Walsingham

I'd suggest waiting until you complete your qualification. being a working stiff occupies the body, but not always the mind. Like I say, the gaming just happens while we're chatting. It's a way of being entertaining, without repeating stories based on fact but we all know already!

The egyptian campaign went well. The degenerate sophisticates didn't know how to cope with a dose of pure unreasonable violence. I discovered how to 'peacefully' conquer cities. Bomb them/shell them to one population then occupy with eight specialists. For high culture enemies it helps to keep a leader spare to fly in and build your palace locally until the region is pacified. I now have a problem, however, that I'd like your advice on. Although the main continent is now mine (all mine!), the filthy zulus are occupying a brooding grey landmassa bare turn's throw away from my western seaboard. Or rather, they have a two node island sitting there like Pearl, stuffed to the gunwales with all manner of planes, landing craft and so on. We are on a rough par in science, thanks I am sure to the disgusting Egyptians using all their tech to buy supplies and cash with in tehir death throes. I''ve never EVER let a computer opponent get mobile infantry before, and am at a bit of a loss as to how to go about the campaign in the scientific era. Is an amphibious landing possible? Or should I wait until I get nukes? EDIT: the main zulu landmass is another turn away by landing craft, on the other side.

Steve: Fantastic idea. I cracked up completely. It did remind me of a point I was goig to make earlier, which is that my system (quite apart from the many other reasons why it wouldn't work) would result in my losing population to the war. You can't keep fighting indefinitely and expect to run things like your industries at full whack, and moreover you run out of first class recruits pretty soon. You only have to look at photos of the wehrmacht in 1945 to see how close to the bottom of the barrel they had got. Random thought on society effects of war: 1) war ought to halt culture growth 2) post-war all the damn poets and painters come back harrowed and you get a culture explosion. 3) birth rates should increase during war.

We considered playing a campaign against the rebels, as Empire COMPNOR agents. But it never happened. The Empiure sourcebook is cool, though. If only for the scale pics of Imperial starships.

I have age-old buddies who I play with. And it's more or less a means to keep the drinking going.

I only have civ3 and Play The World. I'm guessing Theocracy must be an upgrade. The celts are fantastic with those zippy swordsmen, and you've ot to love the religious bonus of switching from democracy to warfighter mode instantly. But they totally suck at research. i am now having an incredibly tough time getting the tech needed to arm myself for a war with Egypt, who are a third my size, but centuries ahead. Incidentally, I was wondering what landmass type/ratio everyone prefers. I always choose minimal landmass, and usually either archipelagoes or pangaea. This way my wily/primitive human brain can plan campaigns around choke points, and maximise use of the sea, which the AI is pretty useless at.

Mmmmm... Samantha Carter. She has chibi eyes.

Meta: that sounds pretty interesting. Do you know if it wasa recent publication or do you reckon I'll have to get it second hand?

I'm afraid I'm going to leave this thread alone from now on. I don't enjoy trying to reason with people who are simply hurling abuse. Call it running away if you like. I'm going to get back the sane world while I still can. Terrorism is real, it is not an invention by the powerful. The daily incidence of terror across the world involves the killing of ordinary people. The deliberate murder of ordinary people. This would be bad enough. but when the stated aim of the persons responsible is the overthrow of every country that pretends to the title of 'free',, and their replacement with ignorance and blind fanaticism, it becomes totally repellant. I have and will continue to oppose such people. Have fun.

As long it doesn't come to my borders who give a smeg. If someone tries to take us on, we should launch a nuclear missile at that country's capital. If they still want to take us on we pepper their nation from border to border. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Well fair enough. If i was in Iowa I'd be grouchy too.

Well I finally won as the Koreans, but I am aboslutely certain I wasn't imagining it. I launched an eight veteran Modern Armor <sic> attack against a size nine city on a plain, defended by two veteran riflemen. Only one Modern Armor survived. This on top of the repeated walloping of my regular armor in the preceding phases of the war. BTW, i solved my problems with the AI being grouchy by simply backstabbing at the first valuable opportunity and then remaining at war for the entire remainder of the game. The benefits of peaceful democracy in the game are not worth the benefits of being able to constantly knacker your competiors under a communist dictatorship. Vive la stinky proles, baby!

I'm sure there was some definite tension between my female PC and Viconia. But I could have imagined it. Oh baby.

I notice you say since world war two. People were happy to benefit from US assistance when the Nazis, Soviets, and Japanese were out to take over. Or is there a time limit on how long a nation is held accountable? EDIT: six foot rabbit. Every time the US becomes isolationist we have a world war! Quit it!

