Modern Day Scenario II v1.5 - Available for download

[Morry]

i recently got it to work, i cant really remember how, but im pretty sure for that sort of thing you either just want to download it again, and hopefully the files will be ok, or maybe if you gave the exact name of the missing file i could try to send you it. i dont know if that'l actually help though. for any ntl errors i think i just copied hoi2.exe files from different places (your original hoi2 folder, the new mds folder) and tried to patch them all, and one just randomly worked.

hope that helps, and as i said if you think itl work im willing to try to find that little file and send you it.

Lol, never considered that it is possible for the mod installation itself to be corrupted, as it installed without any problems. As you told, I downloaded the 200Mb file again and thadaah! Everything works now. Others with problems with the mod should just try to re-download the entire thingie (I accually downloaded even the 1.3a update and pre-installer too... to make sure), even though it installed ok. Besides, the no-time patcher started to work too, so all the problems just vanished to the thin air

The game is wonderful, I just don't know what to do first and what second :rofl:

Thank you for the developers and keep this going!

 

[unmerged(103362)]

As I've posted before, great mod. But why such a cut down on Russia's IC? I understand it's not on Soviet Union level anymore, but it has about the same IC as Germany has now, and I'd expect it to be higher. Either way, I love playing as Russia. I'm currently reconquering territories belonging to the Soviet Union (the Caucasus region first, Kazakhstan's next).

 

[jade rat]

Don't forget that Russia creates very elite armies through experience rather than training, and that weeds out the weak soldiers. Russian troops also go through extensive live-fire training, like a combat course, even their police do it, then they have good equipment, consisting of the most prolific rifle in the world. Don't forget that they have a very large army to serve so giving them large amounts of training and equipment is impossible, and quantity is very important if you think about it. You can take a position, but can you hold a wide area? Russia would win a war if it went to war, and that's a sad fact I've come to face, especially the way their army has reformed.

Ok, Ive had to rewrite this 3 times now- each taking a very long time.
1st time i hit a button and it closed IE

2nd time right when i was about to post i hit the back button on my mouse and i lost everything.

So I'm not going to really go in depth,and address everything at least not this time, and the answers will probably be around 1 paragraph or a sentence, I'm just in a really sour mood after i lost everything..twice


Russian troops also go through extensive live-fire training, like a combat course, even their police do it

All countries do this, the west even uses laser training- kinda like high tech laser tag between two divisions.



then they have good equipment

Not really, Sergei Ivanov (Russia's defense minister) said "As a whole, the armed forces are only 75-80 percent equipped with fully functioning ammunition and technology, and of this, modern weapons makes up less than 20 percent."

"Russian forces are so poorly equipped they could not launch an offensive war"

Ivanov said lack of money, aging equipment and poor training in the air force meant crashes were frequent and not a single Russian air unit was fully operational.


consisting of the most prolific rifle in the world

It may work for gorilla combat, but the Western rifles- principle the M-16 has nearly double the effective range, its lighter, and more accurate, almost no recoil, and has been made in large numbers (although not the same numbers as the AK-47) but over 8 million is a lot- more then enough to equip NATO armies

Don't forget that they have a very large army to serve so giving them large amounts of training and equipment is impossible

But America has a even bigger army, and we manage to give our men modern weaponry, about triple the training, several times the pay, with the discipline levels unheard of in the main Russian army.

But much of this is due to the fact that America's economy is around 12 times larger than the Russian economy, and we could afford to equip our men in such a fashion.

Russia would win a war if it went to war

Against who? They would have a tough time against China- and assuming no nuclear weapons are used it would be 1991 all over again if it attack NATO, don't forget Saddam had just as large of a army as Russia does today, and they where just as well (or should i say poorly?) equipped as Russia and they got hammed in 4 days and a 1 month air campaign.

I might write a lot more..I'm just not in the mood right now though- i lost about a hour and a half..

