Difference at armies (USA=/=USMC)

[m1oh7]

I think some of those bits you talk about like artillery, yeah everyone has an artillery regiment etc, e.g. Brits have the Royal Horse Arty as an example, however these don't work by themselves, they work in conjunction with the ground troops.

so, the US Army Team on silent eagle for example is the airbourne with the cavalry, kashan its cavalry with maybe an infantry division, USMC on muttrah is an expeditionary force.

actually on kashan and it seems most of the maps its 3rd ID (infantry division) which have are mechanized for the most part meaning they roll with the cav and the cav supports them, although last i checked 3rd didnt have abrahms, so the patches should be changed to an armor unit

[Cossack]

Simply - The USA Army and USMC are two different factions. And both have different equipment.

[BlackwaterSaxon]

the only huge thing that would change gameplay on teh Brit team with RM is the viking/warthog, but we can't have that until someone figures out how to have a reliable trailer ingame.

it would be nice to feature the RM ingame as just a subset of textures, e.g. teh lynx would say "Royal Marines" the merlin might be in Royal Navy paint, pop a british weapon on the RHIB.

IRL they have a bit more of an SF role, but I don't see the problem as including them as more general troops ingame since it would just be a few different textures, which I expect are all going to be redone one day anyway to give eh Brits vbf2 soldiers bodies again.

Wouldn't quite class them as SF, by that token the Parachute regiment are "SF".

The British forces do not really need sub divisions in game. The standardisation across Army, Navy and Air Force means that differences are slight and boil down to a slight difference and preference in vehicles and patches.

That being said, having a few extra skin textures could be interesting, different berets, boonies and such.

[mangeface]

I think there's more than enough factions already. I don't feel a need for more factions as that would mean there needs to be more levels and so forth. And I personally get annoyed with not getting enough game time with certain factions already.

[zenarion]

I am against these "faction variants" really.
Would be better to have other factions that differ a lot more from what we got right now.
It is as simple as "more eyecandy", more "different guns and vehicles", instead of "20 variants of AK47 and M16".

[Amir]

I am against these "faction variants" really.
Would be better to have other factions that differ a lot more from what we got right now.
It is as simple as "more eyecandy", more "different guns and vehicles", instead of "20 variants of AK47 and M16".

And where are you going to put them ? How about giving the Russians MG42's and the Americans MP40's ? You need to have more factions for this "eyecandy".

[BlackwaterSaxon]

And where are you going to put them ? How about giving the Russians MG42's and the Americans MP40's ? You need to have more factions for this "eyecandy".

I think that was his point, he would rather have original armies, factions that haven't been implemented into the game yet, as opposed to variants and factions that are similar.

[Truism]

well truism, i think this thread needs a good old ninjaing, so lets DO talk about the difference in the national characteristics of warfare.

i cant speak for other factions but i hold high hopes that the ADF comfac will give a good representation to the Australian Light Infantry doctrine.

Suppress. Isolate. Bayonet.

Wait, maybe that's not right.


(I'm going back to my staff duties now).

[killonsight95]

hmmmm not a bad idea but unless there is a major differance like bassicly a whole new army then i'd like to see sometihng like this, i do think that china has 2 different armies a bit like the US and USMC? (would i be right in calling the US Army the USAC?)

[Bringerof_D]

NO...for artillery/light infantry/armor since they are all "Army" in combat they all wear the same uniform. as for pilots and crewmen well the kit selection already takes care of that

YES only for actual separate branches like Marines, as in things that actually have an entirely separate chain of command.

reason being there's no need for differentiating between the different infantry types, they mostly use the same weapons and there are just so many types.

*Russian Ground Forces
-Basic warfare ( the basic troops with not that large variation of weapons )
-Advanced warfare ( advanced troops with a bigger variation of weapons )
-Artillery and missile agency ( artillery and ground to air missiles )
-Basic armoured warfare ( light kind of tanks with less experience,etc )
-Advanced armoured warfare ( heavy tanks with more experience,etc )
-Spetznaz GRU ( specialised group that can be found in battle merged with other of the above groups )
-Naval troop forces ( wich are similar to the USA Marines )

these are not different military branches, they are different trades. A military has branches (Army, Navy, Air, and Marines if they have them. and of course other SF groups) then within branches they are separated into trades. (Army: Infantry, armored, artillery, etc.) This is similar there are many different businesses and each one ahs smaller trades in them, like how construction you have carpenters, electricians etc. Even though they carry different tools, while on the job, they all generally wear the same thing. the difference between an artillery soldier and an armored trooper is the color of their beret and the cap brass on it.

[Imchicken1]

JTF2?

the CFSOF (canadian forces special ops forces) for those that dont know

[Truism]

TF141

SOTG

Kampfgruppe Luhr

The possibilities go on.