Jump to content
Special Upgrade 4 Tech Tips

Disaster@work

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    254

  • Joined

  • Last visited

    Never

 Content Type 

Posts posted by Disaster@work

    Anyone found any music to listen to while playing?

    in Combat Mission Archive #2 (2000)

    Posted

    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by KMHPaladin:

    Disaster - if you're familiar with Basil Pouledouris' work I'm surprised you didn't include "The Hunt for Red October." I think that's an excellent soundtrack.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    I didn't know he did 'Hunt for Red October'. It was all right. I liked the male voice choir for the Soviet sequences. I also liked the Rudyard Kipling-adventure theme that he did for "Farewell to the King", an otherwise incomprehensible film from the maker of Conan, John Milius.

    I have a question for everyone else. What is the song that the Panzer commanders spontaneously break into in the movie "Battle of the Bulge"? After seeing that again on TV recently I couldn't help but hum it in the bathroom and stamp my right boot .. er .. foot in the shower. (Not showing off my political leanings, mind you smile.gif

    0

    RAN back in theaters!!!

    in Combat Mission Archive #2 (2000)

    Posted

    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by mikeadams:

    The plot is King Lear<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    It is mostly King Lear but there is an important Macbeth plot in there as well. Lady Kaede is most similar to Lady Macbeth in her plotting. Despite her positioned as a villain, I find her character quite sympathetic.

    0

    Pearl Harbour - The Movie

    in Combat Mission Archive #2 (2000)

    Posted

    The Pearl Harbour movie is being brought to you by that talentless crew Jerry Bruckheimer and director Michael Bay. I hate them with a passion. They would 'Patriot'ize the story of Pearl Harbour.

    I thought 'Tora Tora Tora' was ok in the TV movie of the week sense. Also had Mifune, who is always good.

    'From Here to Eternity' is a good film but isn't a historical document.

    I don't think the definitive Pearl Harbour film has been made and I suspect this upcoming one will be little more than outrageously staged special effects.

    0

    Wasting away again in combatmissionville....

    in Combat Mission Archive #2 (2000)

    Posted

    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by dirkd1976:

    Lorak,

    Anyone out there fans of the movie RAN? I heard it is going to be re-released in theaters. Check out this link: www.ran2000.com/

    I LOVE THIS MOVIE!! If you havent seen it yet, GO RENT IT!!

    <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    Heh, yet another person who reads Aint-it-Cool-News eh? smile.gif Yah I love RAN to death. By coincidence, I just purchased the DVD for Sanjuro this week. Haven't seen it yet though. If you go to AICN, check out the post by Airchinapilot. That's me. I list out my favourite Kurosawa films.

    0

    Anyone found any music to listen to while playing?

    in Combat Mission Archive #2 (2000)

    Posted

    Yet one more suggestion:

    Tchaikovsky: 1812 Overture http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B000003CSG/o/qid=964047111/sr=2-3/103-9513847-0077438

    The version I chose here is the one with Erich Kunzel and the Cincinatti Symphony Orchestra with digitally sampled cannons for the finale.

    It reminds me of the scene in the movie Waterloo (with Christopher Plummer) when the French army under Napoleon arrives on the field with a full marching band playing music as the Old Guard march down the center. Anyone know what that music was? Well, when I get my army together, that's how I want to arrive in battle.

    0

    Excellent Resource on Gulf War Tactics?

    in Combat Mission Archive #2 (2000)

    Posted

    I think this highlights one of the real costs of a dictatorship, removing the ability of your citizens to gain information including information about the enemy. Somehow I doubt that the average Iraqi commander had access to the Internet and full browsing privileges before the Gulf War (and certainly not now). So I would hazard that even if they knew of the existence of such documents online, they could never read them and therefore learn something of their coalition opponent's doctrine. Perhaps if they found out how much thought went into the U.S. doctrine from the platoon commander level on up they would have filled their pants in advance.

    0

    Hey BTS, Why no acceptance of American Exress? This is not the middle ages lol!!

    in Combat Mission Archive #2 (2000)

    Posted

    This thread reminds me of that funny sequence in 'Futurama' in the episode where Fry finds out he's rich because of all the money he's had lingering in his account from the 20th century. I'm paraphrasing.

    Fry tries to pay for something with his ancient credit cards.

    Fry: Do you take American Express?

    Clerk: That was phased out in 2052

    Fry: VISA?

    Clerk: That was phased out in 2130.

    Fry: Mastercard?

    Clerk: 2521.

    Fry: How about my Discover card?

    Clerk: Uh ... we don't take Discover card.

    0

    Apparent complete absence of tactics during Civil War.

    in Combat Mission Archive #2 (2000)

    Posted

    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DrD:

    Exactly! In fact, many historians believe that it was the rise of disciplined, trained infantry per se rather than any specific weaponry that led to the downfall of the knight.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    I love all this agreement. I tried to make this same point in a Slashdot debate a couple weeks ago when some fellow posited that it was technology rather than tactics that ended the knight's dominance on the field. I said that it was tactics (and brought up the Swiss cantons example as well as Dutch burgher defenses behind pits), economics and culture that did them in. If indeed it was technology (such as the longbow) why didn't the use of knights totally collapse after Crecy? Instead it happened again after decades at Agincourt. Time and time again the same people in charge (knights) drew the wrong conclusions about the way battles should be fought. Tally ho! and other such nonsense remained the dominant military thinking for centuries until they no longer were in charge.

