Chupacabra

CC was a lot of fun for its time, but to be honest it now seems hopelessly outdated. I think that the engine, and to some degree the graphics, have gotten progressively worse since CC2. I mean, the tank models in CC2 I thought were much sharper looking and stood out against the background much better than in CC3 and 4. I certainly don't feel like I wasted my money on those games, and for a while they were some of the better games around, especially with the RealPara and Real Red mods, but my feeling is that with CM around, I don't really need or want to spend my change on further incarnations of the series.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Germanboy: Speak for yourself, Mr. I-would-not-know-what-Fashion-is-if-she-came-and-knocked-me-over-the-head! You three are either to spot while I just look out of place in the IWM with my German Uberdress. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yeah, sorry, I forgot. Will you be wearing your ripped Skorpions T-shirt or the baby tee you got at the Love Parade? Oh, and will the knee-high socks you're wearing under your sandals be black or white? ------------------ Soy super bien, soy super super bien, soy bien bien super bien bien bien super super.

Yeah, we're pretty easy to spot, I think. We all kinda look the part ------------------ Soy super bien, soy super super bien, soy bien bien super bien bien bien super super.

The star thingy is command, the heart thingy is morale, the lightning thingy is combat, and the question mark thingy is stealth. ------------------ Soy super bien, soy super super bien, soy bien bien super bien bien bien super super.

I brought up a similar issue a few weeks ago. A previously hidden gun destroyed one of my troop carriers as I advanced it through a route I'd thought safe. The crew bailed out, and I ran them back to my company HQ. After the crew ran, none of my units had LOS to the gun, and the gun icon was replaced by the generic cross icon. I ordered some artillery to fire on the area in which the gun was located. At no time between the time the troop carrier was destroyed and the time the shells started falling did any of my units have LOS to the gun. The first shell fell very close to where the gun was located, and immediately, the generic cross was replaced by the knocked-out gun icon, and it was marked as knocked-out in the status box. As I had no troops with LOS to the gun at the time it was destroyed, I felt that I shouldn't have been able to know that it had been knocked out. Luckily, I was playing against the AI, so it didn't give me an unfair advantage against anyone. My plan had been to arty the area for at least a full turn, but as it was, the shells fell towards the end of a turn, and I was able to cancel fire at the beginning of the next. Again, I have no idea whether this problem was noted or addressed, but it does seem worth looking into. I doubt I still have an autosave file, unfortunately, but I'm sure I could whip something similar up. ------------------ Soy super bien, soy super super bien, soy bien bien super bien bien bien super super.

All of 'em spew fire if you hit them with a big enough gun... ------------------ Soy super bien, soy super super bien, soy bien bien super bien bien bien super super.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Rebane: Have not seen this in CM yet However in Northern Russia (Ust-Luga river and along Narva river in Estonia) and Belorussia there were extensive marsh areas and I think Germans lost there some heavy tanks. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I think the question would be, how often did this actually happen? CM doesn't model tanks being struck by lightning, either, which I'm sure did happen at some point, but not with enough frequency to be worth modelling. ------------------ Soy super bien, soy super super bien, soy bien bien super bien bien bien super super.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slapdragon: Luckily, in most of this not Big Time is Big Time. Not much worried unless Charles marries Steve's dog and runs away to become a circus performer. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I guess you haven't checked the Overview link lately, eh? Charles and Mr. Wiffles had a lovely honeymoon, and are currently working on an act with Leyla the Thousand Pound Woman and Moogli the Monkey-Boy. ------------------ Soy super bien, soy super super bien, soy bien bien super bien bien bien super super.

I'd also love to see either a rarity factor modeled directly in the game, or even a paper list saying 'rare, rare, common, unusual, whatever.' I can expound tediously for hours about why and how the war was started (I may be wrong, but I can sure talk your ear off )but I know virtually nil about what units were actually fielded during the war and in which combinations they were fielded. My knowledge is pretty much limited to 'Panthers are neat' type stuff. But I'd love to be able to play using forces which are somewhat close to reality. So, erm, yeah. Lists would be neat! ------------------ Soy super bien, soy super super bien, soy bien bien super bien bien bien super super.

