Agiel

Another relevant article from the late Christopher Hitchens: http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2011/07/osama-bin-laden-201107 If you needed any proof that Pakistan wasn't at all serious about fighting Al Qaeda or the Taliban, it's that their troops are stationed at the wrong border. I myself am surprised by the possibility of Iranian assistance being that Al Qaeda is a Sunni outfit (one whose membership largely hates Iran, since a large part of its roster were Saudis), and also given that Iran despite its bluster and its stance on its nuclear program at least sees some benefit in normalisation of relationships with the US.

Cont. The Red Tide crests. True to our intel from our forward observers, Soviet T-80Us have arrived to assist the beleaguered Motor-Rifle regiment. The T-80U is the best tank the Reds can muster, and in certain respects as much a match for the M1A1 Abrams. However, Team Charlie of the 11th ACR "Black Horses" still have a job to do. We're in hull down position, the turret barely cresting the hill, when the first tanks roll down the road. We wait until they close to less than 2000m. "Gunner, sabot, tank!" "Identify!" "Fire!" "On the way!" The round hits home and the turret of the lead T-80 flies in the air. The T-80U uses an autoloader as opposed to a human loader most other tanks have. It reduces the crew size, and thus the size of the tank, thereby presenting a smaller target to anti-tank gunners. However, this arrangement has come with a host of disadvantages: Ammunition is not stowed as safely in the T-80 as other tanks. As a result it is remarkably susceptible to the ammunition being ignited in the event of a penetrating hit. Our tanks are playin "shoot 'n' scoot" with the superior numbers of the Red armoured unit. An Abrams pops up over the hill, barely exposing the turret, to fire off a round, then ducks back into cover again as the loader loads another round. All the while our mortars at least keep them disoriented and scattered. As the slaughter continues, me still scanning for targets out of the commander's hatch, the unmistakable sound of a tank round whizzing past my tank catches my attention. "Jesus!" I button the hatch. "Where did that come from?!" At this point, in the chaos of battle and the kill zone covered in burning vehicles it was getting increasingly difficult to track threats. *ker-THUNK!* The tank violently shakes. Our Abrams just took a hit. However, a quick check with the crew confirms that it was a non-penetrating hit. "This is Two-Bravo, I see the little bastard!" one of the Bradleys says over the radio. "F***er is using his burning buddies for cover!" (A real-life tactic modeled in Steel Beasts: Hide amongst the burning corpses of your fellow tanks; you're harder to see with thermal imaging sights) Two-Bravo angles for a shot against the weaker side armour of the offending tank with his TOW launcher. As the gunner depresses the launch trigger, the missile spins for a moment, then leaves the tube, a long wire uncoiling as it does. The gunner follows the target, optically-guiding the missile to the unlucky tank. "Target! Cease fire!" the Bradley commander cries. The tank's turret flies off in a brilliant explosion.

There's a lull between salvos from our mortars, as they must quickly reposition in case the Reds attempt counter-battery fire to silence them. burning BMP-2s litter the side of the road. But from the look of things, Smash Troop has been getting it the hardest. a barrage lands directly on top of them. No injuries reported, but one tank reports its gun and stabilisation is out, another has been de-tracked. Most certainly not damaged enough to make them a write-off, but for this battle they're a combat loss. Recovery vehicles are on their way to get the de-tracked tank off the line in the meantime, the crew has bailed out and retreated to the rear. Better you lose the tank than lose both the tank AND an experienced crew. Heavy troop is ready to take its place as the remainder of Smash Troop retreats behind the hill and conducts a reload drill so the loaders of a full stowage cell to work with.

