Again! But this time let's use jets, if you want realism we don't have to attack. Just have us spot and quickly get away. We can be the UAV of the battle and help squads indicate where the enemy is hiding. I would really like to use my jet skills for something so engaging.

Also if you want realism we can do a "fly straight and bomb the area" kind of deal. No attacking straight down, etc. we will just do a quick straight run dropping bombs on a requested location and going back to the carrier waiting for a reload. We (or I) will not do the "attacking down and rain hell" type of deal I will do this realistically (seen my fair share of real air combat and can see in my head how this can work). PM me if you want to work something out because I really want to do this.

Edit: To add more realism (or just less chaos) I will never leave the carrier until a squad request bombing support on an area, one bomb per minute (to simulate crews putting back in new bombs). After a bomb I will go back and land on the carrier till another squad request a support. If they request in less than the one minute (or whatever minutes fits you bronx) we will just have to tell them to hold up as best as they can till support can come back online.

Sorry I clicked 25 f but I'm both

l3E7Studios wrote:

Again! But this time let's use jets, if you want realism we don't have to attack. Just have us spot and quickly get away. We can be the UAV of the battle and help squads indicate where the enemy is hiding. I would really like to use my jet skills for something so engaging.

Also if you want realism we can do a "fly straight and bomb the area" kind of deal. No attacking straight down, etc. we will just do a quick straight run dropping bombs on a requested location and going back to the carrier waiting for a reload. We (or I) will not do the "attacking down and rain hell" type of deal I will do this realistically (seen my fair share of real air combat and can see in my head how this can work). PM me if you want to work something out because I really want to do this.

Edit: To add more realism (or just less chaos) I will never leave the carrier until a squad request bombing support on an area, one bomb per minute (to simulate crews putting back in new bombs). After a bomb I will go back and land on the carrier till another squad request a support. If they request in less than the one minute (or whatever minutes fits you bronx) we will just have to tell them to hold up as best as they can till support can come back online.

I can see why there weren't jets, and to be honest, it's sad that you didn't, at least last time. There were 5 Terrorists to begin with, and the infantry was destroying them! Adding Jets will unbalance the terms. Every minute the kill-feed lighted up by Sniper or Riflemen kills. Also, you said in TS3, that it should resemble the SR-71 Blackbird. But aircraft hasn't been used for reconnaissance since the Cold War, now that we have UAV, which is an UNMANNED Aerial Vehicle. Then you ask for bombing runs? How would that work out? No jets, let alone any vehicle support!

DeadlyChaos09 wrote:

l3E7Studios wrote:

Again! But this time let's use jets, if you want realism we don't have to attack. Just have us spot and quickly get away. We can be the UAV of the battle and help squads indicate where the enemy is hiding. I would really like to use my jet skills for something so engaging.

Also if you want realism we can do a "fly straight and bomb the area" kind of deal. No attacking straight down, etc. we will just do a quick straight run dropping bombs on a requested location and going back to the carrier waiting for a reload. We (or I) will not do the "attacking down and rain hell" type of deal I will do this realistically (seen my fair share of real air combat and can see in my head how this can work). PM me if you want to work something out because I really want to do this.

Edit: To add more realism (or just less chaos) I will never leave the carrier until a squad request bombing support on an area, one bomb per minute (to simulate crews putting back in new bombs). After a bomb I will go back and land on the carrier till another squad request a support. If they request in less than the one minute (or whatever minutes fits you bronx) we will just have to tell them to hold up as best as they can till support can come back online.

I can see why there weren't jets, and to be honest, it's sad that you didn't, at least last time. There were 5 Terrorists to begin with, and the infantry was destroying them! Adding Jets will unbalance the terms. Every minute the kill-feed lighted up by Sniper or Riflemen kills. Also, you said in TS3, that it should resemble the SR-71 Blackbird. But aircraft hasn't been used for reconnaissance since the Cold War, now that we have UAV, which is an UNMANNED Aerial Vehicle. Then you ask for bombing runs? How would that work out? No jets, let alone any vehicle support!

Then how bout we get 32 people to play? Let's make a thread in the Play4Free forums about KingFish and get people to join. We can still have the 21 people on the U.S. side and 11 people on the terrorist. Let's also let the terrorist use USAS-12, boosters, etc. Let the terrorist use tanks and APCs too, and make it so jets can't go near them because they "pose a significant threat" to jets.

Just sayin, we can work this out and waiting for bronx's response in a PM or if he wants to talk to me in TS.

Well I responded to your PM I a few days ago I believe.

If we get the same number of people last time (even a little less), I was thinking of doing a "continuous" game of Manhunt. Basically at the start, the terrorists (5 could even work) would be hiding in houses, on hills, near buildings, etc. The US side would be doing the same thing as last time: establishing a beach head and move out from from it.

But instead of fighting like we did last time, the terrorists would be going back to a hiding spot. Terrorists wouldn't be limited to killing only 1 person at a time but they would be limited to hiding and not going rambo.

I'll go into more depth about communication and the chain of command more.

thebronxbomber wrote:

Basically at the start, the terrorists (5 could even work) would be hiding in houses, on hills, near buildings, etc. The US side would be doing the same thing as last time: establishing a beach head and move out from from it.

But instead of fighting like we did last time, the terrorists would be going back to a hiding spot. Terrorists wouldn't be limited to killing only 1 person at a time but they would be limited to hiding and not going rambo.

