One sided.

[Cpl Steiner]

Just to chime in with what Steve said above about this supposed even match between Russia/China and the West to make for a better game, the Russians have improved a lot since the days of Grozny but they are still not that great.

One report I read about the recent "South Ossetia" war (2008) said the Russians completely failed to gain air superiority over Georgia and could have lost hundreds of troops and vehicles to Georgian aircraft if it weren't for the fact that the Georgian air crews were so poorly trained. In the end the Georgian air defences were taken out by ground forces advancing over their positions. The West would have destroyed these same air defence installations from the air within hours of the conflict starting.

Now I know this is primarily a ground war game, not an air war one, but it does emphasise the fact that the Russians are still far behind the West in terms of their military capabilities.

Source: http://www.cast.ru/eng/?id=328

[Battlefront.com]

The Russians are also still a poorly paid conscript armed force. They are, however, getting better. In fact, they just "laid off" about 300,000 officers who were just punching in to get a paycheck, but who were not really contributing to the effectiveness of the Russian Armed forces. If that isn't a sign that they are serious about military reform, I don't know what is! It's also a sign of how bad their existing problems are. That's enough officers to fulfill two entire rotations of every single soldier, marine, airman, and seaman in Iraq PLUS have some to spare!

One of our Forum members, in fact, was down in South Ossetia and Georgia right after the war broke out and he found most of the Russian forces to be quite good from his observations (and he has a professional background to conclude this, if you know what I mean ). Operationally the Russians conducted themselves in a way that impressed (and scared) many experts in the West. But at the ground level, they are still driving around in largely outdated tanks and IFVs that would be cut to pieces by any Western force.

Which gets me back to the point I keep putting forward in every discussion we've ever had about this topic. Tactically speaking the Soviets, and now Russians, probably never EVER could have gone toe to toe with the West and expect to win more than a fraction of the time. So not only does the world lack some sort of potential "evenly matched" setting for us to simulate, it has ALWAYS lacked it. The strengths of the Russians and Chinese never have been, and probably never will be, based on individualism. Their strengths are only seen on a much larger scale. And since wars are generally not won or lost by a single engagement between a couple of platoons of combined arms forces...

Steve

[Combatintman]

So Stalin was right about the Pope and how many battalions he had. I'm guessing this wouldn't be a great game either!!

[Mikko H.]

Steve, what's your take on Victor Davis Hanson's Why the West Has Won? (this is the British title; the original was something like Carnage and Culture)? Your posting reminded me of Hanson's conclusions.

[cabal23]

The command and conquer remark was simply stated to point out that this isn't a one for one game of equal footing and it sounds like you knew that since you have been playing it for so long. No one was insulting you, just your argument. Now that I think about it, few wars have ever been fair or on even footing. Hell, even in world war II, didn't the Sherman's have to take out the German tanks from the rear? Adapt and overcome. Also you should explore head to head. A real player will do a heck of a lot more damage to you than that simple AI scripts.

[Battlefront.com]

I haven't read that book, but I did just check out a synopsis. I think I would likely agree with most of what the book talks about. Especially now, since the West (IMHO) is losing the war against fundamentalists (in particular Islamic, but even fundamentalists within its own societies) because there is no conventional battlefield to fight on. But that's another topic

The West's strengths are its emphasis on individual worth. This gives the maximum incentives for its members to be the best above all the rest.

That is not to say repressive systems can't get good results from individuals, because they can, it's just that their pool is so much smaller and there are almost always artificial limitations placed on creativity. It's very difficult for a repressive regime to say to a bunch of conscripted soldiers "we want you creative, free thinking, bold, calculating, and risk taking. Oh, but only if we go to war against someone. Otherwise we want you to be meek, weak, and generally keep your mouth shut". Cultures that actively oppose individualism are always going to be inferior (at the lowest level) to a culture that cherishes individualism. That is one of the fascinating aspects of the Third Reich... it retained low level individualism without allowing it to challenge the overall system. Very difficult to sustain that. In fact, it's one of the biggest reasons the Third Reich was defeated.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

Oh, and my comment mentioning World of Warcraft and GTA IV was simply to point out that the overwhelming majority of gamers who find those games fun find all true wargames "not fun". So we don't get too hung up on what people think is "fun" or not as long as enough our stuff is "fun". Proportionally more of our customers like those games than vice versa!

