Tarquelne

I think you're right - there is no "existential" threat. Well, not in the way most people think. Unless there's some breakthrough with detection technologies, it'll just keep getting easier for terrorists to hurt people. Terrorism alone won't bring down the US, or "the West", but enough of it might make us make permanent and often distasteful or harmful changes in the name of security. Yeah... kind of like the ones the Bush Admin. keeps wanting to make now... And I _do_ think there's a chance "militant radical Islam" ("Islomofascism"?) might get armies and an industrial base. But I think the best chance for that happening is the West pissing off too many people. Any short-of-completely-successful invasion could put off, for awhile, the rise of Communislam (I made that one up, just now), but in the end it'll just make it more likely. The root problem is not Islam, it's people being angry at the US. (Well, people knowing how to make bombs AND being deadly-angry.) Killing everyone who's angry _is_ a solution, but I don't see it as being practical. (And I'd say "not practical" is the best thing you can say about that option.) I haven't put any thought into the "killing everyone who knows how to make bombs." solution. Maybe there's a RAND paper... Oooo, now you're asking Americans to give up the double standard? We really do need to keep what's _practical_ in mind. A quibble, but I'd say for no more than 2 years was it enough people to say "The American people." I would say "Way too many", though, for any given time. The rest of the time I think the great American people were mostly apathetic. To say they were in a trance is to give them too much credit. Oh yeah... what I really wanted to say is that I think Steve's right - a confrontation was inevitable. But not necessarily an armed confrontation, and certainly not a war. One of the basic problems in the Iraq war debate, I think, was that not enough people believe that something short of war was "on the menu." That something short of war could be of any signficant benefit. For them it's not that Islam (or S.H., or whatever) presented an existential threat, but that they really believed war was the only response. Even if you convince someone that Mohamobarbarism isn't a mortal danger, you may still have to convince them that there are states between "appeasement" and "war."

Abandonment: I'm sure I could have been more clear (and that's Tarq, not BigDuke6, note), but I meant the "lower-rank" officers would have felt like they were abandoning their men. Not the 3+ stars. (And by "taking a principled stand" I don't mean it'd be the right thing to do. For one thing, the there are multiple principles to consider...) I'm never been acquainted with any Generals, but here's the way I understand it: To a commander (Col. or lower) his men are like his children. But when you're promoted to General your kids have all grown up and now you run a day-care center. You may care about the kids a great deal... but they aren't _your_ kids. If you quit running the day-care center... fine. Someone else can. It's not like you're abandoning your family... which is what it's like if you're a Captain and walk away. (This is part of the the "Motherhood" theory of military leadership, and it's the Next Bing Thing and Westpoint from what I hear.) I feel it's a bit of a frivolous comparison, but I do think it's true: Being a soldier is a lot like being like a cop, but more so. You often don't see people at their best. People tend not to want you around, but when they do want you they DEMAND it. It's dangerous, it doesn't pay much, and most people think it's more glamorous than the reality, while at the same time thinking it's easier than it really is. [ March 27, 2007, 02:47 PM: Message edited by: Tarquelne ]

I think what we need to accept is that "anti-Western" is good enough as long as "violently" isn't attached to it. (Either directly or via a bank.) Reform via backing the lesser of several evils may take a long time but as long as no one is throwing bombs and trade is regularized our national interest are intact. The people living under harsh regimes - both secular and religious - would indeed be better served if the regimes could be displaced more quickly. But that hypothetical has a lot of strings attached to it.

