sburke

Well to sum up, 1. BF has said repeatedly that more work for the AI that is being suggested here is not going to happen, they'd simply don't feel the investment it would take is within their reach 2. Triggers are an example of the direction they are going and no it is not a full AI that reads your moves and counters in anything other than a simplistic sense 3. If option 1 & 2 do not make you happy unfortunately you are destined to be unhappy.

Sorry I won't get sucked into this, if you still adhere that this is a local uprising of average joes who suddenly learned combat skills by trial and error, there is no way you are ever going to face that this is an entirely Russian creation. Good luck with that. Those poor coal miners who dumped the rocket barrage on Mariupol and shot down a Dutch airliner are just the victims here. Yeah.

If you mean more triggers, yes that is something we'd all like, but I am not sure that qualifies for the AI being discussed.

Really C&C? I'd suggest you google for Steve's previous comments on AI of which there have been quite a few. He seems to think it is a lot harder than you do as I assume does Charles as well. Your opinion < Charles's opinion. That is pretty much the crux of the matter. You keep comparing apples to oranges. C&C AI was not the same type game nor was it particularly smart. In fact I think current AI in CM is quite a bit better. As it should be given the time differential, but no where near on the order folks seem to think it should be.

That would be cool enough! Gets my vote! What, I don't get a vote? Damn!

Would this be the same coal miners and truck drivers that the other poster above was saying were being trained in Russia for months?

But in chess it sees one move and responds to one move with no LOS concerns building an AI to do what you want would be far beyond BFs capabilities and if they could do it, they would likely be working on something far more lucrative. Is it bad to want better overall AI, no but it is also not bad to want world peace. It is simply a question of likelihoods.

Well the problem when you say one thing in public and another in private is you confuse your rabid attack dogs and they tend to keep straining at the leash. http://news.yahoo.com/rebels-attack-ukrainian-government-troops-despite-ceasefire-kiev-094026119.html

Well the economy is getting at least a bit of a lift from the IMF and with Russia's blatant disregard of the negotiations it is likely you'll see the west continuing to provide the financial assistance to keep the Ukrainians going. As to the military, I see nothing to indicate the UA folding, if anything they have every reason to harden their resolve. Russia is a long way from winning this thing. The UA may have had to withdrawal, but that has not come without cost to Russia. My speculation? This will continue to drag on, the seperatists will continue to ignore the ceasefire, those in the west trying to continue negotiations will realize their futility, sanctions will continue to escalate, Russia's economy will continue to nose dive. Eventually someone in Russia will realize Putin has no exit strategy and there is no end game that is a "win" for Russia. Then things will start to get real interesting.

You missed the main point, Putin and his proxies now stand clearly exposed for the liars they are. They never intended to honor minsk2. Even while signing the paperwork they were preparing this offensive. Hope Putin enjoys his victory as now that Germany and France have burned all their credit in the EU trying to negotiate it is going to fall to the rest to start with the only option Putin has left the west, start arming Ukraine to win this war. The war hawks in the west now have political leverage they needed. Putin really is a mediocre strategist at best.

That's fine, but for clarification about characterizing my position as not accepting even NATO statements as an excuse to not providing any other sources. This is the relevant test of the article you linked to. Thus, the debate about the enlargement of NATO evolved solely in the context of German reunification. In these negotiations Bonn and Washington managed to allay Soviet reservations about a reunited Germany remaining in NATO. This was achieved by generous financial aid, and by the “2+4 Treaty” ruling out the stationing of foreign NATO forces on the territory of the former East Germany. However, it was also achieved through countless personal conversations in which Gorbachev and other Soviet leaders were assured that the West would not take advantage of the Soviet Union’s weakness and willingness to withdraw militarily from Central and Eastern Europe. It is these conversations that may have left some Soviet politicians with the impression that NATO enlargement, which started with the admission of the Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland in 1999, had been a breach of these Western commitments. Some statements of Western politicians – particularly German Foreign Minister Hans Dietrich Genscher and his American counterpart James A. Baker – can indeed be interpreted as a general rejection of any NATO enlargement beyond East Germany. However, these statements were made in the context of the negotiations on German reunification, and the Soviet interlocutors never specified their concerns. In the crucial “2+4” negotiations, which finally led Gorbachev to accept a unified Germany in NATO in July 1990, the issue was never raised. As former Soviet Foreign Minister Eduard Shevardnadze later put it, the idea of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact dissolving and NATO taking in former Warsaw Pact members was beyond the imagination of the protagonists at the time. So that is the two highest ranking Soviet leaders in the negotiations both saying this was not a subject. The article does not counter what I said previously, in fact it supports it. We do not have to have the same opinion, but please don't mis-characterize mine.

