Second 0 Posted January 23, 2008 One quite funny thing is (which has been discussed earlier too)... Where did SLA train it's tankers and those BIG (atleast batallion or two) mechaniced units? There's not much open space in there, just mountain valleys and fields. Was SLA armored unit named something like 'Mountain Armored Brigade' by anychange? I always figured they would train them at the North-Eastern most base. The one that you have to attack with the 2 other abrams in the single player mission and in the campaign. There is a good amount of flat space there. The base is big so you know it can fit trainers and recruits. Its also out of the way of the South. Thats just what I thought though. Im sure there are holes in it. Well... err... Your right, there is space which i've forgoten totaly. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sparks50 0 Posted January 23, 2008 Its not really very realistic that a country so tiny can have such independent politics either, so this discussion falls a bit on its knees. Luxembourg? (is very small) Luxembourg is 7-10 times bigger and they still havent launched war on France Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mr_Tea 0 Posted January 23, 2008 Have you taken into account that the US has no supporting fleet? They are just a bunch of soldiers (who can't decide if they are US Marines or US Army) with some tanks and a load of light vehicles.Whatever... it is a game. Some Army men to train the King`s troops, and some Marine troops to support the operation. It`s not that they can`t decide what they want to be, it`s the players that take no notice of the story. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
vilas 474 Posted January 23, 2008 first of all not implemented in game: (without my privat opinion about US politics and other) - no electronic warfare (disabling electrostations and other industry) - no bombings (US like someone from history, first bombs area, than when all is down, they put first Abrams) Russian "mistake" in Chechnya is not bombing all before first soldier arive - attacking from TV guided lauchers/bombs probably such small island like "Sahrani" would be very quickly beaten , some "guerillas" for money would do the rest , of course what is real - oil in the south, otherwise noone would care about "poor south" people slaughtered by "evil guys" but SLA have T72, AK - so in real life: - bombing and electronic war attack - few chopers would destroy ALL armored vehicles - few "contractors" and Sahrani exist no longer in 1-2 days most of SLA would surrender before first US soldier would put his feet on land , when all vehicles and industry would be vanished so game has nothing to do to real war in modern world, nothing so this topic is sensless at the end i will tell - personally i am very very anti-war person and i believe that war is only good when you do something defending your country, not economy interests SLA vs. US is sick proportion real poor countries have no this high-tech technology boomsticks poor , wrong trained man with rifle is not able to do much against all satelites, guided bombs, well trained and well paid ... army and not only army game is just "game", it is just infantryman against infantryman Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tic-Tac 0 Posted January 23, 2008 Its not really very realistic that a country so tiny can have such independent politics either, so this discussion falls a bit on its knees. Luxembourg? (is very small) Luxembourg is 7-10 times bigger and they still havent launched war on France LOL! On topic this is how i think it goes: 1st few days when only small detachment of US army and RACS are defending the island the SLA will probably gain a few towns but then US will completly destroy them when they get proper air support. But it is like christmas island vs china Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
STRYKER555 0 Posted January 23, 2008 Well if it was a real war the US forces would rip the SLA troops in the South to pieces as they would certainly attain air superiority within a day or two. Depending on where the US forces attack large formations of SLA troops would be cut off and bombed incessantly it would be a very nasty situation for the SLA units in South Sarhani. On the other hand if and when US armored and infantry units start to move North they will start to encounter stiff opposition from elite Sarhani units who have already fell back behind the border and communist peoples resistance guerillas who have been thorougly trained and highly motivated with Marxist Leninist ideals. Certain areas of Northern Sarhani will however yield to the US forces as those people there will be fed up of the communists, but other areas with strong communist organization will be a headache for the US as their supply lines get attacked on a regular basis. Still the US after a tough time in the North will defeat the resistance, as a matter of fact its the stiff resistance and brutality of the communist guerillas that makes the US send in reinforcements and support to sanitize Northern Sarhani of the Reds. To tell the truth even the highly motivated peoples communist guerrilla cells wouldnt have a chance, they wouldnt be getting support, they are cut off by a US Naval blockade, their "peoples courts" executing large numbers their fellow countrymen for helping the Americans and killing of US POWS wouldnt help them at all.. US wins. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Col. Faulkner 0 Posted January 23, 2008 If they were concerned about a realistic conflict, they should really have portrayed smaller, less "militarily sophisticated" countries than the USA. A piss-puddle war between the two armies of saggy-arsed floppys on Sahrani might have been more believable (but then BIS'd never have sold more than a few copies, I suppose). Anyway, it's all just a good fun game of toy soldiers. The war never ends but nobody ever gets hurt. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakerod 254 Posted January 24, 2008 If they were concerned about a realistic conflict, they should really have portrayed smaller, less "militarily sophisticated" countries than the USA. A piss-puddle war between the two armies of saggy-arsed floppys on Sahrani might have been more believable (but then BIS'd never have sold more than a few copies, I suppose). Anyway, it's all just a good fun game of toy soldiers. The war never ends but nobody ever gets hurt. SLA vs RAC Thats a fun one. I play those types of levels a lot. I don't ahve to worry about the realism of things as much then. Like the fact that any tank much less a tank platoon would've been taken out by a hellfire one week before ground forces arrived. Who do you guys think would win that one? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
walker 0 Posted January 24, 2008 Hi all Campaigns are based on a narrative. Any narrative relies on a premise. I could start here and write premise after premise explaining how the sides might be equalised. It just requires imagination. Consider. Removal of US space dominance A former soviet republic or new space capable player uses a pre-emptive strike on US spy sats in the area. Using either a satlite based anti satelite shotgun or Directed ElectroMagnetic Pulse (DEMP) gun. Removal of US stealth technology advantage Distributed Silhouette Passive Radar (DSPR) detectors relying on radar emissions from stars to see Silhouette of the threat passing between them and the stars overhead. 24 hour sky watch. Removal of US air superiority Complex but possible: Remove Anti Radar missile advantage DSPR is HARM and ALARM proof. Also add Distributed Active Micro Emitting Radar (DAMER) for a higher fidelity targeting lots of small short range radar emitters with mobility and strobing to reduce affect of HARM and ALARM type Anti Radiation missiles. Emitters are kept separate from the detectors to reduce loss effect. Create lots of cheap emitters and keep the expensive detectors passive. Improved Range Anti Air Missile System. Set launchers on helium balloons; simple barrage balloon technology so time to target is reduced and range advantage is given. Removal of cruise missile advantage. This one is hard. Take out GPS satellites with jamming and anti satellite missiles. Barrage balloons and and Vulcan type rapid fire AA guns or standard Anti Missile missiles such as are used to take out low flying missiles like the Super Etendard. Removal of US numeric advantage Encourage the US into multi front war or wait till same. Cut US access to Oil. Several methods to do this but I will not explain them. Might give the wrong people the idea. Remove ICBM advantage Can not think how to beat that one technologically but wars are won in politics not war. Political prevent use by threat of third party allie with ICBM capability. Outmaneuver politically. Make ICBMs a no win high cost option. Fanciful I know but all possible. Kind Regards walker Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ShooterSix 0 Posted January 24, 2008 The SLA in the north would be completely destroyed from a few MOABs. Two or three Abrams platoons would destroy all enemy armor in the South, Gulf War anyone? Their infantry would quickly retreat and surrender under so much firepower, once again, refer to the Gulf War. It would be a massacre, ended in 12-36 hours. If the US was completely cut off from any reinforcements and support for a few days or a week, US casulties would occur, but they would be light, and would only delay the enevitable. Guerilla warfare would be minnimal or non existent, this isn't an Islamic regime, plus the population is very small. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Correction 0 Posted January 25, 2008 From reading the question and several answers, I think something that really needs to be clarified is whether the question is "How should it happen" or "How would it really happen?" Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Placebo 28 Posted January 25, 2008 As this thread isn't about anything that's actually part of ArmA (as in the reason for having an ArmA:General forum) I'll move it to OT Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
