ASL Veteran

Wow, at least the forum is working again. Today is the first day I've been able to access the website since I saw that odd e-mail in my inbox. I didn't click on anything mostly because all the links were disabled in the e-mail that I got and the formatting was terrible so it looked really strange. There was no typical battlefront background and everything was scrunched over to the left side. I don't understand why someone would attack the battlefront website like this. It's just pathetic. :mad:

With a recommendation like that, why wouldn't I want to rush down to the store and pick me up a copy!!

Nice recovery

He didn't say that there was never ever going to be a TCP/IP "WeGo" function included in CM:N. All he said was that it will probably not be included in the initial release. Just focus on this part: and ignore this part: You (and I, because I want that feature too) may not get it right away, but you will get it eventually. If it's a make or break feature for you then just wait until that feature is released before you buy the game. Problem solved . What is the saying? Patience is a virtue?

For spotting, depending upon your difficulty level, what you can see is dependent upon what unit you have selected. It can be a bit confusing at first. You can see the sum total of what all your troops can see when you don't have any of your troops selected, but if you have one of your troops selected you will only see what that particular unit can see. So if you can see infantry on a rooftop when you don't have any unit selected, but then you select a particular unit and the enemy on the rooftop disappears then that just means that the unit you have selected can't see those guys on the rooftop and that enemy unit was spotted by someone else. If you want to know who has spotted a particular enemy unit and you aren't sure who sees them, then you can select the enemy unit by clicking on it's icon and all the friendly units who can see that enemy unit will either blink or be a lighter color than your other troops (I can't remember which). This doesn't work with question mark enemy troops, but only with fully spotted enemy troops.

As far as targeting goes, sometimes I find it easier to just target the floating icon above the enemy troops / unit rather than attempt to target the individual soldiers that you see. You aren't targeting individual soldiers with your troops but rather entire squads, sections, tanks, etc, so by drawing your target line to an individual soldier behind a window you are probably just area targeting on the building rather than firing at the enemy squad. Also, if your troops have spotted an enemy unit they are pretty good with firing on the enemy unit by themselves. I seldom find it necessary to use the target command. You will know if your troops can target an enemy unit if the target line between your squad and the enemy squad / icon is light blue. If the line is light grey or something like that then I think you can see them but your fire won't be very effective. If the target line is red then you don't have a line of sight. The target line will also change color at the point where your line of sight is blocked so if you are firing through woods or over a hill or something then you can figure out exactly where your LOS is being blocked by looking at where your target line changes color.

:eek: This game is so broken!!

Excellent work sir! I've saved that link and I'll probably read through it in the near future. :cool:

It was a while back when I was looking at it, but I think Glantz look at the Soviet operations in Manchuria in 1945 was broken into two volumes. The first volume was the strategic study (which I believe is the one you linked to - thanks) but the second volume was for the Tactical combat and that's the one I was more interested in. I've saved the link for the study that you provided so I can check it out later but I'm not sure the Tactical study is on there.

Yes, the Drea book is the second book that I mentioned in my earlier post and follows the 2nd Battalion 28th Infantry Regiment. It's a much smaller book that the first one but still a good read. August Storm is the 1945 book that I referenced in my earlier post that I almost got but I hesitated due to the price.

I second that. I just loaded up British Mettle the other day and I'm playing through it now. The environmental conditions give an added element to it because you start in darkness so you can infiltrate knees bent running about, but when the sun comes up it's totally in your face and you can't see squat. It's a very well done scenario - my compliments to the designer (I think it was Paper Tiger, but I'm not in the game looking and I'm relying on a poor memory). I'm dying to take a look at the Red forces and set up area because they may be interesting to play as in a PBEM, but I want to wait until I play through it once first. I also give a hearty recommendation to UK Armor Assault.

