Trident Valley warning !!!

[ng cavscout]

Which might reflect the quality of your opponent more than the tech imbalance

However when two players of the same skill level play each other the tech imbalance will be noticable and the only remedy will be numbers.

So do blue vs blue or red vs red.

[noob]

Also, I can see your point about "double blind" but that can be pretty well done in editor,also(that is the entire idea behind the AI section of the editor)

All im saying is there is less flexibility and manouverability in this theatre compared to WW2 when you apply the asymetric victory conditions.

I know that to counter the Blue tech superiority the designer can build in point punishments for sustaining casulaties and destroying mosques etc which is fine if you like playing those sort of conservation games but they encourage passivity IMO which runs contrary to the logic of why i and i suspect the majority of people play wargames, thats why CMSF will never be as popular as a game as CM WW2 because CM WW2 encourages action and manouver whereas CMSF encourages ambush and shoot and scoot which is less exciting in the long term.

I fully understand the feelings of the people that like this sort of warfare and as i have said before it was brave of BF to dedicate the new CM engine to it as i see it as a niche interest because to be honest can you really imagine the wargames community getting that excited about invading Syria ?

[noob]

So do blue vs blue or red vs red.

I said i wanted balance not symmetry.

[abneo3sierra]

Which might reflect the quality of your opponent more than the tech imbalance

However when two players of the same skill level play each other the tech imbalance will be noticable and the only remedy will be numbers.

It is the same as real world...you level the field with tactics, for every tactic, there is a counter-tactic..it is like chess, a game "of the mind" where what is a good move on one day against one enemy, is not so good a move next day against a different one, you take it to them,and roll the dice, or you can sit back,and watch for your opening. The latter is the normal way to win a battle, in the real world, or in a wargame, the former,may be a bit exciting, but is not the way to (consistently)win...but if you just want the excitement, go for it, it really CAN be quite fun.

All I am saying is that the scenarios,etc are all designed to do different things..try LLF's Ramadi Battle at this very website as a hell of a good example..play Blue, you MAY win, but it will be quite exciting, and it is incredibly realistic.

[noob]

It is the same as real world...you level the field with tactics, for every tactic, there is a counter-tactic..it is like chess, a game "of the mind" where what is a good move on one day against one enemy, is not so good a move next day against a different one, you take it to them,and roll the dice, or you can sit back,and watch for your opening. The latter is the normal way to win a battle, in the real world, or in a wargame, the former,may be a bit exciting, but is not the way to (consistently)win...but if you just want the excitement, go for it, it really CAN be quite fun.

All I am saying is that the scenarios,etc are all designed to do different things..try LLF's Ramadi Battle at this very website as a hell of a good example..play Blue, you MAY win, but it will be quite exciting, and it is incredibly realistic.

Firstly using chess as an analogy was a bad move (forgive the unintentional pun) because in chess both sides have equal forces and are positioned equi distant to each other.

Secondly i have been interested in warfare and wargaming for 30 years so i don't need to have explained to me the considerations of different theatres and different forces and how they interact on the battlefield

I am talking about margins for error and percentages, so for example every battle i have played as Red against a human opponent has shown to me that the margin for error for the Red commander is infuriatingly small, and the ability to counter attack or redeploy extremely difficult, this is due to the optical and firepower / accuracy advantages of Blue that is in "every" scenario.

Now those situations are interesting initially but eventually playing Red becomes very formulaic and one dimensional because you can rarely allow exposure so you end up hiding most of the time, in fact you often see in CMSF tactics discussion posts that the games usually revolve around finding Reds ATGMs and killing them, the implication being that its game over for Red if that happens, that to me is a formula that i never heard in CM WW2, but as Reds only real assets are ATGMS and the RPG 29 it makes sense but cant be fun doing it over and over again.

This problem "could" be overcome to a certain degree by scenario designers but up top now i have found only one Red attack that had a force balance that seemed reasonable (i.e. Red actually had a fighting chance to win, by that i mean over 35 %) - NATO Alamo (the name says it all), otherwise the bulk of the scenarios are Red ambushes which get boring after a while.

One solution i am trying are mega maps, im testing one called Armor Attacks, the reason why i have higher hopes for this is that the map is 2.5.km square, this allows Red a certain amount of warning of the main attack path and therefore a chance to relocate in safety and also allows ATGMs to operate at max ranges thus giving them a decent chance of re locating once fired.

I have also been informed by the designer that the Reds have T90's which will be interesting to see how they perform against the Abrams.

The only downside to this is apparently some people have trouble playing maps this size which might explain the dearth of big maps in the scenario lists, my opponent says it takes him 5 minutes just to load it !

