Tarquelne

*** Counterargument: #1 Israel's nukes have a "chilling effect" on the development of surrounding militaries. Even if one nation or any local coalition could field a conventional force that matched the IDF, there's still the nukes.... so why try? Thus, the IDF's conventional superiority exists - at least potentially and in part - because of the nukes. #2: It creates a second line of defense. Any attacker will have to counter both a conventional and nuclear military threat. Any momentary weakness in one area can be partially compensatied by the other. Better safe than sorry. *** While I agree there does seem to be a double standard operating as to who's "allowed" nukes and who isn't, I'd certainly rather see nukes possessed by Israel than anyone else in the region. (With the exception of nijis.) Because extermination of neighboring nations isn't as big a factor in Israel's foriegn policy as it seems to be with some others. Overall, though, they (as j_g describes) still may generate more hostility than safety. I don't suppose there are any reliable "Exactly why do you hate Israel enough to kill?" polls around?

No. I wish I'd thought of that excuse when playing JA2, though. Super game, but I thought "lame lame" at the begining too. OTOH, gradually getting better weapons was a lot of fun. So of course now I agree with Sergei. "Unlockable" vehicles and Secret Areas is the only way to design CM:SF. And it needs a "Tons of Guns" option, along with the ability to turn "Sci Fi" off. Really.

You must have missed the cut scene where they show you losing most of your equipment before hijacking the helicopter. Really.

Ah, the lack of choice... So if it was the British vs the Syrians, you'd be complaining about the game being Anglocentric? (It sounds like your beef is with the new "module" format.) [ December 13, 2005, 09:03 AM: Message edited by: Tarquelne ]

You might be able to afford quite a bit of policemen - of the excessively armed and trigger happy variety - with your peace dividend. And maybe enough unconventional stuff to make a 2nd world force look for easier meat. But I think our dedicated man of vision would just wake up dead one morning as part of a bloodless ("I didn't see any.") palace coup. Credibility with your neighbors is essential, but credibility within your own "junta" (I think I'm betraying my thoughts on most of the gentlemen running the show in the area) is life itself. OTOH, a guy who could get Steve's plan through his own people is someone I imagine could cut a deal with a first or second world power to protect him and his nation militarily.

And anyone responding to him should be pummeled. Except me.

Only if you do so in a manner that prevents ressurection where ressurection is normally possible.

You're right. What Tarquelne seems to remember is that the inability to adequately treat wounds caused by explosive amunition is why they were considered to cause unnecessary suffering. I probably used that phrase because it's one I see bleeding-heart liberals kick around more than "uncessary suffering." It's more graphic, I suppose. And uncessary suffering, given the subject, may be hard to pin down. [ December 07, 2005, 02:31 PM: Message edited by: Tarquelne ]

You're saying they missed out on the opportunity to be shot with a dum-dum bullet? Or to have a son crippled by the same? I suppose you're correct, that most would have either been past the age of active combat service (in the case of those of military background) or they were civilians. So what? Do you have anything else, or is it just "dumbass" because they aren't combat vets? I don't mean to be insulting, but combat vets can be dumbasses too. Or because other nations are perfectly willing to let our police shoot us with such weapons, but object when we might do it to them. By the same token, we might trust feds. to not use such rounds when inappropriate, where we wouldn't trust, for example, the Syrian Army. No. Not "little wounds", but "untreatable wounds." So as not to cause "unnecessary suffering." And, given that it's war, the bar for that is set pretty high. Others have drawn the line at "untreatable wounds", and closely associate that with the effects of explosive bullets or things with a similar behavior. IIRC US isn't a formal adherent to the treaty (or at least these parts of it), but follows the rules only when it feels like it. For example, I think snipers can use ammo that's similar to "dum dums" because it's an accepted method of increasing long range accuracy. But so far as I know it's not cost that's keeping the US from using "nasty" ammo, but something else. I've given a few reasons why this might - and I think does - make sense: Why some undetermined loss in "stopping power" is worth accepting. And, by coincidence, they're reasons I'd find persuasive whether or not they came from a combat vet. Thanks in part to you're posts I've come to believe that the choice to not use enhanced effect rounds is a good one. But if you've got something else besides (to paraphrase) "Stopping power is more important than anything else. I'm a combat vet, we know these things." I'd really love to see it.

IIRC the original concern was with "untreatable wounds", and the dumbasses decided watching people die lingering deaths from wounds that respond poorly to medical care in't fun for anybody. And while this sort of thing doesn't matter much of the time, given the present conflict the damage from the PR hit we'd take for using "nasty" ammo might easily outweigh any benefits. The advantage the ammo gives would have to be considerable to make it worth it. And yes, I'm including American/coalition lives lost. Just one extra terrorist - a weenie driven over the edge by a relative killed by this "Satanic" ammunition - could eat up the difference in soldiers lives saved by the super-ammo. The world being populated by other people as it is, some of them currently willing to help, others currently hostile, PR really matters. [ December 07, 2005, 09:40 AM: Message edited by: Tarquelne ]

In general, this is why I think all people other than myself should be banned. You're messing it up for me.