I know of two books about the battle of Nomonhan between the Soviets and Japanese in 1939 and I have them both. "Nomonhan: Japan Against Russia, 1939" gives you a Japanese perspective on the entire campaign from beginning to end. It includes many personal accounts (Japanese personal accounts natch) and gives you a very detailed and comprehensive look at the campaign. The other book is called "Nomonhan: Japanese Soviet Tactical Combat 1939" and is an excellent complementary book to the first one. The second book focuses exclusively on the 2d Battalion, 28th Infantry Regiment of the 7th IJA Infantry division and has a lot of excellent scenario making material in it . The thing to keep in mind about Nomonhan is that the terrain is virtually desert with rolling hills. There was a steep slope / cliff on the Russian side of the River and the Russians dominated the battlefield with their artillery. Opportunities for Banzai charges were rare and I can only think of one example offhand from the second book that describes a night attack that overran a Soviet infantry position. The attack is not really described as a 'banzai charge' though so I don't know if it qualifies. Most of the fighting involved Japanese infantrymen trying to take out Soviet tanks with molotov cocktails. There is a book out there also that covers the fighting between the Soviets and the Japanese in 1945 and I thought about picking it up but it's pretty expensive and the campaign was pretty short (lasting only a few weeks IIRC). I think it's by Glanz but I'm not positive ...... If anyone is interested I suppose I can quote the text about that night attack. It's pretty entertaining reading - especially since it's from the Japanese point of view. Night attacks were SOP for the Japanese btw. They trained for night combat regularly and specialized in night fighting.

Not having done any beta testing (well, Dan asked me if I wanted to way back with CMBB but I declined because I lack the time and probably the dedication as well), I get the impression that it's a lot more work than fun. Although I did criticize the scenarios in CMSF and Marines a bit I do appreciate all the hard work and dedication that our beta testing friends put into CM. Probably the quickest way to become a beta tester is to get into a PBEM game with me. I think at least two or three of my past opponents joined the beta test team (or joined Battlefront itself) mid game and ruined our matches! Now then, for what I really wanted to post about, is there any chance that a 'delete' button could be added to the 'load / save' screen so that I can delete old game save files from inside the game? It's not a game breaker, but it would be a handy addition to have. I'm sure Charles could whip that up in a few seconds .

Apparently Marshal Murat, the man Napoleon once compared to a circus performer because of his fancy uniforms, wore expensive furs on the retreat from moscow "One of the most dashing cavalry commanders in an era of beau sabreurs was Joachim Murat (1767–1815), and the most flamboyant of all Napoleon’s marshals. Murat was both a gifted cavalry commander and a man consumed with ornamental uniforms if ever there was one. He spent a fortune on designing uniforms for himself, many of which made his peers roll their eyes. He was excused this flamboyance by his peers only because of his intensity and talent for command of cavalry in action. His military career’s highpoint was leading a “nick of time” massed cavalry charge atop a frozen lake halting a Russian breakthrough at the battle of Eylau in 1807. During the famed retreat from Moscow, Murat was recorded by contemporaries as wearing custom made furs! Proof that even when one’s army is freezing to death, one can still maintain a stylish look. His vanity continued unabated by Napoleon’s (and his own) dwindling fortunes which saw him lose his Kingdom in Naples and a large part of his wardrobe. When Murat was finally sentenced to be executed by the restorationists for supporting Napoleon’s Hundred Days return from exile, he is remarked to have said to the firing squad 'Spare my face, aim for my heart!'"

Then why not just address what Holdren's views are rather than discussing me and .... some other random thoughts. His views are in the public record for all to see and all I did was present them - I never said that his views are a reflection of your views. His views are his own unless you choose to associate yourself with those views. The difference, of course, is that he is in a position of political power and you make great games. You can be concerned for the environment and do good things to fight pollution and not subscribe to the views that John Holdren does. In fact, I hope you don't subscribe to his views and that you would be willing to state that you don't. I really don't want to get into a big argument with you Steve and this clearly is a topic that seems to strike deep at your core values. I think I'll refrain from continuing as I am at a disadvantage now that you are personally involved. Your involvement shapes how I have to respond and may prevent others from contributing. I hope we can have more productive discussions on other boards on other topics. Who knows, maybe I'll agree with you on something someday