If the big map experiment works then i see hope for more viable Red attack scenarios that dont involve Blue having 10 men only

But my experience so far is very realistic i imagine, if Syria did get invaded her forces would be hammered the way they are in CMSF, and to not allow that in every scenario takes the most skillfull of scenario designers and i have not come across many of them up to now.

In fact you often see in the CMSF tactics discussion that the games usually revolve around finding Reds ATGMs and killing them, the implication being that its game over for Red if that happens, that tro me is a formula that i never heard in CM WW2, but as Reds only real assets are ATGMS and the RPG 29

Don't get me wrong, i am glad BF made this in as it's an adds to the diversity of the series and shows that BF are willing to cater for all tastes, in fact one could argue they had to given the topicallity of asymetric warfare in the real world today, it gives enthusiasts of modern warfare the perfect game to play this type of combat and brings more people into the BF community (although i imagine a lot left after CMSF was released but now CMBN is coming out they will be back so alls well that ends well)

I also have to mention that i only play the WEGO way which i am realising has big disadvantages with this theatre given things get spotted quicker, in real time units once for fired and exposed can be relocated instantly as opposed to waiting until the next order phase so i would say the WEGO style suffers more from this than RT which compounds my frustration so maybe it's not for me for that reason only.

So to reiterate whilst i personally think its a bad theatre for the type of Combat i prefer and doesnt really capture my imagination the way WW2 does it has it's place in the games world but like i said before its harder to make good balanced and diverse scenarios out of it than the other CM titles so i guess i must wait for BN or keep on looking for the needles in the haystack

[noob]

All I am saying is that the scenarios,etc are all designed to do different things..try LLF's Ramadi Battle at this very website as a hell of a good example..play Blue, you MAY win, but it will be quite exciting, and it is incredibly realistic.

I dont mind scenarios that require you to do different things, its whether its possible to do the things they tell you to and up to now the vast majority of the scenarios are badly designed and unbalanced or just boring and make it ridiculously difficult for Red to do anything required of them in the briefings.

[abneo3sierra]

Noob, you really should try your hand at creating some scenarios..I actually think the MAIN problem with most scenarios, is the creators play from Blue side,and many of them are made to be challenging with RED being the "AI" side,but probably a bit too challenging with a player playing RED against BLUE. It is quite possible to create scenarios and still enjoy playing even your own creation,and still be surprised by AI moves, in a game you actually created.

Most of my playing right now involves teaching ROTC students, and we have had many scenarios where RED did well, with many of the scenarios available for download here. This is how I know that tactics can make even a "hard" scenario,winnable. At the Army's CGSC, we played wargames also,where we had sometimes infuriatingly difficult situations at setup,but we fought them,and learned how to win them..that, for me at least, is alot of the fun of gaming,taking a "small margin for error" and turning it into a win,because in the real world,this is also many times our job.

[Sivodsi]

Noob, you really should try your hand at creating some scenarios..I actually think the MAIN problem with most scenarios, is the creators play from Blue side,and many of them are made to be challenging with RED being the "AI" side,but probably a bit too challenging with a player playing RED against BLUE.

I think this is the exact opposite of the problem that noob described. He said

its a set up for Red, who on earth thought that 15 Bradleys versus 9 BMP 1's could be anything other than a massacre

the only concievable way Red can conduct offensive manouvers is with at least a 4 to 1 advantage which i never see apart from NATO Alamo where the exception proves the rule.

So, it appears you guys are playing a different set of scenarios? Perhaps if you each make a list of scenarios that you think are unbalanced in the way you say they are it would be helpful for all players, not just this discussion - without posting spoilers, natch.

Wouldn't it be amusing if the same scenarios appeared on both your lists...?

[noob]

Noob, you really should try your hand at creating some scenarios..I actually think the MAIN problem with most scenarios, is the creators play from Blue side,and many of them are made to be challenging with RED being the "AI" side,but probably a bit too challenging with a player playing RED against BLUE. It is quite possible to create scenarios and still enjoy playing even your own creation,and still be surprised by AI moves, in a game you actually created.

Most of my playing right now involves teaching ROTC students, and we have had many scenarios where RED did well, with many of the scenarios available for download here. This is how I know that tactics can make even a "hard" scenario,winnable. At the Army's CGSC, we played wargames also,where we had sometimes infuriatingly difficult situations at setup,but we fought them,and learned how to win them..that, for me at least, is alot of the fun of gaming,taking a "small margin for error" and turning it into a win,because in the real world,this is also many times our job.

