Moronic Max

Would it be unrealistic (I have no idea how the proving grounds work, or how much time you have on your hands, or if you're inclined, or...) to ask for two versions of the scenario? One with the AI-setup, one with a 'human' setup?

Oh, one other thing about caged beast: try to play it against a human, not the AI. If the AI plays the brits, it takes its tanks out of keyholed defensive positions and gets them slaughtered going head to head with Tigers. If it plays the Germans, it drives one Tiger after another into view of your keyholed firefly. As in, *bang*, tiger dies; next tiger drives up the same road, *bang*, tiger dies; next tiger drives up the same road, *bang*, tiger dies; until there aren't any tigers left.

CMAK, 'Caged Beast' The German force is (really) armor-heavy, mostly Tigers. British force is mixed armor and infantry. A few others whose names I can't recall at the moment; I think something called 'clash of the titans' features a dozen Italian tanks versus a dozen British tanks (IIRC, the brits get absolutely butchered if they trade fire at range), but I'll have to double-check and get back to you. EDITED to mention these are included in CM:AK (at least the special edition). [ December 11, 2006, 04:24 PM: Message edited by: Moronic Max ]

Well, you were my first choice, but after that stuff about fags and homos I decided Steve would be better.

not to mention the multitudes of songs and albums that have been against the war.

Speaking of tallying the dead, the ISG reports there's a great deal of underreporting of the violence. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/06_12_06_iraq_study_group_report.pdf It's hardly news that that's happening, but the scale is shocking.

I think I'm in love. Steve, will you marry me? If not, will you officiate my marriage with CM?

Ah. I overlooked that. You're quite right. Their estimate was that 650k +/- 260k Iraqis had died as a result of the war; that it was 95% certain the number of deaths fell in that range, but it was most likely that it was on the 650k number. It's worth keeping in mind that 'excess deaths' makes no distinction between combatants and noncombatants. 31% of 'excess deaths' were caused by coalition forces; not insignificant by any means, but also not a majority. It's also impossible to determine what percentage of those deaths were 'legitimate' kills and what percentage were civilians. You're correct in stating that most of the deaths were violent. I've yet to encounter any compelling criticism of the study, though I'd welcome links if anyone's got 'em.

Well, to be fair, that's not precisely what the IBC does. In their own words... http://www.iraqbodycount.org/editorial/defended/1.php

I was thinking more along these lines, to be honest; if for no other reason than that the average person will find it more compelling than a doc with a title like 'beyond treason', which smacks of sensationalism (whether or not it's accurate isn't the point. The point is that the average person will look at the title, look at the description of its contents, dismiss it as a crock-u-mentary, and forget about it). Now, an account from the DoE's homepage about experiments in which people were injected with effing plutonium...

Bah! See, when I read 'crappy ATI card' I was thinking, oh, 'Radeon Mobility 7500' (can you guess what my laptop has?). Oh well. Actually, I guess that's a question for you: will cards need to be Dx9 compliant?

Mhm. I'd really like to know exactly how this thing is supposed to be employed. Do you keep the beam on constantly 'til the crowd ain't there no more? Turn it on briefly? Sweep the crowd, turn it off, sweep it again? Or what? Years of study, huh? Two years? Three? Five? Ten? Twenty? The American military doesn't exactly have a stirling track record for safety in this sorta thing; I'm thinking of Agent Orange, nuclear testing, all that 'radiation research' stuff, and so on. I sure as hell wouldn't want to be on the receiving end, that's for sure. OTOH, better that than a few rounds from an M2. What'll be interesting will be how people in Iraq respond to its use.

Define crappy

Okay, that was funny. Though I hesitate to apply the label 'beautiful' to Ms. Lewinsky.

Here's the thing. Logically speaking, going for a ceasefire after that would be the right course of action for the Sunnis. But when I try to imagine how I'd respond to something like that; if, say, China let all the democrats in LA kill all the republicans in LA (okay, okay, not the greatest example, but work with me)I can't see myself saying "alright, let's not fight china or each other no more". And I don't think my reaction is unique; strategic bombing of cities (which amounts to a more impersonal version of what you're suggesting) has not, by and large, caused people to surrender. Even people who are losing. Dresden didn't make the Third Reich fold, Tokyo didn't make Japan give it up (nukes did, but nukes represented the prospect of annihilation without the opportunity to fight), Korea had lost something like 4/5 of its urban areas by the time the armistice was signed, and the six million tons of bombs we dropped on Southeast Asia didn't make anyone surrender, nor did Project Phoenix, nor did free fire zones. And the wholesale slaughter the Nazis subjected Yugoslavia to didn't stop the guerrilla war there. Are there examples where that sort of thing did work (Rotterdam counts, I think)?

Alright, I'll buy that.

Certainly. By the same token, America doesn't want to be prosecuting a counterinsurgency campaign in Iraq, but it wants even less (at least for now) to wash its hands of the place and abandon a role in shaping the nation(s) and thereby influencing the rest of the Mid East. Or, perhaps more to the point, America didn't want to go to war with Iraq (well, PNAC did, but let's leave that aside) but it wanted even less Iraq to have WMD. I'm not claiming moral equivalency between American and Iran here; I'm simply pointing out that everybody wants peace; the problem is that there tend to be things people want more than peace (in part due to the expectation that they can't maintain peace without x, granted). I was rereading McNamara's In Retrospect recently, and it's astonishing how many of his 'lessons of Vietnam' apply more or less verbatim to Iraq. Particularly apt was the notion (paraphrased) that 'foreign military power cannot substitute for the political order and stability that must be created by a people for themselves'. For that matter, it's amazing how well some of the RAND Corporation reports on the NLF/VC and what does and doesn't work versus an insurgency seem to be holding up in Iraq as well (mind you, neither the LBJ nor Nixon admins--nor the Joint Chiefs--acted in accordance with the studies, so it isn't surprising Bush & pals didn't thirty years later).

That seems a lot like a loaded question; I'd bet Syria, Iran, the assorted Iraqi groups, etc. don't want bloodshed in Iraq and would like the groups to be at peace with one another as well. That's not where the friction lies; the friction lies in determining the shape of the new government(s) of Iraq. Among other things, of course.

See, now that makes sense. Thanks, guys.

Really? May I ask why? Supreme Commander's got replay, Dawn of War, Warcraft III...well, really, every mainstream RTS hit has it. Just curious as to what it is that prevents you guys from doing it (assuming the explanation isn't ridiculously long, technical, etc).

Meh. Leaving 'Nam didn't cause the Soviets to head west. When you get right down to it, why should we care whether or not China goes for Taiwan? Ain't our problem, and anyone still willing to bring up the domino theory isn't living on the same planet. I guess if things do go hot, I'll be looking for an apartment a bit further east than my current place just outside LA.

I think he's saying that BFC are conducting a campaign to keep us in the dark, which must mean they hate informed discourse, which must mean they hate democracy, which must mean they hate freedom. Support freedom, boycott BFC!

Thanks for answering the question, guys.

So, how useful is 155mm artillery in counter-insurgency work?

Hey, I was being silly for the sake of being silly; wasn't 'raining' on anybody. Or at least wasn't intending to.