Disaster

I have my second scenario available for download here: http://www3.telus.net/pop_n_fresh/combatmiss/index.htm "The Last Valley" Type: Canadians attack up both sides of a sloping river valley. This is a medium-sized battle between a Canadian force of Shermans fronted by three platoons of infantry who must attack up both sides of a river valley against desperate Volkstrum and Heer troops backed up by anti-tank guns and some armour. Canadians must make a go of it with their superior resources before the weak Germans can receive reinforcements. Objectives Taking the village and the center of the valley is progress, but as long as the Germans hold onto their end of the valley, a draw is the likely result. Time 40 moves.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Darwin: Neato, thanks for sharing. How much does a decent 3D animation program run these days? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The new version of Alias is Maya 2.5. You can look it up at http://www.aliaswavefront.com Unless you can get it through educational pricing, I would say it's pretty out of reach for most people. I've also done a lot of stuff using 3DS Max. It's affordable. $1500 maybe? Anyone's best bet is to go work at a place where they buy licenses. For polygonal modelling there are a few shareware or cheap good quality programs such as Milkshape 3D. Nendo is also a nice one. Do a search for these. Both Milkshape and Nendo have try-me versions.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Zamo: Disaster, do you have it on the web? I'd like to see it. I have seen some really neat modelings on the web. I wish I had the time to try it. Zamo<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I finally got my web portfolio in order. The link to my jagdpanther model is here: I modelled it by looking at various photos of existing ones in museums. I got the dimensions a bit wrong but decided to finish it anyway. Unfortunately, it's not textured. I've been picking away at learning Maya 2.5 so I might finish it off. See it from the link off this page: http://www3.telus.net/pop_n_fresh/portfolio3.htm

A little while ago someone asked me to post a picture of the tank model that I made in Alias. It's a jadgpanther that I modelled by looking at various photos of existing ones in museums. I got the dimensions a bit wrong but decided to finish it anyway. Unfortunately, it's not textured. I've been picking away at learning Maya 2.5 so I might finish it off. See it from the link off this page: http://www3.telus.net/pop_n_fresh/portfolio3.htm

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by iggi: Are there any plans to allow squads that are in contact with thier HQ to be able to have the option to begin thier movement at the same time?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Do you mean precisely timed movement or are you looking for a reason why there is a lag? The reason why there is a variable lag between when the officers move and when the squad moves is to simulate control. The speed at which the squad moves is based upon its morale, the squad's weariness, their proximity to the officer (i.e. is the officer within hearing? is he close enough to kick a laggard's ass?), and the quality of the officer himself. I find this much more realistic than most other games where the player exhibits 'instant control' as if each unit was a robot instead of a human. If you are looking for a timed movement, i.e. "Begin the attack at 0800 hours precisely" I don't see a great value in this. The player is well able to synchronize himself and is always in touch with each unit. There will still be a lag nevertheless even if there was timed movement.

Oops. The links didn't work for some people. Probably something to do with the MIME type. I've now made .zip and .sit versions to download. Please return to the link above and try again.

Oops. The links didn't work for some people. Probably something to do with the MIME type. I've now made .zip and .sit versions to download. Please return to the link above and try again.

I have just created my first single battle scenario using Battlefront's scenario designer. Please help me test this out by downloading and playing it. Sorry but I don't have time for PBEM just yet. Please give me feedback by the email indicated on the page. Thanks! Go here: http://www3.telus.net/pop_n_fresh/combatmiss/index.htm Short Description This is a medium-sized battle between a mechanized brigade of light to medium armour and screening infantry for the allies and a motley defending force of German infantry, guns and vehicles. The Germans have decent advantage of ground while the Americans have the resources to make a well-planned attack.

I have just created my first single battle scenario using Battlefront's scenario designer. Please help me test this out by downloading and playing it. Sorry but I don't have time for PBEM just yet. Please give me feedback by the email indicated on the page. Thanks! Go here: http://www3.telus.net/pop_n_fresh/combatmiss/index.htm Short Description This is a medium-sized battle between a mechanized brigade of light to medium armour and screening infantry for the allies and a motley defending force of German infantry, guns and vehicles. The Germans have decent advantage of ground while the Americans have the resources to make a well-planned attack.