Azarkon: I think I followed most of your arguement. But I'd disagree on some of your last points. I can understand why a soldier commits torture against a POW, and why in the midst of a firefight a soldier can shoot a civilian. I cannot condone the former, and believe it should always be punished. For without punishment of such behaviour it becomes more likely. The latter is more complex, since it can be the result of a genuine mistake, but it should be investigated where possible, and punished where it was the result of reckless behaviour. Similarly, I can understand and agree that a terrorist 'soldier' is often the product of controlled information coming on top of ignorance. The Pakistani madrassahs are infamous for this. Orphans are taken at an early age and exposed to nothing but the narrow views of an extremist. small wonder then that they emerge with a strange perspective. However, that does not excuse the behaviour nor does it make our response any different. A man carrying the ebola virus can have all my sympathy, but I'm going to stop the s.o.b. dead if he looks like infecting others. But I agree with your conclusion. Ignorance is the chief enemy. Or rather, understanding is our ally. Which is why internet forums are worth spending time arguing over! :D EDIT: new improved neo-con flaming. Now with 50% less flame!

I don't think you're a fool to see it that way, Azarkon. But once upon a time the United Kingdom was probably seen much the same way. We eventually saw our way clear to the acquired taste of freedom, and even (just recently) democracy. I know it takes time for perceptions to change. It does about anything. Take racism, for example, where many of the oldest in the UK still hold racist beliefs. But it is wrong to abandon hope for a people who are at root feel sorrow and happiness, and can reason as clearly as we do. You mention also someone coming to the United States and telling you what to do. I agree it would be uncomfortable. Hell, it was uncomfortable for Great Britain to go begging to the US twice in the World Wars. There were fights at all levels of society and the military, some bloody and some not, between the civilians, and servicemen. But speaking as one who benefitted from that aid I'm damn glad they did. Moreover, it is irresponsible to suggest that people cannot see the long term benefits of cooperation, peace, democracy and growth. I cannot speak for Iraqis, but if you talk to Afghans you will find many who are fiercely nationalistic, yet are willing to accept the helping hand offered by the West, and will likewise fight against remnants of the Taliban, and Al Qaeda. They want their own country, and they want a say in how it is run. The same independent streak that makes them resist armed invasion is turning to political independence. Indeed, it is worth remembering that the countries we are talking about are disparate entities just like ours are. And while there may be active vocal components that hate the US and UK, this does not mean they all feel that way. Travel around the world and alongside hostility you will also find great interest and admiration.

China already has a muslim insurgency. However, getting an accurate assessmnet of how it is being handled is not open to those outside the Corridors'O'Power. The Phillipines, and Thailand have also been attacked. Neither country has so much as sneezed in a colonial way in the Middle East. I applaud anyone who strives to see both sides of this issue, but I am afraid that at the heart of the terrorist objectives is murder, chaos, and they certainly accept no middle ground. Each and every one of the people here who does not whole-heartedly agree with them is a target. Even those who agree, and other muslims are targets, since they are either glad to die for the jihad (and it's ok to kill them), or they are apostates (in which case... it's ok to kill them). I should add that if you think invading a country that harbours terrorists achieves nothing then you really need to go back to school on how you run a 21st century terrorism franchise. Terrorist sponsor states provide all those little luxuries that turn a disaffected group of malcontent Che-wannabes into a first class tap-dancing Clear & Present Danger. They pay for salaries, and deliver food, and provide places for the spiritual leaders to preach in safety to the poor fools they send out to kill and be killed. They allow the setting up of bomb-making schools, and provide false documentation, firing ranges and guns to fire on them. Which, surprisingly enough does make a difference to how effective those groups are.

LadyCrimson, if you like non-modern military I strongly recommend the Sharpe novels. Anyone who likes a good sci-fi punch-up, or just some good war fiction could do a lot worse than the Gaunt's Ghost series, published by Games Workshop. The best war fiction I have ever read.

Jediphile, I can understand that you might be suspicious of the Bin Laden family, on first principles. But the fact is it's huge, and in any case even small families don't think alike. You should see my cousin and I whaling at each other. He's nearer Hildegard than anyone! Hildegard, thanks for taking the trouble to paste in some hard material, like the maps. I should say again that I have no problem with you personally, although I don't expect we count as buddies or anything. I see you've thought a while about what you believe in, so fair enough. However , I do wonder what you genuinely expect large US bases to be doing, besides guarding that nation's strategic and economic interests? Handing out flowers like the moonies? Should the US have massive bases in the namib desert? Yes, they do have a poor history of backing repressive regimes as a means to an end, particularly against the Soviets. But many people today forget how big a threat the Soviet Union was until Gorbachev got all loved up. Both sides played dirty, and both sides backed some pretty disgusting people. The point is now that the US has apologised officially for it's poor record of backing such regimes (speech a couple of months ago by Condi), and part of the new agenda (one of the few good bits) seems to be gentle pressure to reform, as part of a plan to improve the general conditions of people worldwide and reduce the seeds of discontent. I doubt it will be at the expense of geopolitical influence, but the groundswell of opinion from the State Department seems positive.

