I/O Error

No no, I mean why did he raise his gun? I mean, the Japanese soldiers seemed, to MY eye, to be quite reasonable, basically saying, drop the gun and you live. And he decides to try shooting one of them?! Idiot...

http://smilecwm.tripod.com is the site, it's GREAT for forums.

Like I said previously, if we are so worried about the danger of having a BB get sunk, why don't we ask the same thing about Carriers? Those things are a HUNDRED times more vulnerable, without it's escorts, than a BB. Why don't we ask that? Because the carrier is too useful. We NEED them. The fact is, we DO NOT have a replacement for the sheer firepower of the Battleship. Aircraft? Unlike the movies, they are NOT as accurate as most people think. When you're surrounded by AAA and SAM batteries, you are NOT flying straight and level to the target. Most bombs dropped while in "hot" areas MISS! Also, it is relatively cheap and easy to defend against aircraft. The equipment needed to waste aircraft are a LOT cheaper than the targets they engage. The shells of a BB, once fired, are unstoppable. Aircraft? Fragile, relatively easy to knock out. Cruise missiles? Slow, unmanuverable, and predictable. 16" shells? Oh, you'll see it on radar. But by God, the only thing you can DO about it is duck... The battleship has powers we can not replace. Did ANYBODY read my earlier post on, (as an example) what we have available to take out heavily emplaced targets such as reinforced concrete bridges or hardened bunkers? (The Iraqis had crap equipment compared to what we and the rest of the world makes in terms of buildings. We have more money to spend, so we get better stuff) Lets revisit the idea of Battleship vulnerability. Aircraft: Aegis cruisers (two to each Battle Group is typical) are the finest anti-air and anti-missile defenses in the world. BARE NONE. Not much will get past them. Besides, no battlegroup will get close enough to shore without 1.) neutralizing all enemy airfields and 2.) scrapping together even MORE defenses. Missiles: Again, Aegis cruisers, PLUS the added bonus of the Phalanx Close In Weapon System (CIWS; say: See-Whiz) This includes not only traditional missiles, but ALSO the sea skimmer variety. Torpedos (submarines): The United States Battle Group Formation has the best equipment and best training to use in the field of Anti Submarine Warfare. Not much will get in. If it is safe enough for our Carriers, (and it is) than it is REALLY safe enough for a BB. After all, two Los Angeles 688(I) class submarines are part of the normal makeup of our surface groups. The Battleship is not vulnerable. Not with what we can use to defend it with.

PEBKAC - Problem Exists Between Keyboard And Chair Don't try to pass off responsibility! Hey TownsendVol, are you playing the Demos version of Chance Encounter, or the real games version? You just got the game in the mail, right?

Oh no, what I REALLY can't wait for is the Blitzkrieg years! Invading or defending the Low Countries, lightning quick armored thrusts with tanks that were more than just lumbering beasts, special operations against the Belgian fortifications, holding the Maginot Line in the south, oh the list goes on and on! Poland-France = Big time fun from Big Time Software.

In most militaries, stretching back to time memorial, swear words have been used liked commas. So instead of "Go go go!" or "Fall Back!" or the like, what we REALLY need for full realism is a grizzled old NCO bellowing, "Move it fucker! You waitin' for an INVITATION!" and "Jesus Christ, run for it!" Profane or not, you KNOW it's more real. ------------------------------------------ "If you should find yourself riding in a green meadow, surrounded by sun and warmth, do not be afraid... for you are in Alyssium, AND YOU'RE ALREADY DEAD!"

Hmmm... I have to admit, I like the idea. It would be VERY nice to compare the really intricate details when trying to mull over what units to procure. Right now, it's really just rely on prior knowledge and experience, and that's too happenstance. Can't imagine it would be hard. Add a purchase button and an info button tied into the same data screens we get on the field. (So you could select a unit and either buy it or get info first.)

Exactly! Like I said, the DoD has publicly stated that most conventional weapons will not damage a BB sufficiently.

/me gives MadMatt a cookie. I think you need a hug... GROUP HUG!! /me runs like hell before Matt beats me.

You read my other arguments? C'mon folks, I made a huge ranting post with a lot of good points. Can't you guys at least TRY to debate them? P.S. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>originally posted by Kanonier Reichmann: "Commies", in the year 2001... I fear you have been watching too much of Dr Stangelove... Buck Turgidson here we come! Regards Jim R.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Oh c'mon. The Chinese and North Koreans may not be as hardcore as they WERE, but they're both still socialists old-boys clubs. (Not to mention, we REALLY don't like either of them and the feelings are mutual.) Underestimating enemy = you get a knife in the back. You know that. [This message has been edited by I/O Error (edited 01-01-2001).]

Ummm... Rob, thats what he just said. /me smacks Rob/1 To answer the question, I THINK minefields are effectively unlimited. I believe they stay there and continue to do damage until an engineer squad removes them. Anyone know for SURE?

The number is actually 90%. No lie. Artillery, for the last 2000 years, has ALWAYS been the real killer on the battlefield. We are simply making that even MORE true today.