IDF, we are talking strategy here. How do you propose that your isolated settlements survive in the longterm surrounded by Arabs given that many of your fellow citizens are tired of supporting your cause? Also the Palestinians are not just playing around. They seem to want a piece of the land as much as you. Realistically, how will you deal with them? Without resorting to mass destruction, how does Israel propose to survive in the middle of an Arab dominated Middle East?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hakko Ichiu: One thing to remember is the regular reserve commitment for all eligible Israeli citizens under (IIRC) 35. The reserves are kept pretty sharp at all times and a complete call up of reserves can be done in 72 hours with critical assets ready within 24 -- at least that's the plan w/in the IDF.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I realize that this is the plan that has always been raised for a successful defense of Israel, but my suspicions are that this hides a weakness more than it boasts of resources it can assemble. That is, in order to fend off against a possible coalition of armies, it HAS to mobilize most of its fighting age people. Before you strike this as a fallacy, let me first say that Israel is vulnerable to protracted conflict, a cost of which cannot be borne by a society that is totally mobilized. If everyone is mobilized, most of the effective work force cannot be used for industry to keep the economy going. The longer a conflict or state of war exists, the more resources are used, even if no actual heavy fighting takes place. Sure, everyone who can raise a rifle is an advantage. But industry has to supply the bullets. For that reason Israel has supported its domestic arms industry. But that industry is more devoted to exports of high technology rather than its initial purpose of extending Israel's warfighting ability. At the same time, Israel's past and present enemies have all modernized their forces, and some even have similar technologies. Professionalism, also, is not just the preserve of Israel. Of its neighbours, Egypt and Turkey are more than able to hurt Israel. Of course both are allies, for that reason. This Israel has done because it can't afford to face a combined Arab Legion again. But we are talking hypothetical conflicts here. Hence the discussion is titled "Best Armies in the World". <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> As to the "conscript status", you have to remember that Israel has been at war since its creation. Israeli soldiers may be draftees, but they're fighting for their country and their lives against an enemy from whom they can expect no quarter. Also, success in the military is highly correlated with success in greater Israeli society, so young Israelis, esp. men, have a high incentive to perform well during their service.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> From what I know from talking with young people from Israel and from my personal reading, I think this spirit has gradually been replaced by inner conflicts, a desire to get on with business, and a generation gap. Israel's society is far from homogenous with the entry of Jews from Africa, former Soviet immigrants, and the development of the fundamentalist Jews who are now causing all sorts of trouble in the occupied territories. The days when the youth went out to be indoctrinated in Kibbutzes is over. These conflicts have not only resulted in political instability in the Knesset, but are symptomatic of larger cultural schisms that weaken the resolve of Israel as a military force. Fundamentalist Jews (lots who came from America!), for example, do not allow their young to serve in the military, which leads to resentment from those who do. Many reformist Jews resent the settlers for refusing to budge on land in favour of peace with the Palestinians. The immigrants from Russia and Africa have felt discrimination and themselves have formed political and cultural groups that agitate against the more established powers in Israeli society. I've already pointed out that many young people feel that there are other ways to get ahead in society besides the military, including Israel's burgeoning tech industries. Many were too young to remember when Israel was actually under threat from its neighbours in an organized way. Lebanon was an offensive war for Israel. Except for isolated terrorist acts, the Intifada, and the few rockets that were launched from Iraq, Israel has largely been at peace with its neighbours. The Intifada and Lebanon, you pointed out, were negative experiences for its citizen soldiers. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Even so, I'd still take the IDF against any of its likely adversaries, and I'd say that an elite IDF unit like the Golani or the Sayeret Matkal could hold its own against pretty much anyone.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I have no doubt that these elite groups are among the highest trained in the world, especially given Israel's stance on terrorism. [This message has been edited by Disaster (edited 07-27-2000).]

Yes, learn your tables. I know when I first got my hand on Dreamweaver I loved the idea of layers. And then to my horror I discovered how many odd browsers present layers. Some don't some do. But tables works on everything.

