Jump to content

Recommended Posts

43 minutes ago, Combatintman said:

No the British Army doesn't employ Stinger in its air defence regiments, which is why they were removed from the British Army TO&E in CMSF:

https://www.army.mod.uk/equipment/artillery-and-air-defence/

Very nice link, thank you! Were all the Artillery and air defense systems in operation  in 2008, especially the Air Defense stuff?

Edited by Vet 0369
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 133
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Internal discussion started and the issue has been fixed. The next time SF is patched you guys will get to see this.

Clearly, neither myself or the original posters who brought the issue up, have explained ourselves... I apologize for my part in that. Syrian Squads have 100 rounds of MG ammo at the start of a

I must admit, Other Mord is pretty badass! Not quite as BA as (regular) Mord but close!   Mord.

Posted Images

Probably because in the event of an invasion, the Allies would have complete air dominance. A Syrian aircraft over the battlefield would be non-existent.  But I don’t work for BFC, so that’s just a wild-ass guess.

Your moniker is appropriate, 😆!

Edited by mjkerner
Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, mjkerner said:

Probably because in the event of an invasion, the Allies would have complete air dominance. A Syrian aircraft over the battlefield would be non-existent.  But I don’t work for BFC, so that’s just a wild-ass guess.

Your moniker is appropriate, 😆!

Yes thats what CMSF1 assumed. But players wished for Syrian air to be added to play out those hypothetical scenarios and with Black Sea getting many of these Russian air assets and Igla/Stinger done they´ve probably decided to add them which was a fantastic idea. So Syrian air assets and anti-air assets were proposed as features of the CMSF2 update.

Now we presented with a half-baked solution that many blue factions suddenly don´t get AA cababilites creating uneccessary-stupid quick battle imbalances.

Also aren´t there more important issues that needed to be adressed with a patch in CMSF2? But great to see that they damn sure got that time to remove features after release. Of all reported issues they´ve decided it is of uttermost importance to remove British Stingers so quick battle players are screwed over even more. Thank you Battlefront for patching features out of my game after I purchased them. Thank you for granting me that ability to get pounded by Syrian Air Force without having any defense while they can shoot down my aircraft, this realism...  

Edited by Mattis
Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Mattis said:

What the heck is a promotional page from 2019 of the UK army proving? The British Army definitely had Stinger stockpiles in 08 which are scheduled to be replaced by Starstreak since the late 90´s . However 2001 the UK Army again received Stingers from a Raytheon contract issued by the US: http://www.defense-aerospace.com/article-view/release/4499/greece%2C-italy%2C-uk-buy-stinger-sams-(feb.-20).html

But more important this narrowminded TOE-whoring is destroying more realism than creating it. I got the upgrade because I love the fact that Syria receives air support and naturally believed that BF at least would equip all blue nations with the Stinger. Now we have three blue nations which ABSOLUTELY can not defend themselves against Syrian Air in quick battle. How is that realistic? The other air defense assets are not modelled in CMSF2 so at least give us the goddamn Stinger, and even if the countries wouldn´t have them in stockpile (they do) they would get them from the allies prior to the invasion of course.

I mean what is this supposed to achieve? Why don´t change the website description to: "Enjoy the most realistic ground warfare simulation where Syrian AA will shoot down your Eurofighters and Apaches but as a Dutch, British or Canadian you have to helplessly watch how rusty SU-22 will blow your forces into oblivion" with a disclaimer beneath it "make some houserules with your Syrian buddy so he can´t use the shiny new air toys which probably where the reason why he purchased this goddamn update in the first place."

Absolutely nobody asked for the removal but almost all asked for the EXACT THE OPPOSITE: Stinger´s addition to NL and CAN forces to allow all quick battle players to enjoy an at least somewhat believeable scenario where OPFOR has air. What´s next? Patch 1.02 Hotfix: Removal of the BMP-3 because there is no Syrian TOE list that states its existence? We now really considering about keeping a unpatched version around to allow for unrestricted Syria vs British multiplayer quick battles. Thanks for this early april fool´s joke.

Please add the Stinger team to all blue nations everything else is just stupid.

Fine about the 2019 reference, but in 2008, the British Army had three types of air defence regiment - Rapier, HVM and Javelin. None of those are modelled in the game and so Stinger's use by the British Army in the game would be incorrect.

