The_Red_Rage

Zampolits still exist, but their functions are different. Admin stuff in peacetime and just another line officer in combat units (Warrant officer is the closest western analogy i can think of). One zampolit Major actually got "Za Otvagu" (highest military) decoration in South Ossetia, covering 3 journalists at an expense of his own life. Besides, don't think modern Russian teenagers will be very succeptable to "political education". As for Saaskashvili insipiring his troops: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LRnbOlhEZj0&feature=related Plus, giving a national speech in ENGLISH, totally disrespecting his own country's national identity, culture and the fact that 99% fo Georgians don't speak English. Within Georgia, Mishiko is more known for his misstresses rather than great feats of heroism.

Yeah, Israeli and French are two very interesting armies than never get any love from game developers. Both are very relevant with Middle Eastern theme, certainly more so than Germans, Dutch and Canadians (3rd module). Being Canadian myself and having served, I have to admit that we have NOTHING interesting to simulate AFV wise, and the most advanced anti-tank asset that i had used (and seen for that matter) was the peak of 1960s technology - Carl Gustav (in 2006). I can't imagine Dutch being much better... As for modding part - as is such coversion is not possible. All units in the game are hardcoded, so nothing can be really changed with exception of textures, unit voices, UI icons and other cosmetic alterations.

Red on Red people will like a refreshed experience too:) Even above mentioned T35/85 will do. And retro Soviet equipment in general would be appriciated. For some reason i cant play Red on Blue scenarios - inflicting 50-60 casualties on US force with regular Syrian infantry interferes with my sense of realism too much.

It doesn't have to be "unlimited" per se - increasing the possible limit to say 6 hours will be sufficient. If AI is on defensive (which it is 90% of the time) I don't see increased time messing with scenarios. If it is on offensive, it is usually over within 20 mins anyways.

This is NOT few dozen casaulties... City panorama shots indicate very heavy damage from very heavy weapons to major buildings (including apartment blocks). http://vodpod.com/watch/966384-tskhinval-wounds I can't find another word other than cowards for Saaskashvili and his thugs.

There is plenty of units that can be added to Red without deviating from game's storyline. BTR-70 (I'd rather see BTR-80 tbh since BTR-70 pretty much equals BTR-60PB), BTR-152 (would be good for reserves), ZU-23-2, ZSU-57-2, ZSU-23-4, Trucks (Ural 4230, Praga V3S, old Mercedes trucks), UAZ with machinegun mount. Syrians have all that and in very large numbers. None of it will give an edge against a Blue player, however release of those older vihicles will be appriciated by Red on Red scenario designers. Vintage vihicles and high quality infantry is where it's at with Red on Red.

- "Enter" command with unit info (that included kills). - Command and control lines - AA guns - Detailed hits - Shoot and scoot

I have Macbook Pro 2.2ghz dual core, 128mb vram, 2 gig ram - should be more than enough for a game like CM:SF with maxed out settings (it runs Call of Duty, Half-Life 2, Company of Heroes on medium high settings). I run improved/improved, no anti-aliasing, vertical sync off with 35 to 7 fps. I get better performance with balanced/balanced, but redraws go out of control making the game uber ugly. As a rule graphics are secondary for me, but when vihicle changes textures like a chamelion due to texture redraws it can be quite a mood killer. Besides, CM:SF can be quite beautiful on "best" - it is a shame that 90% of people cannot run that setting unless it is for "Your best screenshot" thread.

I hope that's the case...not that i don't like larger battles, but with current state of the game engine they run at 5-12 fps on a decent system (hopefully it will get tweaked towards CMSF 2). New setting speculation - Ukraine?

5 years to CM:SF 2? :eek:

I wonder what is meant by "larger scope" in CMx2. Larger maps? Larger formations of units? Controlling anything over a company is abit of a strain atm (both, on a computer and player's micro managment skills), so i hope we don't go into brigade level of representation. Looks like it's going to be at least 1.5-2 years till we see temperate setting with modern Russian stuff, so alot can change till then. One thing i noticed after playing CMSF extensively is that I'm alot less excited for a WW2 title, or rather not excited at all. After being skeptical of initial port to modern setting, i am completely converted. Modern combat rocks!