I agree with you that i should design or at least modify some of the scenarios i have come across and i have plans in that respect for the future but for now i need to become more acclimatised to such a mismatch in forces, never in all my years playing wargames have i come across such a thing in a game and it's quite traumatic to realise that the defensive set up you spent 2 nights doing gets undone by a Paveway that demolishes a whole company because they moved slightly inside a factory complex or your HQ units get wiped out from 700 mtrs because a Marder can spot them through a keyhole LOS as they run across a space of 10 mtrs

Then add to that the UAV spying from the skies and one starts to feel similar to how the Iraqi army commanders and troops must have felt.

However i am a quick learner and in one of the games i am playing i have tricked my opponent into using artillery on a small 5 man squad by running around in the buildings looking conspicuous and trying to make it look like more men occupy the area.

I feel that Red need to do this against Blue Arty as the delay times are much shorter with Blue arty therefore making it a more efficient weapon, Red arty delay is at least 7 mins so one has to do prep fire on the suspected set up zones or really wait and try and predict a good place to set it up where you think Blue will be, so for now i'm happy just to see Blue arty wasted

Have you played NATO Alamo as Red against a human (i only ever play human opponents by the way) it's the best scenario for Red as aggressor i have come across, i had a eureka moment when i came to work out how to play it as Red which worked perfectly and i got a major victory double blind against a human opponent.

I would like your thoughts on it if you have played it or try it and and tell me what plan you used to attack the castle.

[MikeyD]

I suspect a lot of "game is unbalanced" players are playing basegame scenarios. Basegame scenario are operating under a small handicap - First they were designed so novices (everybody back in 2007) could make it through without getting PTSD in the process. Second, the game evolved immensely after those first scenarios were designed. After nine patches AI-controlled forces were nt longer acting quite like the designer had planned.

When you hit the British module the forces are much better balanced (weaker Brit forces) and scenario makers are designing to a near-final game engine incarnation.

By the time you hit the NATO module the scenario makers are assuming everyone buying the title is a CMSF veteran so they design MUCH more difficult contests.

---

Shifting the topic slightly, one way to rebalance scenaros you're playing is to play by stricter rules. No hovering over the battlefield Godlike, no rewinding repeatedly to spot exactly where that mystery ATGM launch came from, no flying the camera ahead of your own troops' forward line. The game become a bit tougher if you don't 'cheat'.

[noob]

I suspect a lot of "game is unbalanced" players are playing basegame scenarios. Basegame scenario are operating under a small handicap - First they were designed so novices (everybody back in 2007) could make it through without getting PTSD in the process. Second, the game evolved immensely after those first scenarios were designed. After nine patches AI-controlled forces were nt longer acting quite like the designer had planned.

When you hit the British module the forces are much better balanced (weaker Brit forces) and scenario makers are designing to a near-final game engine incarnation.

By the time you hit the NATO module the scenario makers are assuming everyone buying the title is a CMSF veteran so they design MUCH more difficult contests.

---

Shifting the topic slightly, one way to rebalance scenaros you're playing is to play by stricter rules. No hovering over the battlefield Godlike, no rewinding repeatedly to spot exactly where that mystery ATGM launch came from, no flying the camera ahead of your own troops' forward line. The game become a bit tougher if you don't 'cheat'.

Yes, i am coming to the party quite late and from a WW2 saturated gaming experience so im finding the learning curve steep and my ego suddenly vulnerable as i am back to being a noob again which is quite wierd after all the time i played CM but given the huge difference between the two theatres is not suprising.

As for camera lock and such ive written about that before and would love an option to force binocular view as that would make high ground as essential to occupy as it is in RL and create an amazing immersive experience similar to ARMA2 which i play.

[Praetori]

Yes, i am coming to the party quite late and from a WW2 saturated gaming experience so im finding the learning curve steep and my ego suddenly vulnerable as i am back to being a noob again which is quite wierd after all the time i played CM but given the huge difference between the two theatres is not suprising.

As for camera lock and such ive written about that before and would love an option to force binocular view as that would make high ground as essential to occupy as it is in RL and create an amazing immersive experience similar to ARMA2 which i play.

If you like ARMA2 and CMx2 you should take a look at VBS2 if you feel you can afford it.

Back on trac: I do understand what you're saying. Running at the machineguns are only fun for so long (in this case the MGs are attached to AH-64s and Brads).

I don't on the other hand agree with the sentiment that RED needs larger maps to compete. ATGMs are important but there are other options viable. The T-72 is an excellent tank if used correctly against Western armor. It's like back in the days with CMBB where the early German tanks had no chance against a T-34 or KV frontal. Maneuvering for a flank or rear shot was your only option.

