Red v Red... do you play... why or why not?

[Paper Tiger]

There doesn't appear to be much happening here at the moment so this would be as good a time as any to ask you guys about this.

How many of you guys play Red on Red scenarios/campaigns?

If the answer is yes, how often and what do you like about it?

If the answer is no, then why not?

I'll start.

One look at my sig will tell you that I play Red on Red almost exclusively. Why? My, my first reason for not playing Blue with greater frequency is because the Blue equipment is just TOO powerful for the poor Syrian force to handle. After I finished work on my last little project, I decided to give the first mission an outing with US forces in place of the rebel forces and I forgot all about ... javelins! They REALLY are game balance killers. But they're real and the US Army uses them so they have to be in the game. They are equally devastating against infantry as they are against armour.

Equally unbalancing are the Abrams M1 series of tanks. Like javelins, they're are real and can't be excluded from the game either by the developers OR scenario designers. I'm certainly no expert on the subject but I'm pretty sure that in a conflict such as is being represented in CMSF that the US military uses combined arms with great effect both in and out of the cities. I really wouldn't expect the US Army to be fighting infantry only actions EXCEPT in their current peacekeeping/policing role in Iraq and Afghanistan. However, please correct me if I'm wrong.

And that brings me to my second reason; I want to play modern era conventional battles like meeting engagements, assaults on small villages with tank battles, infantry and their vehicles or clashed between two armour heavy forces (super-cool!). I can't really play these kind of missions either with or against the US as the US pretty much wipes the floor with the Syrians. Now, please don't tell me that I'm wrong here. Believe me I've tried and it just isn't the same as doing it with Red v Red. Not even close.

Now, positive reasons for Red v Red. I can actually play realistic conventional warfare battles between two evenly matched foes without having to create asymmetrical victory conditions. It may work for some but for me... "hey, my force got wiped out but I still won the scenario because I managed to kill 7 of your guys"... really doesn't light my fire. No criticism intended either. It's just not MY idea of a challenge so it's MY loss.

Also, the Red side has some pretty interesting gear at it's disposal as well. I LOVE the heavy machine gun teams, the grenade launchers and, my new love, the recoilless rifle. Not to mention a very wide variety of tanks and ATGM weapons ranging from the completely CRAP T-55-1970 and the AT-3B ATGM through to the T-72M1V TURMS-T and the AT-14 ATGM. And there's a really good spread in between these two poles. Against US stuff, even the best of this equipment is pretty poor but against other Red stuff it really comes into it's own.

For whatever reasons, I feel that the Red on Red aspect of the game is overlooked or ignored by players. There are very few scenario designers producing Red on Red stuff which is a real shame. No doubt when the Marines arrive there'll be a HUGE number of new scenarios to be played as the US v the new Syrian equipment and very little for us Red on Red guys. There are more than enough scenario designers doing US v Red stuff so I'm going to work on something that will let you really enjoy the new Syrian equipment instead of trying to blow it up.

[tankibanki]

I've come to like Red v Red, too. Even though - unlike you - I don't find the Red equipment too cool, I preferably play RvR as I'm not a friend of urban combat, which is just about the only way to get a balanced battle without giving Red superior numbers. The sensor advantage of the Blue side spoils the fun for me in most BvR scenarios. You can drive the M1 into the most sophisticated ambush and still pick off the enemy tanks before they even see you.

My favourite setting for CMSF would have been an 80s cold war turned hot theme and the type of battles you'd likely find there. RvR is what comes closest to that.

[Cpl Steiner]

The CM:SF setting doesn't really do it for me either. I would have preferred something like the Yom Kippur War (Israel vs. Egypt/Syria/Iraq, 6-26 Oct 1973). Although Israel won, it took something like 10,000 casualties in just 3 weeks and lost over 400 tanks destroyed and another 600 damaged (source: Wikipedia). This would have been an inherently more balanced "contemporary" (i.e. ATGMs etc.) setting which would have been interesting to learn more about, and had some really famous battles such as "Chinese Farm".