The loader loads the breech of the M256. "Gunner ready. Sabot loaded." We wait for some minutes, I scan the horizon with my binoculars out of the TC's hatch until I spot movement in the distance. "Contact! PC (Personnel Carrier)! 1 o'clock!" The gunner traverses the turret and stops. "Identify!" the gunner yells out, confirming that he sees the target as well. The gunner lines up the sights with the vehicle and tracks the target for about 2 seconds, then fires the laser range-finder, computing lead and super-elevation for the gun. "Fire!" "On the way!" the gunner cries. From outside the tank, the sound of the gun is deafening. The round leaves the barrel at a muzzle velocity of almost 1600 m/s. It travels fast enough that it reaches its target in barely more than a second. "Target!" I confirm that the round found its mark. The loader loads another sabot round into the breech. "Up!" A second later, some smoke can be seen emanating from the vehicle. From the looks of it, a BRDM armoured scout, a probe, most likely. His war was over. "Cease fire!" If it was a probe, then the Soviets had at least a vague idea of what they were up against and where at least one of the Abrams were. The troop is ordered to adjust its position in the event of incoming artillery fire. Sure enough, about a minute later rounds are landing around us. The Abrams is a tough tank, the only way to damage it with HE rounds is a direct hit on the thin top armour, a one in a thousand shot. However, for the Reds, artillery was one of the most essential components of their art of war, and when they're lobbing dozens upon hundreds of rounds at you, a one in a thousand chance suddenly sounds like very good odds, odds we definitely don't want to toy with. Luckily, since we shifted positions we suffer only a few errant and harmless pieces of shrapnel scratching the paint job. Soon after, the Motor-Rifles in BMP-2s are on the scene. Butter for the Abrams and meat for the Bushmaster autocannons of the Bradleys. "PC! Fire at will!" "Identify!" Fire, fire HEAT!" "On the way!" the gunner cries. The first sabot round sails into the first BMP-2 the gunner sees. High-explosive anti-tank rounds are more suitable for light-skinned targets like the BMP-2, but as a sabot was already loaded, and in a combat situation a round doesn't leave the breech until it is fired, what the gunner has is what he gets. The loader loads a HEAT round next. "HEAT up!" The BMPs roll off of the road, trying to find out where the fire is coming from, but most are cut down almost immediately. The dismounts pile out, disoriented and scattered. They too are similarly mowed down with coax and 25mm fire. "Splash!" The FIST-V calls down artillery on the road. Unlike full-on tanks, IFVs like the BMP-2 aren't as receptive to HE artillery fire. If the shrapnel didn't get the crews, the shockwaves surely would. The Motor-rifles have a brainwave and start popping smoke grenades. The Abrams and the Bradleys have one thing to say to that: "No sell!" With their thermal imaging sights, we can still see them clear as day and target them with the "Last Return" function of the laser-range finder. Even if the smoke scatters the laser, giving the targeting computer false returns, a talented gunner can still engage them using the manual mode.

"Storm at the Fulda Gap, 1989" A Category A Guards Tank Battalion is on its way to this position. A defense in depth is not an option. The only thing standing between the Reds and the crucial airfield to the south are an American tank company (Team Charlie) of a dozen and a half Abrams with an accompanying Mechanised Infantry company. All is not lost, however. A FIST-V artillery spotting team is on standby with six tubes of mortars, and if we can hold out for an hour, the Apaches in the airfield to the south will be refitted and be ready to help stem the tide. My office. The TC's (Tank Commander's) station. The gunner sits below and in front of me, the loader on the left side of the breech of the 120mm M256 to my left. The driver sits in a separate compartment at the front of the tank. My platoon, "Smash" Troop, assumes a BP (Battle Position) in a hull-dowd position overlooking a road from the right, the only one leading to the airfield, the Reds' objective. "Crush" Troop hulls-downs on a similar hill overlooking the same road from the left. Together we form a formidable defense with overlapping fields of fire. Another platoon, "Heavy" Troop is held in reserve. In case one side is running low on ammunition and needs to conduct a reload drill, "Heavy" will take up its position, keeping the defense together. As ammunition is indeed at a premium, we're only allowed to fire only when we're absolutely sure we can hit our targets, about 2000m or so. While the thermal imaging sights of our Abrams gives us a decisive "first shot" advantage, and the 120mm M256 firing the M-829A1 "Silver Bullet" DU long rod penetrator makes short work of T-72s. T-62s, and T-55s at virtually any range, of late the Reds have been deploying the T-80U with a new generation of explosive reactive armour in their Category A units. Hitting it from more than 2000m and even the Silver Bullet will struggle to penetrate it frontally. The Bradleys take up position in some woods nearby to our rear. Dismounts pile out from the back of the IFVs, ready to keep the hikers at bay. The Bradley readies its TOW missile launcher, the world's most ubiquitous, and feared, wire guided anti-tank missile launcher. The Bradleys have paper thin armour compared to the Abrams, but its crews take comfort in the fact that they have longer reach to keep them out of harms way; the new Improved TOW is powerful enough to give all but the heaviest Soviet tanks grief.

