Homo ferricus

Yes you are right MickeyD, troops do surrender more easily in cmak than cmbb. But should that be the case for the Soviets at the beginning of the war. At this time the Soviets did not know of the brutality of the Germans and were ready to surrender when in trouble. What about surrendering in Shock Force. Would the americans dare to surrender to religous fanatics? Would the fanatics take prisioners for propaganda purposes? So that they behead their prisioners later for internet and tv coverage. </font>

Bah! Poison-tipped silver daggers! How did you know my weakness! Some P.I. in Washington must of got a lot of money for that one...

Not if our search program succeeds in tracking down your address. San Bruno, eh? Well, that's a start... Michael </font>

i guess i forgive you, since any rebuttel will be met mercillesly with another condescending essay which i will not be able to adaquately respond to because i dont have a darn ounce of credibility to my name. I take comfort in my bottle of Grey Goose, and the fact that statistically you will die sooner than me.

"No, this is the age where nations & militaries will continue to withhold information about their capabilities, weapons-systems, and actions because that is what nations and militaries do" they might want to, and of course some will have a stroke of success, but i was just pointing out that there were no American reporters in Russia during the war, so it obviously would take a long time for westerners to figure out what actually happened there, as opposed to a modern middle-eastern war, in which the media scrutinizes a nations arsenal during combat (i.e. media coverage on US using napalm in Falluja, Israel using Phosphorus weapons in Lebanon), where there are dozens of international journalists informing the public on every single sortie and every single skirmish. The age of information makes the flow of knowledge a lot quicker, almost instant, but not to say that your wrong, you have a point, nations will hide everything that they don't want seen, and sometimes it will be very hard to find the truth (we still don't know whats going on with Hussein's supposed WMD stockpile, still unconfirmed if they ever existed) but when it comes to simulating a recent war in a video game, in terms of the equipment used and how and when battles where fought, these things are not hard to find nowadays. the truth of the outcome of a historical battle doesn't matter, since in the game you would be coming up with your own outcome. "Nor does anything you say invalidate the fact that secrets will, often for years, remain secret, that NO nation wants to publicize the details of a serious screw-up, and that the reasons a brilliantly carried out operation were so brilliant may involve factors that will never be known." see above. Definetly agree with you. "Events will move faster, but analysis still takes time. History isn't written by bloggers, even if they chronicle the events. The pace of analysis might quicken given the ability to move information around more quickly, but wading through lies, misinformation, secrecy, misunderstanding, and just plain BS will continue to take time." thats also true, im beginning to think that my sarcastic exaggeration wasn't noticed. I didn't mean to say that a game based on a conflict can be made a day after it starts... well, i did, but not to worry, i was exaggerting, its kinda hard to get that kinda stuff over the internet, anyway, of course its impossible to do that, but it would be a lot quicker, i'd say, within 3-5 years of a conflict. "In the wake of a battle, a weapons system may be widely trumpeted as 'the deciding factor'. 10 years later, analysis of the incredible tonnage of information that your 'information age' deluged the world with may prove that the system in question was flawed at best, and a complete waste of time at worst, and that other factors, unrealized at the time, are what led to victory." id doesn't matter whether a certain weapon was praised or denounced, as long as you accurately model it in a game, you can see how effective it was by yourself. Im not talking about making your mind up on what won the war, just modelling the war accurately. "What Emrys said is not invalidated by the belief that access to instant information produces instant truths, because arriving at the Truth will remain a time consuming, laborious, and difficult process." of course, the truth remains elusive, forever probably. But im confused now, are we talking about knowing what equipment was used in a war, the participants, and conditions? Or are we arguing on whether it is harder to get the truth than it was 50 years ago? In any case, i agree that getting to the truth will never be easy as far as my human predictions go.