I tried making a Blue vs. Red version of the Squad Leader scenario "Hill 621" but in the end I was forced to give up because Red had absolutely no chance. It would probably work better as a Red vs. Red scenario - possibly depicting an action from the Iran-Iraq war (Iraq playing the role of the Germans and Iran the Russians). Come to think of it, the Iran-Iraq war (1980-1988) would be an excellent Red vs. Red setting as it's almost a contemporary version of the WWII Eastern Front.

[RommL]

I play the red one vs red also. I find this principle a lot more tactical one.

For to play the blue one vs red, the blue one has a lot more the aventage in non urban zone.

I prefer the urban fight with the blue one.

Otherwise for the red one vs red, I created one or two scenarios over.

for example state blow!

[theFightingSeabee]

Red vs red is cool. There are a lot of great scenarios and a couple good campaigns. One of my favorites was the "Neighborhood Blood Feud" battle.

But still I find myself playing the US vs bad guys much more. I can't really bring myself to play red vs blue though (which is lame, soldiers should understand their enemy's capabilities and tactics against his type of forces).

[Paper Tiger]

I can't really bring myself to play red vs blue though

I remember one occassion when I was playing a quick battle as the Syrians against an AI US force. I got a company of T-72 TURMS and the US got a company of infantry in Strykers. Of course, they couldn't use their javelins and I slaughtered them. I will never forget the sense of horror that overtook me when I was playing that. I have never tried to repeat the experience.

[Sivodsi]

I'm a big fan of Red vs Red. US equipment is just too good, and lacks... character. Its all too good. It would be so much better if you could get previous generation tanks in there, like the M60s or even Abrams early versions with the 105mm gun might be interesting. Make my dreams come true by including Centurians and Chieftons, please!

In the meantime, it much more interesting to play Red on Red and have chunky soviet gear crashing into each other than the boredom of having your stuff picked off by javelins or shot to pieces by indestructable M1s all the time.

Cold war turned hot gets my vote, 1950s onwards would be the best: early guided missiles, interesting equipment.

I know, I know, how many times do we have to hear that BFT have no interest in this?:confused::confused::confused:

[zmoney]

Yea right before they announced CMSF they were hinting at a modern setting and I prayed for a cold war setting like early 80’s. I like this game a lot but…… I think a cold war setting would have been better/ more fun.

I know and don’t blame BFC for not wanting to put in the hours it took to make the first CM games but it would have been awesome if they had NATO forces versus the Soviet Block forces with complete TOE’s. They could have even split it up like the first CM series; CMx2 game one could have been Soviet attack across Germany. The second could have been an Allies counter attack across the western part of the Soviet Union etc.

I guess to get to the original point of this thread, I really like red vs red scenarios and am having a great time playing the Hasribat (sp) campaign right now.

[Paper Tiger]

Yes, Red v Red is a good way to get a 1980s conventional battle going but I think the real problem with the current Blue v red match up is that we don't have real cutting edge Red stuff to match the cutting edge Blue stuff. BFC have said that they will release a new CM game set somewhere in the temperate zone in a year or twos time. If THAT features the most up-to-date Rad stuff, that would be AWESOME! Then I'd be more than happy to play Blue v Red.

[dima]

I love playing Red-vs-Red! And your, Paper Tiger, campaigns are very well done good and definitely a challenge to play.

Having said that, Blue vs Red can be fun and realistic experience in urban conflict. Javelins and Abrams won't do much there when they are against guys with RPG's hiding in buildings.

Concerning giving Red's more modern equipment. Well, there isn't much to add really. T-90 is still no equal match to M1 and BMP-3 is not going to help either. And Russia still doesn't have the equivalent of Javelin.

