Jump to content
DerelictStudios Forums
STURMSHREK

The Actual Iraqi Faction Manual

Recommended Posts

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! <_<

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Edited by Black DoomsDragon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Edited by Godwin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
- 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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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: 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 <_< o yea we never won a ground war :rolleyes: yet you think 1,000 is alot ww2 we lost 100,000 NOW THATS ALOT but so did everyone else :lol: 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 :lol: 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: a hint ?? a screen shot ANYTHING ???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Su-37 Terminator Flanker is mostly a pure Air Superiority fighter with some Stand-Off Weapon Delivery Systems (Krypton, among others) and it always has a 3-D TVS installed, because the Su-37 is just a trumped up version of the Su-35 Super Flanker. So perhaps the TVS Upgrade can "overhaul" the Su-35 unit into the Su-37. Also, perhaps you should use the Su-32 Platypus/Su-34 Striker Flanker for the Iraqi AG Threat? It's a lot more logical and can deliever much more poundage on target and still be able to defend itself.

 

Are there any plans to make the USA Side as detailed and upgradeable as the Iraqis are? The F-16E BLOC 60/2 Fighting Falcon seems a better choice instead of the F/A-18E Super Hornet. (Even though the BLOC 60/2 is only be produced for exports ATM.) Or barring that, the F-15C BLOC 50 Eagle would be another good choice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thunderbolt I understand the details and the problemsthat comes along with them. The plane is actually an Iraqi production variant with certain quirks designed to fit Iraq's own needs let's just say. It's not the S-37 like you are thinking of. It started out as an export variant that got modified to fill the indiginous countries own needs over a perios of time.

For the sake of argument, the bird will be renamed just Super Flanker instead of giving it any official military designation because sometimes some guys like military buffs such as myself may get too nit picky over the insignificant details that obscure the bigger picture.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

USAfirewarrior, you measure human life and losses as if it were a game. There is more to war than numbers of people killed. If by a smaller number than Viet Kong killed in a war of atrition you consider to be a victory then that's a little sad. Most vets I work with from Vietnam hate it when people talk about their death tallies like that.

- There is more to war than 7 dead per 1 Marine. Sustaining a war under conditions is not possible when you live in a democracy. McArthur said it best when he said a democracy cannot fight a 7 year war and that's true. he flag raising at Iwo Jima was badly to boost the moral on the home frontand don't ask me to explain why.

- As for USA intel being blind and attackes being inconcievable, well I think that most people in the world found it inconvievable that 19 people could hijack 4 airplanes, bring down the front of the Pentagon, destroy the WTC, and change the world forever. If we could have overlooked that either because we were stpid or lazy is irrelivant, the fact that it happened is however and stands to show that anything is possible. Nukes in suburbs is something the government trains for so that obviously means something about the possibility of such an attack.

- As far as progress goes, it's getting there. Structures are the last major thing to be done. We are farthure than you think. The ides of February should look good.

 

- Lastly, PCteen, the 4th largest is debateable. Only the Republican Guard should be counted since conscripts getting run over by Abrams while they were in trenches, (human rights violation big time!!) is something that I would not call part of the real fighting force. Also, we didn't do it alone, we had so many people on our side we even had the French who actually did some ass kicking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yes its sad so many people lost there lives but in the tactics of war you cannot fight a war for very long when the death rate is that high all aspects of war should be taken into consideration looking at it from perspective in ratio of death tolls for each side 1 to 7 is victorey bealeave me commanders do use death tolls when looking at the aftermath i dont look at it as if it were a game i dont like tallying death tolls ether and a look back at d-day yes the allies landed but at a large cost in life i would consider that both loss / victorey too many were lost also how many you lose means less in reaserve for when needed no body likes war i hate it myself and not all battles are won bye death tolls thats correct and 9/11 yes they killed 5000 but bound us together as a nation people raised there flags etc etc there goal was to cause terror but instead made us stronger YOU DONT KNOW HOW MUCH 9/11 AFECTED ME I WATCHED IT LIVE!!! IT WAS ONE OF THE SADDEST DAYS OF MY LIFE so dont think i think of lives expendable and nothing and i still think the detonation of a nuke bye terrorists is just too big yea usa gos over and kicks some butt but wouldnt be able to avenge what imense damg they caused and the only side over powered are the terrorists in the storey line there is no way they could pull it off unless they are being aided bye a a non middle eastern country such as nk or russia

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Got a problem[b/][i/]

 

Why does Iraq gets the Project Babylon for its superweapon, and the U.S. merely a Tomahawk site. can you guys makc it just a little more realistic.

 

like say a mobile scud (armed with nuclear armament) launcher.

 

like this

 

a specially designed Scud (which you can move on the battlefield) that fires only one nuclear missile. or something like that.

 

something more realistic for its superweapon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Project Babylon is based off something that saddam created.

 

Firewarrier: The Germans lost more troops then the Allies on D-Day.

Edited by blackhawk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

firewarrior, Iraq pulls off a lot of things with a LOT of help. It's all in the story part of the manual.

- China and Russia help big time as "business partners".

- The International Fedayeen is as it says, international.

- America has the ability destroy any foe it pleases without the use of nukes or other WMDs. In fact, WMDs are really not much more than political weapons in terms of their purpose in the hands of nuclear-capable nations.

- America would not use nukes because the political cost is too high. The population wouldn't stand for it and the world has many more nuclear nations than you think. They would not allow America to use such force and America has limits to its power with out consequences.

- If a nationless force used a nuke then America would not know who to nuke. Infact, by the time they draw their conclusions the nation will have calmed down to the point where using nukes would be unthinkable.

- Lastly, if they knew it was Iraq then using nukes would be dangerous to surrounding countries. The effects of fallout in a country with massive sandstorms would make America the bad guy since more death would be caused to innocent nations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You think America would "calm down" very fast if someone dropped a nuke on them? Isn't America and its allies the only countries capable of stopping a nuke? Patriots, Lasers etc etc.............

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×