Otherwise I get the impression you don't like it. I'm sorry but I can't help you there.

Link to post
Share on other sites

FWIW the Dutch ground forces do actually operate the Stinger. Both carried versions and in a Fennek. The stinger was introduced in 1982 and not phased out. 

https://www.defensie.nl/organisatie/landmacht/eenheden/dglc

https://www.defensie.nl/organisatie/landmacht/materieel/bewapening/stinger-luchtdoelraket

https://magazines.defensie.nl/landmacht/2017/05/10_luchtverdediging-2 (history of the airdefense)

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mattis said:

Yes thats what CMSF1 assumed. But players wished for Syrian air to be added to play out those hypothetical scenarios and with Black Sea getting many of these Russian air assets and Igla/Stinger done they´ve probably decided to add them which was a fantastic idea. So Syrian air assets and anti-air assets were proposed as features of the CMSF2 update.

Now we presented with a half-baked solution that many blue factions suddenly don´t get AA cababilites creating uneccessary-stupid quick battle imbalances.

Also aren´t there more important issues that needed to be adressed with a patch in CMSF2? But great to see that they damn sure got that time to remove features after release. Of all reported issues they´ve decided it is of uttermost importance to remove British Stingers so quick battle players are screwed over even more. Thank you Battlefront for patching features out of my game after I purchased them. Thank you for granting me that ability to get pounded by Syrian Air Force without having any defense while they can shoot down my aircraft, this realism...  

deep breaths... deep breaths.

For definitions sake they did not remove a feature.  They changed a ToE.  Small item but important in discussions to clarify what is what.  The feature is Anti air capability, the ToE decided what AA capability you have.  For Qbs not much you can do here, but in scenarios you can select any units you want so you can attach stinger units from other nationalities to flesh out an AA capability.

If you want realism there should be no Syrian air force.  If you don't want it there are options outside the QB to include AA capability. CMSF1 had no AA capability at all. It is what it is.  Honestly QBs are an issue in a lot of ways.  ToEs do not fit nicely into the formation options available.  This is just one item granted one that stomped on your toes, but not the only one. Personally my Stingers for the most part missed anyway :(  

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Vol-Au-Vent said:

Nobody needs 500% TOE realism and removing UK Stinger it is like 0% realism. After patch you can´t play normal QB with Brits anymore.

You removed player content & options with patch, this is dumb.

you guys can keep ranting on this if you so choose but you know what BF stance is on ToE.  It is what it is. It isn't any different than when you played in CMSF1 - was British QB unable to be played in CMSF1?  Personally yeah I'd like em in too, but again it is what it is.  Maybe BF will re add them, but I would not expect it soon simply because they need to move on other games now.

If they had never made the mistake of having them in British ToE in the first place...…  :P 

Link to post
Share on other sites

In CMSF1 nobody had anti air weapons so it was balanced. Now we have Syrians with air support and anti air while several Western nations don´t have anti-air at all while Battlefront even keeps removing more. I now need to back up CMSF2 1.0 because it is only version that allows at least brits to have normal qb.  This is beyond retardation.

And big mistake was not what you are describing but to think like a normal human and think about your customers and simply add Stinger to everyone. We had the impression that at least every nation will get some anti air unit because everything else would be completely illogical. We don´t even care what uniforms they wear, let them be US Stinger teams or whatever sent to support other nations so TOE-fetish Grognards are at peace again. The majority of us don´t care about stupid nitpicking details especially when they destroy player options. But now Quick Battle with NATO and Brits is utter nonsense.

We  want to be able to play normal QB again and don´t need patches that remove game content.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

yep heard you guys the first time...and the second... and the third. 😮   It can be put in as a suggestion but not a bug.  We'll see what, if and when BF chooses to look at it.

However "Nobody needs 500% TOE realism" is an opinion.  It is most definitely not universally shared.  For a lot of us that ToE realism is exactly why we buy the game.  Still I do agree it would be nice to have something there for anti air as an option as a realistic ToE would have no Syrian air power whatsoever versus a blue force. I don't play with Red air unless playing red on red myself.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, sburke said:

yep heard you guys the first time...and the second... and the third. 😮   

Then leave my posts alone you are not a Battlefront employee and I do not need your approval. Just because you control this forum here and do not like new people here I won´t erase my opinion. From what I read you want to "hear" nothing other than your own words that fanboy the **** out of everything that Battlefront does and just try to silence everything that may not fanatically kiss butt of BF. Stop make every stuff done by Battlefront look like they would do us a favour, the definitely didn´t do anybody a favour by removing AA from three nations now.  

