Vanir Ausf B

Like others I noticed this as far back as CMBO. I've never tested it, but my impression is that while the pauses do typically mean an engagement, you can't really divine the results of the engagement from it. Maybe it was the other guy's tank that got waxed, or maybe they just traded shots and nobody is dead yet. Even if I were the cheating type I wouldn't redo a turn based on the progress bar.

TacOps? It's been over a decade since I played it, but it is WEGO and the SOPs worked very well there.

If there are any differences in C2 at the higher difficulty levels other than interface changes then the manual is indeed wrong, at least with regard to the difference between Warrior and Elite as the manual explicitly states that they are "identical" except for the interface restriction. I think this may be the Steve Statement you're remembering: That is vague enough it could be interpreted either way. Absent any empirical testing we will probably need Steve to make a more definitive statement . Or we can parse his words and endlessly debate their meaning as if he were some Old Testament prophet

According to the manual, anyone playing on a difficulty level above Basic Training is using the harder C2 mode, or what the manual calls "the standard Command & Control rules". Not that the manual couldn't be wrong, mind you, but I've yet to see any evidence that it is.

I don't miss the command delays. The lack of command lines is an interface issue. The underlying C2 model is actually deeper than in CMx1 regardless of how non-intuitive the interface may be, and I agree it could use some improvement in that area especially with regard to documentation of how it works. Specific examples of strange unit behavior need to be documented with saved game files to be of any use. Or at least some screen shots or Youtube clips. I'm curious now. Why isn't it being reviewed?

I predict Matthew Stafford is going to replace Josh Freeman next week as the starting QB on my fantasy team.

If it's the incident I'm thinking of, the A-10 pilot asked if there were friendlies operating in the area and was told there were none.

Dorosh seems to have a much lower opinion of CMSF now than he did when he was a BFC beta tester for it. What I would have liked to see in his little review was a recommendation for a game similar to CMBN that is better. He seems to be comparing CMBN to a theoretical ideal. I could use that criteria to demonstrate that every game ever made has sucked.

Well **** me. I've been paying $39/month for it. :mad:

Just read an article on that.

I read an account of a Jadgtiger killing an American tank by shooting through a house.

6) Anything spoken by the Cookie Monster

5) Anything by Rammstein

The answer to this may differ depending on whether the machine in question is a Mac or PC given that the Mac executable is 64-bit.

Shock Force 2! Or 3

That is not true. There is not one word in that article that is contradicted by what the Secretary of Defense said. So in-between suggesting the article is bogus -- sans any evidence to support that contention -- you use it to bolster your own claims. Sorry, you can't have your cake and eat it too. Oh, really. So those members of the Taliban that met with NATO forces about defecting were doing so with the knowledge of the rest of the Taliban? You seem to know more about what the Taliban knows than they do. This may be somewhat of a cheap shot, but I don't think you know what you're talking about. "Limited". "Minimal". Perhaps, but anything more than zero is too much.

Oops, forgot one. US Ambassador to Mexico Carlos Pascual has resigned amid a row over leaked diplomatic cables in which he doubted Mexico's ability to tackle drug gangs. The dispute flared last month when Mexican President Felipe Calderon accused Mr Pascual of "ignorance". He said the US cables, released by Wikileaks in December, had harmed ties. Mr Calderon also told the Washington Post that bilateral relations had suffered "serious damage" because of the US diplomatic cables. Link

