Jump to content
accuracythruvolume

A new ISIS mod, picking up the ball

Recommended Posts

Shaping up quite nicely.

My only critique would be around the preponderance of camouflage patterns, I think the units would look a little more authentic with a higher incidence of plain/older-military-surplus fabrics (olive drab, khaki and, of course black) and a few more civilian/casual clothing items mixed in.

I could do this, but my OCD would force me to recombine every uniform combination with each one that I add. That adds up exponentially. I'm attempting to keep the mod size down, poorly. Hundreds of custom uniform textures add up fast. I do have a set of plain black in the mix and a black shirt w/ logo.

I take you are seeking some plain denim in the mix? I will look into it, not technically a hurdle at all. Perhaps something for a future version.

Some of the camos used: ACU, DPM, Flectarn, Marpat, Woodland, 3 color desert. I think most of these fall under "older" and I've seen several YT vids of all of them being used.

--ATV

---------- Post added at 18:22 ---------- Previous post was at 18:18 ----------

This part is ok for both real-world and scenario making..

This is absolutely wrong. It would mean that if a Russian unit and IS unit were spawned next to each other, they would sit down to drink tea and braid each others hair... when in reality they would be competing to see who can give the other the shortest haircut (choppy choppy).

This is wrong too. IAF are closely aligned with the US, so warrant a BLUFOR label over INDY (they latter would imply they may shoot at each other, which is beyond a joke).

The SAA are very closely aligned to Russia. They are so close in fact that negotiations for peace and such are largely conducted by Sergei Lavrov, as though that Russian diplomat is the representative for Damascus. Again, to label them as separate factions is akin to saying they may shoot at each other- which would never ever happen.

While it is a conflict that Nusra and IS would be in a the same faction, it is far worse to put a Jihadist group together with Russia. IS are a million times more likely to peacefully co-exist with Nusra than with Russia... and they aren't co-existing with Nusra at all!

Yes they are both Shia and Iranian allies with shared enemies. This makes for a conflict if they are split into BlUFOR and INDY, but at the same time, they don't stand next to each other on the battlefield. What i'm saying is that this conflict is less likely to be a problem for a scenario maker than the ones mentioned above.

Peshmerga are not shifting what so ever! They have never had good relations with Baghdad because the central government knows they are likely to secede and run of with a heap of oil- BUT, they still stand shoulder to shoulder to fight IS. With the limited faction options (only 3), it makes the most sense to keep them in BLUFOR due to their strong link to the US/the West, and also in the same faction as IAF. On the question of will they ever shoot at each other, I don't see it happening, because the Kurds won't start it (militia's and IAF might) and the West will back the Kurds and the UN will pass a resolution for a ceasefire (no one will veto it). Basically Baghdad will never get away with it and Erbil has no reason to do it.

This is also completely false. The FSA has NEVER worked with their dreaded enemy the SAA- yet they have worked with IS in the past. When FSA brigades are defeated or if the men decide to defect, they practically join the SAA or align with them. On the other hand, FSA fighters are constantly joining to IS spontaneously or when they are defeated. An important note to make is that even after al-Nusra smashed Hazm and SRF in the north, their respective brigades in the south continued to work with the Islamic Front and al-Nusra (like the f*ing idiots they are...). Although people in the know (*raises hand*) said they would be destroyed by the radicals from the start, they have always continued to ally with them out of necessity and the retarded logic of 'the enemy of my enemy (SAA) is my friend'.

Kinda makes you wish we had more than just 3 sides to play with doesn't it? The real world over there is a mess of factions and the given A3 structure gives only so many ways to represent it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
al-Nusra for the moment is a simply infantry force on the Indep side. I'm researching what kind of vehicles they have. Several YT vids so far show them having a few technicals. I've also seen a captured T-55.

They largely use the same gear, just minus the US stuff ganked from Iraq (humvee's, AMRAP's, M113's- but seemingly not M1A1's, despite capturing them there are no photo's or video's of them being actually used).

As far as technicals go, the Syrian rebels (including IS and Nusra) love to use ZU-23 AA cannons mounted on to trucks... not as AA, but to actually fire horizontally onto ground targets

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lu6-lug6HxE

They definitely use T-55's and T-62's which have been captured from the SAA.

