Syrians are artificially disadvantaged in CMSF

[wengart]

thewood, I was talking about how training (the abstracted concept we have in CM) can be a deciding factor in how you use your men. Right now training is nothing more than that.

I believe the Brit demo has a mission that starts in the early morning and as the sun rises it becomes easier to spot. So I am pretty sure it does just not 100%. Although it is a global effect and the dynamic lighting is just pretty to look at.

 

[thewood]

I assume and kind of remember that there were no national characteristics in CMSF. I do remember there were a few in CM though.

 

[Michael Dorosh]

The odd thing is that British forces play the most differently when compared to either Marines or U.S. Army. They lack a lot of the punch, firepower, and staying power which the Marines and Army have, and this forces you to play the entire force differently. small squad sizes means you can't get bogged down in street fighting where attrition is high, while the lack of numerous big guns means you can't blow up any building you want.

You nailed it with the bolded part; the emphasis in CM has always been on the hardware, not the "software". I think you're over-emphasizing the effects of squad size. How do you calculate "squad firepower"? You could do it at a glance in CMX1. You could start a squad at reduced strength in the editor, too. You could do lots of things the new engine doesn't currently permit.

But, what is the functional difference between men? It's all about their training, and even more so their TO&E and OOB that makes the big differences in forces. And therefore you, as the commander, have to make decisions on your forces equipment, training, and current morale. Rather than making a decision because your men are American granting them some bonus or another.

I'm not talking about national characteristics in the traditional game sense; I know BFC's stance on those. The Americans as natural mechanics, the Germans as natural tacticians, the British as cool under fire, the Russians as headstrong, etc. I don't necessarily disagree with them that portraying the "usual" stereotypes ala Squad Leader is too cartoony. I want to see finer detail in the modelling, such as how the squads break down in combat - i.e. the Bren and Rifle teams in a British infantry squad (section) depicted accurately, or the fact they usually went into action with 5 or 6 man sections as a matter of routine - never with the 10 men that the "book" called for by 1944. Somehow they made it work; the game should make it clear why.

 

[Rule_303]

Flares?

How about the complete and total inability of infantry (of either side) to crawl any significant distance without (a) becoming rapidly exhausted (b) being spotted, day or night, regardless of cover. Makes infiltration tactics -- the bread and butter of any outgunned force, especially Germans in Normandy -- utterly impossible.

This was a huge miss in CMx1 too, but that's a red herring.

 

[wengart]

I'm not talking about the squads firepower so much as the squads staying power. You lose 2+ brits and that squad is done as an effective unit. Of course the same could be said for American squads when they take 3+ casualties, while Marines only start to hurt at 5+ casualties.

Actually I feel like we are not on the same page on the term squad firepower. I equate squad firepower less with the weapons, and more with the staying power and number of boots on the ground. Unless of course your talking about the Marines and their insane M32 grenade launchers.

I want to see finer detail in the modelling, such as how the squads break down in combat - i.e. the Bren and Rifle teams in a British infantry squad (section) depicted accurately, or the fact they usually went into action with 5 or 6 man sections as a matter of routine - never with the 10 men that the "book" called for by 1944. Somehow they made it work; the game should make it clear why.

Right now, in CM:SF, there is an option to split the squad into an assault team and a support team. Putting all the LMGs/grenadiers into the support team and the assault team is then made up of all rifles.So that should be possible in CM:N unless something gets changed.

Actually there's another normandy questions thread in the BF.C forums. I think im going to ask about reduced strength squads.

How about the complete and total inability of infantry (of either side) to crawl any significant distance without (a) becoming rapidly exhausted (b) being spotted, day or night, regardless of cover. Makes infiltration tactics -- the bread and butter of any outgunned force, especially Germans in Normandy -- utterly impossible.

(a) I've never crawled 50+ Meters, but I would assume that would be pretty tiring. Its not a natural position for movement, and I think it would take up a lot of energy.

(b) This may be an effect of the arid environment in CM:SF, but I have crawled within RPG range of blue vehicles more then once.

 

[Michael Dorosh]

I'm not talking about the squads firepower so much as the squads staying power. You lose 2+ brits and that squad is done as an effective unit. Of course the same could be said for American squads when they take 3+ casualties, while Marines only start to hurt at 5+ casualties.

Actually I feel like we are not on the same page on the term squad firepower. I equate squad firepower less with the weapons, and more with the staying power and number of boots on the ground. Unless of course your talking about the Marines and their insane M32 grenade launchers.

I don't know what you mean by "staying power."

Right now, in CM:SF, there is an option to split the squad into an assault team and a support team. Putting all the LMGs/grenadiers into the support team and the assault team is then made up of all rifles.So that should be possible in CM:N unless something gets changed.

It was possible in CMX1 also. My issue is that from what I could tell it wasn't done on historically accurate lines. If you're going to do it, I'd say model it the way the actual participants did it. Or possibly even permit the player to come up with his own combinations.

