Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by hcrof

  1. Hi Buzz, I am afraid that I am not really technical enough to answer your question properly but as far as I am aware, CM is not perfect at clearing the virtual memory so if you open up anything before a large map like this one it will not clear the memory properly and you will get an out of memory error. Other than that I am a bit stumped as to why you could open it up once but not again, it seems quite strange. Maybe someone more knowlegable than me could help out?
  2. To be fair, I think the editor takes longer to load than actual battles. I started a test PBEM on it and after deployment was finished loading times were reduced by a lot!
  3. Thank you all for your kind comments! I would also be interested to hear from anyone who has a game on it too to see how it plays. Buzz, I did indeed spend some years of my childhood there and still return occasionally. It is a fantastically beautiful town in real life with a really nice community too so I was very lucky.
  4. The full description is below. I made this map a long time ago but have only just been persuaded to release it. I am tempted to call it 'unique' in its scope if not its size but I would be happy to be proven wrong There is a small issue with pathfinding from a 'strategic' courtyard in town but otherwise it runs fine (if your computer can handle it!). Full description is below:
  5. Funnily enough, I love BTRs. They do exactly what you want them to. They are fast, simple, reliable, cheap, surprisingly good off road, amphibious and that 14.5mm cannon will tear great big holes out of buildings at very long ranges. They can even be used to ambush light armour if you are desperate. Treat 'em right and they will do you well!
  6. While this talk is interesting, please read the below. http://russiamil.wordpress.com/2012/03/20/russia-has-not-sent-troops-to-syria/
  7. I would be very interested to see a source for that. If that is true then a pretty thick red line has been crossed.
  8. Im not going to contest the fact that Soviet casualties were higher, or the fact that many of them where due to easily preventable deseases but they actually had less troops than NATO and they were fighting a lot better funded and supplied enemy, using 70s equipment (even at the end of the war). Most of the Soviet forces in Afghanistan were pretty bottom of the barrel troops as the good ones were in Europe and they never had the resources to do a proper job (the second part sounds familiar ). The VDV and Spetznaz on the other hand were effective but there just weren't enough of them. It is not impossible to make a comparison but the differences in the conflicts do have to be pointed out.
  9. So far in this revolt we have seen around 6000 civilians killed. In my view, if Bashar gets hold of the situation we will see at least another 3000 deaths but he will remain in power. The west then imposes sanctions on the country which will last another 5-10 years and Bashar will start rounding up the remnents of the opposition and throw them in jail. Many will be tortured. It is a terrible tragedy to watch, but the alternative is open ended and I don't feel like that risk is worth taking. The Lebanese civil war resulted in hundreds of thousands of deaths (out of a population of only 3 million), the destruction of Beirut and instability in the region for decades afterwards. The massacre at Hama 'only' killed some tens of thousands and ended the rebellion permenently. Later on, there was repression and a lot of arrests but Bashars father didn't conduct the large scale killings that Saddam did. From what I have seen so far, I have picked my poison and it is repression and organised brutality against a mostly innocent populace. It is a hard medicine and it should be washed down with active promotion of political Syrian opposition groups and international pressure for reform. Not that I would be too optimistic about that of course...
  10. That is an interesting point you just made there - just who is calling the shots? Without a clear replacement for Assad, removing him would slide the country into anarchy. I for one would not want a messy sectarian conflict on my conciousness - if it takes more deaths in the put-down then I am willing to turn my eyes. As you say yourself, there have been too many horrific civil conflicts in the middle east already. Any change in government should come through peaceful revolution. The Egyptian and Tunisian revolutions put a new government in place that will take a while to shake out but I am cautiously optimistic, the Libyan revolution removed a tyrant but the replacement is looking very shakey. The downfall of Assad would in my opinion be a disaster as bad as Iraq that not only would potentially kill or injure hundreds of thousends of people but could also suck in neighbouring countries such Lebanon, Israel or Turkey. This is not a good/evil conflict. It is a a population that may have legitimate greivences against its government but is now throwing itself towards savage civil war. I for one would rather pay bribes and keep my mouth shut in public than live for months in fear of random violence destroying my family and freinds. Here is a question. If you wish to see Assad gone, how would this be achieved and what do you believe the eventual outcome will be 1-5 years on?