I'm reminded of Galactic Civilizations for OS/2. The AI - the claim was - would be "thinking" about it's turn while you took your turn. (Multi-threading! Woot!) So the longer you take, the longer the AI has to work through it's decision tree, or whatever it used. I would be interested in knowing what CM:SF's CPU budget looks like.

The "armed forces" comment was mostly a joke - "mostly" because I presume that the occasional combat vet gets a say - but I think your Special Forces point is a good one. I've wondered for awhile if the average degree of training has a lot to do with how large a round a rifleman can be expected to handle in an automatic weapon: The theory being that while a draft army needs all the help it can get hitting the target, the Special Forces - and presumably today's average soldier - can make better use of a larger round without getting tripped up by the disadvantages. Or maybe not. OTOH, maybe they use their ability to get what they want to get weapons that really aren't as good, but "feel" better. Or there's a lot of residual dissatisfaction over the early M-16. Or larger rounds are considered more SF, or just different. (Or they can very reliably quickly put a large round into a target while others can't.) I dunno. For all I know the SF has guys who know everything the top egg-heads in Army weapon selection do, plus have scads more combat training and experience. But there may be more going on than "The best fighters know the best weapon." (That'd be nice - and it makes sense - but it sounds almost too good to be true.) This subject seems to come up every few months, and there never seem to be all that many links.... hint hint.

1) Their opinion has weight if you trust them. Hopefully based on past experience. (A _very_ fuzzy factor.) 2) Their opinion has weight if the argument they present is a good one. (Sound, valid, all that jazz. Usually a fuzzy - or at least non-obvious - factor.) 3) If all else fails it counts if they reference a good source. (It will require some extra reading: I suggest building up a stable of sources you feel you can get away with simply dismissing. "On, it's from them. I'm sure it stinks." Its a tremendous time saver.) This is the Internet, baby. Anyone who can include a link can function as an expert. Quite possibly a very, very annoying, dimwitted and stubborn one, but an "expert". So: If you're not willing to take someone's word, and if examining an argument for internal consistency etc. etc. doesn't get you anywhere, then an opinion has "weight" when it's backed by something you can't simply dismiss as derived from a lack of experience or knowledge. (Disclaimer: All of this does presume that it's possible to transfer accurate knowledge via communication, and that some other people know things.) On the necessity of combat experience: Hmm... The armed forces, which collectively I'd guess has more combat experience than the Nerd King, chose the 5.56 awhile ago, and still may keep it. Why should we listen to you? Heck, not all combat vets agree. It's obviously not a sure-fire path to the truth. (And, yes, I have had a conversation with at least one combat vet who swore by the 5.56 rounds. And no, I can't supply a link or any documentation.)) It's been said that the plural of "anecdote" isn't "data"... Now I freely admit that I have no proof that whoever said that is either a logician or a semanticist, but I believe it's true anyway. [ December 05, 2005, 09:55 PM: Message edited by: Tarquelne ]

I hope your position isn't that since they're evil and we're not, we can do whatever we like. I don't think you've said that, but your statements are similar to those who seem to hold that belief. (And IIRC you havn't specifically disavowed it.) People are dismayingly prone to use the moral high ground as a diving board. A good run up, a moment of flying, and down you go.

Hmm.... Actually, don't all the facts and neat little examples and figures in the world simply describe why what happens in those few seconds happens? I, for one, hope some decision makers sitting warm and safe somewhere have put the necessary time into studying all the facts. And while what we say here may not matter, the facts still do. I, for one, am curious. From what I've read the saving grace of the 5.56 would seem to be that you can get more rounds on target, and quickly. Not just in CQC, but at an intermediate distance. The advantage of the larger rounds is increased "stopping power. So isn't this a question of how many more rounds you can get on target with a 5.56, and how quickly you can do so? Compared, of course, to the actual stopping-power advantage of the larger rounds? How often to people really just keep going after a "useless" burst of 5.56 fire? How much harder is it really to hit your target before he does something unfortunate with the heavier rounds? Well, grogs? I don't suppose anyone has anything that smells like data? (Hmm... and does suppression fire figure into this? Is more shots (granted by the smaller/lighter 5.56 significantly more or less important than the increased ability to penetrate cover/intimidate (I'm assuming) of the larger rounds?)