Personally, I'm a Quake and Halo guy when it comes to non-wargame stuff

Steve

[Lethaface]

Preybyemail, perhaps you would like to be my US prey in an e-mail game in which the brave RED forces under my command will gladly give their lives to end the Infidel invasion in their sacred motherland?

If your point is that there are too many scenarios featuring a US mech force with full assets (AFV's, AIR & ARTY) against a couple of platoons of poorly equipped Syrians, your post strategy could be compared against the Syrian strategy of winning any conventional war against the combined NATO forces that plague Syria in CMSF.

That is, if the aim of your post was to have any sort of amiable discussion. Forums do tend do feature amiable discussions (in their proper form at least). I will not blame you for your lack of understanding about your fellow humans on this forum and will presume you have learned that your style of posting was unconstructive and therefore subject to change if you are willing to continue posting.

Hereby you are forgiven for your rude and unconstructive posts; Heck I agree with your point!

I demand more scenario's which can be played from the RED perspective and have more ambitious goals then to KIA 1 NATO soldier!!!

The British module has partly fulfilled my demand, now I only need more scenario's in which I can give the US some serious butthurt! There are some but most are to be played from US perspective, which in my eyes is a missed chance. Since scripting is partly part of my profession one day I might try to create some extra BLUE scripts for existing scenario's so they are playable as RED.

If I had the time and will to actually make scenarios I would do one myself. Since I have not I can only be thankful to all the scenario designers providing us with the free to pick up fruits of their hard labor. I would love to see a map done by GeorgeMC focusing on a Syrian heavy force using Airborne & Special Forces combined attacking a US/UK base or flank attack. These would probably be unrealistic but what the heck, especially if it is a stand alone. I guess it will have to be the US since he is from the UK himself

His scenario's are still good playable H2H as the Syrians though, and perhaps some of his newer also have BLUE AI in place (not sure since I didn't play the game too much the last half year, partly because of an ATI problem and partly because of other things).

PaperTiger has made 2 (!) campaigns focusing on RED vs RED battles which are by nature much more balanced and because of his scenario skills, also very fun to play! (probably the reason he has cooperated with the UK campaign).

Most of the other scenario designers also produce splendid work, i'm sorry for not mentioning them but there are really too much too mention.

Now Preybyemail i'm quite serious about the PBEM. IF you want to play PM me, we'll choose one of the new reasonably balanced UK scenario's and Ill pick the RED forces. Perhaps you will walk over me but there is quite the chance you will break some teeth when trying to bite my RED forces (and I'm not even pretending to be good in this game). Given the map & mission design Ambushes can be very lethal for BLUE and MOUT is even worse. I actually have been playing the game more and more the past few days and are eager to get back into PBEM's.

Hope to see you on the battlefield, perhaps I can let you discover how to appreciate fighting from the RED side.

[Preybyemail]

Ok, after reading my first post again today i realize i made some pretty heavy handed generalizations. My apologies.

I hope anyone here could understand where im coming from having spent several hours of positioning, planning and executing what i percieved to be a solid defense. I watched for a couple of hours as each defensive position was completely voporized in seconds and my entire defense was taken apart piece by piece with a minimal loss to blue. Certainly not enough losses to net me even a tactical victory. Spending the only few hours in a week you have to play a game like combat mission only to find your guys are made of paper machee and fail might leave you too a little pissed off.

This particular mission is only the last of many, many Red vs. Blue defeats i have suffered. Ambushes are only good until they are sprung. Hit and runs dont work because firing a volley in ambush mid way through a turn leaves no time to move the troops. They are cut down where they stand and by end of the turn are pinned, or decimated.

The few Red Vs. Blue maps i have won as red feature the Syrians better units, Spec ops or Airborne. The troops have greatly elevated moral, or superior numbers.