The Syrians don't get to do it, though, am I not correct? This is a "national characteristic". If it was an Eastern Front game, it would be historically accurate not to let a Soviet squad break down that way because in actuality, certainly early in the war, they never trained to do it. If the Syrians never train to break down into fireteams, then it is accurate as well; otherwise it is an artificial constriction and, to quote the subject heading, more evidence the "Syrians are artificially disadvantaged in CMSF". I forget what the discussion points on this are, though; I'm perfectly willing to believe Syrian infantry training does not emphasize junior leadership at the sub-squad level but I don't recall immediately if this is the case or not.

 

[wengart]

staying power - the ability to either hold or take ground after casualties have been sustained.

My issue is that from what I could tell it wasn't done on historically accurate lines. If you're going to do it, I'd say model it the way the actual participants did it. Or possibly even permit the player to come up with his own combinations.

Wouldn't the ability to split a British section so that all the brens were in one fireteam, while the other fireteam would be made up of riflemen be historically accurate? Or is the possibility for a British section to split into two balanced fireteam (one bren in each) make it historically inaccurate?

If the Syrians never train to break down into fireteams, then it is accurate as well

"One piece of interesting information is that the squad does not use fireteams.
I assume that level of coridination and control just does not exsist in 'third world' armies." - Rudel.Dietrich

Third post down.

http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=72572&highlight=syrian+fireteams

 

[thewood]

In CM1, when a squad wasn't allowed to split, its was just a tactical inconvenience. The squad members were somewhat lost in 400 sq m. In CM2, with Syrians not allowed to split, you end up with 8-12 guys crammed into an 8x8 m box. That is around 1 person per sq m. That is wholly unrealistic from an infantry standpoint. I have a felling that is why Syrians seem to stumble around a lot to settle down in a square.

If a squad is behind a building or between two buildings, even the worst noncomm in the world would at least send a couple guys around the corner or across the street, regardless of tactical doctrine. It would just be tactical common sense.

At worst, the Syrians should be allowed to split something off, even with extreme C2 and morale penalties. That should be the differentiator, moral and C2, not just a wholesale, you can't do that.

bad math on my part which dilutes my point.

 

[Michael Dorosh]

Wouldn't the ability to split a British section so that all the brens were in one fireteam, while the other fireteam would be made up of riflemen be historically accurate?

If by "all" you mean "one" then yes. I'm not aware of any British section order of battle that ever called for more than one Bren gun.

Or is the possibility for a British section to split into two balanced fireteam (one bren in each) make it historically inaccurate?

See above.

 

[Michael Dorosh]

This thread is funny: http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=89369

A terrific, detailed suggestion of how to get more Syrian firepower into the game in the next release (the "NATO module", should it come to pass) in post 1. Basically, some tips on reorganizing company TO&E and suggestions for new kit to beef up the red forces and make them competitive.

Steve simply says

Remember, we do not make "fantasy" games.

:crosseye: :hmmm:

What, then, is the invasion of Syria to begin with? I'm still trying to figure out what year the "invasion" takes place...

A couple paragraphs later, in the same post, he says:

We are far more flexible with the organization of Syria's Unconventional forces because we invented them

I guess inventing something is different than creating a fantasy. I'm just not sure how. :dead:

I think the real problem with Alex's post was - truly - none of the perfectly good (and in many cases, fully referenced) ideas were Steve's.

 

[thewood]

Like I've said before. The standard for operarional usage proof is a lot less for the US than the Syrians. Every new toy in the US development pipeline shows up. But for the Syrians, writtne reference and 8x10 color glossies are needed. Steve thinks throwing in the T90 and the BMP3 ahould shut everyone up.

I'll have to go back and check my references on the 2008 Syrian invasion. Oh wait...it never happened!

 

[Michael Dorosh]

Wow. The thread gets worse. One beta tester steps up with the usual dipshit stuff and misses the point completely.

Oh, Scipio, I know you know the difference between fantasy gaming and wargaming. The Army didn't run around the deserts of the southwest practicing for 30 years for a 'fantasy' European land battle. A commendable self-restrain on the developer's part is not a synonym for 'creative bottleneck'. Some posters would have Syrians driving both Pz IVs and T80s around the battlefield!

Alex never mentions PzKpfw IVs, needless to say. In fact, if one reads his posts, he does a really good job of providing some good rationale for all the TO&E changes he suggests. It's a masterful post.

And Alex rightly then complains that:

And all what you say it's: "thanks but we know what we do" - (I'm) offended, a little.

To which Steve says

I actually don't care

Smiley face included. Someone on Tom Chick's board once commented about what they would like to do with Steve's smiley faces.

My comment here would be: why not just take the suggested TO&E changes - which were minor, and actually based on pretty good speculation from what I could tell, not just pulling stuff out of thin air, if one reads the entire detailed post - and add them in as an option? Call them stuff like Syrian Airborne Company (Russian Version). You can make it a nod to both the fact that it is a Russian fan forum providing the suggestion, but also a "variant history" in which more equipment is becoming available from Russia in the "backstory" to the game itself. If people want to play with the new units, then they can. If they don't like the new units, they don't have to use them. Again - what is the harm in making the Syrians a little more competitive, and in actually listening to the fan base?