 

[unmerged(55468)]

Russian troops also go through extensive live-fire training, like a combat course, even their police do it
All countries do this, the west even uses laser training- kinda like high tech laser tag between two divisions.


then they have good equipment

Not really, Sergei Ivanov (Russia's defense minister) said "As a whole, the armed forces are only 75-80 percent equipped with fully functioning ammunition and technology, and of this, modern weapons makes up less than 20 percent."

"Russian forces are so poorly equipped they could not launch an offensive war"

Ivanov said lack of money, aging equipment and poor training in the air force meant crashes were frequent and not a single Russian air unit was fully operational.


consisting of the most prolific rifle in the world

It may work for gorilla combat, but the Western rifles- principle the M-16 has nearly double the effective range, its lighter, and more accurate, almost no recoil, and has been made in large numbers (although not the same numbers as the AK-47) but over 8 million is a lot- more then enough to equip NATO armies

Don't forget that they have a very large army to serve so giving them large amounts of training and equipment is impossible

But America has a even bigger army, and we manage to give our men modern weaponry, about triple the training, several times the pay, with the discipline levels unheard of in the main Russian army.

But much of this is due to the fact that America's economy is around 12 times larger than the Russian economy, and we could afford to equip our men in such a fashion.

Russia would win a war if it went to war

Against who? They would have a tough time against China- and assuming no nuclear weapons are used it would be 1991 all over again if it attack NATO, don't forget Saddam had just as large of a army as Russia does today, and they where just as well (or should i say poorly?) equipped as Russia and they got hammed in 4 days and a 1 month air campaign.

I agree with all thats been said here, the russian army had massive discipline and equipment problems, to the extent that they are hardly effective at all. The only wars russia would win are against the former soviet satellites, and they could lose to Ukraine if they did that.

off topic:

players of this mod might want to look at

http://pc.ign.com/articles/854/854061p1.html

seems about the same and may be good, downloading it now off fileplanet

 

[Radu]

I disagree with the lavish praise heaped on the M-16,Jade Rat. Its effective range isn't double than that of the AK-47, it is 500m much like the AK-47 and pretty much all assault rifles. Also, its controlability is mostly due to the fact that the M-16 is chambered with a 5.56mm bullet as opposed to the AK-47's 7.62mm. The older M-14 chambered with the NATO 7.62mm can be just as wild a buck when fired full-auto as the AK-47. The M-16's light weight is also due to the fact that it was quite simply a new design. The AK-47 traces its origins in the STG-44 thus as a design it is a late-WWII firearm and the use of wood in its construction is a dead giveaway.

This being said, M-16 vs AK-47 makes no sense as it is apples and oranges.Different designs from different eras. A more appropriate sparring partner for the M-16 is the AK-74 which is at least of similar caliber,namely 5.45mm and consequently shares the M-16s many advantages and disadvantages that result from using a smaller bullet. Not surprisingly the AK-74 is currently Russia's standard assault rifle,not the AK-47.

As for the US's "big" army,I hope you aren't counting the National Guard that is,in principle, a reserve force and by large has low readiness.

 

[unmerged(85800)]

isnt the russian army's standard issue the AN-94?

i had thought that as jade rat said the ak47 is not actually very good compared to other assualt rifles - the reason it is the most widely used gun is because its cheap and reliable, hence is used for gorilla warfare everywhere. to quote lord of war 'even a child can use it'.

i had also thought the m4 had replaced the m16 as the standard issue for the us army, though i may be wrong.

also what radu said about the m14: i was reading about this the other day-the m14 was never really adopted for long as a proper assualt rifle, because it was shit and kicked like a donkey in full auto, as it was basically an updated m1 garand.

