The Actual Iraqi Faction Manual The whole thing, in its entirety!!!!
Posted 26 December 2004 - 09:37 AM
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.
Posted 29 December 2004 - 02:29 PM
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.
Posted 29 December 2004 - 02:48 PM
- 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.
Posted 17 January 2005 - 05:42 AM
Posted 17 January 2005 - 09:53 AM
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.
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.
Posted 21 January 2005 - 02:49 AM
- 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.
Posted 21 January 2005 - 09:02 AM
- 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.
Posted 21 January 2005 - 09:10 AM
- 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.
Posted 21 January 2005 - 10:17 PM
This post has been edited by usafirewarrior: 21 January 2005 - 10:23 PM
Posted 22 January 2005 - 06:11 AM
- 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.
Posted 22 January 2005 - 04:33 PM
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....
Posted 24 January 2005 - 03:10 AM