Dietrich

The first time I played the Marines campaign's second mission, I was baffled that, as per the AAR, the only enemy forces on the map were, IIRC, a single static tank.

Anteeksi. "Boob-Nazi"? Never been called that before. =P Nazis are topical in this thread, since the actual subject is a movie about Nazi-supporters-cum-attempted-Hitler-assassinators. For that matter, why hasn't somebody started a thread discussing breasts? Perhaps because the Battlefront forum pertains mostly to war, strategy, tactics, games, etc.? I'd like to think I'm a breast connoisseur (though not so much first-hand -- no pun intended), so I could start one. *shrug*

My experience with IFVs -- whether Strykers, Bradleys, LAVs or AAVs (I don't play Red much unless it's Red-vs.-Red) -- is that more often than not an RPG hit is fatal or as near to it as makes no odds; either it's a hit that knocks out the IFV and kills/wounds all the crew and most (if not all) of the passengers, or it knocks out the IFV and kills/wounds most of the crew so that the surviving ones bail out anyway. The only Blue vehicle I can count on to survive a hit from pretty much any AT weapon is the Abrams. Since losing 1-3 guys in a given squad is less costly than getting an IFV knocked out by a not previously spotted RPG, I deploy my infantry forward of my IFVs, and when they spot an RPG, I (often) send the nearest IFV charging into LOF and plaster the building in question. In the second mission of the Marines campaign, it's easy to lose half your AAVs before you even get out of the city. That was my experience the first couple times I played that scenario. Then I learned to lead with my infantry, use them to pin defenders, then bring my AAVs up to finish 'em off. In MOUT, whoever gains the roofs/upper floors of the tallest buildings gains the map, unless the enemy already has LOS to those places. "USMC The Old City" taught me this lesson.

That's sounds like a circumlocutory "yes" to my question. =P I, for one, do not think necessarily think "bigger is better." In fact, I think Jennifer Connelly (in the clip linked above) is a good example of what I consider optimal bust size and shape. That said, a well-designed and well-fitted bra can make even a small-bosomed woman look like she has remarkable cleavage; but there's no mistaking the look of a respectable-bosomed woman truly filling out her bra. (Off topic, I know, I know. I only dared to continue this topic because this is the General Discussion Forum.)

Now that I've actually played this scenario twice, I can report... *** SPOILER ALERT! *** The first time, I advanced with suboptimal caution and suffered what I consider to be heavy losses. The second time, I advanced cautiously, taking due consideration of terrain features and cover to be afforded therefrom. I was able to use my LAV-AT to knock out both of the 'emplaced' T-54s. In all I suffered only 3 wounded, but I had not advanced to capture even the intersection before the allotted time was up. (I only rarely play any other way than real-time.) Since the scenario's real objective is to capture most or all of the assigned areas, I shall have another go and balance force preservation with full effective use of said force and see if how I fare against this vaunted T55. One seeming oddity: the first time I played the scenario, I recall that an attack helo showed up on station, but by that point I had taken notable losses and had decided to give up; whereas the second time, no helo showed up. Perhaps it will the third or fourth time.

Kein Problem. *** SPOILER ALERT!!! *** By being stealthy, I was able to spot both 'emplaced' T-54s without eliciting fire from either of them. Despite calling in three 'quick' 81mm barrages (at least two of which scored definite hits) on one of the tanks, both were actually knocked out by my LAV-AT.

Stoex, +1 on the clarification. Yes, the LAV-AT fired the second TOW, guided it to a miss (sounds ironic, eh?), then popped smoke and reversed out of LOS. Shortly thereafter, I moved the LAV-AT under cover to a different hull-down firing position, and again it fired two TOWs, then popped smoke and reversed out of LOS. By this time it had used up its smoke rounds. I ordered it into hull-down position again, and it fired (and properly guided) a fifth TOW and scored a knock-out hit. Finally! =)

But will cannon shells and certain calibers of small arms (7.92mm MG and 14.5mm ATR) go through walls?