The Army? Link According to the article the shortfall is expected to be less than 10% - and that may be before they lowered their goals - and only about 1,000 less than the annual average for the last 10 years. That doesn't sound too bad. OTOH, it's been said that they could use significantly more. I think this summer the Army was off by almost 50% one month. There's anecdotal evidence that recruiters have become more motivated recently, though, and more willing to work with potential recurits who have some problems.

Freudian slip?

CM != "good game" Ouch. I certainly find nothing humorous about it... [ November 25, 2005, 11:42 AM: Message edited by: Tarquelne ]

I think that's a pretty good guide within a culture, but given significant cultural differences not so good. I, for example, constantly show the bottom of my feet to people, and expect the same. Seriously, though, meetings between my "out west" relatives and the "back east" contingent are generally a little tense. There's enough of a difference between the louder, more demonstrative westerners (mostly kansas, OK) and the much more restrained easterners (mostly NY) to make those simplying "being themselves" seem very rude to the less tolerant older folks. (The younger ones seem to either get along fine or simply loathe each other for reasons far beyond manner.) Where people are willing to give you the benefit of the doubt I think your guideline works well. But for "flashpoint" situations like a military presence and family reunions, I dunno...

What's your point, Dirt? "Terrorists are rude."? I hadn't quite thought of it that way.

Whoa! Evil Forum flashback! I see people have given you more complete answers already, but I feel like giving the simple answer to your basic question: Yes, the Russian stuff sucks. Of course that's a big oversimplification. I'll say more if someone else doesn't later in the thread. O (Which I havn't read. Ooo... maybe someone beat me to the simple answer. Foul egg!) r if I just feel like blathering on. Ok read the rest... Evil Forum Flashback #2! Anyway.... Someone suggested thinking of your units in the game as "real men." I'll add try to think like Stalin: Go ahead and toss some men forward into the German maw. Don't be totally reckless, but some early intel. on exact German positions can easily outweigh the loss of a squad, especially if you're prepared to immediately take advantage of the information. I agree with JC, too. I've found myself fighting infantry against Russian armor quite a bit, and in my experience a Tank is much more dangerous and difficult to kill than a HT. I generally don't have Engineer squads, true. But I don't think it makes that much of a difference - I still get a decent kill rate with grenade bundles and the like (vs. a "very high rate" against HTs), but the hard part is getting the inf. in range of the tanks. I could have easily missed it, but in case no one mentioned it I'll add HE and MG area fire to the list of anti-infantry measures that can be used to protect vehicles in the game. With cover fire (and some good guesses) even hanging back 40 meters can make a huge difference. [ November 22, 2005, 09:26 PM: Message edited by: Tarquelne ]

Ooo! And we were doing so well at keeping this from becoming a political discussion (still verboten, IIRC), let alone "Justifying GWII, round 561,473." Perhaps a distraction: WP is the devil's pus. It's Satanic. I really like the idea of multiple victory tracks. Perhaps a "Manifesting Hell's Will" track? Collateral damage and weapon use: This is what Steve's said before in response to similar posts: (I found the above in a past post of Sergi's. If he hadn't been distracted by political matters he might have posted that excellent info. again. Hint hint.) Lots of "hooks" for VP penalties and bonuses would be nice. Entering certain buildings, for example, or not entering them... VP adjustments for using certain weapons would be good too... though I'm not sure how many players would be keen on having their "military victory" spoiled by PR considerations. Though it sounds neat to me. (And quite realistic.) Without seperate VP-type tallies BFC might have to install more Whiner Filters. (Or lower Madmatt's dosage, maybe? BTW, is he really mad mad or is it just a publicity thing?)

I think that's extremely likely. But just like Vietnam, in Iraq it's possible to win on the battlefield but lose the war. As long as our eventual exit-strategy calls for the survival of at least one Iraqi, then popularity counts. For example: Exchanging an Iraq ruled by a misanthropic (to put it mildly) guy who hates the US for with a reactionary (in the worst sense of the word) Iraq that universally hates the US and is closely allied with any other anti-US nation or group it can find doesn't seem like a "win" to me. But if the "popularity contest" part of the conflict goes badly enough, that's exactly what we'll get. The thing about PR issues is that their eventual impact is can be so out of proportion to their actual importance.

It's easier, because you can get away with more lying. (Unless they're "morons" because of ideological blinders - in which case they just won't believe what you say. You have to get to such people early.) I think that eventually we'll see governments become very "pro-active" about this sort of thing. In conflicts where the hearts-and-minds stuff is important they'll anticipate problems like the WP-issue (anything "strange" or not well known to the public could be trouble) and see it as an important part of their mission to nip such problems in the bud. Heck, a 2 hour TV special made within a few weeks of major actions explaining to the public what happened? (Well, what you want them to think happened.) The basic facts will probably get out eventually. You may as well make sure you get to "frame" them first, and justify your actions. Most "morons" are just ignorant.