I'd put things more in terms of "not letting down my men." Protesting in some form would be taking a principled stand, but I think "abandonment" is what they'd feel they were doing. And probably what a good portion - if not most - of their men would feel. So I think it's too much to ask from them. It's not even close to their job. It'd likely do little to no good, vis a vis the "big picture", and it'd do them a huge amount of real personal harm. And I think most would feel like total ****s doing it. I put The Blame squarely on the civvy leaders, the top brass, and the general public who first put the civvy leaders in place, and then failed their civic duty to monitor the leaders. As I understand it, "the deal" is that the public and/or people on top figure out what to do, and the lower-ranks do what they're told. Even if they don't like it. Ideally because they think what they're doing leads to a better world, but more often than not because not doing so would let the other guys in the unit down. I think that's the reality. They don't want to let down the people they serve with. If they're told to go do something, they will try to do it. If we, as a nation, don't want them to do it, then we shouldn't send them in the first place. (!!) I'm sure there are some who are just thinking about their careers - especially as you go up the ladder. But I very much doubt they're in the majority. I'd _like_ to see the officer corps as a whole stand up and say "Enough." But I'm not going to ding them for not doing so. Because there's always the question about "What about next time?" (Though, yes, traditionally the problem with militaries isn't them saying "Enough.", it's saying "Lets shoot these guys, too.") But mostly because it wouldn't be the sort of heroism they signed up for, are trained for, or would even be appreciated by a lot of the people closest to them. I guess I'd agree that they bear a share of the responsibility. Like all citizens, like it or not. But I don't think the sort of protest you describe, BD, is part of their responsibilities. Or, at least, it's very much outweighed by other responsibilities. BTW, I'm not saying there aren't illegal orders or missions, or even egregiously inhumane ones that are still technically legal (somehow) and should be refused. [ March 27, 2007, 05:24 AM: Message edited by: Tarquelne ]

The Fall of the West, IMO, can be traced to 1732. That's when Old Europe started calling people to worship with "God is greater than being poked in the eye with a sharp stick." So far as the whooping goes: Assuming it's realistic, I think it'd be fine. I think it's a little ghoulish - but I think dropping a mortar barrage on a bunch of Russian conscripts and hearing the result is "a little ghoulish". And I do that all the time in CMBB. Furthermore, if someone had just dropped a bomb on someone trying to kill me I'd feel like whooping, too. If it's part of what happens then it's part of what happens. I'm very glad we don't have "full realism" with all the gore , screaming, etc. that'd imply... but some whooping is a long, long way from crossing that line. Heck, IMO if it does forcibly remind someone that real people are out there dropping bombs and getting bombs dropped on them, it's good.

Yeah, but he cheated. Only he would use a Marxist class analysis, which is obviously the proper conceptual tool-kit. But, you know... it's pinko.

To avoid later? I wish I were as confident about that. Too many of the mistakes were things "we" already knew about. History - and experience - may be great teachers. But even the greatest teachers cannot teach a student who refuses to learn. Isolated by distance, by wishful thinking, stubbornness. It may be the root of the problem. And not just with the bigwigs, too.

I'm glad it's as good as you long-ago claimed it would be.

I'm sure Windows says it's happy. But you can bet it's got some fiendish plan. Threaten to call Dell if it doesn't behave. Dell generally recommends erasure and re-installation. Trying to figure out what the heck those patches do distracts the OS for awhile, but it's only temporary. This is why ATI must introduce bugs into the drivers. Some people will tell you to be happy with the bugs you've got, but you really do need a source of bugs that's more reliable than MS. Fiendish plans! :mad:

I'd like to see Steve's (or anyone's) answers to your questions, too. I think the key issues may be exactly what the sort of force the Stryker force in the CM:SF campaign will be expected to fight independently, and how independently. (Again, "What's 'deep'?") But I've got some questions/comments about the paragraph quoted above. I agree about "the whole point of armor". But what's the reality? You mention "supported by some basic infantry" for what's being attacked. Much of the time, and increasingly so, wouldn't that include weapons that can take even *tanks* out of the fight? I guess I'm dubious about how much "immunity" the heavy forces really have. All other things being equal I'd rather have a tank... but it's in those "all other things" that any of the SBCT's operational advantages can come into play. And I've got another general question: How much more - if at all - do Stryker forces depend on good intelligence and/or surprise (ie, bad intel. on the other side) for success? Compared to a Heavy force, I mean. Caught unawares by a hardpoint, ambush, or counter-attack is the Stryker force a lot less robust than a Heavy force of similar size?

