We need a “high-intensity” warfare opponent module ;).

[SgtMuhammed]

Knew I could count on you rune. Can't wait.

[MikeyD]

"Only 5 tanks were total write offs."

'Total write off' is a high bar to clear. If a tank is able return to combat after a four+ month rebuild I'd say the tank should be considered to have been K.O.'d for the operation. I've seen pictures of Marine Corps LAVs being welded back together at depot after the hull practically cracks in half! At least they didn't make it into the 'write-off' category.

Oh! I just noticed, that black clad screenshot up above - are Syrian special forces wearing body armor? :eek:

[ June 14, 2007, 08:46 AM: Message edited by: MikeyD ]

[kipanderson]

Martin, hi,

I certainly agree that the presents of 1990s Russian anti-armour weapons helps hugely to even the odds.

Also I will have a lot of fun using CMSF out of the box with the different victory conditions and such. But I could imagine, for fun anyway , a future scenario where the Russians did decide to supply the Syrians, their last, best friends in the Middle East, with more of their latest kit. Including the heavy stuff, thus either deterring the US or maximising the price of entry for the US. Remember the Russians have the money, second largest reserves in the world.

Anyway….hoping one module will supply us with the very latest Russian toys .

All good fun,

All the best,

Kip.

PS. Lots of other good ideas from people for scenarios.

[vetacon]

I too am really looking forward to the game, but equally, relying purely on victory parameters to demonstrate whether or not a fight was close leaves me a tad cold; however, the following gives me great cause for optimism.

Originally posted by Moon:

Kip, CMSF can be quite high-intensity out of the box. MikeyD mentioned already the Kornet, a weapon which can take out an Abrams reliably from a long distance. Another interesting weapon in the Syrian arsenal is the T-72 TURMS-T modification. They don't have too many, but enough to really be a problem for an M1 Abrams tank commander who carelessly wanders around the battlefield expecting only T-55s

CMSF is a tactical game as you know and as such it's up to each scenario designer to cut out a piece of from the strategic picture. The fact that 80% of a tank force may be not up to par is of little impact to the player who is facing a Republican Guard armored company supported by some Syrian Special forces* with Kornets in hidden positions.

Martin

*

With this in mind would any one care to speculate in a bit more detail on the make-up of a Syrian unit which might be able to give a Stryker company, maybe with some armour support, a reasonable match in a non-MOUT setting, other than a pure ambush. Apologies, my knowledge of post WW2 formations and equipment is rather limited, but I'm keen to read what the cream of the Syrian army might be able to offer.

Hoping somebody knowledgeable will take the time; thanks in advance.

[JonS]

Originally posted by Dirtweasle:

Gulf Strike

Huh. I had that game, back in the day. I may still have it in storage somewhere for all I know.

It blew chunks.

[Dirtweasle]

It blew? Huh, I remember playing it probably 4 - 5 times with a buddy that had it. Wasn't the best board game from that era but it was a pretty good operational / stategic war game. IIRC the counters were brigade and division sized.... can't recall which country it was but all they had was one yak. Always struck me as funny to have a one yak attack. The other thing I recall was the ability to use special weapons, and a balance of penalty / utility doing so.

Anyhow, the premise of the game was what I had in mind as an answer for Kip; a massive Soviet style invasion into the greater Gulf region so he'd get the whole Russian TOE in.

[Echo Delta]

It would be nice to have some M60 vs T-62 scenarios.

[JonS]

The TOE was far and away the best bit. I loved all the pointless bns from the crappy little gulf states. Maybe it was better two player. At the time I was moving between cities a lot, so never got a cahnce to play HTH. There were some rather nice things about it (incl the full on Sov invasion)(the seperate strategic and operational maps was interesting too), but - for me - it never really hung together.