Well said. Every time I see one of those bumper stickers that spells out the world "coexistence" with paleoreligious symbols, I think: "Coexistence is passive and is thus insufficient. Love is active and is thus the only effective solution."

In playing "USMC Hills and Highways" last night, I observed a rather sensible instance of TacAI behavior involving smoke launchers: I had an LAV-AT in hull-down position and targeting a static T-54. Immediately after launching the second of two TOWs (both of which missed; in all it used 5 TOWs to score a hit, which was a KO), the LAV-AT popped smoke and reversed back out of sight (even though the T-54 had not brought its cannon to bear). This makes sense, since the TOW launcher takes a while to reload and it wouldn't do to just be sitting there (even if hull-down relative to the enemy). The slight downside to this behavior is that the LAV-AT has one four-round smoke mortars on each side and fires four smoke rounds per popping, and so it can only pop smoke twice.

You aren't one of those guys who thinks that any woman with a bust larger than C-cup size is either fake or 'too big' or both, are you? =P In her teens and twenties, Jennifer Connelly was nice and shapely. Later on, she gradually lost her shapeliness over the years. From what I've observed, she's never needed to stuff her bra or resort to any such fakery; it's just that she was more curvaceuous when she was younger.

Wow. F-15E Strike Eagle, oooh-rah! The last time I played "3:10 to Yuma", my JTAC team (or should I say CCT) got sniped while on the first floor of the police building (i.e., not in the cell building), and an A-10 ended up strafing one of my few surviving Humvees. Ouch. And cough in the copious dust and dodge the debris raining down, no doubt.

...36T?! O.o Never heard of it. But yes, Jennifer Connelly sure was buxom in Career Opportunities. I think she looked her best overall, though, in The Rocketeer.

First of all, let me say that in asking these half-rhetorical/half-literal questions and such, I don't mean to be a rabble-rouser or a controversy-monger; I'm just baffled by certain prevalent and contradictory societal norms and want to stimulate discussion thereupon. Seems to me this whole thread has gone off course. (Maybe this particular discussion should be restarted in the form of a General Discussion thread....) That's one aspect of the irony: a "good girl" game would only show the characters fully dressed, right? As far as I've observed, it seems that the only kind of games wives play (when they're not doing more wifely things like doing chores, taking care of the kids, or shopping) are ones that don't have characters -- Tetris, solitaire, Pong, etc. But isn't that because your kids are subject to the societal expectation that you would/should play violence-based games? Come to think of it, would your kids even want to play a game like "Buxom Bikini Battlebot Babes", with their dad or not, even if doing so didn't make you uncomfortable? But that makes it sound like what you (not you personally but you in the abstract sense) want is little more than thinly veiled porn. Porn, even stuff that's so softcore as to not really be called porn, isn't what I'm talking about. (If one thinks that an image of a good-looking woman in a swimsuit is porn, then I guess porn is available even in Newsweek and on primetime network television.) I'm talking about how it's okay, even preferred, for guys to play games founded on violence, even repeated and frequent killing, rather than games which feature nonviolent things, especially if said games include beautiful women (even ones who are fully dressed). Indeed. Lara Croft, Rayne (Bloodrayne), [and half a dozen others I for some reason can't think of at the moment], just to name a few. Characters who are not only female but are good-looking as well as strong, intelligent, capable, and determined. How so? (The genetic differences, I mean.) Ah, but why do boys grow up watching GI Joe, Transformers, etc.? Is it not largely because they are discouraged from watching shows like Care Bears, My Little Pony, etc., because said shows embody values which the society at large deems are not seemly for males? But why "bimbo beach volleyball game"? If you were at the beach with a bunch of your friends (guys as well as gals) and the gals were playing volleyball and just happened to be wearing bikinis, you wouldn't think, "Heh, what a bunch of bimbos", would you? To me, casual labeling of bikini-clad volleyball-playing girls as "bimbos" kinda proves my point -- society says it's better for a man to kill his fellow (well, his fellow man, who presumably is a member of the group labeled the enemy) than for him to look upon a beautiful woman. I've had the experience more than a few times where I feel drained and morose after a couple-hour stretch of CM or CoD, at which point I take a stroll through my beautiful-women-in-various-modes-of-undress digital image archive and heave a physical as well as psychological sigh of relief. Isn't the M60 kinda heavy? Not too heavy for yer typical bikini-clad mercenary babe, I suppose? How 'bout an M249 or an MG3? But to actually give an answer to the 'PMCs/mercs yes or no' question of this thread: CMSF isn't designed for the kinds of situations you would most often find PMCs in, but for the same vibe you could make a scenario with HBCT/SBCT scout squads protecting a Syrian spy (standing in for a non-military VIP) during an ambush by Uncons. *shrug*

