costard
-
Posts
1,351 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by costard
-
-
The comment on rationing was a snipe at those intent on starting an illegal war for profit, and those who'd be happy to profit in the second intention. (Illegal? Well, yes. Syria isn't a signatory to the Geneva Convention on Chemical Weapons. "Punishing" it for it's lack of "norm" is akin to bashing gays: it is illegal. And this is the case whether or not I trust the US Intelligence community to inform me accurately as to the circumstances of chemical weapons use in Syria.) The moment a major war starts, all of the industries party to supporting a warring state are nationalised to some degree: commodities are rationed, war bonds are issued and armaments production is tailored to the army's needs and the populace's ability to fund the purchases. The Press is limited to publishing fluff and propaganda. So the "War is good for the economy" meme is only true while the war remains a limited affair. Anyone betting on the outcome of a trilateral US/UK/French strike on Syria is either an idiot (plenty of those around) or doesn't care either way (the people who own armaments factories, banks, oil companies and press.) The idea that Mr Putin is a bluffer was tested quite thoroughly in Georgia and I don't see that he's in a worse position now: attacking Syria leads to a major war. It also leads to a collapse in the world economy and a decidedly worse standard of living for anyone left alive.
How does nationalising the armaments industry help? Michael warns about the probability of mission creep in the scope and effect of government: mate, that boat has sailed.
In order to develop my thesis, I'm going to have to postulate the existence of some mythical (or at least, unseen for a while now) creatures: democracy, a free press, rational people behaving in a rational fashion, rule of law, a moral justification for action. We'll start with those.
Ok. Lets have a look at stuff.
A democracy is designed so that the populace is represented by elected officials - generally, a populace is intent on getting through life experiencing as little pain as it can possibly manage. Should those elected officials fail in their allotted task, they are removed (relatively peaceably) from power and another lot given a go. The idea here is that power is shifted or "transitioned" without the bloodshed and economic waste that relatively frequently accompanies such circumstances in a non-democratic societal setup. Everyone benefits, with the possible exception of egomaniacal psychopaths. The elected officials are also (not, note, only) tasked with ensuring the continued peaceful existence of the populace they purport to represent: that is, they are responsible for maintaining national security. In recognition of this, they are granted the power to direct an army.
Provided the rule of law is allowed to exist as a description of a social contract (i.e. is applicable to every individual member of the society), a well designed democracy lets those in power be held accountable to the populace: their actions and decisions are able to be examined and analysed, their performance is judged by the populace they (claim to) represent. In an effort to control the undoubted tendency of bureaucracies to amass power to themselves, there is a division of powers: everyone keeping an eye on everyone else. If the free press is capable of informing the populace as to the current state of affairs, the populace is more capable of judging actions and decisions by it's executive according to the current moral and legal norms of the nation as a whole.
A privately owned arms industry makes profits for its owners through the sale of weapons, stuff that kills people. As with any manufacturing industry, it is in its interests to have a set of circumstances where its products are being consumed (morality doesn't enter into the equation, legality does.) Where there is scope for it to influence the populace and the executive, it will do so. The decision to use the weapons lies with the executive, representing the populace - this is where morality enters the equation. If profits from sales can be re-invested in such a way as to garner influence in the populace and the executive, they will be. If there exists a state of moral lassitude, incapability of law enforcement and a press mostly owned by the same individuals who own the armaments factories, the populace, effectively disenfranchised, can be ignored (their moral judgement is irrelevant to the decision making process) and the promulgation of wars for profit ensues.
A state owned armaments industry puts the profit motive into another sphere: it must be run at the taxpayers' expense (it is anyway), the taxpayer gets a say in how much they're willing to pay for their security and there is less drive to influence the populace and the executive to start wars. The problems associated with irrational behaviour still exist (they always will), but the system is designed in such a fashion as to lay the responsibility for killing other people with the entire populace. In this way, it is hoped that wars will be less frequent.
There are bound to be some big holes in this, but, as I said, its a discussion we need to have. Go to it.
-
Hi Phantom Captain.
Just a snippet from Moon in "The Road Ahead" thread. His caveat is there, I'm just wondering how we're going to get a "realistic" scenario.
-
Alcohol is an excellent muscle relaxant.
Combat Mission: Poking the Bear
Combat Mission: Roads to Moscow
Combat Mission: Crimean Contingency
Combat Mission: Operation Overreach
Seriously, I'm looking forward to the game, but getting a sizeable US(+) force into the Crimea would involve nukes and a land war in Eastern Europe (and war in the Atlantic and the Pacific). The story line is a little far-fetched.
If Georgia had worked (and the lesson of Georgia was a telling one), you might fantasise that the Ukranians could have access to 2nd rank US equipment and be fighting against a Russian invasion, but US involvement in a land war in the bread-basket of Russia?
-
We can't help the fact that we're bred of criminal stock. What's your excuse?