Im bored so I decided to come up with a story to make it a tad bit more realistic. Hows this for a scenario:

US Marines are landing on the beaches of Oman. They are attempting to secure the nearby town. However, the local Taliban are making life difficult with ambushes and snipers. Once they have struckd they retreat into the various buildings and hills. The Marines are on their toes wary of killing zones, snipers, and traps. They must search every building and every corner in order to flush out these insurgents.

(Im not the best at story making so cut me some slack )

CaptEdster wrote:

thebronxbomber wrote:

Basically at the start, the terrorists (5 could even work) would be hiding in houses, on hills, near buildings, etc. The US side would be doing the same thing as last time: establishing a beach head and move out from from it.

But instead of fighting like we did last time, the terrorists would be going back to a hiding spot. Terrorists wouldn't be limited to killing only 1 person at a time but they would be limited to hiding and not going rambo.

Im bored so I decided to come up with a story to make it a tad bit more realistic. Hows this for a scenario:

US Marines are landing on the beaches of Oman. They are attempting to secure the nearby town. However, the local Taliban are making life difficult with ambushes and snipers. Once they have struckd they retreat into the various buildings and hills. The Marines are on their toes wary of killing zones, snipers, and traps. They must search every building and every corner in order to flush out these insurgents.

(Im not the best at story making so cut me some slack )

Due to the nature of P4F, an ambush of one or two men could easily take out a squad. I mean you probably say Quack rush in and knife us all right, it's just that an ambush would be worse that that and they would have the element of surprise.

If this was in Project Reality though, an ambush would be comprised of many different things.

Oh, and can we do some manhunt on Mashtuur too since it looks like there are some pretty good hiding spots.

Mashtuur and all the other maps will be reserved for other operations :p

Today is Operation Kingfish +3

Okay, does that mean you're planning even more ops like this? YAY!

Ninja-Penguin. wrote:

Okay, does that mean you're planning even more ops like this? YAY!

Yes but you don't get to be a sniper

If I might add, if you're going to have opposition at all, surely only 5 terrorists would not prove to be difficulty if they are given ability to fight at will? And if so, I think it a lesson in situational awareness. It might make the operation a whole lot more exciting if everybody is moving with a heightened sense of awareness... knowing that the opposition may strike at anytime.

I wonder if I might inquire, how commands are given? is there a script to be followed with a strict timeline to be followed? Or is it spontaneous and reactionary. Perhaps if it is just reactionary that there be a strict timeline, only to be viewed by command... and the terrorists.

Of course the whole operation would be to exercise organizational maneuvers, but surely that wouldn't stop tactical maneuvers from being exercised as well... If one squad is completely wiped out by one person I think said squad would not be exercising proper maneuvers if there is no communication and if the members are not covering each other, and perhaps more to be worked on I suppose.

my 2 cents.

Damonavril wrote:

If I might add, if you're going to have opposition at all, surely only 5 terrorists would not prove to be difficulty if they are given ability to fight at will? And if so, I think it a lesson in situational awareness. It might make the operation a whole lot more exciting if everybody is moving with a heightened sense of awareness... knowing that the opposition may strike at anytime.

I wonder if I might inquire, how commands are given? is there a script to be followed with a strict timeline to be followed? Or is it spontaneous and reactionary. Perhaps if it is just reactionary that there be a strict timeline, only to be viewed by command... and the terrorists.

Of course the whole operation would be to exercise organizational maneuvers, but surely that wouldn't stop tactical maneuvers from being exercised as well... If one squad is completely wiped out by one person I think said squad would not exercising proper maneuvers if there is no communication and if the members are not covering each other, and perhaps more to be worked on I suppose.

my 2 cents.

P4F gameplay is really fast. Whole squads are easy to wipe out. Whole squads take exponentially longer to get set back where they were supposed to, should their squad have been wiped out, than do a few terrorists. This is the advantage the terrorists have. If someone is to die they are to spawn at the back base and get shipped over to their squads location via chopper. We can only ship and medevac and casevac so much.

Commands and requests are given and responded to such as a thread is in a CPU. The Team leaders had their callsigns as "Alpha 1-1, Bravo 2-1, Delta 4-1, etc." My nickname was Overlord Actual and logistics and support were Victor team. Team leaders could request ammo, med/casevac, or new orders. I was able to talk to Team leaders only, individual teams separately (which was useful for the transport team), and to everyone at once. Orders like "Super 6-1, drop off /name with Delta 4 on top of the Hotel, over" would be given to the team (support team) and then I'd have to say again something to whoever was being dropped off, "Get in the chopper, Super 6-1 is going to drop you off at the hotel."

Proper tactics wouldn't necessarily mean 0 deaths. Shoot the medic(s) and then you can't get anyone else revived or healed.


This weekend will be more organized I can guarantee. It will also be more lenient as too many rules can be hard to remember and hard to follow.

thebronxbomber wrote:

Damonavril wrote:

If I might add, if you're going to have opposition at all, surely only 5 terrorists would not prove to be difficulty if they are given ability to fight at will? And if so, I think it a lesson in situational awareness. It might make the operation a whole lot more exciting if everybody is moving with a heightened sense of awareness... knowing that the opposition may strike at anytime.

I wonder if I might inquire, how commands are given? is there a script to be followed with a strict timeline to be followed? Or is it spontaneous and reactionary. Perhaps if it is just reactionary that there be a strict timeline, only to be viewed by command... and the terrorists.