Maybe sqeeze in BTR-80 and Shilka? Syrians must have tons of ZU and ZSU units and i believe they are getting new BTRs as well with T-90 order. They are dropping around 4 billion on new stuff (half of it is aircraft and air defense, but there is at least 1.5 billion worth of land toys). Hopefully French will be combined with German module - so much interesting equipment, possibility for tons of African-themed scenarios, and Foreign Legion! :cool: Edit: 400 Shilkas according to Wiki http://www.armyrecognition.com/moyen_orient/Syrie/vehicule_artillerie/ZSU-23-4/ZSU-23-4_Syrian_Syria_01.jpg

But 2 hours is a very unrealistic time constraint. For example a company advancing 2km through enemy territory will take significantly more than 2 hours, so will taking even a smallest village or town. When i play the AI (Red on Red almost exclusively), i have force preservation as my primary objective, and I'd like to think that it is a realistic way to play (intact units are usually worth more than a peice of ground). I like to run recce screens, have my units spot for a while before making any major moves, and generally take things slow. Conducting a recce TAKES TIME. Properly and meticolously executed, recon can take over an hour, and i would love to have that hour without feeling pressured to advance. Time pressure becomes even more annoying during Red on Red scenarios, with more fragile troops and equipment, when one simply can't park an Abrams on top of the tallest hill and expect to get away with it. Positioning and maneuvring is crucial, and again - it takes time. Tbh, with some of PaperTiger's scenarious i could spend 4-7 hours to play them the way i want.

It ain't dead...just lazy, and that BMP-3 is casting the best shade on the block to nap under:)

BMP-T is probably the most exciting AFV to come out in the last 10 years. "Quick fix" solution to refurbish old T-72s taken to the next level - insane firepower, enough protection to act as a RPG magnet (which it was designed to do), and up-to-date observation/fire control equipment with ability to engage up to 5km. Aimed to be used at tandem with tanks: 2 BMP-Ts per tank in urban environment and 1 per 2 tanks in open country. This looks to be the ultimate urban combat vihicle atm. And I bet it's cheaper than a Stryker...

I think those are Company of Heroes shots. Another RTS (a good one too).

Yeah pause button is a friend. I usually press it every 3-6 seconds no maintain coherent control. But I agree that time limit should be increased to whatever scenario designer feels like or set to unlimited. There are maps, which i like to savour by spending more than 2 hours on them. Don't see such an option as a big deal to add either.

I was wondering if the engine could support things like blown off turrets, charred marks on places where penetration or hit occured, knocked out hulls becoming darkened after burning for some time, black burned out marks on buldings after tank and IFV fire Mostly visual effects, but seeing a turret fly off T-72 (and fall on a bulding destrying it)would be pretty awesome. Would be interesting to spot "survivor" tanks after the game with multiple hit marks as well.

"And no one preached that OIF would be easy.....(in the sense of rebuilding a country that had spend 30 years under one of the most brutal dictators on earth.....Not to mention AQ looking to make it their personal base.....and the front lines of the WOT.......Which they have clearly lost, now)." I'm sorry I had a chuckle over that one... Haven't heard people use "Al-Queda" and "War on Terror" terminology in a serious context in a long time. Such terminology associates with *ignorance* for me (I blame my cynicism on growing up in Post-Soviet Russia and leftist liberal Canadian education system). "Not all problems have the same solution. There were (which have been proven so) very good reasons to stand by and build up Iraq again.....to bring the values of self-worth and freedoms to the heart of the Middle East....." ....and to keep the oil pumps running (before it was oil for food, now it's oil for old military hardware for "Glorious Iraqi Army"[under new management]). Iraq is just as much of a mess as it was in 2004. Afghanistan is actually alot worse, if you look at the fact that poppy seed production increased by over 300% since Coalition invasion in 2001 (and Afghan poppy seeds= 95% of world's heroin supply = billions of dollars to fund very nasty things all over the world). Karzai's government pretty much controls just the palace area in Kabul and the rest of the country is run by sketchy warlords. Both, Iraq and Afghanistan, were epic failures - nothing concrete was achieved, billions were spent, thousands of lives lost (or over a million lives if you count Iraqis). What brutal force can you use against a farmer with Kornet? Or a farmer with a Stinger/Strela? There is no friendly Kurds in Syria, there is no clear opposition to the regime - everything and everyone will be shooting at US forces.

Reminds me of what was preached before Iraq part 2. Btw, during early stages of ground invasion of Iraq US commanders were paranoid that Iraqis had Kornet complexes - they didn't. Syrians have 200 million dollars worth of them. I think you are making wrong assumptions comparing Iraqi capability with Syrian. Iraq was alone, isolated by embargoes, and simply tired of 30 years of wars. Syria is going to become a major stepping stone for Russian interests in the Middle East in the next 2 years, so a total revamp of their air and naval defense systems can be expected. They ordered 3 billion worth of hardware for their land forces as well ( lots of T-90 tanks and Kornets being most noteworthy). To be honest, i don't think any amount of technology or experience can puncture a properly positioned C-300 defensive grid supported by Pansyrs without MASSIVE losses. And as every CMSF player knows, losses for Blue are bad. Jon, Thanks for the article on Serb pilots. First time i've read about the incident. If it is true -Bravo! to the pilots, true bravery to pull a stunt like that. Don't think any of them expected to come back after a mission like that - it was comparable to attacking Pearl Harbor with WW1 Soptwith Camels and getting away with it!

