dieseltaylor

And for those babies and foetuses accutomised to high sweetness levels it will be a trivial task to adjust. I have not had an opportunity to check back the oppositions side as we have friends staying but it will be interesting to see how the Skeptoid stands up.

I think QV would be more dispassionate - no pay check to worry about ) http://www.heritage.org/research/iraq/wm217.cfm interesting reading - from a right wing think tank. It is surprising to see that in 2001 8.5% of US oil imports were from Iraq ....... I had not known or forgotten that. Not included in the article and probably forgotten by Costard[!) is Australias large grain contracts - kidding Whilst looking at Austalian involvement I came across this highly interesting article: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/8798997/the_man_who_sold_the_war/ Interesting as a historical piece. In fact very interesting in terms of what is done by a democracy. this excerpt I found laughable or at least strange: Long train journey in Scotland!?

Tero - from your comment I get the feeling you have not watched the video. Sugars can be that bad. And sugar makes fat ..... but please watch the movie.

OP most often stands for Opinion Piece so perhaps you will bear that in mind as a cause for confusion. I am not trying to argue the correctness or otherwise of the war - I am more interested in peoples perception of the result so far. I have the deepest sympathy for all soldiers who are suffering for their political masters decisions and some no doubt feel an element of betrayal. To feel betrayed by the politicians is perhaps because they are not up on their history where armies in the late 20th century have been given plenty of bad positions to be in whilst the politicos dicker about. Perhaps we need honesty - you are in that country to change it , in some way, from its current position. And we will let you know when we feel we have accomplished as much as we can for [our] the free World's benefit. With the onus less on "win" militarily but rather some change to occur then the armies know that there is not an obvious win point. As for Obama ever claiming to have won - I think he is too smart for that. This was/is a situation without a winner in terrms of those involved. I am sure that some areas will regard the Wests embroilment in Iraq with satisfaction - China, Russia etc

Admittedly a heavy off topic and at 90 minutes rather a long University lecture. However as it deals with health and gives the science behind sugar/obesity/diabetes and heart disease it is well worth watching. I cannot recommend it enough as it uses meta-analysis to provide verifiable proof of its theme that fructose etc. creates the bad fat and more. A brief overview would be that the obesity epidemic of the last 30 years in countries adopting the American diet is remarkably consistent with cheap sugar being used in processed foods and the removal of fibre to prolong foods storage life. Over the last 100 years sugar intake has increased tenfold - and most of the increase is post-war. The liver can only process so much per day and when there is a glut excess sugar causes problems for the body. A large 44 fl oz. size soda daily is worth 123lbs in a year on your weight. However that is to suggest that weight is the problem - however it is only a visible sign and the real damage is actually internal. Being for science grads they tend to use graphs, proofs, and supporting evidence. All in all a very very persuasive piece - with not an alien or foil hat in sight. Please do take the time to read.

Hanson's piece was not referring to a Marine in Iraq unless I have missed something but was all his own opinion. I appreciate that there is a modifier but won is still the expression I am trying to grasp. You do make the point that US casualties are down: I assume therefore that leaving South Vietnam was a win also on that logic. This is a piece from the BBC item quoted early in the thread: So "won" depends very much on what you say were the objectives were in the first place. And "largely won" suggests perhaps some aims achieved and some not, or, a single aim that is still not resolved satisfactorily. I can very much understand that the military are confused by what is happening. For them there is no "win" ever in this situation where they are embroiled in politics. There only clean win would have to have been capture the Sadaam family and leave the BAathist to organise elctions etc or whatever. As for "fairly stable democracy" I think it is wussy as without any explanation of why it it is qualified with "fairly" it is pretty useless to the reader.

I find that an interesting claim as in I am not sure what "won" refers to. Saddam is removed? Iraq is more westernised - less religious than surrounding countries? Weapons of MD found and neutralised? I am sure that the US military complex and their shareholders have had a definite win but I am not sure that is what the author means. "Fairly stable democracy " ...... what kind of wussy statement is that? Like its not fallen over yet because we have loads of soldiers there? You have to laugh that after a mere couple years that this guy is prepared to suggest its a stable democracy. wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_in_Iraq However a very much more positive gloss on democracy in Iraq is here: http://www.hudsonny.org/2009/05/dodging-democracy-in-iraq.php but it does suggest that those who believe in democracy is in existence but feel threatened by "realists"

There are a number of possibilities a] I am using IIIf's but I was running in 1943 - however there appear no differences in armour penetration b] The M42 is harder to knock out than an M43 - unlikely c] Your battles was not at midday in fine weather d] Your opponent had some undulations that altered the angle of strike/hulldown e] They had sen you first and got the crucial first kill I have just run a three Stug to two T34's at just over a thousand and both died within a minute for the loss of one Stug. Ran again both dead inside 30 seconds Ran a third time they lasted 55 seconds and got one hit and panicked a tank I would suspect you were unlucky.!

Bloody Murdochs revenge on English cricket - make sure it is minority interest.

I have just put 5 veteran Stugs versus 5 T34 at approx 1000metres and all T34's died in the first 55 seconds for the loss of two Stugs and one immobilised. Veteran is the category but I got 3 vets, one crack, and one regular. All the Russians were regular. Note that I had a group of tanks versus a group of tanks not single fire lanes. Also note that one dead Stug did not vacate the tank dueing the minute and may have drawn fire. I re-did the test with same crews etc and all t34's were dead in 33 seconds for no loss. I re-did the test for a third time and the Russians were all dead at 44 seconds for the loss of one Stug. Then I went to regulars for both sides - apart from the Russians had one green The battle took two turns and the Stug loss was two all at the beginning and when I replayed the second turn three times the loss was a further Stug twice and a single once. So veteran troops appear much more lethal. BTw I thought I would set up a second trial but for laughs put in a strong wind - and accidentally 1320 metres. Four T34's died in the first minute - no losses to the Stugs. Replaying the second turn twice more the sole T34 managed a kill,and a gun damage before dying.