Pretty much any kit the SAA uses, the rebels have.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This part is ok for both real-world and scenario making..

This is absolutely wrong. It would mean that if a Russian unit and IS unit were spawned next to each other, they would sit down to drink tea and braid each others hair... when in reality they would be competing to see who can give the other the shortest haircut (choppy choppy). Another conflict with this is that OPFOR are naturally at war with BLUFOR, but the FSA are naturally at allied or neutral to al-Nusra. Although the events have been absolutely devestating to the FSA, the attacks against them by al-Nusra have been an exception, not the rule (averaged out over the entire war and even in current months). You can still see them holding hands and skipping together in the southern campaign.

This is wrong too. IAF are closely aligned with the US, so warrant a BLUFOR label over INDY (they latter would imply they may shoot at each other, which is beyond a joke).

The SAA are very closely aligned to Russia. They are so close in fact that negotiations for peace and such are largely conducted by Sergei Lavrov, as though that Russian diplomat is the representative for Damascus. Again, to label them as separate factions is akin to saying they may shoot at each other- which would never ever happen.

While it is a conflict that Nusra and IS would be in a the same faction, it is far worse to put a Jihadist group together with Russia. IS are a million times more likely to peacefully co-exist with Nusra than with Russia... and they aren't co-existing with Nusra at all!

Yes they are both Shia and Iranian allies with shared enemies. This makes for a conflict if they are split into BlUFOR and OPFOR, but at the same time, they don't stand next to each other on the battlefield. What i'm saying is that this conflict is less likely to be a problem for a scenario maker than the ones mentioned above.

Peshmerga are not shifting what so ever! They have never had good relations with Baghdad because the central government knows they are likely to secede and run of with a heap of oil- BUT, they still stand shoulder to shoulder to fight IS. With the limited faction options (only 3), it makes the most sense to keep them in BLUFOR due to their strong link to the US/the West, and also in the same faction as IAF. On the question of will they ever shoot at each other, I don't see it happening, because the Kurds won't start it (militia's and IAF might) and the West will back the Kurds and the UN will pass a resolution for a ceasefire (no one will veto it). Basically Baghdad will never get away with it and Erbil has no reason to do it.

This is also completely false. The FSA has NEVER worked with their dreaded enemy the SAA- yet they have worked with IS in the past. When FSA brigades are defeated or if the men decide to defect, they practically never join the SAA or align with them. On the other hand, FSA fighters are constantly joining to IS spontaneously or when they are defeated. An important note to make is that even after al-Nusra smashed Hazm and SRF in the north, their respective brigades in the south continued to work with the Islamic Front and al-Nusra (like the f*ing idiots they are...). Although people in the know (*raises hand*) said they would be destroyed by the radicals from the start, they have always continued to ally with them out of necessity and the retarded logic of 'the enemy of my enemy (SAA) is my friend'.

When I did the organization it was without other mods in mind. Granted the division of factions can't be simulated in the unit division screen.

I still think the FSA makes a better independent, its not a unified group and each militia fights for its own gains. They have joined SAA and Pro-Government militias in the past like Jaysh al-Wafaa, the groups is mainly ex-rebels from Ghouta and other Damascus suburbs when Jaysh al-Islam took over with Nusra. Other small groups have defected in the past as well, in places like Deir ez Zour and Aleppo. Not to mention Tribes that were aligned with the FSA that have since joined IS or Pro-Government forces in Deir ez Zour.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Any Ural with the ZU-23 or any other technical with that gun would be awesome. I have zero knowledge how to port stuff, perhaps another here could take up that cause.

I have given al-Nusra a number of vehicles. No BMP-2s as SAA has under a hundred in their inventory, according to:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equipment_of_the_Syrian_Army#Armored_fighting_vehicles, an insignificant amount.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good idea, but you might want them to be independents so CSAT can fight them

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the btr40s and brdm2s pictured might be in IS inventory? Both Iraq and Syria had plenty of them a while back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the btr40s and brdm2s pictured might be in IS inventory? Both Iraq and Syria had plenty of them a while back.