Tsk, an otherwise well-done effort completely ruined by a total lack of hamsters. The hamsters are the heart and soul of CM, man! ------------------ Soy super bien, soy super super bien, soy bien bien super bien bien bien super super.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pillar: BTW, Kwazy Dog made the MDMP, not MadMatt.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I thought it was a collaboration between the two? Hence "Mad Dog"... Either way, they're pretty damn spiffy... ------------------ Soy super bien, soy super super bien, soy bien bien super bien bien bien super super.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by barrold713: The idea of redistribution of wealth is from Marx in that he wrote "From those according to their means, to those according to need" It is an idea that rightly belongs on the dust heap of history, but class warfare and the hatred of success that permeates many people all too easily keeps it an everpresent evil. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Again, I dispute that the idea of redistribution of wealth originated with Marx. Marx's original idea was a state based upon, among other things, redistribution of wealth. The redistribution of wealth is an institution which has been going on for centuries, if not since the beginning of human history, in smaller and more informal forms. I'm also not sure why you're bringing up this bit about class warfare, or hatred of success. If the revolution ever comes, I'd be one of the first against the wall. Believe me, in most ways I'm much closer to being a bloody-handed assassin of the workers than to the glorious modern proletariat. I also consider myself at least moderately successful, and in my mind, deservedly so. Through a combination of good fortune and hard work, I have an enjoyable life, I'm excited about my future, and I look forward to further success. Where I think we differ is that you see redistribution of wealth as "an everpresent evil," and I see it as laudable, a moral responsibility of the wealthy, and an eventual economic necessity. I am justifiably proud of my own success, and if I can help others attain a similar success, I'll do so by whatever means are available to me. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Another definition I heard of liberalism is that is is the motivation to do good with other people's money. I think that if people think there tax money is being used righteously, they shouldn't take deductions and just send the extra money into the governnment.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Are you advocating the abolition of taxes? <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Think of all the money the rich left has raised for Algore that could have bought health insurance for children. Barbara Striesand alone could make sure that no child in America goes without insurance, but she would rather let it mingle with the money provided by the chinese and get what accomplished from her donations. Does anyone think she or any of the hypocritical hollywood crowd doesn't itemize their political contributions on their tax forms? I would be curious to see how many deductions they take and ask why they don't pony up more of their fair share so that the children aren't starving by the millions, and suffering without medical attention just so they can greedily live in their big houses and expensive cars. That would be funny in my opinion.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> You're opening up a whole 'nother kettle of fish there. What does campaign financing have to do with my arguments? I don't believe I've stated anywhere that I agree with or support the democratic party 100%, no matter what. As I said, I've voted for candidates from just about every party out there. I'm personally very skeptical and wary of huge fundraisers and corporate contributions on all sides, or rather, I'm skeptical of the influences and backroom deal-making this entails, but it's seemingly what all parties have to do to raise money, so, so be it. ------------------ Soy super bien, soy super super bien, soy bien bien super bien bien bien super super.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Renaud: 'Now in the market economy this alleged dualism of two independent processes, that of production and that of distribution, does not exist. There is only one process going on. Goods are not first produced and then distributed. There is no such thing as an appropriation of portions out of a stock of ownerless goods. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I don't believe I ever claimed otherwise. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> The products come into existence as somebody's property. If one wants to distribute them, one must first confiscate them. It is certainly very easy for the governmental apparatus of compulsion and coercion to embark upon confiscation and expropriation. But this does not prove that a durable system of economic affairs can be built upon such confiscation and expropriation.' <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> It also does not disprove that such a system can be built. I'll point out that income tax, one of the most durable economic institutions going, is such a system of confiscation and expropriation. ------------------ Soy super bien, soy super super bien, soy bien bien super bien bien bien super super.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Fernando: An American or English band, I guess. "Soy super bien" isn't correct. The correct sentence is "Estoy super bien". It's a very common mistake among non-Spanish speaking people. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Welsh, actually ------------------ Soy super bien, soy super super bien, soy bien bien super bien bien bien super super.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by dirkd1976: Hey Chupacabra, Just a quick question, what is your signature from? The "Soy super bien" one, I dont get it!! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Both the handle and the signature are from a song by a band called the Super Furry Animals Well, I'd heard the legend before I heard the song, but anyway... ------------------ Soy super bien, soy super super bien, soy bien bien super bien bien bien super super. [This message has been edited by Chupacabra (edited 09-08-2000).]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by barrold713: Liberalism as classically defined is ill-suited to label the type of person hiding behind that tag. They are in truth just various shades of socialists and the idea of redistribution of wealth is directly from Marx. It presupposes that wealth is a zero sum gain in that if I get a dollar someone else necessarily must lose a dollar. The truth is that wealth is created and grown...the pie gets larger and its a cliche but it fits, a rising tide lifts all boats<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Er, I meant to actually say something here Anyway - you say tomayto, I say tomahto. If you wanna call me a socialist, that's fine. Modern usage has diluted the language quite a bit anyway, and I'm just as happy being labeled one thing rather than the other. I've voted for democrats, republicans, greens, socialists, and hey, if the Know-nothings were still around I might swing a vote their way. I believe I vote my conscience rather than along party lines. As for redistribution of wealth coming from Marx, I strongly disagree. He had a lot of original ideas, but that sure wasn't one of them. He came up with the Marxist form of redistribution of wealth, which, after all, makes sense, being that he was Marx. Nor do I agree that all liberals/socialists/lousy pinko commie bastards/whatever else you want to call me believe that the economy is a zero sum game. I certainly do not. I do, however, believe that you have to spend money to make money, and that applies to people as well. As I wrote in a previous post, I believe that if people are below a certain economic/educational threshold, they don't have a chance of succeeding in the American sense of the word. If you raise these people above that threshold (which takes money), they will earn the money back. ------------------ Soy super bien, soy super super bien, soy bien bien super bien bien bien super super. [This message has been edited by Chupacabra (edited 09-08-2000).]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by sneaky: The do-nothings will be the exception when we stop making it the only avenue available. At it's heart, redistribution of wealth encourages this kind of result and perpetuates the exact thing it is trying to erradicate. Sneaky<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I disagree, but I suspect there's little either one of us can do to convince the other that we're right. On second thought, actually, I will elaborate. I believe that there's a minimum threshold, below which people will never be able to provide for themselves. The threshold is of education, healthy food, decent health care, a clean place to live. There are too many people who live below this threshold, and as such, don't ever have a chance to succeed on their own. Raise people above this threshold, by whatever means necessary, and I believe they'll earn the money back in spades. I agree that the present system of welfare doesn't do the poor any favors, and does indeed encourage people to do the minimum possible and pick up their checks. But I believe that this is not an integral part of the human condition, that it can be overcome, and that it needs to cost us more before it can cost us less. ------------------ Soy super bien, soy super super bien, soy bien bien super bien bien bien super super. [This message has been edited by Chupacabra (edited 09-08-2000).]

