RSColonel_131st Posted October 21, 2008 Share Posted October 21, 2008 Hi Folks I may not have enough experience yet, but seriously, what keeps me from playing this game more is the "snowball chance in hell" that Syrians have against US troops. And I really have to wonder why they suck so badly? I tried the Al Huqf Engagement battle tonight again from the Syrian side. I had two squads in overwatch positions on rooftops, target arc set, and was moving the third up. Two US Squads run into my target arcs (one each for one of my squads) - one is in a house, the other in the open (not on the street, but sand nearby some walls). Normally you'd think that be the perfect ambush situation - them moving, one in the open, my guys set in position and waiting for them. But what happens? The two US squads decimated my troops. Even the squad caught in the open sustained only one casuality, while my rooftop overwatch of 9 guys was wiped out. My third squad moved up to a wall in LOS to the US guys (while my other two were still firing) and was then also decimated. I mean, it's bad enough that the Syrians have no option to split teams, or no air support, and arty that is about as fast as a snail. But when they even lose over and over again in small-arms firefights, despite having a cover advantage AND despite getting off the first shot, I have to wonder what's wrong with them? Behaviour to incoming fire is also starkly different. US squads, when fired upon by a single enemy squad, will usually recover quickly and return fire. The Syrians get pinned and decimated all the time, as soon as the first shots hit (normally just muzzle flashes visible) I can't even area-target them to return fire, they are just on the floor wimpering. I really don't get the appeal of this game scenario. If you play US, you win 95% of the time since your guys have X-Ray vision, never pin and kill hordes of enemys. If you play Syria, you start wondering if your guys are shooting blanks. I tried scenarios with asymetric objectives, and it's still a straight out US slaughter. Someone enlighten me. With the new patch, the feel of the game is superb. But the way the battles play out is just plain boring. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GSX Posted October 21, 2008 Share Posted October 21, 2008 Ive been playig a lot of PBEM and have only won 1 game as Syrians. Im not really sure its designed to let them win much. In fact the only way to PBEM US vs Syrians is to mirror the battles. A semi competent US player wont lose many games and a fully competent US payer should lose none. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dan/california Posted October 21, 2008 Share Posted October 21, 2008 Play the battle for Poo in the Marines campaign. Play George Mc's Hammertime if you don't have the Marines module. It is on CMMODS. Then come post again. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
handihoc Posted October 21, 2008 Share Posted October 21, 2008 Or try one of Paper Tiger's Red v Red (Syria v Syria) campaigns: Hasrabit and/or Perdition. A very different experience. Also, at least a couple of the new Marines scenarios make it v tough for the US forces. Webwing's Ghost campaign is another great option, as is Bardosy's campaign Narwick. And the latest in the Ba Bado scenarios by The Phantom. All available at CMMODS, and all designed to test you to the limit. Plus, be sure to play at Iron level, which is the most difficult (and realistic). Lower than that is far too easy. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RSColonel_131st Posted October 21, 2008 Author Share Posted October 21, 2008 I'll try those scenarios (I already have the Ghost campaign loaded, and Hammertime I think) but still, I'm very curious: Why can't the Syrians even hold themself in a 1:1 firefight against US? I mean, I understand they do not have a lot of the goodies. Low tech etc. But if a Syrian squad or three spot an US squad or two, while the Syrians are set in fixed positions, perched upon rooftops with excellent field of fire downwards, I can't for the life of me understand why the US Squad caught in the open can just shrug the fire off and shoot them off the roof. They do not have that much more firepower in their M4s than the Syrians in their AKs. The syrian regulars behave like the old russian conscripts in CMBB somehow - scared to hell, breaking and pinning at the first sign of enemy contact. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted October 21, 2008 Share Posted October 21, 2008 To even things up, make an "unrealistic" scenario with Syrians rated the same Experience as US forces. That's makes a huge difference even if nothing else changes. However, the number one thing is to play the Syrians differently than one would Blue. It's very much like CMBB and early war Soviet troops. If you try to use them like the Germans you'll likely lose, or at least come off pretty badly. The reason is exactly the same as it is in CM:SF... man for man, vehicle for vehicle, the Blue force is better than the Red force just as the Germans were better than the Soviets (at least early war). If you try to go tank on tank or man on man with the Blue, or Germans in CMBB, you're basically done for. Played correctly the Syrians and Soviets can give the other side a good thumping for sure. Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted October 21, 2008 Share Posted October 21, 2008 Like in CMBB, remember its their country and you're just an 'expeditionary force' come for a visit. So odds could be shifted up to to 20-1 in Syria's favor if you were so inclined. Just because you've got 30 men and one tank on the map doesn't mean they are limited to 30 men and 1 tank too. CM ain't a chessboard! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RSColonel_131st Posted October 21, 2008 Author Share Posted October 21, 2008 I picked the Al Huqf scenario for some of my first trials because it's included and small-scale. Now the sides there are 100% even in numbers, and as I just noticed, the Syrians are in fact "regular" with the US being "crack" or "veteran". Sadly there aren't that many other platoon-size fights included, and company+ gets a little large for a beginner. Is it too much of a stretch to argue (Steve, that's for you to answer) that such a scenario shouldn't even have been included, if all the expected outcome is that the Syrians will get waxed over and over in the fight? Maybe I'll be more happy with the other maps suggested, but finding out afterwards that included battles stacked so badly in favor of one side feels the same as QBs where the enemy doesn't move out of his spawn - frustrating. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomm Posted October 21, 2008 Share Posted October 21, 2008 Default "Al Huqf" also plays at night, right? This brings night vision gear into play! Best regards, Thomm 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted October 21, 2008 Share Posted October 21, 2008 There's also a 'replay' bias. If you've played a scenario once (even months ago) then you know that cops of trees to the right is unoccupied, that distant ridgeline has armor behind it, and you turn into a 'tactical genius' as a result. I can't tell you how often I've got my arse kicked first time through a scenario (just for practice, of course) only to judge it "too easy" the second time around. Most of my own scenarios I've tried to include at least three totally different AI instruction sets to play against, hoping the second and third time playing the scenario the AI will zig instead of zag and kick my arse all over again. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted October 21, 2008 Share Posted October 21, 2008 As with CMx1, the Experience levels are not tweaked differently for each side. Regular Syrian Rifle Squads and Regular US Rifle Squads are identical in terms of how competently they handle their weapons. One thing that never ceases to amaze me is how "clear shots" can be missed even with massed fire. I was just watching some Apache gun camera footage where a single man, out in the open, walking upright had 30mm rounds exploding all around him (I'm talking a meter or two in some cases!) and he kept moving. The third burst appears to have cut him to pieces, so it isn't like he managed to survive, but it did take 3 near dead on bursts to actually hit him. In a game last week I had half a squad wiped out by an enemy Rifle Squad. I thought I had them suppressed and tried to get into a better position. But I managed to move an AAV in and wipe 'em out with its Mk19. But I first had to take out the RPG team that brewed up the first AAV I tried to move into position. Now, did I ultimately win the engagement? Yes, but I didn't score points due to friendly losses (that one squad's worth of casualties zapped me). Was it challenging to do as well as I did? Yes. For any realistic battle in the modern 3rd world areas, the US forces are likely to win any battle that they go into deliberately. They probably will win any battle even when surprised. But that doesn't bother me at all since the object of the game is not winning itself but how one gets there. If you play Blue sloppy, if you don't pay attention to combined arms principles, if you focus on the wrong things at the wrong time... you'll get the bad end of things. I had the same argument to give people when we came out with CMBB and for exactly the same reasons The only difference is that the quality difference in equipment between Germans and Soviets was much smaller than the gap now. Playing against Syrian Special Forces backed up by T-90s and BMP-3s is a totally different experience from fighting against Reserve Mech Infantry with T-62s. Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jenrick Posted October 21, 2008 Share Posted October 21, 2008 US forces, specifically Marines are some of the best basically trained infantry in the world. Additionally they are also the best equipped, armored, supported, etc. You're squads just been ambushed, you're pinned down in the open, rounds are snapping over head. Your fire team leader has all ready been hit once, he's on the ground trying to get his first aid kit open to treat the hole in his arm. Your pretty sure you stopped a ricochet or a grenade fragment off your body armor already too. You're bodies thinking about calling it a day and just curling into a ball, I mean s**t your taking fire in the open from an entrenched enemy! The voice of your basic training drill instructor however is going off in your skull even louder then the enemy fire about what exactly Uncle Sam and the American people expect you to do in this situation. Even your 21 year old ROTC wonder Lt. is on line putting down rounds, and calling in some fast movers. Your rifle is getting back on the line to pin the SOB's down until an F-15 can drop a JDAM on them. You are then going to march over there and kick on of them in head for making you fall and crush up those cookie you're mom sent you that where stowed in your MOLLE gear. Contrast that with... You've just pulled of a perfect infantry ambush, targets in the open at close range. Line up the post and notch sight on your AK, squeeze slowly and smoothly to the rear, and watch another American fall. The only problem is they just roll over to bit of cover behind a rock and start shooting again. You're squad leader stood up into a burst from one of their machine guns. The officer in charge of your platoon is a floor down and a building over "co-ordinating manuevers" so he doesn't have to worry about getting shot. You only had the basic military course a decade ago, and now you're back as a reserve infantry solider. The only thing you recall from basic was how scared you were that the instructor was going to beat you again, worse then last time. The American fire is accurate and now you've got a flesh wound to you arm, the arm still works, but it looks bad. The American's take prisoners... -Jenrick 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdstrike Posted October 21, 2008 Share Posted October 21, 2008 Nicely put, jenrick. Very good. Maybe Al Huqf got a little harder with the 1.10 patch? It seemed reasonably beatable playing as the Syrians before. RS_Colonel, for some more 1:1 platoon-sized action; I made a small, quick and dirty scenario some time ago, "Fistful of Doodads" (on CMMods), might want to try that out some time. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
missinginreality Posted October 22, 2008 Share Posted October 22, 2008 I just started playing Red side and the first few scenarios I got devasted; until, as Steve pointed out, I stopped playing Red with Blue tactics and started playing differently. It makes a heck of a difference. Ok, that's only playing agains AI but when one embraces the limitations and works with them instead of trying to force Red into Blue tactics things certainly work out. Careful use of covering fire, overlapping arcs, L-shaped ambushes and bearing in mind that pretty much any direct fire on a Red team will more thanlikely end in them being PINNED for a good few turns; taking care of the RPG teams, running them around so they don't stay in one place too long; being aware of slow spotting compared to BLUE..many things are different but I think for me that's what makes SF such a great game; not only is every map a different set of challenges but the whole mindset between US, Syrian and UNCON play tactics is totally different. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theFightingSeabee Posted October 22, 2008 Share Posted October 22, 2008 The Syrians in this game are WAAAAY better than the Iraqis. If you want it to be more realistic, have half of your Syrian army run away. Have half of what's remaining not follow orders and the others... just put 50 guys behind a tank like the Iraqi republican guards and march them into a wall of bullets. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted October 22, 2008 Share Posted October 22, 2008 deleted per user request 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Field Marshal Blücher Posted October 22, 2008 Share Posted October 22, 2008 jenrick's post is essentially it. Also, keep in mind that a Syrian platoon, even if you discount the differences in training, weapons, other equipment, leadership, etc. is still actually numerically inferior to a US Army platoon, and is barely half as big as a Marines platoon. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted October 22, 2008 Share Posted October 22, 2008 What the other guys said I'm glad someone else experienced the "don't play Red like Blue" lesson. As I said, this is something I learned back with CMBB a both the designer of it and a player. I saw many customers think that the Soviet forces in CMBB were totally useless. I seem to remember a number of people challenging those guys to multiplayer games with brave statements like "you pick the scenario or QB settings, and I'll clean your clock with whatever I get". This is how the really successful Soviet senior officers of WW2 beat the Germans. Zhukov didn't have troops that were inherently superior to those in the rest of the Red Army. Instead he just used them better. While better might still have meant large piles of dead Soviet soldiers and burned out tanks, he also left very large piles of enemy dead and lost equipment. He also took huge amounts of land back and kept it. All because he understood how to use what he had better than the Germans learned how to defend against him. Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Hombre Posted October 22, 2008 Share Posted October 22, 2008 Once you've actually seen in real life Syrian Infantry, you'll notice that FightingSeabee is spot on. Unless you're talking Republican Guards / Special Forces, the Syrian soldiers are mostly going through the motions, and thinking "how do I get out of this thing alive?" You wouldn't believe me if I told you the state of their motorized vehicles... Horrendous. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cpl Steiner Posted October 22, 2008 Share Posted October 22, 2008 In a scenario I'm designing now, I'm struggling to win as blue, and not because I've given the Syrians overwhelming odds. If anything, the Syrian side has fewer men and vehicles than the American side. All I've done is give the Syrians "good" forces (Aiborne and Special Forces units only) and place them in excellent positions like the reverse slopes of hills with interlocking fields of fire. As the Americans crest a hill, they take point blank and accurate small arms fire from the reverse slope. Believe me, they start dropping like flies! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RSColonel_131st Posted October 22, 2008 Author Share Posted October 22, 2008 Guys, thanks for the additional comments. Look, I'm not newbie enough to try and play Syrians same as US Infantry. That's why I had two squads in overwatch, with only short fields of fire to cover and only the third moving. You can't really be more carefull than that, if I could I'd also split off a scout team - yet the Syrians can't do that. But obviously that particular scenario is porked beyond belief. Because it has symmetrical victory conditions, less troop quality for the Syrians, and even numbers of soldiers and vehicles on both sides. I tried the ATGM ambush one yesterday, and easily managed taking down the US Troops on the second try. That one is considerable harder from the US Side too, since you only get a handfull of six-man scout teams. So okay, obviously it depends on the scenario, but I still don't get why Battlefront included Al Huqf if it's as loopsided as a 6-year old beating up a 3-year old. Can anyone recommend a Red vs. Blue scenario with highest quality Syrian units? (No Marines, so I think Airborne is out for me?) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TempV Posted October 22, 2008 Share Posted October 22, 2008 I support RSColonel. He played Syrians like they are meant to. He surprised Americans in the open ground, he got first shots but Syrians were wiped out. In real life US would take their place and believe me, personal armor won't protect you from AK bullets at that distance. In worst case for Syrians there should be some sort of Pyrric victory but not 9:1 ratio defeat. Me and my friends tried many variations of infantry combat in CMSF (not to say of armor battles) and I'd say that even Syrian Sp. Forces or Resp. Guards infantry aren't on even terms with US regular platoons (and, yes, I mean regular ones, not veteran superhumans). The problem with Syrians is their long reaction time and short vision (isn't some sort of racial discrimination here? ). They rarely gets first shots in open combat and should relay on ambush tactics. While I admit this is suitable for Reserve units or insurgents, I expected more from "elite" Syrians units. Of course, the balance of CMSF game depends on scenario designer's skill and I admit there are more playable scenarios for Syrians in Marines module. But I considered Al Huqf to be some sort of "mirror" match. At least, it was meanted to be that one. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stikkypixie Posted October 22, 2008 Share Posted October 22, 2008 I think the difference is due to the fact that every US soldier is equipped with scoped weapon, which makes a whole lot of difference. It'd be nice if some of the better Syrians troops also have access to better optics. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RSColonel_131st Posted October 22, 2008 Author Share Posted October 22, 2008 Not true - as far as I know, the standard Aimpoint found on many US weapons is a holographic sight, not a scope. Better than Iron, arguable, but still no magic. Arguments could be made that the two M249 SAWs and the Body Armor also play a part, but should not protect an ambushed squad in the open. At the end, it may all be right and well, maybe Syrian regulars really have no chance at all vs. US Veterans of same force size. But then I'd have prefered an opposition with a little more bite to them instead of this fictional conflict. Maybe the ideal matchup will be Brits vs. US. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
panzermartin Posted October 22, 2008 Share Posted October 22, 2008 I'm loving CMSF since 1.10 but I'm not very interested in playing the US side and this puts me kinda off. Sometimes you want to do something more with the syrians than just waiting in the corner for a passing tank/platoon. However I'm still impressed BFC managed to make an interesting game placing a 3rd world army against a high tech superpower, since scenarios are by no means turkey shots. Kudos to them, I never thought it was actually possible. Its just one more reason to imagine that the WW2 title would be jaw-dropping gameplay wise. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.