CSAT and NATO are not believable

[odie0351 67]

Well then again the US or any nation won't be fighting asymmetric wars forever. They will only fight asymmetric wars against an asymmetric threat. Some people forget that conventional wars were fought before asymmetric wars.

I am all for the symmetrical war concept between western and eastern forces and even fictional forces and vehicles at that but don't try to sell us a American faction without American Vehicles...or an Israeli faction without Israeli crews, or a UK faction without UK infantry[aside from story line characters]vehicles, aircraft, or crews. While I understand certain vehicles at the moment were placed or kept in game because of a change in priorities like the merkava, which if I understand correctly was originally intended as an opfor asset but if your gonna give us an Israeli MBT give us an Israeli MBT, don't try to claim its some kind've advanced weapon system which it definitely isn't. I've heard elsewhere on the forums that a lot of the not so fictional vehicles have fictional names as part of a creative license thing, if that's the case why not put in a few more hours and actually get creative with the vehicles, like the T100 varsuk, BTR-K , and MI-48 Kaiman and just give the semi proper modern vehicles a greekish sounding name and give them to the greenfor army and start with a mostly clean slate for a proper NATO-US faction. And then a proper UK faction and so on and so forth. Like I said I'm all for BIS getting creative, but calling a merkava a slammer and a namer a panther is not creative, its feeding BS to "connoisseurs" and trying to call it a fine meal. How about a fictional but American styled MBT and APC/IFV for starters, then the same for the SPG/SPAA vehicles as well. Just my very shiny two cents.

[antoineflemming 14]

I am all for the symmetrical war concept between western and eastern forces and even fictional forces and vehicles at that but don't try to sell us a American faction without American Vehicles...or an Israeli faction without Israeli crews, or a UK faction without UK infantry[aside from story line characters]vehicles, aircraft, or crews. While I understand certain vehicles at the moment were placed or kept in game because of a change in priorities like the merkava, which if I understand correctly was originally intended as an opfor asset but if your gonna give us an Israeli MBT give us an Israeli MBT, don't try to claim its some kind've advanced weapon system which it definitely isn't. I've heard elsewhere on the forums that a lot of the not so fictional vehicles have fictional names as part of a creative license thing, if that's the case why not put in a few more hours and actually get creative with the vehicles, like the T100 varsuk, BTR-K , and MI-48 Kaiman and just give the semi proper modern vehicles a greekish sounding name and give them to the greenfor army and start with a mostly clean slate for a proper NATO-US faction. And then a proper UK faction and so on and so forth. Like I said I'm all for BIS getting creative, but calling a merkava a slammer and a namer a panther is not creative, its feeding BS to "connoisseurs" and trying to call it a fine meal. How about a fictional but American styled MBT and APC/IFV for starters, then the same for the SPG/SPAA vehicles as well. Just my very shiny two cents.

I do agree that it'd be nice to see the US forces use US equipment. The AAF could use the Merkava (called the Merkava, not Slammer) as an Israeli-purchased tank. That said, I have no problem with US forces using the Namer though. Currently the only real US vehicle in the game is the Oshkosh M-ATV.

[mistyronin 1181]

Well then again the US or any nation won't be fighting asymmetric wars forever. They will only fight asymmetric wars against an asymmetric threat. Some people forget that conventional wars were fought before asymmetric wars.

In fact when the first cities were settled down about 8000 BC in the middle-east zone, and they decided to creates some kind of proto-army to guard its borders, that warriors fought against enemies that were unorganized bands, so quite probably he first asymmetric wars.

Asymmetric war mean basically that both fighting parts have not the equal resources, so the weak one must use different strategies and tactics than direct confrontation to multiply its power.

And besides the fancy word is quite new, that kind of wars have been existing even before History. Specially between Empires and little nations ( Egypt, Persia, Rome, Maya, Aztecs, China, etc. )

[chortles 263]

Re: all this talk of asymmetrical warfare vs. (more) symmetrical warfare -- the devs seemed to make clear in 2012 that they were deliberately going with the latter irrespective of whatever histories you may bring up.

[laverniusregalis 10]

Yeah, that was really nice. I do wish they'd add in other nations, and I think they should have stuck a little more closely to the original story (having Miller (British SBS) be the main character and not Kerry (US 7ID)).

Won't he be? It looks like at some point in Adapt or Win you'll play as Miller, it makes sense since Kerry is just an average dude with a tendency of not dying, while Miller does all the planning and intel-gathering so far. Seems like it would make sense for him to take a more active role in Adapt/Win.

[antoineflemming 14]

Won't he be? It looks like at some point in Adapt or Win you'll play as Miller, it makes sense since Kerry is just an average dude with a tendency of not dying, while Miller does all the planning and intel-gathering so far. Seems like it would make sense for him to take a more active role in Adapt/Win.

Uh, not really sure you do. I know you'll play as Larkin (a pilot, not the random Larkin in the campaign) and Hutchinson (a tank commander), but not sure about the others. From looking through the A3 files, I know that there are these characters. Who's playable, I'm not sure beside Kerry, Larkin, and Hutchinson:

CPT Scott Miller, CTRG // Security Team A Commanding Officer / SHAPE

CPL Ben Kerry, TF Aegis // RSTA Squadron / 1st BTN / 4th IBCT (Light Infantry) / 7th ID / US Army Europe

LT Jeff Larkin, TF Bayonet // 3rd General Support BTN (Aviation) / 4th IBCT (Light Infantry) / 7th ID / US Army Europe

SGT Rick Hutchinson, TF Bayonet // A Troop / Cavalry SQN / 3rd BCT (Heavy) / 7th ID / US Army Europe

COL/Dr. Martin Novak, CTRG Field Team Specialist

COL Grover, Unknown

There was a SGT Illing who was a 10th Special Forces Group "Deep Reconnaissance Team 'ICE-8' Commander" apart of some Operation ICE Shard, but don't see his name in the game so not sure if he's still a planned character.

And I don't know which of these are NPCs or playable. Grover's probably not playable, and I doubt Dr. Novak is either.

[mistyronin 1181]

Wasn't Larkin the main char in TOH campaign? Well he and his brother.

[antoineflemming 14]

Wasn't Larkin the main char in TOH campaign? Well he and his brother.

Naw. You play as Tom Larkin for most of it, and you play as his brother Joe (Joseph) Larkin for one mission in Takistan. Jeff Larkin is Joe Larkin's son.

[mistyronin 1181]

Naw. You play as Tom Larkin for most of it, and you play as his brother Joe (Joseph) Larkin for one mission in Takistan. Jeff Larkin is Joe Larkin's son.

Hahaha was more than one mission in South Asia. But cool to know, BI is starting to make their parallel world story, I like it.

[antoineflemming 14]

Hahaha was more than one mission in South Asia. But cool to know, BI is starting to make their parallel world story, I like it.

Oh, my bad.