Blue side in CMSF are often hampered by strict VP allocation to force preservation which means the options for fast maneuvering are a tad more limited (as a more careful approach is required).

RED side on the other hand rarely have such constraints and in the defend missions the RED side has the advantage of possessing most of the initial battlefield. This allows for much more and faster maneuvering which can help with creating superior force concentrations at local spots.

There's almost always ways to move them BMPs around without getting into LOS of allied armor. Feints and smoke can help you get up really close where the guns rather than ATGMs on the BMPs can kill an Abrams by the flank or rear.

My worst enemy when playing RED is the Javelin, not the tanks, as they are everywhere, hard to detect and kills you as surely as any sabot round.

[noob]

I don't on the other hand agree with the sentiment that RED needs larger maps to compete. ATGMs are important but there are other options viable.

I dont think Red "needs" larger maps to compete i just think it helps them in certain ways, like with the ATGM as i have mentioned before, one problem i had with that weapon was that i had never played it on a map larger than 1000 mtrs so consequently once it fired in the WEGO mode it sat there waiting to fire again (40 secs) and therefore became vulnerable to long range return fire and always got destroyed in the first volley, however i'm currently playing a scenario at the moment where i can fire from 1000mtrs and 1 ATGM killed 2 Marders in one turn without a single shot returned, allowing me to move it the next turn and relocate....perfect result, if the map was 1500 mtrs that would be even better as thats the max range of the Saxhorn im using, even more chance of a safe getaway

The T-72 is an excellent tank if used correctly against Western armor. It's like back in the days with CMBB where the early German tanks had no chance against a T-34 or KV frontal. Maneuvering for a flank or rear shot was your only option.

That arguement actually supports my arguement for bigger maps as that would allow more opportunity for manouvering to flanking or rear positions behind cover map willing, however you are forgetting that the German tank crews that went up against the T34 and KVs were of a much better quality than the Russian tankers and had radio comms as well so it doesnt quite work that analogy but i get your point and agree with you about how weaker tanks can beat stronger ones, thats why i think Red needs the numbers as well, to be able to afford to send off flankers without leaving holes in the line.

Blue side in CMSF are often hampered by strict VP allocation to force preservation which means the options for fast maneuvering are a tad more limited (as a more careful approach is required).

RED side on the other hand rarely have such constraints and in the defend missions the RED side has the advantage of possessing most of the initial battlefield. This allows for much more and faster maneuvering which can help with creating superior force concentrations at local spots.

This side of it initially fascinated me because it seemed to be the way to balance the game but apart from the woefull uses of it in the CMSF scenarios ive come across (see Abu Susah)

it sort of puts me off playing Blue because it goes against my nature to pussyfoot around with my units but i am playing a large map as Blue at the moment with orders to lose no more than 15% of my men so i will find out if i like this sort of a puzzle.

There's almost always ways to move them BMPs around without getting into LOS of allied armor. Feints and smoke can help you get up really close where the guns rather than ATGMs on the BMPs can kill an Abrams by the flank or rear.

I understand about the BMPs, i used them to perfection in Trident Valley, i anticipated my opponents moves and met his individual Brads with 3 or 4 to 1 numerical superiority, the 4 BMPs hit 1 Brad with 2 ATGMS and 2 73mm AP rounds, this only immobilised it and it preceded to kill 2 BMPs with 1 TOW round because the BMPs had to be close to get in the LOS spaces with the numbers required, another 3 BMPs actually destroyed a Brad then the same fate befell them as the others a 2 with 1 rocket kill but from a Javelin this time, so even though i had out thought my opponent, hit him numerous times i still lost half my armor in one turn and he lost 1 Brad to my 5 BMPs, that is why i started this thread so dont talk to me about bloody BMPs Howeevr i can see their potential in the right circumstances but i would still rather have them on a big map rather than a small map.(had to get that in

I agree with you about smoke, something i havent really experimented with as a screening device.

My worst enemy when playing RED is the Javelin, not the tanks, as they are everywhere, hard to detect and kills you as surely as any sabot round.

Amen to that

What about the Tornado, i had that thing trash some of my men that had moved 20 meters in a factory, could it detect them or was it a miss ?