*evil grin* Heh heh, yeah, I guess I really should, huh? BTW: any thoughts on the layout of the map? Unit balance is relatively easy, but the map and key placement of units, buildings, objectives, and terrain features is the REALLY important part. Did it look gamey? Amateur? Too simplistic? (et cetera, ad nauseum )

<rant> BB guns = Pinpoint accuracy at a higher ROF and relatively cheap compared to: 1.) Aircraft. Expensive to build, fuel, arm, train pilots, repair, etc. Not to mention, VERY dangerous job. SAMs are still hell on pilots. 2.) Cruise missiles. The guns on a BB are more powerful, more accurate, cheaper, and move more quickly. It was mentioned that BB are great targets of opportunity. So were (and are) the Kirov class of ships the Russians made. And we FEARED those things. Also, studies have stated that most conventional weapons simply will not do the damage needed to knock out and/or sick an Iowa class Battleship. Missiles? That's why God made Aegis cruisers. Torpedos? Oh c'mon. If the ASW boys and submarines screw up THAT badly, it DESERVES to be hit! Nuclear weapons? Just as reasonable to ask the same question of a carrier. Those things have NO defense, and cost a pretty penny too. More expensive than a BB to build/maintain. And yet we ALL know that we can not be a superpower without them. Battleships? They're freaking invincible superweapons, for Christ's sake! Best things ever made for amphib. landings, great weapon of PSYCHOLOGICAL warfare, and recent advances in gunnery make it possible to upgrade the barrels/ammunition used on BB to allow ranges of up to 100 miles. (ummm... Actually, I think it said more, but since I am unsure, best to err on the side of caution) Tell me you don't like the idea of a weapon that CAN NOT be knocked out of the air after being shot and that can reach (according to the press releases) 75% of the world's land areas. Also, consider this: We have/had three ways to knock out heavily emplaced targets. (Permanent reinforced bridges, underground bunks, underground supply depots, etc) 1.) Nukes. Yeah, really bloody likely, I know; but that IS one of the our possible tools. 2.) Remember that jury-rigged bomb (used old artillery barrels, clever job) we manufactured to hit Saddam's bunker? (I do, I was living in Saudi Arabia at the time) Those are NOT in production currently and less than half a dozen of them exist. Not to mention, only TWO aircraft in our inventory can even carry ONE of the damn things. And bunkers like that tend to have a HELLACIOUS amount of AAA and SAM coverage. 3.) BB guns. Wrath-of-God powerful, pinpoint accurate, IMPOSSIBLE to intercept, etc. Cheap too. Don't say I forgot cruise missiles, you would be wrong. They DO NOT CARRY SUFFICIENT PAYLOAD. (Or possess even a tenth of the needed penetration power) If nothing else, the BB is a powerful reminder to the world that we OWN the fucking oceans. Presence of force is the best way to remind people of that. Everytime China stages "missile drills" off Taiwan, (ROC) we send in 7th Fleet or another group if closer. And you know what? The commies play REAL nice when we do. They FEAR the US navy. A BB? With just one we could stream up and down their coast, and destroy EVERYTHING in range. They know that. Deterence. In my opinion, the Battleship is simply too powerful and useful a tool to simply throw away. The Carrier and the Battleship BOTH have absolutely essential roles to play in America's role as the Guardian of the Free Oceans. </rant> Rebuttals? [This message has been edited by I/O Error (edited 01-01-2001).]

Glory is a kick-ass American Civil War movie, make no doubt about it. Lots of good things to mull over in that one...

HAHAHAHA!!! Tricked you! This is really just a HUGE credit card fraud operation. We all get a nice cut. Pretty impressive, huh?

I'm sorry to say it, but it is PERFECTLY historical to place guns of various sizes within buildings. Added protection, concealment, and so on are HUGE advantages to consider. Nothing wrong with guns in buildings.

WOOOOOW!!! Hold up a second, I just thought I should point something out. Laser Eye Surgery, although it is the wave of the future and VERY effective, has NOT been accepted by all branches of the military. I myself plan to get it one day, but just remember to check carefully with the Marines if in fact you wanted to do that. They might not accept it unless you ask them first... Hopefully the procedure will be fully accepted soon, but you know bureaucracies...

Thank you Pvt. Ryan, a little advice is VERY welcome. Another tester mentioned to me that he thought the US artillery spotters seemed to have too much of an advantage. Your thoughts on that? Should I tone it down or perhaps modify the existing balance a tad? (personally I thought a lot depended on luck and the individual player's method of fighting) ------------------ Honor, Duty, Courage. Valhalla awaits you, honorable warrior... Edit: Yeah yeah, so I'm too lazy to use spell checker. Spell checkers are for wussies. [This message has been edited by I/O Error (edited 12-31-2000).]

Sheer practicality overrode morality in that case, as well it should have. They were too valuable a resource to kill off.

I would agree with that statement, as the same thing happens to mortar crews entrenched in a good foxhole. Ah well, I guess it's all just game balance that they felt was needed.

<bump> Well, I tested it AGAIN, and yes RITs web server is still down for maintenance. Please test this scenario, and for some bizarre reason, if you click the link it will not work, you have to actually copy & paste it into a browser window. Geocities stinks. </bump>

Thirty second time delay after death, perhaps? It's a minor issue, but still a very reasonable question to ask.

Monte: Argh, well I saw Thin Red Line and was fairly unimpressed. Perhaps I didn't really get into the character at all... *shrug* And flashbacks make me itch. (Also, can someone PLEASE tell me why he was so STUPID at the end in that meadow? No more details in case someone DOES want to see the movie, just asking whoever watched it already)

A building is a superb place to situate an antitank gun. Surprise and protection, in one little brick-faced package... So you can't get it OUT very quickly, but still useful for a fighting retreat. (Talk to the Germans and Soviets, THEY knew what they were doing!)