Who is John Holdren? John Holdren is the science advisor to the president of the US. Why should I care about John Holdren? Because John Holdren is the science advisor for the president of the US. Here he is in a 5 minute interview with the BBC – pretty standard stuff http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8142935.stm He seems like a reasonable enough fellow. Here he is in 2007 discussing what we can do to reduce the effects of climate change. You can watch the entire 10 minute video if you want, but really I’m only concerned about the first bullet point on the very first ‘slide’ – the slide entitled “Options for reducing fossil CO2 emissions” and the first bullet point on the second ‘slide’ entitled “There is no Panacea” which comes up at the 1:05 mark in the video. Namely “reducing population growth” and “limiting population”. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zw6k-9nwP9w&feature=related Keep in mind the video was from 2007. It just so happens that he also co authored a book that was published in 1977 called “Ecoscience” where he explains what he means by “limiting population”. I can't put a link to it, but you can probably just look it up on Amazon if you are curious. It may even be available online somewhere for free in an electronic format, but I'm not sure I would want to read the entire thing. Here is one person’s analysis of what John Holdren coauthored in 1977. I personally find it quite disturbing, but as this material comes from a book that was published thirty years ago it should be easy to confirm it's accuracy. You can judge for yourselves if these excerpts are disturbing or not. http://zombietime.com/john_holdren/ Here is a bonus video with Nancy Pelosi in it discussing a part of the Stimulus bill that was passed in the spring – a part related to her views on population. Oh well, it’s all probably nothing anyway. Of course, if all that is too creepy for you then you can always check out this video for a little comic relief Just in case anyone is confused about the green house gas that gives someone a 'carbon' footprint, CO2 is the same stuff that you exhale when you breathe. So the very act of breathing creates greenhouse gasses. It’s obvious then that by limiting planetary population you would also limit greenhouse gasses. I would also like to add that there is no link that I’m aware of between exhaling and any form of sickness or disease.

I wouldn’t say that I am feeling an immediate threat but that I am guarded and alert. Depending upon how someone defines freedom I guess the levels of freedom we have today as compared to the past could be debated for quite a while. Each society has to have some form of restriction or set of laws placed upon the citizenry in order to have an ordered society. Unlike many though I have a definition of my rights and liberties as spelled out in the Constitution so that’s really my guideline for what individual freedom entails. I would like to simply say that ‘big government’ with regards to the US is an invention of the 20th century. Prior to that I think the view of Americans towards government was probably summed up best by George Washington here “Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action.” George Washington First president of US (1732 - 1799) As far as what I’ll fight for I’ll just let Thomas Jefferson guide my actions. Rather than feel sad or ashamed of my principles I am proud of them. “In matters of style, swim with the current; in matters of principle, stand like a rock.” Thomas Jefferson 3rd president of US (1743 - 1826) I’m not sure that I understand what you are saying here, or that it actually makes economic sense. Maybe you could expand on that a little – and try to be specific. Here in the US it’s primarily Labor Unions who apply political pressure in order to erect trade barriers on goods and they are the ones primarily pushing the green agenda. They don’t want those US jobs going to foreigners. I don’t like agricultural subsidies either so no disagreement there. The farm lobby is pretty powerful though so those subsidies probably aren’t going away any time soon. I’ll grant you that there aren’t very many totally and completely ‘free markets’ in this world due to taxes and government regulation of various stripes, but I’m not exactly certain that’s what you are referring to here. I think I’ll hold off on this one until you can further clarify this for me. Whether global warming is a fabrication by Communists in order to push their agenda or if it’s just concerned citizens who are worried about the planet will have to be judged by each of us individually. Either way, by necessity, there is a price to be paid in terms of personal freedom in order to ‘save the planet’ from global warming. It’s not just me who says that – the environmentalists who are negotiating the current treaty are saying that. Why? Because everything we do is about the environment. Do you have a dog or a cat Stalin’s Organist? You may want to read this so you can keep up with the latest in staying Green: http://spectator.org/archives/2009/11/03/gang-green-going-to-the-dogs “According to authors of a new book, Time to Eat the Dog: The Real Guide to Sustainable Living, it takes 0.84 hectares of land to keep a medium-sized dog fed. Bad as cars are alleged to be for global warming, that single dog is about twice the environmental burden of a Toyota Land Cruiser, according to New Zealand writers Brenda and Robert Vale, husband-wife professors at Victoria University, specialists in sustainable architecture and co-authors of Time to Eat the Dog. The Vales recommend that our pets be "usefully recycled" either by us eating them or turning them into pet food when they expire. "A lot of people worry about having SUVs but they don't worry about having Alsatians and what we are saying is, well, maybe you should be because the environmental impact is comparable," explains Brenda Vale.” You can find that book on Amazon here http://www.amazon.co.uk/Time-Eat-Dog-Sustainable-Living/dp/0500287902 If global warming is a fraud then you are paying a price for absolutely no reason. If global warming is real then you are still paying the same price in terms of a loss of personal freedom, it’s just that each of us has to evaluate whether the price we pay is appropriate to the cause. If you were to choose to live in a cave and eat berries for the rest of your life in order to reduce your carbon footprint then more power to you. If I choose not to because I feel the cost in personal freedom is too high, then who are you to tell me otherwise? "The only freedom which deserves the name is that of pursuing our own good in our own way, so long as we do not attempt to deprive others of theirs, or impede their efforts to obtain it. Each is the proper guardian of his own health, whether bodily, or mental or spiritual. Mankind are greater gainers by suffering each other to live as seems good to themselves, than by compelling each to live as seems good to the rest." John Stuart Mill, On Liberty, 1859 English economist & philosopher (1806 - 1873) "An honest man can feel no pleasure in the exercise of power over his fellow citizens." Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Melish, January 13, 1813 3rd president of US (1743 - 1826)

