Londoner

My my Mr C, I've never "seen" you so animated, how novel! That's amazingly insightful of your sir. Your liberal application of bastardised Clausewitzian Realpolitik doesn't exactly fill me with confidence either. Oh so now we're not suggesting such a venture is central to Chinese foreign policy or in your rather garbled words - "not a terribly remote contingency", it's merely an "option". IIRC the US in the not too distant past made contingency plans for every concievable war, even one with the U.K.! And there is real (if admittedly slow) progress is there not? So shock horror, the red menace isn't such an imminent threat as you first suggested? Fairly useless reference. You can't compare global trade in 1914 to the ever increasing interdependence we see today. I certainly wouldn't label myself a pacifist however in contrast to your good self I heartily understand why you'd make such utterances. Of course Iran's nuclear capability is an increasingly worrying issue, arguing that the only way of dealing with it is a prompt invasion and occupation is frankly thick headed. Which wasn't the US intention now was it! The Bush administration obviously did not intend or forsee a medium term destabilisation of the region. I imagine they thought they'd be saying job done by the summer/fall of 2007, handing over the keys to an effective Iraqi government. I heartily agree. Aside from the fact that there were particularly bitter periods in the Irish troubles that most commentators would refer to as a counter insurgency (with not dissimilar issues that we're seeing in Iraq today, ableit on a much smaller scale), waving, giving kids sweets and donning berets will not solve current problems. At the risk of sounding like an arrogant Westerner, in my humble opinion I don't think the Middle East is ready for democracy. Secular government simply will not work IMHO, even in 2007. Christ, only 10-15 percent of western literature has been translated into Arabic! The cult of the strongman still holds sway, even in moderate circles. The niave idea that we can go in, kick ass, chew bubble gum and give Muslims the gift of democracy is utterly stupid and not a little bit arrogant. Here lies the rub. This is why all the might in the world will never work against a determined, motivated counter insurgency that has at least a modicum of popular support. Can you not take off those blinkers and see this? Long term change is never going to be decided by how many damned M1s you deploy! This is what your lot said about Iraq, that fragmented, wretched place now stands on the cusp of civil war. Erm, exiles, arming the populace (how many AK47s did you recently declare as "lost" btw?), subsidies, agents, USAF at their beck n call, all this doesn't sound too different from strategies used in Iraq. After four years the numbers of effective Iraqi combat units is what 2-3 Battalions no? So neat and tidy. You've got it all figured out. Haha and I suppose your offering is going to return Bambi to her grass munching fields, or at the very least offer her a resettlement program. After we blast and occupy Iran (and whoever comes into your scopes next), apart from a couple of loose ends the "War on Terror", state sponsored or otherwise, is all over. I'll take my chances and hold fire for the moment thanks JC.

Your ilk has been peddling this tired argument for decades. Obviously China has an interest in its own sphere of influence, what country doesn't. Even if she decided on "reclaiming" Taiwan, to suggest that emboldened, she'd embark on a grandiose new wave of Imperialism and/or brinkmanship in the nuclear age is at best ambiguous. The idea that China wants, or is seriously gearing up for a trade war with the West, with the strides she's made towards internationalism (not to mention the reulting benefits) over the last thirty years is plain silly. You're living in a political vacuum. Heck why not just nuke 'em? No seriously, using your train of thought is this not a viable idea? No Iranian nuclear threat, no expensive deployment/war funded by the US taxpayer, no even more costly occupation, no more troubles in Iraq. You might even be able to argue that civilian deaths wouldn't be any more than a conventional invasion and five-ten year occupation! I guess your only real problem would be getting your mitts on all that oil and natural gas in a nuclear environment. On the other hand lets not forget that would take away your AARs and "lessons learnt" for building the next gen of weapons platforms, not to mention the fun factor of you watching all those brave lads in that heavy armour thundering across desert landscapes past burning Iranian armour with a thumbs up. Oh, guess I've answered my own question. :mad: Rightly or wrongly? All this as a show of strength? A flexing of muscle? To whom exactly would this make make a jot of difference to? As the Capt affirms, non-state actors are, and will increasingly be the West's foes, you're a dinosaur. With a predominately anti Western population which is more than three times the size of Iraqs (in excess of seventy million), I submit you have no idea how significant a factor an insurgency would be. Such a casual dismissal is naive in the extreme. Name me one example where this ridiculous, ham fisted approach has worked. When will people like you realise occupation/security/counter insurgency cannot be solved by quick fixes, especially ones which involve smashing lots of stuff. If we'd adopted that strategy in N.I. circa 1969 I shudder to think what sort of monster we would've created - my guess is a hate filled wasteland with a great line in young terrorist production. About the only sensible thing you've said. Why is this do you think? It's because they know the US hasn't got the stomach for a ten, twenty, thirty year operation, that's why. I'm convinced you're "Bushes Brain", or more likely the son of. [ August 15, 2007, 02:26 PM: Message edited by: Londoner ]

Once the bugs are ironed out, challenging defensive scenarios (against the AI) will be entirely possible. The new scripting techniques are top notch. Yes it will take a lot of playtesting and trial and error but I'm sure we'll see some great ones in the coming months.