Any footage of them being used in combat? I have yet to really see any captured abrams in combat either (probably because they lack the ability to maintain them)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
those new vests really take it to the next level! Great job bud

I also got permission to include another type of vest that sits nice and low, makes the logo on their shirt nice and visible:

IS_chestrigs_low_zpsx39f9a7l.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Those are some good links. @AccuracyThruVolume you should have a quick skim through the second link. Just scroll down a bit until you see a burnt out M1A1 Abrams with the black Shahada flag on it. Below that picture is a list of IS captured vehicles and also notes on how many have been destroyed.

Oh and in case anyone was wondering, in the first image link (shown below), that's what is called a Recoilless Rifle and is essentially a cannon. They are commonly used by Syrian rebels as static and vehicle mounted weapons.

7KQ0NW

Edited by owmyeye

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yeah we have all these in game in A2

http://s162.photobucket.com/user/eggbeast/slideshow/ARma%20IS%20units

I'm planning to develop a lot of the weaponry you see there onto technicals (offroad and pickups) next

e.g. mortar, M18, M40, NSV, SPG, ZPU, Zu23, S5 rockets, etc

anyway just sharing this so you get an idea what's already about that might be ported to A3, with permissions (some of this kit is made by others in my team, and they have final say on any porting).

if you want to see it all, have a look at the Rangemaster mod in A2 (link in my sig)

Edited by eggbeast

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That area really is the king of the technicals right now. Tons and tons of them. Every big gun they can they bolt on to anything that moves.

@owmyeye: Per the wordage on that link:

Tank operations by the Islamic State in Iraq are virtually nonexistent, and only one instance is known in which the Islamic State used a tank. The M1A1s that were captured intact were stripped of their machine guns and associated ammunitions before set on fire ( I think that reinforces my point about little to no Abrams being used).

Edited by AccuracyThruVolume

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
yeah we have all these in game in A2

http://s162.photobucket.com/user/eggbeast/slideshow/ARma%20IS%20units

I'm planning to develop a lot of the weaponry you see there onto technicals (offroad and pickups) next

e.g. mortar, M18, M40, NSV, SPG, ZPU, Zu23, S5 rockets, etc

anyway just sharing this so you get an idea what's already about that might be ported to A3, with permissions (some of this kit is made by others in my team, and they have final say on any porting).

if you want to see it all, have a look at the Rangemaster mod in A2 (link in my sig)

Dem urals with ZU-23 and the 57mm :slayer:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A good unit to re texture for both IS and SAA would be the Altis Officer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well once we make the move to A3, which may be a while yet, we can hook up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The last

http://journal-neo.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/american-islamic-state.jpeg

With a Tan or Black it looks like the traditional combat tops they most of the fighters use.

Its also the garb whey have in most of the Al hayat media videos.

They would be the best look for the SAA infantry after RHS units.

Yeah that uniform in woodland should fit nicely. Most the vids of the SAA I have seen have them using woodland, with a few in 3 color desert.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello all! Great work on this mod so far! Been looking forward to seeing assets that cover this conflict, I've had a lot of ideas for missions in this setting and assets covering all factions in the conflict are very welcome!

I had a thought on the subject of sides. I think someone suggested earlier in this thread about having multiple pbos for each faction so that they show up in multiple sides. I would heavily argue in favor of this method, both for reasons of realism AND mission-making flexibility. Ultimately it should be on mission and campaign makers themselves to make sure their missions make realistic (or not) sense, and not the mod maker's responsibility to force their hands. Placing the major players on more than one side gives mission makers the flexibility to come up with any scenario possible in the setting of this conflict. As an example, this is what I would propose:

BLUFOR:

YPG

Peshmerga

Iraqi Security Forces

Iranian Quds Force

SAA

FSA

INDFOR:

YPG

Peshmerga

Iraqi Security Forces

Iranian Quds Force

SAA

FSA

Al Nusra

IS

OPFOR:

YPG

Peshmerga

Iraqi Security Forces

Iranian Quds Force

SAA

FSA

Al Nusra

IS

As one example, say you want to make a mission where you are a Green Beret placed into a YPG unit as a FAC. Let's say on part of the mission, your YPG squad are to link up with a friendly FSA unit, who then lead you to what they THINK are other friendly FSA units. Once you get there, SURPRISE! The other FSA's you thought were friendly have actually allied with Al-Nusra or IS, and begin engaging you! Then, out of nowhere, an SAA armored column shows up and wipes the FSAs out while you and your YPG buddies take cover. Once the shooting stops, the SAA tell you and your buddies to get lost before they decide for you who's side you're on.