So, when im in a map like last night. Rock around the Block to be exact. How exactly does one go about winning? With troops that cant hit a barn, freak out and run, ingnore cover arcs, and seem to be bullet magnets.

This is not just an A.I. thing. I play my brother in law as well. He wont play unless hes blue, so i take red over and over, and lose over and over. Obviously with 2 armies this game was meant to be played from both sides, but im having a really hard time telling.

My skill level? Im not getting hired by the DoD any time soon, but i know the principles of warfare strategy and tactics. If i can win 9 of ten games with blue. Why cant i win 1 of ten games with red. I know how they should be played. I know they are weak in a stand up fight. I know they fight best from ambush and hit and fade.

What other core tactics am i missing here? Is it because i only play turnbased when im solo? Is real time the only way to play red so you might have a chance to hit and withdraw before you get turned into paste?

I am completely open to suggestions. Anyone play that particular map and have results other than mine? Any other maps without the blue handicapping that can be reasonably won?

And whoever shot command and conquer out there, would a few toxin tractors and a Jarmen Kel be that bad? Really?

[Bulgaroktonos]

Steve, what's your take on Victor Davis Hanson's Why the West Has Won? (this is the British title; the original was something like Carnage and Culture)? Your posting reminded me of Hanson's conclusions.

I'm not Steve (thankfully! ) but I can tell you that while Hanson is an admirable classicist, when he goes beyond that era he is way off the mark, especially with his ideas that the 'Western Way of War' is somehow more deadly than the 'Eastern Way', and has some kind of immutable attributes that are continuously visible throughout history (or maybe just some very cherry-picked examples).

And Steve,

That is not to say repressive systems can't get good results from individuals, because they can, it's just that their pool is so much smaller and there are almost always artificial limitations placed on creativity.

While I agree a degree of individual freedom is important, it is worth noting that some of the forces most repressive against the individual, like the German army in WWI and Alexander the Great's Macedonians, have very good track records. Admittedly, neither of these are 100% against the individual, but I don't think you can find a historical example that was.

[Lethaface]

As you see I had already forgiven you

Good post.

How about a PBEM game?

In short I think that the key to play RED is in realizing that you are the underdog. Your forces are to be sacrificed in small but daring attacks on BLUE's weak parts. Force preservation is not any viable part of the RED commander.

In PBEM I tend to pause units 30 to 45 seconds before attacking or giving a move command after pausing 15 seconds of targeting. That is only one example though, the available assets are also very important. A scenario with 3 platoons of RED reservists with RPG-7 standard can never hope to do anything against a platoon of Abrams TUSK supported by a platoon of US inf. The RPG's can't hope to do anything against the TUSK. If there were some RPG-7 PG-7VR this would change ofcourse. ATGM's > AT-3 also provide risks for BLUE. Perhaps the biggest part is in the setup zone's, RED should really always be allowed a very wide setup zone since they can't really afford to move a bit when in potential view of the BLUE side.

[dan/california]

The two overwhelming imperatives as res are reduce the engagement range to the absolute minimum, and remember that the RPG is all that matters. If you can get flank shots so much the better, but I would take close from the front over long from the side any day. It can also be very worthwhile to leave troops on hide if you think blue is not going to be in engagement range soon. It reduces their urge to pop off random rounds that scream "kill me please! Yo over here! Yes here".

This applies to MOST red forces, Kornet equipped Airborne is a completely different beast.

Have you played the Pooh scenario yet? I would LOVE to play it against you as red in a PBEM.

[Lethaface]

Is Pooh out as a seperate scenario? If so I guess the other campaign USMC scenario are? :)

[dan/california]

A few of them have been posted as such. Pooh is one of them, I thought.

[Battlefront.com]

Ok, after reading my first post again today i realize i made some pretty heavy handed generalizations. My apologies.

Excellent... I hate having to give people the boot. So with the hubris aside, it seems what you're trying to do is figure out some better tactics and overall strategies to use when playing Red? That's great, because it's a good topic and there's plenty of people here that will be happy to pitch in their 2 bits of advice.