I almost forgot how absurd these forums can get it's been soooooooooo long. So Anton I don't have your email anymore . . . write me an email (jjessejj@gmail.com) and tell me if CMSF is worth messing with. I've avoided it thus far since my brother declined to review it on the grounds that the coding was so sloppy and "beta" that he couldn't say anything good about it with a straight face (he writes reviews for PCGamer and CGM). FYI, Dorosh wasn't any more interesting to read in 2003 than he is today. ahem </font>

In the terminology of my esteemed American friends - chill the **** out Dorosh old boy!! I enjoyed the 2002-3 Dorosh attitude a hell of a lot more - more humble, more informative, more dry humour. Maybe you're an alien imposter, maybe Mr Kettler can throw some light on this.....

Which sounds perfectly reasonable to me.

Ditto.

So are you saying all pre 90's RPGs should not be allowed to fire inside buildings?

Oh Stevey, on the subject of info, any chance of having unit kill info back? Really takes a little something away from the AAR.

Anyone confirm this?

Jesus H Christ you're some ugly SOBs. Take it easy out there.

Not sure what game you're playing Kip! Suppression or not, for me infantry in the open get whacked pretty damn quickly. Hell for that matter infantry in buildings get whacked pretty darn quickly.

LOL. Yes, yes and a little more yes. Oh by the way, did I say yes? Oh yes, I did.

Very true Stevey baby. Thanks to a little last minute diplomacy the French held back on a final delivery of Exocets, so the Argentine Air Force only possessed IIRC 8 (air launchable) units, hence them having to resort to the old fashioned bombing runs. If they had got hold of a decent number the taskforce could well have been devastated. On the other hand we knew exactly how many they had so I imagine we'd never have dispatched the fleet (at least as it was) if they had the missile in substantial numbers. Sure, 40 aircraft were lost in combat IIRC. I was going to change that figure but I figured what the hell, it looks nice. I thought all our Harrier losses came from accidents and the friendly fire incident! I didn't realise 5 were lost to ground fire. You learn something new every day. This is a moot point. IIRC the Mirages had to come in at low altitude to avoid detection and launch their Exocets. Sure, having Mirages flying air supremacy sorties would've given them another option, however as you say, loiter times would've been extremely poor (I didn't think they had any air to air refuelling capabilities) and (again) IIRC they didn't have any modern air to air weapons (to compete with our shinny new AMRAAMS). Even if they had got hold of some, the radar packages on their Mirages were terribly dated. Not that the Harriers were perfect, I think the FA2 (with updated radar suite) was developed in light of pilot's complaints during the conflict. Indeed. I've always wondered why the Argie plan was so shoddy. Ok due to political considerations it was apparently rushed somewhat but you'd think the Junta would want to get it right!! Failure would (and obviously did) prove costly in the extreme! I guess history is littered with gambles. [ August 09, 2007, 06:30 AM: Message edited by: Londoner ]

The Argies lost 75 aircraft! not a single RN Sea Harrier was shot down and they provided negligible air support for their land based garrison (a handful of Skyhawk sorties). The only reason they had a modicum of success against the fleet is our pathetic number of Harriers available for CAPs - 20 IIRC (and half of these were being deployed at high altitude stupidly) plus the fact that our Seadarts were crap. After the first couple of air engagements they were given standing orders to dump ordnance and RTB if Harriers were encountered! The only RN loss which actually had operational concequences was the loss of the container ship (name escapes me) which had all our choppers on board. No one can doubt the bravery of the Argie aircrews but their hit and run tactics were costly and their effectiveness debatable. [ August 08, 2007, 01:23 PM: Message edited by: Londoner ]

I thought you said you've playtested it!! (wouldn't mind a 'lil gander myself Mr Dude...)

Sacrilege!

As all the CM games are! Never understood the need to fiddle with the keys. Give that man a cigar.

MD is without a doubt Bipolar.

Phillip, appreciated sir. However paying $45 for a product (flawed or not) that is the fruit of four years hard work, from a talented team of chaps, in a market that is hardly overrun with quality, is not a big ask.

Refund my money and I will leave. You don't need my money to develop this any further. That's about as constructive as any post here. </font>

Hear hear. Despite the niggles, the more you play the more the quality of this engine becomes apparent - trademark CM. A heart felt well done gents.

Hahahahaha spot on old son. I'm best man at a wedding tomorrow, I'm sorely tempted to start my speech with - this dammed inconvenience....not sure the guests would appreciate my humour, however I will most certainly be thinking that! </font>

Hahahahaha spot on old son. I'm best man at a wedding tomorrow, I'm sorely tempted to start my speech with - this dammed inconvenience....not sure the guests would appreciate my humour, however I will most certainly be thinking that!

A vocal minority... </font>