Cary

I can't imagine they'd be foolish enough to bother -- the veto's been mainland China's since the mid '70s. A Japanese or Korean intervention to save Taiwan is about as likely as a European intervention to save Cuba or Puerto Rico from the United States. For us, it's the same problem of extended deterrence that we had in Europe, except that we don't have forces stationed in Taiwan. In the end, though, the big question is why China would feel the need to retake its "breakaway province" -- especially as Taiwan seems to laying golden eggs profusely on the Chinese mainland. The Middle Kingdom's been around a very long time; one suspects they figure Taiwan will recohere sooner or later. In general, I'd think Flashpoints: China are Korea, Vietnam, Malaysia and Indonesia (and Kazakhstan, etc.) more than Taiwan. Funny issue... I suspect at some point we might learn that feeling the "need to maintain credibility" is a very good symptom of having few interests (and, in the end, very limited credibility) to begin with. If it is "how much you can take," the problem is that that quantity is dependent on real threat to interests. The USSR in WWII will "take" a lot more than the USSR in Cuba (as Castro found out). [ November 16, 2006, 08:30 PM: Message edited by: Cary ]

Look on the bright side - if a war starts, you don't have to pay a penny of that debt! </font>

Of course this raises the "what if" of the coup against Hitler. It'd be a pretty different world now if in 1944 Stauffenberg had been a suicide bomber, or if Hitler had been closer to Stauffenberg's bomb when it went off. It'd be even more different if the German military had done the smart thing and deposed Hitler in April 1940 or May 1941 -- the former being the "nearer run thing."

Same reason you can't "tech up" units that are adjacent to the enemy: to make qualitative upgrades to unit strength more difficult. At some point, I guess, the idea is that units have to be pulled out of the line to rest, reequip and retrain. At this game's level of focus or abstraction, I doubt that arguments about how reinforcements reach the front make much sense.

Isn't that what they tried in Vietnam? </font>

He later indicated that he would share the solution that they ultimately implemented. Maybe we can pester him into posting it. I think it will be one of the more interesting aspects of CMx2 - reconcilling 1:1 graphical representation of units with LOS/LOF that is not 1:1. </font>

No idea but what I happen to know is that they are not only used to transport supplies but also as a very powerful weapon : they spit at enemies. Khane </font>

The downside, of course, is that this further encourages the "evacuate to Egypt" strategy.

If you are talking about mech heavy forces vs. light infantry, in depends entirely on territory. If engagement distances are only a few hundred meters at max, and usually much shorter, the mech heavy force will suffer considerable casualties, even if we wouldn't be talking about any FDF Jaeger Battalion v. A2-yellow scenario. </font>

Always dangerous to confuse correlation and causation, particularly with soldiers' lives at stake. The biggest problem the Western Allies faced in Germany in 1945 was deciding which German surrender was the official one.

Grozny? Kabul? I'll grant you, the Israelis may be in that treacherous middle zone: just enough to be ineffective. </font>

Grozny? Kabul? I'll grant you, the Israelis may be in that treacherous middle zone: just restrained enough to be ineffective. But the purest of hearts and the loftiest of goals does not excuse one's guilt for starting an unsuccessful war. [ August 02, 2006, 08:45 AM: Message edited by: Cary ]

In a world of absolutes, you'd be correct. Pretty much every nation on this planet today has some history of terrorism if you want to view it that way. The French attack on Greenpeace, British occupation of Northern Ireland, Switzerland's blind eye to money trails, Canada's problems in Somalia, UN having dictators represented in the Human Rights council, the US's wonderful trackrecord during the last 50 years of supporting pretty much any tyrant that sat on oil or stood in the way of the Soviets or Chinese gaining influence, etc., etc. In such a world view a few bad eggs means the whole hen house is a complete loss. .... snip.... BTW, I heard an interesting perspective on Hamas that explained a lot in a way I had not heard before. The political wing was just about to make a deal with Fatah and Israel. Hamas' military wing, controlled by Demascus, did not see that in their best interests so they ordered the fighters out into the streets to do battle with the PA's security forces. When that didn't derail things enough they captured the first Israeli soldier. Israel, unfortunately, took the bait. Hezbollah has been trying to get Israel to attack Lebanon for a while now, so seeing how easy it was to get Israel to overreact they did the same. The sad thing about this is that the Paletinians, Lebanese, and Israelis are all paying the price for this idiotic struggle that will never, ever end unless violence is abandoned by all sides. Steve </font>

ugh, dbl post

Kidnapping and selling children, tossing people out of heliocopters? Torture, rape, murder is not improved by a classy uniform or VTOL capabilities. It's just that some of these militaries have been a little shy about photography. [ August 01, 2006, 02:02 PM: Message edited by: Cary ]