I hope anyone here could understand where im coming from having spent several hours of positioning, planning and executing what i percieved to be a solid defense. I watched for a couple of hours as each defensive position was completely voporized in seconds and my entire defense was taken apart piece by piece with a minimal loss to blue.

I do understand your position, but this is just the reality of modern warfare. It is also the reality of many historical settings too. When the West loses it is usually linked to cumulative losses over a prolonged period of time in a conflict that isn't supported by the majority of the people. This, unfortunately, is difficult to simulate in a tactical wargame because tactically taking out one or two of the enemy's tanks doesn't appear to matter, but in real life would matter a great deal. Probably even spark a politically based investigation as to how those tanks could have possibly been lost

There's no question that winning as Red is difficult, even when the conditions are favorable and the victory requirements realistically set. As I said, Blue has invested heavily to make sure that when it gets into a tactical engagement that it wins. Not just on average, but every time. Having Russians or Chinese won't change the equation much since they have, pretty much, the same hardware that the Syrians do. Not exactly, of course, but there is nothing in the inventory of either Russia or China that significantly changes the balance of power on the tactical battlefield. They don't have something like Javelin, they don't have something as tough as an Abrams, they don't have (widespread) body armor, etc. So it's got far less to do with us picking Syria than it has to do with modern warfare.

This particular mission is only the last of many, many Red vs. Blue defeats i have suffered. Ambushes are only good until they are sprung. Hit and runs dont work because firing a volley in ambush mid way through a turn leaves no time to move the troops. They are cut down where they stand and by end of the turn are pinned, or decimated.

Try using PAUSE and then some Movement Commands.

The few Red Vs. Blue maps i have won as red feature the Syrians better units, Spec ops or Airborne. The troops have greatly elevated moral, or superior numbers.

For a standup fight, this is basically the only way to give Red a chance.

This is not just an A.I. thing. I play my brother in law as well. He wont play unless hes blue, so i take red over and over, and lose over and over. Obviously with 2 armies this game was meant to be played from both sides, but im having a really hard time telling.

The game is not designed to be played from one side or the other. However, individual scenarios very much are. And when you're playing against a Human vs. an AI, things change dramatically. A scenario that presumes a particular side is the AI will likely not work too well for H2H play.

My skill level? Im not getting hired by the DoD any time soon, but i know the principles of warfare strategy and tactics. If i can win 9 of ten games with blue. Why cant i win 1 of ten games with red. I know how they should be played. I know they are weak in a stand up fight. I know they fight best from ambush and hit and fade.

Then you're definitely at least in the right mental state for playing Red. Usually when we see someone here state that they can't win playing Red they're trying to play with Western style tactics. That's almost certain death.

What other core tactics am i missing here?

Hard to say without actually seeing you play. One thing is to stick to MOUT battles with Red on the defensive. As in real life, this alone greatly reduces the chances of Blue getting to have its way with the battlefield. Be prepared to lose most of your forces, but if you plan your traps right you should be able to pull off a victory. Especially if you view your entire force as a single entity designed for one, relatively small tactical task.

Picturing the average Syrian force, do not set up your Red forces to give you a classic defense in depth. You'll likely get slaughtered. Do not try to have parts of your force come into contact with parts of the Blue force because part for part Blue is likely to win. Instead, my suggestion is to concentrate on doing one thing and doing it with most of your forces. And that one thing should be as limited as possible given the scenario's victory conditions. Leave some out as decoys and/or opportunity seekers (an RPG ambush can do a lot of damage) while your main force prepares to take on as small a portion of Blue in close quarters fighting as possible.

I'm not Steve (thankfully! ) but I can tell you that while Hanson is an admirable classicist, when he goes beyond that era he is way off the mark, especially with his ideas that the 'Western Way of War' is somehow more deadly than the 'Eastern Way', and has some kind of immutable attributes that are continuously visible throughout history (or maybe just some very cherry-picked examples).

Ah... actually, I thought that book and author sounded familiar! If it is the one I'm picturing, yeah... it skipped right over the fact that the West has lost quite a few wars, and a lot of skirmishes, over the years. Vietnam being the big one, of course. Nearly unrestrained military forces employed, yet it was still a major defeat for the West (primarily the US, of course). So the theory only really holds up to cases where it's a conventional, clear cut fight. Which, admittedly, is a pretty good chunk of the significant wars fought over the last couple thousand years.

