hellfish

A lot of it is just reflagging. The 2nd ACR used to be at Fort Polk, where the 4/10th is now. I bet a lot of the 2nd ACR's guys are now with the 4/10th and very few actually became part of the new 2nd ACR in Germany. IIRC the current 2nd ACR took most of its personnel and vehicles from the 25th ID, as it was stood up at Fort Lewis when the 25th's Strykers returned from Iraq.

Last I heard the French never mistook an LAV for a non-existant Taliban vehicle.

I, for one, love the French and am happy they're serving with us in Afghanistan. Remember - it was French carrier aviation that provided a lot of the CAS to our first troops in Afghanistan.

The RG-31 has been around for a while. I'm pretty sure I could dig up line drawings if someone wanted them.

Phased out in 1994. I'd like to see the German module include a couple CV90 variants too.

As a small aside, I find it ironic how everyone talks about the new BCTs are the end of the division, yet we keep referring and treating them all like nothing's changed. We still send divisions on missions together.

Did you ever get tired of taking King Tigers against Shermans or Stuarts? Panthers against Cromwells? Panzer IIs against KV-2s? Elite Fallschirmjaegers against Soviet conscripts?

33°16'23.66"N 36°26'42.12"E A military airfield with tunnels dug into mountain side. Might be a fun place to fight in, even if Steve is rolling his eyes at the suggestion of it.

Like I said, symantics.

"Jizzmonkey" - a squad leader that was with the 1st Battalion, 24th Infantry (Stryker) is a regular over at MP.net. A new project collecting the stories of the men from that battalion is kicking off, and his is the first. http://www.ifilm.com/ifilmdetail/2772023

I'm the same way. I've got a brazillion missions and campaigns floating around in my head.

I could see sector D3 being a total nightmare.

The game is small to be able to include more stuff for modules (which you pay for). It'd be like in CMBB only shipped with 1941 units, weapons and vehicles. You'd buy modules to give you 1942, 1943, '44 and '45, and other modules to cover the Finns, Romanians, Hungarians, etc. Essentially we're buying a small game that'll be expanded with modules in the same way - the Marine Corps, British forces, maybe Chinese equipment, etc.

I'd still prefer Fictional, but the Syria with Minor Backstory and Fictional Subsection is a good compromise. I still get some cool toys to play with that I couldn't if the Syria-only junkies had their way. Only problem is that I'm not gonna have my Algerian T-90s now.

The setting/backstory only applies to the campaign. It doesn't apply to the quick battles, single missions or other campaigns that might be made. If you want it to be Syria, just change the name in the briefings!

As long as no retarded elves or orcs are involved, it's not a fantasy game.

A fictionalized setting would still let you do that. But it'd also let me, theoretically, fight the Algerians.

For what it's worth, Algeria just bought ~300 T-90 tanks and something like a similar number of BMP-3s and a couple dozen MiG-29s and/or SU-30s. With a fictional CAMPAIGN setting for CMSF you can still fight the Syrians. But you'd also be able to fight the Algerians, Libyans, Iraqis, Iranians, Saudis (M1A2s vs M1A2s!) or whomever else you want to. Hell - you could probably even do a good job of simulating the Toyota Wars.

Y'know, the setting really only affects the campaign. Someone can (theoretically) take a fictional CMSF the go back and edit the names in the campaign from "Country X" to "Syria" and it'd be damn near the same thing. Having a fictional country opens up TONS of possibilities to us for single battles, operations and quickbattles. We're not restricted by Syria's current geopolitical status. This should especially appeal to all the people that whined that the game would be a walkover for the US forces. Give Country X a battalion of T-90M tanks and see how the Abrams fare.

Fictional. I like creative clean slates.

Hey, I understand. I talk to several of the guys, and they really, really don't like to be called mercenaries. Like I said, symantics.

What about something like a Syrian spoiling attack on the UN force in Lebanon? They attempt to inflict as many casualties as possible in the hopes that the European public loses all support for the mission.

Not to delve into symantics, but don't call them mercenaries.

I'd write something as well.

As I said, if a fictional country with a fictional storyline could be done properly (i.e. no Leo2s fighting with Bradleys against M-60A1s and CV9040s) then it would be good. You can still base the OPFOR off of the Syrian research, but fill in the gaps and flesh it out a bit.