-
*crickets*
ZPB - may I call you ZPB? - I think the pertinent link isn't the oil industry (though it certainly is part of it.) I think a more helpful discussion looks at the advisability of having a privately owned arms manufacturing industry and its influence on the political leadership of a nation. It's a discussion we're going to have to have, whether before or after a very large number of people get killed for profit (you see the moral problem here.) I suspect that if the US, the UK and France nationalised their arms industries the problem would vanish overnight.
-
Historically, when governments ration fuel, the price goes down. The black market isn't represented in stocks.
-
Orders:
Scroll mouse wheel all way down.
Hold down right mouse button and drag mouse downwards. Release.
Whilst holding shift, place the mouse pointer in the top left of the screen, then click and drag to bottom right.
Release mouse button.
Press "m" key, then "I" key.
Left click mouse somewhere on the screen, preferably as far from the little green circles as possible.
Hit red button.
Eeeeasy.
-
Peng is free range - else you have to feed the bloody thing. And *urk* muck it out.
-
Looking through the complete 3 part wish list for CMSF-2 there are plenty of items I would like to see included. One that may not make it into the new CMx2 version of CMSF but would make my top 10 listing is a utility to transfer CMSF scenarios, campaigns, maps, into CMSF 2. I am amazed at the number of well made scenarios & campaigns for the game. It would be so cool to just drop it in a scenarios & campaign "mod tool" and BOOM! You get to replay some great game resources in the new iteration of CMSF-2!
BF might get gummint sponsorship for their "commitment to recycling". Great idea Buzz.
-
1) Improve targeting LOS issues. There is no point in the third ammo carrier being able to see the target but the MG or gunner cannot. We need to see LOS from the MG or gun, and/or the MG/Gun should automatically move those few inches so that it can get LOS and shoot at the target. Currently, the targeting/LOS system is frustrating and wastes time trying to maneuver to that "sweet spot" just to get target acquisition (and often it's impossible for no reason).
A suggestion for this: the enemy icon is hashed with a crosshair for a target that can be hit by the selected unit? Thus, I select one of my units: enemy units seen by that unit show up as normal icon; units able to be targeted by the main weapon in the selected unit have the icon + crosshair.
I know this doesn't help with the "impossible (to hit) for no reason" (and I know that there is a reason, most likely my ignorance of my weapon system's capabilities), but it does mean that we don't waste time trying for the impossible, something that would (should?) be immediately obvious to the unit in "real life", trained in the capabilities of the weapons system they employ.
-
I think you're mostly seeing the change in the range and rate of fire of close combat arms over that time-period - optics abound, as do good assault rifles.
Also, there have been more than a few tweaks of the engine between games and it wouldn't surprise me if there is a difference due to one or more of these.
-
Lots of good suggestions - are there any that most of us would like to see? The amount of work we've lined up for BF is mind-bogglingly big, so if we want to help them prioritise, we should sort the list a little, do some pruning. (Either that or give them a big heap of the folding stuff.)
My 2c: with the advent of armour arcs there is a big plus to be delivered through the development of the modelling of vehicle spotting. With WW2 armour the spots were from the eyeballs of the armour crew, occasionally looking for a target through a periscope/telescope. Modern day, the spots are coming from electronic systems and the design and engineering of the masts and optics arrays exploit the remote view technology we've developed since 1945.
I'd like to see the tactical overlay map somewhere on the screen -harking back to the old Close Combat days. A lot of the command and control issues (such as squad designation, placement and activity) might be addressed here: the problem being, I think, a growing need to have a multiple screen setup, with detailed data on one and the 3d map on the other. Maybe for 2015 if the economy picks up.
Ergonomics: guys, I think you need to address things like font sizing sooner rather than later.
Have at it, prune away! Squawking allowed.
-
Let me start by saying in general this sounds like a good idea and it could be useful.
Now comes the however. The current LOS tool uses unit to ground viewing as its test. This type of technique will *not* verify that your unit will stay out of trouble. As an example I have a game going on right now where I have a StugIII that is 700m ish away from a corner of a bocage field where the ground dips. There is a natural area for the enemy to drive into this dip and my opponent is obliging. From where the Stug is located it has *no LOS* to the ground in this dip. That means the infantry screen that led into that area could not see the Stug and the Stug could not see them. But once the area was "safe" my opponents tanks rolled in. He now has three destroyed tanks sitting in the dip.
This is why I like the system as it is - I can make some educated guesses as to where I can site a gun that will reliably see vehicles and possibly remain invisible to the foot sloggers. If I get it right and he gets it wrong, he loses three shermans before he realises he has problem.
Terrain analysis is the player's problem, not the game's - the game does as good a job of physically mapping 3 dimensional ballistics as any out there.
-
Nice work noob. Cheers.
-
"Always with the negative waves you're making!"
Michael
"Ich bin der Geist der stets verneint"
-
I wonder if it would be worthwhile to have a modified version of the Acquire function attached to Buddy Aid. That way, a player could select which of a downed soldier's gear/weaponry to take.
Michael
The short answer would be "No."