[George MC]

Re the limitations on casualties. For BLUEFOR I guess the challeneg in a conventional fight is you just don't have vast reserves of trained soldiers to handle very specialised assets e.g. AFVs, ATGMs etc. Due to the increased lethality of modern weapons units although they pack more punch tend to be smaller and disperesed over wider areas. In the US the combat team (combined arms at company level) is one of the main tactical manouver units. But having two platoons of Bradleys and their dsimounts plus a platoon of tanks does not allow you a lot of scope for losing 30% of your force. In WWII with larger standing armies and arguably more material and trained personnal available you could suffer such losses, and they did. But in Western Europe and the breakout from Normandy units were so woefully understength that filling the ranks involve dcombing through many rear units to find able bodeid men to go into the front line. I think in any conventioanl fight now BLUEFOR would be very averse to losing vast numbers of men and material. I think having reduced casualty rates for players to work with gives an element of realism.

But hey, when I get into a scenario I become a bit task oriented and the means justifies the ends. With the result my poor pixeltruppen will still die like flys!

[LUCASWILLEN05]

An important point to remember about the modern combat environment in Syria given the forces involved is the technological imbalance between the two sides. Like it or not much of what the Syrians have is inferior to the equipment NATO has. Syria does have some good equipment (the T90 and high end T72s such as the TURMS variant) although you will only find this kind of thing in the Republican Guard.

Quite a few scenarios allow you a choice of which side to play and, if you want a real challenge playing as the Syrians against NATO can be very interesting. You will probably still get hammered but it is possible you can still win the scenario by using a carefully thought out battle plan to accomplish your mission

Assuming you are playing the Syrians you have to be clever in order to win. Use the terrain. You WILL get hammered in an open field fight as the Iraqis found out in 1991, so, assuming you have the option, don't fight your battle in that kind of terrain.Use reverse slopes, mines and in particular urban areas. Try to find ways to force NATO forces to fight the battle on your terms. Go after vehicles you can kill like the IFVs (Warriors, Bradleys, Strykers, Marders etc) IF you can force NATO to fight you in urban terrain place your tanks in keyhole positions in the side streets along what you think will be the main axis of armoured advance into the town. In a recent battle I knocked out no less than 6 Challenger 2s using this tactic.

Use your ATGMs, particularly the AT14 Kornet particularly if you get a flank shot. Hezbollah, during the 2006 Lebanon War gave the IDF a bloody nows with weapons like this.

Speaking of insurgents they can be quite nasty particularly in urban environments which high density civilian populations. Scenario designers may well force the Western side to operate under quite strict ROE in this kind of battle (eg very limited air power and artillery, certain buildings such as mosques, schools and hospitals cannot be damaged without victory points penalties) That may apply in any urban warfare scenario by the way. It really depends what the scenario designer wants to do.

Playing on the NATO side also has its challenges. You will usually have the best equipment and air power but this does not mean you can relax too much or get careless. Make mistakes and you will get people killed and AFVs/IFVs destroyed. This will cost you victory points as will failure to observe your ROE. Syrian forces will not care about your ROE and scenario designers will have no compunction whatsover about setting up plans to exploit ths (eg firing from schools and mosques) presenting you with a dilemma. Either you can risjk heavy losses in following your ROE or you can break them by using heavy weapons to blast the defenders out with associated victory point penalties representing negative press coverage

Large maps can be a good option particularly for a tank battle but dense terrain can be an issue with some graphics cards. We can only create maps of a maximum of 4000m x 4000m however. It would be sensible to keep armoured forces particularly on the NATO side reasonably small (eg a NATO battalion size battlegroup) but you can bring on reinforcements later if you are setting up a longer 3 or 4 hour scenario.

In terms of setting up a balanced game a points system might be of assistance in game but there are modern miniatures games such as Battlegroup out there which you could use as a guide in creating a balanced scenario.

[LUCASWILLEN05]

Ive always thought cmsf setting was kind of bizarre in some ways. BFC chose Syria so they could simulate the effects of modern warfare with modern tank on tank battles etc and to move away from an Iraq War clone and yet nearly every scenario you get the reds have extremely poor standards of men, like conscripts etc - just like an Iraq War game! Considering this is completely fictional I think making the Syrians 'tougher' by default wouldn't have been totally outrageous...[/quote

Most Syrian army units are not that good in terms of training and morale. Same can be said for the Libyan army by the way demonstrated by their performance so far in the current conflict. Most of the Libyan rebels seem even worse apart from the regular army elements that have defected. At the start of the conflict the Libyan rebels had very high motivation but, following a few weeks of real combat they seem to have lost this and currently seem quite prone to panic

This kind of thing can easily be simulated in CMSF scenarios by ammending the relevant settings. You could have anything from poorly motivated and ill trained Syrian regular army/insurgents to reasonably well trained and motivated Republican Guards. You can even have fanatical insurgents of the hard core AQ type.