Of course the whole operation would be to exercise organizational maneuvers, but surely that wouldn't stop tactical maneuvers from being exercised as well... If one squad is completely wiped out by one person I think said squad would not exercising proper maneuvers if there is no communication and if the members are not covering each other, and perhaps more to be worked on I suppose.

my 2 cents.

P4F gameplay is really fast. Whole squads are easy to wipe out. Whole squads take exponentially longer to get set back where they were supposed to, should their squad have been wiped out, than do a few terrorists. This is the advantage the terrorists have. If someone is to die they are to spawn at the back base and get shipped over to their squads location via chopper. We can only ship and medevac and casevac so much.

Commands and requests are given and responded to such as a thread is in a CPU. The Team leaders had their callsigns as "Alpha 1-1, Bravo 2-1, Delta 4-1, etc." My nickname was Overlord Actual and logistics and support were Victor team. Team leaders could request ammo, med/casevac, or new orders. I was able to talk to Team leaders only, individual teams separately (which was useful for the transport team), and to everyone at once. Orders like "Super 6-1, drop off /name with Delta 4 on top of the Hotel, over" would be given to the team (support team) and then I'd have to say again something to whoever was being dropped off, "Get in the chopper, Super 6-1 is going to drop you off at the hotel."

Proper tactics wouldn't necessarily mean 0 deaths. Shoot the medic(s) and then you can't get anyone else revived or healed.


This weekend will be more organized I can guarantee. It will also be more lenient as too many rules can be hard to remember and hard to follow.

That system seems to be almost the exact same one as in BF2, am I correct? I like

True, but at any given time it is 1 gun vs 4. I'm sure proper spacing between soldiers and more communication within teams wouldn't make the opposition that much of a threat.

Hmm, so it is reactionary. I am assuming that the big picture was just to capture and hold objectives...

I have a different thought, perhaps to exercise maneuvers, that the groups would not be stationary in their objectives, that they would be always moving in such a tactical way.

I saw from the first post that different squads attacked different objectives from different entry points. Just an idea I have is instead of separate elements that there be convoy of mixed armor and infantry. Of course there would be separate "teams" but they would maintain specific portions of the group, vanguard, rear, armor, etc. And this entire group would go in such a manner that they would capture objectives as one unit. Once arriving at the objective, specific elements would detach maintaining strategic points around the objective, clearing it from opposition. Once completed they would hold there for a few minutes before packing their bags for the next objective... one that has already been pre-capped by the terrorists. The terrorists would use guerrilla warfare to slow down the convoy from reaching the objective. The terrorist's objective would be to disrupt this as much as possible or slow it down.

Edit: This game is definitely piquing my interest... I think I might download it tonight and try it out for the weekend lol.

l3E7Studios wrote:

DeadlyChaos09 wrote:

l3E7Studios wrote:

Again! But this time let's use jets, if you want realism we don't have to attack. Just have us spot and quickly get away. We can be the UAV of the battle and help squads indicate where the enemy is hiding. I would really like to use my jet skills for something so engaging.

Also if you want realism we can do a "fly straight and bomb the area" kind of deal. No attacking straight down, etc. we will just do a quick straight run dropping bombs on a requested location and going back to the carrier waiting for a reload. We (or I) will not do the "attacking down and rain hell" type of deal I will do this realistically (seen my fair share of real air combat and can see in my head how this can work). PM me if you want to work something out because I really want to do this.

Edit: To add more realism (or just less chaos) I will never leave the carrier until a squad request bombing support on an area, one bomb per minute (to simulate crews putting back in new bombs). After a bomb I will go back and land on the carrier till another squad request a support. If they request in less than the one minute (or whatever minutes fits you bronx) we will just have to tell them to hold up as best as they can till support can come back online.

I can see why there weren't jets, and to be honest, it's sad that you didn't, at least last time. There were 5 Terrorists to begin with, and the infantry was destroying them! Adding Jets will unbalance the terms. Every minute the kill-feed lighted up by Sniper or Riflemen kills. Also, you said in TS3, that it should resemble the SR-71 Blackbird. But aircraft hasn't been used for reconnaissance since the Cold War, now that we have UAV, which is an UNMANNED Aerial Vehicle. Then you ask for bombing runs? How would that work out? No jets, let alone any vehicle support!

Then how bout we get 32 people to play? Let's make a thread in the Play4Free forums about KingFish and get people to join. We can still have the 21 people on the U.S. side and 11 people on the terrorist. Let's also let the terrorist use USAS-12, boosters, etc. Let the terrorist use tanks and APCs too, and make it so jets can't go near them because they "pose a significant threat" to jets.

Just sayin, we can work this out and waiting for bronx's response in a PM or if he wants to talk to me in TS.

You're just providing a desperate attempt to get in Jets, and to be honest, it is unorganize. To promote this on the Play4Free forumns is chaos, as you never know who will join, and if they do act up, what's the worse we can do? Kick them, and they can keep coming back. In here, within the clan, we have more discipline that can be provided from our own teammates. You're asking for a typical match, not a realistic one. In most military conflicts, infantry and vehicle almost to never get involve with each other, to balance the terms of firepower. Then you're asking for them to use the USAS-12, which is either a Chinese or Japanese Shotgun, neither the RU or US weapon we asked to purchase.

DeadlyChaos09 wrote:

You're just providing a desperate attempt to get in Jets, and to be honest, it is unorganize.

