nijis

Nope, Yemen's no paradise, unless you really, really enjoy chewing qat and recreational use of firearms. Not to knock either one, but I enjoy my industrial nation-style 70-plus life expectancy, I enjoy not having to worry about contracting polio, and I enjoy my citizenship in a country with a Bill of Rights. I tend to think that non-Western peoples could have taken what the West had to offer technologically and intellectually without having had their sovereignty compromised by a Western power, and would have been better off had they had that choice. Given that the Europe and its offshoots reshaped the political structure of just about every corner of the world at one point or another in the past 500 years, that's kind of a hard theory to test. Might have to agree to disagree on this one, too. As for bennies and strings, I am certainly glad to assimilate the intellectual and technical achievements of Steve and Charles, which have definitely improved the quality of my life, and I'm very happy to pay a fair market price for the privilege, but I'm not sure I want them knocking down the door and setting themselves up in my living room. I'll admit in advance that there's probably a couple of holes in the analogy. Cheers.

That's a big old "you're welcome" on behalf of Islamic civilization. Western textbooks certainly do acknowledge its role in preserving the classical corpus--but then most educated folks in Egypt do acknowledge that the West pioneered liberal democracy, and are glad that it did, even if the regime's school textbooks don't. I wasn't suggesting that everything started going downhill when the British showed up. Those Turks were indeed rascally. The British were the latest in a 2300-year sequence of conquerors, no worse (but not much better) than most. Like the British, Mohammed Ali built hospitals and irrigation systems. He also subjected the peasantry to forced labor and the lash. The Brits also built hospitals and irrigation systems, and they also used forced labor in nasty conditions, particularly during WWI. As for which Arab countries are best off today--well, that's a toughie, as the governments are all a pretty dismal lot. The least-colonized states are Oman, the Gulf states, Saudi, and Yemen. Saudi definitely adopted the least from Europe, but only exists because the British decided to cast in their lot the Al Sauds, a particularly brutal and backward family from the mid-desert, beat their rivals the Hashemites, who got Iraq and Jordan as a consolation prize. Of the folks without oil, Yemenis are generally dirt-poor and illiterate, but they are free of the day-to-day police state harassment you get in Syria, Iraq, Libya, Algeria, Tunisia and Egypt. Actually there's not much of a state in Yemen at all, which isn't necessarily a bad thing. Of the others, Jordan, which as a state is entirely a creation of the Brits, is a decent place to live if you're not too hung up on political rights. Iraq, which is also a creation of the Brits, is a disaster. Lebanon, a creation of France, is probably the most "Westernized" and economically advanced, but wasn't that much fun a place to be in ten years ago. Trying to make any sort of link between the well-being of a country and its history vis-a-vis the West is a tricky one. I'm just saying that direct colonial rule didn't do any favors for in Egypt.

All right, Mr. IV. I'm dragging this thread way off topic but I feel compelled to clarify a few points on Egypt's colonial history. Benign, benevolent.. Bah! The British appeared on the scene early, but didn't actually take over the place until 1882, when indigenous army officers revolted against the khedive, who I don't even think spoke Arabic, precisely because he was letting the Brits and French take over the economy to settle debts that the monarchy had run up on prestige products, including lots of European-style palaces plus the commissioning of the opera Aida, which are all very nice but of limited value to your average toiling fellah. One of the rebels' demands was a constitution. Unfortunately they were smashed by the British army at the battle of Tel Al Kebir. The Egyptians actually got a constitution after a massive popular uprising in 1919--except that the Brits forced them to retain the khedive (now dubbed a King) who would have power to dissolve parliament whenever it got too uppity. Sure, the parliament was copied from the British model, but it's not like the British copyrighted it. So I guess they could thank the Magna Carta crowd and Oliver Cromwell and Thomas Jefferson and the Chartists, but owe Disraeli and Victoria and Lord Cromer and Allenby a big pie in the face. Anyway, when's the last time anyone sent a thank-you card to the Arabs for preserving Greek philosophy through the Dark Ages? I think infrastructure vs. parliament was exactly the choice facing the early Egyptian nationalists--except they didn't have a choice, and were Maxim-gunned into accepting the former. And anyway, the khedives had shown that they were perfectly capable of paying foreign engineers to build stuff, and later rulers showed they were perfectly capable of conning the Soviets into building big dams, so it's not like the railroads would never have gotten built. And as for "Egypt" taking the Sudan, that was that Albanian adventurer Mohammed Ali again, with the Egyptians trudging along in the part of the hapless, dying-in-droves conscript foot soldiers. One could argue that the Brits took the Sudan over with the best of intentions--stopping the slave trade, for example--then managed to undo whatever good they did by forcing people who historically did not get along, at all, to live together in the same political entity. And as for "getting it all back under Mubarak," well, they still ain't got a real parliament here yet. And believe me, Mubarak could be worse, but he could be a whole lot better. Lots of folks here think that the only decent ruler they ever had was Saad Zaghlul, Egypt's first PM, forced to step down by High Commissioner Sir George "the natives' minds are unsettled by the hot winds of spring, so when I see the jacaranda trees in bloom I know it's time to call out the gunboats" Lloyd. But we can sell them stuff.

