Peter Cairns

lucero1148, As a scenario yours is fine, and probably pretty accurate, but it rules out the version with a Tawainese civil war, and at least one faction "inviting" the chinese. As to the US standing off and using tankers, China could just bind it's time. It has more than the capacity to keeep 100,000 men on "Active" excercises along it's coast and the airforce doing routine patrols out to Taiwanese air space. How many months could the US keep up intense air patrols using tankers 500miles form bases and carriers, before crew and aircraft attrition started to take it's toll, and how much would it cost. Previously we have had discussions here on the attrition rates for Iraq compared to peace rtime use, and the cost of the war. Given the burden that GW1 had on the USAF, could they really keep that amount of flying up at those ranges over water for six months to a year. As to defending the airspace of an "independent Taiwan", that really depends on whether the US recognisies it diplomatically, which it doesn't at the moment. Peter.

Mav1, Fair answer, but if we assume that different trees is a big problem in terms of them having different values at different heights. What about the compromise of being able to put down ground cover and then add trees on top, in the same way as you add buildings roads or walls. Peter.

cassh, The problem with all the "Island" variants is that it's like playing CMBB on a map the size of a ball park, there is no space to do anything, it wouldn't even be on a par with a Falklands Module. Quemoy is a bit better as it's bigger but so much of it is within mainland Chinese artillery range, that it would be another WW1 style game. As for oil, you can sieze and claim what you like, but you can only exploit it in friendly waters, as it's to expensive and vulnerable to try to extract if someone doesn't want you too. Peter.

lucero1148, Originally I had envisaged a Civil War scenario which would have distrupted or even ment no air defences, however, if The chinese fired first and intervened, they have more than the Cruise missile capability to take out a lot of radars on the ground, and plains too. There is also the issue of commandos, and sleepers. The Chinese have their version of a 0.5 anti material rifle so they can take out ground radars too. The key would be could the Chinese airforce take out the Taiwanese quick enough to get it's force ashore in numbers before the US reacted. Bare in mind that in both Gulf wars the US preperation time was the best part of a year, and that although Iraq had the same time to prepare, the attacker in choosing the time of battle had a huge advantage, particularly against fixed instalations. Having said that if it was a CM:SF module then it could contain two distinct phases, China v Taiwan and China v US. It's one of the good things about it as you get to use the latest US kit, and things like M-60's. Peter.

The UK still issues Infantry with a 51mm which is an updated version of the old CMBO 2". UK Army Equipment. I've often woundered how it compares with an auto grenade launcher and if it's day are numbered. Peter.

listen people this was never exactly a serious thread, more just killing time. I'd hope for some humour catagories, or even some have serious ones, as I've ssen quite a few good suggestions when we were discussing how things should or shouldn'y work. As to not liking US policy, I am not to keen on British either, but if the discussion is on something like Bombing Iran which is in my view a pretty bad idea, what should you do, say nothing because it's critical of US policy. I thought GW1 was a good idea, and that was US policy, so it's not as if I oppose them all, i also supported cancelling the Comanche, because I thought that the money would be better spent upgrading the helicopters in use in Iraq, that was a US policy I supported even though I thought the war was a bad idea. I don't think the UK should have gone to war, but I support putting foam liners in our C-130 fuel tanks instead of buying new SSN's because I think that's a better use of money. Peter.

CM:SF will give us 1 to 1, plus a PBEM system that will be better than CMx1, added to that that a system that can handle modern warfare from airstrikes to ATGM's will be more than up to the task of WW2, which we are going to get within a year anyway. I don't think it's a different demographic at all, so much as creating a game engine that takes advantage of all the things that have come on stream since CMBO was designed. Peter.

That was a bit harsh.... Peter.

A short trawl of the net and you will see a testiment to the Barret..... Almost every nation, from the Russians to the Chinese, now makes an 0.5 (or even 14.5mm) anti-material rifle. So don't get carried away with what it can do, as it's as likely to happen to you as you do it to them. Peter.

No problem Mav, Now answer the question, should ground cover and trees be split so they can be set separately. Peter.

aka_tom_w, The problem I have is that even if I buy an intel Mac, I'd realy not want to fork out about £70 for an OS that I don't think is that good. I mean how many of you that use PC games would buy a $50 version of UNIX just to play a $25 game, if the reviews said it was a particulaerly bad, if common version. I can see Bootcamp causing a lot of people on the games side to just say if you want to play it get Bootcamp, and that will be a huge blow to Mac Games. having said that if the number of Mac Games quickly declines then if someone who by game industry standards is small ( like BFC) makes amac version then they will probably have a hit. The second option is for a third party who will do conversions once the PC version has peaked. as a Mac owner I am used to having to wait anyway. Peter. Peter.

Kurtz, True but that doesn't mean they'll let loose. If the US saw 3 or 4 heading for Guam, it's unlikely they'd start a nuclear exchange that would at least cost them California, not until they saw the effect, after all three or four minutes isn't going to make that difference to the result, if we are talking Armageddon. Once it was clear it was conventional and to take out aircraft on the ground and runways, then the US would have an appropriate response. They may escalate but I doubt they'd go nuclear. Peter,

lucero1148, I didn't say anything about Nukes, and ICBM can carry an accurate conventional warhead. As to defending Taiwan, it's only 60 plus miles and the Chinese can line up there whole airforce, the US can can't, even with half a dozen carriers it will struggle to get 250 aircraft over Taiwan at the same time, and that will be F-18's at long range v Su-27's close to home. Take the carriers in close and you risk losing them. As to amphibious capacity, most of what the British army that went to the Falklands wasn't on Royal Navy ships, try having a look at the Chinese merchant fleet these days, from ferries to container ships. Peter.