You're right I am making a desperate attempt to get in jets. Why shouldn't I? Can't I make suggestions that can improve what we are doing? And I am trying to plan this out. Sure it's not perfect, but that's what discussing is about. If I want to be in jets why can't I ask and make the terms seem fair to everyone?

DeadlyChaos09 wrote:

To promote this on the Play4Free forumns is chaos, as you never know who will join, and if they do act up, what's the worse we can do? Kick them, and they can keep coming back. In here, within the clan, we have more discipline that can be provided from our own teammates.

No, the best we can do is ban if they repeat the offense. We don't care we will not accept those who act immature and want to mess around. We can brief them on what's happening and if they wish not to cooperate we will ask them to leave, if they don't leave, we will kick, if they come back, we can ban. This event can help promote the clan not wreck the event.

DeadlyChaos09 wrote:

You're asking for a typical match, not a realistic one.

On the contrary I am asking for a more realistic one. If we can have more enemy's and those enemy's are better equipped we can use more resources. The enemy won't just be fighting with just guns they will be using every resource they can get, and if we restrict that, what makes this realistic? We can use everything in a way that suits the realistic attempt we are achieving. Sure this would mean more rules, but only the rules would apply to those that need it.

DeadlyChaos09 wrote:

In most military conflicts, infantry and vehicle almost to never get involve with each other, to balance the terms of firepower.

Listen to yourself and ask yourself what is wrong with this statement. To balance the terms of firepower? Dude if you have an advantage take it, don't use it because someone told you. If you were sent to war and ran out of ammunition. Will you take your fallen's comrade rifle, the very rifle he died with, the last thing he held with honor for defending what he thinks is right, or will you just wait till Command can give you some ammo before you are captured or killed? World War's were total wars, complete mobilization of vehicles and infantry. Don't tell me these lies.

Edit: Also every international war the U.S. has been involved in we always used vehicles and infantry. World War I, tanks and planes were used for the first time on the Battlefield and were used to the greatest of extent, World War II, not much explanation we used everything, Vietnam was famous for its transport choppers taking men to death and napalm strikes on the lush forest, Korea...actually I have no idea never really cared much to study from this war :S, Iraq/Afghanistan we use both UAVs and Manned Aircraft to spy on the enemy. We also use man aircraft to carry out bomb strikes to a certain degree. Mostly long-range missile combat but jets are used and used a lot. So please, this argument is the least supportive of all of them.

DeadlyChaos09 wrote:

Then you're asking for them to use the USAS-12, which is either a Chinese or Japanese Shotgun, neither the RU or US weapon we asked to purchase.

This is the easiest to answer. We said it was U.S. vs terrorist. We said they were terrorist. We didn't say what race of terrorist they are. They could be collaborating with other terrorist around the world (happens all the time). Very very simple.

thebronxbomber wrote:

Ninja-Penguin. wrote:

Okay, does that mean you're planning even more ops like this? YAY!

Yes but you don't get to be a sniper

awwww why not :'(

l3E7Studios wrote:

DeadlyChaos09 wrote:

You're just providing a desperate attempt to get in Jets, and to be honest, it is unorganize.

You're right I am making a desperate attempt to get in jets. Why shouldn't I? Can't I make suggestions that can improve what we are doing? And I am trying to plan this out. Sure it's not perfect, but that's what discussing is about. If I want to be in jets why can't I ask and make the terms seem fair to everyone?

DeadlyChaos09 wrote:

To promote this on the Play4Free forums is chaos, as you never know who will join, and if they do act up, what's the worse we can do? Kick them, and they can keep coming back. In here, within the clan, we have more discipline that can be provided from our own teammates.

No, the best we can do is ban if they repeat the offense. We don't care we will not accept those who act immature and want to mess around. We can brief them on what's happening and if they wish not to cooperate we will ask them to leave, if they don't leave, we will kick, if they come back, we can ban. This event can help promote the clan not wreck the event.

DeadlyChaos09 wrote:

You're asking for a typical match, not a realistic one.

On the contrary I am asking for a more realistic one. If we can have more enemy's and those enemy's are better equipped we can use more resources. The enemy won't just be fighting with just guns they will be using every resource they can get, and if we restrict that, what makes this realistic? We can use everything in a way that suits the realistic attempt we are achieving. Sure this would mean more rules, but only the rules would apply to those that need it.

DeadlyChaos09 wrote:

In most military conflicts, infantry and vehicle almost to never get involve with each other, to balance the terms of firepower.

Listen to yourself and ask yourself what is wrong with this statement. To balance the terms of firepower? Dude if you have an advantage take it, don't use it because someone told you. If you were sent to war and ran out of ammunition. Will you take your fallen's comrade rifle, the very rifle he died with, the last thing he held with honor for defending what he thinks is right, or will you just wait till Command can give you some ammo before you are captured or killed? World War's were total wars, complete mobilization of vehicles and infantry. Don't tell me these lies.

Edit: Also every international war the U.S. has been involved in we always used vehicles and infantry. World War I, tanks and planes were used for the first time on the Battlefield and were used to the greatest of extent, World War II, not much explanation we used everything, Vietnam was famous for its transport choppers taking men to death and napalm strikes on the lush forest, Korea...actually I have no idea never really cared much to study from this war :S, Iraq/Afghanistan we use both UAVs and Manned Aircraft to spy on the enemy. We also use man aircraft to carry out bomb strikes to a certain degree. Mostly long-range missile combat but jets are used and used a lot. So please, this argument is the least supportive of all of them.