While I agree a degree of individual freedom is important, it is worth noting that some of the forces most repressive against the individual, like the German army in WWI and Alexander the Great's Macedonians, have very good track records. Admittedly, neither of these are 100% against the individual, but I don't think you can find a historical example that was.

Correct. Which is why I would not extend my lines of argument to before WW2. In environments older than that, discipline and ridged execution were generally assets instead of liabilities. 20th Century advances in firepower and mobility changed that equation dramatically. The German Army of 1918, for example, was extremely different than the one of 1914. Unit organization, tactics, and even weaponry were all aimed at giving very small units a lot of independence. A shift that all modern warfare doctrine is still based on.But you study this stuff for a living so you already know that (as an aside, your day job is one of the few things that could tempt me out of making wargames!)

So I agree completely. If I had to conduct a battle with a formation based force going up against a formation based force, damned straight I'd want the rank and file to be very uncreative. Rote actions and unquestioning discipline at the lowest level is what gives you an edge for that type of fight. That and good senior staff work, good leaders, etc. which even the worst dictatorships seem capable of producing.

On the other hand, a formation based force going up against a guerilla style force doesn't do so well with rote actions and unquestioning discipline. If it did I'd probably be pledging my allegiance to the Queen of England

Steve

[hcrof]

One thing I have noticed is that when playing as Blue, most players (including myself) assume that they have such force superiority that they arn't very imaginative. Unless the map is huge, there are only a few good overwatch points or hull down spots for tanks. Use mines or prepositioned barrages on a timer to nail them hard at the right point of the battle.

I have caused a lot of casualties in the past by airburst mortar fire coming out of nowhere, sometimes more than from my troops!

If the enemy don't show up under the barrage just cancel it at the last moment - I just think of this as ersatz target reference points, not gamey at all

Also, I tend not to use a lot of target arcs as the Syrians. They open fire all at once when I tell them to.

[-Pv-]

Normal Dude

"Some things I have found that make the game even more not fun:"

You made me laugh more than anyone else here has even come close to. Thanks.

-Pv-

[Alan8325]

Oh, and my comment mentioning World of Warcraft and GTA IV was simply to point out that the overwhelming majority of gamers who find those games fun find all true wargames "not fun". So we don't get too hung up on what people think is "fun" or not as long as enough our stuff is "fun". Proportionally more of our customers like those games than vice versa!

Personally, I'm a Quake and Halo guy when it comes to non-wargame stuff

Steve

I have both WoW and GTA IV, and as a matter of fact, I have a great time running over Euphoria-powered civilians in GTA after a long day driving in traffic.

In regard to the unbalance in CM:SF, you have state-of-the-art T90s, RPG-29s and Kornet ATGMs, so other than Red airpower, you have many of the same conventional toys that Russia would throw at a Blue army in real-life. I don't know a whole lot about all the new stuff Russia has, but in response to poorly protected BMPs, they are turning T-55s into IFVs:

[76mm]

Your attitude, and the fact there are so many bleeped words in your posts, are putting you dangerously close to being banned.

For Chrissake, the guy stated his personal opinion--maybe others dont agree, maybe his language was a little strong--and was slapped down hard by plenty that disagreed. Is it really necessary to threaten to ban him? I know its your forum and all, but there has always been lots of give and take on this site, some of it borderline hostile.

[silverstars]

For Chrissake, the guy stated his personal opinion--maybe others dont agree, maybe his language was a little strong--and was slapped down hard by plenty that disagreed. Is it really necessary to threaten to ban him? I know its your forum and all, but there has always been lots of give and take on this site, some of it borderline hostile.

You may have a point, but then again I also see Steves point of view when he gets a little hostile. If I worked half as hard as he does to make one of the best wargames out there, and then somebody just sort of walks in, says everything he has done is complete crap and that he obviously has no idea what he is doing. The fact that he actually responds with something more the a few choice four letter words and a ban hammer is actually showing some constraint.