What about the Styrkers that have something more than .50 cals? Not enough? What would constitute a Medium force in your opinion? Does it require that the extra "teeth" be mounted on the vehicles, and not in the form of a more heavily armed infantry component? (Would you say that in theory a "medium force" could perform the sort of deep operation you think Steve has in mind for the Strykers, but that the Strykers just aren't that medium force?) That's good. I hope no one does.

Let me ask this: Does anyone here hold one of these positions? 1) An army can realistically be only made up of Heavy forces, and that's all it needs. 2) There's a place for Heavy forces, and a place for Light forces, but no place for Medium forces. 3a) A Medium force can do everything a Heavy force can do, just as well, and more. A Medium force can do everything a Light force can do, just as well, and more.

Where's that post? Is it in the beta forum? Don't forget to say "And discounting operational level factors." "Nothing can make medium better than heavy at actual combat, discounting operational factors, no matter how many times it is spun." If you slow down a faster force and make it fight the same fights as a heavy force, then it'll do worse... And an overextended, unprepared, out-of-position heavy force will always fight better than a well supplied, rested and in-position medium force. I get it. Hmm... you know, a tank is faster than a man, and better protected, and has a more powerful weapon. There's really no need for anything in the armed forces other than tanks. If you ignore everything beyond raw combat power, that is. As a very wise man said: "You fight wars with the relevant army, not the army you have." Which is why, IMO, Stryker forces should be able to call on artillery and air support, and maybe have some sort of vehicle that can stop *some* of the ATGMs or RPGs out there. Just some.. like the Heavies do. Lord knows the US will *never* fight with any political constraints. Ok.. the "bulk" of the armor is around Damascus... and the rest of it? Let me guess: It doesn't matter, right, because all that matters - in the whole country - is Damascus? Yes. I hadn't realized that CM:SF had to start in downtown Damascus to be an interesting game. That fighting irregulars (really, just irregulars? What about the missing "bulk" of the armor?) wouldn't work. Is it physically impossible, logically impossible, or against your religion? So... empty, huh? It'll be a total cakewalk until they get near Damascus? No need for screening? Or, say, some sort of "deep" operation to secure some key road juncture, or town, or base before the Syrians can do something clever there? There's no one living outside Damascus that might serve as a goal to save, or capture, or try and sell a McDonald's franchise to? How about distorting someone else's argument into a bunch of extremist poppycock and then attacking that, rather than the actual position? Isn't that very similar? Or is it ok as long as you make up your on out-of-whack arguments, too? That's at least fair, I suppose. Though I admit I find it a teeny bit annoying. I was going to ask "Just what is meant by "deep," but you distracted me. [ March 18, 2007, 05:43 PM: Message edited by: Tarquelne ]

IMO a deep operation gone wrong could make a great campaign. Those dubious of the Stryker could consider it a deep operation going only as well as could be expected.

I think that's close to his point. Not that the US would be completely stalled, but that there couldn't be independent "deep" operations from the Mediums. Which leads to my next question... And the rest of the time... how about a hypothetical example of a Medium force being used more independently? Do you see deep operations against "significant" opposition, or to control areas/infrastructure where such opposition is absent? Seize control of a key town - not city - 8 hours ahead of a Heavy force's reinforcement? 3 hours? (I'm not sure just how deep "deep" is supposed to mean.) Taking a town with no Heavy help expected, to resist future enemy movement/communication through the area? Can the Mediums take a town when faced with Light opposition and then resist whatever Heavy counterattack Syria could mount? How about an unexpected advance through the Ardennes? [ March 15, 2007, 04:18 AM: Message edited by: Tarquelne ]