DeadlyChaos09 wrote:

Then you're asking for them to use the USAS-12, which is either a Chinese or Japanese Shotgun, neither the RU or US weapon we asked to purchase.

This is the easiest to answer. We said it was U.S. vs terrorist. We said they were terrorist. We didn't say what race of terrorist they are. They could be collaborating with other terrorist around the world (happens all the time). Very very simple.

Put it this way, the Op went fine without air cover at all, in fact we were harassing the enemies spawn so bad that they got bored and rambo'd us. If there was air cover then it'd be over in a matter of minutes.

If we promoted in in the Play4Free forums then it would be hectic. You've no idea who will turn up, what they will do and how persistent they are. As Deadly said, keeping it inside the realms of our Clan will keep us disciplined and in order.

If the public start coming into the match and they are trolling then we would have to carry on kicking them. We don't want to have to kick randoms for the whole match. It just gets boring for them and us.

Neither of us would be better equipped because we are trying to make this is as realistic as possible. That means factions would be using corresponding weapons. US use M4A1's, M16A3's, M9's, M5's and M24's. That's just about it. The terrorists, which is the ones we're stereotyping are going to be insurgent forces like the Taliban, Al-Quaeda, Hamas etc. They generally use black market weapons like mass produced kalashinokvs. That means AK47's, AKS-74u's, SVD's, PKM's, stuff like that. They wouldn't be using a japanese weapon.

Also, in most military conflicts, vehicles are used for transport and covering fire. Heavier armour is only used if the enemy's position is too dug in to be taken out with small arms fire and portable explosives. And heavies are only used in full mobilization of a platoon. That'd be a helluva lot of people. And, you would have to get clearance to use your assets. You can't just carpet bomb the whole of Afghanistan and say the war is over. Nothing gets done that way, it does more harm than good.

Also, the World Wars were horrible. Vehicles and infantry had to be used and the world was going to be on the brink of a nuclear war after Hiroshima. World War I was one that had a very long stalemate. that's how the number of casualties was so high. Neither side won until a cease fire was called.

This Op is also meant to be fun and engaging, why would you want to do it if it was just a walkover. People want a challenge and that is what they'll get. We use air cover then the infantry would just have to run to the other side of the map.

I want to be part of this sats op!

l3E7Studios wrote:

DeadlyChaos09 wrote:

You're just providing a desperate attempt to get in Jets, and to be honest, it is unorganize.

You're right I am making a desperate attempt to get in jets. Why shouldn't I? Can't I make suggestions that can improve what we are doing? And I am trying to plan this out. Sure it's not perfect, but that's what discussing is about. If I want to be in jets why can't I ask and make the terms seem fair to everyone?

DeadlyChaos09 wrote:

To promote this on the Play4Free forumns is chaos, as you never know who will join, and if they do act up, what's the worse we can do? Kick them, and they can keep coming back. In here, within the clan, we have more discipline that can be provided from our own teammates.

No, the best we can do is ban if they repeat the offense. We don't care we will not accept those who act immature and want to mess around. We can brief them on what's happening and if they wish not to cooperate we will ask them to leave, if they don't leave, we will kick, if they come back, we can ban. This event can help promote the clan not wreck the event.

DeadlyChaos09 wrote:

You're asking for a typical match, not a realistic one.

On the contrary I am asking for a more realistic one. If we can have more enemy's and those enemy's are better equipped we can use more resources. The enemy won't just be fighting with just guns they will be using every resource they can get, and if we restrict that, what makes this realistic? We can use everything in a way that suits the realistic attempt we are achieving. Sure this would mean more rules, but only the rules would apply to those that need it.

DeadlyChaos09 wrote:

In most military conflicts, infantry and vehicle almost to never get involve with each other, to balance the terms of firepower.

Listen to yourself and ask yourself what is wrong with this statement. To balance the terms of firepower? Dude if you have an advantage take it, don't use it because someone told you. If you were sent to war and ran out of ammunition. Will you take your fallen's comrade rifle, the very rifle he died with, the last thing he held with honor for defending what he thinks is right, or will you just wait till Command can give you some ammo before you are captured or killed? World War's were total wars, complete mobilization of vehicles and infantry. Don't tell me these lies.

Edit: Also every international war the U.S. has been involved in we always used vehicles and infantry. World War I, tanks and planes were used for the first time on the Battlefield and were used to the greatest of extent, World War II, not much explanation we used everything, Vietnam was famous for its transport choppers taking men to death and napalm strikes on the lush forest, Korea...actually I have no idea never really cared much to study from this war :S, Iraq/Afghanistan we use both UAVs and Manned Aircraft to spy on the enemy. We also use man aircraft to carry out bomb strikes to a certain degree. Mostly long-range missile combat but jets are used and used a lot. So please, this argument is the least supportive of all of them.

DeadlyChaos09 wrote:

Then you're asking for them to use the USAS-12, which is either a Chinese or Japanese Shotgun, neither the RU or US weapon we asked to purchase.

This is the easiest to answer. We said it was U.S. vs terrorist. We said they were terrorist. We didn't say what race of terrorist they are. They could be collaborating with other terrorist around the world (happens all the time). Very very simple.

When did I ever say "You can't suggest anything?" I said that your desperate attempt to get jets is unorganize, and not needed. In the game, the terrorist were being harassed at their spawn from sniper and riflemen fire. Also, we're not trying to make this the military, just a more realistic simulator of the game than it is at the moment.

