agusto

I did neither intend nor do that and i agree with you that this wouldnt be meaningful. Deliberatly closing your eyes in front of the evidence and trying to rationalize away what happened isnt very meaningful either. First, it doesnt matter how i would perform under any circumstances. Second, i can not possibly imagine any scenario where it would be justifieable for a group of US soldiers to kill a whole family, rape the 14 year old daughter and then kill her too (No.1 incident in the list i posted above). And the US military court shares my opinion. Third, the fact that combat stress may contribute to potentially dangerous people actually commiting crimes can only serve as help to prevent future crimes, not as 'salvation' for crimes already commited IMO.

Sburke, read my post. All listed incidents were deliberate killings of unarmed persons or civillians and almost all were confirmed by US officials

Actually there are several documented incidents where coalition combat troops commited war crimes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmudiyah_killings http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haditha_killings http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Ghraib http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kandahar_massacre http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnny_M._Horne_Jr. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Behenna http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_E._Hatley http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corey_R._Clagett http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bagram_Theater_Detention_Facility http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calvin_Gibbs http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Passaro http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Pittman And those are just the ones that have their own Wikipedia articles.

I d like to see 1) an optional semi automatic tac map creator. If used, it generates a birds eye view image of the map (just a screenshot) and then allows the player to drag and drop tactical symbols (like inf platoon, armoured company, 'move there'-arrow, etc) from a box onto the map. 2) conditional AI triggers. As far as i understand it, the triggers in CMRT are going to be unconditional (a unit just waits for the condition to be true, no 'if-then-or-else' system). It is great we are going to have them (the unconditilonal ones), but conditional triggers would further improve the game. 3) copy & paste ability for flavour objects, buildings, trees, foliage. 4) undo option.

Love the Red Thunder footage, Chris, but i cant stop thinking about this video when i see your twitch.tv profile picture

Because that would ve been the responsible, right thing to do.

lol. Battlefront adds flak guns and ground-to-air fire to their WW2 games (wich were both ask for by the community for a long time) and a couple of weeks later the community asks to completly remove CAS at all. Almost sounds like a joke . We dont know what we want, do we? To add to the confusion, i think CAS missions should stay in the WW2 games! I like them!

So the germans did have a choice and the Nazis did legally form their government in 1933. Also, when the Nazis kept bringing down the pre-1933 goverments, continously enforcing new elections, the people could have decided against giving the democratically obstuctive and aggressive NSDAP even more votes, but they chose not to. Independent of the circumstances and how large the democratic minority against the Nazis was, those are the facts. The Nazis dismantled the Weimar Republic and took away the germans ability to choose their government after they were brought to power by the majority of the people. The germans (or, to be more accurate, most of them) more or less democratically decided to not have a democratic government. They (the majority) willingly gave away their responsibilities as citizens of a sovereign country into the hands of a despotic ruler with obvious imperialistic and murderous tendencies. Did you ever read Mein Kampf written by Hitler in the 1920s, long before he rose into power? Basically what he attempted to do after he took over power was exactley what he wrote in this (not even well written) political manifest. Yes, the situation in 1920s and 1930s Germany was desperate and surley contributed a lot to Hitlers rise to power. Nontheless this doesnt take away the germans responsibility for what happened, it only makes it easier to understand it.

Of these 56,1 % who did not vote for the NSDAP some voted for parties very similar to the NSDAP, like the DNVP (wich temporarily had a coalition with the NSDAP) or the KSWR. Hindenburg, a man directly chosen by the people (1925), appointed Hitler as Reichskanzler. The Ermächtigungsgesetz, the law that gave the Reichskanzler Hitler unlimited power within Germany, was decided by a 2/3 majority of all elected parties in the Reichstag except the SPD (socialists) and KPD (communists) in Potsdam 1933. I very much agree with that.

The Germans elected the NSDAP (last Reichstag election in 1933: 43,9 %). When Hitler completely took over power (Ermächtigungsgesetz) later in 1933 this went according to the laws of the Weimar Republic and in accordance with all other political parties except the Socialist and Communist parties. The germans did have a choice and they chose Hitler who was openly speaking out against democracy even long before he got into power.

The Hiroshima memorial that we were talking about is not a memorial for war criminals.

That was something quite inappropriate to do IMO. It almost sounds like it did offend you that the Japanese mourn for the more than hundred thousand civillians that were killed in Hiroshima. It doesnt matter weather or not the attacks are morally, politically or strategically justifieable. The death of so many people is always a great tragedy, both for the individuals and their families, and that is what the memorial is about. If you went to a german military cementry, would you write in the memorial book there that the death of all those people buried there was politically/strategically/morally justified? If you did, you would have absolutely missed point of what is the purpose of a cementry.

AFAIK we only wont be able to directly set targeting orders for russian CAS missions in CMRT. German CAS msissions will work as usual. My guess is that this the result of the CMx2 WW2 games beeing derived from CMSF. It is a very similar engine.

Good question, i d like to know that too!