An interesting response Stalin’s Organist. A good nibble on the chum … lol. From how I’m interpreting your post (feel free to correct me) if given a choice between tackling world hunger (the collective) and maintaining your individual freedom you would choose tackling world hunger over maintaining your individual freedom. However, there is also the hint there that you don’t feel that your individual freedom is actually under threat so it’s really no choice at all. Incidentally I don’t feel that I’m posting any revelations ….. it’s all right out there for anyone to see, it just depends on how individuals interpret what they see and what meaning they ascribe to it. So, let’s start with this part of your post first Let’s just start with the premise that nobody wants to see another person starve to death and not act to prevent it if it’s possible. Here is an article from the CATO institute which should be on point http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=8206 I will use quotation marks as opposed to quote boxes to distinguish what you are posting with what I am quoting from the article. “Around the globe between 1990 and 2003, the amount of land given over to agricultural uses increased less than 2 percent, even though population growth increased 20 percent. Chronic hunger in developing countries declined to 17 percent from 37 percent between 1970 and 2001, despite an 83 percent increase in population. These improvements, largely due to greater agricultural productivity, increased food production per capita, helping to drive down global food prices by about 75 percent since 1950. As a result, access to food increased worldwide, despite increasing demand from a wealthier and more populated world.” This seems to track with what you are saying in your post. The article then goes on to say this though “Global warming hysteria - a boon for the ethanol and other biofuel enterprises - has boosted demand for crop-based fuels worldwide. This now threatens to reverse a half century of gains not only against world hunger, but also in holding the line against conversion of undeveloped land.” You seem to be saying that we shouldn’t be worried about eating salad when the “Climate Change Treaty” is agreed to but that we should be worried about world hunger instead. Isn’t it fair to say though that you are basically talking about two sides of the same coin? In other words, what is being put forward as a choice between the ‘collective’ and the ‘individual’ is really no choice at all. It’s a ‘non choice’ not because of political ideology (which I will address in a moment) but because in this case you can keep your individual freedom and solve world hunger at the same time by rejecting government interference in the ‘capitalist’ free markets. If governments didn’t mandate and subsidize biofuels then there would be very little demand for it. Eliminate government interference then the biofuel issue evaporates and your world hunger problem is alleviated. After reading the first half of my response I hope that you can see that I view this bit to be irrelevant and actually makes me yawn lol. However, it too is worthy of a response because it hints at the lense you view my posts through. Let me start by saying that Fascism and Communism are basically birds of a feather to me rather than polar opposites. As far as I’m concerned they are basically interchangeable so when you say “as opposed to Fascist strategies” what you are describing as polar opposites is viewed by me as mostly undifferentiated therefore your comparison makes no sense through my lense. http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/09/rethinking_the_political_spect.html “There is something nonsensical about a political spectrum that spans the range between tyranny and ... tyranny. If one end of the spectrum is the home of tyranny, then shouldn't the opposite end of the spectrum be the home of liberty, tyranny's opposite?” Or rather, I would modify that a bit and put ‘Anarchy’ at the extreme right of the political spectrum and total state control at the extreme left of the spectrum. The question remains though. Would you rather choose what you eat from what’s available to you on the free market, or would you rather have someone else restrict your choices through government intervention?

