juan_gigante

The question is, will a soldier remove his helmet and beat his foe to death with it? Because that's the classy way to kill a dude in H2H.

I remember the old Warhammer tabletop minatures game. All the miniatures were really, really expensive, and my friends and I couldn't afford them on our $5 a week allowances. So what ended up happening was that we'd only buy the fancy leader models, and for all the rest, we'd just take a scrap of paper, write "Space Marine" on it, and that was that. With SPMBT, I was initially stunned. "Wow! All these countries! Over this huge time period!" But then I played, and I don't really think it's that fun. The funnest part was setting up really weird QBs, and picking forces. I don't play 90% of the SPMBT games that I pick forces for.

I agree that if there are going to be nukes in the area, they should be Israeli rather than, say, Iranian. That doesn't make it okay for Israel to have them. I still don't buy the "Israel needs them for defense" argument. If Israel was attacked and their conventional forces were defeated (highly, highly unlikely), US forces would be there so fast, it'd be a blur. Especially if it was an NBC attack. I guess I was a little confused on the attacking facilities. Osiris was the only one they actually attacked. Still, Israel may well have plans to attack Iranian nuclear facilities. And on the NPT, I suppose my point is that even though Israel, not being a signatory of the treaty, is not legally violating it, they are violating the spirit of it. [ December 16, 2005, 04:16 PM: Message edited by: juan_gigante ]

Steve - I had not heard about Syrian chemical weapons. The only NBC activity I had heard about in Middle East Arab nations was (besides Iraq ) Iran's attempts to get nukes, an effort that I was under the impression they were failing at. Especially considering the world at large's tolerance for allowing Israeli jets to bomb Iranian nuclear facilities (see: that one time that happened). My point is that the argument that Israel needs nukes for self-defense is defunct, and concurrently, that every argument - every argument, mind you - that I had heard for Israel to have nukes was based off incorrect assumptions. As I have heard from Israeli supporters (both in the board and out), the reasoning is that Israel needs them for defense. But they don't! As I said before - Israel has conventional weapons supremacy (as has been demonstrated a few times before) and has the support of nearly all of the Western World. I think that in my posts here, I have conclusively proved the fact that Israel no longer needs nukes. Any NBC attacks against Israel would be retaliated against with absolutely overwhelming force, Israeli nukes or no. I'm going to go ahead and assume this is proven. The second factor is the Arab view of our actions. Holding Arab nations to a standard which we do not hold Israel to is viewed as Zionist, racist, and unfair. Considering that Muslim societies generally consider justice to be such a high priority, I can see how they might be offended. I'm restating myself here. Honestly, I feel that this is one of those arguments which has a definate right and wrong - like whether Hitler was a bad man or whether or not puppies are cuddly. Israel should not have nuclear weapons. They are unnecessary, and our support of a nuclear Israel is greatly undermining our support in the region, which translates directly into higher oil prices and more dead American soldiers. Israel should disarm.

When attacking, I usually concentrate my forces into two "fists" with a large reserve. Depending on the size of the map, I'll usually send one fist up the middle, and another one on the flank. Then, I can send reserves to either one as they stumble or breakthrough or whatever. What usually ends up happening is I use the center fist to pin the enemy and prevent reinforcement, and the flanker actually takes the ground.

Such a bad movie! Colonel Bella? That means Colonel Beautiful in the Feminine! Of course, check the IMDB user review. I only don't like Red Dawn because I'm liberal.

Yes, because if Egypt used its massive nuclear arsenal against Israel and Israel had nukes, nothing could stop them! Oh wait - none of Israel's nearby enemies have NBC weapons! Oh wait - if they did, the rest of the Western world would rip them a new asshole the size of Alska! Oh wait - even if they did use NBC weapons, the massive reprisal from Israel's allies, it'd make Alaska look like Rhode Island! Oh wait - Israel's clear conventional weapons supremacy makes their nuclear arsenal completely unnecessary!! Oh wait - Israel is also in defiance of the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty! Good thing we don't hold them to it the way we do Iran and company! I'm sure that doesn't look like (or is!) racism, injustice, or clear, unmitigated bias! Please lock this thread, because I know I won't stop on my own.

He should have made a car metaphor.

Shoot, if they included Geraldo, they'd be beating customers away with sticks!

