DerelictStudios Forums: The Actual Iraqi Faction Manual - DerelictStudios Forums

Jump to content

  • (8 Pages)
  • +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • Last »
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • This topic is locked

The Actual Iraqi Faction Manual The whole thing, in its entirety!!!!

#21 User is offline   Freedom 

  • Major General
  • Group: Volcano Soldier
  • Posts: 3,906
  • Joined: 02-April 04
  • Mod Registrations:

Posted 04 December 2004 - 06:43 PM

QUOTE(STURMSHREK @ Dec 2 2004, 12:15 AM)
Anyone care to comment on either the Iraqi Structures capabilities or the Iraqi generals? Such powers as generating human shields. We need more feedback. wink.gif

You can't make people interested, and anything asked after this post seems to be set up and sorta cheesy, like a intentional "interview". Smurf doesn't respond to threads in blitz II to say "Isn't anyone going to ask on bla bla? wink.gif"

Maybe as a disadvantage the Iraqi tanks can have purposefully horrid unit AI to represent their sub-par tank tactics.
0

#22 User is offline   STURMSHREK 

  • 2nd Lieutenant
  • Group: Volcano Soldier
  • Posts: 198
  • Joined: 05-November 04

Posted 05 December 2004 - 09:49 AM

Well it seems to be working, otherwise people would not have responded. tongue.gif Reason why I need people interested in the specific top in question is to generate feedback. Not because I want to feed by ego but because we are creating it as we speak and need to answer questions about why things are the way they are. If somebody thinks it's not balanced or something should have another power or this or that, then that is what I'm after.

About bad AI tanks... well the player can set it to easy AI. In regards to bad tank tactics, I think certain people fail to realize that the factions will be balanced and that the AI tactics will rely on the skill of the player. Everyone seems to think we are creating a faction designed specifically so America has something to shoot at and be proud of how superior it is. Iraq is not being made as a convient way for players to be convinced that they are marching an unstoppable world's best bully over an easy blow-over enemy of the same time period. This is not to give a modern realistic America something modern realistic to stomp on. rolleyes.gif

Iraq will be the equal of America in regards to fighting potential. It is a faction that cannot win a war of resource attrition but can win a war of life attrition by making the enemy sustain unbarable casualties and forcing them to withdraw or sue for peace. That being said, this is not a one sided game where Abrams, marines, apachees reign supreme. This is a game where the better player reigns supreme.
0

#23 User is offline   Godwin 

  • 1st General
  • Group: Volcano Soldier
  • Posts: 8,202
  • Joined: 07-April 03

Posted 05 December 2004 - 10:06 AM

good to hear that you've thought about things like that
0

#24 User is offline   STURMSHREK 

  • 2nd Lieutenant
  • Group: Volcano Soldier
  • Posts: 198
  • Joined: 05-November 04

Posted 06 December 2004 - 09:38 AM

Thought about what specifically? laugh.gif

When I planned Iraq out I had no idea people would be playing the game just to recreate the Iraq War of 2003. That's why I did NOT plan on having AI built in to the Iraqi generals and such since I expected people to play as Iraq against AI oppenents or other people. Seems though people to play with Abrams and Blackhawks and blow "Iraq as they know it" away. dry.gif Unfortunately this may dissapoint some people but I make no apollogies for not including rusty T-72s, BMPs, T-55s, and scruffy, white flag waving, surrendering troops for the enjoyment of being mowed down or plowed over in a Goliath stepping on David fashion. tongue.gif If a nation or faction is to be included in a game, it should at least have a fighting chance of winning.

