Moronic Max

I have a hard time imagining Syria or Iran aiding and abetting atrocities 'dwarfing' 9/11; they're not suicidal, political rhetoric aside. After all, if they were, they'd have provoked Israel into using its nukes already.

Is it just me, or does it seem like every couple months a poster around here goes mental? I blame Steve.

Good point. If the US gets to turn Damascus into Berlin circa 1945, it'll likely encounter fewer difficulties. Scenario designers ought to have fun with that.

How do you reconcile these two points, if you don't mind my asking? I'll admit upfront the only knowledge I have on the subject comes from 'Thuder Run'.

If the info provided in this thread about total number of Il-2s produced vs. total number of German AFVs KOed by air attack is correct, ground attack is massively overmodeled. It is not uncommon for an eight-plane squadron to rack up a few dozen tank kills in a mission, provided there are enough targets. Granted, I can't aim for crap in the game, but the AI wingment seem to never miss when conducting an attack run; they will destroy their target on the first pass.

The thing to keep in mind here is that BF2 doesn't really simulate anything. It's an arcade shooter, through and through. A good one, to be sure, but that's irrelevant for our purposes. Battlefront could slap on a hardcoded 'if stryker hits T-72, stryker = destroyed, T-72 = gun damage' collision model, but that'd make the game less realistic, not more.

And SBDs are different from Stukas, and carriers are different from tanks, so that's a bad comparison too, I presume?

They lost five thousand tanks to air attacks during the war? Holy crap.

How 'bout Bad Religion's 'Let Them Eat War'?

Righto. Thanks, folks.

How does a target getting hit multiple times by multiple aircraft because they aren't aware the target's already been hit and killed factor into that analysis, if at all?

Y'know, you don't really need to defend or explain away a desire to avoid war. That's, um, pretty rational. And sane. And, on balance, A Good Thing. Whereas seeing war as a cureall is not (and no, I don't think anyone in this thread does view war that way. Some people in government, perhaps).

And combat refusal. Don't forget combat refusal; up to half of all blue forces (point-wise) may not appear on the map after purchase, having told their CO to go screw.

CMx3: Beyond Hearts of Overlord

And yet ground involvement in Vietnam lasted until 1973. Combat troops--I'm sorry, advisors--had been present since, what, '61? There was a significant anti-war movement for the better part of a decade before American involvement ended. For that matter, there was a significan anti-war movement inside the military (enlisted, not officers) for half a decade before the war ended. These, um, 'issues' did not end the war. Not in anything like a timely matter.

Steve, why do you hate freedom? Er, Syria. Whatever.

A bit of an oversimplification. Terror and intimidation were certainly integral to the NLF's strategy, but so was doing things like building schools in areas it controlled. And for that matter, South Vietnam's government did a lot of harm to itself.

An alternative title for CM: Jungle would be CM: Absurd Number of Polys Required by Terrain Kill Frame Rate Which isn't a problem if they're going the Crysis/Far Cry route and making 'omfg kewl jungles that you have to upgrade your video card to see as anything other than a slide show' the focus of a title.

It costs us, therefore we aren't giving you the option no more than we're giving you the option to have naked girls dancing on your tanks. At least THAT is something you'd notice when actually playing the game. Steve </font>

Will we see any animations a la the Hot Coffee mod for GTA: San Andreas? I mean, that'd boost sales, right?

Indeed. Either Clancy's gotten much worse, or my taste has much improved.

"We had to destroy the world to save it" As far as NATO/WP goes, the only reason I'm interested in such scenarios is because it represents one of the only conceivable scenarios in which fairly equivalent forces with close-to-modern equipment go at it in a big way. 'Course, I guess we can have hypothetical China-America stuff for that, now. Now that might be an interesting module (though I don't expect it to happen).

ISTR that the reason for rejection has essentially been that there isn't enough market for it.

So, is this going to be included in the initial release?

John, did you check this? I ask because, if I'm reading the IAEA unofficial transcript correctly, what it's refering to is not a UN study; it's an Iraqi study presented to the UN 29 September, 1999. Which I don't think is necessarily reliable.