Chupacabra

If, by "tolerance," you mean that I should respect your right to hold a differing opinion from my own, no worries. Other folks can believe whatever they like. If, by "tolerance," you mean that I should give credence to an opinion which I perceive as farfetched to say the least, then I'm afraid I can't do that. The UN isn't some sort of global overlord. It's made up of delegates from its member nations, and the primary duty of these delegates is to look after their country's best interests. Are all of these delegates suddenly going to say, "hey, you know that whole national sovereignity thing? Howsabout we get rid of it?" I mean, it's like saying that the US Congress is going to conspire to get rid of the distinctions between the states and rename the country "The Grand And Glorious American People's Protectorate." It's my opinion that you're misinterpreting globalism to mean that nations must give up their independence and become subordinate to some sort of global collective. ------------------ Soy super bien, soy super super bien, soy bien bien super bien bien bien super super.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by sneaky: The US has rightly refused to pay dues to a global organization which will eliminate national sovereignty over the course of time. Sneaky<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Um, sure. I think it's a little bit ironic that you condemn the John Birch Society for being conspiracy theorists in the same paragraph as this nugget of wisdom. ------------------ Soy super bien, soy super super bien, soy bien bien super bien bien bien super super.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jeff Heidman: Can someone tell me who I should enlist with if I want to fly one of the black UN helicopters that are insidiously taking over America? Any help would eb appreciated. Thanks! Jeff Heidman<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Meet me in the 42nd Street Station at Midnight on the Winter Solstice. Wear a red carnation in your buttonhole. Bring 3 pairs of black pajamas, 1 pair of steel-tipped boots, 1 entrenching tool, 1 spork, a sidearm, and 100 rounds of ammunition. AND COME ALONE. You will know me by my hat. This message will self-destruct in 5....4....3....2.... ------------------ Soy super bien, soy super super bien, soy bien bien super bien bien bien super super.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CavScout: I always find this to be funny. Yes the U.S. was, and likely still is, behind on its "dues" yet the amount the UN was behind to the U.S. was nearly three times the dues amount. Cav<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> You're right, there are outstanding debts on both sides. It's a conundrum. Neither side objects especially to grandstanding, and I don't think either side is likely to pay up first. Which leads to an impasse. I think that one side needs to make a good faith effort to start paying down their debts, and I think it's more likely to come from the US. Quixotic? You bet I am ------------------ Soy super bien, soy super super bien, soy bien bien super bien bien bien super super.

I don't like any of the ubertanks, either Axis or Allied, personally. It's kind of a "don't put all your eggs in one basket" thing. I feel that if you've sunk all your points into one big tank, A) if you screw up, get unlucky, have a brain fart, whatever, that's a big, expensive piece of junk lying there with flames coming out of it, and one tank can't be everywhere you'd need a tank to be at once. My playing style tends more, therefore, to Sherman 75s and 76s, with a Hellcat or Jackson if I need some more punch as the Allies, and Mark IVs and Panthers as the Germans. Take all yer Pershings and Tigers and what-have-you, I've seen bazookas lay the big stuff low far too often to trust it. ------------------ 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 voting record within the United Nations is clearly stained with much anti-American sentiment including many nations that we send big checks that they don't mind cashing. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The US is also infamously negligent in paying its share of dues to the UN. Nations like Bangladesh and Luxembourg are paying for our pet initiatives. I also believe that anti-American sentiment would only get worse if we suddenly dropped off the world stage. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> the idea that national sovereignty is being lost to globalist organizations that do not share the governing concepts of the founding fathers is still valid. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Who's trying to take away our national sovereignty? The US is the most powerful nation in the world, and it'd take a lot more than membership in the UN to take away its sovereignity. I also dispute the idea that the concepts of the founding fathers are perfect and inviolate. The world has changed in ways that the founding fathers could not possible have anticipated. Every amendment to the Constitution proves this. To say that the ideas of the founding fathers cannot be improved upon would be like saying "okay, all you black folk, get on back to the field, and all you women, stop yer voting and bake me a cake." <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Voting against Algore is a good first step, but it won't be the final one if we as a country would like to retain 100% self-determination.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Again, I don't believe that self-determination and being a produtive, positive member of the world community are mutually exclusive. I would also argue that no nation in modern history has ever possessed "100% self-determination." Also, I hope this is evident, but I'll make it plain - none of my statements here are personal attacks, and they should in no way be construed as such. I'm just garrulous, and I like big-picture arguments ------------------ Soy super bien, soy super super bien, soy bien bien super bien bien bien super super.