there is a mod LLF did for CMBN called Makin Island that is pretty cool, troops, terrain etc. It is up on the repository. http://www.battlefront.com/index.php?option=com_remository&Itemid=314&func=fileinfo&id=2288

Not so rare as you might think. I'd love to see more and better animations, even better graphics etc. Hell assuming there was no cost to them, who wouldn't. But yes I agree, for now the balance is good. The graphics could be spectacular, but if the gameplay sucked this wouldn't be on my hard drive. Even now I still fire up CMSF on a regular basis.

Great minds think alike, this is from broadsword during the Hamel Vallee battle

Gorbachev himself denies there was any such conversation regarding Eastern Europe and said so as recently as last fall. Given he has no reason to lie about it I tend to take him at his word over a news article or website that can't substantiate it's claims. Regardless NATO votes and puts into writing it's obligations. The USSR lost the Cold War, the disbanding of the Warsaw pact took time after the reunification of Germany. NATO's purpose during this period was obviously questionable and even up until last year it wasn't clear what it's future should be. That is no longer the case, Russia has proven to still be a threat to peace in Europe and it is a good thing for Eastern Europe that NATO does have members in the former eastern bloc. The response about the documentation is interesting, there are too many documents to provide details, but producing even one is an undue hardship? Could they at least even cite one? Is there something super secret that prevents them saying where the documents might be found? The follow up treaty that did set standards for Eastern Europe was the Budapest memorandum, which Russia has violated. This discussion is on the wrong subject. The question isn't has NATO lived up to its commitments, but rather has Russia. And the answer is consistently no.

Correct. I once created a map for the Huertegen battle at Schmidt. Had to settle for using rock and marsh tile to do the Kall to keep the slope of the valley in. Basically the lowest tile with water becomes the default for all water.

This is more my speed - and I was at this show. https://video.search.yahoo.com/video/play?p=grateful+dead+in+phila&vid=e0c7621dedc9525af930a3cc6529b089&l=1%3A09%3A46&turl=http%3A%2F%2Fts2.mm.bing.net%2Fth%3Fid%3DVN.608021181781115261%26pid%3D15.1&rurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DnkjGMUjaSmA&tit=Grateful+Dead+%282+cam%29+3-24-1986+Spectrum%2C+Philadelphia%2C+Pa.+%28Complete+2nd+Set%29&c=19&sigr=11bk469hf&sigt=12e6vu2tq&sigi=11rdokdm1&back=https%3A%2F%2Fsearch.yahoo.com%2Fyhs%2Fsearch%3Fp%3Dgrateful%2Bdead%2Bin%2Bphila%26ei%3DUTF-8%26hsimp%3Dyhs-001%26hspart%3Dmozilla&sigb=132r0d35u&ct=p&age=1364831436&fr2=p%3As%2Cv%3Av&hsimp=yhs-001&hspart=mozilla&tt=b

Wait, you have Comcast? Well you neglected to mention that little factoid!!!

so when do we see his mug close up with description....

a little perusal on the home page and voila - MULTIPLAYER * WeGo TCP/IP with the ability to save but not the ability to replay combat action. * Pausable RealTime TCP/IP option. A player can request a Pause and, if the other player agrees, the game is Paused until both players are ready to continue play. http://www.battlefront.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=blogcategory&id=338&Itemid=583

