Special Weapons to the corps commanders. The Syrian commanders use the weapons at once, and to good effect, catch the Israelis off guard and inflict massive casualties and sewing confusion.

By the end of June the Israeli Army is forced back to just north of Tel Aviv in disarray, with small unit resistance continuing though cut-off and isolated near Haifa.

July 1st 2007 - The Israeli PM Resigns.

July 4 2007 - Acting PM Netanyahu calls a state of emergency, and immediate national mobilization, and calls on the Unites States for help.

173d Airborne Bde is put on alert for immediate deployment to Hiafa.

3rd Brigade / 4th Infantry Division "Iron Brigade" (Mechanized) rotating into Iraq marries up with the 2nd "Warhorse" Brigade (Mechanized )and the 3rd Brigade / 2nd Infantry Division's Stryker Brigade Combat Team already in country and assemble into an impromptu Kampfgruppe to enter Syria, maneuver to threaten Damascus and relieve pressure on Israel.

The 10th Mountain (Light Infantry) is called upon to fill the void in Iraq.

The Cavalry rides off into setting sun.

Just dreamed it up over lunch, semi-plausible...

...or somefink.

[MikeyD]

Suggested backstory (originally suggested several months back using the Bush daughters) -

Redo the Illiad (the book, not the awful movie).

In a moment of passion Condonleeza Rice runs off with one of the handsome young sons of the Syrian president. As a face-saving posture the humiliated Bush claims Ms. Rice had been kidnapped against her will. The Syrian Royal Family, though they don't much care for Condoleeza cavorting through the presidential palace, refuses to back down as a point of pride. The crisis escallates with each successive ultimatum, until the two armies are mobilizing opposite eachother on the border. What starts out as a small 'punitive action' quickly escallates into all-out war.

[Juardis]

Can anybody make a campaign or are they hard coded by BFC? If anyone can make them (like they can scenarios now), then I support whichever option allows the most flexibility to future designers. If campaigns are locked in stone once the CD ships, then I support the last option, Syria minor backstory, fictional branch.

[hoolaman]

Originally posted by Sgt.Rock of Easy Company:

But couldnt yall escalade the seriousness of the situation to come up with a deeper background story? Like the U.S. have just launched a ground war into Syria, using the minimal amount of force to accomplish the job with less soldiers at risk. While in the ground war fighting syrians (breaking down terrorist organizations and cells holed up in Syria), the U.S. runs into stiff opposition and realize that the enemy are using some modern russian equipment (T-80's, T-90's, etc.). After a hasty retreat to regroup (the small american force is outnumbered), intel releases information that there has been an Iranian interdiction (They mobolized as fast as they could to catch the american forces off-guard). As the American force on the ground fight a defensive war, gradually being pushed back, the U.S. is mobilizing everything they can get their hands on. As more and more U.S. forces enter Syria, the tables start to turn as they push back the Iranian/Syrian forces. Then <insert some kind of war ending scenarios, like Iran being pushed across the border, or capture of a high ranking figure>.

So basically, small U.S. force fights and still outnumbers and outguns the Syrian forces (US on the offensive in the first part of the war). Interdiction by a major country in the surrounding area, using modern equipment, US forces outnumbered, matched in firepower, and fighting defensively. US mobolizes, outnumbers or matches combined major country/Syrian forces and go back on the offensive.

With this scenario, with the US being in trouble, you could even throw in some coalition forces units and missions as well (Americans not the big guys on the block in a war, BLASHPEMY ). Like canadians, germans or the british.

Just a thought.

P.S.- the first time I read the OP post, OPFORIA from Americas Army popped into my head .

I totally agree with this.

Syria with a minimal story and fictional subsection is a good option, but I would like to see these "subsection" units turn up in the campaign in very limited numbers as if a foreign backer such as Iran or Russia had shipped a bit of lend-lease over there.

The story is not all that important, but I don't think anyone would be too upset about seeing some SURPRISE! units in the game in a vague scenario where Syria feels it can take on the US.

[rudel.dietrich]

Option three is acceptable

But I still find it a little weird that BFC has been wanting to keept he focus of the game small and then out of the blue suddenly wants to include the possibility of alot more equipment and terrain.

