Major Tom

My beef with U-571 is that they had a perfectly good story in U-505 which would have made a spectacular movie avoiding a lot of historical innacuracies. It was a totally US engagment, from what I have read about it, it would work VERY well as a movie-drama. Why did they have to take an event that the US had nothing to do with, when there was one sitting there, waiting for acknowledgement. I see it as much a sign of disrespect to the US Sailors who fought for U-505 as those Commonwealth who fought to sink U-571. Take 'Memphis Belle' for example. That movie generally followed history, using actual people from an actual event (it was their 2nd last mission, not their last mission which was really harry, but that is only a minor, inconsequential detail). It was specatularly raved, and was an interesting film. Nothing 'spectacular', like capturing a FW-190 happened, so little bits of fiction like who shot down what is more acceptable (since it happened a lot in war, so much that each individual plane shot down need not be totally accurate to history). The sole reason for it being a special event was that they were the first to survive 20-odd missions. The movie portrayed it without betraying any key historical event/fact.

Movies result in impressions on people. They aren't just thinks you take nothing away with. Many people said that after leaving SPR they felt in awe of actually experiencing what it was like to be there, movies DO have power of persuasion. CavScout, your claim about anti-Americanism is sort of unfounded. The sinking of the U-571, wether or not it was captured DID NOT involve the US at all. It did involve Australians and British. The capture of the U-505 did involve the US. It would be like having a movie portray the British fighting on Omaha beach and overcoming the obsticles, negating the bravery and initiative taken by the Americans. Has anyone complained that SPR and TRL were just about Americans?? Possibly about TRL taking its title from a British action during the Crimean War, but nobody complained that there were no Tommies or Canucks in SPR (because they weren't there!!), and if they did they had no basis. But as my last post states, WE might know that it is fiction, because being wargamers we are to a great extent historians. However, people who have no knowledge will come away from movies based on history with the assumption that it was generally true, with only diologue changed around to spiff up the plot. When I watch movies involving a lot of scientific stuff I don't catch many of the totally impossible things that are mentioned in the movie, and come to believe that they are possible (until informed by someone!). There was a Canadian made movie about Dieppe made not too long ago. It was subsidized by the Canadian Government so its quality was very high, but, it kept very well to the actual historic event. The characters were secondary to the plot, which is almost required when you create a film on an EVENT. I don't care wether or not the Germans attacked wrong in SPR, or the helmet buckles weren't the right type, what I do care about is the cheezy ending, which defied all sense of logic and denuded the visual reality of the rest of the movie by imposing a cliche. Unfortunately people still believe in these cliche's when the don't know otherwize.

Sometimes I am amazed at what people don't know. I had an argument with this girl who was upset that I said that the movie "Elizabeth" probably wasn't too good of an example to understand what Queen Elizabeth actually went through during her reign. Now, this girl wasn't an idiot (going to be a doctor, gets nothing lower than 90's in school) but just not versed in 'reality' and certain movies (ie. historical based movies). That Mel Gibson Scottish movie "Braveheart" got a lot of scottish friends of mine claiming that the scots were fighting for democracy, etc. after watching it because the movie was about freedom for scottish people (with the king being all benevolent, people getting more say, etc. which in reality it wasn't). This concept of treating TV and Movies as reality is an actual concern. Why else is there a movement to stop TV violence if everyone knows that it is all fiction? Eventually you start to 'believe' in what you are seeing to be real. When you take historical events, and put a serious fictional story to them people tend to believe it more than if you put in some wacky storyline, like an impression of the 1960's from watching "Austin Powers" (Albiet many people I know STILL see the 1960's as a time where EVERYONE was a hippy, from watching movies like this).

I wouldn't go so far as to call someone petty for defending what they believe should be the responsibility of movie makers. By your accounts no Americans took any direct part in capturing information from U-571, unlike the movie where they played the most important part. Just because he was off on the details doesn't mean that what he was trying to get across is utter garbage. Also, I might agree that it is impossible to get accurate historical context for every movie made (ie. 'Gladiator', etc..) but these movies have less of an impact on society than movies made within the past 200 years. Movies like 'The Patriot' and 'U-571' unduely glorify or defame people whose legacy is still prominent today. Americans played no active part in the U-571 escapade. The U-505, which WAS boarded by US sailors and still rests today in Chicago (I actually saw it!) was an intelligence bonanza. Why couldn't they have done this U-Boat instead of one that the US had nothing to do with? Unfortunately, I guess the story wasn't quite spectacular enough to warrant making of a movie (most of the US Sailors survive, they came from a Destroyer/Destroyer Escort, both ships survived, and it wasn't actually a calculated effort but more of a target of opportunity. Having it as a calculated plan in U-571 just makes the Allies look more clever than we actually were. Propaganda after 50 years!).