[Sgt Joch]

Originally posted by vetacon:

I too am really looking forward to the game, but equally, relying purely on victory parameters to demonstrate whether or not a fight was close leaves me a tad cold; however, the following gives me great cause for optimism.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Moon:

Kip, CMSF can be quite high-intensity out of the box. MikeyD mentioned already the Kornet, a weapon which can take out an Abrams reliably from a long distance. Another interesting weapon in the Syrian arsenal is the T-72 TURMS-T modification. They don't have too many, but enough to really be a problem for an M1 Abrams tank commander who carelessly wanders around the battlefield expecting only T-55s

CMSF is a tactical game as you know and as such it's up to each scenario designer to cut out a piece of from the strategic picture. The fact that 80% of a tank force may be not up to par is of little impact to the player who is facing a Republican Guard armored company supported by some Syrian Special forces* with Kornets in hidden positions.

Martin

*

With this in mind would any one care to speculate in a bit more detail on the make-up of a Syrian unit which might be able to give a Stryker company, maybe with some armour support, a reasonable match in a non-MOUT setting, other than a pure ambush. Apologies, my knowledge of post WW2 formations and equipment is rather limited, but I'm keen to read what the cream of the Syrian army might be able to offer.

Hoping somebody knowledgeable will take the time; thanks in advance. </font>

[kipanderson]

Hi,

We really do need a module of the latest Russian kit, terrible shame if we do not get it .

We are anyway dealing with a fictional scenario here so to assume that the Russians decide to ship there latest kit to threatened Syria is no more fanciful. Russia had $365 billion in reserves last time I looked. If it decide to it could easily finance the Syrians.

Assuming the Russians shipped their latest air-defence systems would in itself help even the odds a lot. Then assume they shipped their latest ground systems and we are looking at a far more interesting set of scenarios. In my very prejudiced view .

As the logic makes sense, I am optimistic it will happen .

Greatly looking forward to CMSF regardless...

All the best,

Kip.

[MikeyD]

"We really do need a module of the latest Russian kit"

If not the 'latest' you're getting something pretty darned close. A tank-fired ATGM hitting an Abrams from the far side of the map can come as a nasty surprise! The fact that the U.S. side is meeting up with substantial resistance at all is an indication that somewhere off-map Syrian AA must be having some affect on U.S. tactical bombing. Otherwise the U.S. would (best case scenario) simply be driving past burned-out hulks on the roadside.

[Battlefront.com]

JasonC,

The IDF was soundly defeated by any definition of the word defeat. No journalists needed to see that clearly. And 10% AFV loss in an operation against light infantry in an extremely limited and short operation is quite bad. Especially considering none of the Israeli objectives were secured, so who knows how much worse it would have been if the IDF didn't stop. The IDF can not be completely blamed for this since the politicans didn't know what they were doing.

Vetacon,

With this in mind would any one care to speculate in a bit more detail on the make-up of a Syrian unit which might be able to give a Stryker company, maybe with some armour support, a reasonable match in a non-MOUT setting, other than a pure ambush.

Depends on who is commanding the Stryker unit I bet most people on this Forum now, put in charge of a Stryker Rifle Company, could be scattered, disorganized, and seriously harmed if I went at them with a bunch of scrappy unconventional fighters in an urban setting or a standard Mech Rifle Company in an average non-Urban environment.

As I've said countless times over the past few years... the major strength of US forces is their tactics and leadership. There is nothing in Combat Mission that simulates those things. You, the player, have to provide the tactics and leadership. All CM does is give you realistic units, weapons, and terrain to try them out. I expect most people will get smoked the first couple of battles they play.

Kip,

We really do need a module of the latest Russian kit, terrible shame if we do not get it

No more than some people really "need" to have Space Lobsters. We've been over this SO MANY TIMES that my fingers hurt from typing the response to this. There is NO scenario where the US forces would go into a country without total air superiority. None. So be fanciful all you want, but you're not being realistic. Might as well keep harping about the "need" for a "realistic" Cold War 1970s/1980s matchup which never happened.

...we are looking at a far more interesting set of scenarios.