I havent read most of the thread (yet), but here is something that might help those who seek to improve their situational awareness: http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=108660

I am sorry but i dont understand what that has to do with my post.

The Soviets would allow bashing the Nazis and praising Soviet Russia while the Nazis would allow bashing the Soviets and praising Nazi Germany. In this thread we are allowed to bash both and praise none of the two. Is this freedom? Is total freedom of thought speech even desirable? It could be argued that effective thought control is practically unobtainable and thus attempting to completly & forcibly control peoples thoughts would be a waste of resources, but what about the freedom of speech? Doesnt every single country on earth have laws against saying certain things?

I just watch the vid. Do you have any idea how hard it is going to be for me to wait for the release after seeing this, Chris?

Why is this the kind of arguement that gives people the misguided impression that atheism and 'belief' in evolution corrupts a person's sense of right and wrong? I admit that i didnt use 'Darwinisim' correctly, by its litteral meaning. What i wanted to say that the human beeing, as it is today, developed into a social mamal because beeing social gave us an advantage in survival in the past and still does to day. We significantly depend on each other, a single human alone in the wild would be unable to to life as safe or as long as he or she would be as part of a society. If you spin that thought further, it is obvious that different societys too are most effective in guranteeing each members saftey and survival if they cooperate. Thus Hitlers plan to conquer, exterminate and enslave the western part of Russia was inefficient because it ignored the latter statement. History prove it, the Nazi state could not maintain its own existence because it failed to get along with almost all other societys of that time. I did not want to and did not say that evolution is a set of morale instructions or anything like that. You misunderstood me. I said that evolution is what led to us today having a sense of morale, right and wrong, and that having that sense is part of our genetical code. It is not determined by that code what we experience as right or wrong, as i said, but determined by our experiences. It is learned behaviour, but we are only able to learn it because we have to ability to do so. Other species dont even have the ability to learn to distinguifh between right and wrong, their instincts are all they have. It is just, and is wrote that too, my own personal belief that moral behavior equals what i wrote in that previous post. I agree to that. No, it didnt come across as offensive. I mostly wanted to try to steer the thread away from becoming a flamewar by offering a discussion.

Why close the thread, it could lead to an interesting philosophical discussion. In order to answear the question in the initial post, we first need to figure what 'good' and 'bad 'actually means, we need a general statement that allows the classification of all actions a person could do. It must also allow a mix-types, actions that classify as both, 'good' and 'bad', to a certain degree. Lets assume the classification of actions in 'good' and 'bad' actions is equal to the classifications 'morally right' and 'morally wrong'. Now 'good' and 'bad have something in common: they are both related to morale values and they implicitly contain information about weather or not a certain action lives up to those morale values that are use to for evalutaion. There are many different views on morale values, so differing between 'good' and 'bad' is kinda of a thing of perspective and different people are probably going to judge the same action in a different way. In my slightly darwinistic view, any action that is taken with the intent to increase the probability of survival of your own species current and future generations as well as of life on earth in general is morally right while any action that does the opposite is morally wrong. That is a very general interpretation of morale, but IMO it is a reasonably good one because it is scientifically backed by evolution (we only developed a sense for 'right' and 'wrong' because it gives us an evolutionary advantage over other species that dont have that sense) and because it is general enough to evaluate almost anything with it. Anyways, it is a clear statement that allows the evaluation of persons actions. If i now take look from that perspective at the Eastern Front, the Russians actually were more 'good' than the Germans. Hitlers plan for post war Russia, called 'Gerneralplan Ost', in general aimed at killing those russians unable to work and enslaving those who would be of use for the Germans. If this had happened it would ve been morally wrong accoriding to above definition. The Russians, on the other hand, fought in order to prevent Hitlers immorale plans from becoming reality. So independet of both countries political systems and internal affairs, the Russians cause during the Soviet-German war was more 'good' than the Germans.

I hope it is just a .22 she is carrying for self defense.

Interesting. Good if it is an enemy squad and frustrating if it is one of mine . But taking buildings can be frustrating anyways, if the occupying squad has a short covering arc they will only start shooting when your guys are at point blank range just outside the doorstep, usually whiping out the group you sent to occupy the building. That is why i tend to surpress buildings that i am going to occupy even if i dont know for sur ethat something enemy is inside. Probably, but that is just my guess.

IIRC Steve once said that 44-45 "offers the most tactically rich environment for players."

I think that kind of behaviour is even a recognized mental illness. Probably the majority simply isnt interested in CM enough to feel the need to discuss it with others. Although I play several different computer games too i only have an account on this particular forum.

There is nothing wrong with consuming. In fact, what bigger compliment could one make to the producer of a product than saying "I ll give you my hard earnd money for what you created?". Mass consumption keeps our economy alive and without a working economy there simply wouldnt be anything to consume for anyone, not really a great scenario. I dont consider consuming egoistic. Robbing a bank is egoistic. It is surely nice though to thank someone who gives yopu somehting for free, like a scenario.