The problem with this, and many movies on different subjects, is, that they take a fictional event and place it in some form of reality. In comparison, the movie 'Mission to Mars' has a part where someone is looking at a rudamentary strand of human DNA and says 'that's human DNA!'. I have many friends in biological science who flipped stating that there was no way, looking at a DNA strand, that anyone could tell wether it was human, dog, or mosquitoe DNA. The problem that people take with these movies, is, that they portray reality (albiet disclaimers and all) in a fictional way, and many people just accept this fiction as reality because of the specific topic, which they generally do not have much experience on. Most people will leave U-571 thinking that what they saw, was on the most part, true. The makers of U-571 had the choice to make something based off of history, or to create a contemporary/futuristic theoretical possibility (ala 'Hunt for Red October' or 'Starship Troopers'). They chose to take something from history, and changed things around to fit the audience. The same thing happened to SPR to a much smaller extent. Wether or not they have a responsibility to history is what people are debating here. CavScout believes that there is no need for responsible portrayal of history, as, it is just a movie and fiction. However, others believe that it is almost as much a documentary as a movie. Of course, you could then demand such accuracy as in the movies 'The Patriot', 'Gladiator', 'Excalibur', etc.. all of which took history and severely warped it to tell a story.

I think that the only thing they did good in this movie was to show the discrepency between Allied and German tanks. Using the M24 was probably the best way to model the inferiority of their tanks to German tanks using the material at hand. One thing that got me, was the large fields, with no trees, looked like it was filmed somewhere in Texas.

The only problem I just though of, what will happen when the bunker gets knocked out? Those guys will still be peering out!

Really? Just going on my experience, most of my friends stopped FPS around the age of 19-20. Of course, does Mechwarrior 4 count as a FPS?

Wow, both 'regular' and 'extra-hidden'. I like the addition of the litte barrels, and the concrete looks great! Possibly on a future addition you could put a few faces in there? Or more realisticlaly, some scorching around the port because of the gunfire out? Maybe some bullet holes to make it look battered? What you have there looks great, just some extra ideas for some future alternate modifications!

I had Carrier's At War II (the expansion). Unfortuantely my disks died on me a little while back . Too bad that it is a few years after the warranty died! I worked with the Matrix Games on their recent Pacific War upgrade, and can say that they are too busy working on their 'Uncommon Valour' (dealing with the South Pacific like the game 'Carrier Strike') and 'War in the Pacific' (which is the entire war, like Pacific War, with a lot more detail). I really enjoyed Carriers at War, but, it looks like these two new games will cover what Carriers at War had (good graphics for its day as a wargame and fun gameplay) and beyond. I am pretty sure that there will be different settings for complexity in 'Uncommon Valour' and 'War in the Pacific', so you could get some of that 'Carriers at War' feel.

You should gloss up the tanks to simulate the Tanker's coating their AFV's in gasoline, as it's probably safer than keeping it in their fuel tanks.

I'd have to say that Rob/1/Sherman would probably have said something anti-American well before Maximus would have come by and said anyting. Maximus has had the recent opportunity to express some anti-Canadian propaganda but kept clear of it, while Rob/1/Sherman has decided to remain on the warpath and madly post whenever he can. Whatever his beliefs on Canada may well be doesn't matter, all that matters here is wether or not he respects BTS's rules of the forum. Which he has been. Regarding beach landings, like the external thread states, these battles would be a lot like an overwhelming attacker advancing accross an open field toward their enemy. Once they get to them, they are toast. Casualties were high for both sides, but, only at Omaha was the immediate tactical situation questioned at all by the Allies.