As a confirmed peacenik bleeding-heart commie-kissing liberal (I voted Green in '96, if that gives you an idea) I'll chime in with my opinion. The UN is not managed as well as it should be. I don't think you'll find anyone who disputes this. However, I think isolationism as a national policy is a serious mistake, and can lead to little good. I believe, in my big-government liberal heart, that the powerful (in this case, the US) have a moral obligation to give aid to the less fortunate (pick yr. third country), whether financial, military, whatever. In my opinion, the US military is going to spend more and more time performing peacekeeping missions, and less and less time conducting actual large-scale military campaigns. Again, this is merely my opinion, and future events may very well prove me wrong. I believe that a country can't claim the title "superpower" for itself if it doesn't back that title up with actions once in a while. The last really large-scale US isolationist movement to enjoy grassroots popular support was America First, who thought that "that Mister Hitler's a reasonable guy, and if we just leave him alone, he'll leave us alone." As far as the UN dominating the US military goes, my understanding is that it's the other way around. As two examples, look at two large-scale UN military actions, the Korean War, and the Gulf War. Is it coincidence that American generals commanded both? And Dittohead, you say that "the military can't survive another four years of liberalism." Correct me if I'm wrong, but Congress determines defense spending, yes? And for the last four years, we've had a Republican Congress. I think you're going to have to try a little harder. Finally - I'm not in the military, nor do I want to be. I can fully understand that American servicemen might not want to put themselves at risk for people they have no connection to. I also fully understand that it's hypocritical for me to ask others to do something which I wouldn't do myself. But still, I deeply believe that in the future the US will have to be a more active participant in the global community, not a less active one. ------------------ Soy super bien, soy super super bien, soy bien bien super bien bien bien super super.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Master Bates: CM Borg = unfunny board in-joke <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yeah, judging by your handle and signature, you're just a font of wit and humor, aren't you. ------------------ Soy super bien, soy super super bien, soy bien bien super bien bien bien super super.

Something I'd also love to see is a breakdown of where your points would be going for infantry purchases. For instance, say your nice infantry company is 500 pts and you've got 600 pts to spend on infantry. Happy day! But wait, curses, 150 of that 500 pt cost went into support, which exceeds your miserly 100 pt support budget. Yes, this is a really picky nitpick, since it doesn't take a lot of work to figure it out, but hey, I can be as picky as the next guy ------------------ Soy super bien, soy super super bien, soy bien bien super bien bien bien super super.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by barrold713: I have a question about graphics. How feasible is the addition of new types and shapes of buildings? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Barrold - as far as I know (and that isn't necessarily very far ), you could design new buildings, but they would replace the original buildings rather than being in addition to them. CM has a set of building bmps that it recognizes. You could design hundreds of new building bmps, but if they weren't named the same as the original bmps, CM wouldn't know what to do with them. I think that we're all hoping that CM2 will feature some snazzy new building types, though ------------------ Soy super bien, soy super super bien, soy bien bien super bien bien bien super super.

Bump.

I like to think of myself as a Kung-Fu Master, but I'm most likely a Jerk, or at best an Evil Clown ------------------ Soy super bien, soy super super bien, soy bien bien super bien bien bien super super.

Nah, you're all wrong. My psychic advisor told me CM2 would model the Hatfields vs. the McCoys. Charles is having a bit of trouble quantifying the effects of inbreeding on fighting effectiveness, but it should be out within a year. ------------------ Soy super bien, soy super super bien, soy bien bien super bien bien bien super super.

Nope. Again, at the time the gun was shelled, none of my units had LOS to it. When the gun was hit, the generic cross icon was replaced by the droopy gun graphic. As none of my units had LOS to the gun, I shouldn't be able to tell if the gun was knocked out or not. ------------------ Soy super bien, soy super super bien, soy bien bien super bien bien bien super super.

Nope, no one could see over there. And even if they could see the crew running, how would they say, "hey, that means we definitely knocked out that gun?" I might be able to guess that I knocked out that gun, but should I be able to know for sure?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Colonel_Deadmarsh: Cav said: What the hell was Atomic thinking? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> See, I never got this. I'd think it'd be pretty tough to modify an engine and make it worse, but somehow they did. ------------------ Soy super bien, soy super super bien, soy bien bien super bien bien bien super super.