On "benevolent" British imperialism -- I live in a country, Egypt, where the British did indeed build the railroads. On the other hand, they on several occasions they screwed with the workings of what originally looked to be a very promising parliament--making the popular elected PM stand down or they'd bombard Alexandria, that kind of thing. As a result, it lost all its nationalist credibility, and the way was cleared for an army takeover which has led to half a century of military dictatorship which, among other things, does a piss-poor job of maintaining the railroads. This is a gross oversimplification--there's lots of reasons why Egypt has the government it does, most of which is the Egyptian elite's own fault--but the British didn't help things. If you've got a choice between infrastructure that gets old and has to be replaced, and your own indigenous political system which hopefully evolves and gets better, I think most nations would choose the latter. In places like India where they were in for the long haul you might find that the British left behind workable political institutions, but in Africa and the Middle East that's generally not so. Or Sudan -- the Brits decided to make a single political entity out of an Arab-Islamic north and a Christian-animist south whose main historical link was the slave trade. Go figure why this might not work out. Sudan's had 30 years of civil war since independence, with over 1.5 million dead. One of the best books on African politics that I've read is Wole Soyinka's autobiographical novel "The Pekelemes Years," on being a young subversive in Nigeria in the 1960s.

I'd thought doing zippy drive-bys was one of the things for which armored cars were designed. If it's not coordinated with an assault, for the express purpose of drawing fire a la Steel Panthers, that's one thing, but if he's simply going in at high speed to see what's there that seems a reasonable use of the unit. Where would you draw the line between gameyness and legitimate reconnaissance?

I don't know if flamethrowers were ever used historically as a terrain toaster, but it strikes me that denying the enemy the use of a particular house, or maybe even creating a barrier of burning woods between you and the general direction of attack aren't gamey. Taking advantage of the predictably 20 meter by 20 meter immobile square shape of the flame is definitely gamey. I wouldn't try the first tactic in a PBEM unless there's some consensus on the matter, though.

There's a great Finnish movie about the travails of a bicycle-mounted platoon in the Continuation War. A few unrealistic scenes at the end, but most of it is quite tense. The English title is The Ambush, the Finnish one is the Road to (someplace beginning with an R and followed by Ks and Hs and stuff). I'm definitely rooting for lots of two-wheeled and four-hoofed transport for CM2.

No CM yet in my end of Africa. Damned West. They give us McDonald's. They give us Backstreet Boys. They give us Marlboro. But do they give us CM? Well actually they will, because my card's been billed, hooray, but from previous experience I'm guessing another few weeks until arrival.

Actually, the link only works if you type it in without the period at the end. Anyway, I agree with you about BTS' decision to leave national characteristics out. National characteristics in ASL were mostly good for color, and in CM you get enough color with the uniforms and the voices. I'm particularly looking forward to the Finns in CM2, because my ihana Suomilainen wife has promised to give the game a spin if the little men shout cool things in Finnish.

"I, for one, really hope that they decide to implement some nationality distinctions. I know that you can scale experience pretty discretely, but there is more to nationality distinctions than a linear experience modifier." There's an excellent post from about a year ago on why BTS decided against ASL-style nationality distinctions (although some special treatment for the Russians is probably in order). It's http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/000556.html. Re updating the CM1 engine with CM2 so you can play Western Front battles with the latest version, I think that BTS already said they're going to do that.

