Red vs. Blue balance

[JonS]

D,

2. How many units would the US military be reasonably able to field for the invasion of Syria? ("Units" means brigades/BCTs/RCTs, since nowadays it's rather less common to deploy discrete divisions.)

2a. The battalions which comprise the composite Task Force Thunder are not specified. What BCTs would these units likely be from?

2b. The Highland Games campaign briefing states that 7th Armoured Brigade is OPCON to the US 1st Cavalry Division. Does this indeed suggest that at least one HBCT from 1st CAV would be in the OOB?

2c. Would the USMC have just the 2nd MEB -- with the 26th MEU (SOC) as its spearhead (as per the official campaign) -- available for invading Syria's coast?

There is a map which came with the original CMSF that displays all the major formations involved, on both sides. The USMC and British forces identified are quite limited and not much more than what's implied by the campaigns in those modules, but the US Army forces (and NATO forces in Turkey) are much larger.

3. What routes other than the ones specified in the various campaigns (TF Thunder, Semper Fi Syria, and Highland Games) would the invading forces be sent along?

3a. As per the official campaign, the USMC contigent's task is to invade eastward to Hims (effecting a link-up with US Army forces there) and then southward to Damascus. Would perhaps a second unit (say, an RCT) be tasked to invade east and north from Latakia to Aleppo so as to effect a link-up with the NATO forces coming from the north?

3b. Would a BCT (or maybe even two) be tasked to advance from Al Bukamal (Abu Kamal) along the Euphrates to, say, Ar Raqqah to link up with the NATO forces advancing southward thereto?

The map also displays the putative routes those units would follow.

4. Forgive me if this sounds fanciful or unduly influenced by a certain mini-series, but would a Ranger battalion (mounted in Humvees with M2s, Mk.19s, and TOWs) be sent ahead along a certain route to capture key locations like airfields, bridges, etc., similar to what part of the 75th did in western Iraq in OIF? I have an idea for what I think might be a fun scenario: A company-sized Humvee-mounted Ranger task force races ahead to capture an airfield in advance of a Syrian mechanized force, and when said enemy force arrives, they defeat it with a combination of Javelines, TOWs, and air support.

The main reason I ask these questions is because I'm drafting a hypothetical strategic OOB for the Coalition forces including all nations and all branches (US Army, USMC, etc.), taking into account the forces involved in the "canon" campaigns, and I'm unsure as to how many forces the various nations would be able to deploy for the invasion of Syria.

Sure, why not?

Your scenario back-story doesn't have to be totally logical or credible. It just has to be logical enough and credible enough to semi-make sense. Heck, you don't even really have to conform to the set of 'official' campaigns, unless you have some particular reason to do so. It's not like anybody really reads and/or deconstructs the backstory anyway

It's your scen or campaign - make it the way you want.

Regards

Jon

[ChrisND]

And that Ranger campaign sounds cool. I, for one, will play it!

[Dietrich]

Jon,

Thanks kindly for the reply.

There is a map which came with the original CMSF that displays all the major formations involved, on both sides. [snip] The map also displays the putative routes those units would follow.

I came late to the party (so to speak) with regard to CMSF, so I didn't get the edition of the game that came with that map. A JPEG of the map was posted here once, but it's not hi-res enough to clearly make out the unit symbols.

I reckon both the US Army and the USMC would be limited (the latter more so) in terms of what forces they could deploy by the simultaneous commitments in Iraq and Afghanistan. But if the overall CMSF backstory scenario had transpired, there probably would have been certain redistributing of forces -- i.e., some of the units (2nd MEB becoming Task Force Leatherneck for its 2009-2010 deployment to Afghanistan is an obvious example, since 2nd MEB is the force that makes up the bulk of the USMC contingent in CMSF) that in reality ended up in Iraq or A-Stan would have been deployed for the invasion of Syria.

Your scenario back-story doesn't have to be totally logical or credible. It just has to be logical enough and credible enough to semi-make sense. Heck, you don't even really have to conform to the set of 'official' campaigns, unless you have some particular reason to do so. It's not like anybody really reads and/or deconstructs the backstory anyway

I concur about a scenario's backstory. My aim, though, is to make scenarios that are solidly realistic and which give the player a concrete sense (yet not unrealistically clear) of their forces and the parent unit and the tactical and operational context.

Normal Dude,

And that Ranger campaign sounds cool. I, for one, will play it!

Glad you think so. It's encouraging when one hears that a designer of great scenarios thinks that one's scenario idea sounds cool.

To clarify: I'd love to make a campaign, but at the moment I'm a tyro when it comes to scenario designing. Soon, though, I'll have my first scenario ready for beta-testing.