IDF Mod?

[BigRed1]

Is there ever any chance that there would be a Israeli Module?

[cabal23]

Fat chance. I am sure this has been discussed ad nauseum in past posts. There have no reports of anything cool like that. I heard NATO(silly in my opinion..when was the last time NATO did anything worthwhile besides get their equipment destroyed by militants) and an unknown highly speculated temperate red force. The NATO things is goofy because a mod already exists that turns all your vehix into NATO vehix. The forces don't seem that drastically different than US forces. I can't help but think of all the military blunders NATO has participated in over the years and that alone makes the addition of NATO to seem like a waste.

[Field Marshal Blücher]

No IDF module, the mods have said it repeatedly.

Fat chance. I am sure this has been discussed ad nauseum in past posts. There have no reports of anything cool like that. I heard NATO(silly in my opinion..when was the last time NATO did anything worthwhile besides get their equipment destroyed by militants) and an unknown highly speculated temperate red force. The NATO things is goofy because a mod already exists that turns all your vehix into NATO vehix. The forces don't seem that drastically different than US forces. I can't help but think of all the military blunders NATO has participated in over the years and that alone makes the addition of NATO to seem like a waste.

The NATO module is going to include Germans and I believe Canadians and possibly some other European countries. As such, we'd get the Leopard 2A6 and lots of other nifty Germanic stuff, which to me seems pretty different from current US equipment. The "unknown highly speculated temperate red force" is in CM:SF 2, a whole new game. Steve has said there aren't going to be any Red modules for CM:SF, nor will there be any major additions to current Red forces after the Marines module.

[MikeyD]

No point in having IDF if the game doesn't include civilians.

[panzermartin]

Regarding NATO being silly...I think the module open ups a lot of possibilities for us europeans. I'm thinking of making a series of Greece vs Turkey aegean scenarios. Both sides have Leo2s, BMPs, Kornets and the islands terrain can offer some exciting tacical variety. If you mix Cyprus, we can have the T-90s in there too. Less science fiction than the Bundeswehr going to Syria me thinks

[cabal23]

It was my ignorance on their equipment. I did a search and found little info. My only recollection of Nato has been seeing pics of US equipment.

[akd]

My only recollection of Nato has been seeing pics of US equipment.

Seriously?

[Combatintman]

Seriously?

Aye to the above ... first picture that comes up in Google Images with the search term 'NATO Tanks' is a Canadian Leopard ... so Cabal23 ... didn't look too hard did we?

[cabal23]

I already spoke to my ignorance, do you really have to make the point over and over. Not everyone here is a military equipment expert. But when searching news articles about NATO I saw US equipment. It was short sighted comment and I already stepped away from it. Wow some people really feel the need to express their superiority here. I couldn't have excused myself from the convo more humbly.

[akd]

Well deserved when you considered what you jumped into the thread with:

when was the last time NATO did anything worthwhile besides get their equipment destroyed by militants)

Several hundred dead Canadians, Frenchmen, Germans, Brits and others might beg to differ. I'm just intrigued as to what you think NATO actually is?

[cabal23]

Shall I cite the hundred of articles of NATO's problems? I can only comment on what I have read.

My faith in the organization isn't too high. That says nothing of the brave men and women who serve.

These are not my words but sum up the reality of NATO...

We can therefore summarize the problems facing NATO today in the following ways:

1. It has little post-Cold War function, as the nature of warfare has changed. The NATO-Russian Council constitutes more a diplomatic than military move, as seen in the mutually suspicious positions of the Kant and Manas bases in Kyrgyzstan.

2. Its ideology and role is no longer well-defined in the present climate, as seen in the shift of attention to Asia and the 'coalition of the willing'.

3. It has not proved itself capable of decisive action, as seen in the war against Iraq.

4. It is not up to the job of the war on terror, as seen in the assault on the Taliban.

5. It is, and has been, funded and functioned predominantly by the US, as seen in Kosovo.

6. Splits have occurred, as seen between France and the US.

7. The US uses it as a tool for its own military objectives, as seen with the ISAF.

NATO therefore does not have a viable future, hinders possible military progress, and should be disbanded as soon as possible.