Iraq did not have anything remotely close to C-300 or Pantsyr. Most of Iraq's military capability was aimed at dealing with its neighbours, such as Iran, rather than a modern combined arms force. Also Iraq did not have entire Russian carrier battlegroup parked near Baghdad. Syria does (http://rusnavy.com/news/navy/index.php?ELEMENT_ID=5706), and i would imagine it would be alot harder to blind than 1960s radar stations. With the carrier group comes the early warning, Russian sattelite capability as well as a capable modern bomber/fighter taskforce. It is pretty obvious now that Tartus will become a Russian strategic outpost, with all the improvements made to the port (including deepening the buttom to accomodate larger military ships), so all the upgrades are the matter of time. Also, Syria is not an open desert, but rather a combination of variety of terrains - some parts (mountains in particular) present perfect opportunities for shoulder-fired AA ambushes. Remember that even F-117 was shot down by what appeared to be either SA-3 or SA-6 (both are not state of the art by any means, and are not even close to what C-300 does). Syria, unlike Iran, is feeling very, very safe at the moment.

Thing is - it ain't going to be Syrian air defense system, but rather a Russian one. C-300 are to be positioned around the Tartus port and manned by Russian personnel. C-200 makes Patriot look like a child's toy to give you and idea of what C-300 is what capable of. Combined with Pantsyrs and difficult terrain, it will make US pilots feel very paranoid. Syrians are very well aware than Israelis punctured their air defense, and they are taking measures. Now than US and Russia stopped pretending to be in peace and harmony, both will start aggresively expanding their spheres on influence. Russia in particular, as US have been making very aggresive moves for the last 11 years. Considering that Syria was always loyal ally of the Soviets - they will have a place under Russian "wing". Problems with Sebastopol might leave Black Sea "homeless" soon, leaving Russia with two choices - relocate or attempt to orginize a coup in Ukraine and take Sebastopol back where in belongs. Considering the amount of international whining taking back Sebastopol would make, relocating seems like a more practical option. And Tartus is the best peice of real estate avaliable strategically. Now imagine the amount of hardware that will be protecting such a port, not to mention that US won't risk bombing Russian targets.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,422911,00.html http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=IVA20060728&articleId=2847 Looks like Syria is going to get top of the line air defense system. Even Russia herself doesn't have Pantsyrs yet, with first order going to Syria. C-300 is pretty much as advanced as it gets with air defense nowdays, and it looks like most of Syrian terriory will be within range. Edit: "Speed and violence" of US attacks highly depends on terrain. In the open desert - sure. Mountains/vegetaion rich terrain/or cities and you can throw all the advantage out. For example, the actual result of the multibillion bombing campaign on Serb forces in Kosovo was less than 4 knocked out tanks, the rest were mockups (contrasted with a loss of a F117). Now, add some C-300 complexes, Pantsyrs and a Black Sea Battlegroup covering the Tartus port. Syria won't be a pushover like completely demoralized by sanctions Iraq

I'm actually very surprised that ZU-23-2 and ZSU-23-4 weren't included in the game. Those things are VERY common everywhere, with Syrian not being an exception. Using Shilka in infantry support role would be awesome. And yes ZU-23 were mounted on practiacally everything - from stationary defensive outposts to MTLBs and truckbeds. Those things proved to be so deadly in urban combat that i don't think they are even viewed as air defense platforms in the Russian army anymore.

There is also a mod for Red Air Support with proper aircraft and helicopters. Comes in Syrian and Russian AF flavors. With regards to original topic - BMP-3 and T90 is why i am buying it. Marines will be more of the same thing (with even MORE firepower to dish out on poor Syrian AI), but T-90 should be something special. Can't wait to see Shtora-1 in action! Oh, how i wish for a Russian module - so much weird/cool/unusual (in gameplay terms) equipment of so many varieties to play around with as well access to high quality Red infantry. And so many possibilities for scenario and campaign designers (pretty much the last 15 years in Caucasus, from Tadjikistan in '92 to current South Ossetian confrontation). There are talks between Medvedev and Assad about building a Russian base in Syria, so maybe Russian Airborne or Marine battalion could be snuck in with Brits as a present for Red on Red enthusiasts. Justification could be that if there is a base on foreign soil, it will probably house at least a battalion of marines (most likely) or airborne units.