How general a "general direction"? I might believe a 120 to 180 degree arc as your senses may be able to "feel" the passage through the air. Of course if you were heavily suited up insulating you from the surroundings then that chance would be degraded/destroyed. As to how close the bullet needs be to be sensed .... a metre? Given with the benefit of all my knowledge on weaponry - nilish.

Basic rule of thumb is that if it says its historical then it will be a bad scenario. Honest. Semi-historical can be good or bad depending on the designer. The reason is that the game engine is nowhere subtle enough to account for a number of things - surprise being just one of them. CM is really coarse in some ways with the Firefly firing just as fast as any other Sherman rather than half as fast. When you translate that fact to Wittmans Last Battle by Enigma where tanks are on a one to one basis the German heavy armour is jumped on and spat out easily. Another series - I think Panzer Div 1 in 1940 in France used Honeys[stuarts][M5's] and Crusader's to be the French tanks. Believe me they are both very much faster in moving and firing than any German or French tank of the time bar perhaps the III. Not a happy solution. A good designer making an entertaining game would have a nod at history but make adjustments to account for playability and the game engines weaknesses. The HSG series - HISTORIC Scenario Group - has a number of designers but the ethos tends, in my eyes, to lead to scripted games where if the result comes out as it did historically then the designer feels vindicated. However there are some exceptions I am sure of this as I have played one good one : ). There are a large number of HSG about. In the HSG brands defence the argument goes that we are better informed than the grunts on the ground and therefore the action often starts with troops under fire almost from the first turn to provide the surprise element and to commit you to the battle. A major plus for historicity but very unsatisfying if you like the game to allow you to be general. Perhaps I am embittered because in one game a German unit was pretty much in my set-up area and killed my only artillery observer first turn.! There are many good scenarios out there and some of them feature in the Scenario Depot II's top download list. Some like Botrytis II exist at The Proving Ground. I think some reason why good scenarios are still at The Proving Ground is because some designers find the Scenario Depots rating system deeply flawed where a joke 1 score can drastically downgrade the overall score because of the value given to outlier scores in the rating formula. Lastly evn great designers like Ritchie, designer of Tiger Valley, has a genuine lemon on the CMAK CD as an historic encounter goes tits-up as the Stuart is given an ahistoric superpowerful 37mm which can knock out the early German tanks at range. BF screwed up and with the Grant etc also carrying the super 37mm any historic desert battle could have a problem.

Search the Technical forum?

Looks like not everyone reads the links : )

I bet their wives were pleased. I appreciate the fine definition but with the game engine if you want superior performance from your troops you have to pay the points. If you put in conscript troops into the Sturmartillerie you would expect poorer performance as a follow on regardless of the prestige of the arm. I am not saying that elite will perform better but I suspect they will at range stated in your first post. Run the trial!

No need to be bitter JonS, not everyone can do it. : ) Thanks for the links

"Only great minds can read this .This is weird, but interesting! fi yuo cna raed tihs, yuo hvae a sgtrane mnid too Cna yuo raed tihs? Olny 55 plepoe out of 100 can. i cdnuolt blveiee taht I cluod aulaclty uesdnatnrd waht I was rdanieg. The phaonmneal pweor of the hmuan mnid, aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it dseno't mtaetr in waht oerdr the ltteres in a wrod are, the olny iproamtnt tihng is taht the frsit and lsat ltteer be in the rghit pclae. The rset can be a taotl mses and you can sitll raed it whotuit a pboerlm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe. Azanmig huh? yaeh and I awlyas tghuhot slpeling was ipmorantt! if you can raed tihs forwrad it" I suspect you need to be literate first before you can read it : )

Definitely a smarter dummy required : )

AI generally accepted as not to be the equal of a human - but then I can play dumber than the computer also : )

A lot of modding has been done by many different people. I suggest you look at the stickies here and the links.

If Sturmartillerie were elite troops I do wonder why they were crewed by regular and a green crew in your game : ) It might be interesting for us all if you recreate the positions/range and use elite crews and see what difference it makes to the end result. Certainly better trained troops get accuracy increases - exactly how much I cannot recall but not a huge amount. The rate of fire I think would go up by a round or two a minute also. As for knocking out T34's at range of 1200 metres I think that would be sub-optimal but then sometimes you have to take the situation presented. If it makes you feel any better I am involved in a CMAK and my MkIV' s and the enemy Shermans are also being inaccurate at 1200 metres with very few hits. Now part of this is because BF dumbed down long range fire - I am not sure why but I am sure there are threads discussing it. Possibly because in RL tankers would not waste too many shots at unlikely ranges but gamers without re-supply concerns would. The other fudge with history is the rate of fire of all tanks is less then maximum rate so as to allow for sensible aimed fire at range. Consider that at point blank range the laying of the gun would be simpler but the ROF remains the same. But games have to a blend of these fudges to make it capable of running on a year 2000 computer. Lastly this month I had a crack Tiger miss a broadside on Sherman twice at under 300 metres and then it reversed out of sight. Snuck out later and killed me : (

Which hotel ? : )

Totally stunning. Literally.

Rise of Flight has continuous DRM - apparently you have to be logged on to play it at all. OFF seems a labour of love with many times the aircraft of RoF but it is not designed outright for multiplayer, The background detail is enormous with hundreds of squadrons etc.

Interesting - though a small van would not seem to be really where they would shine. My gut reaction is 55mph is not very fast so air displacement is not a big deal with a relatively small frontage/length. However a rig at 55mph is a different matter in shifting air : ) A van doing 70mph would possibly be more effective test. off the web