Absolutely, Iran should not have nuclear weapons. Neither should Israel. Think about it - Israel (especially with the foreign help it gets) can successfully repel any attack from the neighboring nations using it's conventional army. It has before, and it easily can again. So supporting a nation which is clearly and unnecessarily defying the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty which we hold so dear (and well we should) when it comes to Israel's neighbors is clearly unfair and hypocritical, and undermines much of our effort to seem like "good guys" to the Muslim world. To demand that Israel disarm its nuclear arsenal would not harm the security of Israel, and it would vastly, vastly improve our image in the Muslim community. As an aside, some people forget that Israel was founded, in large part, because of the actions of Zionist terrorist groups like Irgun and the Stern Gang. Not to justify some of the horrible regimes of the Middle East, but just to remind people that no one's hands are clean of blood. Irgun history Lehi/Stern Gang history

Actually, I would support that feature almost as much as bringing back CMBO shockwaves. And that's quite a bit.

I think this is just Sergei being sore about CM:SF's setting being not exactly what he'd want. Oh, and hi mom!

Well, it's a legitimate issue. Honestly, Israel has enough of a conventional army and enough foreign support that it no longer needs nukes to defend itself. But supporting the Israeli government in clearly breaking international law that we are holding nearby nations to is hypocritical and unfair at face value.

2500 pt QB Meeting Engagment, CM:BO. I'm German. I pick a crack King Tiger and two veteran Tigers, so as to be able to win pretty much any frontal armor fight. KT bogs and immobilizes on turn 2 in open ground in such a place that it only had an LOS of around 25 meters in all directions. Turn 10, one of the Tigers bogs and immobilizes in open ground with, with keyholed LOS to no where. Fortunately, my last Tiger cleaned up on the horde of crappy Shermans that the AI decided to frontally rush it with, one or two at a time.

Take a day off, and you can miss a thing or two, I guess. Well, let's see... the sig's changed, I suppose I should find a picture to send the Justicar (of me this time... how I regret the indiscretions of youth), and, well, familiarize myself with the history of the House of Pawbroon, I suppose. Such much to do, so little time!

I agree, Max. It's absurd to whine that CM:SF is inferior because "my home nation isn't included!". Hell, CM:BB was an awesome game, and many Americans, Canadians, Brits, and such all enjoyed it. What's the difference? Even in CMAK and CMBO where I have the option to play as US, I often choose German. I think that in general, the community is better for losing those who decide to leave for such silly reasons.

Looking at the graphics engine you guys will be using, it looks like you'll have quite a few fun toys! Sorry to sort of pimp a competitor, and I'm not sure whether or not it's relevant, by the Day of Defeat team is exploring lots of interesting things in their graphics engine. Lack of focus, motion blur, other stuff. And of course, Red Orchestra will have all sorts of fun features that I hope you guys will include, or at least consider.

Well, in CMAK we had rangers for the US forces. It would be simple enough to do the same thing in CM:SF - just another infantry type, with different organization and such, but still basically the same. Really, you could just have higher-quality regular troops and say they're rangers. But with true SF, you're really opening a whole new can of worms. If you're doing SF and indigs, you have to make all the indig forces, and little one-squad SF raids would not be fun to play at all.

I think you guys got me. I'm pretty sure I got my foresty battles confused - more likely than getting the divisions confused. I think my parents have the guy's little book lying around somewhere - next time I see them I'll try and remember to ask about it.

Also, NUB, I think in many cases, JasonC is refering to strategic and operational level warfare, and you are talking about tactical.

Regarding artillery against armor, I seem to remember from earlier threads and tests that if you get a direct hit, a 105 can kill most tanks, but to get much effect, you'll need 150s or better. The thing arty can do against tanks well is mobility kills, TC kills, and gun damage. Tankettes, however, are much easier to kill. Once, I killed a T-70 with a lucky top hit with an 81mm mortar.

I would say that the time period idea is a little more complicated than necessary. A good idea for scoring would be the NAMBLA system they use for ROW, but we might not have enough people.

And they were using Tungsten, so maybe...

So, Sir Sir 37mm, you think of me as Jar Jar Binks? I find it odd that you would be labeling me such. As you may recall, your puny British force was soundly walloped by my valient soldiers of the Fatherland. By your own admission, then, you were defeated by one with the intelligence, wits, and general "togetherness" of Jar Jar Binks. But, you may claim "It should have been a tie! That flag was in the center should not have been contested!". A reasonable statement. Jar Jar Binks outwitted you. That, Sir Sir, is not a crown I would proudly wear. Or you could post your AAR, and show the Cesspool how it "truely" happened.

Yeah, 12 Finns would be unfair. It might be okay if only one or two were allowed to have guns.