so this is a treaty between Germany, the US, France and the USSR (Russia) for the final reunification of Germany. That is all it is regarding. It is not a treaty with NATO as a signatory nor does it address anything but the reunification of Germany and the stationing of Nuclear weapons in the Eastern portion of the country. As to the Der Spiegel article, they can say what they like, but NATO as an organization does not make verbal agreements by one party. Germany could not speak for NATO alone like this. It is an organization that has voting sovereign members. There was never a vote nor a treaty and Gorbachev himself says there was no such discussion he is aware of. If there are numerous documents it would seem Russia could easily produce those and prove the claim. It never has. What that adds up to for me is Der Spiegel needs to either provide proof or risk losing it's reputation as "high quality". Shevardnadze is one possible source of that conversation. He worked for Gorbachev yet Gorbachev says there was no conversations regarding Eastern Europe and NATO. So on one hand we have the factual process of an organization that has a treaty process, with no treaty. The Head of the USSR saying there was no discussion, and a German magazine that says it has numerous documents that it then won't share. I know which story I believe. Then we have a formal document with Russia as a signatory member saying it will respect Ukrainian sovereignty and territorial integrity, not allow it's weapons to be used against that country and claiming it will not use economic pressure for political gain, all of which it has violated continuously for the past year. Regardless, this is all a distraction and off topic. Getting back on topic, I think both sides will find RoE to be a difficult item. Video is so easy to obtain these days. On the one hand you don't want stuff to come back and haunt you- The Hague court for example, on the other hand as a soldier you have military objectives to achieve and fellow soldiers whom you try to protect.

Can you cite any of those? i have done some preliminary searches and can't find anything quite like that. There is this on NATOs home page along with a bunch of other interesting stuff. Assuring the security of the Euro-Atlantic area remains at the heart of NATO's purpose, but the role of U.S. nuclear forces based in Europe has been reduced as the Alliance's ability to diffuse a crisis diplomatically has significantly improved. NATO has committed to eliminate "all nuclear artillery and ground-launched short-range nuclear missiles" and significantly reduce the role and readiness of sub-strategic nuclear weapons in defense planning. This position is reflected by member states such as Denmark, Norway, and Spain which forbid the deployment of nuclear weapons on their territory in peacetime. Though the nuclear forces based in Europe provide an essential link between Europe and North America, NATO will only maintain a "minimum level sufficient to preserve peace and stability" while reducing the strategic role of these weapons in defense plans Promises and pledges Claim: NATO promised not to build infrastructure or move troops into the new Allies in Central and Eastern Europe. Fact: The relationship between NATO and Russia is governed by the Founding Act on Mutual Relations, Cooperation and Security, agreed by NATO Allies and Russia in 1997 and reaffirmed at NATO-Russia summits in Rome in 2002, and in Lisbon in 2010. (The Founding Act can be read here.) In the Founding Act, the two sides agreed that: "in the current and foreseeable security environment, the Alliance will carry out its collective defence and other missions by ensuring the necessary interoperability, integration, and capability for reinforcement rather than by additional permanent stationing of substantial combat forces. Accordingly, it will have to rely on adequate infrastructure commensurate with the above tasks. In this context, reinforcement may take place, when necessary, in the event of defence against a threat of aggression and missions in support of peace consistent with the United Nations Charter and the OSCE governing principles, as well as for exercises consistent with the adapted CFE Treaty, the provisions of the Vienna Document 1994 and mutually agreed transparency measures. Russia will exercise similar restraint in its conventional force deployments in Europe." Therefore, both infrastructure and reinforcements are explicitly permitted by the Founding Act. Claim: NATO leaders promised at the time of German reunification that the Alliance would not expand to the East Fact: No such promise was ever made, and Russia has never produced any evidence to back up its claim. Every formal decision which NATO takes is adopted by consensus and recorded in writing. There is no written record of any such decision having been taken by the Alliance. Moreover, at the time of the alleged promise, the Warsaw Pact still existed. Its members did not agree on its dissolution until 1991. Therefore, it is not plausible to suggest that the idea of their accession to NATO was on the agenda in 1989. This was confirmed by the former Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev himself. This is what Mr Gorbachev said on 15 October 2014 in an interview with Rossiiskaya Gazeta and Russia Beyond The Headlines: "The topic of 'NATO expansion' was not discussed at all, and it wasn't brought up in those years. I say this with full responsibility. Not a single Eastern European country raised the issue, not even after the Warsaw Pact ceased to exist in 1991. Western leaders didn't bring it up, either." NATO enlargement Claim: NATO enlargement followed the same process as the expansion of the USSR and the Warsaw Pact Fact: The countries of Central and Eastern Europe chose to apply for NATO membership through their own national democratic processes. This was done through debate, in peacetime conditions, and in a transparent way. Their incorporation into the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact was carried out under conditions of military occupation, one-party dictatorship and the violent suppression of dissent. im: The cases of Kosovo and Crimea are identical Fact: The Kosovo operation was conducted following exhaustive discussion involving the whole international community dealing with a long-running crisis. Following the operation, the international community engaged in nearly ten years of diplomacy, under UN authority, to find a political solution and to settle Kosovo's final status, as prescribed by UNSCR 1244. In Crimea, there was no pre-existing crisis, no attempt to discuss the situation with the Ukrainian government, no involvement of the United Nations, and no attempt at a negotiated solution. In Kosovo, international attempts to find a solution took over 3,000 days. In Crimea, Russia annexed part of Ukraine's territory in less than 30 days. Claim: Russia's annexation of Crimea was justified by the opinion of the International Court of Justice on the independence of Kosovo (online here). Fact: The court stated that their opinion was not a precedent. The court said they had been given a "narrow and specific" question about Kosovo's independence which would not cover the broader legal consequences of that decision. Claim: The Ukrainian authorities are illegitimate Fact: Ukraine's President Poroshenko was elected on 25 May with a clear majority in a vote which the OSCE characterized (report here) as showing the "clear resolve of the authorities to hold what was a genuine election largely in line with international commitments and with a respect for fundamental freedoms." The only areas where serious restrictions were reported were those controlled by separatists, who undertook "increasing attempts to derail the process." The current parliament was elected on 26 October in a vote which the OSCE characterized (report here) as "an amply contested election that offered voters real choice, and a general respect for fundamental freedoms". It again pointed out that "Electoral authorities made resolute efforts to organize elections throughout the country, but they could not be held in parts of the regions (oblasts) of Donetsk and Luhansk or on the Crimean peninsula". Finally, Russian officials continue to allege that the Ukrainian parliament and government are dominated by "Nazis" and "fascists." However, in the parliamentary elections, the parties whom Russia labelled as "fascists" fell far short of the threshold of 5% needed to enter parliament. Ukraine's electorate clearly voted for unity and moderation, not separatism or extremism, and the composition of the parliament reflects that. In short, the President and parliament are legitimate, the actions of the separatists were not.