I was playing a QB today in which I was attacking, as the Brits, a German-held village. As I was advancing a Daimler scout car towards the village, a previously-unseen AT gun took it out. After the crew bailed out and ran away, none of my units had LOS to the gun, and the graphic was replaced by a cross. I hunkered down and called an artillery strike on the gun's last known location. When the strike came, with the first blast, the cross disappeared and was replaced by the gun graphic, which had apparently been knocked out. When I advanced my troops, I found out that it had, in fact, been knocked out, apparently by that first arty strike. Now, my question is, if I didn't have LOS to the gun at the time it was knocked out, how would I have known that it was knocked out? Unless of course the Wehrmacht trained their men to scream "Mein Gott, es ist kaputt!" at the top of their lungs. Now, if I hadn't seen that droopy gun graphic, I probably would've shelled the area for another turn or so to make sure, but as it was, the strike came at the end of a turn, and I was able to shift fire to another target after only expending three or four rounds. Am I correct that this is a bug, or is there another explanation? I did a search for this, using "spotting bug" as the keywords, but didn't turn anything up. Has this been noticed before? Thanks. ------------------ Soy super bien, soy super super bien, soy bien bien super bien bien bien super super. [This message has been edited by Chupacabra (edited 09-05-2000).]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by jshandorf: I think I am right in saying that in the game itself, the guts, the engine, that a unit is considered to be "firing" when that little tracer rounds goes out. And it is only at that time damage is done to the target unit. Have you ever seen an infantry squad take casualties when NO tracer round hits them? I think not. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Actually, as far as my understanding of the engine goes, the tracer graphic has nothing at all to do with the unit firing. As BTS has explained, the graphical representation of the battle is an abstraction of the actual action, rather than a gospel play-by-play of the action. Which is why, for example, you'll get weird situations which don't seem to jibe with reality. I think we've all seen those tanks which get nailed by units which don't seem to have LOS to the tank. But to the engine, the units DO have LOS to each other, and it's a hit, and to the engine it doesn't really matter what the graphical representation is, except to make it easier for us to understand. And, incidentally, I've seen plenty of units take casualties when tracers don't hit them. I think you have to be a little bit more accepting that CM is a game of abstractions rather than absolutes. ------------------ Soy super bien, soy super super bien, soy bien bien super bien bien bien super super.

I think I wouldn't want a feature like this. The CM AI already takes some "creative liberties" with a lot of a player's orders. Now, I can understand a squad breaking under fire, or refusing to carry out an order it thinks suicidal. But say I have my plan worked out so that platoon A is to wait in the woods while platoon B enters the town. Once platoon B takes up its position, it is to provide covering fire for platoon A, which is to flank and destroy the AT gun by the church. Now, say, instead of doing this, platoon A says, "screw that, who needs covering fire? Let's go get some medals!" and charges the AT gun head on. Whereupon the infantry which platoon B was supposed to be suppressing cuts platoon A into little bits. Basically I think that CM already gives the TacAI a fair amount of liberty in interpreting a player's orders, and that if more control was taken away from the player, we might as well just be watching movies. ------------------ Soy super bien, soy super super bien, soy bien bien super bien bien bien super super.

Oh, and another one for the Stupid Tank Tricks file... In a recent QB, I had a T8 merrily buzzing around the French countryside, near a patch of woods, looking for an enemy platoon I thought was nearby, and a Jackson sitting hull down behind a nearby hill, providing overwatch. Suddenly, a Panther G pops out from behind the woods, going in the same direction as the T8. The T8 clears the edge of the woods at the same time that the Panther does, so that the overall picture looks something like this: Panther---------T8-----------Jackson In some mystical convergence of the stars, they all happened to be in a perfect line for the split second that it took both the Panther and the Jackson to fire. And you guessed it. The Jackson missed short, blowing the T8 to bits, while the Panther happily put one right into the Jackson. I wish I'd made a screenshot. ------------------ Soy super bien, soy super super bien, soy bien bien super bien bien bien super super.

I also believe that the "tanks+iced roads+nearby infantry" combination was more frequent than folks would've liked... ------------------ Soy super bien, soy super super bien, soy bien bien super bien bien bien super super.

HQ units may be another matter, but arty spotters seem to be, in my experience, significantly harder to spot than regular infantry anyway. This is an extreme example, but it might be illustrative. In a QB I played against the AI two or three days ago, I was attacking against a village. I cleaned the enemy out of the buildings, and all was good. Five turns later, the game ended. Looking at the end map, I noticed that on the top floor of a building in which I had stuck a squad and a half of infantry was an arty spotter which I had never noticed. Again, that was an extreme example, and I know that units in a building can sometimes fail to see each other for a while, but 5 turns seemed supernatural. I've also had other, more humdrum examples of cases in which I wasn't able to see a spotter who should have been fairly obvious. So - there seems to already be a fairly significant penalty to spotting arty spotters, and I'm not sure there needs to be a further penalty. Mmm, that was a long post for a short answer ------------------ Soy super bien, soy super super bien, soy bien bien super bien bien bien super super.

Big Red, gospodin. ------------------ Soy super bien, soy super super bien, soy bien bien super bien bien bien super super.

Just remember, if you feel the need to write posts like this, I don't give the proverbial rat's ass. ------------------ Soy super bien, soy super super bien, soy bien bien super bien bien bien super super.

To paraphrase you - why clutter up the already saturated board system with posts like this? What good are you doing? ------------------ Soy super bien, soy super super bien, soy bien bien super bien bien bien super super.