 

[Michael Dorosh]

My answer may not be what you want to hear, but it is logical and rational. So there should be nothing to be offended by.

I always love when Steve pisses off fans and then tells them when they can and can't be offended, too. :laugh: I can't wait to see Alex's post gushing about the NATO module.

Shall we hold our breath?

 

[Elvis]

Steve simply says



:crosseye: :hmmm:

What, then, is the invasion of Syria to begin with? I'm still trying to figure out what year the "invasion" takes place...

A couple paragraphs later, in the same post, he says:



I guess inventing something is different than creating a fantasy. I'm just not sure how. :dead:

At the risk of giving another English lesson, I what you may be having a problem with is making the mistake of confusing 'hypothetical' with 'fantasy'.

 

[KG_Jag]

At the risk of giving another English lesson, I what you may be having a problem with is making the mistake of confusing 'hypothetical' with 'fantasy'.

So is this a distinction without a difference? If there is a difference--what is it to those who play the game?

 

[Elvis]

So is this a distinction without a difference? If there is a difference--what is it to those who play the game?

It is a distinction with a difference. I'll give you a couple of examples. One extreme, to illustrate the point, and one a little more subtle.

Fantasy would be if as a way of balancing for the Red side in CMSF BFC created a laser capable making a impenetrable shield that lasts for 30 seconds around there units that was able to make 120mm or smaller rounds bounce back to the shooter.

Hypothetical would be if BFC decided to make a game in which the US and British armies continued into Russia after the fall of Berlin equipped with the May 1945 TO&E of all countries involved.

In the second example "could" it have happened? Yes. In the first example "could" it happen. No.

(I can barely put 2 words together and I am giving English lessons. My Mom will be SO proud)

 

[Redwolf]

It is a distinction with a difference. I'll give you a couple of examples. One extreme, to illustrate the point, and one a little more subtle.

Fantasy would be if as a way of balancing for the Red side in CMSF BFC created a laser capable making a impenetrable shield that lasts for 30 seconds around there units that was able to make 120mm or smaller rounds bounce back to the shooter.

But that's just that.

Germany rolling tanks into a foreign country that shoots back is much more unlikely (much more on the fantasy side of hypothetical) than Syria, being threatened by a U.S. Invasion with 2 years notice, buying and getting sold some advanced weaponry by Russia, China or whatever.

The only hope here is to solve the old problem that Blue on Blue and Red on Red was kind of silly (because you couldn't apply different textures to each side) by now playing Dutch versus Brits or something.

What's the point of drawing up half of NATO and not add a single Red unit even from before the British module was released? And that is much less 3D and texturing work than all those German lights. Units like the ZSU-23 could provide very interesting and tough challenges for light NATO forces, and quite frankly the closer to modern NATO tanks Red would have the better.

The whole affair has a very unpleasant "stubborn only" taste to it.

 

[Elvis]

Germany rolling tanks into a foreign country that shoots back is much more unlikely (much more on the fantasy side of hypothetical) than Syria, being threatened by a U.S. Invasion with 2 years notice, buying and getting sold some advanced weaponry by Russia, China or whatever.

I disagree with part one and agree with part 2.

It is possible for Germany to roll into Syria guns a blazin. It is improbable. It is unlikely but it is possible.

I agree that with enough heads up it would be possible Syria would have time to aquire some toys from countries not favorable to the "Allied" cause.

Thank you for helping me illustrate my point about the difference between "fantasy" and "hypothetical".

 

[KG_Jag]

It seems to me that there is a continuum of things that the game designer can make up. Death rays are certainly possible (almost anything is), but less so than the U.S. attacking Syria with a lightly armored force and/or the Germans joining in; and much less than the Syrians having any weapon available to Russia or China in 2008 +/-.

Exactly where "hypothetical" ends and "fantasy" begins appears to be a judgment call and of relevance to the gamer only at the point where he has to suspend his disbelief.

Bottom line: it's just a game (plus modules) and it's all fiction.

 

[dalem]

It is a distinction with a difference. I'll give you a couple of examples. One extreme, to illustrate the point, and one a little more subtle.

Fantasy would be if as a way of balancing for the Red side in CMSF BFC created a laser capable making a impenetrable shield that lasts for 30 seconds around there units that was able to make 120mm or smaller rounds bounce back to the shooter.

Hypothetical would be if BFC decided to make a game in which the US and British armies continued into Russia after the fall of Berlin equipped with the May 1945 TO&E of all countries involved.

In the second example "could" it have happened? Yes. In the first example "could" it happen. No.

(I can barely put 2 words together and I am giving English lessons. My Mom will be SO proud)

C'mon, the whole Syria thing is nothing but a hypothetical fantasy. Claiming to anchor one side in "reality" is a bit blind of them, I think.

-dale