Trident Valley warning !!!

[bump]

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

I think I can take credit for that

[hoolaman]

I've been beaten by RED human opponents quite a few times and if you know how to get the most out of the Syrian forces it is actually quite easy to get a decent balanced game.

I also disagree with the suggestion that bigger map sizes give a better chance to the Syrians. They are much better off doing short range hit and runs and negating the vastly superior optics and accuracy of Blue forces.

RPG-29 is a very capable weapon and some of the Red vehicles are also quite capable though their protection is poor.

[LUCASWILLEN05]

Depends on what terrain is on the map:D

Open terrain is to the advantage of NATO considering the effectiveness of long range guns, night sights and ATGMs, Close terrain (eg urban) negates that advantage.

However, when dealing with larger forces a larger map may well be a good idea.

[noob]

In retrospect i think my initial problem with the tech imbalance was more down to the map size than the tech as all the games ive played have been as Red on small maps, after reading the responses to this topic and playing bigger maps i can see the potential for much more variety to Red tactics than i earlier thought.

Partly inspired by others responses and by new and old experiences on the battlefield i really think that bigger is better for Red as far as mapsize goes for the following reasons :

While large maps might favour Blues optical and targeting superiority it also allows for Red to spread out and avoid the worst of Blues massive direct and indirect HE firepower that can dished out instantly or within two or three turns of Reds position being identified, my experience of playing Red on small maps was that the limited space and the speed of Blue indirect fire strikes meant that it was difficult to avoid the effects of HE which tended to do more harm psychologically than physically so Red troops became static and pinned and therefore inneffective or fixed for many turns.

Also large maps allow the sort of shoot and scoot tactics with the BMPs and T72s that have been discussed by others in previous posts.

Then added to that is the facility for Red ATGMs to operate at max ranges which gives the teams the best chance of relocating intact to fire again.

So in conclusion i think a big map, say 2k x 2k with Red deploying over two thirds of it allows Red to stage a fighting withdrawal using its long range weapons initially and also hopefully triggering Blue arty / air strikes before Red has to concentrate on or near terrain objectives plus increased space also gives possible options for flanking counter attacks.( as experienced in CMBB and CMAK a seemingly open map can offer a lot of cover when you get down to ground level )

Also with that in mind i would be tempted as Red in future to use my indirect fire for smoke if only to assist in any fallback or flanking manouvers as the kills it gets and the time it takes to fire using it offensively might not be as effective as using it as a screen for a manouver.

p.s. i would like to thank all the responders for their input as it has helped me to not quit this theatre through frustration and also my GFX card for allowing me to load up mega maps with ease

[noob]

I've been beaten by RED human opponents quite a few times and if you know how to get the most out of the Syrian forces it is actually quite easy to get a decent balanced game.

You might be a really bad player though

I also disagree with the suggestion that bigger map sizes give a better chance to the Syrians. They are much better off doing short range hit and runs and negating the vastly superior optics and accuracy of Blue forces.

True to a point but on small maps there are less places to run to and it will probably be on foot and Blue indirect fire has less opportunity to miss something.

RPG-29 is a very capable weapon and some of the Red vehicles are also quite capable though their protection is poor.

Yes it is but its max range is 500 mtrs compared to 1500 mtrs for the ATGM, plus i just found out that the Saxhorn can be fired from the shoulder, how awesome is that.

[Praetori]

Yes it is but its max range is 500 mtrs compared to 1500 mtrs for the ATGM, plus i just found out that the Saxhorn can be fired from the shoulder, how awesome is that.

The Saxhorn is my favourite piece of RED equipment. They do fire away at anything though and carry limited munitions so a restrictive fire arc is a must when on the move (otherwise the gunner often stops when passing crests to take a potshot at some random vehicle).

[noob]

The Saxhorn is my favourite piece of RED equipment. They do fire away at anything though and carry limited munitions so a restrictive fire arc is a must when on the move (otherwise the gunner often stops when passing crests to take a potshot at some random vehicle).