One note - sicher can also mean safe or secure. I'm not sure what the intended meaning in this case is. And an addition - I believe I've heard them say "schnell, schnell!" (quickly, quickly) The sound coming out of my laptop's speakers ain't so hot, though, so I could easily be wrong. ------------------ Soy super bien, soy super super bien, soy bien bien super bien bien bien super super.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by 82nd Airborne: I like Bens quote too. Maybe I should have refered to the Constitution then, regarding free expression of ideas and such. Oh, BTW, define Republic. I am not clear on its meaning. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Literal definition of republic is a country which is governed by a representative body rather than a hereditary ruler. ------------------ Soy super bien, soy super super bien, soy bien bien super bien bien bien super super.

Cav - In comparison with 99% of the world's population, yes, I am rich. Compared to some, no, I'm not. I donate 10-15% of my paychecks to a few humanitarian and educational organizations. Believe me, I'm well aware of the areas in which I'm hypocritical, and this isn't one of them. Second. I was not attempting to use age to validate the redistribution of wealth. I explained in my last post why I mentioned age. If it was unclear, I hope this will make it less so. Third. You turn right around and use age to validate the US government. Yes, it has been long-lived in comparison to many other governments. But, as you say, age and durability are not validations of an idea. Fourth. I think that there are very few people in the world who wouldn't love the chance to work for a living. Yes, there are people who are lazy. Yes, there are people who abuse the system and look for free handouts. I believe that these people are the exception rather than the rule. ------------------ Soy super bien, soy super super bien, soy bien bien super bien bien bien super super.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by kunzler: Take from the rich and give to the poor is classic bleeding heart politics. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> It sure is, God bless it. ------------------ Soy super bien, soy super super bien, soy bien bien super bien bien bien super super.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CavScout: Obviously because you're not one of the rich. It is easy to say "give it up" when it is not yours to give up. Cav <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> You're right, I'm not one of the rich at all. And let me tell you, paying for a computer, CM, and an ISP is a bitch on those welfare checks. I haven't eaten in 3 weeks, but at least I can escape my dull reality in the vivid world of cyberspace. Oh, and comparing the redistribution of wealth to racism is a loaded and misleading comparison, I think. My point in saying that it's an old idea is that it's not some new plot cooked up by the UN to defraud the wealthy nations of the world. ------------------ Soy super bien, soy super super bien, soy bien bien super bien bien bien super super. [This message has been edited by Chupacabra (edited 09-08-2000).]

I'd like the Wrath of God to automatically fall upon my opponents. That and more terrain tiles. ------------------ Soy super bien, soy super super bien, soy bien bien super bien bien bien super super.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CavScout: Agian, this is simply wealth redistribution. "Damm you have money... let's give to this guy who doesn't." <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> And what's wrong with the redistribution of wealth? It's an idea that's been around for a looooong time. You either redistribute wealth, or the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. Now, I have no problem whatsover with some people (or countries) being richer than other people (or countries). That's life. But I also think that there is a moral responsibility to alleviate suffering and improve living conditions where possible, and if this means that the rich need to pay up, well, so be it. ------------------ Soy super bien, soy super super bien, soy bien bien super bien bien bien super super.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CavScout: What I do see the UN doing is trying to redistrubte the wealth. You'll notice things regarding polution heavily penalize the US but exempt many of the Third World nations and even some of the not-so third world, like China. What is in the interests of others is not, and rarely seems to be, in the favor of the US. IMO the UN needs the US far more than the US needs the UN. Cav<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Until all nations are equal, rules are never going to apply equally to all of them. It simply wouldn't work. And another thing - the idea that nations will be replaced by some sort of global mega-government simply doesn't make sense logistically. People complain about the bureaucracy in the United States, that the government is too big, etc. Can you possibly imagine what a huge freaking mess any organization arrogant enough to believe it could govern the entire world would be? The bureaucracy and confusion in a government which had to recognize and attempt to either accomodate or modify hundreds of different languages, cultures, political traditions, economies and religions would just be staggering. Look at the troubles the EU had (and is having) just trying to get a relatively small and relatively close-knit group of nations to agree on a single currency! Unless they're getting help from Satan, the aliens, or the Illuminati, no sane person or organization is going to attempt to tackle such a tangled rubbish heap that a global government would be. Maybe when we all speak esperanto, worship the Supercomputer, and are all a light tan color, but not in the foreseeable future. Edited for spelling. ------------------ Soy super bien, soy super super bien, soy bien bien super bien bien bien super super. [This message has been edited by Chupacabra (edited 09-08-2000).]