Tarquelne

..ease repeat first post. The first part was cut off. I say, please repeat first post.

W: Wow! That's a lot of fluff. Not burning prisoners alive while their daughters and livestock are raped, for example. No wonder you say war isn't "civilized." Civilization - and more - is all fluff as far as you're concerned. A: The only factors I think you left out are the size of the response, and to what degree the "attacker" (the one about to drop some ordinance) is responsible for narrowing-down the target area. Unfortunately, that's where it gets complicated. It's where people have to start making judgment calls. It's where the "fluff" kicks in. Requiring that only the exact amount of force needed to neutralize the enemy hardware be used, and applied exactly on target, is absurd. The other extreme isn't absurd, but it is monstrous. *** That's all for me. And, unlike JasonC, I can say "enough" and mean it. Moderation in all things - posting AND carpet bombing.

By "civilized" do you mean "obeyed the letter of the law"? That's the way it's looking, and that's a very, very low bar to set.

Hmm? It won't? You're taking that as a _given_? The roads are good, the people are uncoerced, they understood the notice, they believed the notice, they had time to leave, they had someplace better to go. If you think that should be taken as a "given" you're lying to yourself. And the whole idea seems undermined by your statement that those left should just "take the consequences", end of story. If the place is blown to kingdom come regardless of the civilian presence - we gave notice, so it's all up to them now - then the notice was just going through the motions. Just CYA, not restraint. Maybe that's the best you can do sometimes. I get the strong impression, though, that it's the sort of behavior you think we should embrace. That what we need is more, heavier, less discriminating bombardments of larger areas. Civilian casualties shouldn't be given much weight. Just give notice first. Well, if it's a village I think they _do_ have reason to be there. I'm guessing they live there, work there, all that civilian stuff. Have babies, whatever. Sure, it's not the warning side's fault if they're still there. That still doesn't address the necessity of hitting targets in the village. But lets take that as a given: There's still "blowing it to kingdom come," - given your other posts it sounds like you've thrown the idea of proportionate response, at any level, out the window. Nor does it address the idea that massive civilian casualties is just the civvies "taking the consequences". That throws the idea of civilization out the window. Hiding behind the letter of the law ("We gave notice") isn't civilization. It's just barbarism wearing a tie and charging you $100 an hour. You can imagine my relief. As long as those "i"s are dotted, yes? [ August 23, 2007, 06:40 AM: Message edited by: Tarquelne ]

Well, duh. What about blowing up the whole village full of people who deserve it, though? Are you backtracking, recanting, weaseling, or just forgetful? I thought your earlier exit was much better, btw. I felt you were going out on a much stronger "note." Was it really worth it to come back in with such an over-simplified strawman? Personally, I don't think so. [ August 22, 2007, 07:39 PM: Message edited by: Tarquelne ]

You left out a couple of significant bits. You didn't just "face facts. You cavilerly stated a village should be "blown to kingdom come" and any civilians present* deserved it. Those things are hardly objective matters of "fact." Anyone not obviously sociopathic would agree with the bare principle when so confronted. Behold the power of sarcasm and tremble! We'll see if the "principle" is ever discernible in one of your posts. When called on it before (RT's post) you seemed to retreat from it, if anything. And NB: How nice for you, that it isn't obvious. *Unless coerced. Then it's the other guys fault. (ie, it's _all_ gravy.) EDIT: Hmm... I notice you also agreed with JonS's post. In principle, and with a big qualifier. I see you've bowed out of this, which is fair enough. But I suggest, Jason, that in the future you just go with "The end justifies the means." I think it's a very small step from your present position, removes the need for any "weaseling", and has the great cachet that comes with any classic. [ August 22, 2007, 04:00 PM: Message edited by: Tarquelne ]

Well, yeah. But beyond the question of whether or not any given ROE really guarantees defeat or not, there's a larger question. Which is the stupid thing? The ROE, or fighting the war? Factions - people, nations, groups, whatever - always have things they can give up, and things they can't. Things they want and things they need. A reasonable faction will know the difference. A reasonable faction will also think seriously about how much they really have to gain from waging "unrestricted" warfare compared to what such warfare inevitably sacrifices. A false sense of security - to pick an example at random - isn't worth fighting for at all IMO and bad ROEs - one way or the other - would just make it worse. Too many people aren't "reasonable" by my definition above. I'd point to any terrorist as the classic example, and anyone who desires adopting terrorist-style methods in fighting them as the common example. [ August 22, 2007, 01:35 PM: Message edited by: Tarquelne ]

I would have whined and whined and whined that the game wasn't a WWII game. Duh.

It's considered the worst of insults to receive one as a gift. IIRC M. Dorosh and M. Emrys - two of our most prominent members - broke up over CMAK given as a birthday present. But even with CMSF they have a long way to go on the inclusion of initial-release bugs. (It's the creation of patches that keeps a programmer happy and productive. Take note, Steve.)