Maybe that is not their intention but the conflicting messages are weird.

Anyways, glad to see most of my work in the other thread will not be undone.

[hellfish]

The game is small to be able to include more stuff for modules (which you pay for). It'd be like in CMBB only shipped with 1941 units, weapons and vehicles. You'd buy modules to give you 1942, 1943, '44 and '45, and other modules to cover the Finns, Romanians, Hungarians, etc.

Essentially we're buying a small game that'll be expanded with modules in the same way - the Marine Corps, British forces, maybe Chinese equipment, etc.

[John Kettler]

Steve,

Your idea works for me, lets the purists have it their way, while also letting the more adventurous

explore other possibilities and matchups. This seems to be a great place for a toggle feature.

Regards,

John Kettler

[Battlefront.com]

fytinghellfish has it correct. We're going to be putting about the same amount of work into the main game and each Modules no matter what. However, this bit of flexibility allows us to do more with the Red Force (Syrians if you will) than we would otherwise have been able to without breaking the story. Also, adding a few tanks and some infantry weapons doesn't really take that much more effort compared to adding new terrain, weather, nationalities (voices, graphics, etc.), or major game enhancements.

There is no Campaign Editor for CM:SF at all. Not even for us. We're going with text files, so the plan is to document how they are assembled and allow people to make their own.

Steve

[rudel.dietrich]

I already have about 15 scenarios planned out.

Looking forward to seeing how the scenario editor will work and how powerful it is.

Any plans to release it before the game so lots of scenarios are ready to go by launch?

[Pvt. Ryan]

Ow! My fictional subsection of my leg!

[dan/california]

So do it and tell me where to send a credit card #.

[Bruce70]

Some not particularly constructive thoughts:

- I think the choice is more limited by the blue force than it is by the red force (not that either are going to significantly change). Israel going it alone against Syria (or with limited US support)would have been just as plausible (ie. plausability zero) and potentially more interesting IMO.

- It would be nice if you could come up with a backstory that gives the US limited air support.

- Any back story that makes rapid intervention necessary would be very interesting - perhaps a hostage situation. Maybe someone or something is grabbed in Iraq (by Hezbolah?) and the US/coalition is forced to pursue across the border, with the situation escalating from there.

- Is there any reason that victory needs to be defined by the destruction of the Syrian armed forces?

- Is there any reason why Syria cannot be the invader? That would force the US to act with whatever they have available. e.g. The US is in the process of withdrawing from Iraq (much less than 50% remaining) after establishing a moderate government. Syria/Hezbolah is not happy and see an opportunity to turn the tide in Iraq and establish their own puppet government (insert any half-assed excuse that Syria might use for this). They obviously wish to take advantage of instability caused by the withdrawal and expect a quick victory before US can respond. That puts the coalition on the defensive from day 1 and gives at least a few days fighting before the US can establish overwhelming air support.

- What would be the TO&E of a newly formed Iraqi defense force?

Disclaimer: Just random thoughts in no particular order and with no assertion of validity whatsoever. IOWs, I know next to nothing about ME politics or the military preparedness of any ME country or faction.

[aka_tom_w]

"- Is there any reason why Syria cannot be the invader? That would force the US to act with whatever they have available. e.g. The US is in the process of withdrawing from Iraq (much less than 50% remaining) after establishing a moderate government. Syria/Hezbolah is not happy and see an opportunity to turn the tide in Iraq and establish their own puppet government (insert any half-assed excuse that Syria might use for this). They obviously wish to take advantage of instability caused by the withdrawal and expect a quick victory before US can respond. That puts the coalition on the defensive from day 1 and gives at least a few days fighting before the US can establish overwhelming air support."

From what I understand of the game as Steve has so far documented it, that situation could easily be a user made and designed scenario even if BFC did nothing more then they are telling us they are doing now.

But I am JUST guessing...

-tom w

[J Ruddy]

tsk tsk tsk...

Ya should have gone with Space Lobsters...

I change my previous meaningless vote to an even more meaningless vote: Cut your losses and change the whole thing to Gazala 42.

[Jaska.]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Syria with Minor Backstory and Fictional Subsection

Yes please ! You get the real Syrian TOE plus cool stuff that they don't have, sounds like a good deal to me !

