costard
-
Posts
1,351 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by costard
-
-
Russia did/does want the Ukraine to remain united - it wasn't the Russians who paid for and instigated the coup. Therefore, it is far more the obligation the parties who did pay for and plan that usurpation of power to fix what they broke. Instead, they're absolutely convinced of their right to control events - no-one else is a stake-holder, no-one else is to be party to the negotiation of the outcome. Win at all costs, the means justifies the ends.
Absolutely ****ing mental.
-
As far as propaganda goes, here in Oz we're getting relatively little information of any sort. No information out of Europe (which makes me suspicious that the US isn't doing too well in the eyes of the populace over there) and precious little "Rah! Rah!, USA!, USA!". I'd suggest, GunHappy, that you're a little isolated, perhaps a little dis-ingenuous. My take on the executive's lead is that he was uncomfortable with the reports that the "democratic coup leaders" were shooting their own supporters as well as police during the riots. Martyrdom is all very well, but it says a lot about the character of the leadership of the coup that they'd decide beforehand to take out any potential rivals in their ranks. Overconfident, for one.
-
Both of you is "I", Boo. You could even gain the trinity with some modifications and a nine month wait.
As for Foul Old Joe, how can we be sure it is even he? It? Usurpation of titles and trophies unbestow'n is the way of the world now; it's no world for old men.
A hint for the SSN's out there - try reading the rules, then try comprehending the rules. If you can get that far, you will know what to do next. idjits.
-
Timing of the NATO build-up seems to be covered (though I think armour from the US might be in short supply for a period if a ship or two was sunk in mid-Atlantic.)
How is the use of EMP devices going to be covered? As I see it, this is where one of the biggest problems lies given that Russia can set off a nuke in it's own airspace and not be morally decried for the adoption of asymmetric tactics.
-
Steve, I think you can take comfort on the moral front with the maxim that "Prediction is not the same as control."
We can predict all sorts of outcomes based on the corruption of our political systems (particularly when the knowledge of such is coupled with the understanding of positive feedback loops and the power of human stupidity). Given that quite a few of our problems stem from the inculcation of dependence on the state and the acceptance of someone else's simplistic viewpoint on affairs, it behooves us as intelligent, empathetic individuals to make decisions for reasons that make sense to us, not necessarily to others. BF needs to survive as an entity that provides a living for yourself, Charles, etc. The product it delivers is entertainment, not politics. You need to avoid the losses to market exposure inherent in the exploration of topical and controversial subjects. Given the current state of affairs in the political scene in the US (as I see it), there are some aspects of a probable and accurate story that cannot make it into the storyline. Such a set of circumstances requires you do you best to salvage your market, but you're up against systems and events of a size that could quite possibly see you squashed flat.
You are capable of negotiating this minefield and arriving at the other side in good shape. Pretty much the same sentiments apply to everyone involved in the brouhaha in the "real world" - at least in your circumstances there aren't parties looking to cash in on your failure.
All the best and, as MikeyD would say, "Embrace the suck."
-
Any of you mob read the Sword of Honour trilogy? Death wish, that's it - we have the death wish. Then bloody Boo comes along and shows us that the world isn't going to end, so why not dance along until we do? I'd despise you all except that expending energy on the likes of you (y'all in the southern 'merkin vernacular, the King's English being somewhat ambiguous, possibly even private, in comparison to the Latin or French) is contrary to my, my, idiom? Raison d'etre? Maximum effect with minimum effort. Any less effort and I'd be horizontal.
Steve closed a thread before I could note (me having a day job where I can ponder life's mysteries and think of witticisms to relate here-ish under the influence of wine) that current philosophy is somewhat simplistic in only giving survival a look in to the motivation for human action: procreation as a behaviour and goal requires all sorts of complex models and language to learn and teach. Being only human, it is no wonder we take the simpler option, but I'd suggest that agusto (maybe someone a little more intellectual, I can't remember and can't be bothered checking) skipped a step when he described the need to lend enhanced survival to descendant generations. If you don't screw (yay, screw makes it) in order to make babies, you miss out on some visceral understanding, helping to describe the why and wherefores of the world's workings: complexity when you thought you only needed simplicity, responsibility and a need to engineer the shape of reality to enhance the survival of your progeny.
Anyhoo, does anyone know if I can take a save from a 2.01 game, process it through a 2.12 version and still have a game (my opp. having converted to 2.12 in the meantime? ('tis a little sad to think that this is an easier read for most of you than that which came previous. Not that I hope to get any better answer.)
-
So, who had the biggest dick in the end?
Some rich Ukranians paid some corrupt western intelligence community enablers to be double crossed and hung out to dry. The Qatari are being abandoned at double quick rate by everyone scared of the likely retaliation and guilt by association. The US executive has learned that it's model of decentralised intelligence is not only unreliable but can be used against the interests of the US. Anybody care to give odds that the lesson will be acted on?