Well at the moment my ATGMs are dead before they expend their ammo, which is more my fault than there's i suspect

[roadiemullet]

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

I hear ya man and you are absolutely right, cmsf is a fairly accurate attempt at what would happen if the West invaded, its just I thought they chose Syria rather than make an Iraq game so that an actual 'proper' modern warfare type AFV-ish fight could be had rather than the Reds getting caned straight away by the full might of NATO. It seems strange to deliberately move the locale away for the purpose of fantasy only to recreate what has happened in Iraq so to speak. This is fictional after all, so mebbe the Syrians in this alternate universe could have actually trained their forces to a professional if not semi-professional level (around about the same time they bought those T-90s ). Yeah you can change the settings, buts it would have been cooler from a gameplay point of view if you didn't have to do this from the outset to achieve a fair fight.

I like the partisans vs SS comparison, pretty accurate.

[LUCASWILLEN05]

I hear ya man and you are absolutely right, cmsf is a fairly accurate attempt at what would happen if the West invaded, its just I thought they chose Syria rather than make an Iraq game so that an actual 'proper' modern warfare type AFV-ish fight could be had rather than the Reds getting caned straight away by the full might of NATO. It seems strange to deliberately move the locale away for the purpose of fantasy only to recreate what has happened in Iraq so to speak. This is fictional after all, so mebbe the Syrians in this alternate universe could have actually trained their forces to a professional if not semi-professional level (around about the same time they bought those T-90s ). Yeah you can change the settings, buts it would have been cooler from a gameplay point of view if you didn't have to do this from the outset to achieve a fair fight.

I like the partisans vs SS comparison, pretty accurate.

On the other hand there are the Republican Guard who are better trained, equipped and motivated if only because, like they, like their Iraqi counterparts stand to lose their pay and perks when the Baathist regime falls. These guys and the more trusted regular army armoured/mechanized divisions are likely going to be your professional/semi professional troops just as they were in the Iraqi army. They might well decide to expand the Republican Guard from division to corps size after the hypothetical T90 purchase and, as with the Iraqis, would probably be using the most educated and politically reliable troops and officers in this role. The rest of the Syrian army is probably much the same as the old Iraqi army lower grade divisions. Even the Republican Guard however is not going to be as good as US, UK or other NATO units.

Irregular types could be more of a mix. You might have outside mercenaries or AQ types who have quite a lot of experience and are highly motivated. Some Syrian types could fall into this category as well. Other insurgent types will have variable training although quite a few of these could well be highly motivated. You might also have some insurgents who are ill trained and with poor morale rather like some of the Libyan rebels who run as soon as someone has an accident with an RPG (apparently something like that happened the other day)

As for a fair fight, maybe using some form of points system might be a solution whether this was made available in a future patch or you use your modern miniature tabletop rules.

[LUCASWILLEN05]

Also the best equipped insurgent fighters have the AT-14 Kornet which can give even the M1A2 a potentially very hard time. As most of us will remember Hezbollah had some of these at Bint Jbeil during the 2006 Lebanon War and gave the IDF a hard time to put it mildly You will find these in the insurgent Fighter Command group if you put their equipment settings to Good or Excellent. Those with the NATO module can also add Syrian Air Defence weapons which, in game, operate in the ground fire role. The high rate of fire can be quite effective,

[bump]

I would just like to say that it is threads like this one that make me proud to and love being a computer wargamer. Kudos to all of you. I have learned a lot from this fascinating thread alone. So, nothing to add here particularly, just expressing my passionate appreciation

[snake_eye]

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

Yes, it can be played H2H, since the Red A.I is emplaced at its departure line. From there, you can unfold the counter atttack and reach your objectives.

The same is naturally possible for the Blue. The only things, I should check are the ones about the artillery and air assets.

I think that when you play H2H, you have the hand on them, the A.I not being used for they move.

Never had the chance to play it that way, it could be interesting and fun to do so

Cheers

[noob]

Never had the chance to play it that way, it could be interesting and fun to do so

Cheers

Do you want to play it H2H, if so pick a side and send me the file

[snake_eye]

I am starting a PBEM with Noob today. I am only fearing the time it will take and the weight of the files. BTW, the third one sent for the Blue set up weights 40 mo !

I shall see with Noob if the game runs smoothly if an AAR from both sides would be of some interest to some of you. Let us know. If you give it a go, it will be done in a dedicated post.

[Praetori]

I am starting a PBEM with Noob today. I am only fearing the time it will take and the weight of the files. BTW, the third one sent for the Blue set up weights 40 mo !