Now, to promote this on the forumns, you said would help promote the clan. Would it? Yes. Would it be played as well as it would without them? Never. Players will be immature at any cost, especially to mess it up. What we should do, is promote it within the clan. Not everyone knew about this, as some don't check other company pages since it doesn't concern them. No need for an open match so immature and dumbass players can ruin the experience.

Don't tell me how a battle is constructed unless you're in the military. Don't bring up history either, because the saying goes "History is written by the victors" and to be honest, I never seen a war in my History textbook that the U.S. didn't win.
My best friend's dad is Raymond Chandler, Sergeant Major of the Army. He has enlisted in all leadership in tank crewman position and also served in the 1st Calvary Regiment. With that said, he has dealt with both armoured and infantry personnel. In war, vehicles are only used for certain strategic advances, such as a position in which the infantry is pinned down on, or in other tactical advantages such as to gain air superiority. Never do you see infantry and vehicles engage into certain battles, as it's risk of resources. A Main Battle Tank in battle is not seen unless the unit is an Armoured Brigade, or is in need of vehicle support/assistance. It's your word, against the Sergeant Major of the Army who has enlisted in all tank crewmen positions and served in the 1st Calvary Regiment, which means both armoured and infantry units.

Also, like Ninja said, terrorist are not typically a faction, but in this case, we chose them as more of the Taliban, which has carried and adopted a lot of uses with any Kalashnikov weaponary, such as the AK-103, AK-47, AKS-74U, RPK-74, Saiga-12K, SVD, and other weapons that are competitors like the AEK-971 or the AN-94 Akaban.

Regardless of anything else, no need for jets.

DeadlyChaos09 wrote:

When did I ever say "You can't suggest anything?" I said that your desperate attempt to get jets is unorganize, and not needed. In the game, the terrorist were being harassed at their spawn from sniper and riflemen fire. Also, we're not trying to make this the military, just a more realistic simulator of the game than it is at the moment.

I don't want to start the argument for how my idea actually promotes military realism again, but on the concern about the terrorist, let them use jets too. Dogfighting is still present even today, not as frequent, that's why jets will be restricted on how long and how many times they can be in the air, but it happens. Plus this event is to portray realism not to portray current events. What if we went into World War 3, how would the U.S. be involved in that war and in what way. Of course they will use jets.

DeadlyChaos09 wrote:

Now, to promote this on the forumns, you said would help promote the clan. Would it? Yes. Would it be played as well as it would without them? Never. Players will be immature at any cost, especially to mess it up. What we should do, is promote it within the clan. Not everyone knew about this, as some don't check other company pages since it doesn't concern them. No need for an open match so immature and dumbass players can ruin the experience.

I did left that part out and that was my mistake. First we should promote this within the clan. If we can come up with 32 players no need to advertise, however, we can always require people outside this clan to follow certain guidelines. For example, of course participants have to be in Teamspeak, so we can order them how to behave, if they don't ban, simple. Not saying turning this into an open match, clan members will always be reserved, however, any missing players (say we have 30/32 players) if there are an volunteers and after some discussions we can bring them in and if they don't behave, sad for them.

DeadlyChaos09 wrote:

Don't tell me how a battle is constructed unless you're in the military. Don't bring up history either, because the saying goes "History is written by the victors" and to be honest, I never seen a war in my History textbook that the U.S. didn't win.
My best friend's dad is Raymond Chandler, Sergeant Major of the Army. He has enlisted in all leadership in tank crewman position and also served in the 1st Calvary Regiment. With that said, he has dealt with both armoured and infantry personnel. In war, vehicles are only used for certain strategic advances, such as a position in which the infantry is pinned down on, or in other tactical advantages such as to gain air superiority. Never do you see infantry and vehicles engage into certain battles, as it's risk of resources. A Main Battle Tank in battle is not seen unless the unit is an Armoured Brigade, or is in need of vehicle support/assistance. It's your word, against the Sergeant Major of the Army who has enlisted in all tank crewmen positions and served in the 1st Calvary Regiment, which means both armoured and infantry units.

I don't have any military background, but I have helped military personal, they told me stories, read enough textbooks about wars, watched countless documentaries of war, and from most of what I've seen in vehicles and infantry co aside each other more often then people realize. Small ways? Yes and never really used to bring risk to them themselves, but if the plan calls and the situation is desperate all options are on the table and you go with it. World War I is a big example of this, tanks and airplanes were new and costed a lot of money (in those days), but they did not wait to get them in the lines of fire and destruction to at least break the trench warfare stalemate. When I was a Freshman I learned about how the U.S. actually did loose the Vietnam war, and after much research I have come to accept that fact. My argument being vehicles are put in the line when they are needed, if our soldiers need help, we need to give it to them.

DeadlyChaos09 wrote:

Also, like Ninja said, terrorist are not typically a faction, but in this case, we chose them as more of the Taliban, which has carried and adopted a lot of uses with any Kalashnikov weaponary, such as the AK-103, AK-47, AKS-74U, RPK-74, Saiga-12K, SVD, and other weapons that are competitors like the AEK-971 or the AN-94 Akaban.