    Thanks for bringing up Keegan's book. I echo your recommendation. Those who want to know more, here's the Amazon link:

    http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0140048979/qid=963959149/sr=1-1/002-2864667-9511213

    0

    What exactly does "exposure" mean?

    in Combat Mission Archive #2 (2000)

    Posted

    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jeff Heidman:

    Anyone have any idea, or is this another example of info We Are Not Allowed To Know?

    <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    I have only played the demo but I believe that exposure means the amount of the unit that is not under cover and is therefore vulnerable to fire. Therefore, a unit standing in open ground in plain view should be 100% exposed to fire. One that is out of view is 0%.

    0

    Excellent Resource on Gulf War Tactics?

    in Combat Mission Archive #2 (2000)

    Posted

    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mirage2k:

    I think that the possibility of a Gulf War-sized engagement still exists. The hot spots are there, and the U.S. government has downsized its military enough to make potential belligerents contemplate taking on the United States, if necessary, to achieve a strategic goal. For instance, the Navy is only two-thirds the size it was during the Gulf War.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    This is true in a general sense. What I meant more specifically is the possibility for land battles. There are many indications that the U.S. is loading up more on long range force projection rather than on expeditionary forces. This means more cruise missiles, more navy, more strike aircraft. What the U.S.' opponents count on is that America will continue to try and strike from afar to punish its opponents, thereby causing itself political damage when it is revealed that many non-combatants were hurt by such a 'cowardly' act.

    Two recent examples hilight the extremes. In Somalia, hundreds, maybe thousands became casualties when the U.S. and other UN forces went in to try and save a handful of their own troops in a built-up area. Dozens of U.S. troops were killed in a nightmarish firefight and potentially could have become highly public hostages. Having bodies of one's own troops being dragged through the streets on CNN is a horror for any U.S. general. Avoiding Vietnam-era style domestic opposition remains a goal for U.S. commanders.

    In Serbia, the U.S.-led bombing of the capital and the Chinese embassy again caused worldwide anger and heavily damaged U.S. face in its relationship with China. Domestically, however, there was little harm to the U.S. commanders because no troops were hazarded.

    To me, this means that the U.S. will be less inclined to go global on a scale approaching Desert Storm. One danger area, however, is in territory it considers its own turf. For example, many expect that the U.S. will become more and more involved in Colombia to help break the alliance between the FARC and the drug lords. Since the U.S. considers the Americas its own turf, it will expend lots of energy toward this. I suspect this will become an undeclared conflict in the next decade. Yet, even here the type of warfare will be more counter-insurgency than large scale mechanized warfare. For the U.S. to commit hard assets (i.e. tanks, ships, strike aircraft) would be 'showing their hand' to the public and so for a long time this cannot happen. Since it is unlikely that the FARC will ever be of the strength to actually challenge the Colombian government in the cities (i.e. no emergencies), there will probably not be a rapid escalation on the part of the U.S and no such commitment.

    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

    China is still modernizing its forces (especially its navy, which only has about 7 or so modern hulls), but it seems (at least to me) that the PRC will be the next major thorn in U.S. foreign relations.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    China is indeed modernizing but more to deal with the possibility of regional conflicts. The three hot spots for U.S.-Chinese conflict are Taiwan, Korea and less so Japan, areas in which China is highly sensitive. The Chinese forces of projection over Taiwan and Japan are without much doubt unequal to even local defense and have more to do with sabre rattling than actual military threats. For all of the hightened tensions between Taiwan and its mother country, cross-investment between them is increasing and mainland Chinese sentiment growing more capital-oriented.

    As far as Japan goes, ask any Chinese and they would happily imagine a glowing crater where Tokyo used to be but again investment by Japanese companies is much more important than such sentiment.

    Korea is more hazardous because of the unpredictability of North Korea. North Korea is as much a threat to China as both are to South Korea. Investment between S. Korea and China grows but the relationship between the North and China is unstable. Without Chinese food subsidies, the North would starve and China would never allow the North to collapse as this would mean refugees and the possibility of western troops in the North. An analogy would be if the East German government in the early 80s had suddenly deteriorated while Russia was still at the peak of its powers. Despite the North and South rapprochement of last month, the North is still very much an unknown factor, as much to the Chinese as to the west. If the North collapsed, Southern Koreans and stationed U.S. troops would be on a state of high alert for similar reasons.