Just yesterday I was playing "Hold the Line" and several times heard "Sarge, we've spotted enemy units!" said by adjacent units almost simultaneously so that it sounded like it was in stereo. lol Overall, I agree. The CMx1 voice files were more varied and expressive.

My observation is that the smoke rounds are modeled -- zoom in on a vehicle with smoke launchers, and you can see the rounds fitted into the launchers. After a Pop Smoke command, you can see which ones are empty and thus determine how many are fired per command and how many you have left. Doing this test with each type of vehicle may be time-consuming, but it's worth it if you want to know how many smoke-poppings you'll get from each type of vehicle.

...I don't get it; "T-36"? But thanks for sharing the clip.

The question "do soldiers ever kill and rape civilians" was purposely not among those I asked in that post because yes, there are countless documented instances of regular soldiers (as oppposed to irregulars/mercenaries) raping and killing civilians. Having done fairly extensive (for an amateur) research into war and its myriad aspects, I need no film to convince me of the not infrequent brutality of the 'average' soldier. Sergei's comment may have been intended to be satirical, but I think he makes quite a good point. Just think of it: There are countless 'war' games available, but little more than one game (that I know of) along the lines Sergei alluded to, namely, Dead or Alive Extreme Beach Volleyball -- buxom bikini-clad babes playing volleyball. Why is it okay, even preferable, for us males to play games of which killing (and lots of it) is an instrinsic part, rather than games which celebrate healthful sport and womanly beauty? *shrug* Our respective societies (people from many different countries post in these forums, some of which are in neither North American nor Europe) hold that generally it's preferable to kill than to behold a scantily-clad beautiful woman.

But do soldiers (I mean actual soldiers, not just gun-toting power-mongers who call themselves soldiers) ever blow themselves up in the middle of bazaars? Do soldiers ever hijack airliners and crash them into skyscrapers? Do soldiers ever kidnap people, behead them, and then display their bodies in public to strike fear in the hearts of any and all who might try to oppose them? You are confusing the inaccurate-but-popular definition of "terrorist" (any non-uniformed person who attacks Western forces or Western interests) with the accurate-but-seemingly-confusing designations "fighter", "combantant", etc. A terrorist is a person who kills people or causes destruction to sow fear, not to achieve a (tactical) military objective. To put it in CMSF context, a Syrian guy dressed in civilian clothes and wielding an AK-74 can still be pretty much as honorable as the M16-equipped Marine he's shooting at, but he by definition is not a soldier because he's not fighting in uniform and in an organization. True, it's wrong to think "any combantant who isn't a soldier is a terrorist", but then it follows that you don't actually mean "soldiers are no different than terrorists; they just have better weapons", right? If foreign forces invaded the US, it's reasonable to figure that there would be guerilla warfare on a scale and of an intensity never before seen. So yes, I see your point. But taking up arms in defense of your homeland and loved ones is much different than what actual terrorists do. fighting to defend your homeland: honorable fighting to defend your religion: honorable murdering anyone whom you deem a threat*: dishonorable * That's what the Taliban do; in fact, they're doing it right now in northwestern Pakistan.