Fine I can go to accept those terms and rules (despite how much I disagree on the weaponry of choice), but you do see Taliban with tanks, and they are becoming extremely trained because of the aid of Pakistan (I've seen enough evidence to see how Pakistan is not helping the Taliban) and who knows, in World War 3 when we are fighting terrorist (because I'm 90% sure terrorist will start World War 3) that they will be trained and well equipped. So...equip them! This is meant to be a realistic way, not reenact current events.

DeadlyChaos09 wrote:

Regardless of anything else, no need for jets.

I don't agree with you. However, it is not my decision nor yours to say who can and can't do. Whatever bronx wants to do is his decision, I'm just giving my input on it and making a stance against it. Yes I am pushing and and I will admit I am pushing it because I am doing it for my wants and desires, I love the damn things, and would love to use them a realistic military style in a clan event that makes an interesting twist on the game already. Again not my decision, I can ask, persuade, but cannot force or enforce. Whatever decision arises from this I will be fine with. I was happy with my Alpha squad and would love to serve them again, but would like to try a different task to see if it fits better or not. It's not like this is going to be the last Operation KingFish (at least I hope so )

l3E7Studios wrote:

DeadlyChaos09 wrote:

When did I ever say "You can't suggest anything?" I said that your desperate attempt to get jets is unorganize, and not needed. In the game, the terrorist were being harassed at their spawn from sniper and riflemen fire. Also, we're not trying to make this the military, just a more realistic simulator of the game than it is at the moment.

I don't want to start the argument for how my idea actually promotes military realism again, but on the concern about the terrorist, let them use jets too. Dogfighting is still present even today, not as frequent, that's why jets will be restricted on how long and how many times they can be in the air, but it happens. Plus this event is to portray realism not to portray current events. What if we went into World War 3, how would the U.S. be involved in that war and in what way. Of course they will use jets.

DeadlyChaos09 wrote:

Now, to promote this on the forumns, you said would help promote the clan. Would it? Yes. Would it be played as well as it would without them? Never. Players will be immature at any cost, especially to mess it up. What we should do, is promote it within the clan. Not everyone knew about this, as some don't check other company pages since it doesn't concern them. No need for an open match so immature and dumbass players can ruin the experience.

I did left that part out and that was my mistake. First we should promote this within the clan. If we can come up with 32 players no need to advertise, however, we can always require people outside this clan to follow certain guidelines. For example, of course participants have to be in Teamspeak, so we can order them how to behave, if they don't ban, simple. Not saying turning this into an open match, clan members will always be reserved, however, any missing players (say we have 30/32 players) if there are an volunteers and after some discussions we can bring them in and if they don't behave, sad for them.

DeadlyChaos09 wrote:

Don't tell me how a battle is constructed unless you're in the military. Don't bring up history either, because the saying goes "History is written by the victors" and to be honest, I never seen a war in my History textbook that the U.S. didn't win.
My best friend's dad is Raymond Chandler, Sergeant Major of the Army. He has enlisted in all leadership in tank crewman position and also served in the 1st Calvary Regiment. With that said, he has dealt with both armoured and infantry personnel. In war, vehicles are only used for certain strategic advances, such as a position in which the infantry is pinned down on, or in other tactical advantages such as to gain air superiority. Never do you see infantry and vehicles engage into certain battles, as it's risk of resources. A Main Battle Tank in battle is not seen unless the unit is an Armoured Brigade, or is in need of vehicle support/assistance. It's your word, against the Sergeant Major of the Army who has enlisted in all tank crewmen positions and served in the 1st Calvary Regiment, which means both armoured and infantry units.

I don't have any military background, but I have helped military personal, they told me stories, read enough textbooks about wars, watched countless documentaries of war, and from most of what I've seen in vehicles and infantry co aside each other more often then people realize. Small ways? Yes and never really used to bring risk to them themselves, but if the plan calls and the situation is desperate all options are on the table and you go with it. World War I is a big example of this, tanks and airplanes were new and costed a lot of money (in those days), but they did not wait to get them in the lines of fire and destruction to at least break the trench warfare stalemate. When I was a Freshman I learned about how the U.S. actually did loose the Vietnam war, and after much research I have come to accept that fact. My argument being vehicles are put in the line when they are needed, if our soldiers need help, we need to give it to them.

DeadlyChaos09 wrote:

Also, like Ninja said, terrorist are not typically a faction, but in this case, we chose them as more of the Taliban, which has carried and adopted a lot of uses with any Kalashnikov weaponary, such as the AK-103, AK-47, AKS-74U, RPK-74, Saiga-12K, SVD, and other weapons that are competitors like the AEK-971 or the AN-94 Akaban.

Fine I can go to accept those terms and rules (despite how much I disagree on the weaponry of choice), but you do see Taliban with tanks, and they are becoming extremely trained because of the aid of Pakistan (I've seen enough evidence to see how Pakistan is not helping the Taliban) and who knows, in World War 3 when we are fighting terrorist (because I'm 90% sure terrorist will start World War 3) that they will be trained and well equipped. So...equip them! This is meant to be a realistic way, not reenact current events.

DeadlyChaos09 wrote:

Regardless of anything else, no need for jets.

