Sgt Joch

There is still no conclusive data which shows a direct link between playing violent video games and being violent in real life. Here is just one example: http://www.csun.edu/japanese/papers/10_games.html

There is a subtle difference in approach. The current approach is based on winning the active support of the population, to shrivel up the supply of recruits and supply to the insurgency, which is straight out of the COIN playbook. The approach in Vietnam was completely the opposite. The whole aim of the strategic hamlet program was to regroup the civilian population to make it easier to identify and kill insurgents. One of the problems in Vietnam was that it was basically impossible for Americans to tell who was a civilian and who was a VC. Under the program, in an area where you might have, say 20 villages in a given area, all of the population was moved to one central village where the population was monitered and basically locked up at night. The thinking was that anyone outside the village at night was a VC which would allow the US to turn the entire area into a free fire zone. Gaining the support of the population was not the aim of the program and the program in fact alienated large segment of the peasant population subjected to it. My comment is just that we have to be careful not to fall into historical determinism, i.e. "the US lost in Vietnam, therefore it was unwinnable", or "the USSR lost Afghanistan, therefore it is unwinnable by NATO". History is not carved in stone and it is not preordained that NATO will lose in Afghanistan. I will agree though that the current strategy is not working and unless there is a serious commitment by NATO (which probably will not happen), the war is probably unwinnable.

Again, not to unduly pick on BD, but the parallel is not quite accurate, providing security from the insurgents is a key part of a successful counter-insurgency strategy and was the impetus behind the "surge" strategy in Iraq in 2007. Of course, that works to the extent that villagers are kept in their own homes and can continue carrying on their normal life. In Vietnam, the "strategic hamlet" concept was carried out in a totally ham-fisted way. Villagers were forced to relocate to these new villages, usually in poorer, smaller housing, often losing their ancestral homes, lands and posessions which were torched to deny them to the VC. Their movements in and out of the villages were strictly controlled, to prevent infiltration by the VC. The "strategic hamlets" were viewed by the local population as prison camps, which is in fact what they were, and fostered resentment more than anything else. oh, and the Vietnam war was not unwinnable, by the summer of 68, even with their ham-fisted methods, US forces had managed to gut the local vietcong forces and they could only be sustained by a massive influx of cadres from the north. Even then, the "insurgency" was too weakened to topple the Saigon regime, the final blow was struck by conventional NVA forces, including tanks, which carried out a conventional invasion from the north. The first invasion in 72 was defeated by US air power, but the one in 74-75 succeeded, since US forces did not intervene. The US "lost" Vietnam, not because the war was unwinnable, but because by the summer of 68, the US government had lost the support of US public opinion which was no longer willing to pay the price required to win the war. That is the parallel with Afghanistan, the war is not unwinnable per se, but the Taliban is betting that western governments are not willing to pay the price in casualties and money to have a real shot at winning.

Vietnam is not a good parallel. Military and political leaders in Vietnam based their decisions, not on the Malay insurgency (what do the brits know? ), but on the Korean War where they had defeated an invasion from North Korea and kept South Korea "free". The top brass analysed the war in purely conventional terms, as an invasion from the north and based their strategy purely in terms of defeating NVA/vietcong forces(i.e. "Kill ratio"). Lip service was paid to winning over the population ("hearts and mind"), but no one in power really believed in it. The situation now is different since the NATO forces on the ground are well versed in counter-insurgency theory and know that is the only way they can possibly win. The problem is not lack of knowledge, but lack of resources to have a significant impact.

its a new change/tweak to the fatigue model for infantry, as listed in the patch notes:

Thomm, I also personally think the airport level is in poor taste, but to me, turning it into a legal/criminal issue is not the solution. To begin with, I am certain it is impossible to ban the game in the United States and probably Canada as well, because of the freedom of expression rights inscribed in our respective constitutions. Secondly, If you ban the game, where do you then draw the line? I can think of shows like "24" and many movies which had similar plot lines, should they be banned as well? Banning cultural works (and I consider a PC/video game to be on the same cultural level as a TV show/movie/book) is a very slippery slope and should only be used in the most extreme circumstances. For example, all western societies now agree that child pornography is criminal and is not protected by the "freedom of speech" clause. But more importantly, I see this as more of a parental responsibility to oversee what your children are exposed to and how it affects their upbringing. I certainly would not buy this game for a 8-10 year old, but I dont see a problem if someone 17 or older plays it.

here you go...

One thing to keep in mind is that the in-game capabilities of Syrian artillery in 1.21 is probably better than real life. BFC really gave the Red side the benefit of the doubt. Syrian Special Forces, which are the elite of the Syrian Army, have been steadily decreasing in capability since the collapse of the Soviet Union: http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htsf/articles/20090528.aspx the situation in the regular syrian army can only be worse.

I do not know if that would do any good. In this information age, teenagers have access to unlimited amount of sex and violence in movies, internet, etc. I dont see how banning one game would have any effect. My son who is now 19, played GTA with all his friends for a few months, mostly because of the controversy and because parents did not like it. I know he, like every plugged in teenager out there, has been exposed to at least 100-1,000 times the images of sex and violence I ever saw when I was his age, yet he and his friends dont seem any more screwed up than I and my friends were at 19. I see the "controversy" as much more a marketing ploy by the publisher to get publicity for its game.

MeatEtr, its called capitalism. If they can get consumers to pay what they want to charge, more power to them. If players do not like the conditions, just dont buy the game. I personally never got hooked on the CoD series. Tried the first CoD modern warfare demo, but its too much a linear FPS for my taste.