Looking at the clip that GB posted, it looks as if it is only a segment of a thought instead of an entire one. He says that it doesn't match up to what a first person shooter would like, and he agrees, but... then it cuts off. For all honesty, I believe that he was ready to write something like 'it doesn't need it' or 'as wargames go it is spectacular' and so on. You have to admit, for whatever reason, these graphics aren't utilizing the 'cutting edge' of 3D detail, smoothness or even computer processors. BTS stated that their market isn't like a FPS, which usually is of young children/teens who all have modern computers and upgrade every other month, but career individuals who have better things to spend their money on (school, mortgages, crack, etc...). If BTS decided to have a minimum requirement being a P500 when CM was first released then its 'graphical quality' would probably be a lot higher, and its target audience a lot smaller. However, since they wanted 'average' and 'sub-average' computers to be able to run the game when it was released 6 months ago (based on computers 1 year ago) it had to sacrifice something. When CM2 comes out, possibly speeds of P500's will be their target point. Sure, it won't compare exactly with FPS of that day, or probably not even with today's FPS but it will probably be better then the detail of CM1. Personally, I think that the AFV's are just about as good as anyone can get them. Trees as sprites work fine. The only possible improvements that I see (need is a bit too strong) are regarding extras like rubble, bushes, wheatfields and infantry. Eventually modelling down to the individual soldier in each squad/crew would add to the realism (this doesn't mean you get to use them individually, just see a squad for 12 men) HOWEVER, I do realise this won't be for a long while, most definitely not for CM2, probably not for CM3. Time will tell. Possbly there will be a great advancement, or a long stagnation of computer speed in the next few years?

Saying that one group won the war, is like saying that only the finger of a soldier won an engamgement. Sure, it pulled the trigger that killed the enemy, but the legs got it there, the eyes saw the target, the brain told the finger when to fire, and the arm braced the gun, among other things. Proportionally each Allied nation committed about the same amount to the war effort, some nations had a larger industrial base, but that does not mitigate the contribution of the smaller nations. America may have delt the death blow, but without UK, Russia, Canada, France, Belgium, Luxembourg, Norway, Holland, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, Greece, Poland, Denmark, China, Mexico, Brazil, India, South Africa, East Africa, West Africa and later Italy, Romania, Finland and Bulgaria (among other nations) America would not have got its chance. Rob, your hatred of Americans is unfounded. Being a Canadian you should in reality respect our southern neighbours what they could, and didn't do to us, and what they actually have done for us. To hate an entire group of diverse people purely based on a fictional barrier between our two nations is pretty ludicrous.

There are reasons why certain threads need closing. Those Vietnam ones certainly did, because they were inflamatory, even though I do disagree with CavScout virtually 100% (WolfLord, don't try to rehash old locked topics! GRR!) on this one, this isn't the time nor the place. However, bringing up other off topic things like the 'Pearl Harbor Movie' and 'Anyone here a Pacifist' are just asking for vastly different opinions and growth of the thread to be even further off topic. It would be best if all of these side topics, ala 'Best movie', 'worst movie' even the venerated 'Peng threads' would be removed ASAP they are just as off topic, and open to possibility of inflamatory remarks as a thread about Vietnam. Madmatt saw something that was about to burst open to something verbally abusive, in the 'Pacifist thread' he probably even left it too long (at least for my taste!). From what I read of everyone's post, there was a certain amount of truth in all of them. Stating that what someone wrote was trype is trying to attack their opinion without really addressing anything. You may not agree with what they say, but that doesn't mean that it is not true. Actually, the statements that I tend to agree with more are I/O Error's. They contained probably the greatest amount of truth in anything that I have read in a while. It was amazing that everyone (except Babra) jumped on him, stating that what he said was 'sacriledge' or something. [This message has been edited by Major Tom (edited 01-27-2001).]

50 000+ US Soldiers and 1 000 000+ Vietnamese. The terrorist attacks on the USS Cole, Pearl Harbor, USS Ruben James, Lusitania etc. is seen as cowardly by the US solely based on the fact that the US was the victim. The War of 1812, Guatemala, Bay of Pigs, Chilie, etc. were US terrorist attacks on other nations. Not seen quite as cowardly though... I wonder why...? I hope Ronald Regan felt some guilt over the Iran-Contra scandal. Not only did he give weapons to terrorists to win an election, but he broke the US Constitution in funding an illegal non-declared war to overthrow a democratically elected government. I have seen trailers for this movie, even barring the innacuracies of using Essex class CV's to represent the Akagi (probably), or these Burke Class whatevers trying to pass off as Cruisers/Battleships, from what I have seen of the romance and battle it portrays every US soldier and civilian as a hero, and ends with a happy raid on Tokyo so that people and Disney can leave happy reminding everyone what will happen if you dare anger the US. [This message has been edited by Major Tom (edited 01-26-2001).]