As we all know the game gives you the option of fighting conventional war, counterinsurgency type firefights complete with IEDs or indeed a hybrid of the two which can make things reall yinteresting

[LUCASWILLEN05]

Well at least one masochist is happy with the tech imbalance so that fine then, the rest of us that want less predictability and maybe "winning" the odd battle as Red without it being a recreation of Zulu can whistle.

Talking about reality is pointless when you can fly your camera over the battlefield and spot trenches that are behind woods and work out exact LOS with the waypoint tool, what you mean is asymetric warfare is the reality of the modern battlefield which might be topical but it makes for a one dimensional game im afraid.

UAVs. NATO definitely have them and you should be using the harder game settings which use hidden units as this is far more realisitic in any case.

[LUCASWILLEN05]

Firstly using chess as an analogy was a bad move (forgive the unintentional pun) because in chess both sides have equal forces and are positioned equi distant to each other.

Secondly i have been interested in warfare and wargaming for 30 years so i don't need to have explained to me the considerations of different theatres and different forces and how they interact on the battlefield

I am talking about margins for error and percentages, so for example every battle i have played as Red against a human opponent has shown to me that the margin for error for the Red commander is infuriatingly small, and the ability to counter attack or redeploy extremely difficult, this is due to the optical and firepower / accuracy advantages of Blue that is in "every" scenario.

Now those situations are interesting initially but eventually playing Red becomes very formulaic and one dimensional because you can rarely allow exposure so you end up hiding most of the time, in fact you often see in CMSF tactics discussion posts that the games usually revolve around finding Reds ATGMs and killing them, the implication being that its game over for Red if that happens, that to me is a formula that i never heard in CM WW2, but as Reds only real assets are ATGMS and the RPG 29 it makes sense but cant be fun doing it over and over again.

This problem "could" be overcome to a certain degree by scenario designers but up top now i have found only one Red attack that had a force balance that seemed reasonable (i.e. Red actually had a fighting chance to win, by that i mean over 35 %) - NATO Alamo (the name says it all), otherwise the bulk of the scenarios are Red ambushes which get boring after a while.

One solution i am trying are mega maps, im testing one called Armor Attacks, the reason why i have higher hopes for this is that the map is 2.5.km square, this allows Red a certain amount of warning of the main attack path and therefore a chance to relocate in safety and also allows ATGMs to operate at max ranges thus giving them a decent chance of re locating once fired.

I have also been informed by the designer that the Reds have T90's which will be interesting to see how they perform against the Abrams.

The only downside to this is apparently some people have trouble playing maps this size which might explain the dearth of big maps in the scenario lists, my opponent says it takes him 5 minutes just to load it !

If the big map experiment works then i see hope for more viable Red attack scenarios that dont involve Blue having 10 men only

But my experience so far is very realistic i imagine, if Syria did get invaded her forces would be hammered the way they are in CMSF, and to not allow that in every scenario takes the most skillfull of scenario designers and i have not come across many of them up to now.

In fact you often see in the CMSF tactics discussion that the games usually revolve around finding Reds ATGMs and killing them, the implication being that its game over for Red if that happens, that tro me is a formula that i never heard in CM WW2, but as Reds only real assets are ATGMS and the RPG 29

Don't get me wrong, i am glad BF made this in as it's an adds to the diversity of the series and shows that BF are willing to cater for all tastes, in fact one could argue they had to given the topicallity of asymetric warfare in the real world today, it gives enthusiasts of modern warfare the perfect game to play this type of combat and brings more people into the BF community (although i imagine a lot left after CMSF was released but now CMBN is coming out they will be back so alls well that ends well)

I also have to mention that i only play the WEGO way which i am realising has big disadvantages with this theatre given things get spotted quicker, in real time units once for fired and exposed can be relocated instantly as opposed to waiting until the next order phase so i would say the WEGO style suffers more from this than RT which compounds my frustration so maybe it's not for me for that reason only.

So to reiterate whilst i personally think its a bad theatre for the type of Combat i prefer and doesnt really capture my imagination the way WW2 does it has it's place in the games world but like i said before its harder to make good balanced and diverse scenarios out of it than the other CM titles so i guess i must wait for BN or keep on looking for the needles in the haystack

You don't just have to game tank battles. They are available and can be a lot of fun. Not all NATO armoured forces are as good as the US and US. The NATO module Leopards are only slightly better than most T72s. You also have the option of Blue versus Blue battles which, while not realistic can be a lot more challenging. You can even do a combined Blue/Red force

The option of Syrian armour versus NATO infantry action. Even more interesting are counter insurgency ops matching NATO leg or mechanized infantry units maybe backed by a few tanks against insurgents in an environment similar to that in Iraq after 2003 or Afghanistan today.