quicktime.com works better

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mirage2k: LOL. I never figured any of those [bomb shelters] things would've worked, anyway. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Sure they would have worked. As a ready made mausoleum. That way they wouldn't have needed to bury you twice. Or have you cremated more than once.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Galland0: Well, Personally I don't trust any goverment period. Each one in every country of the world is run by a very few individuals who can create or avoid war much in the same way we as citizens have good days or bad days at work.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Governments these days are huge complex organizations that are ruled by budgets, are subject to the whims of their own cultures and are as vulnerable to human psychology as the places in which we work. I wouldn't say 'few' but these are still organizations where inertia and mistaken policies have a major effect in our lives. Fortunately, unlike in other ages, there is more power sharing and oversight. The more people contest the reins of power, the less chance there are for 'conspiracies' or oligarchies. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> IMHO WWII was the result of unfinished business in WWI. And on and on back, feuds because of fueds, and sadly each war will bring more and more deadly weapons to bear. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I don't agree with such a pessimistic view. While certainly history has had a great many nightmares that humans as a race should be ashamed of, I think the forces of globalism and the free exchange of information will do much to help people, at least, recognize that there is a better life. Who, for example, is preventing us to talk in this matter? In many other countries, of course, this freedom is restricted. But I see this as a losing struggle against the adoption of technology. When people can have hope, they won't spend so much time bickering over things in the past. Yes, we have Kossovo and Rwanda. Yet, as in contrast to say the last century, countries have an interest in putting money into those places. You can argue exploitation all you want but money is being transferred and, more importantly, information. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Yes I am intriged by history, absolutely love wargames, but I am not one to believe the TV, newspapers, or radio. It is all propaganda.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> All propaganda? Even what we say to each other on the Internet? Unless you think even what we say is propaganda (including yourself!) then this can't be true. If you are free to even challenge the dominant viewpoint then that means it isn't all propaganda. In the mass media there certainly are agendas. And these are from groups, not overriding conspiracies. But we live in a marketplace for ideas and don't have to accept them. Once again I have to bring up organizational politics. The mass media are complex organizations, just like governments. Their faults are cultural. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Didn't the U.S. stop backing Chang Kha Shek and opt to back Mao because Mao was getting better results against the Japanese.(Could of missed Korea) Grandfather was there...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> There is no evidence that the U.S. switched to helping Mao rather then helping Chang Kai Chek. Stilwell did want to help Mao because of the reason you stated but he never was allowed to do anything more than hold discussions with him and provide advice. Stilwell in fact was very much upset with the Generalissimo because he refused to prosecute the war against the Japanese, instead harbouring his resources for the expected struggle against Mao. Any lack of U.S. support for Chek after that was because of this constant struggle to get results from him. Once the armistice was signed, Mao won the war against the Nationalists all his own. In your Vietnamese example, you should also lay the blame on the French. It was the French who insisted on regaining their lost empire in Indochina and lead to the rise of the Viet Minh. The French could have retained a presence in Asia by fostering the independence of that country. Instead, they tried to turn the clock back in colonialism. They had the same problem in Algeria, offering the locals seats in the parliament instead of independence. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> And the U.S. laughed in the face of Fidel Castro rather than use diplomacy.(Could of missed the Cuban Missle Crisis) We all were there... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> It is true the U.S. could have offered more than the Soviets. But given Fidel's character, he would still have leaned toward the Soviets. Why? Because it was his chance to thumb his nose at U.S. imperialism in the western hemisphere. It has long been the dream of the intelligensia in Latin America to be independent of U.S. hegemony in the western hemisphere. The U.S. could have outbid the Soviets but the price would have been steeper than haughty U.S. administrations would have been willing to pay. Remember, this was the same era when the U.S. thought nothing of helping their corporations topple fledgling governments in America. The term 'banana republic' is a reference to the United Fruit Company's hegemony over many countries' economies and states.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Blue Macs: what i want to know is that if some of the star wars radar relay stations are going to be based in england, then do we get the protection aswell. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Again, while not discussing the credibility of the Star Wars program, this does bring up interesting questions based upon the U.S.' relationship with its allies. As you know, since the end of the Cold War, Europe has become ascendant and more eager to practise independence from the NATO / U.S. fold. At the same time, the U.S. wants to cut back on its overseas forces (as was evident during the negotiations leading up to the intervention in Kossovo). Economically, there have been quite a few disputes and of course great competition between the EU and America. The card the U.S. has always held over Europe has been its military support during the Cold War. Since tensions between the west and Russia have eased (relative to the height of the Cold War), everyone has sought to rationalize their defense spending and this has meant a reduction in U.S. military spending overseas. This means that the U.S. doesn't have the same clout it has held in previous years. But if Russia continues to rattle its sabre, Europe has two choices if it wants to meet the Russian threat with a 'credible' defense, use the American system or head up its own defenses. What would be a most interesting outcome would be if Europe went ahead and began spending money on its own research. It certainly has the industrial and aerospace base to at least begin looking at the problem. If they make that choice, that would be a clear signal that Europe is ready to go it alone in other defense matters. Once again, not speaking to the actual feasibility of any of these systems. Even if the U.S. successfully develops an ABM defense, Europe's would have to be much better if they expect to defend against close neighbours. [This message has been edited by Disaster (edited 07-24-2000).]