Since I have been called an anti-semite and ignorant for holding my views I think that I will quit posting in this thread. Holding a view different from the socially accepted or realistically practical may be wishfull thinking, but, doesn't deserve that I be deemed a racist or have no understanding how the world really works. What I state is not policy, nor is it really practical to implement, however, that doesn't mean what is in place should be seen as acceptable, or even optimal, but rather only as realistic. People are generally greedy, but that doesn't mean that greed should be accepted. What John and I are talking about is that the perception that the Western world is good, while everything else is evil (ie. Arab countries are all radically religious, which in reality they all AREN'T!) is not necessarily true. That people getting stomped on should, at at least, get what is happening to them acknowledged by the rest of the world, instead of them all being unfairly portrayed as evil unrelenting terrorists if they should dare rebel against the status quo.

Being insinuated at being an anti-semite just because I don't believe in all of Isreal's policies is pretty alarming. I never said that I agree with how Palestine, or the other arab states are handling the situation either, but, you just assume if I am against Isreal's policies I am for terrorist actions. Not so. I really don't see the harmony that you portray in Isreal through any of my classes taught by professors who were/are actually in contact with political and cultural leaders in both the Isreal and Palestinian camps. There has to be some reason for these killings of 'average' people on both sides to still be continuing. Yes, I know that both the US and Canada weren't very keen in massive Jewish immigrations. That is what I mean that it is too bad that they didn't come here. In my mind, neither the Palestinian's nor the Isreali's have shown that either of them have the moral right to live there. They are both doing that they deem neccessary, but it cannot be seen as being moral.

Unfortunately there is a difference that you haven't taken into account here. The Iroquois no longer live in the US, they live in Canada. The Palestinians live either in Isreal or were forcably dispersed to other countries. Your logic doesn't work. No where are we saying that these political leaders are victims, or that it was wrong for Isreal to defend itself when it was attacked. However, Isreal has done its share of attacking as well (Suez Crisis anyone!!). I am pretty sure that there are a few radical Jewish people in Isreal that are willing to exterminate all Palestinains just like the radical Palestinians are more than willing to kill all Jews. John and I aren't trying to elevate one over the other, we are just trying to put both in a realistic perspective instead of declaring whatever Isreal terrorists did to be ok and whatever Palestinain terrorists do is wrong. In my mind, both are/were wrong. You actually took the complete reverse argument for what we are stating. If we supported your post about giving back land (ala your Texas remark) to those who originally owned it then we would be supporting an all Jewish Isreal, not a new multinational state. I am fairly well versed in the goings on in Isreal, and most of what is called Isreal doesn't have a single Jewish person living there. It isn't a matter of giving back something taken, but a matter of recognizing that people who currently live there deserve to have some say in how they live their lives, to go and visit a relative down the street without having to go through checkpoints of what acts like an occupying army. What we are upset about is that this dispersal and land grabbing is CURRENTLY HAPPENING, not something which is long done. We stopped Serbia mistreating Albanians in Kosovo, why are we sitting back and letting Isreal do virtually the same thing to Palestinians? And they will remain poor, oppressed, mysoginist and under-educated if they stay in the un-funded and oppressive state that is Isreal today. I am pretty sure that many people who endured the holocaust and ill treatment in Europe would look upon the way how Isreal treats its 'minority' with contempt. Is your outlook on how the world should run, whoever win's win's and should be left at that? Gee, isn't it lucky that your nation never lost a war where they were faced with a crushing occupation? [This message has been edited by Major Tom (edited 01-25-2001).]

What probably would have been the best situation for the world after WWII was for the European Jewish population to emigrate to North America. I don't believe in using a historical connection to a piece of territory not really in your control (based on population) as a basis for deeming it your rightfull land. The same situation is taking place in Kosovo. Traditionally it was a key Serbian territory, now it is 90% Albanian, however, the Serbs were and are willing to shed blood over retaining it even though their claim could only be enforced by military power. Isreal is vaguely comparable to South African Apartaid (SP). The smaller population controlls most of the wealth, even virtually all of the ability to move within the nation. Palestinains are always suspected of being a terrorist, they are definitely 2nd Class citizens. There has to be a limit to what Isreal can use the 1940's Jewish holocaust to get away with. Many other nations of people were also virtually completely erradicated in other holocausts (Central American Amerindians, Armenians, etc...). Using this as a viable excuse to do whatever you want in the name of real or imagined fear will only serve to cause antagonism, and if they should ever lose this power, a lot of retribution. The main problem with the analogy of pushing away the gun is you are just taking one segment of history. Like as John said what happened immediately before the Palestinain gun was pointed at Isreal's head was left out. I still stand by my statement that no military, or government sponsored form of violence is morally good.