It is not expected that the Middle East will be strong enough to establish a military Arab entente. However, by 2025 the four blocs of the US, South-East Asia, South Asia, and Europe should offer a degree of multilateralism and balance. An Asian coalition, including Australia and India, and a functional EU army is essential to this proposal, as is an increased European defense budget. Establishing the blocs detailed above would ensure strong local coalitions which deal effectively with local issues and then - in a geographical continuum - can link to solve global issues. The US would maintain its greater degree of control, but less so. We have seen how easy it is for the US to defeat theoretical objections in the UN Security Council. However, it would be less easy for the US to act against a strong continuum of strong local coalitions: the continuum exists, in a way, as one long string of vetoes; it also exists, when it works, as a sort of diplomatic rapid response force.

This of course is the writers opinion, and whether it should be disbanded is up for debate. I am open to enlightenment on the subject, but the general consensus amongst many military professionals in the loop echoes the statements above. I can only read their thoughts and base my opinions on that. But please offer your thoughts.

[akd]

It is not that hard to link to a source:

http://www.witbd.org/articles/nato.htm

[MarkEzra]

And now back to the IDF thread, already in progress:

As a financial proposition, I believe BFC sees better opportunities elsewhere.

[Flanker15]

No point in having IDF if the game doesn't include civilians.

Oh Snap!

Besides most of the IDF equipment is the same or similar to US gear.

[jkobmadrid]

i think that an IDF pack is more realistic than NATO forces.

CMSF is loyal to weapon systems, army and units formation

and etc'. why won't the game be loyal to the reality in terms

of region conflicts?

maybe it relates to marketing issues, but in term of

reality, it makes much sense.

(this discarding the stupid reference of IDF and civilians).

[LongLeftFlank]

Augh, not this one again!

In spite of lengthy arguments in favour, Steve has resoundingly rejected the idea of an Israeli intervention in the CMSF scenario here:

http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=72765&highlight=israeli&page=3

and rejected a historical A-I wars game here

http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=74981&highlight=israeli&page=5

Search is a wonderful thing....

[panzermartin]

NATO is just a catchy label for the module. It will have germans in guys..What is a wargame without ze germans? Leos, Marders, Pumas, G36s MG3s, Pzfausts..So many cool toys. I don't understand the "euroweenie" type of commentary here. Will give us the chance to make some nice EU vs US scenarios too.

[cabal23]

It is not that hard to link to a source:

http://www.witbd.org/articles/nato.htm

Uh yes, but it wasn't necessary to read the author's entire though process. I just wanted to highlight his main points. Most people would look at that source and not even bother reading it based on the length, hence the highlights I felt were important. Would you like me to use APA to cite the works as well? I went to college, I use a computer, we all know how to link a source. I swear some people spend more time worrying about the insignificant things and not the point at hand.

Now that I see the scope of vehicles that might play out in a NATO mod, I firmly agree that it is a great idea because of the possibilities outside the actual scope of the NATO. I admit was wrong with my first opinion. As a scenario designer myself I see the value and think it is a great idea. What I have learned from BF over the years is they always have a firm idea of what they are doing for years to come. They rarely change course based on our comments, and they comment frequently on this. As entertaining as it can be, pie in the sky want list never get anywhere, except for a smart Ace to join the convo and say "This has been talked about in X forum X number of moths ago(I am suspect of both)" Yes an Israeli mod would be great and honestly I think it would sell well(not as well as say the Brits mod), but obviously that is not the direction they want to go for whatever their reasons may be. I always hear the number one reason why is because they just don't have manpower to make it worthwhile, when they could be (and are) working on other things, like Normandy which will sell like gangbusters. If they could find a way to pump out mods faster and more frequently, don't you think they would?

[Combatintman]

Agreed more variety is always good and it just offers so much more to scenario and campaign designers. Certainly the addition of the Canadians and Cloggies might see some more Afghan themed missions.