Over here in the brand-conscious Middle East, Johnnie Walker is virtually the sole drink of the elite, just as Marlboro is the only cigarette. The presence of the ultrablack hues on the Johnnie Walker spectrum--Gold and Blue--usually indicates that there are Gulf royalty at the table. Of course, the true powers-that-be in General and Military Intelligence would only drink exotic Scottish brands to show off their MI6 connections, while the salt-of-the-earth types stick to Johnnle Watker's Black Table, Gacardi Rum, or Gordoon's Dry Din, all brought to you by Nile Distilleries for only $2 a bottle and only 10 percent methanol by volume.

Being a bit of a PBEM newbie myself, I've got a limited stock of genuine buttwhoop, but maybe I can pull some ersatz stuff out of the bag. I'll send a set-up, if you're interested.

Cossacks. Don't know if it was done in real life, but I'd like to try and execute a sabre charge against an 88 crew. Also little commissar HQ units that shout out inspiring slogans. [This message has been edited by nijis (edited 06-14-2000).]

Durruti, have you ever lived in a commune? It's a lot of fun, but in my experience you always have to revert to Robert's Rules of Order, that old constitutional liberal manifesto, for the tricky stuff.

Theory and ideology be damned. I have lived for eight years in a military dictatorship with socialist pretensions (admittedly a US-backed one), witnessed the ceaseless violence and humiliation inflicted by the security forces and police upon working class kids here, many of whom are my friends, and I feel confident in stating that there is no substitute for constitutional democracy. Get that first, and worry about who owns the means of production later. [This message has been edited by nijis (edited 06-14-2000).]

I pledge

Lurking since about November, I think. Ober summed up the Lurker's Manifesto rather well, I thought. Normally I would read that, nod, and move to another topic. However, in the name of Lurker Solidarity, I hereby acknowledge that I have read and do greatly appreciate this thread.

Mister Sabot, Don't know if you're full up yet, but if not, there's an incoming set up of the Germans in CE.

Just KO'ed the Panther with a 105 mm round in the last game of VoT I played. It was virtually the very last shell of the battery, too. It's probably just a coincidence, but I've noticed that FO's last ammo point is disproportionately lethal, accounting for probably about half of all my kills against dug-in anti-tank guns. [This message has been edited by nijis (edited 06-01-2000).]

Getting together the chutzpah to tell my meta-campaign brigade commander that by gum, I can't in good conscience send my men to force that causeway without at least another six Shermans and some naval gun support, and then waiting with baited breath for the next working day to see whether I'll be relieved or reinforced.

When having it out with your landlord, you expect the right to take argument planning breaks at one-minute intervals. You note the uncanny physical resemblance between your boss and Unt. Reifenstein, Stug commander. You note the uncanny physcial resemblance between yourself and Cpl Reilly, dogface. You console yourself by realizing that, while Unt. Reifenstein may have superior firepower and armor in this little engagement, he's ultimately going to lose the war. You fail to realize that this analogy does not hold in real life. Sitting in your car watching the Visiting Dignitary's motorcade whizz by, after having sat in sweltering heat for an hour because the security goons have shut down most of downtown for said Dignitary's convenience, you feel a strong twinge of envy towards German infantry for their ability to magically produce panzerfausts at moments of need. [This message has been edited by nijis (edited 05-25-2000).]

Sorry, double post [This message has been edited by nijis (edited 05-25-2000).]

A little itsy-bitsy explosion that could only have been a 60mm mortar shell disable the gun on my Tiger. Ever since, my philosophy on the proper use of artillery vs. armor is to just shell 'em and see what happens.

Spoiler for CE * * * * * In scenarios like CE where there's lots of open ground I find the best way to use infantry is to think of them as sort of force multiplier for the armor, at least in the early stages of the game. That is, to spot the enemy tanks, force them to button up, and screen the enemy infantry against doing the same so that when your armor ultimately engages theirs, it's on the best possible terms. Then, after you've resolved the armor battle, you can use your remaining armor to support your infantry in mopping up. However, I've only played the AI, so maybe this approach doesn't work against a human.

That's a great account. Thanks to Matt and Germanboy for bringing it up. One thing I thought was interesting was how skittish some of the tank crews were. I guess that's expected if you've got limited situational awareness and your vehicle's nickname is the Ronson. Was it common for armored vehicles to turn around and head for the rear at the first sign of an 88 in the vicinity? Anyone seen any unilateral tank withdrawals in CM? I get plenty of premature bailouts, which is frustrating, but then I'm reminded of the story of the Israeli halftrack which claimed that it had taken out a platoon of Syrian T-62s by making bong! bong! bong! noises on their hulls with a 50-calibre.