Jump to content

sburke

Members
  • Posts

    21,127
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    103

Everything posted by sburke

  1. The problem as I see it Noob is you are working on absolutes without recognizing that your absolute prohibition has consequences that in turn raise moral questions. You can adhere to your absolute if you think it absolves your conscience, but that is simply like covering your eyes, ears and mouth and hopefully not have to recognize the inconsistency. The fact is that the war created many dilemma where there were only more or less evil alternatives. You have found a way to justify killing to absolve your conscience, but is that really justifiable? Says who? What makes that any more moral? If all you are after is people feel repugnance for an act they nevertheless feel bound to commit (which is I think a line you already crossed when talking about killing combatants) fine. Acting has consequences, not acting has consequences. In both situations the consequences are innocent people will die, what do you do - not act so you feel you are not responsible for the deaths? Sorry not that easy not acting is a choice. You are still responsible. What makes you the "good" guys is not that you don't make a choice, but that you at least are repulsed by it and yet accept the responsibility for having done so. As to the quotes about Japan's willingness to surrender or not. That is all hindsight discussion and even then they really aren't sure how events would have gone. The Japanese government's slaughter of it's own civilians on Okinawa was what the US had come to expect. There was a cultural divide there that was not going to be bridged while the war was still being fought. Japan's actions were incomprehensible to the allies and they saw only one way out.
  2. But then it wouldn't be the internet. And that isn't a kubelwagen, it is the volkswagen "thing" http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=volkswagen+thing&qpvt=volkswagen+thing&FORM=IGRE Me I don't need a justification to see something, hell I'd like motorcycles with side cars!
  3. heh heh heh yeah this one is spiraling down pretty quick. Back on point, I almost completely agree with you noob as I think we do have to hold ourselves to a higher standard if we are going to regard ourselves as the "good guys". Whether we really are that or not is a different question. However I still can't say I believe the "right" thing to do was to be willing to allow upwards of a million allied casualties to prevent Japan from suffering more. I think that is asking too much and putting one on a moral highground that simply becomes words. If I were Truman as much as I would like to think of myself as a moral person, I am not sure I would not have done the same thing. How could I face a million American families and tell them I sacrificed their family members to prevent civilian casualties to the nation that had attacked them. I think the moral issue here is simply not that easily delineated. Is it more moral to allow Americans to die than it is to allow the aggressor population to suffer? Is it simply age or gender that defines morality? Did we end up actually saving more total lives by doing what we did than if we hadn't? How do you frame the question of what is the correct moral stance? If you really want to lay out the higher ground position we should have used peaceful nonviolent resistance to the Axis powers. Once you decide violence is a legitimate response you have already made a moral decision that killing is okay. Justifying it that "they attacked us" is a pretty thin veneer to hold on to for the moral high ground.
  4. This is a fairly sensitive subject in my household (my spouse is Japanese), but honestly why should we be so willing to disregard our soldiers lives to save the lives of an aggressor? Japan was clearly in total denial about the state of the war, there was no question they were finished and yet Japanese troops still occupied significant portions of Asia inflicting those nations with a brutal occupation. At this point in the war it was Japan's decision as to what was going to happen, to insist that the Allies pay with their blood to achieve what was already a foregone conclusion is simply wrong. I am not one who favors war on civilians nor am I totally callous about it. On the other hand our soldiers were fathers, brothers and sons to families back home, they were civilians forced to war by Japan and no less so now that they had to don a uniform. They had as much right to go back to a peaceful life as the Japanese and would be able to do so if the Japanese government would take the only step they had left - surrender.
  5. I am gonna plead total ignorance as to what that might mean just in case my spouse ever looks at this forum... I don't know honey, I am not sure what he meant by that, but maybe it has something to do with his handle.... :confused:
  6. I don't think he would disagree with you on that. From my perspective he was simply pointing out that the nature of the game (almost any game) is you are all of the decision makers and therefore your decisions have a lot more consistency (one would hope, maybe not in my case) than would exist in the real world.
  7. Personally I think that is spot on. It is in my mind the source of a lot of the supposed game weaknesses that are simply unavoidable if one is going to be able to play the game. Ultimately c2 is absolute other than FOs and unit morale as we are the c2 network. LOL That'll certainly put a dent in your tank rush.
  8. wtf 5 rounds?!! Man I rarely see a Sherman survive even one.
  9. I've been trying really hard to duplicate this without success. Anytime anyone runs into an issue, reporting it without making a save is pretty much like talking to your self. Please for my sanity make a save, I am tired of watching arty missions. LOL
  10. Can't say I like the way stuff bounces around though. LOL Like they are kid's models and Mom just stumbled through the middle of the airfield.
  11. That really should be in your sig- heck you should probably have a list on your SIG - or better yet maybe a FAQ page where you just post all your answers to these questions and just refer people there.
  12. wow, are you kidding? Nice overview! I had to zoom out to get a better perspective, but color me impressed.
  13. same here and I just gotta hear that mow. Maybe try on the home PC later.
  14. Damn that's like buying a cake and letting someone else eat it, you miss out on like 90% of the game there.
  15. or you could justify it that the amount of bushes etc moving justified believeing it was a larger force than just one guy... On the one hand I am all for having a lot more FOW in the game, on the other I know this has come up previously...many many times previously, but I haven't had the chance to go back and see what BFs responses consisted of (though I am fairly certain the issue is a lot more complicated than any of us would like it to be). Still one can hope.
  16. Unfortunate in the categories are dissimilar. If one takes the AT guns,tanks and SP guns from the first and compare that to the AT guns/tanks of the second you get - 61.6% vs 46.2% whereas Bazooks factor in pretty close to the same. That "other" is an odd one, what is accounting for that 10% difference? What do both references use "other" to mean? Lost on battlefield due to immobility (fuel?) or aircraft?
  17. Very nice, it can be difficult to make the Marder effective. In Hamel I was able to immobilize a Sherman, but the Marder died in the effort. Looking at the timer in your screenshot, does it really say something like 1:42:xx? Ouch, hard to hold a defence together that long unless you have add'l reinforcements expected.
  18. LOL well it definitely gave me a double take. Besides what else have we to do untill the patch/version 2 and MG come out for CMBN? Damn BF, they have just absolutely spoiled us.
  19. Man as much as I have played this game, if you'd asked me that and put money on it I'd have said hell yeah the Germans had separate ammo bearer teams at least in CMBN....and then I looked. I'll just go off quietly by myself and ponder my apparent uselessness to the world.
  20. I am not so sure I do. Just went in to editor. There are Heer and Luftwaffe formations available but only armored infantry. I created a scenario with a Luftwaffe armored Infantry and a Heer Amored Inf Bn and cycled through both units. The only Ammo bearers I could find were on IG and AT guns. Went to specialist teams, same deal.
  21. That bridge have a gap in it right at the far end shore?
  22. Is there any long term financial consideration? If not I'd get CMFI now and CMBN afer the upgrade. Might as well get used to the new UI etc rather than learn the old and then have to learn the new later. If there is it really comes down to which theater you like. CMBN will cover up to and including Market Garden - note it will not include the Bulge. It will shortly (say 3-4 months?) have it's second module which might also be a financial item to think about.
  23. yeah, one never knows what BF might come up with over time. While it would definitely possible to play aspects of the fighting it would make a huge difference in the overall reaction and purchasing of the game that I'd think BF would want to wait until they could do choppers. Still I'd be willing to buy it without them and hope for an eventual upgrade
×
×
  • Create New...