Thanks for putting all that in one place for me, Steve. Important and not covered by a straight-up speed comparison (which isn't simple anyway). By your figures the Strykers move 3 times faster, and can go 4 times as long without resupply, with a few caveats. Hmm... Given those speeds a Stryker force could be 100 miles away from Syria at 3 am, and in the center of the country (from N or E) by breakfast at 8 or 9. (7 if they make all the lights - ie, no opposition, 0 hitches.) Or they could be digging in near Aleppo or Dayr az Zawr at 5 or 6. A mech force starting in the same place and time wouldn't be to the Syrian border till 8. (Top-speed travel gets it to the border about an hour after the Stryker force, but at what state of readiness?) A light force could get there just as fast, but with less firepower and even less ability to handle opposition on the way. That seems like a significant difference to me. The Stryker force won't be able to obliterate anything that may come against it like a heavy mech force might (airpower might do a LOT, though), but with that sort of mobility it should be able to pick and chose most of it's fights. Assuming everything goes according to plan. It wouldn't, but IMO that makes CMSF all the more interesting. Come to think of it, that's what originally sold me on the game's concept. I'm a WWII junky, but as I understand it the Stryker's advantages are primarily operational. At the game's level we don't really experience that. Instead, we have to cope with the trade-offs.

Gar, dbl pst.

There's a DARPA project looking into the feasibility of flooding much of the world with cheap pulp fiction with the sexual prowess of G.I.s as the theme and the fun (good fun) that can be expected from a captured soldier as a recurring motif. Yeah, sounds silly, but one should never quickly dismiss DARPA.

Running and footprints. I've got lots of questions. Trying to cull some of the essential operational figures from the thread... Is 60 mph a sustainable speed for a Stryker group? (Assuming "fair" roads.) How about about a similarly sized heavy mech group? Not just the sprinting speed, but something it could sustain for at least 3 days, maybe a week. I don't even have a guess. What's the logistics like? How long can a Stryker group operate without significant resupply (Like, via truck.) vs. the heavy mech force? Or is weight a better way to look at it? How many kilos of supplies, or how much transport, does it take to supply the two forces (Stryker and heavy mech) for a week of moving. Fighting?

Wow! I don't remember seeing that on a feature list. (Too much vodka, not enough fur. That's my guess.) The reviewer, despite what some here implied would happen, didn't flip out over one the flaws in ToW's realism. Good news.... or maybe they got to him. You know who I mean. [ March 04, 2007, 02:31 PM: Message edited by: Tarquelne ]

Because MS is evil... I'm glad _you guys_ have a better reason.

So... you took my post seriously, or are you trying to out-irony me? If it's the latter, buddy, you're in for a fight! [ January 30, 2007, 11:28 AM: Message edited by: Tarquelne ]

Me either. But allow it to carry ammo and give it a decent weapon, and it might be very useful in an area where use of a dropship or Galaxy is impossible or impractical. OTOH, the game is Dropteam... most scenarios do feature easy extraction and dropping. Though such a vehicle could be an interesting/valuable addition to an unusual scenario. I think repair would most likely be lagniappe. Nice, but not the point of whatever vehicle might get it. [ January 29, 2007, 09:07 PM: Message edited by: Tarquelne ]

What sort of twisted a-hole doesn't simply answer the question? It's obvious "infant" doesn't mean "infant", but is instead a reference to infant-fired digging equipment, such as the "Little Moloch" earthmover used by every major power in WWI. So far as I know, Wolfseven, engineering vehicles aren't included in the game. Only the most common battlefield equipment. Even the relatively common Russian AT guns that used vole-based ammo aren't going to be in the game.

I like the idea of a separate supply, or maybe supply-and-repair, vehicle. Maybe if a damaged unit touches the s-a-r vehicle an infantry-style drop pod comes down with a replacement part? So repair would require both the vehicle and a vulnerable-to-AA dropped pod. OTOH, something that'd be nifty to see - and target - would be infantry (technicians) unloading from a Galaxy with spare parts and ammo.