C J Cherryh absolute by far favorite Sci Fi author. For a military side space warfare kind of novel - Downbelow Station. For just plain good political/geopoliticial thriller stuff, the Foreigner series.Plenty of intelligent aliens, no stupid raving bug creatures and physics for combat that make sense. Unfortunately nothing really at the tactical level.

Lt Bull, run your turn and just let the clock run down. When the text done displays, check the rear truck of the two. Do you see some guy sitting on the ground facing the rear of the truck?

Agreed, That is a claim that keeps being touted by Russia that has no actual factual basis. If anything Russia is the one in violation of an actual treaty they signed publicly. Budapest Memorandum Main article: Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances On December 5, 1994 the leaders of Ukraine, Russia, Britain and the United States signed a memorandum to provide Ukraine with security assurances in connection with its accession to the NPT as a non-nuclear weapon state. The four parties signed the memorandum, containing a preamble and six paragraphs. The memorandum reads as follows: The United States of America, the Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Welcoming the accession of Ukraine to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons as non-nuclear-weapon State, Taking into account the commitment of Ukraine to eliminate all nuclear weapons from its territory within a specified period of time, Noting the changes in the world-wide security situation, including the end of the Cold War, which have brought about conditions for deep reductions in nuclear forces. Confirm the following: 1. The Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America reaffirm their commitment to Ukraine, in accordance with the principles of the Final Act of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe, to respect the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine. 2. The Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America reaffirm their obligation to refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine, and that none of their weapons will ever be used against Ukraine except in self-defence or otherwise in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations. 3. The Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America reaffirm their commitment to Ukraine, in accordance with the principles of the Final Act of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe, to refrain from economic coercion designed to subordinate to their own interest the exercise by Ukraine of the rights inherent in its sovereignty and thus to secure advantages of any kind. 4. The Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America reaffirm their commitment to seek immediate United Nations Security Council action to provide assistance to Ukraine, as a non-nuclear-weapon State party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, if Ukraine should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used. 5. The Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America reaffirm, in the case of Ukraine, their commitment not to use nuclear weapons against any non-nuclear weapon State party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, except in the case of an attack on themselves, their territories or dependent territories, their armed forces, or their allies, by such a State in association or alliance with a nuclear-weapon State. 6. Ukraine, the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America will consult in the event a situation arises that raises a question concerning these commitments. This Memorandum will become applicable upon signature. Signed in four copies having equal validity in the English, Russian, and Ukrainian languages.