A scenario like this would require:

BLUFOR YPG

BLUFOR FSA

OPFOR FSA

OPFOR IS

INDFOR SAA

Here's another example: early in the Syrian civil war, you are a YPG unit sent to dislodge Al Nusra forces from a village. While enroute, you pass through SAA checkpoints who you have negotiated with in advance to let you through with no issues. You assault the village, finding it is held by both Al Nusra forces and FSA forces aligned with Al Nusra. During the firefight, local moderate FSA forces arrive to assist you in fighting Al Nusra and the radicalized FSA forces. These friendly FSAs leave as soon as the firefight is over, so as not to tangle with SAA forces in the area.

A scenario like this would require:

BLUFOR YPG

BLUFOR SAA

INDFOR FSA

OPFOR FSA

OPFOR Al Nusra

These are just a few example I could come up with.

---------- Post added at 05:26 ---------- Previous post was at 05:16 ----------

Apologies if this has already been posted and I simply missed it, I didn't notice this posted anywhere else.

It seems the vast majority of YPG fighters wear this exact same model of chest rig. Does anyone know what model this is, or which manufacturer it comes from? I might take a crack at modeling if I can re-familiarize myself with blender.

10408858_575764652532762_7025596733894266275_n.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hello all! Great work on this mod so far! Been looking forward to seeing assets that cover this conflict, I've had a lot of ideas for missions in this setting and assets covering all factions in the conflict are very welcome!

I had a thought on the subject of sides. I think someone suggested earlier in this thread about having multiple pbos for each faction so that they show up in multiple sides. I would heavily argue in favor of this method, both for reasons of realism AND mission-making flexibility. Ultimately it should be on mission and campaign makers themselves to make sure their missions make realistic (or not) sense, and not the mod maker's responsibility to force their hands. Placing the major players on more than one side gives mission makers the flexibility to come up with any scenario possible in the setting of this conflict. As an example, this is what I would propose:

BLUFOR:

YPG

Peshmerga

Iraqi Security Forces

Iranian Quds Force

SAA

FSA

INDFOR:

YPG

Peshmerga

Iraqi Security Forces

Iranian Quds Force

SAA

FSA

Al Nusra

IS

OPFOR:

YPG

Peshmerga

Iraqi Security Forces

Iranian Quds Force

SAA

FSA

Al Nusra

IS

I'm not familiar with the workload involved in making multiple faction pbo's, but it seems like a bad move one way or the other to have so much repetition. For a start, if you have a heaps of mods already loaded, you probably already have a massive faction list to sift through. Even maps (like SMD Sahrani) come with factions sometimes. I actually just recently deleted files out of CUP to reduce faction clutter. While I think the configuration should be both realistic and the most practical for mission making, it's not like the factions limit mission creation. I'll explain using your examples below:

As one example, say you want to make a mission where you are a Green Beret placed into a YPG unit as a FAC. Let's say on part of the mission, your YPG squad are to link up with a friendly FSA unit, who then lead you to what they THINK are other friendly FSA units. Once you get there, SURPRISE! The other FSA's you thought were friendly have actually allied with Al-Nusra or IS, and begin engaging you! Then, out of nowhere, an SAA armored column shows up and wipes the FSAs out while you and your YPG buddies take cover. Once the shooting stops, the SAA tell you and your buddies to get lost before they decide for you who's side you're on.

To start with, Green Berets and YPG are BLUEFOR... although no one has mentioned YPG for this mod before? Anyhoo, they are pretty closely aligned with the Peshmerga, despite tensions between them rising over Sinjar. Basically to keep things simple but accurate, they would be the same as the Pesh.

Next you are meant to link with FSA- they are BLUEFOR too. In order for them to be actually aligned with extremists (and shoot at BLUFOR), you simply group them. That would actually reflect real life in a way. To break it down, FSA should be BLUFOR because they are armed and diplomatically backed by the West and regional allies, but that particular brigade has aligned itself (via diplomacy in reality and via the grouping tool in the editor) to either al-Nusra or IS. In the editor you can link a group to a 0% chance unit of a different faction in order to change their alignment (eg. a BLUFOR group linked to a OPFOR commander will thus be OPFOR).

