Wodin Posted March 8, 2009 Share Posted March 8, 2009 When will we see a module that isnt an allied country? Fighting Syrians who I'd imagine arent as well equiped doesnt really appeal. Figthing against the same country or the Americans against the British doesnt feel authentic. As soon as a module for say the Russians is released then I shall purchase. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clevinger Posted March 8, 2009 Share Posted March 8, 2009 I guess you will have to wait for CMSF 2 then 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yair Iny Posted March 8, 2009 Share Posted March 8, 2009 Hi Wodin, BFC have stated that CM:SF (1) will stay in the Syria setting. Now this doesn't mean that there couldn't be another red force module, rather that if it were, it would be a middle eastern force, say Iran. They plan on making CM:SF 2 which will go to a temperate climate and, presumably, field NATO forces vs. Russians. As for a red-force module for CMSF 1 and it's middle-eastern setting, I can't see BFC making one based on the above. I'm no marketing guru, but how many people do you think would shell 25 USD for Combat Mission - Iran, or Combat Mission - Hezbollah? Fast forward to CMSF2 and I can definitely see Combat Mission - Spetznaz generating big bucks. In the meantime, if by "I shall purchase" you mean the module, I can totally see that. But if you haven't purchased the main game, all I can say is you are missing out on a seminal masterpiece of a sim/game, which, while having its flaws (as all things do), is head and shoulders above anything else out there. Cheers Cheers 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Combatintman Posted March 8, 2009 Share Posted March 8, 2009 What's wrong with the Syrians - you get T-90 and BMP-3 (in the Marines Module) which are top end Russian-manufactured equipment along with RPG-29 along with AT-13 and and AT-14. I'd buy it if I were you. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meach Posted March 8, 2009 Share Posted March 8, 2009 In a recent QB I gave a US tank platoon a spanking with Syrian infantry conscripts and I am far from military genius as you can get. It's not what you got but how you use it, as Mishga often says to me.... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homo ferricus Posted March 8, 2009 Share Posted March 8, 2009 In a recent QB I gave a US tank platoon a spanking with Syrian infantry conscripts and I am far from military genius as you can get. Unfortunately a flushed red bottom doesn't really compare to a pit full of dead conscripts :-( unless you actually managed to win the battle, did you? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mishga Posted March 8, 2009 Share Posted March 8, 2009 He did, I am witness to it. Random QB settings. M1's came stonking into a small village area and the conscripts in ambush opened up with what limited RPG fire they could and 3 tanks disabled and the 4th retreated and popped smoke. After the battle the main gun was damaged in the review. That explained it taking no more part in the battle. I think a crewmember was dead inside as well but cannot remember fully. A flushed red bottom can be fun too I suppose 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homo ferricus Posted March 8, 2009 Share Posted March 8, 2009 He did, I am witness to it. Random QB settings. M1's came stonking into a small village area and the conscripts in ambush opened up with what limited RPG fire they could and 3 tanks disabled and the 4th retreated and popped smoke. After the battle the main gun was damaged in the review. That explained it taking no more part in the battle. I think a crewmember was dead inside as well but cannot remember fully. I see, although naturally, this would've been impossible to pull on a half-competent human, especially if the M1s had any kind of infantry support. From the sounds of it, the M1s just came flying in alone, driving past buildings and leaving their flanks open to anything that could have been behind them. A flushed red bottom can be fun too I suppose uhh... yes, i suppose. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dietrich Posted March 9, 2009 Share Posted March 9, 2009 Even when playing Blue, I've had plenty of bloody-awful bare-knuckle knock-down/drag-out fights that didn't involve T-90s or BMP-3s or Special Forces or Airborne on the Red side. If you want to fight Russians (or something resembling them), just give Red T-90s and BMP-3s and plenty of AT-14s, up their experience to Veteran, and use a Russian voice mod like the one available at cmmods.com. (Am I the only one who's getting at least a little bit tired of people coming out of left field, so to speak, and posting things like "I don't like this game because it doesn't have what I want" or "this game is broken because it doesn't have things I think it should"?) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Falconander Posted March 9, 2009 Share Posted March 9, 2009 Am I the only one who's getting at least a little bit tired.... +3 to that... But if people did not gripe what would I get to read. Actully, if Admins did not have to answer the same rant over and over again, I wonder if the release would be sped up at all.... Hmm.... your very actions delaying what you want the most But many good has come from rants as well so heck I guess it is something we live with.... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted March 10, 2009 Share Posted March 10, 2009 Always the Russians. Ah ,the poor Russians always cast in the role of the aggressor. Well, I do suppose South Ossetia didn't do much for their image in that regard last year. When the NATO module eventually comes out that'll be my opportunity to engineer the U.S. invasion of Canada! Canada has the benefit of being a neighboring country (no logistics concerns). And they speak much the same language (no soldier voices in Arabic). And the U.S. at war with Canada is no more unlikely than the U.S. going to war against Russian. After all, at least Canada wouldn't drop a thermonuclear warhead on top of L.A. if we started a fight. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yair Iny Posted March 10, 2009 Share Posted March 10, 2009 After all, at least Canada wouldn't drop a thermonuclear warhead on top of L.A. if we started a fight. You say that like it's a bad thing... I lived in LA once, the US would probably be better off if that DID happen 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dietrich Posted March 10, 2009 Share Posted March 10, 2009 at least Canada wouldn't drop a thermonuclear warhead on top of L.A. if we started a fight. But is that because they figure it would result in M.A.D. (Mutually Assured Destruction) or because they have no thermonuclear warheads to drop? Is it just more, or has the USA gone around looming over other countries and saying, "Hey!? You can't have nukes! Only we can have nukes! You have to get rid of your nukes...because we say so!" A few months ago National Geographic magazine claimed that more countries have "opted out" of the nuclear arms race than have joined it (or are still in it, I don't remember clearly). On reading that, I was inclined to interpret it more cynically (or realistically, depending on your viewpoint) and suppose that the aforementioned countries gave up trying to develop weapons-grade nuclear programs either because they couldn't afford such or because the superpowers bullied them into giving up or both. Don't get me wrong, MikeyD -- I'd gladly play any US-vs.-Canada scenarios (or campaigns, even) which you created. For one, I'd love sending 'my' Leopard 2A6Ms (which the Canadian Army acquired a goodly number of fairly recently) to duke it out with M1A2s and such. =P 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gpig Posted March 10, 2009 Share Posted March 10, 2009 Learn something new every day. (I had thought that Canada never wanted anything to do with any nuclear weapons, anywhere at anytime. Wikipedia says slightly different.) This from Wikipedia ...With the launch of Sputnik and the new threat from Soviet missiles, the Canadian government decided to purchase the BOMARC defensive missile system. While Prime Minister John Diefenbaker agreed to buy the missiles, he balked at also taking the nuclear warheads that were needed to make the system useful. Accepting nuclear weapons into Canada became the central issue of the 1963 Canadian election, which saw Lester B. Pearson's Liberals, a party that had earlier opposed nuclear weapons, defeat the Diefenbaker government. On January 8, 1969, Canada ratified the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. From the 1960s to 1984, there were American nuclear weapons in Canada[1]. These were placed under dual key rules whereby both Canadian and American authorities had to authorize a launch. Pierre Trudeau, Pearson's successor as prime minister, was opposed to these missiles, and in 1971, declared Canada a non-nuclear country. The missiles were moved out of Canada. Despite the fact that the Nuclear warheads were never placed in the country, due to agreements between Canada and the United States, Canada purchased Nuclear weapons through a tactical budget of the Department of National Defence under the projects NORAD, and the Distant Early Warning (DEW) Line. The Royal Canadian Air Force maintained a stockpile of AIR-2A Genie unguided nuclear air-to-air rockets as the primary wartime weapon on the CF-101 Voodoo all-weather interceptor after 1965. The rockets were held by detachments of the United States Air Force at the Canadian Voodoo bases, and would have been released to Canada if conflict threatened. These were removed in 1984, when the CF-18 Hornet entered squadron service and the Voodoo was retired. The Canadian Army operated the MGR-1 Honest John nuclear surface-to-surface rocket as part of its land forces commitment to NATO. No. 1 SSM Battery of the Royal Canadian Artillery, attached to 4 Canadian Mechanized Brigade Group stationed in West Germany, maintained a total of four rocket launchers for Honest John missiles fitted with the W31 nuclear warhead between 1964 and 1970. link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction Gpig p.s. Love the name "AIR-2A Genie unguided nuclear air-to-air rockets." I guess if they are "Air-to-Air" and are nuclear . . . not much point in having them "guided." CLOSE only counts in horseshoes and handgrenades. And Genie unguided rockets. Nyuk nyuk. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wodin Posted March 23, 2009 Author Share Posted March 23, 2009 (Am I the only one who's getting at least a little bit tired of people coming out of left field, so to speak, and posting things like "I don't like this game because it doesn't have what I want" or "this game is broken because it doesn't have things I think it should"?) Im not moaning about the game at all. I know a good sim when I see one and this is one of them. Just the setting doesnt appeal to me. I love HPS games Squad Battles but I havent bought all of them because the setting doesnt appeal to me. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted March 23, 2009 Share Posted March 23, 2009 I've been lobbying for awhile for Hezbollah coming in over the border with commandeered Lebanese army Panhard ACs and Iranian reverse-engineered "Toophan" TOW launchers. Doesn't sound like you could get a whole module out of that though 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted March 24, 2009 Share Posted March 24, 2009 The Canadian Army operated the MGR-1 Honest John nuclear surface-to-surface rocket... You just reminded me of a conversation I had with someone 20+ years ago, a guy who had a relative working in a Canadian nuke sub. And he said it with a sly wink and a nod, and a tap of his finger to the side of his nose. I had totally forgot about that. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackMoria Posted March 24, 2009 Share Posted March 24, 2009 Just to clarify. Canada does not nor ever had ownership of nuclear weapons. Any nukes on Canadian soil, such as the Bomarc missiles were US owned warheads with control and authority residing solely with the US personnel assigned to the missile batteries who worked in tandem with Canadian personnel. In other words, Canada might have owned the missile system sans warhead and Canadian personnel controlled and operated the system sans warhead but the warhead was the sole property of the US and only US military personnel could work, do testing or whatever on the warhead. And since the warhead was part and parcel of the system, Canada couldn't even fire off a Bomarc without US authority and US personnel being involved in every aspect of the act of a live launch. At least, that is what my understanding of the relationship, after talking to someone who worked in the Bomarc program many a year ago. The Cold War made for strange situations like this. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.