Walsingham

The real question we should be asking is about how urban fighting will change designs. I'm not at all connvinced that tanks are redundant. I just think the Merkava approach, with troops on board, and maybe a larger lower velocity high angle gun would be the way to go.

I would return to your (Rostere's) point about economics. I would remind the forum that arguing in favour of economic benefits isn't an argument in favour of the EU. It's the argument which was given for the EC. Can we go back to just a free trade area? Of course we bloody can. It's what we were. I listen to this pan-Euro political message and I go all Guard Dog. I get the urge to ask awkward bloody questions. I'm going to put a pointy set of questions to you, Rosti. It concerns the three fundamental security issues facing all European nations, and I want to know what the EU has actually done about any of them. 1) Energy security 2) Political instability in the near East, from Moscow to Marrakech 3) Economic reform within the EU, where many nations are currently husbanding grotesque inefficiencies [you can't have security without a healthy economy] ~~ EDIT: I'm asking because I expect you do have some sort of answer. Don't disappoint me.

The IS-2 was a breakthrough tank. It was expected to punch holes in defensive positions. The 122mm gun was for strongpoints first and foremost. Not primarily for engaging other tanks, although obviously it could.

I think it's too early to write off the Iraqi government. And I think it's a bit sickening to see so many 'right on' commentators getting off on the crisis.

Well, that certainly told me Your 'new' pitch seems to be that we have to work together to tackle Putin and organised crime, and we have to give budget control to Brussels to deliver the Euro. How is that a sales pitch? I don't see any ecvidence that Brussels or the Euro-elite have the faintest interest in foreign policy or corruption or drugs or people trafficking. There's no coherence, and no sense of urgency in Euro-level action on any of those issues. The Euro project is about one thing only: and that's a pan European superstate. Based on principles of big government, taxes, and regulation.

Do you have to pass willpower checks when you have low hope? I'm not sure exactly how the ref will run low hope. We chatted about it. We're likely to get stuff like falls in endurance. But generally he is likely to want us to run on roleplaying it. The neat thing so far is that we seem to be able to bounce back when things go well. We took a bit of a hit in the session yesteday, because the raid on a local shopping district was a bust. One party member fell off a car and got a metal pipe through his side. We managed to clean him out, but the whole experience was very draining, and the mood is sombre. So down by ten points. But if we do well, show we can cope, learn new skills... hope goes up!

Ze black mamba, ladies and gentlemen.

What? I thought we were a writer! Booze and writing go hand in hand, just ask Joyce, Hemingway, Vonnegut, I could go on all night! Besides, Wild Turkey is so harsh and flavorless. You should try some single barrel small batch bourbons like 4 Roses or Woodbridge. Of course drinking so much also made Papa Hemingway impotent...

While I agree with your analysis, Agiel, I think you're making a fundamental error. The Putin adminstration, like many worldwide, is not nationalist. It's a coterie of plutocrats. It does not matter if Russia collapses. If anything it will cement Putin's power. In fact I'd go further and say that economic success would swell the middle classes and these would only threaten his ultra-conservative viewpoint.

Nope, you have absolutely no logical basis to claim that stopping the south stream improves energy security, none at all. At present if there was a pure accident on the trans Ukraine pipeline that cut supply then, well, supply would be cut, with no malicious or other intent. With south stream it wouldn't. Having an alternative source for Russian gas improves energy security, full stop, there is literally no reason not to have it and it cannot be argued that not having it improves energy security. You can have other sources as well, that is sensible, but that doesn't change the basic facts for all the anti-russian butthurt the EU may be feeling. As for China, there was the little matter of the 200 billion dollar gas agreement Russia and China signed this year, which you might have heard about if you weren't as one eared as you are one eyed. At this point it doesn't matter whether or not Russia and China particularly like each other on a fundamental basis, they have complementary economies and both certainly and fundamentally dislike western hegemony. I agree up to a point. Except that China has a strong multi-level trade economy. It's working with the West, Mideast, Africa, Latin America... I don't see their midterm interests being at all the same.

Yup, it was desperately trying to catch up to the US, who had started in WW2. Because Russian media during ww2 was free and fair news reporting?

So TN do you think you are going to get behind your team for the rest of the World Cup, nothing quite like an amazing and unexpected victory to increase that patriotic fervour I wouldn't support the England team these days if we were at war. With nazi ewoks who dive in the penalty box.

I'm just checking my Obama Administration secret foreign policy decoder ring... Huh. Must be broken. Neither drone strikes or handshakes will work this time.

Vindaloo curry?

And yet, once again we find that zoomy shoot shoot doesn't actually address the most minor political issues. I'm in favour of letting the Iraqis play this one out to the finish. Because unlike most anti-Bush protesters I happen to be a fan of democracy in Iraq.

I'm a bit of a football eedjit, but didn't Holland show some superb tactical awareness?

Uniformly bouncy?

I would remind the board that Russia was learning to manipulate its domestic media as far back as 2000 in Chechnya.

Filthy carlsberg

Thunderstorm on eway home from work. Woman also walking home in thunderstorm. My stripped to shirtsleeves, loving the rain. She in three layers. Don't trust any woman who can't enjoy a torrential downpour.

Speaking of which, our new GM has adapted the Chaosium Basic Roleplay system by renaming 'sanity' as 'hope'. We're now in a zombie apocalypse setting. It works. Essentially, 'hope' is a mishmash of self-actualisation and optimism in general. At least this stat has some peer-reviewed tests for it!

That's hardly an equivalent situation. Britain was involved directly in Iraq and eventually took a leading role in the invasion, it's at best involved peripherally in Ukraine or Syria. A million protesters on the streets of London was ultimately unsuccessful as being Bush's Poodle was far more important to Blair than the will of his people, but at least in theory those million people could have made a difference. Actually that's PRECISELY my point. They weren't peace protesters. They were just anti-Bush protesters. And the idea that HM Government can only promote peace by leaving everything alone is so vapid I'm genuinely surprised to see you even suggest it!

Meanwhile a group of teens are still huddling terrified under a log after their moonlight sighting of a forest troll.

I will always urge anyone to adapt the core rules of any system. You won't get the balances right, probably, but better by far that you try than struggle with a bad fit.

Sorry, Raithe. But while I may smile indulgently at people trying to paint Normandy as apolitical, I think it completely misses the point. The war in Europe wasn't just another war. And the sacrifices made weren't apolitical. They were acutely political, and the men landing that day were acutely aware of that fact. D-Day was a tipping point in history. One day. A handful of beaches and bridges. Most assaults hinged on the actions of only a few men. None of whom felt the way to influence history was an art installation.