On the topic of including powers designed to counter powers of another faction, that would be weak. We should keep it at having original powers for each faction that givez them a unique edge that forces the other player to react. Otherwise you take the strategy out of Strategy game when you just push a button to counter the powers of the other side.
0

#25 User is offline   usafirewarrior 

  • PyroManiac
  • Group: Volcano Citizen
  • Posts: 683
  • Joined: 26-November 04
  • Location:Virgina,USA
  • Mod Registrations:

Posted 08 December 2004 - 05:14 AM

tho iraq could never win a war v the usa as the death toll of both sides shows the big differance 1,500 usa solders while iraq has 17,000 deaths and riseing and in the battle aginisnt the insurgions they have had a much bigger death toll another thing is iraqs an artillery faction with alot more range then anyone else not in real life but my favrite thing is long ranged weaponrey im always useing search and destroy tactic at the us stratigy center so the side would make me feel right at home due to its tactics ill be constantliy putting in a easy comp so i can capture the iraq command center and use there artillery im all about long ranged tactics so ill like the faction alot but not as much as usa and how much range will iraq artillery have i also think to counter the fact they have so much range is to slow down how fast it fires since usa palidin artillery can fire 3x faster then iraq artillery and it has more acuracy due to in 2006 they will be implementing a new guided artillery shell so i think iraq should have reduced artillery fireing speed and less acuracy
0

#26 User is offline   EvilViking 

  • stargazer
  • Group: Volcano Officer
  • Posts: 3,413
  • Joined: 10-April 04
  • Location:Virginia, USA

Posted 08 December 2004 - 05:40 AM

Did you read the storyline at all!!??

This is alternate reality! The 2003 war never happened. This Iraq has undergone revitalization with the help of foreign powers.

STURM-SHREK, tell him! dry.gif
0

#27 User is offline   STURMSHREK 

  • 2nd Lieutenant
  • Group: Volcano Soldier
  • Posts: 198
  • Joined: 05-November 04

Posted 08 December 2004 - 06:41 AM

Iraqi artillery firing rates, speed, accuracy, and range are all determined on the basis of what is known. Since Iraq places its emphasis on artillery then it will get all the artillery benefits. Just as America gets most air benefits. The firing rate of Iraqi artillery is not all the same. Only a couple of units ise a system that fires rapidly so the unit can move again and avoid fire. It will fire 6x in a minute. But we don't use realtime in the game. SO rates will be proportional to how fast the rates are in the regular game, but Iraq's version will be sped up when appropriate according the design. However, since you like artillery so much then you might want to play as America. However, some structures are not capturable as far as I know. You need the Presidential Palace inorder to get the artillery upgrades so if you had an Iraqi warfactory it would give you no benefits.
- If you want to play with the best artillery faction then Iraq is your best bet. But it is ot a well balanced faction since they are weak in certain areas. You won't know which side you will like more till you play.
- Just because America comes out with something that says 3x this or this and that, we can't incorporate everything in the world that comes out. Besides, other countries Im sure are making similar things to be available at similar times and might probably be better than AMerica's. FOr simplicity though, we cannot let everyminute detail that comoes out in the world slow us down. That would not be fun at all.
- As for casualties, how do you know it wouldn't happen? Politically speaking, AMerica has not won ground war since WWII. 1,000 American casualties is much bigger than people think. Korea, Vietnam, Kuwait, and Iraq. Kuwait was an airwar, Iraq was the same, the occupation is not being won. Vietnam speaks for itself, and Korea we literally fought for nothing since we ended up where we started. But I won't let this turn into a history discussion where people try to sound like (one-sided) porofessionals from the History Channel.
- People should not base the past war in Iraq with this Iraq. You can draw few parallels if any. It's not the same Iraq. This one IS capable of winning... If it can beat the Americans back to the choke points, cut the ports, sink enough of the fleet, and stall rapid advances until the major sand storm season starts as to delay the American campaign till the following year.... Or just inflict unbarrable casualties in a planned sustained campaign that is the ultimate bear trap or collection of traps.
0

#28 User is offline   Black DoomsDragon 

  • 2nd Lieutenant
  • Group: Volcano Citizen
  • Posts: 102
  • Joined: 03-November 04

Posted 08 December 2004 - 11:14 PM

An Act Of War is a very good TC in the making, and the mod has very good potential. But if you read the Storyline and stuff, it will be better for the PCTeen1 and his team because they won't have to answer the same question over and over. I figure that it gets really annoying to the mod team. I will be expecting this also type of stuff to happen in NWO forum as my team(the CNC: New World Order mod team) develops CNC: New World Order if people don't read the threads before posting.