 

[jade rat]

I disagree with the lavish praise heaped on the M-16,Jade Rat. Its effective range isn't double than that of the AK-47, it is 500m much like the AK-47 and pretty much all assault rifles. Also, its controlability is mostly due to the fact that the M-16 is chambered with a 5.56mm bullet as opposed to the AK-47's 7.62mm. The older M-14 chambered with the NATO 7.62mm can be just as wild a buck when fired full-auto as the AK-47. The M-16's light weight is also due to the fact that it was quite simply a new design. The AK-47 traces its origins in the STG-44 thus as a design it is a late-WWII firearm and the use of wood in its construction is a dead giveaway.

This being said, M-16 vs AK-47 makes no sense as it is apples and oranges.Different designs from different eras. A more appropriate sparring partner for the M-16 is the AK-74 which is at least of similar caliber,namely 5.45mm and consequently shares the M-16s many advantages and disadvantages that result from using a smaller bullet. Not surprisingly the AK-74 is currently Russia's standard assault rifle,not the AK-47.

As for the US's "big" army,I hope you aren't counting the National Guard that is,in principle, a reserve force and by large has low readiness.

I said nearly doubled effective range, the Ak-47 with it's big round only has a effective range of around 300-400 meters depending on wind, while the M-16 sports a smaller round with higher velocity making it effective at 550-600 meters The 500 meter range is that of the older M16A1, witch had a range of about 460-500 meters.

The smaller round has much to do with the recoil (or lack of) but much of it is also due to the incorporation of It's barrel being the same axis with the butt stock what prevents rifle from jerking after every shot. This greatly increases it's accuracy, especially on full auto.

I've seen the M-16 fired on full auto, and you can hit balloons at distance on full auto hitting the bottom row, but not upsetting a single balloon a few inches above- thats impossible for a AK-47 to do at the same distance, it's just as likely to hit the top balloons as the bottom- it's kick is a joke. The only time you could fire full auto would be about the same time you could think about using a bayonet.


It's not about giving a fair contest, because large chunks of Russian troops are still equipped with Ak-47s- i would have compared the Ak-74 with the M-16, but when the majority of Russian troops in 2003 where still equipped with Ak-47s you can't, it was not until Putin's military reforms that you saw infantry being upgraded to (in numbers) AK-74s and more T-90 MBTs in later years and modernizing the Soviet style conscript force into a more professional Western based military. Even so, the Russian reserves are not equipped with modern rifles, and even the main Russian army is lacking the means to fully equip it's men with the newer Ak-74s.

The US military consists of a total of about 2.8 million. 1.4 Million on active duty, and 1.4 million in reserve units such as the national guard.

The Russian military consists of 1 million active duty and about 1.8 million reserves (including half a million newly conscripted infantry)

The most you could possibly say is that the two forces break-off even (even though that new conscription force isn't even operational yet)

And only counting a deployed force America has around half a million more men then the Russian Federation does.

 

[jade rat]

isnt the russian army's standard issue the AN-94?

i had thought that as jade rat said the ak47 is not actually very good compared to other assualt rifles - the reason it is the most widely used gun is because its cheap and reliable, hence is used for gorilla warfare everywhere. to quote lord of war 'even a child can use it'.

i had also thought the m4 had replaced the m16 as the standard issue for the us army, though i may be wrong.

also what radu said about the m14: i was reading about this the other day-the m14 was never really adopted for long as a proper assualt rifle, because it was shit and kicked like a donkey in full auto, as it was basically an updated m1 garand.

The M-4 is really like the SU variant of the AK series- its a lot shorter- perfect for Urban combat, and tank crews, police forces etc.

Although the M-16 is about to get replaced with a computerized rifle in a few years. One of the programs got canceled though, but you should have seen it, the bullet had air burst capability- extreme range and was decently light.

I forget it's name though- the X-something i thought it was due to enter service in around 2012 but program costs put it back a few years.

Yeah, the M-14 was really a rushed update of the old WW2 rifle, the real winner was the AR-15 (M-16's granddad) a few years later. Although the M-14 is still used in Iraq when sniping and some door breaching ability is needed.