There is no Campaign Editor for CM:SF at all. Not even for us. We're going with text files, so the plan is to document how they are assembled and allow people to make their own.

Nice ! So people can make their own campaings, something that's been missing from CMx1... :eek:

This is getting better and better !

I wanna preorder already !

Originally posted by J Ruddy:

Cut your losses and change the whole thing to Gazala 42

How about Ontario 2007 ? :mad: :mad: :mad:

[Battlefront.com]

Bruce70

- I think the choice is more limited by the blue force than it is by the red force (not that either are going to significantly change).

I totally disagree with that. We would like to do the USMC next, which has very different TO&E and even equipment. After that we want to do the Brits, which is almost a 100% change from what you'll have seen up to that point. If things go as I would like them to, the next one after that would introduce German equipment so we could do a number of other forces.

Israel going it alone against Syria (or with limited US support)would have been just as plausible (ie. plausability zero) and potentially more interesting IMO.

I don't know what makes you say that. I think it would be a lot less interesting since the Israelis don't have the variety of vehicles, weapons, and TO&E that we're giving the Americans for the initial game. And certainly their air superiority is a given. One report said it would take the IAF about one hour to establish Air Superiority. Air Dominance would probably come in the first 5 minutes

- It would be nice if you could come up with a backstory that gives the US limited air support.

There is no scenario in the world that could explain that. The US doctrine is so dependent on air support that I think a ground war would be scuttled if there were some crazy reason (like Space Lobsters eating up all the runways) the necessary amount of aircraft couldn't be put into the air.

- Any back story that makes rapid intervention necessary would be very interesting - perhaps a hostage situation. Maybe someone or something is grabbed in Iraq (by Hezbolah?) and the US/coalition is forced to pursue across the border, with the situation escalating from there.

This sort of limited attack would not only be foolish in the real world (check out what happened in Lebanon this summer), but it would be extremely limited in terms of the game. No reason to do this.

- Is there any reason that victory needs to be defined by the destruction of the Syrian armed forces?

For the backstory? No, I suppose not. However, I don't see any sort of plausible situation where the US would go to war against Syria without this being a top priority. Iran is a different story.

- Is there any reason why Syria cannot be the invader?

Sure, because no nation on the face of this Earth is that stupid Such an overt attack would mean the elimination of all forces that went over the border, the mass destruction of all military units and infrastructure that could be identified by air or ground, and a general setback of the country to the stone ages. The last thing anybody wants to do is attack America in such an open way. Japan was the last nation to try that and it didn't work out so well for them. Hitler should have kept is big yap shut because declaring war is the same as attacking. Didn't work out well for them either. North Korea didn't come off too well either, even though it wasn't out to attack the Americans directly. China did pretty well though.

- What would be the TO&E of a newly formed Iraqi defense force?

Don't know, don't care since we aren't doing anything with any other country other than Syria.

Disclaimer: Just random thoughts in no particular order and with no assertion of validity whatsoever. IOWs, I know next to nothing about ME politics or the military preparedness of any ME country or faction.

As weak as the US military may be right now, it is still the strongest military force on the face of the Earth. Everybody who wants to take potshots at the US military will try to do it by proxy (the Syrians make up the single largest foreign fighter contingent in Iraq next to Saudi Arabia) because they don't want to get into a full conventional war because they will lose. This means countries that have ill intentions towards the US will supply others with money, arms, training, and even fighters to hit the US as hard as possible, yet at the same time will not push their own national agendas so hard that they risk open conventional warfare. Unfortunately, due to the state of the military and anemic list of fully supportive allies, they can push a LOT harder and get away with a LOT more than they could have before 2003. Iran is going to be a very interesting test of how far things can be pushed, because they are pushing hard.

Steve

[ September 18, 2006, 11:02 PM: Message edited by: Battlefront.com ]

[Battlefront.com]

Dirtweasel,

Just dreamed it up over lunch, semi-plausible...

Perhaps, but this is a fairly plausible result if the US were to openly back Israel, militarily, in a war against an Islamic nation...