-
Good to hear. Thanks for sharing, Steve.
-
It gets even messier when you consider that Europe's gas comes mostly from Russia. Germany now has a pipeline in the North to guarantee it's supply (put in place after the last Ukraine debacle left half of Europe without heating in January), but I still can't see that it would be willing to to shift to another supplier. On the other hand, those countries in the south o Europe which are still dependent on the Ukraine pipeline are mostly bankrupt anyway: cutting off their consumption would bring a new and sharper meaning to austerity.
Think of the narrative: Germany sends troops in to Ukraine to aid Neo-Nazi's, against the express interests of Russia. It just is not going to happen. Your best bet is to blame the Chinese for a brilliantly well thought out plot and hope things settle back down. If you took the time to apprehend and shoot the cretins that got you into this situation you'd be doing us all a favour.
-
I think Thomm's right about the mines. We may not all like having wire and mines in the game but they sure do their job.
-
You all look the same to me, sweetie. A continent full of amiable Emrys clones.
-
You can see enemy units with no unit selected. I can't see how this is an issue.
(ninja'd by Freyberg)
-
"Everybody knows that the good guys lost"
Leonard Cohen, (Rod Stewart does a good version.) You Americans put out some great artists, you can't be all bad.
-
Such a pity that BigDuke is no longer here to inform us from the inside, like he did during the war in Georgia.
I hope he's ok.
Any chance this is about a drug pipeline into Europe?
-
snip
So while part one of the answer is 'probably not', part two of the answer is 'and the reason you've asked that question is to shift the discussion over credit for winning the war away from the massive blood price the Soviet Union paid for victory that we did not'.
I can't remember the payout for the standard GI life insurance bill - was it $10k? Figure the Western Allies "saved" this amount for each of the Soviet lives spent in the conflict and the question of whether the Soviets paid enough for Lend Lease becomes a little clearer.
-
-Change in the difficulty settings so that if I play basic training mode, C2 is applied so then other members of the squad or platoon other then the HQ/FO/Scouts can order artillery strikes. One reason is this makes it very hard to play campaigns because you are putting the HQ units in harms way to order artillery. So over a series of battles in a campaign, you are constantly putting the hqs out into areas that make it difficult for them to survive. I find the spotting in the other settings to be too severe and cause the game to be very slow.
Fair enough mg422, this is a problem for the new player.
This means that to apply the lesson (1. Keep your FO alive. Think about applying this principle to the rest of your command.) you have to go back to the start of the campaign, which means that you have better intelligence of the coming battles. This means that the difficulty of the game is reduced another step in that the surprise factor is removed from the game as a design intent for that campaign. I could argue that CM is a harsh learning environment and the lesson is quickly learnt, but I understand that by the time you learn the lesson as a new player, you've already invested hours into the game. This loss is frustrating, no argument.
If it could be done, maybe having resupply for separate groups in the TOE for the next battle at greater frequency for lower difficulty levels (i.e. lose FO, get a new one at the start of the next battle. This as part of the scenario design, a default supplied by the editor for the difficulty level chosen by the player.)? Unfortunately, this means that the lesson of needing to keep your FO alive is not learnt until you start playing a higher difficulty - which means you get a double step up in difficulty and still lose the time learning the lesson. I think I answered my own question...
Your best resource as a newbie is the community forums. The elders here mostly try to be entertaining and informative and they are (I'm sure Steve has said this before) the major reason the games are as good as they are: we buy the games (very important), we write about the games and the way we experience them and we mostly succeed in tolerating others in the group, their viewpoints and their contributions. All the problems the newbie is having, we've had, often many times over because we're a little slow (here's looking at you Emrys). We take much delight in describing the games' failings, then Steve comes along and clearly and patiently and with good humour explains that it is we who are failing, and why (that's another major reason for the games' success right there.). It's all here, hundreds of thousands of posts - you just have to spend a little time getting up to scratch on the intel.
-
Sequoia, it is an example of behaviour as a lagging cultural artifact in a system: the military was subordinate to the Emperor, was still happy to declare allegiance to the Chancellor rather than to the flag (because declaring for the flag is a political construct that goes with the establishment of a republic.) European militaries generally survived with a conservative model of organisational development: tradition hangs around because it works. Of course, if your leader is a mental midget or moral incompetent, you're in the poop with this model.
-
NATO isn't going in, period. Germany may get it's gold back, plus a bit more, but it still won't go in. The West Ukraine has been hung out to dry.