My point is this: If someone walks into my home that I paid for and tells me I am an idiot of the highest caliber , I would punch him dead in the face, kick his body into the closest Fire-covered ditch and piss on his ashes. Cognizant and thoughtful disagreement is one thing, antagonistic badgering and rudeness is something completely different.

[Battlefront.com]

For Chrissake, the guy stated his personal opinion

No problem there.

--maybe others dont agree

No problem there either.

maybe his language was a little strong

And there was the problem. Which is why I said:

"Your attitude, and the fact there are so many bleeped words in your posts, are putting you dangerously close to being banned."

I didn't say his opinion was the problem, I said the method of HOW he presented his opinion was the problem.

and was slapped down hard by plenty that disagreed.

The response to his post was understandable given the deliberate confrontational tone and apparent lack of respect for the opinions of others. Which is exactly why...

Is it really necessary to threaten to ban him?

After one post? No. After several? Yes. You see, the problem is when someone tries to be confrontational a strange things happens... there's a confrontation. Since confrontations are the opposite of discussions, I do what I have to do to get things back on track. To his credit, Preybyemail did see the error of his initial presentation and made amends. And now we're having a discussion with people honestly interested in trying to help Preybyemail with the issues he's having.

I know its your forum and all, but there has always been lots of give and take on this site, some of it borderline hostile.

We try to keep the hostility to a minimum. One way is to be firm about where the problem is and what specifically what is needed to get things back on track. It worked in this case quite well. I didn't have to ban anybody and we also didn't have to sit here and let a flamefest erupt.

One could conclude that perhaps after 11 years of moderating this Forum that I might know what I'm doing. It's at least a possibility, would you not agree?

Steve

P.S. You voiced an opinion, I disagree with it, and here you still are without any threats or hostility directed at you. There is an obvious reason for that.

[Battlefront.com]

silverstars,

If someone walks into my home that I paid for and tells me I am an idiot of the highest caliber , I would punch him dead in the face, kick his body into the closest Fire-covered ditch and piss on his ashes.

A little harsh , but it has always struck me that if I got a chance to criticize the job performance of some of our most vocal critics in their house, in front of their peers, I doubt they would show the same restraint I show them. Just a hunch

Cognizant and thoughtful disagreement is one thing, antagonistic badgering and rudeness is something completely different.

Sadly, long ago I gave up the belief that such things are self evident. The record shows that no matter how out of line someone is, there's always someone thinking that they should get a free pass. Not on this Forum. Not now, not ever. Which is just the way 99% of the people here want it.

Again... I wish to emphasize that Preybyemail is a good example of someone who is big enough to admit that he came on the wrong way and has subsequently modified his tone as requested. That is exactly what we expect, that is exactly what I asked of him, and so he deserves credit for that. It's the way we would like all conflicts to resolve.

Steve

[Dietrich]

This (the whole of this thread as well as the sum of its parts) is why I respect this forum and its members so much and why I'm glad to be a part of it: unlike so many other forums out there, this isn't a bunch of 15- to 25-year-old* too-big-for-their-britches punks who know only how to boast or flame. In other forums, someone who comes across as he who started this thread came across at first would just get flamed till he left. In this forum, even someone confrontational is met with respect and there are clear, purposeful efforts to turn confrontation into discussion.

* No offense to those forums members who happen to be 15 to 25 years old.

[satan]

It can be difficult to set up a red vs blue challenge.

I've been playing lots of quick battles to get a feel of things and the syrians can often bash the crap out of the brits.

Try taking on syrian tanks with scimitars and see how you go?

They bled me to death ,slowly.....

I chose to knock the tanks out at point blank in the direct rear, lucky i had a town to act as a maze whilst i flanked (nail biting fun BFC).

[76mm]

One could conclude that perhaps after 11 years of moderating this Forum that I might know what I'm doing. It's at least a possibility, would you not agree?

That is certainly a possibility, although another possibility is that the frustration and irritation which has accumulated over the years of moderating this forum has made you more cranky and less tolerant than would otherwise be the case.