Sgt Joch

don't get ahead of yourself, the Habs are still alive....

I rewatched Quantum of Solace again. I personally like it better than Casino Royale, probably because it is tighter and does not slow down, as CR did with the poker game. It is a quality action movie, about on par with Bourne Ultimatum. Both are very good with top notch action scenes, it was interesting to see that a lot of the action scenes, like the foot race through the tunnels and rooftops of Siena were shot on location. Daniel Craig actually did jump off roofs and onto a bus (albeit with a wire). The question of which is better is probably a matter of personal taste. QS is more over the top than Ultimatum, but both are a stretch on reality. The strange thing about QS though is that even though it is professionnally done and I can't find a flaw in it as a Bond/action flick, it is not engaging on an emotional level. Part of that may be because Daniel Craig plays Bond as such a cold, ruthless SOB. It is probably realistic for a hired assassin, which is basically what Bond is, and in keeping with the revenge motif, but it certainly does not turn him into a sympathetic character. Matt Damon was able to play Bourne as a trained assassin and still keep the character sympathetic and vulnerable. Of course, this could be chalked up to character motivation. Bourne has quit the program and is trying to atone for his past sins while Bond is still very much part of the system...then again, maybe I am just trying to read too much into two action movies which were solely designed to appeal to as many young males as posible...

About the Palmer series: "Ipcress Files" was brilliant, although the rest of the series veered too much into Bond fantasyland. Ronin was vastly underappreciated. It had good story, actors, acting, action scenes.The car chase through Paris is a classic. Bourne will probably fall into the same trap as Bond. They should have called it quits after Ultimatum which wrapped up all the loose ends, but there is a 4th one on the way.

I picked up the DVD for the latest Bond outing, Quantum of Solace. It's a good, competent Bond with lots of action. Not necessarily the best Bond ever, but certainly one of the better efforts. However, I was struck by the persistent influence of the Bourne series in the action scenes, camera work, editing, even part of the storyline. Not a surprising development since the producers hired many of the persons who worked on Bourne Ultimatum to work on this movie. The 60's era Bond films were cutting edge action flicks which redefined the entire action genre. I am a huge fan of the Sean Connery Bond films, but the series clearly lost its focus and momentum over the decades. The last two Craig helmed flicks have brought the franchise solidly back into the action genre, however the series is no longer the cutting edge, push the enveloppe spy\action series it once was, I would say that crown now lays with the Bourne series. As good as Quantum of Solace is, it tries a bit too much to be a clone of Bourne Ultimatum without being as good as the original.

thanks for all the suggestions.

I second that...

thanks, I presume these are all on CMMODS?

Can anyone suggest some good balanced and interesting PBEM suitable scenarios, preferably Blue v. Red, but also Blue v. Blue or Red v. Red. I just finished two back to back PBEM games with one of my regular opponents and the story is pretty much the same: Red player hangs on to dear life while the Blue player steamrolls over him.

...puts my little computer playing to shame... http://travel.nytimes.com/2009/02/27/travel/escapes/27Reenact.html

nice video, the map looks very interesting as well.

lots of news today: 1. its coming... Iran to Begin Tests at Nuclear Station It is interesting that Russia, which has a front row seat, has no qualms about actively helping Iran. Of course, Russia saw a long time ago the opportunity to extend its influence into Iran...and make some fast bucks on the side. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/26/world/middleeast/26iran.html?ref=world 2. its coming, the sequel... Syria Discloses Missile Facility, Europeans Say more evidence that the facility bombed by Israel in 2007 may have been a possible nuclear reactor. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/25/world/middleeast/25syria.html?ref=world

to be fair, I can't say I totally disagree with Runyan99. If Canada or Australia decided they wanted to develop nuclear weapons, no one (except maybe Quebeckers and Kiwis ) would be worried they would be used. With Iran, as with north Korea, there is always a doubt as to their ultimate purpose. However, this is not the first time this debate has come up. If you dig through the archives, you can see the same debate about pre-emptive strikes in 1964 about China and 1985 about Pakistan. Stalin's USSR in 1949 and Mao's China in 1964 were arguably more radical and more of a threat than Iran in 2009, but I can't say the thought of Iran having nukes gives me a warm and cosy feeling...

DT hits the nail on the head. No one wants Iran to have nukes. However, if Iran really wants nukes, the only way to stop them is by full scale invasion and occupation. Assassinations or air strikes may delay the program but it wont stop it. Everyone is looking at tea leaves trying to determine iran's intentions. If you look at Iran's actions since 79, it has acted as a rational nation state taking actions which are in its best interests. Of course, those interests often clash with those of israel and the USA, but that is the nature of power politics. There is no compelling smoking gun which leads the world to believe that like Stalin's USSR in 49 or Mao's China in 64, it will not use its nukes solely for self-defense and to enhance its prestige and position in the region. Obviously, if the world was convinced that Iran is an irrational regime like hitler's germany and that it would launch nuclear strikes against Israel or give nukes to terrorists as soon as it has them, the choice would be easy and coalition troops would already be massing on the frontier. But without that evidence, nothing concrete will be done to stop Iran and everyone will just cross their fingers and hope they have assessed the situation correctly.