I don't agree with you. However, it is not my decision nor yours to say who can and can't do. Whatever bronx wants to do is his decision, I'm just giving my input on it and making a stance against it. Yes I am pushing and and I will admit I am pushing it because I am doing it for my wants and desires, I love the damn things, and would love to use them a realistic military style in a clan event that makes an interesting twist on the game already. Again not my decision, I can ask, persuade, but cannot force or enforce. Whatever decision arises from this I will be fine with. I was happy with my Alpha squad and would love to serve them again, but would like to try a different task to see if it fits better or not. It's not like this is going to be the last Operation KingFish (at least I hope so )

I love jets as well, but I know that in infantry, the U.S. Army had more than enough firepower. Saying for the Terrorists to bring in vehicles, such as Main Battle Tanks, and then for the U.S. Army to bring in Jets, is pointless. Why? Because in the end, the U.S. Army has the higher firepower in terms of the Terrorist, so why bring more complication in the organization?

Hey listen, I'm not trying to start an argument with you. You're not only my squad-mate, but you're also a really cool person to hang around with and play with. However, think in terms of logic, not of desire. Logically, it creates more complication, for both Command, and the infantry. Would I love jets in the operation? Yes! But is it logical? Not really.

DeadlyChaos09 wrote:

I love jets as well, but I know that in infantry, the U.S. Army had more than enough firepower. Saying for the Terrorists to bring in vehicles, such as Main Battle Tanks, and then for the U.S. Army to bring in Jets, is pointless. Why? Because in the end, the U.S. Army has the higher firepower in terms of the Terrorist, so why bring more complication in the organization?

Hey listen, I'm not trying to start an argument with you. You're not only my squad-mate, but you're also a really cool person to hang around with and play with. However, think in terms of logic, not of desire. Logically, it creates more complication, for both Command, and the infantry. Would I love jets in the operation? Yes! But is it logical? Not really.

I will leave on my last note in that, since when was war ever simple?

But I shall leave thee. The will to commit leads to action, not debates. So how bout we go on Hotel California 24/7 Oman, and do some damage?

Ninja: you don't get to be a sniper because you and edster (one of the other snipers) took out at least a 100 between you two (in the 2nd round).

We won't be promoting this on the P4F forums because, frankly, I couldn't stand people in the clan joining this without first getting on TS3 first or at least without any knowledge of it.

And Studios: I think I did PM you that I would be considering using jets. I might just do that. Think of yourself as a jet just flying around while infantry units are laser-designating targets via soflam or something. You would basically be having the same role as what captedster did in my HQ unit (which was to artillery certain positions) but from the air. There would be some limitations to this. I don't know how well you can bomb from 100-200 meters but you better know how lol--my highest bomb kill was at 400m and I did use some calculations (not any set formula though) to conclude when I would drop my bombs. Anyways try to figure a formula out for bombing certain positions at that high an altitude.

And think of yourself as being part of the vehicle team, which was the team that flew the choppers, drove the APCs, and HMMWVs. The team where we had so many people want to fly choppers in. We will be rotating personnel for these positions and this will be part of it.



And yes this will be the last ever Operation Kingfish--unless you want to recycle the name for other Operations to come!

thebronxbomber wrote:

And Studios: I think I did PM you that I would be considering using jets. I might just do that. Think of yourself as a jet just flying around while infantry units are laser-designating targets via soflam or something. You would basically be having the same role as what captedster did in my HQ unit (which was to artillery certain positions) but from the air. There would be some limitations to this. I don't know how well you can bomb from 100-200 meters but you better know how lol--my highest bomb kill was at 400m and I did use some calculations (not any set formula though) to conclude when I would drop my bombs. Anyways try to figure a formula out for bombing certain positions at that high an altitude.

And think of yourself as being part of the vehicle team, which was the team that flew the choppers, drove the APCs, and HMMWVs. The team where we had so many people want to fly choppers in. We will be rotating personnel for these positions and this will be part of it.



And yes this will be the last ever Operation Kingfish--unless you want to recycle the name for other Operations to come!

Go ahead and consider, just discussing this with Deadly on how jets can be useful to this operation while remaining balanced and realistic. And I can bomb high, as long as we aren't talking about so high you can't even see the map, and I think that would be cool at a certain altitude. You look up and see a jet fly high and fast zooming through your view, you hear the faint sound of the falling bombs and can't see them, last second you see them and bam, you're dead.

And for a name...

Operation FishKing? Lol.

l3E7Studios wrote:

thebronxbomber wrote:

And Studios: I think I did PM you that I would be considering using jets. I might just do that. Think of yourself as a jet just flying around while infantry units are laser-designating targets via soflam or something. You would basically be having the same role as what captedster did in my HQ unit (which was to artillery certain positions) but from the air. There would be some limitations to this. I don't know how well you can bomb from 100-200 meters but you better know how lol--my highest bomb kill was at 400m and I did use some calculations (not any set formula though) to conclude when I would drop my bombs. Anyways try to figure a formula out for bombing certain positions at that high an altitude.

And think of yourself as being part of the vehicle team, which was the team that flew the choppers, drove the APCs, and HMMWVs. The team where we had so many people want to fly choppers in. We will be rotating personnel for these positions and this will be part of it.



And yes this will be the last ever Operation Kingfish--unless you want to recycle the name for other Operations to come!

Go ahead and consider, just discussing this with Deadly on how jets can be useful to this operation while remaining balanced and realistic. And I can bomb high, as long as we aren't talking about so high you can't even see the map, and I think that would be cool at a certain altitude. You look up and see a jet fly high and fast zooming through your view, you hear the faint sound of the falling bombs and can't see them, last second you see them and bam, you're dead.

And for a name...

Operation FishKing? Lol.

Well that's just what you'd have to be capable of. I don't want to see any dive bombing in at 50m.

And well no...I'm talking about other names....lol