Then the SAA turn up, but they decide not to shoot at the US or YPG. Again, just link SAA to a BLUFOR 0% presence commander... or alternatively, link the US and YPG to a non-present SAA (which actually reflects the very lively debate about if the US strikes are actually doing Assad's bidding).

Here's another example: early in the Syrian civil war, you are a YPG unit sent to dislodge Al Nusra forces from a village. While enroute, you pass through SAA checkpoints who you have negotiated with in advance to let you through with no issues. You assault the village, finding it is held by both Al Nusra forces and FSA forces aligned with Al Nusra. During the firefight, local moderate FSA forces arrive to assist you in fighting Al Nusra and the radicalized FSA forces. These friendly FSAs leave as soon as the firefight is over, so as not to tangle with SAA forces in the area.

To start, link YPG and SAA to the same colour. Either BLU or OPFOR will work.

al-Nusra is INDY and the FSA are (as you say) aligned with al-Nusra (via the grouping tool).

Other 'moderate' FSA factions join the fray and are left as their default BLUFOR (or changed to OPFOR if you went the grouping to SAA route at the start).

You say the 'moderates' leave before the SAA arrive, but if they did arrive, you just make a (default) OPFOR SAA arrive and thus fight the BLUFOR FSA. This can be done using a trigger to delete the first changed SAA squad and replacing them for clones.

So basically my point is I think the most limited (not repeated) faction setup which is also the most accurate/practical is the best route because it will cover most cases. When it doesn't, there are work arounds...and also when it doesn't, it's likely because it's a wierd situation such as 'the US is doing Assad's bidding by bombing al-Nusra' (real debated theme)- in such a case a grouping alignment makes sense in an explanatory way anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm not familiar with the workload involved in making multiple faction pbo's, but it seems like a bad move one way or the other to have so much repetition. For a start, if you have a heaps of mods already loaded, you probably already have a massive faction list to sift through. Even maps (like SMD Sahrani) come with factions sometimes. I actually just recently deleted files out of CUP to reduce faction clutter. While I think the configuration should be both realistic and the most practical for mission making, it's not like the factions limit mission creation. I'll explain using your examples below:

To start with, Green Berets and YPG are BLUEFOR... although no one has mentioned YPG for this mod before? Anyhoo, they are pretty closely aligned with the Peshmerga, despite tensions between them rising over Sinjar. Basically to keep things simple but accurate, they would be the same as the Pesh.

Next you are meant to link with FSA- they are BLUEFOR too. In order for them to be actually aligned with extremists (and shoot at BLUFOR), you simply group them. That would actually reflect real life in a way. To break it down, FSA should be BLUFOR because they are armed and diplomatically backed by the West and regional allies, but that particular brigade has aligned itself (via diplomacy in reality and via the grouping tool in the editor) to either al-Nusra or IS. In the editor you can link a group to a 0% chance unit of a different faction in order to change their alignment (eg. a BLUFOR group linked to a OPFOR commander will thus be OPFOR).

Then the SAA turn up, but they decide not to shoot at the US or YPG. Again, just link SAA to a BLUFOR 0% presence commander... or alternatively, link the US and YPG to a non-present SAA (which actually reflects the very lively debate about if the US strikes are actually doing Assad's bidding).

To start, link YPG and SAA to the same colour. Either BLU or OPFOR will work.

al-Nusra is INDY and the FSA are (as you say) aligned with al-Nusra (via the grouping tool).

Other 'moderate' FSA factions join the fray and are left as their default BLUFOR (or changed to OPFOR if you went the grouping to SAA route at the start).

You say the 'moderates' leave before the SAA arrive, but if they did arrive, you just make a (default) OPFOR SAA arrive and thus fight the BLUFOR FSA. This can be done using a trigger to delete the first changed SAA squad and replacing them for clones.

So basically my point is I think the most limited (not repeated) faction setup which is also the most accurate/practical is the best route because it will cover most cases. When it doesn't, there are work arounds...and also when it doesn't, it's likely because it's a wierd situation such as 'the US is doing Assad's bidding by bombing al-Nusra' (real debated theme)- in such a case a grouping alignment makes sense in an explanatory way anyway.

I actually wasn't aware you could group units like that. You're absolutely right, that's a much more efficient method.

Share this post


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

×