Interesting graph on US oil profits in Todays Observer. Unfortunately is not an article you can get on the net. It has figures for Profits for Conocophilips, Chevron and Exxonmobil from 2001 to today. 2001 CP= $ 3.2bn, Ch= $8.3bn, EM= $23.9bn 2005 CP= $23.5bn, Ch= $25.1bn, EM= $59.4bn, 1998 Price $13 a barrell, low point under Clinton, (started at $25 in 96, finished at $34 in 2000) 9/11 Price $28, Invaded Iraq 2003 Price $36, Katrina Price $68, Newyorker reports Bush " prepared to attack Iran" $65. Circumstantally you could build a conspiracy, but for me it's a combination of events bad luck and bad government, as no one could have engineered it even if they wanted too. Peter.

Yes but you can deliver Cruise from a surface ship or a plane far cheaper, hell why put 8 Gi's in the back of a Stryker when you could give each one a gold plated Hummer with a personal driver. Peter.

Martin Krejcirik, And just what is it thats threatening us right now or in the near future that requires a Naval stealth Bomber. To my recollection the only SSN that has ever fired a shot in anger was HMS Conquerer at the Belgrano, and that was nearly 25 years ago. Oh and given the cost over runs the first three Astute class are comming in at close to £1bn each. Thats enough to by 1,000 Strykers. Peter. [ April 29, 2006, 10:48 AM: Message edited by: Peter Cairns ]

Of course if you were really cynical (and this might just be too political), you could wonder if a lot of people in a US administration filled with people with and oil background, that was talking tough on Iran, might not privately be doing very nicely out of oil at $75 a barrel. Well there is no third term and these people have their retirement incomes to think about. And there was me criticising conspiracy theories on the General Forum. I should say for the record that as I tend to follow the cock up theory of history I don't think either side has engineered a crisis to force up oil prices. Peter.

I still think it would be extremely difficult even with it's technological superiority for the US to fight a war over Taiwan. You either restrict it to Taiwan and it's waters or you bring in the Chinese mainland. If the US do that then US bases become fair game. Ireally don't think that you can relay on either the Japanese or Koreans to risk taking on China, (even if it didn't threaten Nukes) to defend a country neither offically recognise. At the end of the day, the US can just go back across the Pacific, Korea and Japan have to live with it as a neighbour, a particularly difficult thing for Korea, with the Chinese the Norths paymaster. That leaves the US fighting an hourglass war. It has a lot of stuff in the US and needs a lot in Taiwan, but it all has to be squeezed through a few key points. Current Chinese ICBM's have ranges in excess of 5,000 miles and CEP's down to 150m witha 2,ooo kg warhead. They also now have a 4 plus syncronous satellite constalation that gives them effective regional GPS equivelent. If not already they could fairly quickly develope the ability to put a convention cluster warhead on to any US airstrip in the pacific. That still leaves US carriers, but no one has ever won a war with carrier air power alone, and keeping up the tempo of modern air warfare for long periods is immensly difficult. As to Korea, I think it would be just a Turkey shoot, and if you want that lobby BFC for a WW1 module. Peter.

Dorosh, won't be please I got an award let alone his. Peter.

I think that to celebrate the launch of CMSF, which we all hope will be only a few months away, BF should give a free copy to a handful of people who have dedicatedly contributed to this forum. There would be two ways to do this, they could either just announce the catagories and recipients on launch day, or they could announce catagories and ask for nominations. Hell, given that there is apparently the ability built in, they could even put it to the vote. Peter.

Iron Man, Where do you get that figure from, It may be true for a javelin as a weapon, but not for a single round. On that basis a shell from a T-72 is highly cost effective if it kills a Javelin, crew but not as effective as an AK-47 because 7.62mm rounds are dirt cheap. Given that the alternative to a Javelin is a M1A2 that costs a lot more than a T-72, the Javelin is value for money, as it can take it out the T-72, at a range when it can't hit you ( unless it uses a Laser ATGM of course). An RPG_7 round is far cheaper than one for a Javelin, but your chances of success and survival much lower. To be cost effective you need to be able to succeed and that's what counts against the RPG-7 etc. Where it becomes an issue is where the effect of an attack from a second had F-16 costing £12m ids no different from a carrier based JSF costing $60m. Peter.

Gee, the F-22 what a great plane, especially the easy of exit. Raptor exit technique Don't forget to do the on line poll. Peter.

Interesting BBC article, Al-qaeda jihad V US "Long War" The intersting thing is that Bin Laden and Zaqawi, both are Sunni's who see the Shia is, to use the "The Life of Brian" phrase "Splitters", and guess who backs the Shia's in Iraq, yep Iran. So the US is now talking about bombing Iran in case it gets nuclear weapons and they fall in to the hands of Bin Laden, who would use them against, yeah you guessed Iran. You couldn't make this stuff up could you. Peter.

Tag, In case you haven't noticed, although how you could have missed it escapes me, you can't really scare people who believe they will go to heaven if you kill them. No amount of big stick waving is going to bother Iran. so that leaves you either limited strikes which would just irrate them, or full blown war, which would be a disaster for America which to be honest would probably finish you. Don't get me wrong America would win, but you'd be pretty much friendless and bankrupt by the end of it and now we have China and India, the world doesn't need Uncle Sam any more. Peter.

You know when Moon bunped TanksmMucho, I thought we could get this back on track but it seems that there is yet again a rising tide of drivel. Peter.