You aren't in contact with women too much, are you?

The problem is, is one nation's idea of freedom is not corresponding to every nation's idea. For example, ideas of individual or group freedom. They do not mix. Also, active and passive freedom. Some nations believe that freedom is only important to retain things you already have, while others see freedom as something that should be open for everyone to gain. For example, the freedom to not be taxed (Capitialist) vs. the freedom of having affordable health services (Socialist). There is NO commonly held notion of freedom, just propaganda. Also, the idea of freedom conflicts. Japan went to war in 1941 because they felt that their freedom/sovereignty was being threatened by the United states' economic embargo's and ultimatums, while the US went to war because their freedom was affected by direct attack. Both nations were trodding on eachother's impression of freedom, so, in a way, if freedom is the only excuse you need then both sides have a moral excuse. Isreal is a bad example. The Isrealis (SP) used violence against the British to achieve their freedom, and now condemn the Palestinians for using violence to attain theirs. Freedom for Isreal means no freedom for Palestine, just like freedom for Palestine means no freedom for Isreal. Using freedom as an excuse for one nation to wage warfare over another one is not the best example, since, one nation's freedom usually infringes on another. Disagreeing with one nation on the way they run things does not justify using military actions. The US dissagreed with the democratic elections in Chilie and Guatemala, started insurrections to place bruital dictators in their place. As I said earlier, I believe that no wars are good. They may be justified through necessity, but, cannot be labled as being good (ie. the ends cannot elevate the means).

I wouldn't say that I am a pacifisct. I would rather that there were never any wars on the planet, or that there never are (even though it would have resulted in no CM!). There is never a GOOD war, only a NECESSARY war. The problem with hardcore pacifiscts is that they think that there are just EVIL wars, and the problem with some militarists is that if their nation fights a war it is a GOOD war. I believe that for nations there exist only two types of wars, EVIL and NECESSARY. EVIL is when a nation is overly aggressive without a sufficient threat to their sovereignty to warrant war (ie. no immediate invasion, or economic strangulation resulting in deaths). NECESSARY war is when your nation is facing these prospects and the only way to assure that they will be avoided is through war. NECESSARY wars are also when ones neighbour (near or far) is experiencing the same thing and this state goes to war in their aid. Unfortunately, NECESSARY wars can overlap, where each nation is actually fighting a NECESSARY war. It comes down to a matter of realizing that in war there is no real good vs. evil, only politics vs. politics. Why did WWI erupt? Politics. Why did WWII erupt? Politics. Not saying that just politicians are to blame, but, politics are just a way of expressing the general will of a nation. [This message has been edited by Major Tom (edited 01-24-2001).]

I think it really does come down to truthfullness, but, then you can just about immediately see that it isn't a valley with rolling hills in the summer during the night. A topagraphic map will not give you much vital information that you don't already get through the description of the battlefield. Knowing that you are fighting in a village, with moderate hills and light tree cover at night will give you more information than a flat rendition. You won't say "since there is a house at position X I should exchange a weapon Y for a weapon Z to position in it...", or at least rarely and applies only to a small amount of your unit choices. You will not be able to see the actual lay of the land to correctly influence further purchases either. It all looks flat. Specific terrain variations of one type will rarely affect your unit purchasing. Rolling hills are rolling hills, some vehicles/troops are good for them, some aren't. Even still, it is only a matter of debate over OPTIMUM purchasing. You can still by the totally 'wrong' stuff for a specific map and come out winning. Knowing the makeup of your enemy force will be just about the only thing that will drastically affect your unit purchasing. And I don't think BTS is willing to work this one in

I joined (ie. started posting my wisdom) on 12/06/99 (MM/DD/YY). Luckilly enough I wasn't one of the wags who tried to mercilessly post dribble during the dark days of January and still have my original callsign. Ironically enough, 12/06/99 was also the last date that both Hiram and Germanboy have sent me a return PBEM.