-
I write some pretty inflammatory / stupid things at times and must come close to getting myself banned. I appreciate the forbearance, BF, and apologise to those offended by my remarks. Mostly, I get cranky when I see good people being taken advantage of by bad people and I think I see more of it today than I used to - a function of a jaundiced perspective, perhaps.
-
Bait and switch, Erwin. The threat was initially in Chechnya with the pre-games activity seeming to back this up. Then, as you noted, the real project got underway, planned to coincide with the Sochi games (The Georgia op was timed with the Beijing games. Someone likes the distraction and threat of a Munich type event.) The US is doing itself no favours in the international arena with this sort of behaviour, not least because the 'victory' in Ukraine will be followed up by what? - the same thing that happened last time: gas and trade cut off from Russia, who will make no bones about the likelihood of being forced out of the Black Sea (i.e. **** all chance of that). The best outcome the US (or that part of the US that set this... operation up) can hope for is a partitioned state and a new Cold War: the perfect setup for large Defense contracts continuing to be awarded by the US gov. The worst is Putin giving them the whole state and backing the resulting insurgency. In no case is the populace of the Ukraine (nor the US for that matter) going to get anything worth having.
-
Somehow, I doubt they'd have planned to release two "Russian" titles in the same half as a US sponsored war going down in the region. It may strike you as a brilliant plan, but BF could well wind up as collateral damage in the campaign.
As for the brilliance - there is no way anyone can respond militarily if Putin decides to go in. The populace of the EU just won't go for it (frankly, I doubt their militaries would either.) If one or two go but the others don't (and you have to have Germany agreeing to send it's own troops in for anyone to have a chance) you've forced the demise of NATO - an outcome both Russia and China would welcome. The US has one missile frigate in beached in Samsun (conveniently damaged at the end of its mission to assist with security for the Sochi games) and probably some support destroyers with it. So far as I can tell you're pretty close to outright civil war in your regular military, your intelligence community and your diplomat corp. You'd have to check the nature of the sackings over the last year (or three) to get an idea of where the executive stands on it all, but I can't see any evidence that this affair is driven by anyone capable of any meaningful display of intellect.
Destruction for the sake of destruction - the manifestation of an over-arching puerility in the psyche of the United States.
-
What did she do to you Emrys, that you love crustaceans so? Most of us happy with a dearth of crabs, thankyou very much.
-
I'm not sure if this has been requested, but I'd like to have the ability to designate communications as FUBAR in the editor.
-
Hey Steve, I think it could be an interesting option to many CM players who wish to spend less time in micromanagements. Ok, it´s good to be realistic but after all it´s just a game in a world of business.. Some people agree, some people disagree. Never forget micromanagement=boredom. Maybe I´m wrong but I try to be realistic in a realistic world. Let´s people choose their way.
Here's the thing: the customer isn't always right. In fact, if you want a business to stay viable, the customer is very rarely right - they get to choose what they spend their money on, sure, but then so do the owners of the business. The game is not just about big guns doing their 'splody stuff (though this is undoubtedly important), nor is it only about winning. It certainly isn't about winning easily because that concept is a fantasy and the game tries to be faithful in it's modelling of the world.
My personal objection to the inclusion of this feature is to do with a description of capable military personnel that I've come across in my reading: they're described as having a good eye for the lie of the land. The CM series enables the development of quite a few skills (mostly to do with mental processing) and I don't believe you learn how to use your brain by having a machine do the thinking for you.
(hardly even worth 2 cents)
WOW Psychic
in Combat Mission Shock Force 1
Posted
Catmolester, yes, this is what I am saying.
Vanir - link
I have a deal more respect for diplomats all the time. This is hard.
Putin had a pro-Russian leader in Ukraine, elected by a majority of the Ukranian populace in a popular election. He lost his office due to an armed insurrection - a coup. It is not in Russia's interest to depose him - their own puppet, as has been noted. It is not in Russia's interest to have a divided Ukraine - it is not in Russia's interest to have any sort of NATO missile defense shield set up so close to their borders because it makes a nuclear war winnable, with Russia as the loser. McCain was stirring up trouble in January. If you can find out who paid him (or asked him) to be present in the Ukraine, you will have a better idea of who sponsored the coup.
This is hard not because I am seeking to attack the US, or the good people that make up the vast majority of it's inhabitants (most people, whatever their nationality, skin colour or religious beliefs are good - they can and do empathise with others). I am, however, seeking a change in the way people think about their nation. This is necessarily a difficult thing to do - it promotes all sorts of negative emotional responses, justifiable defences. I get that. You are being bombarded - we are all being bombarded - with information that may or may not be truthful, but I need you to think about and critically analyse the data you receive. I need you to approach and analyse the information divorced from emotion because that's the only way you're going to be able to spot the logical faults in the arguments. Else we're at the stage in global politics where the bastards win.