But me and rest of the NWO mod team and PCTeen1's team know that forums that are full of flaming, spaming, off topic posts can slow the team

This post has been edited by Black DoomsDragon: 08 December 2004 - 11:17 PM

0

#29 User is offline   Garrick 

  • HentaiFanBoy
  • Group: Volcano Soldier
  • Posts: 731
  • Joined: 12-November 03
  • Location:Torino

Posted 09 December 2004 - 03:28 PM

if i had an Euro for every time i had to say "we are making AAOW. not TW2" in the old forums....
0

#30 User is offline   Godwin 

  • 1st General
  • Group: Volcano Soldier
  • Posts: 8,202
  • Joined: 07-April 03

Posted 09 December 2004 - 03:49 PM

i'd personally like to get some clarification as to when the alternate timeline starts.

btw, i was trying to find a link to the AAOW site and i realised that none of you have it in either your sig or your profile??? that would help greatly...
i just wanted to check out the story for myself, to see if it has been updated since i last read it, because it was rather messy and incoherent that time

STURMSHREK: about the korean war, i don't think it was in vain because if the UN (US mainly) did not go in, the whole of korea would be communist now for all we know

This post has been edited by Godwin: 09 December 2004 - 03:51 PM

0

#31 User is offline   STURMSHREK 

  • 2nd Lieutenant
  • Group: Volcano Soldier
  • Posts: 198
  • Joined: 05-November 04

Posted 10 December 2004 - 11:05 AM

it ended where it started. Nothing gained, and the war is still on. Get the point? And what's wrong with the story? I'm curious to hear from somebody who is from another mod. Let's hear your view if your the critique and conossour of storylines and fan made games.
- What is wrong with it, be specefic otherwise your critique aint worth jack.
- What makes the mod you work on have a better story if at all? Be specific.
- Give me constructive points and examples not kiddie whining or flaming. If you want to be helpful and tell me what needs improvement then go on; if you want to flame, you know the rules for violating protocol. SInce I;m assuming you are a team member and are hear to help, let's hear it.
0

#32 User is offline   BIG D RETURNS 

  • Sergeant Major
  • Group: Volcano Citizen
  • Posts: 70
  • Joined: 09-December 04
  • Location:Nottingham

Posted 10 December 2004 - 02:05 PM

yep im looking forward to iraq side
0

#33 User is offline   Sloane88 

  • 2nd Lieutenant
  • Group: Volcano Citizen
  • Posts: 146
  • Joined: 28-December 03

Posted 12 December 2004 - 07:59 AM

i would criticize however i c nothing wrong... like in my own mod... so yea, no criticism from me

This post has been edited by Sloane88: 12 December 2004 - 07:59 AM

0

#34 User is offline   Godwin 

  • 1st General
  • Group: Volcano Soldier
  • Posts: 8,202
  • Joined: 07-April 03

Posted 12 December 2004 - 08:10 AM

QUOTE(STURMSHREK @ Dec 10 2004, 5:05 PM)
it ended where it started. Nothing gained, and the war is still on. Get the point? And what's wrong with the story? I'm curious to hear from somebody who is from another mod. Let's hear your view if your the critique and conossour of storylines and fan made games.
- What is wrong with it, be specefic otherwise your critique aint worth jack.
- What makes the mod you work on have a better story if at all? Be specific.
- Give me constructive points and examples not kiddie whining or flaming. If you want to be helpful and tell me what needs improvement then go on; if you want to flame, you know the rules for violating protocol. SInce I;m assuming you are a team member and are hear to help, let's hear it.

I'm sorry, but I don't think I was flaming your mod anywhere?
0

#35 User is offline   micks75au 

  • Private
  • Group: Volcano Citizen
  • Posts: 31
  • Joined: 03-November 04

Posted 12 December 2004 - 12:02 PM

heavy reading but good, so are we a long way off from release 2.0, I ask because i think the mod is hot thats all
0

#36 User is offline   Count von Phoib 

  • Dark Volcano Lord
  • Group: Volcano Lord
  • Posts: 15,323
  • Joined: 05-April 03
  • Mod Registrations:

Posted 14 December 2004 - 01:01 AM

QUOTE(STURMSHREK @ Dec 8 2004, 5:41 AM)
- As for casualties, how do you know it wouldn't happen? Politically speaking, AMerica has not won ground war since WWII.

