sburke

What’s with that hat. Just kidding, thanks for sharing.

I think you missed the more important piece - counter insurgency urban combat. Urban combat in Sadr City or Ramadi isn't remotely like anything in the North Africa campaign. I don't relish North Africa desert combat and I also am not much into CMSF armor combat. In that sense you are right, if you like one you theoretically like the other. I am not into either I think what it comes down to (and I think I mentioned this somewhere up above) I am much more into Infantry centric engagements. Not that N Africa didn't have some of that, but it isn't known for it. If BF produces it I'd most certainly buy it, but it isn't at the top of my hit list.

Baghdad Bob's Transmitting station

I don't play desert armor battles in CMSF (not much anyway)... I am more into urban counter insurgency fights. Not too many of those in WW2 desert battles. But that is just me... and @Sgt.Squarehead

For Heaven's sake no man, not from the bottle! From the Tap! Guinness is built not poured!

If we are truly playing in a bar I’ll take either as long as you serve Guinness.

Hence my giving it a send off. CMSF was the start of CM2 and as soon as I loaded it I knew I was done with CMx1 games. I’d give it a Viking send off but burning the plastic wouldn’t go over well.

Time to give up the binky.

LOL yeah I think the only reason it has been running is it hasn't really gotten inflammatory. You are right though, it is time better spent playing CM. Which oddly enough is what I say almost every day at work to myself when sitting in another inane meeting..."I could make much better use of this time ………."

Bummer man, sorry to hear that, but the good news as you noted is CMSF2 is coming soon, is way better and you'll get a very hefty discount. Once you have that, you won't want to be bothered with CMSF1 anymore. I am planning a special deletion ceremony for my copy once CMSF2 is GA. It has served me well.

can't speak to any of this but I will note this is probably an ideal time to bring it up. Wil make sure to point some folks in this direction to read. Thanks Keeryel

or just not liking steam. Please I appreciate you preferring it but don't try and categorize those of us who care little for it.

I just keep telling them CM has a really nice personality, you saying maybe that is not the best lure?

Sure. Good luck with that survey. Hope it knocks one out of the park. Ignore the doubters, full steam ahead (pun intended)

The convolutions I have gone through at times to disguise vehicle movements or used jeeps to knock down fences to mis lead my opponent. . . .

If you can’t understand why a steam supporter would be more likely to vote you need to take a few UX classes. And how sure are you? Based on? I deal with a lot of UX folks and have been exposed to the whole psychology of surveys, how you ask questions, what can be leading questions etc. I know you’d like this to be cut and dried especially as the small sample size is already in favor of what you want. Unfortunately if you really want an honest appraisal versus vindication of your own opinion, you’ll need to work a bit harder at it. Just saying. As to the stats,yes they are pretty clear. Again they don’t support your theory so you are well prepared to discard them. You are clearly operating from bias. Not that your response is totally invalid, but in both cases you immediately defend the position you want to be right versus agreeing that that particular piece of data doesn’t support your argument.

Old discussion. And yes it is unfortunate in the same way you can tell when a vehicle goes through a fence.

Never under (over?) estimate Emrys

Oh crap, you aren’t going to bring real facts into this discussion are you? Oh geez there goes the neighborhood.

You aren’t factoring in those that think your straw poll is a complete waste of time and aren’t voting no like I would if I thought it mattered. . When formulating a survey it is important to know how your question weights the result. Players who want steam are more likely to vote therefore your poll question is skewed from the start.

I don’t think the issue is everybody else’s understanding. The administration isn’t clear at all what it is doing. Did Trump need to meet with Kim to get a memorandum of understanding? The meeting itself was a win for Kim and it isn’t clear what if anythng we got in return. This memorandum is more vague than both previous agreements which didn’t result in some clear wins for the DPRK. As to what Trump agreed to in their private meeting, we don’t know but if Pence is confused as well as GOP Senate leadership I can’t say I understand what Trump means when he says something. He backtracks so much it isn’t like you can take what he says at any one moment as the truth.

bigger question does she let him win just to make him feel better and get a larger allowance?

That is a rational assumption. Do I need to point out the weak point(s) in that logic?

This is what we got in perspective. Bill Clinton, 1993 After nine days of talks at the UN, the US and North Korea essentially agreed to keep talking, based on their mutual support of 1992’s “North-South Joint Declaration on the Denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula.” In that landmark 1992 declaration, Pyongyang agreed “not to test, manufacture, produce, receive, possess, store, deploy, or use nuclear weapons; to use nuclear energy solely for peaceful purposes; and not to possess facilities for nuclear reprocessing and uranium enrichment.” In the 1993 US-North Korea pact, both sides gave “assurances against the threat and use of force, including nuclear weapons.” This ultimately resulted in the 1994 “agreed framework” towards a nuclear-free peninsula that is considered the closest move towards a successful deal. Eight years of talks later, it all fell apart. George W. Bush, 2005 After the Clinton-led framework failed, China helped push North Korea to denuclearize, via the “Six Party Talks.” On their fourth meeting, in Beijing in 2005, the US, China, North Korea, South Korea, Russia, and Japan put out a detailed joint statement to say: North Korea “committed to abandoning all nuclear weapons and existing nuclear programs.” The US “affirmed that it has no nuclear weapons on the Korean Peninsula and has no intention to attack or invade” North Korea. All sides agreed the 1992 declaration should be “observed and implemented.” All parties pledged “economic cooperation in the fields of energy, trade and investment” with North Korea. After multiple rounds of talks, George W. Bush removed North Korea from the US’s list of state sponsors of terrorism in 2008. However, talks collapsed in 2009 when North Korea fired a test missile after disagreeing with the other parties about inspections and verification of denuclearization. Barack Obama’s administration ratcheted up sanctions as Kim Jong Un increased militarization. But there were no further negotiations. Donald Trump, 2018 The Trump-Kim joint statement released today (June 12) makes no mention of the 1992 declaration that was the basis for previous agreements. Instead, it references this year’s “Panmunjom Declaration for Peace,” the agreement between North and South Korea to formally end their decades-long state of war. That declaration uses less specific language about the North’s denuclearization, saying both sides “confirmed the common goal” of “a nuclear-free Korean Peninsula.” The Trump-Kim agreement also says that Kim reaffirmed “his firm and unwavering commitment to complete denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula,” and that North Korea “commits to work towards the complete denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula.” Both sides have agreed to the repatriation of the remains of prisoners of war and soldiers missing in action from the Korean War. The joint statement was overshadowed after the summit, when Trump appeared to make a huge, surprise concession to North Korea, agreeing to pull US troops out of the region and stop joint military exercises with South Korea. That’s exactly the scenario that Beijing has been pushing for for a year—but the US Department of Defense said it had no advance knowledge of any such moves. Yeah he got played. The only real hope here is that Kim actually does want something more and figures to use that nuclear bargaining chip to insure he gets it and will eventually trade it in for whatever he wants, but I kind of doubt he'll really give it up for now. Why bother when he seems to be getting everything he wants without actually giving anything other than vague assurances.

None of this matters. It is a BF business decision and they have said no, repeatedly. We do not get to have a say in that. Whether you agree or disagree is up to you, but our opinions are not going to change Steve's mind.