Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited


About Bromley

  • Rank
    Senior Member


  • Location
  1. Nice to see you admit the US's newbie status . On the religion front, the Middle East has moved on (haven't you heard?) and the latest in the line of prophets thinks you guys are behind the times. Are they saved? Like I said, your sect is very limited, both in geographical and number terms. That's not to say you're not powerful - you've got your guy into office in the last superpower. Heart of pride? You're almost alone in the world and yet you're the one saved. Now that's PRIDE . EDITED spelling [ August 12, 2007, 01:23 AM: Message edited by: Bromley ]
  2. It's a matter of faith. I choose to not have faith in the teaching of my childhood as, now I know better, I can see that if I was born in another part of the world my ancestors would have been just a sure of the supremacy of [insert god/belief system here]. That's a simple version, but imagine what someone who's a fundamenalist in a nice, western country would be like if he was born elsewhere. :Blinders off: .
  3. Well, assuming your lot are correct, I'd say he's pretty evil. Lets forget people in the past (and as your lot are a relatively new phenomenon, that's being more than fair). Lets be generous and say there are 100m of your sect of Christians today. That god is damning over 6 billion people alive today. The overwhelming majority of those are merely being faithful to their own god(s). A large number of those that aren't Christian even believe that it's the same god, in one form or another. Although they may have heard of Christianity, they won't have had a convincing case put to them to change. Even if they had, they'd convert to RC or possibly Anglican. In that context, I'd say the Cathars had it right .
  4. jon. Considering the all-powerful nature of your god, he's a little limited geographically. Who's saved - do you know how many of your type of Christians there are? I don't, but I'd guess we're talking tens of millions. He's a chronic underachiever.
  5. I was all for it at the time, just based on the logic position that we knew Saddam had had WMDs and so therefore he must have WMDs (oops ). What pissed me off was watching CNN sometime in the first few weeks of the invasion. Reporter: "Why are you here?" Young soldier: "To kick Saddam's ass for 911" Reporter: "Some people say he wasn't involved" It wasn't "some people". It was everyone, with one notable exception who had a conflict of interest ("he tried to kill my dad"). I stopped treating CNN as a reputable news source on that day. jon. Assuming the "they" in the suitcase nuke is a terrorist organisation, the chances have greatly increased since Iraq. We didn't have Western Islamic terrorists before then (sure we had jihadis, but at that point there wasn't much difference between them and the people who went to fight in Spain in 1936). Imagine what it's done for the cause over in countries where the coffee shop talk was already about killing Jews.
  6. arado. Actually the rogue state justification is a fairly decent one. Whether the increased risk of conflict with a non-rogue state outweighs the reduced risk from a rogue is a different matter. Either way, at least the rogue can't blackmail you. As you say though, it's just too easy to stick the bomb on a ship/plane/truck and drive it in.
  7. Expanding on what Timskorn says, the way to do it might be: 1. Subs are invisible. 2. There's a base chance that units/resources will spot them if they're within range. 3. That chance is modified by ASW, Sub tech, sub posture (silent or hunting). 4. If it's ship that spots them a surprise encounter is initiated. 5. I'm unsure about what to do with air. Maybe a surprise attack that doesn't reveal the location of the air unit? 6. The "pull" incentive to move subs closer to land might be an increased chance of convoy interception vs. hunting in the middle of the Atlantic. 7. Except for (6), convoy routes have to be kept as they are. Otherwise at this scale the sub hunt becomes either too involved or too difficult. You'd also need a rule to allow subs to move through occupied ports, othrwise Gibraltar could be blocked. Either that or you move the port and allow fortresses opportunity fire against surface ships.
  8. I think the point is that they'd have had little choice. Even if there had been a swing in public opinion when the UK fell, what could the US reasonably do? No army, no experience in combat, no experience in amphib landings (hell, no good base anymore where they can stage from). Remember that SC2 is extremely lenient, even after patching, with amphib operations (a product of the IgoUgo turns and no stacking rule). At the "best", you might have seen the US reinforcing the Monroe doctrine via gunboat diplomacy. And supplying Russia, naturally, although the Arctic convoys would now be impossible.
  9. I wonder if that photo is of the Yank, although that's what it says in the description. From the article: Whether there's just one gory goring or not, great photo .
  10. Japan didn't do too badly either . I've always believed that WW1 & WW2 are what allowed the US to leap ahead to superpower, but I couldn't find historic GDP data online to back that up. Although without those wars there likely wouldn't be a EU, so over time it may even out. Messianic stuff aside (and the >1m Jews still in Europe might be surprised to hear that they're not here - likewise the slightly-more-than-the-Jewish-population-of-Israel number that's in the US), it's only just hit home how many Jews were killed. Six million, purely as a number, is increasingly small in the modern world, but it was just under a third of the world population of Jews at the start of the war and just under half of the current population. [ July 14, 2007, 04:41 PM: Message edited by: Bromley ]
  11. Looks excellent . One possible logic problem with supply is well illustrated here. The Allies have isolated Siwah but there is no effect on the Axis assault through the desert. Of course Siwah should always have a base supply level, but perhaps it should be more like that scorched earth example that you gave (i.e. Tobruk supply level for the ongoing supply chain = 0 therefore Siwah reduces to 3). It'd be more noticable in the West, but even here the Axis supply level at the gates of Cairo drops from 2 to 0. That would encourage the Axis to leave screening forces to prevent the Allies marching on Tobruk, in this case preventing possible misuse of the southern route. The main effect though would be to make the supply system more visually logical. Either way though, great additions!
  12. Some scripts were added a couple of patches ago to spice up the game against the AI. Just wait until Il Duce drags you into Greece with no warning . ; US War Entry: ; Historical date of event was 1941/12/11 { #NAME= USA Joins The Allies (25% - Allied AI) #POPUP= Germany Declares War On USA #FLAG= 1 #TYPE= 0 #AI= 2 #COUNTRY_ID= 3 ;Set US war entry #TRIGGER= 25 #ALIGNMENT= 2 #DATE= 1941/12/11 ;Germany politically aligned with Axis and not surrendered #VARIABLE_CONDITION= 5 [1] [100] [0]
  13. No difference. Rockets are the only unit where that happens.
  • Create New...