You can even set up a scenario rather like that in Libya today with a Red versus Red force (backed by NATO airpower as has been discussed on the Battle for Libya thread. A similar situation could well develop in Syria at some point considering real world events.

There are additional TOEs that I would ideally like to have such as the IDF, Iranians, Jordanians etc. Maybe some of these will become available in a Mod at some point or maybe not. As it is there is plenty of options open with this game and there is always the Soviet Afghanistan version to consider.

[noob]

You don't just have to game tank battles. They are available and can be a lot of fun. Not all NATO armoured forces are as good as the US and US. The NATO module Leopards are only slightly better than most T72s. You also have the option of Blue versus Blue battles which, while not realistic can be a lot more challenging. You can even do a combined Blue/Red force

The option of Syrian armour versus NATO infantry action. Even more interesting are counter insurgency ops matching NATO leg or mechanized infantry units maybe backed by a few tanks against insurgents in an environment similar to that in Iraq after 2003 or Afghanistan today.

You can even set up a scenario rather like that in Libya today with a Red versus Red force (backed by NATO airpower as has been discussed on the Battle for Libya thread. A similar situation could well develop in Syria at some point considering real world events.

There are additional TOEs that I would ideally like to have such as the IDF, Iranians, Jordanians etc. Maybe some of these will become available in a Mod at some point or maybe not. As it is there is plenty of options open with this game and there is always the Soviet Afghanistan version to consider.

Well i am starting to find some better constructed scenarios now so maybe this theatre will grow on me, especially now i am getting over the shock of some of the effectivness of Blue weaponry

However i like aggresive defence and up to now i'm paying heavily as Red so i must learn to be more passive....grrrrrr !!!

[LUCASWILLEN05]

Well i am starting to find some better constructed scenarios now so maybe this theatre will grow on me, especially now i am getting over the shock of some of the effectivness of Blue weaponry

However i like aggresive defence and up to now i'm paying heavily as Red so i must learn to be more passive....grrrrrr !!!

NATO weaponry , particularly US and UK is very effective and yes, shock and awe does spring to mind :-) But, when playing as NATO you should not let this make you overconfident and you should certainly not underestimate the Syrians.

One scenario design option for the Syrians would be to provide tank scrapes or sangars for defending armoured units. Playing the Syrians in a passive defence would simply leave them open to being outmanouvred so some activity is still needed to get good flank shots at close range or to hit those more vulnerable IFVs . It is doubtful Syrian armour will survive too long so what you have to do is to sacrifice it for the highest returns possible

[snake_eye]

To NOOB,

You should try "A Counter Attack at El Derjine". Its is a huge map and you are playing the Blue side. The Reds, with ample tracks, tanks and infantry, have at the beginning a more than 3 to 1 ratio for their attack. However, they can be slowed toward their objectives. That, if a rather wise deployment in defence of the Blue is done and permits to limit the casualties until the coming Combat Team reinforcement with its M1 Abrams.

BTW, Blackmoria gave me invaluable helps and advices, while doing multiple testing and finally finalized into the V2 that should be released soon. It is for him the ultimate Version that could be done of that battle. You can almost fight the battle till the end of the 4 hours, that if you have survived the Red counter attack, re taking the lost ground and pushing all the way down to the Red departure line.

You will find out that the BMP-3's, to speak only of them, are not to take on lightly and that the Reds can really be very agressive in their attack as well as in defence.

That is made possible by the tweaking of the forces in the editor and by testing the results and testing them again, until it seems good. The goal is to provide the player with a realistic battle and not a shoot them up, which will please an Hollywood scenario maker, but surely not a military simulation enthusiast.

Just a small spoiler. You might think that doing the scenario, I might have the Blue side on the winner side at the end ? Sure, it happens, but on the 4 hours (against 3 before) new scenario, more than one time I was just able to hold the ground by clenching my teeth in it. There are only,two A.I plans, more were not interesting, since they were not giving any valuable and more important realistic, tactical advantage. Since , I know the A.I plans, I should have fare better. That was not the case. Blackmoria, having played quite a few times the V1 was also surprised by V2, but as usual managed to fare pretty well.

Cheers

[Praetori]

Well i am starting to find some better constructed scenarios now so maybe this theatre will grow on me, especially now i am getting over the shock of some of the effectivness of Blue weaponry

However i like aggresive defence and up to now i'm paying heavily as Red so i must learn to be more passive....grrrrrr !!!

You probably already know most of what I'm trying to convey but employing it in CMSF is not something that feel natural at first (at least it didn't for me).