2 hours ago, sburke said:

 However "Nobody needs 500% TOE realism" is an opinion. 

Also stop quoting out of context. I wrote "nobody needs 500% TOE realism and removing Stinger is like 0% realism" which means that with this TOE supidity destroys any realism of this game. So stop twisting my words, only ignorant people do that. Also why didn´t you adress my suggestion that they could be US detachments? Let me guess the idea is too good so better ignore it? 

As we can bet that Battlefront won´t invest any second in create a proper anti air unit for the three nations the stinger was an excellent alternative and we had the option to have decent quick battles and still everybody would be free to choose to not go for the Stinger team. Everyone would be happy. Currently we can´t do proper quick battles with many nations anymore and instead of simply fixing it BF even keep removing game´s options after we already thrown our money at them. 

Also nobody plays quick battle with that super real TOE settings because in reality no nobody purchases single units like he wants.

Edited by Vol-Au-Vent
Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, Vol-Au-Vent said:

Then leave my posts alone you are not a Battlefront employee and I do not need your approval. Just because you control this forum here and do not like new people here I won´t erase my opinion. From what I read you want to "hear" nothing other than your own words that fanboy the **** out of everything that Battlefront does and just try to silence everything that may not fanatically kiss butt of BF. Stop make every stuff done by Battlefront look like they would do us a favour, the definitely didn´t do anybody a favour by removing AA from three nations now.  

Also stop quoting out of context. I wrote "nobody needs 500% TOE realism and removing Stinger is like 0% realism" which means that with this TOE supidity destroys any realism of this game. So stop twisting my words, only ignorant people do that. Also why didn´t you adress my suggestion that they could be US detachments? Let me guess the idea is too good so better ignore it? 

As we can bet that Battlefront won´t invest any second in create a proper anti air unit for the three nations the stinger was an excellent alternative and we had the option to have decent quick battles and still everybody would be free to choose to not go for the Stinger team. Everyone would be happy. Currently we can´t do proper quick battles with many nations anymore and instead of simply fixing it BF even keep removing game´s options after we already thrown our money at them. 

Also nobody plays quick battle with that super real TOE settings because in reality no nobody purchases single units like he wants.

Dude you need to get a grip.  I am one of the people that is frequently asked to submit tickets etc to BFC and I was stating a willingness to submit that in their suggestion queue.  If you'd rather I not fine.  Most of what I wrote agreed with you, if you can't take a little humor mixed in there that pretty much sucks for you.   I'll happily ignore your posts if that is what you prefer and you can just rant into the ether.  Freakin join 6 hours ago and already slinging the fanboy term at someone who was actually agreeing with you.  Sheesh.    Off to a great start making friends and influencing people.

@Raptorx7 it then prohibits you from playing alternate nations which it is pretty clear folks want.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Vol-Au-Vent said:

Just because you control this forum here and do not like new people here I won´t erase my opinion. From what I read you want to "hear" nothing other than your own words that fanboy the **** out of everything that Battlefront does and just try to silence everything that may not fanatically kiss butt of BF. 

Well that was uncalled for. Grow up man. Only 6 ours since you joined and you are likely getting added to ignore lists. That has to be some kind of record.

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Vol-Au-Vent said:

Then leave my posts alone you are not a Battlefront employee and I do not need your approval. Just because you control this forum here and do not like new people here I won´t erase my opinion. From what I read you want to "hear" nothing other than your own words that fanboy the **** out of everything that Battlefront does and just try to silence everything that may not fanatically kiss butt of BF. Stop make every stuff done by Battlefront look like they would do us a favour, the definitely didn´t do anybody a favour by removing AA from three nations now.  

Sigh.  One thing I dislike more is someone new coming in, getting honest and straight forward answers, not liking what they hear, and then attacking the person trying to impart some wisdom.  Ironic that the people screaming the loudest about ill treatment are those who are the most abusive.  And apparently illiterate, because the rules to which all new posters agree to forbid this sort of behavior.