I've gone from PC to Mac to PC at work and at home. Where the Mac still is somewhat behind the PC is in the range of 3D modelling packages available for it. The most prevalent professional level package for the PC is 3DS Max (though of all of them I prefer Alias' line of 3D packages). It used to be that the Mac simply did not have as good 3D accelerators as the PC. Now that has changed with news that Nvidia will provide chipsets for the Mac. Also, there was a recent announcement that Alias' Maya would be available for Mac when OSX is released. That makes me think seriously about shelling out the extra money for a nice G4. Most developers I know totally are in love with Mac harware (except for the extra cost!) but hate its OS.

Thanks for that first hand information Bullethead! Training and logistics are certainly areas where the U.S. is leaps and bounds over its potential enemies everywhere. Your comment about training from rote is certainly telling. One story I heard is that Iraqi line troops purposely were not allowed to take part in maneuvers and field training so that they would not be possible internal opposition against Saddam's powerbase and his Republican Guard. Certainly, this is the case in many countries where the military forces are there primarily to prop up the leadership, not to fight battles with other organized forces.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Phil the Dill: Bloody Americans. Corrupting our gene pool.(edited 07-23-2000).]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Don't worry. I bet there were plenty of criminals in the visiting Yank soldier's ranks too.

You have to keep in mind that generals in Russia more and more have to play to politics, not only in global security dialogue but also internally. Globally, Russia could be sending a message not just to the United States but to its neighbours. Russia certainly appears weaker to China and especially to Muslim neighbouring states that seem to be angling to decrease Russian involvement in the Caucuses and the oil bearing regions. By threatening first strike, Russia is showing that it is paying attention to the rising power of its neighbours and former satellite states. As far as its relationship with the United States goes, Russia is concerned that it is falling behind in modernizing its decreasing number of nuclear weapons and also the spectre of the redevelopment of a Star Wars defense for North America. One card it can play is to sabre rattle and cause alarm in the U.S. with those who also see the Star Wars redevelopment as an acceleration of the arms race. By raising the possibility of first strike, Russia raises the stakes again, challenging the U.S. to also ante up or withdraw the missile defense (the logic and practicality of the missile defense is separate debate). Finally, this also paradoxically increases the stakes in the aid regime that is funelling money to prop up the Russian economy and industrial development. Some call it nuclear blackmail, but it's part of a dialogue that recognizes the basic formula: if people are busy making money, they have less time for war. Internally, Russian generals have become more and more politicized, playing to the various factions who want to see Russian arms rebound to their former reputation (however ill earned). Based upon their endorsement of Putin in his election as well as in his continuing campaigns in Chechnya, Russian citizens want a return to its perceived power and are tired of scandalous stories of the decline of its military and of breakaway nations upsetting Russian security.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Srider: Im Having the same problem. I would like to try reducing the AGp, But how do you do that. pls help anyone.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> When you start up your computer go into BIOS. If you don't know how to do this, watch your screen for a text message that says "Press [some key] to enter setup." This is usually DELETE. Follow that instruction and you will end up in your computer's BIOS. Since the BIOS is specific to the type of motherboard you have in your computer I can't help you in finding where that is in yours. Likely it will be contained in one of the menus. Look through them all until you find an entry that says AGP aperature size. Adjust it down and test. Hope that helps you.

Barbara Tuchman's popular history "A Distant Mirror: The Calamitous 14th Century" is an excellent and very readable look into the society at the time, especially concentrating on the noble. From her viewpoint, it was the mindset of the noble that caused many famous disasters such as Crecy and Adrianopole.

One of us. One of us.

After you find your Gulf War book I recommend that you read Blackhawk Down: A Story of Modern War, a book which has far more relevance to U.S. military policy in the next decade than any lesson you might take from the Gulf War. Here is the Amazon link: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0871137380/102-8614366-4139304 "Blackhawk Down" is the true story of how the U.S. became embroiled in Somalia and focuses on the mission to save the downed crew of a Blackwawk helicopter which went down in the hart of Mogadishu. It details with warfare in a built up area where the line between noncombatant and 'irregular' was blurred. This is a situation in which the U.S. will become increasingly involved. I don't think the U.S. will have another Gulf War for some time but the chances of the U.S. facing another Somalia are great.

Babra is correct. For a good example of this, read Rommel's 'Attacks' where he discusses good coordination and communication in infantry assaults, supported by machine guns and light artillery. At least according to him, he was one of the first to view machine guns as active support, rather than as fixed artillery. Unless he was being totally self-aggrandizing, his experience of fluid, dynamic attacks (flanking, feints and penetrating rushes through gaps) is quite a contrast to what was happening elsewhere on the western front. Well, I guess it helped that he was against the Italians most of the time.