The really _brilliant_ thing about that is that arty/air use can also serve to "pin" populations by messing over the transport network. Even completely inadvertently. And the faster air or arty responds to a threat the less time anyone has to get out of the way. As artillery's effectiveness increases, so does the likelihood that the civilians are there to "take the consequences"... unless additional ROE restrictions are in place. Here we see another of the major problems with the "Medium Force" concept: It's a ticket to genocide. The quicker the fighting moves, the more likely the civilian population is to be caught up in it. A ponderous - excuse me, "stately and unfaltering" - Heavy or slow Light force is simply more humane. (Though see the note below.) Ah. You seem to be putting forth "some civilian casualties" (and a multiple of "some") on equal footing with "blowing the place to kingdom come." Very good. You've outlined a set of principles that make large-scale destruction of the civilian population not just ordinary collateral damage, but nothing more than they deserve! It's exactly that sort of thinking we need to pave the way for the casual use of pre-emptive nuclear strikes, the only really affordable way to wage war. In the same vein I have to point out to Broken that a sufficiently Heavy force can transform any terrain to "open terrain." Nothing but overly-restrictive ROE restrictions stand between the modern MBT and its ideal operating environment. [ August 22, 2007, 12:43 PM: Message edited by: Tarquelne ]

Off topic question: Have 'copters - even full-on combat models like the Apache - turned out to be more vulnerable than expected? Or are the present conflicts just not what they were designed for? (Both? Something else - not used properly?)

Caseless ammo?! What about the robot "dogs" that're being researched. They have lots of advantages over boring things like caseless ammo. They'd be super-expensive. They'd be cool. They'd be very high tech. (Yeah, that in itself is an advantage.) They'd weigh a lot themselves. And, most importantly: They could carry all the extra stuff, leaving the soldiers free to carry everything they carry now. No need to change. Just buy more stuff! Your lack of vision can be worrying.

"Context-appropriate" requires judgment. Thought. Effort.

I hope you mean a sting or rimshot. "Drum beat" implies you gotta million of 'em and are just pacing yourself.

Not that uncommon a usage: Somehow, someway, "liberals" are to blame. In this case through treasonous feel-good appeasement-seeking policies toward islamofascists. .. At least that's what I think the unspoken assumption is. Liberals! They're corrupting our precious bodily fluids, you know.

Like best? Short answer: 20 mm-armed Paladins. (The light wheeled vehicle.) Especially hunting tanks with Paladins. Longer answer: The game's hybrid nature. I like the mix of sci-fi first-person romp and more "serious" features. (And IMO Drops add a lot to the game. Not only do they help keep up the pace, but they reward teamwork quite well.) I've also found the MP community to be very friendly and helpful. The devs. too, come to think of it.

No, they just get the AG to make excuses.

No, they just get the AG to make excuses.

No, they just get the AG to make excuses.

That's what I try to do. But every time, right in the middle of "Oh God, oh God, don't hurt me!" they throw me out. They invariably say something like "The range is for shooting." Gun nuts... go figure.

That's what I try to do. But every time, right in the middle of "Oh God, oh God, don't hurt me!" they throw me out. They invariably say something like "The range is for shooting." Gun nuts... go figure.

That's what I try to do. But every time, right in the middle of "Oh God, oh God, don't hurt me!" they throw me out. They invariably say something like "The range is for shooting." Gun nuts... go figure.

Whoa, really?! I understand about the need to be on the look out for crazies who become further unhinged by an (arguably) controversial game... but banning nitwits? That's a pretty major change to board policy. No Peng thread, for one thing. It's just not going to be the same around here...

Yeah... Even if the vast majority of the encounters in a given conflict are extremely one-sided, we can always play the exceptional ones. The interesting ones. The great thing about the new victory conditions is that they can level the playing field a great deal. To win a scenario a "vastly superior" force won't just have to win, it'll have to get a vastly superior win.

I do agree it was a problem. Just not nearly as serious. I don't like to say it because... ... I think the problem is backward people. People with a big inferiority complex. Looking at the history of various religions I think what's important is not so much what the holy books say, but what people want to get out of the holy books. That being said, I do think the Koran is more inclined to violence than, say, the Torah. But I still think the most important thing is what people want to get out of the religion. Right now too many people want to get "Decapitation is OK." So... I would say that Islam is currently a problem. But it doesn't have to be. And, looking at your post, I think that's implied. You talk about a lot of things that aren't "Islam", per se, but are instead characteristic of the culture of that area of the world. If we don't want to piss off people unnecessarily we should keep that in mind. "Islam" is a Big Deal, but all the culture doesn't flow from just Islam. The ME/SE Asia can be made more secular - or less rabid - just like the rest of the world.