stikkypixie Posted October 29, 2008 Share Posted October 29, 2008 Do experienced Syrians troops use single shot for medium/long range targets? This should improve their accuracy no? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted October 29, 2008 Share Posted October 29, 2008 I'm pretty sure less experienced troops tend to go full auto more. Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thelmia Posted October 30, 2008 Share Posted October 30, 2008 I don't get the problem, since in RL Blue tends to crush Red over and over. Western armies have been kicking around Arab armies for a very long time. If it's a sim, then Blue being better isn't a problem. This isn't a reflection on the individual worth of Syrian soldiers (who are often quite brave, as Israeli and American soldiers will tell you), or the relative worth of their country. It's just reality, and it's caused by a number of factors that entire books have been written about. I recommend "Arabs at War", by Kenneth Pollack if you want to understand why Arab armies do so poorly, especially compared to Western forces. Basically, there's a leadership deficiency. Imagine Red always being controlled by a badly scripted AI and you get an idea of what they are like in RL. Tactical leaders are discouraged from showing initiative and there is little realistic training. There's lots of anecdotal evidence from soldiers and Marines who served in Vietnam and Iraq (like Bing West) that the Iraqi army was not as proficient as the NVA. A lot of the problems suffered by the Iraqi army in 2003 are chronicled in "The Iraqi Perspectives Report," by Kevin Woods, with excerpts from the Official US Joint Forces Command Report. Very interesting reading. Mostly, the Iraqi leadership had no clue what was actually happening. Prewar training and expectations crippled their army. Now for designing a scenario, balance this by giving Red lots of advantages, like numbers and position. I like playing Red, and I do pretty well. It's a game of avoiding fights you can't win. Don't get into long range shootouts, since Blue is better at those. Don't expose your tanks to Blue antitank weapons. Use the unique weapons you do have, like IEDs. Hell, I put IEDs into about every scenario I make. Don't let the Blue player ban them as "cheap," since they are the number one RL threat to Blue forces. If I'm going to play a bunch of jihadists armed with nothing but AKs and holy zeal, I want my IEDs. RL insurgents don't play by Blue's rules, so why should I? Snipers, mad Taxi bombers, and spies all help you keep an eye on Blue and make them pay for invading your homeland. Seriously though, good scenario design makes a good game. Give Red a shot of winning, even if they have to take horrendous casualties to do so. Punish Blue much more severely for any losses. That reflects reality. Even if Blue wins, Red should have a lot of fun with taxi bombs 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted October 30, 2008 Share Posted October 30, 2008 Hehe... Kenneth Pollack is going to have to start paying us royalties for this thread if we all keep posting recommendations for buying "Arabs at War" It is a great book. It's a fantastic overview of the wars in the Middle East completely aside from its central thesis, which of course is also interesting stuff. Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sgt Joch Posted October 30, 2008 Share Posted October 30, 2008 Another plug for Pollack's "Arabs at War". It is the only one volume english language general history book dealing with the military history of the ME from the Arab side. He covers every war in the ME from 1945, including a very good analysis of Iraqi performance against Iran in the 1980-88 war (that chapter alone should convince readers why a war against Iran is not a good idea ). 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kettler Posted October 30, 2008 Share Posted October 30, 2008 Steve, Why not simply add the thing to the BFC Bookshelf? Seems highly relevant! Sgt Joch, Have you read Dupuy's ELUSIVE VICTORY: The Arab-Israeli Wars 1947-1974? If yes, what did you think of it? Regarding your Iran attack being a bad idea, "Holy unending hordes of fanatical Pasdaran, Batman!" Regards, John Kettler 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RSColonel_131st Posted October 30, 2008 Author Share Posted October 30, 2008 I don't get the problem, since in RL Blue tends to crush Red over and over. Western armies have been kicking around Arab armies for a very long time. [sNIP] Now for designing a scenario, balance this by giving Red lots of advantages, like numbers and position. I like playing Red, and I do pretty well. It's a game of avoiding fights you can't win. Don't get into long range shootouts, since Blue is better at those. Don't expose your tanks to Blue antitank weapons. Use the unique weapons you do have, like IEDs. Hell, I put IEDs into about every scenario I make. Don't let the Blue player ban them as "cheap," since they are the number one RL threat to Blue forces. If I'm going to play a bunch of jihadists armed with nothing but AKs and holy zeal, I want my IEDs. RL insurgents don't play by Blue's rules, so why should I? Snipers, mad Taxi bombers, and spies all help you keep an eye on Blue and make them pay for invading your homeland. Seriously though, good scenario design makes a good game. Give Red a shot of winning, even if they have to take horrendous casualties to do so. Punish Blue much more severely for any losses. That reflects reality. Even if Blue wins, Red should have a lot of fun with taxi bombs That's the main problem you have right here - at least Al Huqf has Red Troops of lower quality and same numbers as Blue. Basically the choice for CMSF's backdrop means that you can only play well-designed scenarios, anything else (like meeting engagements in CMBB, for example) are just suicidal for the Red player. So I don't get why Battlefront themself included a scenario that is by definition very unbalanced. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smaragdadler Posted October 30, 2008 Share Posted October 30, 2008 There are not many wargames about UNCON warfare out there (like for instance convantional WW2). Not too many grog senario designers out there, I guess. It will take some training time to get all the new nuances. I think in the next modul the scenarios will be better balanced. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smaragdadler Posted October 30, 2008 Share Posted October 30, 2008 After having a second thought about it...maybe battlefront made it so with intent! "Al Huqf" is the proof that CMSF is one of the most übergrogeducational wargames experience you can get! ...because it even contains the fact - ...that war is NOT fair. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Field Marshal Blücher Posted October 30, 2008 Share Posted October 30, 2008 That's the main problem you have right here - at least Al Huqf has Red Troops of lower quality and same numbers as Blue. Not even the same numbers. A Blue platoon has more men in it than a Red platoon, so your post is in fact even more correct! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted October 30, 2008 Share Posted October 30, 2008 Well, the only thing I can say about the initial batch of scenarios released is that we did the best we could given the fact that the game was still changing significantly every day. There might have been something in the game engine at the time it was made which gave the Syrians more of an edge, but that edge has since been "corrected". It could also be that we made a mistake including that one, or it could be seen as providing a sort of lesson. It's whatever you want to conclude, I supposed Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sgt Joch Posted October 30, 2008 Share Posted October 30, 2008 Steve, Why not simply add the thing to the BFC Bookshelf? Seems highly relevant! Sgt Joch, Have you read Dupuy's ELUSIVE VICTORY: The Arab-Israeli Wars 1947-1974? If yes, what did you think of it? Regarding your Iran attack being a bad idea, "Holy unending hordes of fanatical Pasdaran, Batman!" Regards, John Kettler JK, I am not familiar with Dupuy's book and cannot comment but would also appreciate a review from someone who has. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RSColonel_131st Posted October 31, 2008 Author Share Posted October 31, 2008 I also just found out that Blue in this Scen gets three full squads, Red gets two and an AT-Team with two guys. Blue also are engineers who can blast walls, Red can't. Steve, I would seriously suggest to redo this thing and update it in the next patch. People who are looking for a quick, small MOUT battle can only be frustrated by this. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flanker15 Posted October 31, 2008 Share Posted October 31, 2008 Why not just open it and rebalance the senario to your liking, it's what I do. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Field Marshal Blücher Posted October 31, 2008 Share Posted October 31, 2008 RSColonel_131st, this battle is set up as a meeting engagement between platoons. As I said in this thread: "The point is that a Syrian rifle platoon is certainly not equivalent to an American rifle platoon, even disregarding the disparity in training and equipment. For scenario designers in particular, don't have one Syrian platoon taking on one USMC platoon without some enormous advantage--the USMC platoon has more than 200% of its strength in numbers alone, let alone actual combat power. Similarly, for an American player, be aware that one of your companies vastly outnumbers one of theirs." The scenario designer, quite possibly at that stage unaware of the vast differences between American and Syrian platoons, figured that a platoon vs. platoon battle would be fair. There are quite a few of the original scenarios that came with the game that could benefit from my research in that thread. There's another one with a Syrian mech company against a US mech company meeting engagement (called "Three Villages" or something like that). It's completely unbalanced even though both sides have companies, because the US has more vehicles and more soldiers. Then when you factor in that the US also has better vehicles and better soldiers, it's kind of ridiculous. The way that I tend to approach these battles is to view them as training for the game--play them as Blue, in a nicely unbalanced battle, figure out how the game works in a relatively low-stress environment, before moving on to "Hammertime." 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RSColonel_131st Posted November 2, 2008 Author Share Posted November 2, 2008 I just gave up a PBEM with this scenario - I have syrian AT guys on a rooftop opposite the street from US troops, but they can't see them. The US however can spot and engage my other squad on the streets below at even larger range. Even after they shoot down my squad, my AT team (who has definite LOS to that roof) can not identify the US guys. So yeah, obviously the Syrians have no NVGs. Whoever designed that scenario must have been drunk. 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.