I shall see with Noob if the game runs smoothly if an AAR from both sides would be of some interest to some of you. Let us know. If you give it a go, it will be done in a dedicated post.

Yes please, or possibly pretty please with sugar and a cherry on top

[snake_eye]

Ok, we will manage to put down a protocole of who is doing what and how. That if the Reds don't storm the Blue defence right away ! The cherry on top, would be to have the shortest AAR of all times ! If that is the case, we would not have time to think of the sugar.

[snake_eye]

It was the shortest AAR to come of all time ! After 1 minutes in the game Noob and I agreed, due to my pretty tight up schedule in the coming month to wait the release of B-N and try our hands on it, when I shall have more time available.

Besides that we were going to be engaged in a PBEM of 180 minutes, with the files weighting 40 to 50 Mo right at the beginning, we were due to end it in 6 months in a daily basis of one file a day.

Better to play it in R.T

[Erwin]

Hey Snake... Looking forward to the new version. But, still hoping you'll give us a bigger set-up area for A Helluva Road Opening so we can resupply the US troops with the trucks that are full of local troops.

[snake_eye]

Hi Erwin,

It has been done, but I am pretty much tied up with not so much available time to upload it with a new briefing taking in account the changes.

1/ You must have Marines and Nato add-ons.

2/ The ANA has 6 Zils Russian trucks and 4 MTVRs that can also be used partly and or fully

3/ There is a new track running on the left side of the airfield and going through the two hills where Marines are on overwatch. They can replenish from MTVR, that have been put there during the set up and or use them to move

4/ The set up areas are multiple from the left to the right side of the map. You are able to switch forces as you want, depending of the place you want to recon, probe and or attack

5/ The ANA relief forces are waiting near the control tower tarmac most of them loaded in the Zil’s trucks. You can decide to unload them, use some MTVR or have them go forward on foot from that point or decide to set them in another area. That will be a wider choice available to the player, than earlier.

6/ You can set the mortars F.O on an observatory on the hill beyond the control tower and eventually, why not, a Javelin’s team..

7/ The platoon at rest on the far side of the runway and having Strykers at its disposal, will have to be moved after the set up. Normally, you have to consider, that they are a reserve force, to be moved once, you have been able, after the move of the ANA to draw a picture of the enemy blocking positions.

I think that these changes will provide most players with different tactical choices, but to be honest, I must say that this road opening is difficult.

I had thought one moment of calling a helicopter to help in probing the road. In most roads opening they are mostly called when the enemy is already engaging the convoy. It takes usually from 20 minutes to an hour to get it overhead. In R.L the ambushers are already away since a long time. In CMSF since we can not trigger an action to tell them to retreat 10 minutes at the most after having fired on the convoy, they will be pretty much shaken by the helico, since they won’t move.

If, however, we make an A.I plan to have them move away at a determined time, since we don’t know at what time the contact will be done, they might have moved away and not be there any more to fire upon the convoy. So, there is no helico

Don’t despair, I shall do the up most to upload it at the closest available time, I can manage.

[Erwin]

Your improvements sound terrific. Thanks for all your work.

[LJFHutch]

I find modern warfare much more chaotic and requiring a greater level of concentration than WW2. That's what I love about CMSF.

[Barleyman]

I wrote about the same issue with CMSF in general when it came out. The official answer is that you can make scenario where the syrians will overrun US. Why not give them a couple of dragons while you're at it?

The whole setting is heavily lopsided and it's more of "management of war" where you have mountains of firepower but only a handful of men. You then manage your assets to win as efficiently as possible, losing is not really possible, except in abstract "victory condition" sense.

Only way to make interesting scenarios without going into fantasyland is to do red-on-red scenarios that are not only on even playing field but are perfectly plausible as well.

I don't personally like the "you can level the whole map with your support assets but you can fit all of your guys into one classroom" approach. Infantry oriented street-fighting would be much more interesting EXCEPT CMSF sadly lacks CQB command which tends to get the "best trained soldiers in the world" torn into shreds as soon as they go into buildings.

Yes, I read the workaround on how to clear a multi-story building. When you have something like an industrial hall, thought, it won't work.

There's a reason why majority of american soldiers are killed by roadside bombs (calling then "improvised explosive devices" won't make them more hi-tech) and odd snipers.