Because it normally takes that long and longer for all the important information about a conflict to be turned up, sifted through, and evaluated. Michael </font>

...Which might transform it from science fiction to historical simulation. Or not. Michael </font>

</font>

all this Israel-Lebanon business is getting me greatly excited about CMSF all over again! speaking of which, having Israel as a playable ally to the US would be interesting, but very unlikely considering the new scale of the game, i.e. game mainly follows one US unit. But it would nonetheless be interesting. meh, Arabs would probably get outraged at a simulation of a "possible Israeli invasion of an Arab State". It would be the Mohammad comics all over again. right, like anyone important ever heard of CM. one more quick question, you play as an Army unit right? Not Marines?

hmmm, blue-on-blue. That would make for very interesting scenarios. Those type of battles did occur in reality, like in "Battle Ready" by Tom Clancy, where Tony Zinni detailingly describes a battle between South Vietnamese Marines and ARVN troops. [ June 29, 2006, 07:39 PM: Message edited by: Iron_man ]

We can still do these right? I mean, with the whole scope decrease and all i sometimes get the feeling that we're only going to get a campaign mode that we play through with our battalion or company or whatever, and then a couple missions for single player. ignorant question? very much so. Just not willing to do the research, or rational thinking.

Like music to my ear.. umm... eyes. Check your email. </font>

i win. because i refused to post NOW, and rather posted a bit later. that probably sounded stupid, i think i lost. This is hard!

ya, that was the joke... i suppose members start losing all humor once they start hitting the 19,000s.

I didn't know they were making a Mercenaries 2! I gotta snag me a PS3 and a copy, if it gets released that is. Silly Venezuela, i suppose they never heard of Monroe Doctrine, if we still follow that anyway, do we? anyway, sure, this will definetly help popularize a game like CMSF that doesnt get a whole lot of exposure, but hopefully not to the point where production has to be halted by the government because the Syrians get so offended, probably won't happen though, they probably never heard of Comat Mission anyway...

I'd be glad to lay down $500-$1000 for extra tanks and bigger maps as well.

Should we be teasing battlefront like this? i bet we'll have a downloadable bonus pack with NATO and space lobsters galor once they see what kind of money people are willing to spend... Me? My wallets empty.

yep, complete with Beautiful scenery and a whole host of Allah Ackbars.

It might have been a video of Afghan fighters from 1980's, but then Afghans aren't Arabs (although there were volunteers) and there's no jungles there. Actually, there are no jungles anywhere in the Middle East or North Africa where Arabs live. </font>

If this Absurdistan that you speak of was largely made up of forest/Jungle and mountain terrain, there could definetly be a chance to defend from choppers via easily concealed and deployed hand held AA weapons like the grail, i once saw a video of some sort of Arab rebels(unidentified) shoot down a seemingly Russian(also unidentified) Hind with a shoulder launched SAM from the jungle. Against fixed wing aircraft would be tricky; i suppose you can hide some larger SAM platforms under the jungle canopy or up in the mountains(if they can access such terrain) but it IS possible to give any Air Force hell in the right environment with the right equipment. Although i suppose that modern/near future systems will be able to spot and kill these AA platforms even under jungle canopy, or when hidden in the mountains, unless SF teams are deployed to kill them first. Meh, i still think it's possible. but if i was czar of Adsurdistan i would make sure to be on America's and Europe's good sides.

dalem, I think I speak for all of us when I say, "ewwwww....." </font>

dalem, I think I speak for all of us when I say, "ewwwww....." </font>

dalem, I think I speak for all of us when I say, "ewwwww....." </font>

first thing to be noted is that i was exaggerating I think i see where you're coming from with the whole cost-effective thing, but i would still prefer a TOW launched from a heli, Hummer, Bradley or wherever. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/tow.htm o, and the prices on the Javelin: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/budget/fy1998/dot-e/army/98javelin.html

No email address in the profile and too damned young if you ask me. Go away tin_man ... you bother me ... and you're rusty and have no heart. Joe p.s. So I'm cranky, deal with it. </font>