You now have your one direct warning.  Keep up with the bad behavior and ill tempered posts and you'll be shown the door.  End of warning.

Quote

Also stop quoting out of context. I wrote "nobody needs 500% TOE realism and removing Stinger is like 0% realism" which means that with this TOE supidity destroys any realism of this game. So stop twisting my words, only ignorant people do that. Also why didn´t you adress my suggestion that they could be US detachments? Let me guess the idea is too good so better ignore it? 

As we can bet that Battlefront won´t invest any second in create a proper anti air unit for the three nations the stinger was an excellent alternative and we had the option to have decent quick battles and still everybody would be free to choose to not go for the Stinger team. Everyone would be happy. Currently we can´t do proper quick battles with many nations anymore and instead of simply fixing it BF even keep removing game´s options after we already thrown our money at them. 

Also nobody plays quick battle with that super real TOE settings because in reality no nobody purchases single units like he wants.

You've already had the correct answer several times now, but you have chosen to shoot the messenger instead.  I don't suggest you try shooting the message giver.  Never ends well.

The Stingers should never have been given to the British forces because the British did not have it at the time of Shock Force's setting.  Combat Mission is, at it's very heart, a game based on reality and not fantasy.  Yes, we bend the rules a little here or there, but we do not break them.  Having the British gaining access to Stingers breaks the rules, therefore a mistake was corrected by removing them.

As for the lack of Stingers for the British ruining QBs, that doesn't hold up to scrutiny.  CMSF1 allowed Red Forces to have air support and no Blue Forces had air defenses.  I don't recall anybody saying that QBs were unplayable.  Same for CMBN and CMFI's original releases.  So I'd recommend abandoning nonsense arguments to push a point.

True, QBs are not hyper realistic.  That's one of the bends in the rules I mentioned earlier.  But we do not allow weaponry unavailable to a nation to be present as choices in QBs.  British Forces should no more be able to access Stingers as Syrians should be able to access Javelins, Abrams, Apaches, or anything else like that.  Or if you wish a different example, the Germans can't access SMAWs, Marines can't access Wiesels, US can't access PF-3, etc.  In other words, you are asking us to create a unique exception to the rules without a defensible rational besides "I want it". 

While we definitely listen to customers when they make requests, we keep a steady hand on the tiller and do not allow vocal minorities to push the game into being something it should not be.  Combat Mission's greatest strength is not trying to be everything to all people, but instead something that exists based on rules which keep it from wandering down random roads.  I understand that this displeases some, but we also understand that is inevitable.  It is impossible to please everybody equally all the time.  Trying to do that is the path to ruin.

The short of it is British should never have had Stingers in v2.00 and we have now corrected it with v2.01.  That's not going to change with future releases.

Steve

Link to post
Share on other sites

For sure Vol-Au-Vent is a sock puppet.  Or I should say was a sock puppet as I banned that account.  Also, due to our zero tolerance policy towards such behavior I banned the account of Mattis as well.  For he was the puppet master.  Though by other perspectives Mattis was also a sock puppet, as were the other 3 accounts I just banned. Look at the postings and you can see that wasn't too hard to figure out.

Steve

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Cambronne said:

well, at least you could put a MMG team into the Syrian Army specialist team roster. That wouldn't have offenced anybody, would that..??

Hmm.  I'll look into that one.  Weapons available in the standard TO&E should be available in the Specialist Team list.  v2.01 added quite a few Specialist Teams to various forces which were, for accidental reasons, omitted in v2.00.  I might have missed a few.  Sadly, it's pretty complicated on the back end due to all the different nations and sub divisions within.

Steve

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

For sure Vol-Au-Vent is a sock puppet.  Or I should say was a sock puppet as I banned that account.  Also, due to our zero tolerance policy towards such behavior I banned the account of Mattis as well.  For he was the puppet master.  Though by other perspectives Mattis was also a sock puppet, as were the other 3 accounts I just banned. Look at the postings and you can see that wasn't too hard to figure out.

Steve

Damn when I was 12 I would probably never have figured to create sock puppets. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, sburke said:

Damn when I was 12 I would probably never have figured to create sock puppets.

Your socks were probably too crunchy to get your hand inside. Kukla, Fran and Ollie...you weren't.

 

Mord.

 

P.S. How was that for an obscure pop culture reference?

Edited by Mord
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...