I'm sorry to say this... but this kind of close minded, presumptious, condescending attitude is exactly why you need to adjust your vision of warfare to what war IS instead of what you would like it to be. The game, as is, has PLENTY of "high intensity" combat in it. It has PLENTY of "interesting set of scenarios". It has PLENTY of potential for the "over balanced" US force to be laid waste. No, not by marauding hordes of top end Russian tanks, but so what? Is that the ONLY way to get "interesting" and "high intensity" out of a game? That appears to be your attitude since we first announced CM:SF and I'm sad to see it persist so long. No matter, the game itself will show you how wrong you are. And if it doesn't, well... it's your loss.

And for the record (again) the following products are not on our development calendar for the next 5 years (which is as far out as it goes):

Fantasy Syria - magically transformed into a 1st rate, top notch, fully equipped foe. NOT going to happen.

Cold War - fuggedabout it. We'll never do this, ever, at all, PERIOD. I never close doors unless they are already closed, locked, bolted, boarded up, and have various bits of furnishings piled up against it. Cold War fits that description.

Fantasy Contemporary Warfare - match between forces that would never, ever see combat against each other within the lifespan of the current forces will not see combat against each other in CM either. We have no interest in this sort of effort. It ain't going to happen.

At best we might add a few weapons systems that the Syrians have very few of or none at all. But that will be as an added feature to an otherwise unrelated Module.

After we complete CM:SF we start working on WWII again with a splinter development team making modules for CM:SF that build on the setting and code we already have. First Module adds USMC, second Module is a little up in the air still, but it will probably be Brits. Third Module, will be some sort of "multi-national" force consisting of a couple of different nations (favored picks are Germany, Canada, and Netherlands). This probably constitutes a year's worth of development. We probably will not do more than these three Modules.

Steve

[kipanderson]

Steve,

“That appears to be your attitude since we first announced CM:SF and I'm sad to see it persist so long. No matter, the game itself will show you how wrong you are. And if it doesn't, well... it's your loss.”

Steve… don’t take things so to heart.. … I still greatly look forward to CMSF and will be one of the first to download a copy on the 27th . CMX2 is exactly what I hoped for. If you go back five years all was discussion of what CMX2 should be and I have been very lucky that the scale, scope etc of CMX2 is spot on what I wished for. I even like the idea of being able to play some smaller games in RT.

However… it just happens that my personal enthusiasm, in a perfect world, is for high-intensity war between opponents in “the same ball park” in technology.

Do bear in mind that not all of even the most unhinged CM fans will love equally the setting of all your CMX2 releases. My first love, and yours I believe if it makes commercial sense, is WWII Eastern Front. Next I would go for WWII NWE and lastly Cold War. But still I greatly look for ward to CMSF. Importantly you guys want to do CMSF.

All good fun,

All the best,

Kip.

[dan/california]

How about the Iranians at least. I realize it would be a much bigger war but their el Presidente makes ours look sane. Which really is a bleeping scary thought all around. It really could happen almost by accident in the current situation and they do have quite a bit more kit.

[Battlefront.com]

Kip,

You have to remember that using your pre-game logic you should have hated the thought of CMBB. Many CMBO people were biased against it because they pictured hordes of useless bits of Soviet equipment and crappy infantry being slaughtered by über German forces. It was not, to use your phrase, "a high-intensity war between opponents in the same ball part in technology". Yet IIRC you were enthusaistic about CMBB, yes?

This is my point. You're not looking at the matchup we have and seeing it for what it truely is. It's a very tough fight between two sides that, ture enough, on paper are not equal. But in a tactical fight it comes down to how well each side handles what it has, not what it says on paper should happen. The Germans learned this the hard way because they believed what the paper said. So did a lot of CMBO gamers. Some never, ever picked up CMBB because of their biased view. And it was their loss.