Oh, is that what all the controversy is about? A bunch of bureaucratic pencil-pushing? That certainly isn't how I would categorize it. In just two hours of searching the WikiLeaks archive, The Times found the names of dozens of Afghans credited with providing detailed intelligence to US forces. Their villages are given for identification and also, in many cases, their fathers' names. US officers recorded detailed logs of the information fed to them by named local informants, particularly tribal elders. Among the documents is a report from 2008 that includes a detailed interview with a Taliban fighter considering defection. He is named, with both his father's name and village included. There is also detailed intelligence on other Taliban fighters and commanders in his area. The Times has withheld all details that would identify the man. The man names local Taliban commanders and talks about other potential defectors. "The meeting ended with [X] agreeing to meet with intel personnel from the battalion," the report reads. It is not known whether the man subsequently left the Taliban. In other documents, named Afghans offered information accusing others of being Taliban. In one case from 2007, a senior official accuses named figures in the government of corruption. In another from 2007, a report describes using a middleman to talk to an alleged Taliban commander who is identified. "[X] said that he would be killed if he got caught interacting with any coalition forces, which is why he hides when we go into [Y]," the report reads. In another report, American officers negotiate with a named Taliban fighter through the man's brother and uncle. In all cases the dates and precise locations of the reports are included. Linky Please forgive the wbs-style bolding.

Well, if Wikileaks is the new standard of moral integrity against which all others are judged then it's too bad Julian Assange isn't eligible to run for President. We could use a person of his outstanding character. Assuming he can stay out of jail on the rape charges. BTW, we do have media over here. Setting up the choice between Wikileaks and the government is a false dichotomy.

Why? I left you in the dust a few pages back. Out of curiosity, how far are you willing to take this no state secrets thing? Are you limiting it to the diplomatic corp only, or in JonS World would it also apply to the intelligence and military services?

The people who receive those reports, who are, to quote Magpie Oz from earlier in the thread "regulated by a statutory system of checks and balances and who are subject to a mandate of the population." Obviously. But the only way for everyone to make their own judgement is for every bit of information gathered to be made available to everyone else, including the people who are the subject of the communication. This leads us to a small problem: Yeah, and you can bet your ass that in this No State Secrets utopia you envision those cables would be a lot less interesting to just about everybody. You see, many of them would never have been written had the author been aware that the contents would become known to the people who he/she was reporting on. But that shouldn't be surprising. for anyone with half a brain.

Oh, was that why Magpie Oz was about to go Crocodile Dunkee on you earlier in the thread? Since you're so fond of ignorance, I'll inform you that making candid assessments of foreign dignitaries for the benefit of decision makers back home is part of what diplomats do. It's probably in the job description. Useless? Exaggerate much? The US does need to tighten its information security, and hopefully has already done so. But I am still on the side of our people over there putting their butts on the line against the Taliban, and they need as much cooperation from the locals as they can get. So no, I do not view monkey wrenches thrown into that cooperation as a good thing. I view it as a very Bad Thing [tm], both for our guys and the people whos future may lie, once again, under the rule of the Taliban. I guess it comes down to where your priorities lie. Don't flatter yourself.

I am fairly certain the Pentagon has said they are not aware of anyone having been killed. If they have made any comment further than that I would like to see it. Your colors are showing again. Does New Zealand still have SAS personnel in Afghanistan. Do you have the same don't-give-a-sh!t attitude towards them or is is that reserved for the hated Yanks? It's a reasonable assumption.

Too broad. There are some cables, perhaps most of them, that are of little consequence. Others have revealed wrongdoing, although in the vast majority of cases it was malfeasance within the government of the host country that was being commented on rather than by the diplomats themselves. Others serve no purpose but to embarrass and damage the careers of people who are just doing their job. I am not categorically against "whistleblowing". What I am against is the sort of shotgun methodology Wikileaks uses. That depends on whos story you believe. The Guardian says Assange told them the password was temporary and then never bothered to change it. Assange denies this, of course.

No they don't. To the best of their knowledge, no one has been killed because of the releases. But that may be due in part to many of the informants having been moved onto US bases. And they have not located every informant. But beyond that there are potential secondary effects that are difficult to quantify. What effect has the publication had on the willingness of other Afghans to work with the NATO forces? I don't know, but if I was an Afghan farmer seeing the names of other Afghans working with NATO published, and seeing the Taliban promise to find and punish them, I would think twice. In a COIN environment anything that damages the relationship with the native population is significant. Wikileaks has released relatively little regarding the build up to the Iraq war. The justification for that war was known to be retarded long before Wikileaks came along. In fact, it was known before the invasion even took place.