[The_Red_Rage]

- Red vs Red is alot more tactically challenging, with and the outcome not yet preditermined. Focus is more on objectives than babysitting your men

- I like the fact that Red side utilizes several generations of tanks used for different purposes

- It is realistic to actually take casualties. I find that Blue vs Red battles come down to minimizing your own casualties before anything. If Blue loses more than 15 men in a single battle, it ceases to be realistic. I still try to minimize Red casualties at all times as well, but losing 20 kia and 30 wia seems like a more realistic outcome for Red side.

- Hasrabit campaign and its brilliant scenario design

- Being Russian myself, i like the Russian toys more (even their stripped down export models). There is just so much more character in T55 wrapped in ERA kits moving in to support the assault on building by your special forces team. TURMS-T is very capable peice of equipment as well (it will take out M1 given the first shot opportunity), and i imagine T90 will be even better. And while Russia doesn't have the Javelin, there is RPO Shmel that could give the Red side a real anti-personnel edge.

I wish another Red side was added instead of Brits to be honest. Jordan and Lebanon come to mind.

[Pandur]

when i play i take RED vs. RED 95% of the time...i can say there are two scenarios;

1st, 95% - i want a challenge, i want fun and that in form of a conventional conflict with, for me, "good old" soviet style gear. as tiger said, you have much more to choose from so you can "balance" the battle much much better in any direction becouse you are not forced to take the über gear becouse there is just "one" javelin as example, red got from AT-3 to AT 14, same goes with tanks/vehicles and infantry.

2nd 5% - i want fast fun, some easy action where i must not think too much. mostly it will look like this-> smal or medium quick battle, US stryker or medium(bradly inf) but mostly no tanks(when i get arty i dont use it) vs. +150% combatants

that on different map types, sometimes open, sometimes urban. in urban settings the +150% thingy does make for some spectacular firefights. in these battles i will be verry agressive and try to keep the enemy on their side of their map, i dont want em to spread out in order to fight em in a pack where they give the most jucy target and also have all their force together and so actually mounts some resistance from time to time in urban terrain.

the reasons i play red vs red most of the time;

"balance/conventional battles"

"cooler gear and more of it to choose from"

"no easy ownage of the enemy, and if you do it was earned by decisions and actions, not by your equipment"

"more freedom to act and plan certain moves becouse casualties arent concern number one"

[kipanderson]

Hi,

In defence the Reds can hold their own.

All their late ‘90s AT weapons, including the late ‘90s 105mm tandem warhead for the RPG7s… can penetrate any NATO AFV from any angle other than a latest generation tank through the forward arc.

For NATO M1s in attack it really is like Panthers in attack against the Soviet in ’44… incredibly difficult for the NATO player to make headway without massive losses.

All very good fun,

All the best,

Kip.

[Field Marshal Blücher]

I play Red vs. Red a lot, as it presents a different challenge than Blue vs Red. That said, I also play Blue vs Red a lot too.

[Thomm]

Javelin teams are a much rarer sight on the Marines' battlefield.

You start to really value them if you get only one in a given scenario. Of course, USMC have plenty of AT assets, but not of the same omni-potent nature as the Javelin.

Best regards,

Thomm

[Combatintman]

It'll be the same for the Brits as well - 16 Javelin in the Battalion.

[G B Scurlock]

Well I play Blue always. First because I am American. Second, If in fact the blue equipment is truely that more powerful in the real world then so be it. I don't need balance per say in order to have fun. But that's just me.

[Chainsaw]

It'll be the same for the Brits as well - 16 Javelin in the Battalion.

Where are they located? battalion anti tank platoon or something?

[Combatintman]

Where are they located? battalion anti tank platoon or something?

For Army Infantry units yes - they all sit in the Anti-Tank Platoon. RM Commando structures are slightly more complicated than that. Formation Recce also has Javelin which replaced Swingfire in its Guided Weapon Troops.

[Chainsaw]

So the infantry Coys dont have anything heavy in anti tank capability at all?