Sequoia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism

Yes it does and in pretty good depth. There is a considerable amount on the British Force commitment and differing strategies driven by Whitehall versus the Multinational force command.  The debacle of the British withdrawal from Basra is covered in detail in volume 2.  Though it is a US army analysis it is not a “US Army” history. It is an analysis of the entire Iraq conflict and covers geopolitical analysis as well including some very brutal assessments in the failures of US planning at all levels. Fascinating coverage of what things were done right, what weren’t and very transparent criticisms for example of US commanders who were apparently punished for their actions in the long term even though they were very clearly right and ahead of their higher level commanders at the time. No good deed goes unpunished as they say.  The level of detail on the insurgency itself is really fascinating. Also the extent of Iranian involvement and the inability of the US to ever address that at a strategic level is covered in a lot of detail including analysis of the actual Iranian commanders involved and specific actions the Iranians were behind at different points.  It is a very long read  (the  combined volumes are some 1400 pages)  it is by far the best read I have comes across on the war to examine from strategic and operational perspectives.  
The most depressing part is the betrayal of the Anbar awakening by the Maliki government and it’s direct consequence - ISIS  
and it is free
https://ssi.armywarcollege.edu/pubs/display.cfm?pubID=1373

Also, can't resist sharing this video, since I know many people here would enjoy it as much as I did. CBS just uploaded it yesterday: CBS Reports (1964): "D-Day Plus 20 Years - Eisenhower Returns to Normandy" 
It's 90 minutes of Cronkite interviewing Eisenhower as they visit many of the famous Normandy landmarks. (Omaha Beach, Pointe du Hoc, Sainte-Mere-Eglise, cemeteries, etc.) I've read a pretty good amount about D-Day and the subsequent push through France, but I still learned some interesting things... and also saw some footage I'd never seen before, despite having watched probably hundreds of WW2 documentaries.

Thank you gentlemen (and some ladies too), especially those who didn't come back. Let's hope we will never forget.

Thank you gentlemen (and some ladies too), especially those who didn't come back. Let's hope we will never forget.

Thank you gentlemen (and some ladies too), especially those who didn't come back. Let's hope we will never forget.

OK. Been quite a while since I posted anything, let alone an update on this mod. I knocked out a Republican Guard portrait this morning (very pleased with him) and figured I'd give you guys a peek into what went into creating him. It's all pretty cut-and-dry and should say all it needs to visually but basically I started with the first pic which I found a few hours ago and used facets of others I have collected over the last year to spiff him up and bring him in line with the rest of the mod (you never know when a pic will come in handy).  It's a constant fight trying to make the faces look uniform and not like they are all from disparate sources. The overall aesthetic isn't perfect but I think they'll do.
 
 

 
 
 
 
As it stands I have made 1173 portraits so far. The Army is done, Marines are done, Brits are done, and I am working on the Syrians. After that comes, the Canadians, Dutch, and Germans. I still need the info on the formations for them. Hopefully they won't be as big as the US and UK. That's it.
 
Mord.

These are basically the same patches I had with ISAF: Canadian IR Flag, Canadian IR Patch, Task Force Patches


A lot of guys had CP Gear patches on ARPAT backings, but depending on your command you might get jacked up.
http://www.cpgear.com/blank/Branches-Brigades-Services-Corps-?c=3957968

Okay, I think I figured why it was changing AKM's. You need to delete ak-74.bmp. This is actually the texture for the AKM....
The only issue left now is that the M16 swap messes up the tubular stock of the other AK's but that's a minor issue, barely noticeable.
There are perhaps other small fixes needed but this is going to help a lot. I wasn't even going to do any weapon swapping if I had to do this alone. But this looks much better.
Maybe I'll do an early and a late ANA version. The early one with only woodland camo and AK's. And the late version with M16's and a mix of woodland and spec4ce forest.

I tweaked the Taliban combatants a bit, changed the trousers of the one with the camo jacket, added a new one with a pale blue outfit and then another with black clothes in order to have a slighter darker overall tone when in groups. That's nine in total now, but of course most are just recoloured with only slight variations, but I am more satisfied with the ragtag effect.


https://www.dropbox.com/s/62ph1spr4ohsggd/zTalibans.rar?dl=0
Strigoi & co, I haven't forgotten you, stay tuned for the fighters.

Hi, sorry, I've been tied up the past couple of weekends. I'll see if I can dig it up this coming weekend. Thanks for your interest.

It's likely it's just awaiting its turn to be uploaded in CMMODS IV.

Yeah, it seems that Battlefront is not above putting things in their games they have previously described as unnecesarry or out of the norm once it becomes practicle development-wise to do so.

I sorta remember that thread, Sequoia. In the field at various times, local conditions, etc., and depending on the higher-ups, there seems to be a lot of variation in uniform and kit. And I would think especially when new paterned uniforms were issued.  I'm certainly going to do a lot more ragtagging when I get to the Syrians. I want the Army to stand in for generic MENAs, and the combatants and fighters to be generic rebels and jihadists.
Anyway, back to the British, like this, ya think?
 

Thanks, Harry. I was trying to hit what I see as the biggies while at the same time avoiding what looked like major coding work. Most of my suggestions are either expansions of current functionality like additional slots for groups/terrain zones or a minor tweak like current exit zone functionality minus any relation to victory points. AI Area Fire Heavy would just tweak the current math to have the AI fire more often. Aside from hidden ramifications that a non-coder outsider like me can't anticipate, the only suggestions that look like heavy endeavors might be the AI Rally and Artillery improvements. I'd take the Rally over the Artillery, as current TacAI artillery action can be pretty good. Oh, but one biggie I forgot:

Off-map artillery Group Assigment and AI Area Fire via Order Zone Painting: allow off-map artillery units to be assigned a Group Number and make use of AI Area Fire feature via Orders. Again, this builds on current functionality and so, in theory, would be light on the resource investment of coding time. It would have a huge impact on scenario design, though. We currently can use the workaround of on-map medium mortars with AI Area Fire, but that's only medium mortars. In combination with an AI Area Fire Heavy command...whoo-boy!😀
I'd keep potential Editor users free from touching any code. I agree that, while it might be intimidating at first, the CMx2 Editor is actually very easy to use and much more user-friendly than say, the Red Orchestra SDK (hats off to the Darkest Hour team for being able to make such phenomenal maps in that editor. I quickly gave up on it).
As someone who has put in the 100+ testing hours it took to pull off a large AI attack plan in a public scenario, believe me, my suggestions are aimed at making that easier. I've orchestrated APC troop deliveries + AFV withdrawal and had assault guns come in, area fire and exit (spent a whole day on that before I discovered that you can't do point-neutral exits.🙁 It was beautiful...). 32+ Groups and point-neutral exits would greatly facilitate such things.
32+ Groups really greases the wheels for so many things because you have the freedom to tightly control things and preempt AI stupidity. For example, as things stand, you might be forced to have your HMGs in one Group. So, if they need to say, relocate at a certain point, you are at the mercy of the built-in random nature of TacAI movement. Assuming they are spread out around a town, my experience is that they are almost certain to criss-cross the town and get shot up. However, with the extra groups, you can separate them and give them safe paths. Same goes for things like HQs and FOs. Right now, there, they will likely have to be grouped in such a way that they can't be kept safe and/or do their job properly without conflicting with the needs of other grouped units.
My suggestions, while being enhancements that give designers a lot more control and power, don't necessarily make the AI plan more complicated. In fact, they make the work much easier because they eliminate workaround time and need. That's HUGE.
Quickly moving to pie-in-the-sky (as in MAJOR coding work) pontification, shifting as many Editor functions as possible to the 3D view would probably attract a lot more people to scenario design. Stuff like building choice and placement, artillery planning, group movement plotting, etc. But that's a whole bag o' muffins and then some. Just threw it in for conversation. I'd much rather see resource investment in the 2D suggestions above.
Edit: One addition that might attract more people to scenario production would be the option to choose a text-only mission briefing. Basically, the designer could choose the current user-made multi-graphic format or opt for text-only, which would put in a BF-provided stock background graphic that only needs briefing text to look complete. I think having such an option might bring a surprising number of new public scenarios to life.

Content:
This mod is intended to create an accurate representation of the Syrian Arab Army around the timeframe of this game.  Download link below:
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/bwgu0k7bdjpblkr/AADo5tmmL0RTWPz8omGaS6twa?dl=0
 
v. 1.0 List of changes:
1. Replaced the fictional Syrian flag with the real flag of the Syrian Arab Republic
2. Replaced the Ssh-40 steel helmet with the Ssh-68.
3. Replaced the fictional all-black outfit of the Syrian special forces with the standard Syrian woodland camouflage (w/ late Soviet-style armor vest) and the black helmets with olive or camouflage-covered Kevlar helmets (to represent the Chinese QGF-02).
 
Acknowledgments:
A big thanks to @||CptMiller|| and @SaintFuller for making their armor vest and Ssh-68 helmet mods available for our community!  Not long ago, @||CptMiller|| released a mod for the fictional Sahrani Liberation Army, which made the Syrians into a generic Soviet-style OPFOR with armor vests and Ssh-68 helmets (helmets made by @SaintFuller).  This ingenious mod is what gave me the tools to make this realism mod for the Syrian Arab Army.
 
Research notes:
(1) The stock Syrian helmet in the game is the Ssh-40, which is a WW2-era Soviet helmet.  The Syrians began equipping their troops with the Ssh-68 by 1982 and were still widely using it in 2005 when Syria pulled out of Lebanon.  Based on my research, the Syrian army would not begin widespread equipment of Kevlar helmets until shortly before the Arab Spring.
(2) The stock all-black outfit worn by the Syrian special forces is in fact worn by the Iraqi special forces, but I haven’t seen any reference pointing to its use by the Syrians. Based on news photos from when the Arab Spring protests began, we know that the SAA had body armor and Kevlar helmets by Spring 2011.  I think it’s reasonable to assume that the Syrian special forces had this type of modernized equipment a few years earlier.
The photos below are comparisons of the modded SAA soldiers with photos of the real SAA.

CMx2 has superb vehicle models and very good soldier models (I really like the infantry). Stock textures improve with each release, but mods show that the current engine can display truly excellent textures as well.
As far as the list goes, I'd very much agree that things like horses, enhanced medics and landing craft are not worth the resource investment. I would really like to see enhanced infantry animations, but agree that they may fall under the not-worth-the-cost banner. Other things in that category might be additional modular building pieces to add more life-like variation. I'd love to see them, but they may not truly be worth the expense.
Night lighting improvements and flares...dunno, it depends. There could be some good juice there. On the other hand, it may be more of a CMx3 thing, as the heightened visuals might trigger a cascade of other needs to fit the combat they would create. Overall, I'd put those in the CMx3 file.
AI improvements: This one depends on what level you are talking about. The TacAI is largely in the area of diminishing returns. But, there are some possible exceptions, along with additional command functionality that might be worth the investment:
If more than one soldier is available for buddy aid, having one grab the LMG after a short delay while the other does the buddy aid would be great. Or, like HMG teams do now, have the LMG simply pass to another squad member when the gunner goes down -- maybe after a short delay. As things stand, I think it is unrealistically easy for squads to lose their LMG support when the current gunner goes down. Being able to split off as many two-man teams as you want would reduce unrealistic attrition caused by TacAI rough edges and allow for more tactical maneuver and better spacing. The ability to customize the weapon mix of a team by drag and dropping soldiers (same overall squad only) would be great. This could facilitate realistic touches like pairing the SL (binocs) with the LMG in a two-man overwatch team while still creating an assault team or two to go forward. This can be done to various degrees now depending on the unit, but having detailed control for any unit would be a very nice addition indeed. Target Heavy command for infantry that increases their likelihood of using grenades. Rally Point: Give the player the ability to pre-assign a path or point that a routing unit will follow/return to. This would help eliminate suicidal rout. An alternative is to simply code "rout rules" ala ASL that make it impossible for units to rout towards known enemy units if safer option are available. If ASL can do it, computers can do it. If I could choose only one thing from the above, it would be the fast recovery of the LMG.
Now, for an area where A LOT of room for improvement exists: Editor AI Plan features. The following would cut work time for scenario designers and massively facilitate their creativity:
32+ AI Groups. We have plenty of order slots now, but 16 groups is VERY limiting for anything above company size. 32+ Groups would allow for a much more sophisticated, human-like AI plan. This is my top choice BY FAR for any Editor feature additions. From my point of view, it would be well-worth the investment, unless there is a hidden code roadblock or ramification. 8+ Independent Terrain Triggers. Right now, designers must sacrifice their limited terrain objective slots to use as terrain triggers. I'd make them independent and offer at least 8 slots.  In combination with 32+ AI groups, this would really give designers the ability to facilitate good local counterattacks. Point-neutral exits. This would simply add the option to have friendly exits (most likely along the friendly map edge) that don't affect points in the game. That way, the designer could do things like have AI heavy assault guns enter the map, attack a target, and then exit. Or, in an extended H2H game, you could exit units that are out of ammo/spent to unclutter the map and free up computer power. Lots of potential here for designer creativity. AI Rally - Causes routed AI units attempt to return to their last order location. Non-routed units stay in place. So, for example, if you have a platoon holding a street block, those still in place would hold their position, while any units that had been forced to retreat would reoccupy the buildings as if following the last movement (or setup) order. AI Elevation Change. Have units move up or down in buildings. This functionality current exists in rough form, but I'd like to see it refined to make sure that groups don't leave their current buildings and allow the designer to choose specific floors in combination with hide/unhide. Additional Reinforcement Groups with Trigger Functionality.  Current reinforcement functionality doesn't offer enough slots for larger scenarios. More groups and adding trigger functionality would hugely facilitate designer creativity and make the AI feel more human-like. AI Artillery Enhancement. Allow the designer to specify units (single or multi) and delays. Also, allow arty smoke to occur anytime during a scenario and be trigger-able. AI Area Fire Heavy. Would make the AI fire like a standard player Target command. Current AI Fire limits fire to stretch ammo supply. in conjunction with Point-Neutral exits for out-of-ammo units, AI Area Fire Heavy would add a lot of human-like lethality to the AI. AI Button Up. Currently, the AI will start unbuttoned even if the designer buttons them during Editor deployment. He should have the ability to make them button up. Soviet AFVs under AI control really suffer from this. Most have four-man crews and are slower to spot than German vehicles anyway.  That means that as things stand, Soviet AI AFVs have a very good chance of becoming 3-man blind mice quickly during a scenario. I believe the Editor AI Plan enhancements above, especially the first two or three, would be well worth the resource investment. I also think you'd see more scenarios coming out, as they would reduce designer workload by reducing the testing time needed for current Editor limit workarounds, while boosting designer satisfaction by facilitating creativity.

I'll bite.
Agreed. I think that if CM were to change/improve/overhaul how it looks, animations would be the place to start. I personally think that vehicle models look really good, soldier models look good, and buildings/etc look ok, but nothing looks bad. If I were in charge and wanted a facelift, I would work on adding in more and varied animations. I definitely agree with you though that this is time consuming and not really necessary at the moment. I would rather have more modules for games than an animation upgrade pack. I'm sure I'm not alone there either. 
For me this falls under the animations category. While it would likely take a lot of time to code new medic behaviors (such as dragging wounded behind cover, etc) I think the vast majority of the work done would have to go into making the new animations, making it unfeasible.  
I agree. I think we already have enough with vehicles that are amphibious (BTR, BMP, etc) having the capability modeled is enough. I am personally hoping for the DUKW boats to be added in the CMFB module for some Rhine river crossing scenario's, but that wouldn't bring with it a whole new set of mechanics like you mentioned. 
Agreed. They would be cool in a few select scenario's primarily on the Eastern Front (predominantly in time periods that are not yet covered) but that would be it. Definitely not worth the trouble. 
Agreed here as well. Most of this would just be eye candy, and while eye candy can be important, I think it is best developed for other applications. 
I agree with @IanL in that I would actually like to see both of these things eventually added to the game. The flares would likely be a pain to code into the game for various engine related reasons, but this is the kind of thing I would expect to see in an engine upgrade. Though I agree that it is likely on the lower end of the priority list, and for good reason. 
As to the engineering vehicles, I actually disagree here. I think that to add a few tanks with mine plows in the modern titles wouldn't be a terrible amount of work. The way I see it, a lot of the coding has already been done for the Sherman crab tanks in CMBN. I figure that a decent chunk of that code could be translated to an M1 (or T-72/etc) with a mine plow for a similar effect. The tank with the mine plow is able to clear mines as it rolls over them, when the plow is deployed. Of course there would be some model and texture work to do, but I think that out of everything on this list, mine plows are likely the easiest to implement into the game. I would certainly pay for an engineering vehicle pack, even if it only included a few tanks with mine plows added.
I think an engineering vehicle pack starts to get less likely when you talk about all the other variants of engineering vehicles. The ABV for example, with its mine plow and 2 MICLIC launchers would take a lot more time and effort to code and model/texture. I would love to see it eventually added (at the least the MICLIC in it's towed trailer) but I think this is far less likely as it strays into diminishing return  territory. 
 
Nice idea for a thread! Hope the good conversation lasts 😉

No 'what we shouldn't wish for' list wouldn't be complete without a "be careful what you ask for" column. A notorious example of that was players demanding troops be proactive in avoiding incoming artillery. The result was troops fleeing like school girls in silk blouses getting caught in a summer shower. That's since been fixed in the soon-to-release V2.01 (or whatever the number) patch. And yes, that had been added specifically to comply with player requests.
Beta folks have seen stuff that you haven't and know there's a reason why some of this stuff gets delayed/omitted. On-map mortars showed up (very) briefly in one of the earliest CMSF1 Alphas. But it quickly got pulled and it was years before proper coding and animations were in place to bring them back.
My contribution to the 'what were we thinking?' unreasonable demands list was civilians. I had requested a third AI-controlled 'force' layer of just civilians huddling in their houses and fleeing their neighborhoods as the opposing armies clashed. I imagined civilian deaths accumulating negative points to skew the final points total. That request didn't go far.

There is a link of the second page of the Multicam 3rd infantry thread. The thread it links to has two orders of battle. The second one is more detailed. I also have what I think is a rather complete Syrian order of battle for 2008 on paper (before the civil war of course).  I can post it if there is interest.

There is a link of the second page of the Multicam 3rd infantry thread. The thread it links to has two orders of battle. The second one is more detailed. I also have what I think is a rather complete Syrian order of battle for 2008 on paper (before the civil war of course).  I can post it if there is interest.

If you are done making blatantly political statements whilst professing to be apolitical, then sure.

Hope this will be very useful to all members.  Glad my mod slut-ness finally paid off. 

That's what Teresa May says too.