AN-94 is the main battle rifle of the Russian army, but because of equipment and cost problems only elite Russian units are using it. It looks pretty nice- even if it's effective range is still just as short as the AK74, it might make up for it in Urban combat with the possibility of that new 60 round mag box.

 

[Herbert West]

Would you take this discussion elsewhere? Or just simply shut your bloody damn gobs?

Thank you.

 

[unmerged(103362)]

Would you take this discussion elsewhere? Or just simply shut your bloody damn gobs?

Thank you.

Co-sign. People are trying to talk about the mod and you get these stupid discussions coming in.

 

[Pzt_Dragoon47]

Sorry, I was in speech and debate and I like argueing, but I'll stop. At least it was semi-relevent. How many new events will we be expecting in the new version? To me, some nations just seem a bit blank, including the major powers. And the 2008 election will be Obama and McCain thank god, so I think that that could be changed safely now.
I would be happy to give some ideas for events for the US, I say ideas because I haven't gotten that far in my modding skills yet, what little skills I have anyway .

 

[jade rat]

What are you talking about? It has everything to do with the mod- it was about the current state of the US and Russian military- witch are represented in the mod!

 

[unmerged(85800)]

i will for my part stop. but really, the only other posts that come in this thread are people saying 'how do i do this?' when its been answered twice already on the previous page.

we may have gone slightly too deeply into weapon stats, but its true it was relevant to a certain extent as we were discussing what each army should be like in the mod.

 

[Killerrabbit]

But don't forget, part of that cheapness is due to the cost of training, Russian training standards (excluding the Spenztnas witch are actually quite high) are poor compared to most European and American levels. The average solider in the West goes though about 14 weeks, with many advanced schools going as high as 54 weeks, with the price tag of about 50,000-100,000 per recruite trained (depending on what your MOS is)


While the Russian counterparts getting a average of i think 4 weeks, with little or no virtual training, and few live fire practices.

As well as pay, the recruiter told me i could get around 25,000 sign-on bonus (if the inventive stands for my MOS) plus additional pay when i pass a pre-fitness test.

I don't know how much the Russians get paid, but judging from its defense budget- i wouldn't say they get to much.

Small wages are the standard of drafted armies. Norway pays 5000-6000 $ annually to it's drafted soliders. (main bulk of the norwegean armed forces) Proffessional solidiers get paid about standard industrial wages.

You must not compare the wages from country to country, but russian millitary wages to russian civillian wages.


Okay, breaking the peace treaty here... You may discuss the standards of the world millitaries here, but not in a "Russia suxxz, UK rules - kind of way." The main point of a discussion would be to uncover their actual capabillities, not to convince the others that you're right.

Just one additional point here; The russian defence minister would not be an accurate source here, as that quote is traditional plead for more funding. Happens everywhere. (In USA they usually use overblown Iran and China threats as reasons to ask for more money, as the US forces being unequiped would indicate poor work on the part of the defence ministry)

 

[jade rat]

Small wages are the standard of drafted armies. Norway pays 5000-6000 $ annually to it's drafted soliders. (main bulk of the norwegean armed forces) Proffessional solidiers get paid about standard industrial wages.

You must not compare the wages from country to country, but russian millitary wages to russian civillian wages.


Okay, breaking the peace treaty here... You may discuss the standards of the world millitaries here, but not in a "Russia suxxz, UK rules - kind of way." The main point of a discussion would be to uncover their actual capabillities, not to convince the others that you're right.

Just one additional point here; The russian defence minister would not be an accurate source here, as that quote is traditional plead for more funding. Happens everywhere. (In USA they usually use overblown Iran and China threats as reasons to ask for more money, as the US forces being unequiped would indicate poor work on the part of the defence ministry)

When i talked to my recruiter- he told me i would be earning a few thousand more then the average US worker (when you count the housing, food etc. of course witch are provided for free) actually if i can find my folder i think i can give you whats all in it. I can't seem to find it, but i visited the site and it says you get about 21,000 when you become PFC, officers get 38,000

Then for allowances -wait i just found a good chart http://www.goarmy.com/assets/images/benefits/hd/h1_its_more_than_just_s.gif

I don't know how other countries determine pay, but since you are determining how professional a force is based on pay- the US army pays very well.