Grenada, Panama, Desert Saber...

especially the last one was clearly a won war.

Afghanistan as well, might I add.
0

#37 User is offline   STURMSHREK 

  • 2nd Lieutenant
  • Group: Volcano Soldier
  • Posts: 198
  • Joined: 05-November 04

Posted 14 December 2004 - 06:56 AM

Those are points that would work for my argument. Those were skirmishes. I mean ground offensive against a dedicated people with heart. Unless Greneda was a year long Vietnam and we have today's results then it would be a major war. Same with Panama, though now they question whether it was the right thing to do since so many civilians died. But this isn't about that. Vietnam was the last major ground war. Afghanistan was not a major ground campaign, it was fought by Spec Ops but mostly "friendly" natives followed with small regular operations.
0

#38 User is offline   Count von Phoib 

  • Dark Volcano Lord
  • Group: Volcano Lord
  • Posts: 15,323
  • Joined: 05-April 03
  • Mod Registrations:

Posted 14 December 2004 - 04:38 PM

Read up about Operation Anaconda.

And Desert Storm and Desert Saber were a war, it kicked the 5th (?) largest Army in the world a few places down!
0

#39 User is offline   EvilViking 

  • stargazer
  • Group: Volcano Officer
  • Posts: 3,413
  • Joined: 10-April 04
  • Location:Virginia, USA

Posted 14 December 2004 - 05:35 PM

4th largest actually! ph34r.gif
0

#40 User is offline   usafirewarrior 

  • PyroManiac
  • Group: Volcano Citizen
  • Posts: 683
  • Joined: 26-November 04
  • Location:Virgina,USA
  • Mod Registrations:

Posted 15 December 2004 - 07:00 AM

yes I KNOW the 2003 war never happened in aaow sheesh but so your saying 1,000 compared to 15,000 and riseing is loseing ??? rolleyes.gif your insane and in vietnam they lost what 7x more and we didnt lose that one it was public pressure and the presidents stupiditiy for not finishing it and makeing us look stupid dry.gif o yea we never won a ground war rolleyes.gif yet you think 1,000 is alot ww2 we lost 100,000 NOW THATS ALOT but so did everyone else laugh.gif winning the ground war is all based on how many troops your side has lost 1,000 compared to 17,000 16,000 more MORE considering the ratio is WERE WINNING we always lose less troops then the enemy ALWAYS technology top notch training better tactics well that depends on whos commanding laugh.gif o and yet the wars still on nothing gained HAH heres whats gained no more SADDAM the mad mans finally gone think of what he could of concocktid in the near future perhaps atomic weapons aquired in the blackmarket detonated in another country or another invasion thats 1 more retard not to worry about and now iraqs a democracy o and the problem with the storey line dont you think the atack on the usa was a little lets say extreme and how they managed to do all this without us knowing i dont think its that easy to get an artillery vehicle into a suburb and wouldnt they notice via statalite somethings going on o and lets not forget the NUKE and the nation PANICING and the fact it like 200x more terror then the gla could ever concieve with amazeing percistion in planing and again hmm i guess united states intel is very blind to this wide scale atack of epic proportions all you gotta do is tone it down ive never seen this kinda terror in a storey o and lets not forget 300 billon dollers caused the gla didnt even cause 100 x that much thats my thoughts and no most of the iraq war was not fought with special ops they are not used to fight an intire war they are used for special missions thats all ium gonna say im not responding i dont wanna get into a fight thats my thoughts anyways how goes progress on iraq 80% 90% 65 %??? i still havent seen one update its percentage cant be 26% since ive seen it at that for 6 months plz just tell us how the progress goes just 1 update i havent seen one we are all wondering how goes work blink.gif a hint ?? a screen shot ANYTHING ???
0

Share this topic:


  • (8 Pages)
  • +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • Last »
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • This topic is locked

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users