Back now. The issue with a dirty bomb is not the radioactivity. It is the word 'radioactive'. How many people would visit New York if they thought it was radioactive? How many people would buy French wine if they thought it was radioactive? It's a political weapon. It's a terror weapon. Radiation, and its effects are scarier in the public consciousness than any sized explosion. The answer IMO is that terrorism is not Al Qaeda, terrorism is not the IRA, it is not Nepalese Maoists. It is a strategy. You can't kill terrorism any more than you can kill socialism. It is here to stay, and the reason we are seeing more of it is that it is seen as an effective means of getting things done. Accepting that terrorism is here to stay, we have to ask if we are willing to listen patiently and negotiate over the demands of every nitwit who can build a bomb. Because if we do we are going to be negotiating with a lot of people. And the numbers will increase. The alternative is to accept that a complex high energy system like modern democratic society is inherently vulnerable. But it is also remarkably tough, and capable, when its members are focussed on a goal. We can aim to stay one step ahead, for the most part. Investigating, trapping, trying, and incarcerating those who are guilty of pursuing terrorism as they arise. We refuse to be terrorised, and we refuse to quit. I'm with most everyone here in supporting the notion of justice and mutual respect for human rights. If we could establish free just societies around the world we would have less militancy in general. But it won't make everyone shiny happy people, even if we ever do get round to it.

Was just logging off, and had to jump in. <curious mix of metaphors> Hildegard, I know you didn't SAY that in your post. I am asking if you believe our culpability in foreign policy should involve our civilians in deliberate acts of murder. As a signatory to the Geneva convention the UK draws a distinction between civilians and combatants, and accepts that in war the latter are legitimate targets, the former are not. According to reliable reports of Islamist doctrine there is NO distinction between the two in the eyes of Al Qaeda.* The British police and army have been under threat of terrorist attack at any time, even after they retire, since the start of the conflict in Northern Ireland. That is why you will rarely see a British soldier in uniform. It IS part of the job, and one they willingly face up to. Past work of mine, and simply stating my views here, would certainly make me a target for terrorist activity; and I accept that. However, I am not saying that deciding one afternoon that because your grandfather lost his farm you can kill a serviceman. It is illegal, and rightly so, because without state sanction it IS murder. I am sick of people making excuses for these people, and am therefore finally off to the pub. *Al Qaeda works like a franchise, before you complain. The grapevine structure has bunches of armed fethwits feeding from a central support line of doctrine, expertise, and strategic direction. P.S. The CBRN threat is perfectly credible. I spoke to the head of the UN investigation team this time last year at an open seminar. His comments are probably listed online somewhere.

Give me a walkie talkie any day.

Echelon exists and is in use. Don't let anyone tell you different. Personally I'm perfectly comfy with it. Hell, Google reads my mail, why shoudn't the security services? Volourn, it's good to meet you. We were getting attacked by Al Qaeda long before Iraq, and we would be even without Iraq. It is rubbish to assert a connection like it makes a difference. Azarkon, I don't blame you for feeling frustrated with talking politics when people are dying, but I think we should remember that politics is usually about people dying. It's often why they die, when it isn't just an excuse. And I say again that as we mourn the dead, this number of civilians have been dying daily in Iraq for months, without half the fuss. I'm away off out for a long walk and maybe a beer. Work out some of the kinks I've got from being so angry. I do so more convinced than ever that we must act together to condemn the actions of self-appointed 'heroes' who deliberately attack civilians. There are heaps of military targets in London. The Ministry of Defence is only a few hundred yards from one of the sites. They did not target the military, or the government, they targetted ordinary people. Hildegard, we've discussed stuff before over Iraq and so on, pretty civilly. You mentioned the possibility of a CBRN attack, specifically a suitcase nuke. Do you REALLY believe that the people of London/Manchester/Liverpool/Droitwich deserve death and disease on that scale because we didn't act on Bosnia? Because we chose to act on Iraq? My colleague's wife turned out to be fine, by the way. Nothing serious.

That's what I thought. Obviouslly the overall chance of success or failure will change, depending on the respective hits, but I just can't shake the feeling it goes further. Probably an attribution error on my part. Interesting, for all that.

Ender: Fair point, on reflection. I guess a class system, for example would have trouble switching too easily. My advice would be to pick a system you know and enjoy, and then just write a campaign using free acccess material on things like fiction, and government building plans. Picture a colourful market in the roofless chamber of Congress, that sort of thing.

Undeniable proof to back Nur's statements <{POST_SNAPBACK}> My first laugh of the morning. Thanks, mate.