I just wanted to toss a little more chum into the waters in here. Take this article about what Lord Stern recently said about the new climate change ‘deal’ http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6891362.ece So I guess that anyone who is in favor of a global collectivist government in which you have no vote or representation should probably put “Salad eating” in front of that because the government is going to be ‘encouraging’ you to go vegetarian if you haven’t already. It’s to save the planet of course. You know, sacrafices have to be made. It also looks like Gordon Brown is doing his best to lead the ‘wealth transfer’ charge. How does a payment of 100 billion Euros per year sound? http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/oct/27/europe-climate-change-deal-pledge Mark Steyn has an interesting article about the Climate Change Treaty. http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/10/29/gullible-eager-beaver-planet-savers/ Steyn then goes on to discuss that aspect of the treaty in his own entertaining style. As a bonus non Global Warming item I heard that Blair made it official government policy to encourage mass immigration according to an aide http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Politics/Ex-Government-Adviser-Andrew-Neather-Says-Mass-Immigration-To-UK-Was-Deliberate/Article/200910415414170?lpos=Politics_Second_Home_Page_Article_Teaser_Region_7 You may want to read up on this particular strategy of the left known as the “Cloward Piven strategy”. I’m uncertain that it applies to the mass immigration thing, but it is a recognized strategy of the left to overwhelm the government welfare system in order to collapse the state. The details can be found here although you should be able to find plenty of other articles on that if you search for it. http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=6967

I know that some of you are still laughing about the new collectivist ‘world government’ that is headed our way, but that well known conspiracy organ called “The Washington Times” has gone ahead and looked over the climate change treaty for us. For those who don’t like to click on links and favor pontificating rather than looking I have decided to go ahead and place the text of the article in the body of my post and add appropriate bolding. Fortunately for us here in America this treaty would be DOA at the senate even if Obama signs it. I’m not sure what international treaty mechanisms apply to other countries though so you guys may be screwed. http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/oct/27/green-world-government/# Tuesday, October 27, 2009 EDITORIAL: Green world government THE WASHINGTON TIMES Environmental alarmism is being exploited to chip away at national sovereignty. The latest threat to American liberties may be found in the innocuous sounding Copenhagen Climate Treaty, which will be discussed at the United Nations climate-change conference in mid-December. The alert was sounded on the treaty in a talk given by British commentator Lord Christopher Monckton at Bethel College in St. Paul, Minn., on Oct. 14. Video of the talk has become an Internet sensation. The treaty's text is not yet finalized but its principles are aimed at regulating all economic activity in the name of climate security, with a side effect that billions of dollars would be transferred from productive countries to the unproductive. The control lever is the regulation of carbon emissions, which some purport are causing global warming. The treaty would establish a Carbon Market Regulatory Agency and "global carbon budget" for each country. In effect, this would allow the treaty's governing bodies to limit manufacturing, transportation, travel, agriculture, mining, energy production and anything else that emits carbon - like breathing. Treaty supporters market the agreement through fear. Even though mean global temperatures have been on a downward spiral for several years after peaking in 1998, we are told that catastrophe is imminent. "The world has already crossed the threshold beyond which it is no longer possible to avoid negative impacts of anthropogenic climate change," says proposed treaty language being circulated by Greenpeace, the World Wildlife Fund and other groups. It is critical that they cultivate a sense of impending doom to justify the sweeping restrictions and new powers enshrined in the treaty. The sky is falling and they want us to act now, act swiftly, act before it is too late - but don't read the fine print. The governing authority envisioned by the document reads like a bad George Orwell knockoff. The treaty establishes a body called the Conference of the Parties (COP), which is given ultimate authority over administering and enforcing the treaty. Its executive arm is something called the Adaptation Fund Board, under which is the Copenhagen Climate Facility, also known as "the Facility." The Facility is necessary because in order to save the planet, "the way society is structured will need to change fundamentally." This change would be impossible under the "fragmented set of existing institutions," so the Facility will step in with "such legal capacity as is necessary for the exercise of its functions and the protection of its interests." That's the Facility's interests, not yours. The Facility will be run by an executive committee, the membership of which "may include representation from relevant intergovernmental and non-governmental stakeholders." So left-wing pressure groups, animal rights fanatics, tree-huggers, Al Gore or any other part of the environmentalist fringe would be eligible for executive committee membership. Naturally, global-warming skeptics like Lord Monckton need not apply. A "massive scaling up of financial resources" will be required to fund the COP's activities. The United States and others will be required to transfer $800 billion over five years, with additional funding requirements assessed on an as-needed basis. The COP will have taxing authority "including, but not limited to, a levy on aviation and maritime transport." The ability to tax aircraft and shipping is bad enough, but as careful readers of the elastic clauses of the U.S. Constitution know, the phrase "including but not limited to" authorizes any tax they can imagine. Signatories of the treaty will be required to file reports to the Committee for Reporting and Review ("the Committee"), and if found not in compliance with the treaty's terms, they may have to face "the Facilitative Branch." If this branch finds that a country is violating the terms of the agreement, it will "undertake the measures necessary" to bring the country back into compliance. The treaty language would be farcical but for the fanaticism of its proponents. The environmental movement is driven by a millenarian determination to save humanity from itself, regardless of its impact on real people. President Obama reportedly will skip the Copenhagen meeting unless the treaty language is finalized. We urge him to resist the urge to pander to the international community at the expense of the United States. We look forward to headlines about record cold temperatures during the December climate summit, and to hearing desperate speeches about stopping irresistible global warming during the signing ceremony, held during a blizzard.

