Monte Carlo

^ Although, to be fair, he's of viking stock so is hard enough to wear a knitted woollen tank-top during a heat-wave.

I personally wouldn't choose akimbo MP5Ks as a zombie-slaying small arms package, but I suppose that's a subject for another thread.

It's too hot. I like the rain. I could never live.... :: shudders :: abroad. Unless it was Siberia or maybe Finland.

Re-watching Band of Brothers on Blu-Ray courtesy of a friend's PS3, he has a pretty cool home cinema set up. Just as awesome as ever, I watch it bi-annually and my favourite episode seems to change every time! Currently it's Carentan.

:: sigh :: where did I suggest that? I think the answer lies outside the Premiership. You can't kill the Premiership: it's a 500lb, 22 carat gorilla. Agreed. I don't think so. The reason English players don't bother is (a) cultural - a lot of the players are working class mummy's boys who flounder once you drop them more than ten miles from where they grew up* and (b) the English Premiership offers football every bit as demanding, and better paid, than the Spanish league or Serie A. *Horrible stereotype, but hey footballers are hardly an oppressed minority. To be fair, Beckham bucked the trend. I think there need to be new terms and conditions to play for the English side, i.e. in a World Cup year they limit the number of games they play. Premiership players can't do that. I'd rather get kicked out in the group stages with a committed team proud to wear the shirt than watch these prima donnas. Their interviews yesterday were a disgrace - they can't actually acknowledge their complete lack of skill and commitment.

I agree, it's a big problem for a lot of countries. Maybe it's so acute from an English PoV because we invented the bloody sport as we now know it and we have such a successful domestic league.

Nail. On. Head. Problem is the premiership. Do Alex Ferguson or Arsen Wenger give a toss about developing English talent? Nope. They are paid to run successful club sides, they bring in the most effective foreign talent. Down in the lower leagues there is probably some latent English talent, but they are playing in the equivalent of a turbo-charged, cash-fuelled foreign legion. As I posted above, structurally, English football is broken. The Premiership, OTOH, palpably isn't but English fans need to make their minds up what they want. Every Premiership season ticket bought is another tiny nail in the coffin of English football.

England were dismal, as the radio commentator said it was like watching a Sunday pub league side play. Apologies to any Sunday league players reading. English football is broken. The Premiership is like a face-sucker from Alien, draining away any chance of us building a cogent national side with the English fans oblivious when the alien hatchling of abject failure bursts out of their stomachs. Fabio Capello was utterly clueless in his post-match interview. And the pampered princes will go home to their

The old dawg would turn up to the opening of a biscuit tin.

^ Are you going to pimp it? Why not take the roof off and upholster it in leopard-skin faux fur stuff. Then get some groovy alloys and you're good to go.

Er, there's a poorly illustrated Robin Hood hat and a countdown timer.

America could do very well, although in the end they will be outclassed by the Latin teams like Brazil and Chile. I predict 2-1 to Germany versus England tomorrow.

Wrong. The Malayan emergency and, indeed, Northern Ireland were both successful, in the context of counter-insurgency. You could even add pre-1947 Palestine to that one, now I think of it. That is to say there were no victory parades or a date on which the war ended. But there were reductions in violence / terrorist activity, negotiations and eventually a peace of sorts. In Malaya the British pioneered the Hearts and Minds strategy that Gen. McChrystal now advocates in Iraq, not that the two campaigns are in any way comparable. Your description of 'blatant genocide' during the Boer War is factually wrong to the point of being offensive. My country has never prosecuted a war of genocide. Have there been incidents of thoughtless violence and brutality in the history of the British Empire? Sure, plenty. Amritsar to Mesopotamia to Bloody Sunday --- we've done the lot but mainly because we didn't choose the alternative (i.e. Nazi-style scorched earth tactics). In fact, the last time we did that was the revanche during the Hundred Year's War against France. You're on a sticky wicket on this one, it's about as valid as me chippily and inaccurately posting hyperbole about the Aboriginal Genocide in the early 20th Century (which didn't happen, unless you have an agenda).

Double post, sorry.

Good link Wrath. I like this: It encapsulates the problem in two sentences --- i.e. Karzai is part of the problem and not the solution and the military bit that works is the time-honoured nutting of the enemy command and control by the hooligans in your SF. I suggest a proper, full-on protectorate.