The big problem is the Israeli nukes. Iran is increasingly becoming a major player in the ME, it does not feel comfortable knowing Israeli nukes are mere minutes away from delivery. Furthermore. Notwithstanding the legitimate security concerns of Israel, the increasing saber rattling coming from Tel Aviv will certainly not reassure Teheran. Much like the USSR after WW2, Iran will not feel comfortable unless it has its own nukes so there is a collision coming between Israel and Iran. Whether it will be a balance of terror, like the Cold War or degenarate into a hot war, only time will tell. I am very interested to see what President Obama will do to ease the tension.

the view of Stalin as a psychopath is gross exaggeration. He was a smart politician who did what had to be done to survive. He did not mindlessly kill people unless there was a reason. Remember, he was a Georgian, from a poor background who rose to become leader of the USSR. He knew that he would always be looked down to by the traditional Russian ruling classes. Yes, during the purges of 35-38, an estimated 1,000, 000 people disappeared, about half of which were killed outright and the other half sent to camps. The major purpose, from Stalin's point of view, was to get rid of any one who could be a potential threat. He was very suspicious of any potential political opponent, certainly bordering on paranoia. In 41-45, his relationship with the people working around him, military officers, politicians, staff member was professional. He did not threathen to shoot people who did not agree with him. I was surprised to find out that many generals had no qualms about arguing with Stalin if they thought their position was correct and Stalin had no problem changing his mind if he realized he was wrong. In fact, he seems to have respected people who stood up to him, as long as it was done in a respectful manner and the person had a well thought out argument. Zhukov often disagreed and argued with Stalin, sometimes to the point where Stalin lost his temper, but if did not affect their relationship during the war. Stalin himself though never did the dirty work. If he wanted someone eliminated or discredited, he would give the order to a staff member. In due time, the target would be arrested with the charge and the evidence being tailored whether Stalin wanted him or her killed or just jailed for a few months or years.

Stalin had a fairly hands on style. He chose competent people and let them do their job, but he kept a close eye on their performance and intervened when he deemed it necessary. With the military, he initially tried to take direct control which led to some disastrous mistakes in the summer of 41, the winter offensive of 41-42 and Kharkov in may 42. However, he was smart enough to realize his limitations and for the rest of the war was content to leave his generals in charge. He still took an active role in all discussions, but accepted their decisions even when he disagreed with them, as with the retreat to stalingrad in the summer of 42 and the defensive strategy at Kursk in 43. He would often also bypass the chain of command and directly call battlefield commanders sometimes down to the regimental level (as he did during Kursk) to find out first hand what was going on and impress on that particular officer how important his mission was, although he never issued direct orders. He was very smart about managing people and encouraging discussions and not letting his ego get in the way. One good example is his relationship with Zhukov who was brilliant but short tempered. Stalin relied on him and worked him mercilessly to the point where Zhukov would periodically blow up and chew out Stalin for his impossible demands. Stalin's usual response was to calm him down, tell him how valuable he was, take the pressure off for a few days...and then go back to piling on as much work and pressure as before. He also took a very hands on role in managing the war effort and making sure everything worked as it should. Part of it was placing competent people in charge. For example, Beria, who is best remembered for his role as head of the NKVD, but who was also one of the most brillant and ruthless member of the Poliburo was put in charge of armaments which was one of the most important job. But he also intervened in much smaller issues. Early in the war, a group of pilots wrote to Comrade Stalin about the quality of paint on their aircraft, which peeled off at high speed. Stalin summoned the plant manager to his office and met him with the sample the pilots had sent him. The plant manager was understandibly nervous, but explained that the plant could not get all the chemicals required to produce quality paints. The Plant manager kept his job and the plant's supply problems were resoved in a few days. Stalin was also a notoriously hard worker who would often hold meetings in his office as late as 2 or 3 a.m. and would often even sleep in his office at the Kremlin, although he started to ease up towards the end of the war after it was clear the Allies were winning.

Stalin visited the front once in early 42, but never got closer than 30-40 miles, personally bravery was not his strong suit. There is a story that on the way, he felt the call of nature and the motorcade stopped, but no one on board knew if the sides of the road were clear of mines, so Stalin took a crap in the middle of the road in front of his entourage. They went back to moscow shortly after... This is apparently a true story, but I don't think it ever appeared in Pravda....

and yet another twist... from the Telegraph: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/israel/4640052/Israel-launches-covert-war-against-Iran.html I don't know if it is true or not, but assassination is certainly less public than an air strike...but the question remains, do the ends justify the means...

Careful Steve, you could get arrested up here for badmouthing Céline... By the way, I hope we will use real english-canadian voices (with a few choice french curse words) in this module rather than Yankee voices as in CMAK...

Lethaface, I was going through the screenshots and realized it is a scenario I designed, glad to see it is being played...did you notice the minefield... Back to "House Cleaning", I checked it out and there are some minor anomalies which I will raise, although if you check the scenario editor, you will see there is a ridge in front of the blue setup zones which accounts for most of the blocked LOS.

Based on the screenshot, it looks like the soldiers are on the reverse side of a slope. Since CMSF calculates LOS from 5 different height levels, it is entirely possible that LOS could be blocked for soldiers in a prone position. Is LOS also blocked if they are kneeling, standing up or if a vehicle is in that spot?

We checked out the game file you uploaded. As Steve stated, it is not a bug, only an unfortunate by-product of using 8 meter action spots.

No one (except Iranians) wants Iran to have the Bomb, but on the other hand no one (except maybe Israel) is willing to go to war to stop them.

Actually Steve, based on the "official" feature list circulated by Moon earlier, we know exactly what the Normandy game will be like...

damn, blindsided by the Guardian.....Of course, it does not have the same amount of details as the report in the Times...