Feltan

Which, in real life, is about 75% of your engagements. I wish I had a nickel for everytime I heard "WTF! Where did that come from!" Regards, Feltan

Be careful how you ask for it. In a fit of spite at all the negative comments, I could see BF create some crashed aircraft on map and tell you -- "There, there is your Red air power" while you look at a smoking hulk of a SU-25 in the middle of the desert. Regards, Feltan

I would like to see a tweak to the AI for the Marine module. We need Marine infantry to frontally assault any machine gun nest the encounter, with appropriate "U-Rah!" sound effects. Regards, Feltan

WEGO I gave RT a try, but found I was pausing all the time. It becamce de facto WEGO without the replay. Regards, Feltan

The relative success or failure of policies is going to be answered by historians, not us. However, long term, I am not so sure you can characterize the "success of French policy," or "failure of the US." What is the world going to look like in ten or twenty years? If the Iraqi government becomes solvent, and a (relatively) free and democratic country is born in the Muslim Middle East - won't critisism of U.S. policy today sound petty and shortsighted? If Muslim youths in Paris continue to riot and demand the adoption of Sharia law, will French policy seem so enlightened? You know, in the context of WWII, England and France are routinely taken to task for not confronting Hitler sooner. Why didn't France attack Germany when the Rhineland was reoccupied? Well, the "safe" choice for the allies was not to act. Appeasement of evil was preferable to risk taking decisive action. Viewed from the 1935-1939 timeframe it may have made sense -- it was the safe play for politicians. The fact that it didn't work out well for France and England is clear now; however, imagine the outcry if Fance and England had moved against Hitler when Germany was still weak. What would have happened if Sadaam was still vertical and running Iraq? I suppose we'll never know for sure, but the prospect of a stable and peaceful Middle East seems too much of an assumption. And, the amount and type of flak that Bush and the U.S. is catching now is probably why France and England decided to pass on confronting Hitler in the late 1930's when they could; it is the same reason former President Clinton tried to sweep terror under the rug and only take minimal action during his tenure. For politicians, it sucks being the target of critisicm from those on the sideline. I hope I am not coming across as an "old donkey braying." The final account of today's policies probably won't be apparent for a generation. And, I am not convinced that today's conventional wisdom about the status of things is entirely correct. Regards, Feltan

It is a trueism that soldiers from different countries almost always have more in common with each other than with their respective civilian counterparts. A U.S. soldier would indeed have more in common with a French soldier than some of the enclaves of anti-military sentiment that are scattered around the U.S. -- well, OK, scattered around California. The rift between the U.S. and France will take a while to heal. I don't think it is permanent, nor particularly severe. However, Chirac's policies and pronouncements did put distance between two long-time allies. Regards, Feltan

Nope...these aren't rednecks.....pretty mainstream comments actually. And if you understood American culture, you'd know that Fox News is way too liberal for the redneck crowd. Regards, Feltan

it is right. if there werea conflict , counters the stability of the world , the France would be to bring its assisance. is CMSF a play thus why not to put France inside , for a political reason ? </font>

Other games I suppose. Regards, Feltan </font>

Other games I suppose. Regards, Feltan

Michael, You do remember that Steel Panthers had a point based QB system & a point based dynamic campaign (where units actually appeared in all the scenarios). That was what, ten years ago? It was probably the main reason I played that game. I don't find the requests for something similar here that far off the mark of expectations. And, frankly, I am a bit perplexed by the pushback on such a seemingly modest request. Regards, Feltan </font>

Michael, You do remember that Steel Panthers had a point based QB system & a point based dynamic campaign (where units actually appeared in all the scenarios). That was what, ten years ago? It was probably the main reason I played that game. I don't find the requests for something similar here that far off the mark of expectations. And, frankly, I am a bit perplexed by the pushback on such a seemingly modest request. Regards, Feltan

You'll have to do the walking. If up to her, with the CMSF pathing algorithm , she'd end up in the adjacent building. Regards, Feltan

I am playing on Elite WEGO. Second mission is tough for sure. Some of the later ones are challenging, but only if your goal is to minimize U.S. losses. Also, some of the victory conditions are not well stated -- so you think you are completing the mission, but get graded on something not in the mission order. Gotta keep casualties low. When a Stryker gets nailed with the dismounts inside, I can't help but think that some limp-wristed wanker from CNN is there with a camera to tell the tale of American incompetence and how it is all Bush's and Rumsfeld's fault; and then cut to scene with Pelosi in tears and Harry Reid looking for his testosterone pills in a news conference. Regards, Feltan

KID? Yeah, I'm a 28 year old kid with more combat experience than you will ever have. Instead of manning a desk, dreaming about panzers and playing war with cardboard counters I'm actually out there firing rounds in anger at the enemies of my country... [/QB]