For collage (GI bill) you get around $58,000 for college after 4 years (assuming you join the GI bill) That you can use if your contract expires and you don't renew.

So for pay, your looking at around 100k with all benefits included, around 45k for pay and allowances for living costs, and around 21k for cash pay.

Of course like any job- your pay will determine on your path, how long you are in for (obviously a SGT gets paid for than a PFC).

Really, the cash pay alone is double what i got when i worked for Wal-mart- or the factory in Newark (Ohio) called the advocate and they didn't pay for housing, food, medical care (well walmart gave emergency services if necessary) But i really don't think you should decide based on pay alone, it's a factor but i think its a small contribution in deciding overall status of a army.

America's army had much smaller wages under Clinton (due to his military cuts), and it was just as powerful as it is today.


But i would severely disagree about the relevance and importance of Ivanov's comments, I'm sure he was trying to get more funding (as all defense ministers do) but he wasn't making up the statistics that the Russian army was inadequately equipped- most pro-Russian people agree that Russia is a shell of it's former self in terms of equipment, technology, readiness, organization and many other aspects of military capabilities.

Not to say Russia isn't still deadly, but they just aren't a true first class power on the level of the NATO countries anymore i think.

 

[jade rat]

Oops, bad link- use this one http://www.goarmy.com/benefits/total_compensation.jsp

 

[unmerged(55468)]

Back on topic please, the previous discussion was to demonstrate that the russian army should have much lower org rates then NATO armies (at least the main ones (e.g US, UK, FR, etc.)). It kind of got off topic though.

 

[Herbert West]

Whoa. After a year long nuclear armageddon (mostly done by me, the Us seemed intent on bombing 0IC 0 troop cities of mine), the new russian army, formed of nothing but Black Eagle tank divisions, steamrolled Europe and is now ready to jump across the channel as soon as I get some TPs on the way. The British Army is no more, as is thier airforce, the first having been bombed to death mostly by conventional means and the second having been nuked away in their bases. Hell, yeah!

Though I must figure, how many IBCMs do the US get? They seemed quite reluctant to nuke me after their first assault of abojt a month? Or does the fact that their base IC is now below 30 (I nuked every city with IC more than 4) mean that they dont waste IC on IBCMs anymore?

Nukes are great, as long as you drop them

 

[Morry]

Speaking of the mod, there is no "homepage" for this great mod? It would be great if there was a dedicated page for Scenario II. Atleast it's own forum would be nice, instead of a single post...

Oh, is there any information about when the next "update" for the mod is coming? Few "major" players (read; countries) have only few, if any leader pictures - Brazil, Iran and Russia to name but few. And, something for the developers; Russian mechanized infantry has pictures of BTRs all over them - wouldn't those pictures fit more to the basic motor rifle divisions (which now have truck pictures... instead of the more relevant BTRs...)?

Thanks for the great mod, once again!

 

[Herbert West]

I have an idea.

Could you include some events for post-nuclear war?

Like reconstructions of IC and infrastructure (huge material and MP cost), reduced org for non-protected divisions and increased for armoured ones, secret techs for ABC protected stuff, possible revolts (the us has now 20(!!!!) IC thanks to me, and still has not fallen to pieces despite almost all of California and Texas having rebelled).

I tried to simulate such conditions by only using arm and specs, and reconstructing nationwide, but some events would be nice.

Also, you should look at the thech years for the umanned aerial vechicle stuff, as the requirement TAC tech is from 2018, iirc, yet the first secret tech is billed at 2008.