Am I just typing to watch my own fingers moving? What part of this is hard to understand? Consultative status with the United Nations As a non-governmental organisation, the Socialist International has consultative status (Category I) with the United Nations, and works internationally with a large number of other organisations. http://www.socialistinternational.org/about.cfm I don't know how you can have consultative status with the United Nations (aka UN) and not be operating in the UN. It's in the quoted section in my response to Jon S below the link I posted where this quote can be found. Apparently Jon S believes that a consultant doesn't operate within the organization that it consults with. Nothing personal Stalinist Organist

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/03/the-copenhagen-treaty-draft-wealth-transfer-defined-now-with-dignity-penalty/ I like your new sig Jon S. It fits. Sometimes you've got to call a spade a spade

The premise of those who see things the way I do is that the Global Warming "science" is propaganda by which those who want to pursue a collectivist global government get their agenda enacted and accepted by the common folk as summed up by this article here http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/10/un_climate_reports_they_lie.html# they get the folks to agree to a communistic 'global government' in order to save themselves from ficticious Global Warming - which of course leaves 'them' in charge. A court in the UK apparently did rule that Al Gore's movie had something like 9 errors of fact in it. Doesn't that make you pause and wonder just for a moment?

It's admittedly a lot of material to go over and it takes a lot of time to look through. The Socialist international website is an interesting one and I hadn't located it prior to my initial post or I would have included it. If you have the time to look at the links and videos then I would be curious what you make of it.

http://www.socialistinternational.org/about.cfm I never said there was a conspiracy. In fact I posted just a few minutes ago that I didn't think there was a conspiracy. Besides, why does it have to be a conspiracy - what difference does it make? They are telling you right in black and white what they are all about and they are carrying out their agenda in plain sight through global warming treaties. How does that invalidate what I was saying? It's almost like you are covering your eyes and saying "I'm not looking! I'm not looking!" Either that or you just don't care - which is fine. Just state that you are a socialist and you are in favor of a global government that is 'collectivist' in nature and in which you will doubtless have no vote or direct representation. If you are in favor of that then by all means let your views be known.