![]() ![]() While they might not have a chance at the strategic level, at the tactical level every Syrian unit is perfectly capable of bloodying the nose of your task force." Many are veterans of fighting against our forces and they have no fear of dying for their cause. The unconventional forces arrayed against us are, perhaps, even more formidable. They are motivated, adequately trained and armed, and quick studies of our tactics. The Syrians are not the backwards, militarily inept pushovers the blowhards rant about. "Approach every situation with caution until you know what you are dealing with. The Syrians are not defenseless.įrom the briefing from the US Army Task Force Thunder campaign: Even as the western armies though, the game can be very challenging. If you want a challenge, try playing as the Syrians! You don't always have to play as the 1st world army. Playing as the Syrians will give you a very different perspective on things than any other CM game. Shock Force is a vehicle for the low intensity wars that the US has been fighting since 2001, so it's the closest to a modern "historical" game. It's a great introduction to CM, and also offers you something which no other Combat Mission title does. A large number of the "lessons learned" documents that have come out of the real Ukraine are things that could have been learned playing Black Sea (like the best use of the Drone/Forward Observer pair in Russian doctrine). This is going in gloves-off, but is nowhere near the scale or intensity of a Cold War fight. Cold War is probably going to be the best option for multiplayer games, and has some really superb campaigns - I do think it's one of the strongest Battlefront releases full stop.īlack Sea is an insight into the ultra-modern near-peer conflict that the US army is preparing to face if needed. The USMC, British and NATO forces do not have all of the advantages (read: Javelins) that the US does, so there's plenty of challenge there.Ĭold War is high intensity modern warfare, and is a superb look at what could have been. The modules are generally a lot more challenging. There's tons of content, and it references Afghanistan and Iraq, so there's lots of historical stuff to draw on. Red vs Red can be great, but there's still the technological disparity - without some house rules the multiplayer game can be dominated by precisely four pieces of kit (TURMS-T, T90, AT-14, AT-13), which isn't really great either. ![]() Typically where that works in CMSF, you'll have a blue side which has all the advantages, but can't afford to take losses, versus a Red side where losses aren't important, and the gains are huge.īlue vs Blue is obviously fine, but doesn't simulate anything real. Partly that's down to scenario design - it's an awful lot harder to design asymmetric scenarios that work really well, compared to CMBN where you could plop down an infantry company on each side, give them an objective in the middle, and have a reasonable outcome. Asymmetric warfare is the draw - Syria is a couple of generations behind, and the irregular forces even more.Īs a multiplayer experience, it's a bit lacking - playing Syria vs the US is the kind of thing where you can do everything right and still lose. CMSF is fantastic, possibly still the best introduction to CM (because the US offers you a lot of safety nets), and generally smaller battles. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |