Snake Raper

On the modern battlefield, every foot soldier has NVGs. Not just because they all have the plate on the helmet in the game, but rather because they actually do in RL.

The Stryker system is based off of the LAV 3 chassis, not the LAV 25. Similar in design but different generation as stated.

In case you are still wondering how to install the mod, there is an explanation in the Mod Tools folder within the CM:SF game directory. But to speed it along... In the C:\Combat Mission Strike Force folder (or where ever you put the game) there is a folder called Data. In the Data folder make a folder and simply call it Z. Now back up into the main game directory again and go to a folder called Mod Tools. In that folder, you will see a folder called RezPack. Inside RezPack you will see an executable called RezPack (oddly enough) and possibly a folder called input. If there is no folder called input, make a folder and give it that name. Still following? Next take the 3RD-ID-MOD files (just the 8 bitmaps, no need for the folder) and place them in the input folder (copy and paste or just slide them over). As mentioned, you will have to rename the skin textures to put a space instead of the dash (change skin-1 to skin 1 as well, you may have to rename the helmet and uniform textures from (for example) uniform-7th-ID-patch to uniform and us-helmet-plain to us-helmet when you place them into the input folder (AFAIK, could be wrong on this but it works) make sure you save your original CM:SF files in another folder). Almost there. Now run the RezPack program and soon you will see a file called packed.brz (I hope). Now if you do not intend on running any more mods, you can simply copy this file into the Z folder you created earlier. If you do intend on using more mods, you can rename this file something descriptive like 3ID.brz it doesn't really matter to the game, just for you to know which mods you have installed. That should be it, run the game and you will see the mod(s) in all its/their glory. I just figured this out myself this morning, so I though I would help out others like me who do not do this often. PS the mod looks great, good work. [ December 22, 2007, 11:18 AM: Message edited by: Snake Raper ]

Just now, two of my Strykers got too close to one of my own barrages and each lost one sentry. Not sure if it makes a difference but they didn't seem to care. The barrage was canceled and I thought it done, I was wrong (after canceling it, it lasted another 5 turns). They just happened to be the last casualties of the scenario as the Syrians surrendered 2 turns later, damn them.

Why would you button up the sentries? When they will die by being up there. The purpose of them isn't in question here (essentially an aid to spotting), the concern is that a squad can be killed one at a time in rapid succession as they keep popping up to replace each other. When you tell a vehicle to button up, it should include the exposed troops, otherwise what is the point? An APC/IFV should protect the infantry, but the way it is now, you may as well dismount them as it is virtually the same risk. All we are looking for is a comment on the lemming like death of a mounted squad and if it will be changed so we can button them up, or at least have them stop popping up.

I agree on the WW3 scenario based on NATO vs Warsaw Pact, as I have already stated in another thread. I think there would be a lot of support for this, just not from most of those on these boards (which oddly enough only count for a small percentage of the CM gamers). This statement is placed to gain much debate followed by statistics of my ignorance. It would produce very large battles that would be the modern equivalents of many past CM scenarios (excluding CM:SF of course). Not sure what game-play issues there would be that they have not already have experience with from the previous games (haven't read other posts on the subject). Boardgames, RPGs, movies, books and video games made on the subject would all point towards a market for this environment. But that could just be my imagination again.

Well, let us follow the chain in brief and see...(take with a grain of salt, no harm intended) I say WW2 is an American market, you say East Front is the most popular (which does not contradict what I said). I say Germans = good combined arms, you say they had crappy weapons and rarely saw a tank. I say weapons are of similar function, you say they have crappy troops. I say WW2 is played out, you say I am ignorant of how the war was fought. I may not have the same level of knowledge as we have seen, but the Germans did take over a good chunk of land so they must have been at least marginally effective. Yes, I not a student WW2 history in Europe and now everyone knows it, damn. Bottom line, WW2 is gamed to death. I stepped a few inches outside of the line and was beat down with a history lesson. I have learned that Germans had bad troops, bad weapons, invisible tanks, pitchforks and that I like eggs. I am not upset or anything, knowledge is knowledge . But it does prove my personal unwritten point that knowing too much can sometimes take the fun out of it. My vote returns to NATO vs Warsaw in a conflict that begins in 1988-89 (that way the Canadians will at least have C7s).

Nope. I think I like my ignorance over reality, more fun.

These points are all reasons why I feel that WW2 is played out. There is virtually no mystery, the people who have been gaming that war for years can show you (to the man essentially) the OOB for every unit there was. Place one extra MG team and I am sure you will hear about it. At least these days there is still some degree of mystery because it is new or hasn't happened yet. The unknown is more fun in my opinion. I do still enjoy a wide variety of war sims, but there is more in the world than WW2. Some very interesting options have been presented and I think they should be explored. As has been pointed out, we don't really need another WW2 game based on the shear volume of them (even if we have only gamed less than 10% of the battles). This is where I go back to the modding community. I am sure that people are already making the WW2 mods for CM:SF, so if you can do that and make it accurate then why make a another game focussed on it? Then again, by that argument why not make any war then allow the community to transform it into any other war. I don't mod, so I really don't know how it works and if the game engine is conducive to that kind era change. I guess for a mod community it really doesn't matter what era a game is made in, it matters more to people like me who just pull it out of the box and play. So for those like me, no more WW2 please do something new and exciting.

Perhaps I should have said that comparatively speaking they had good gear that is similar in function. MGs, mortars, AT, yes bolt-action rifles but rifles none the less (some of them were quite good at using them). What you are describe is essentially the modern equivalent. The point I was making was that the WW2 German rifle platoon was very similar to that of modern platoons. They have the same capability and sustainment (comparatively speaking). They had integrated support (MGs and mortars) at the platoon level, most other nations in the early goings had that support (mortars) at the company and higher level. Not sure why you say that most German soldiers never saw a tank, the part of the war that saw them paste Europe says otherwise (that whole blitzkrieg thing).

No offense taken but I wasn't comparing Afghanistan and Iraq. You are right that they are completely different in scale but they are similar in tactics when taken to the platoon and section/squad level. We do a lot of training in the US and bring US troops up to train with us as we can both benefit from each others combat experiences. I agree that training and combat experience will create excellent soldiers that react with scary instinctive skill, but what about when they become casualties? Replacements rarely come from a combat hardened pool, they generally (at least in our case) come from a pool of troops that trained with the main body, but stayed in Canada. As they are needed they deploy and are plugged into a platoon. So you get "green" (but well trained) troops mixed in with the veterans. The actions or inaction of these soldiers can have rather negative effects on the overall effectiveness of a section/squad. It is just the way of combat, modern or other. No troop is 100% effective, 100% of the time in real life and this is what is hard to mod in a game.

The majority of Second World War games have always had the Eastern Front as a theme, though, so that logic doesn't quite hold - be it strategic, operational or tactical. </font>

Many interesting and valid points throughout. It was mentioned a few times but I think the appeal of WW2 and ACW as a game is based on the American market (sorry guys). If CM:SF was instead CM:ACW I would not have bothered with even the demo. The appeal of the WW2 large battles is obvious. You are talking Army Group, Corps, Division and Brigade level operations while in modern combat simulations you normally deal at the Battalion, Company and Platoon level. Why control 30 troops when you can control 30 000? Personally I like the 'intimate' nature of modern simulations as I am a soldier in this time, not the past. I like Cold War era simulations and the 'what if' scenarios of today because they are unknown. Playing WW2 games that are based on history have a definitive conclusion and known outcome. It becomes more of a forum for the armchair people to see if they can do better or test their own theories on what General so and so should have done. A war in the '80s with NATO and Warsaw Pact is my number one pic for gaming. Modern is #2 simply because I am here now living it. I personally do not understand the infatuation with ACW (I have a couple of friends who are re-creationists) in any way, shape or form. When it comes to games, I feel that they should appeal to the masses, not just a core group of 'grogs', this is what mission design and mods are for. WW2 has been done, done and done. I think what most of those gamers are looking at is the new game mechanics and engines and thinking of their favorite games and saying, man, that old game would be awesome with this new technology. It is fair to want that, everyone wants their fav game done in the latest fashions. But I think it is also fair that other eras get the same treatment, as there are many people out there who find some of the most obscure wars/battles in history to be of vastly more interest than WW2. So after saying all of that, gimmie CM:Cold War. Better yet make a generic war game that you can pick your era, nationality and units from the first bone club to tomorrows phased plasma in a 40W range. Just make sure I can be Canadian, getting tired of killing the bad guys as an American.

I agree with the statement. I like my res the way it is for game play but the briefing notes are too small. I am not that old but I certainly feel it when I have to lean into my monitor from 2ft away. Maybe a text enlargement option for us who don't have mini-TVs for monitors. My 19" CRT is still good enough for me.

I am going to chime in on modern weapons, aiming and lethality. I watched a video a few years ago that showed a police officer and a suspect that basically had the two of them with pistols drawn at about 5ft from each other. Within seconds both had unloaded (8-13 rounds each) and they both missed, from 5ft. Did I mention they were 5ft apart? We in the military preach 'aimed shots' and 'one shot one kill', but the fact is that individuals are not as effective as doctrine. There are many factors that not only play a part on the shooter, but also on the weapon and the target. Modern weapons systems with PAQ-4 or PAQ-2 or AN/PVS-14 MNVGs on the person are Gucci but they do not replace basic shooting skills. In a modern battlefield, in a perfect world, where you know the location of all enemies, a section/squad of soldiers can be absolutely obliterating on a poorly equipped group of hostiles. But that same section/squad can be wiped out in close range by people who barely know how to put a mag on an AK-47. In game, I too have marveled at my troops being killed by AK fire from 200+m away while they run. Hard to do, and almost impossible to do again and again and again in real life. I am a Canadian soldier and I can say that our pre-deployment training includes movement in the open, (formations and firing on the move) because it is inevitable that in Afghanistan you will be in the open when some wanker fires on you. We accept that in that opening volley at least one of your buddies is going down (otherwise why would they shoot), but we train and train again for what happens in the next few minutes. The volume and accuracy of fire on the enemy is as much a factor of the individual as it is of the collective training that was conducted prior. But why do we not suffer 100% casualties in an ambush scenario? Simple, adrenaline. The shooters get so wound up, they anticipate the shot, the heart rate is up, there is smoke, dust and debris in the air, there are people shouting, stoppages, mag changes, fast moving targets, dodging targets, incoming fire, there is everything happening at once. Yet in a game, virtually none of that is modded. The soldiers are fearless, they are expert marksman, the battlefield makes no matter to them, their weapon is an extension of them, how could they possibly miss? Life is more forgiving than games, a game simply cannot crunch all of the numbers for a firefight and no two are the same. It has to come down to a percentage based on an arbitrary number, plus an advantage or two and minus the enemy's advantage. They may sound similar, but ask anyone who has done close quarter snap shooting and stood in amazement looking at an unmarked target. It happens to the best of us, even me.

I noticed today that in the Recce Stryker the troops were buttoned up. I dismounted them then had them get back in. When they got in, they unbuttoned for about 5 seconds then buttoned up again. Actual visual of the troop getting low and closing the hatch. So it would seem to me that it is there as a visual for that vehicle, it is possible that the IFV Stryker is simply an incomplete model. I also noticed (on the same vehicle) that if I told the troops in the back to "open", the crew popped out instead and manned the .50, not exactly visually correct. I would be happy with the air sentry just sitting down instead of them acting like lemmings and popping out one after the other to see who shot the guy before him. The closing of the hatch would just be icing on the cake. Just my observations.