One can have a passive defense with lots of maneuvering, in fact it's key to avoid being smashed by allied airpower.

Have your armor spread out and moving in wadis or forested areas. Don't stay in one spot for more than a minute or two and when you move make it full tilt to the next location.

When it's time to use the armor make sure it's a simultaneous action and ensure that the C2 is as good as possible for optimal target spotting.

Let your RED armor make popups against known targets but make sure they reverse or roll forward into new cover after a few seconds. BMPs should shoot 'n scoot as the ATGMs requires a few seconds to hit home (but don't keep them immobile on the firing-line for long).

The other option is to keep moving forward as fast as possible having your tanks fire on the move. Closing the distance will negate much of the blueforce advantages and blue airpower and arty becomes virtually useless.

Never have your armor stand still within LOS of blue armor. An M1 won't simply "miss" a stationary target, even if it's hull down. It will however miss at times if you move at full speed and the tactical situation should, hopefully, be such that you have a local numerical superiority (enabling you to saturate your target).

Another less used (but effective) option is to park your tanks behind a crest or cover and then dismount the crews and crawl forward for a peek. The crews will pretty easily spot enemy armor without being detected. Then go back to the tanks, mount up and attack.

The trick is to not lose the initiative even while defending (ie passive does not equal static).

[noob]

To NOOB,

You should try "A Counter Attack at El Derjine". Its is a huge map and you are playing the Blue side. The Reds, with ample tracks, tanks and infantry, have at the beginning a more than 3 to 1 ratio for their attack. However, they can be slowed toward their objectives. That, if a rather wise deployment in defence of the Blue is done and permits to limit the casualties until the coming Combat Team reinforcement with its M1 Abrams.

BTW, Blackmoria gave me invaluable helps and advices, while doing multiple testing and finally finalized into the V2 that should be released soon. It is for him the ultimate Version that could be done of that battle. You can almost fight the battle till the end of the 4 hours, that if you have survived the Red counter attack, re taking the lost ground and pushing all the way down to the Red departure line.

You will find out that the BMP-3's, to speak only of them, are not to take on lightly and that the Reds can really be very agressive in their attack as well as in defence.

That is made possible by the tweaking of the forces in the editor and by testing the results and testing them again, until it seems good. The goal is to provide the player with a realistic battle and not a shoot them up, which will please an Hollywood scenario maker, but surely not a military simulation enthusiast.

Just a small spoiler. You might think that doing the scenario, I might have the Blue side on the winner side at the end ? Sure, it happens, but on the 4 hours (against 3 before) new scenario, more than one time I was just able to hold the ground by clenching my teeth in it. There are only,two A.I plans, more were not interesting, since they were not giving any valuable and more important realistic, tactical advantage. Since , I know the A.I plans, I should have fare better. That was not the case. Blackmoria, having played quite a few times the V1 was also surprised by V2, but as usual managed to fare pretty well.

Cheers

Thanks for the information, however i only play other players not the AI so do you think it will make a good H2H game ?

[noob]

One can have a passive defense with lots of maneuvering, in fact it's key to avoid being smashed by allied airpower.

Have your armor spread out and moving in wadis or forested areas. Don't stay in one spot for more than a minute or two and when you move make it full tilt to the next location.

Good advice but the games i have been playing have been quite constricted for armour movement so i try to hide them but i need to know if its possible for a vehicle to hide from Airpower by sitting in woods on hide or being tight to buildings in narrow streets ?, also i had two platoons destroyed in one game because one platoon moved about 20 mtrs inside a factory block and got hit by a Tornado paveway, did it spot the movement ?

Let your RED armor make popups against known targets but make sure they reverse or roll forward into new cover after a few seconds. BMPs should shoot 'n scoot as the ATGMs requires a few seconds to hit home (but don't keep them immobile on the firing-line for long).

That is the mistake i made in Trident Valley with my BMPs, once i had won the duel for the high ground i kept them there on overwatch (old CM style) and a Javelin trashed them next turn, so your advice would of saved them, thx

Another less used (but effective) option is to park your tanks behind a crest or cover and then dismount the crews and crawl forward for a peek. The crews will pretty easily spot enemy armor without being detected. Then go back to the tanks, mount up and attack.

I like that idea

[abneo3sierra]

The Tornado did not have to see you, it's spotter/FAC may have though..also with regard to this (and really any other large caliber artillery/heavy bomb) it can be a miss of some hundred yards, and still hit you...150mm shells can hit near half a map away on some of the smaller maps,and still affect your units...I think that the designers of some of those scenarios did not seem to realize this when they made the artillery and air strikes available.