  11. Personally I think that any western involvement should not be overt at this stage, the cynical approach the west took in Libya really didn't do us any favours here. After Libya, hellfires are really not so different to troops on the ground - that distinction has been lost and the TV just shows the west beating on Arabs again. We will just have to accept a more indirect involvement and see what we can do with our good old spy agencies. The sad thing is that the situation has got to the point where if Bashar stays he will be internationally isolated and paranoid enough to reverse any moves towards democracy he might have started (he certainly had a softer touch than his dad). If he goes the country will be badly destabilied and the crazies will start coming out of the woodwork, potentially triggering a bloody civil war and reversing economic groth and prosperity. Either way, foreign investment in Syria has been badly shaken, the economy wont recover for years and a generation will be scarred by the experience. Fun times!
  12. The Shah, Saddam, Mubarek etc were indeed distasteful and while they provided a veneer of stability, the lack of an effective way for the people to express their greivences caused the discontent we saw in the Arab spring. If we want stability in the middle east we must promote robust government, not some petty strongmen. For this, I see the muslim brotherhood as a promising sign. While we might not agree with them, they appear to respect democracy and have a certain degree of tolerence for others. We may well get into massive diplomatic arguements with them but we disagree with Russia/China/Turkey etc all the time and it doesn't end in bloodshed. My point is that we cannot expect the Middle East to suddenly start respecting gay rights and opening jewish owned strip clubs any time soon, especially with the recent cultural shift towards conservatism in the Islamic world. We should instead opt for true stability and effective governance over wide eyed idealism or short term fixes and let improved education and prosperity work its magic in the long game.
  13. Thanks for the comments LUCASWILLEN05, the NATO version just has trucks so makes it incompatible with those without the NATO module. Given such a small change, there was little effort in replacing the trucks with jeeps to let others play the scenario As for reinforcements I think the game would struggle if any more units are added. PBEM turns are dangerously close to what it takes to crash the game as it is! I was aiming to get a lot of movement in this battle with non existant "front lines" so all troops are mechanised and there is a lot of terrain to drive around in. Making the country quite rough allows me to let more troops occupy a smaller area without becoming static. I considered air support quite hard. It would be fun for plinking tanks certainly, but I couldn't add it at deployment because people would just bombard their opponents starting areas and their call in times are very long for a fluid battle! I have played through 2 versions of this battle now and this is the 3rd iteration. Every time I play it involves a lot of movement and horrendous casualties on both sides - there is a lot of firepower here! One satisfying this is that you never feel limited in your forces you can direct a company to attack a squad or position a whole platoon of ATGMs or bombard the enemy with a battery of artillery... :cool: I welcome people remixing the scenario in any way they like. If you want to add western forces then be my guest
  14. Just to play devils advocate here, having visited Syria it didn't strike me that the population had zero. Generally it seemed like whilke the government was corrupt, it wasn't nearly as bad as many other countries. I believed at the time that reform was beginning the happen but inertia in the regime and entrenched interests were slowing it down to a crawl. At its best, the government was actually quite European/liberal even if it did occasionally pull its citizens off the streets for torture if they said anything stupid. Bashar still has the support of a large section of his populace, despite the violence. Perhaps even majority support. In fact you could say that the regimes initial attacks on were calculated to force people to take sides - perhaps Bashar was gambling that he had clear majority support? At any rate, there is no leadership amongst the Syrian rebels, no muslim brotherhood, not even a "NTC". For all his faults, Bashar is the only person in the country to prevent another Lebanon and I for one would hate to see that level of pointless sectarian violence. My (ill informed) opinion is that we bail Bashar out of this crisis and then screw him hard for reform once this is done. At the very least encourage a clear alternative to him for power, but this needs time to happen.
  15. Thanks boche. I should mention that it is multiplayer only - I have always been terrible at AI plans. In fact, I ought to update the repository page! The battle is actually a modified version of "Farm Wars" http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=89839 The map and forces have been heavily reworked to give better balence though.
  16. I will take your word for in on the 2003 war - I just did a very quick count from wikipedia, and lumped some independent brigades together to make division. As you say, the numbers of personnel are very different With regard to the Iranian ORBAT - they seem to have a remarkably small number of listed troops for a country of its size. Does anyone know why this is the case? What are the chances of new divisions suddenly appearing out of nowhere once the reservists are called up? With respect to the route from Baghdad to Tehran, the terran looks just awful, especially considering there is over 500km of it. http://www.panoramio.com/photo/54145281?source=wapi&referrer=kh.google.com Very pretty but difficult enough getting a company up it, let alone trying to put 4 combat divisions and their logistical tail up it, preying that there are no attacks/breakdows/need to reorganise order of march. A single division typically advances up multiple roads to prevent massive tailbacks but there just arn't any in that part of Iran. In this example, the next nearby road is nearly 8km away and looks even more dangerous. Essentially, terrain like this could stop a major attack all by itself, without the need to defend it. Further south, you could make further progress from Basra but the mountains protecting Esfahan are literally a wall with a few single lane roads winding their way over some high passes. http://www.panoramio.com/photo/4769552?source=wapi&referrer=kh.google.com Maybe I would like to go there one day, but with a camera, not a tank! (actually, looking at photographs of likely routes reminds me how beautiful Iran is!) Afghanistan looks a little more promising from attackers point of view (as in merely and not :eek:) - except that it would take so long to get to Tehran that defending forces could reposition into the mountains around the city. Also, supply into Afghanistan is hard enough right now without adding some highly mechanised high intensity warfare. Finally, any attack from the Persian Gulf would quickly turn into gallipoli again. Um. I guess the short answer is that an Iraq style invasion is militarily impossible. I tried to look into options but there does not seem to be any feasable way to deliver a significant force into the important Iranian cities and conquer the country. I will even state that Iran is probably one of the hardest countries to invade in the world. The only states that are in a position to do it according to the terrain are landlocked themselves... I would be interested to hear other peoples opinions and any AARs but I think that it will have to be a fictional country if you want to realistically invade it!