A question for the devs --- is DS3 intended to provide that Gauntlet feel, frenetic action multiplay against hordes of enemies? Or is it going to be paced differently?

Remember the bit in Silence of the Lambs where Clarice, armed with an agreement to give concessions to Lecter in return for intelligence, offers him a new prison? On an island (an ex-chemical weapons facility, IIRC)? Lecter looks around his cell, sniffs the air and considers the offer of an hour a day outside. "In a truly civilized society," he says, "you'd execute me." We are doing the same thing. We offer these small, low-intensity wars to solve big problems, i.e. religious terrorism based partly on the collapse of the Soviet Empire almost twenty years ago. These wars are like the ones in Orwell's 1984, they provide a small, inobtrusive struggle far away where we pretend to offer our demons an hour's exercise a day in a secure facility of our choosing. If we genuinely wish to wage war on Terrorism (although, as Terry Gilliam said, you can't declare war on an abstract pronoun) then have one. Yep. Conscription, mobilization, objectives, offensives, rationing... have a war and win it. But nobody wants that. I don't. I'm fairly sure you don't. War's little brother, the nine year old insurgency campaign, is in the ascendant instead and it doesn't appear to be working. Between 1939 - 1945 the entire world had a scrap and actually nuked a country. Twenty years later they were enjoying peace, democracy and economic prosperity. Hell, by WW2 terms we should have won in the 'Stan in about 2006, just when it was hotting up, and three whole years into reconstruction. Instead we see Iranian-backed bomb-makers murder more of our troops and stick our fingers in our ears and say Nyah Nyah Nyah. As I say, I am heartily sick of Afghanistan. In a truly civilized society we would either retreat and make our peace, or prosecute war.

Modern warfare tries to be humane, as if rules of engagement will persuade your medieval, religiously-indoctrinated guerilla foe to put down his RPG and stop making IEDs. The more you 'peace-keep' the longer you prolong the agony. The Balkans. The Iraq insurgency. Lebanon. Africa ad nauseum. Wars are actually an efficacious way of resolving disputes. Side 'A' wins and imposes reparations on side 'B'. We need less UN and more Vienna convention. Talleyrand would be spinning in his grave. The principles Wals articulates are the apogee of Blair school 'Chicago Doctrine' which I suspect will be seen as a low point in late 20th Century Western foreign policy. If only we can build enough schools'n'clinics these people will be just like us! No wonder they hate us. If you invaded my country and built a Starbucks in my village when I didn't want one I'd be getting the family rifle from underneath the floorboards. Leave Afghanistan alone, with a friendly warning: let those terrorists back in and we'll send in the Predator drones. Pakistan? Seal your borders or we will apply sanctions and unleash covert warfare on your home-grown terrorists. Apart from that, please crack on and build your countries as you see fit. We'll support the NGOs and aid and all the other things that keep Scandinavian liberals in long and well-pensioned careers. Just don't expect us to sacrifice the best of our young people, our blood and treasure, on trying to build nations when the foundations are built on shifting sands. I am heartily sick of Afghanistan.

I see both sides of the argument, but the fact is that the games industry is freaking massive, can only get bigger and makes money for UK tax coffers greater than the initial tax-break. Our overseas aid budget is ring-fenced, and all that gets spent on seems to be Mercedes for corrupt dictators. Go figure.

With RPGs it's often down to character builds --- i.e. this time I'm going to play a stealthy character, or a tank etc. With FPS it might be different weapon types, or using a certain vehicle, or stealth versus heavy weps. With RTS / Tactics it might be this time I'm not going to use tanks, why not try infantry swarms... Etc. A good game that allows you to re-play it using different character types or methods that aren't too easy is challenging and fun. One that relies on meta-knowledge or a certain key 'Win' button is frustrating.

Too busy firing generals who complain about going for dinner in Paris.

How emo, as I think the young people put it. Go clay pidgeon shooting, drink a couple of bottles of claret and smoke a Romeo Y Julieta (a No. 2). If you are going to listen to music, the drums and pipes of any decent Scottish infantry regiment should do the trick. For God's sake, grow a backbone you lot.

:: sigh :: Italy were my second team. Serie A has as many structural problems as the English Premiership, yes their diving and play-acting was an embarrassment. Mind you :: cough :: Argentina :: cough ::

LOL Virumor pwned by the dreaded 403!

^ And, folks, there is the grace and good-will in defeat for which our Antipodean cousins are justly famous