[Count von Phoib]

Could you please use proper interpunction? My head just hurts from seeing that...

[Thunderbolt]

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.

[STURMSHREK]

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.

[STURMSHREK]

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.

[blackhawk]

It sounds like Iraq will be overpowered. Lots of ways to get money an deprive the US of theres. But it sounds cool anyway.

[usafirewarrior]

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

[WarGuardian18]

[B][I]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.

[blackhawk]

Project Babylon is based off something that saddam created.

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

This post has been edited by blackhawk: 18 January 2005 - 06:23 AM

[STURMSHREK]

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.

[blackhawk]

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.............

[STURMSHREK]

Why people think that is beyond me. People who know the real capabilities of the world know that America and its allies do not monopolize the scene the way stupid sites like fas.org and globalsecurity.org do by not updating their stuff since the Cold War. China, Russia, Middle-Eastern nations, as well as countries that develop stuff for export like Brazil (back in the day) and South Africa for example are things to be reckoned with. Unfortunately, people never take things into consideration unless it's covered in the REALLY one-sided, anti-informative History Channel.
- Besides, it's 7 years from now. Expect to see some difference. Also, a lot of the developments according to the story continue in secret during the 90's and then full fledged in 2003. Also, if you follow lame sites like fas.org then you should know that Iraq was to be Russia's primary importer after 1990. Well, a country can technically buy up stuff and train with out importing the material right away. They could have done lots of stuff during the 90's even uder the embargo. Considering the corruption in certain areas of the UN then Iraq could have easily maneuvered through the embargo to make possible the things that are in the game.

[STURMSHREK]

Oh and I forgot to answer the rest of your question. I doubt that Patriots and Lasers would save a city from a suitcase bomb. Nukes would most likely be snuck in under the radar. In a crate, loaded on a tuck driving through downtown and then detonated by cellphone.
- Anyway on a side note I should mention that more damage is done during the campaign of terror. You know the insurgency taking place in Iraq right now, right? With all the carbombs and traps and guerilla fighting? Well imagine if that insurgency came to our shores... if they brought the war to our home. With the single purpose of creating panic and havoc to bring a Super power to its knees from the inside... Well the plan fails to do this completely and when Anthrax Beta is traced to an Iraqi mobile weapons factory that is where the war and the game really begin.

[Gen Kane Nash]

I think this is becoming a political post, not too good, considering the way the post is taking...

[usafirewarrior]

well does saddem get captured ? and i agree with him if sombody nuked us the usa would finish the job also do we devastate there intire army ?and destroy almost all of there forces ?and do china and russia get away with helping iraq ?

This post has been edited by usafirewarrior: 21 January 2005 - 10:23 PM

[STURMSHREK]

Well if you read the articles I wrote regarding Iraq I never mentioned Saddam. If Saddam is mentioned then I apollogize. It is possible PCteen could have added it or I just forgot. Anyway, I always refer to the Iraqi leader as merely the Iraqi Dictator and try never to mention Saddam. This avoids political issues while at the same time this offers me more freedom for a more compelling story. We as the community should merely assume that he is some dictator carrying out plans and wishes laid down years ago since the early 1990's. Thing is by 2012, it could be Saddam, it could be one of his sons, it could be somebody from the Republican Guard during a coup. Eitherway, for now, the Iraqi campaign ends with the Iraqi leadership turning up missing and assumed either dead, hiding, or absorbed into the new Global Liberation Army.
- The final piece of video I have planned is for the Iraqi Information Minister to don a mask and essentially tell the player to join the new the fight as the war isn't over. This is the genesis of the GLA.

[Little Bird Down]

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.

You Yanks are all so patriotic and for the homeland bullshit.
If you think about it What has been the ratio of Aussie Deaths in a major conflict to yank deaths?

Why was it untill the Japs bombed the Crap out of pearl Harbour that you dint join in WWII? The ANZACS have sustianed so many more KIA's that 17,000 looks like flyshit. When the Bombs went off in the sari niteclub did any yank, stop and think that australias most millitarized city is within F/A-18 Super Hornet range? Darwin has been utterly obliviated during WWII. And to think that two USAF Kitty Hawks were the reson that so many Japanese Zeros made it with out resistance makes me sick. yet you complian about 1000 US deaths? In an unnessacry war....

[STURMSHREK]

What I meant was that some people count wars like games and say we won because we killed that many more than they killed us when in reality there is not a defined winner or loser when so much destruction occurs. Anyway, it's off topic.

[Little Bird Down]

Back on topic . IRAQ is gonna rule bring on V2.0 MWAAHAAHA

[blackhawk]

Long live the ANZACS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!

Little Bird Down, don't forget the Americans were the main force that protected the ANZAC nations from Japan while our soldiers were in Europe.

[STURMSHREK]

what does this have to do with Iraq or AAOW? Stay on topic. Please no more references to WWII.