    The problem for the U.S. in all these areas is that America would very much like to get out of possible entanglements, especially in areas where conflict with China is a possiblity, however remote. From across the oceans America gets on with China just fine. But its ties to neutrals and allies in the region threaten to embroil it in indirect conflict with China. If the U.S. was not there, these countries would build up to compete with Chinese emergent power. This would speed up the region's arms race. China does not yet have the economy to modernize its military as quickly as Japan, Singapore or Taiwan. This is a central irony. China needs the U.S. to stay in the region so that the other countries don't feel threatened and build up. Yet China is annoyed by the U.S. presence and America wants to cut costs and leave the region to its own devices.

    As far as China's navy goes, its leaders must realize that it can hardly compete against Indonesia's navy much less the American pacific presence. To do that it requires an aircraft carrier (or two or three or four) and it won't have one for another decade. It simply lacks the technology and wealth.

    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

    And, of course, there is still the question of Israel and its relations with Egypt, Syria and the rest of the Middle East. The fact that Israel has nukes and the means to deliver them and its adversaries have biological/chemical weapons makes that little problem very urgent.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    I am more and more heartened by the progress that region is making toward peace. The older generation (such as Hafez Assad) are passing on and most of the succeeding regimes are concerned more with modernizing and investment than in flexing their muscles. More and more young people circulate in other parts of the world and return (such as Bashir Assad). To me it seems like a gradual trend toward liberalization which can only have benefits for the financial and political stability of the region. I don't see anything changing this despite the weapons that each possesses. For all of his vaunted biological warfare supply, even Saddam didn't use it. Why? Because that would have been the end of his rule and his goal is not apocalyptic. Even the Israeli instability will settle down. There will be bumps surely, but the majority on both sides just want to get on with business.

    [This message has been edited by Disaster@work (edited 07-18-2000).]

    0

    Apparent complete absence of tactics during Civil War.

    in Combat Mission Archive #2 (2000)

    Posted

    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Sailor Malan:

    Indeed, but my point is that infantry achieved this ability to 'face off' cavalry, only by adopting close order tactics. The reason why the cavalry have such a morale effect is that the infantry know that if they break, or even get disordered, they are in trouble if any cavalry see them.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    Agreed. So it has been since the invention of cavalry. I love how history repeats itself in this regards. I wonder if the same can be said for infantry who hunker down and meet tanks with antitank weapons now instead of running in panic.

    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

    Once you have close order formations, you get the illusion that it's a case of lining up and blasting away (hence the start of this thread). In reality, there is as much tactical skill (although of a very different type) to use close order formations as there is in more modern wars. You try moving 500 men across a field shoulder to shoulder, and then reform on a flank, whilst retaining order!

    <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    In total agreement.

    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Sorry for the continued debate, it is just that Napoleonic wars are (another) hobby of mine, along with complaining about Hollywood depictions! Still no CM though!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    Hollywood totally gets this wrong. Here is a list of movies I remember that cover 18th - 19th century warfare.

    The Patriot: insultingly cartoony. Nice costumes, wasted.

    Glory: good movie. Nothing really said about battlefield tactics as it concentrated on one regiment.

    Gettysburg: Not a great movie but does have good scenes where the tactics do become apparent. i.e. at the Little Round Top and Pickett's Charge.

    Waterloo (version with Christopher Plummer as Wellington): My memory is fuzzy about this but I remember that they do spend time at each well known juncture of the battle. Too bad it isn't available on DVD. I would like to see how it stands up against my memories of it.

    Charge of the Light Brigade (version with Trevor Howard as Lord Cardigan): Takes a long time getting up to the critical charge, but they do follow the descriptions well and gives you an idea of how 'command' of that time worked. The actual scene of the charge is a wonderful depiction of a cavalry charge.

    Can you think of any others I should see?

    0

    Is patience a virtue?...all patient guys please post here!

    in Combat Mission Archive #2 (2000)

    Posted

    I've done a fair bit of research into the whole small company ecommerce situation and, with all due respect, Battlefront is in the same boat with a lot of other mini-publishers. My bet is that there isn't a huge staff here who have found the right system to use for fulfillment. Amazon has invested kajillions into fulfillment and I bet has made missteps that have cost millions. Yet, ecommerce is supposed to be the boon of small operations.

    I very much hope that it does work out for Battlefront, not just for the sake of receiving my own copy of Combat Mission but for the sake of small businesses everywhere.

    0

    Multi Multi player CM ?

    in Combat Mission Archive #2 (2000)

    Posted

    The plan you laid out has been a fairly common idea among game designers for some time. Again, like with the many attempts to make a decent superhero game, it all comes down to execution.

    The main criticism of this is the turn-based, time factor. I know many of you have completed PBEM games but the majority of gamers lack the patience for it. Even those of you who would still have to take time out for RL occasionally, leading to delays, etc.

    In Sid Meier's Gettysburg where you can have four (or more? I forget) aside, the games really opened your eyes to the need for communication and coordination .. in realtime no less! Frequently, sides with only one or two players commanding all the forces would triumph over the less coordinated side with more players. Obviously the side with the same battle plan would have an advantage over squabbling teammates. Sometimes newbies would 'nominate' a more experienced player to be the overall marshal and direct their efforts while they executed on the corps level down. Those were very fun games.

    0
×
×
  • Create New...