World War III would kick off in a way that was never predicted. Hezbollah and Hamas would go on the offensive and Israel would be fighting a three front war. The House of Saud would likely topple, or at least be facing an insurgency that it could not control AND keep its oil pumping. Jordan would likely stay out of it directly, but indirectly they would likely have an insurgency of their own to deal with due to the lack of action. Several of the smaller Islamic nations would hand over US Dollars spent on their oil to terrorists and tell them to have fun with the irony. They may, or may not, turn off the pumps but would at least disrupt oil supply. Iran would likely close the Straits of Homuz, shutting off 40% of the world's oil supply, or at least slowing its progress to a trickle for months. The overland pumps would be shut off too if anybody gave them any lip about anything. Large quantities of Iranians would flood into Iraq with little or no attempt at hiding their identity. Pakistan would go into lockdown mode and probably struggle to hold onto its regime at the same time it started giving the US the cold shoulder. Afghanistan would also see a lot of Iranian "tourists". There would also be political ramifications from Russia and probably others, especially when they find that their oil is cut off along with the US'. The world's economies would sink into a global DEPRESSION which would spark up all kinds of domestic problems for even stable regimes, but for the likes of China it would be a bloodbath.

Why do I think this would happen? Three constants in the Middle East:

1. The vast majority are hotheads (I mean that in the most factual way possible).

2. They hate Israel and by extension anybody that supports them.

3. The US, the West, China, and the rest of the world can not live without oil.

Increasingly, the hotheads that hate Israel are figuring out that oil is their trump card. Push their buttons the wrong way, and their ability to rain on people's parades will be made apparent. And quickly.

Steve

[c3k]

Okay, I'm in:

"Syria with Minor Backstory and Fictional Subsection", gets my vote. Now, get back to work!

Regards,

Ken

[c3k]

Steve,

An addendum to my previous post. How are you planning to model the vigorous UN involvement in any crisis, and the concommitant dynamic UN leadership which frequently defuses all such crises with prompt, effective action?

Okay, okay, a little sarcasm over a cup of coffee. Carry on.

Ken

[mav1]

Originally posted by MikeyD:

What I wonder is how the 'brain trust' members of this board could've written all 177 posts on the subject in the original thread and nobody suggested anything like this as a solution? You just love showin' us up, don't you!

I mentioned it, sort of.

The third option is the best and it looks like most people are happy with it.

[birdstrike]

Syria with Minor Backstory and Fictional Subsection is acceptable. Where do we preorder?

And may I express my support with MikeyD's Illiad background story.

US needs a reason to go to war? Just imagine the impact of classified information a defecting insider could leak to the Syrian government! And there is romance in it. Show us the human side of war.

"All she wanted was love, but there can be no happiness in a world like hers."

Let's face it, CM has long been neglecting the other 50% of potential customers out there.

[Sgt Joch]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

There is no Campaign Editor for CM:SF at all. Not even for us. We're going with text files, so the plan is to document how they are assembled and allow people to make their own.

Steve

How will the campaign work? Will it be a semi-dynamic campaign similar to the one in Jane's F/A-18 where: i) your success or failure in one scenario determines the situation in the next scenario; and ii) losses and damage are carried forward to the next scenario?

John

[Peter Cairns]

Syria plus minor, works well.

The main part will give us what BFC does best the realistic portrayal of real armies in real situations, and the add on will increase flexibility.

We get "What if" and "What if and also" in the one box.

Peter.

[Dirtweasle]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Dirtweasel,

[Perhaps, but this is a fairly plausible result if the US were to openly back Israel, militarily, in a war against an Islamic nation...

World War III would kick off in a way that was never predicted.

Why do I think this would happen? Three constants in the Middle East:

1. The vast majority are hotheads (I mean that in the most factual way possible).

2. They hate Israel and by extension anybody that supports them.

3. The US, the West, China, and the rest of the world can not live without oil.

Increasingly, the hotheads that hate Israel are figuring out that oil is their trump card. Push their buttons the wrong way, and their ability to rain on people's parades will be made apparent. And quickly.

Steve

Agreed.

Recalling back to the reasons given for doing modern first before returning to WWII, in hindsight, all the warts conceeded, do you regret somewhat not chosing either a WWII setting or perhaps Iran as the Red Force?