Traded in my old 8800GT for a brand new 4890, no issues whatsoever, no crashes, visual quality is excellent. This is with XP. it also solved two annoying issues with Nvidia drivers: #1. reflections on certain tanks at certain time rendered as a solid white stripe. This issue has been there forever in NVIDIA drivers, but is not there in catalyst 9.10. #2. night lighting is screwed up in NVIDIA drivers 190xx and newer. Again, no issue with catalyst 9.10. As an added bonus, CMBB is as nice on the 4890, since I now have FOG! I also noticed an improvement in visual quality, looking at open terrain at a medium/long distance on the 8800gt always had an annoying shimmering efect. That issue is not there with the 4890. As a further added bonus, 4890/4870 cards are dirt cheap now that the 5800 series came out...

avalon hill had a WW1 game called "1914". I still have it, bought it in the '70s. surprisingly, it also has its own wiki page, even though it's been out of print for 35 years. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1914_(game))

luv it, when can I pre-order?

Is this a scenario that came with the British module? ( perhaps our game revolving around a Bank ) . I had the same issue with "It aint Half Hot Mum", apparently it is caused by using an older version of the TO&E that what was released with 1.20 final. Beta Testers design scenarios while the module is going through changes and we won't necessarily rip out and replace ALL the units whenever a minor TO&E change is made. Normally this should not cause an issue, but this is apparently a result of that mismatch. The remaining soldiers are there but "hidden" in the interface. As far as I can see, it has no impact on the game. This should not be a problem for scenarios designed from the ground up after 1.20 came out.

there was a good article on IEDs in Afghanistan a few months ago: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/15/world/asia/15ied.html?_r=1

Running CMSF on a DELL 27" LCD monitor at 1920x1200 with no issues. CMSF supports widescreen resolutions. Also have XP. Upgraded last year from a 22" CRT. The visual improvement on the new monitor was well worth it.

I want "near future" as well, but would like to choose a year which is slightly beyond when we will be playing. Playing CMSF in 2009 when it is supposed to be set in 2008 requires a greater suspension of disbelief than if it was set in, say, 2013. Realistically, and this is pure speculation on my part, CMSF2 will probably come out in 2012. If we assume it will have a lifespan of 4 years, then choosing a conflict set in, say 2017-2019 is probably ideal. Its far enough away that it is in the future, but near enough so that all the weapons which will be used either currently exist or are already being designed.

I would personally prefer a future 2015-2025 conflict between NATO and Russia and/or China in a temperate environment, rather than some fictional 1980's fulda gap alternate universe, although I would play both. If we do go back to the past, I would rather have a real war, like the Ramadan War, 1973.

what about penguins? we need some penguins in CM.

From what I recall "To the Volga" was released more as an example of what the game engine could achieve. The issue with that OP is the large number of units to be handled by the CPU. CMx1 or CMx2 are not programmed for Dual Cores. Having said that, I am surprised you can not run it. I have a Duo Core E6750, 2.66 GHZ, but not that much more powerful than yours and I can run "To the Volga" with decent frame rates. As Kingfish mentinoed, try setting the graphical settings to the lowest to see if that helps.

That was always one of my pet peeves about CMBB/CMAK, the vehicle pathfinding is dumb as rock and requires endless micromanagement. As DT mentioned, you have to micromanage the path of each vehicles, allow adequate spacing, make sure all the delays are timed properly. Also, don't try to get overly fancy and leave a good safety factor, since one wrong move/glitch can throw all your vehicles into a huge traffic jam. That is one aspect of CMx2 I really enjoy, vehicle pathfinding is much more intelligent and intuitive. Not perfect, but it requires much fewer mouse clicks than in CMx1 and you dont have to worry about your cross country movement turning into a demolition derby..

for once, we are totally in agreement.

I, along with most canadians were deeply saddened by the events of 9/11. You have to be pretty disturbed to celebrate the death of almost 3,000 innocent people. I went to the WTC on business in may 2001, do you think I deserve to die too?

I am always surprised to see that type of comment on this board. That is a comment I would expect from a member of the general public who gets all his knowledge of modern weapons from watching Hollywood movies. Any serious student of history knows that U.S/coalition victories against Iraq in 1991 and 2003 or the Israeli victories in 1967 and 1973 were the result of the proper application of combined arms warfare by a properly trained army, not because of some supposed uber weapons in the american arsenal. Its the same reasons why the Germans won in 1939-42 or the Allies in 1943-45. The same thing aplies in CMSF, you apply proper combined arms tactics, you stand a decent chance of winning, if you don't, then you lose. If someone really thinks the Blue forces can just steamroll over the map at will, I would love to play them a PBEM game as the Red commander.

In my case, I have always been interested in cold war/modern conflicts and especially middle-eastern wars, so making the commitment to CMSF was easy. I understand your dilemna, seriously getting into a hard core, realistic simulation with the depth that CMSF has, requires a high level of commitment. Like chess, learning the basic rules of how to play CMSF is fairly easy, but learning the intricacies of what are the most effective strategies and tactics can easily take hundreds of hours of gameplay to master. Those that do, like myself and many others, have discovered an engrossing, fascinating sim which holds my interest much more than CMx1 ever did (and I still play CMBB PBEM regularly). Of course, the basic interest has to be there. If you have no interest in modern warfare and only play CMSF once in a blue moon, you will find it frustating and you will not enjoy it. After all, it is only a game, not a religion, you are not required to like it or play it. As an analogy, quite a few years back, I was very much into flight sims and can remember spending probably hundreds of hours learning all the systems in Falcon 4 and Jane's F/A-18 (including many, many hours just practising carrier traps) so I could play these games effectively. The new standard in combat flight sims is now DCS Black Shark, but I have no intention to even look at it since I now have zero interest in flight sims.