I know and agree. However, I did not say it was a "proper" Oktoberfest celebration. It was a public affair in a park in the middle of a small town in northern California which is one of the last preserves of suburban hippiedom (I live in the nearby not-so-hippie town), and it was attended by no more than 150 people. *shrug* However, describing it as "low-key" was in hindsight inaccurate, since there were performances of traditional Bavarian dances with accordian and tuba accompaniment. If you are implying that you think I get on my high horse at the sight of any bit of symbology which is/was associated with anything unsavoury, you are incorrect. However, I acknowledge your opinion. I have never 'come down like a ton of bricks' on anyone; I merely said that seeing the punkish young fellow with SS tattoo on the back of his neck made me feel like telling him off. (For the same reason, I have never said to a biker, "Hey, what's with the Nazi helmet?") Is it not that the real problem is with, not emblems themselves per se, but what/who the emblems represent? Adolf Hilter Campbell? Doesn't sound like a very futuristic name to me. =P

So you would prefer to play as men who rule through terror and who murder pretty much whoever they please? Sure, I think PMCs whose actions lead to noncombatant deaths should be punished, but it's not like they're beheading people and hanging their bodies in public with signs that read "This is what happens to those who oppose us."

In ToW, most vehicles, whether halftracks or King Tigers, can push over most any tree. Of course, in ToW almost all trees are more or less the same size.

Makes me sick. Makes me want to enlist with US SOF so as to fight these scum. But I'm not young enough and not fit enough, so I'll just make a scenario, something along the lines of "Afghani Stan": ODA 969* (elite HBCT infantry) raids Taliban compound in Matta (green-to-veteran Uncon Fighters), then calls in JDAM from orbiting F-15E to cover their tracks. :cool: Oh wait, Matta is in Pakistan...so no green light. *sigh* In that case, Syrian Special Forces in BMP-2s instead. * fictional AFAIK

I've seen it. I thought it was ironically appropriate (or appropriately ironic) that the American/British actors/actresses are in the good-guy roles, whereas actual Germans are found more in the bad-guy roles (the notable exception being Tom Wilkinson as Generaloberst Fromm). One key reason why the German aristocracy backed that particular assassination attempt was that they figured if they could off Hitler, they could have a chance of negotiating with the Allies (the Western ones, that is) and thus hopefully both 'save Germany' and retain their lands and their wealth and power. But the movie glosses over all that, as if the Valkyrie plotters were only trying to save Germany. Of all the movies I've seen which at least attempt to depict WW2 events from a strictly German perspective, the one that in my view is the most realistic, accurate, and vivid is "Downfall." Even though the 'new' "The Day The Earth Stood Still" (according my dad, who has actually seen it), stars Keanu Reeves, has far more disaster-movie-type destruction than the original, and lacks the "Klaatu barada nikto" subplot (what?!), I'd still see it for Jennifer Connelly.

Goth girls wearing Knight's Crosses? Numerous goth girls wearing Knight's Crosses. Wow.... I must be hanging out at the wrong clubs. =P Then again, I don't live in a big city like Toronto. I was at a local Oktoberfest celebration -- a fairly low-key and family-friendly affair -- when I spotted a twentysomething spikey-haired guy with a runic "SS" tattoo on the back of his neck. It rather soured my mood; took another couple pints of Doppelbock to get my mind off it. When I see stuff like that, it really makes me want to chew out the person in question, because it's people like them who indirectly ensure that people never get past the German-equals-Nazi thing, so that people in general are in effect preventing from being able to see all the good things about Germans and German culture, food, music, etc. Of course, let's be honest: every German from 1933 to 1945 was a Jew-hating, Hitler-loving, concentration-camp-ignoring, civilian-slaughtering, baby-bayonetting Nazi. (Pardon the vicious sarcasm.) Just the California DMV? You'd think "LSSAH" would elicit a red flag just on account of the inclusive "SS". Then again, a certain type of "all-American" hot rod is known as "SS", and seemingly no one gives a second thought about that.