  17. Personally I think it is extremely small to take on a country the size of Iran (75 million people). Russia used 3 divisions to take on Georgia and you are proposing to defeat Iran with 6? Just a quick check on wikipedia shows the 1991 Gulf War involved 11 US/UK combat divisions as well as a large number of allied blocking forces. The 2003 invasion used about 12 against an even weaker opponent. I am not even including the enormous amount of artillery, logistic etc support involved. This was a campaign against a lesser enemy, in a smaller battlespace, in favourable terrain, with far more limited objectives. The problem about invading Iran strikes me as being threefold: Firstly the size of the country means supply lines are going to get extremely stretched Secondly the large population would not take kindly to invasion. Finally, Iran will use its rough terrain to its advantage, trading space for a steady flow of casualties that may well become unsustainable before the government capitulates. I am interested by the idea though, and I will see how this thread develops
  18. If you are interested I can add to your collection. My forte is the Soviet army of the 70s and early 80s but I have a bunch of interesting US documents as well. In addition to tactics, I also have reports, TOEs and pictures. Most of it is cold war era. Total size is about a Gigabyte.
  19. +1 to all the comments here - very professional work! The editing and storyboarding here beats much of the stuff on actual TV! The voices in the interviews where a bit jarring at first but I was surprised that I actually got used to them. With your new found fame however, Im sure it would be no problem at all to round up some volunteer voice actors for your next project
  20. Just to pile on to this bandwagon, Im 23 as well Maybe we should form a gang and bully all the old folks
  21. It is possible that the game is abstracting cover for the crewmembers caused by them hunching down inside the vehicle, 'cowering' if you like. This is not shown in game but you can imagine that as their suppression levels rise, the game might let some hits turn into near misses. The trade off of course is that thier actual ability to fight goes way down. That is all based off my CMSF experience - I havn't managed to play a lot of CMBN yet!
  22. I believe the weapon used early on in the video from the plane was Brimstone http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brimstone_(missile). Basically like a Hellfire but can be launched from a fast jet - very accurate and not likely to create a big crater. A JDAM would leave a huge crater and probably flip the tank if it landed near enough - you would certainly know it was a big bomb!
  23. I had a little chuckle at that caption - it was pretty brain dead. Actually, I have found the military reporting to be relatively good in this conflict so far. The BBCs John Simpson was even pointing out tactical mistakes by the rebels! A preliminary version of my scenario entitled 'Battle for Bishr' is done - PM me if you want to have a crack at it. Just as a word of warning, it is a bit rushed with a rushed briefing and less polish on the map as I would like. It has also NOT BEEN TESTED, and HAS NO AI PLAN. Multiplayer only Im afraid. Also, don't blame me for the terrible starting positions - I am only copying the pictures I have seen of the forces so far. Some troops you can change during setup, some will require a fast tactical decision afterwards I would be interested in peoples experiences with this. I suspect given the weak forces and penalties for casualties it will dissolve into stalemate much like many of the real world battles. Edit: if people just want to use the map and edit it/make their own scenario then feel free to do so!
  24. Hate to say you are wrong Sakai but that tank appears to be a T-72M You were right about the very low turret! Other identifying features include the V shaped splash plate on the glacis and the single, centrally placed vision block for the driver. As for the missile its hard to say. Its a Sagger but whether it is A,B or C is impossible to say without seeing the control unit I think. (can anyone else correct me here with an ID?) LLF, good points - I will bear them in mind when allocating government forces. The map is now pretty much done and I have a chaotic rebel checkpoint. Their poor tactical sense hurts my eyes but I am just copying photos!
  • Create New...