Steve

[Cpl Steiner]

If anyone really must have their WWII high-intensity conflict fix, just do "Red on Red" engagements. We already know this is going to be possible in CM:SF. I'd postulate a hypothetical conflict in the near future between India and Pakistan over Kashmir for starters. I'm pretty sure both sides have large inventories of Soviet-bought equipment, including MBTs like the T72. Perhaps a large Pakistani armoured spearhead drives into Kashmir to liberate their Muslim brothers from Indian rule, and the Indians respond in kind. Both sides realize the war must be over quickly to avoid a nuclear exchange so they throw everything they've got into the battle. Sounds like it would make for some very high-intensity action.

Edit: Here is a more plausible scenario for a future war between India and Pakistan. It starts over Kashmir but is fought elsewhere on the two countries' borders due to the mountainous nature of the Kashmir region itself. Makes for some sobering reading!

India Pakistan War Games

[ June 29, 2007, 01:29 PM: Message edited by: Cpl Steiner ]

[MikeyD]

It is a bit amusing to read the posts of the folks who magically seem to know before-hand just how dull and one-sided the game's going to be! I'm no betting man but someone should wager them on just what proportion of their opening forces they'll have left at the end of the game's campaign. One tell-tale sign of poor generalship will be if you find yourself plunging into the climactic final battle with nothing but a reduced HQ unit and supply humvee

[ June 29, 2007, 01:46 PM: Message edited by: MikeyD ]

[Battlefront.com]

heh... according to Rune, the guys at the Open House pretty much all got their asses totally kicked on the first battle of the Campaign. And yet that is an "easy" one! Wait until they get further in where things get difficult for the US player

Steve

[Speedy]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

At best we might add a few weapons systems that the Syrians have very few of or none at all. But that will be as an added feature to an otherwise unrelated Module.

Steve

So there is still a slim chance we might eventually get some Red airpower for Red vs Red battles.

[PFMM]

And a Sgt. York AA vehicle as well.

[Battlefront.com]

I can't comment on Red airpower, but I wouldn't rule it out exactly.

A Sgt York vehicle? Well, not sure what good it would do to have that since the program was cancelled almost 20 years ago because it couldn't hit the broad side of a barn. Or, as one of the programmers of the targeting system told me, it would point at top Pentagon brass in the review stand during a demonstration instead of the drone aircraft Hey... maybe it was aiming correctly??

BTW, I saw 2 or 3 of the Sgt York prototypes at Redstone Arsenal's target range. Yup, it's sitting in with rusty BMPs, T-62s, and other things that they occasionally pull out onto the field to see how much damage some weapon or other can do. Hopefully they can be better targets than they could target other things

Steve

[flamingknives]

That's a thought. Will there be AA vehicles in the game, as they often have useful ground role capabilities (I'm thinking specifically of the thermal imagers on the AA Humvee and the UK Starstreak missile.)

[PSY]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

I can't comment on Red airpower, but I wouldn't rule it out exactly.

That would be great. Not for Blue on Red, but as Speedy says it would make for more interesting Red on Red scenarios.

Also are the various CMx2 games going to be compatible enough to take CM:SF vehicles and play them on a Western European map if we've got CM:WW2 installed or are our modern armies always going to be limited to Syrian terrain?

[PFMM]

Oh! The irony!

Just to help the literalists along we still play GDW's Assault, which is 1984 Warsaw Pact versus NATO grand tactical. And in our aged play group there is one who actually worked on the Sgt. York program. Every time someone says " My York AA is firing on your Hind", he breaks into a giggling fit.

Some people shouldn't work so hard.

[Sixxkiller]

All you guys who havent played, unless you are God, the Syrians can and will kick your ass. Rune mentioned evil scenario designers, and I can tell you there's a few in the campaign you guys will have a hard time with, in WEGO or RT, no matter how good you think you are.

They could rename this, CM:HAMF (Hard As Muther Fcuker) AND I WOULDNT ARGUE. :mad: Now add in a human op, and I am betting the Syrians can and will win games. More than the AI did in CMx1 I promise you.