-
Public vs private sector: the public pays for the data compilation, but the private provides the data compilation service and gets the benefits of the data being compiled. The exercise being a scam, you can be assured that the result will be crap. The insurance companies win big-time in this case: the home-owners in the "flood zones" pay for insurance that won't have to be used, because they won't get flooded out (note that this payment is mandated by the state, just as a certain other piece of... legislation demands). The home-owners that are in the real flood zones won't be covered by the insurance companies coz it wuz the gummint that provided for the crap data compilation - the taxpayer gets hit again when the courts rule that gummint incompetence means that the gummint is liable. Now, if the original contract for the provision of the service had been written with the aim of getting value for money (something the private sector will always insist on and something that the gummint ought to), a quality assurance program would have sampled the final data for errors and the compensation/remuneration for the service provision altered appropriately. As it is, there is a lot of strategic planning goes into squeezing out the absolute maximum amount of milk with the minimum of "moo" and the proposal to de-moo the herd is lauded as the next great step forward.
Bad management: perhaps. Stupid people: probably. Outright corruption: bet on it.
-
Welcome aboard, PeterH.
I can relate to "Please fire your weapon now. Now would be good." (although the calm way you deal with the frustration is alien to me - I tend to bash the keyboard and sulk.) If you're talking to your pixeltruppen, you're in the game and well on your way. Real-time too, good stuff. Thanks.
-
But he needs the thread to stay at the top. Let none say that Peng didn't heed the call.
Essence of Peng - it'll cure your dandruff, too.
-
This is a highly improbable scenario:
The Fed is/has been down for a bit without notice and without explanation. The number of Media reported system assaults was doubling every four? months for about two years (major companies in highly technical industries around the world), until reports almost disappeared about two months ago. The problems BF seem to have been having (reported in Technical Support threads here) are a little concerning.
I really think we're seeing more than a staffing issue.
For what it's worth, my own estimation of the BF crew is that they are highly talented and worthy individuals, probably extremely stressed individuals at the moment. They deserve all the support we can afford.
Cue the John Kettler response:
-
noob, this is the first time I've seen this, and I find it genuinely exciting. Please, for the love of god, don't execute fizou without taking into account what he has managed with this publicity of your system; exceeding impressive stuff. Thankyou.
-
Bookmarked that one SlowMotion, thanks. That engineer is one switched on guy.
-
The only thick-skinned creature I can see in the AAR is the Heffalump: perchance it has the drop on the M10? A fish that eats heffalumps.. not many of those around.
-
The Peng is dead, The Peng is dead! Where're those slippers? Toto?
Syria and economics
in General Discussion Forum
Posted
Diesel, I agree that the Swiss have the closest thing to a representative democracy around. A relatively small, highly educated populace with access to modern communications is in a good position to maintain this form of government.
The constitutional monarchies enjoy a hierarchy of decision making that lets the majority of the populace get on with their individual roles whilst remaining confident that the future is unlikely to present unsurvivable challenges - this is true of any organisation or group. Anyone at the head of an organisation understands (or should understand) that an individual lacks the capability and resources to develop the specialised knowledge of current affairs required to make consistently sensible decisions affecting the organisation as a whole: this is a function of the limited capability of an individual with regards to the complexity and breadth of understanding required, so we have developed systems that allow experts in different fields to provide specialised information to decision makers. The weight of tradition that accompanies a monarchy, a family's reign, lends itself to an analysis of historical fact and the development of systems of behaviour that aims to avoid past mistakes: the monarch is conscious of the historical fact that this is a matter of survival and so is a duty they will undertake.
The advances of our understanding of the universe require that decisions be made without reference to historical analysis, a position we all find ourselves in: we develop opinions on the likely course of events and act in accordance with those opinions. In a large organisation this process of making informed decisions and developing justifiable opinions requires the development of a communications system that relays information up the decision making hierarchy as well as down - a simpler political model requires less of the bottom-up communication. The more efficient the system, the higher the quality of the information informing decisions and opinions. Some of the information available to leaders cannot be made openly available for analysis by the remainder of the organisation, in which case trust between the elements of the hierarchy needs to exist and be fostered. If you abuse trust, you find yourself in the unhappy position of being incapable of leading; obviously this is something a leader cannot afford. A leader can, if s/he so chooses, expend the accrued "capital" of the trust extant in a successful organisation in order to compel actions that don't make sense according to the greater populace's understanding of events. Without this foundation of trust, the leadership systems are dis-regarded by the elements of the organisation and it fails. If the decision is one that improves the lot of the organisation as a whole, the trust is returned and the leadership by those particular individuals continues. In a constitutional monarchy, if the decision turns out to be a bad one, the elected representative is removed from power and the trust required to compel action is replaced anew. The structure of a constitutional monarchy lets the populace voice its' displeasure at the abuse of trust by booting the decision maker out of power, whilst at the same time letting the system of government continue, the monarch being the final repository of trust and, to some extent, the wellspring of it. For a republic, the Constitution is the repository of trust. In either case, should the abuse of trust continue under the new leadership, the likelihood of the system failing increases. (IMHO, YMMV, hoots-toots-och-aye, etc)