I'm actually very conflicted about this. As much as I abhor what the Salafist and Islamo-fascist groups such as the Muslim Brotherhood stand for, I'm of the belief that rule of law (mind you, secular rule of law) trumps all. The sign of a democracy working as intended is a peaceful handover of power from one administration to the next, though on the other hand as the constitution put forward by the MB-dominated government was tenuous at best (constantly challenged by the Judicial Branch), it may have been seen as justified to completely disregard it given that it plain didn't work in the first place. I can't really speak to what the Egyptians at large think. In the best of worlds they would have waited until however long it took for the next election cycle to come before giving Morsi and his cronies the boot, however it may well have been that if they had done so there wouldn't be much of an Egypt left to salvage for the next administration and congress. Throughout the entire ordeal since the initial protests calling for Mubarek's ouster, my thoughts always came to a girl in my French Lit class in my freshman year (this was five years ago) who was from Egypt. She lived here long enough that there was no trace of an accent and she always joked that all they are famous for is tourism. Interestingly, one of the leaders of the coup was an officer Morsi himself installed as the head of the military (likely in order to prevent this very turn of events from happening), a man who was on the surface very committed to the Muslim Brotherhood's cause. I'm vaguely reminded of how Francisco Franco had groomed Juan Carlos to keep Spain a fascist state, only for the King to create a constitutional monarchy with him merely as a figurehead the second Franco kicked the bucket.

Some hilarious balance observations from a community member:

An illustration I find equal parts sweet and tragic, probably because currently I too find myself reminiscing over exes and old crushes. Nonetheless, it's something I keep coming back to. Artist's name is Arthur De Pins. Warning: Bunch of his stuff is NFSW (though more humorous than pornographic, if that helps).

Wargame: European Escalation and its semi-sequel, Wargame: AirLand Battle, sort of has this covered. They encapsulate a late 1980s Cold War-gone-hot scenario in Europe (as does World in Conflict). I also believe there's a Men of War-esque game out there in development that does modern operations.

Extending from Zoraptor's point, I'd say that "reasonable character choices" are most likely the ones that a dev will "think the players will want to make." Forced companions is always a point of contention, and BioWare's games (as well as Obsidian's) are certainly games that frequently suffer from that. And I'll raise DA:O has having a good counterexample. From a metagamey player perspective, it's reasonable to want to free and take Sten with you - after all, here's this strong, characterised, unique and generally obvious NPC bait. But from a rational character perspective, here's this dangerous, unstable psycho who seems just as likely to cut you down than to help your quest in any meaningful way. I loved the option to leave him there to rot, and indeed I took that option on both of my serious attempts to get through the game (which I ultimately failed at). If one option had to be hard-coded, then I'd plump for the later every time. Same applies for Zevran, though only one of my saves got as far as encountering him - did the obvious, sensible thing and cut his throat without a word. Going back further, I'd also glad they never forced you to take Yoshimo in BG2. Sure, in the end the closure was kind of hacky if you didn't, but far superior to the alternative. Anyway, I've probably steered the discussion too specifically to the topic of NPCs, where I was aiming for a more generalised example. Like the ability of not having to have anything to do with Mr House after fulfilling your contract with him (I turned him down flat when he offered more work after the chip delivery). And while Mass Effect is full of inexplicable decisions, a good number of them can be rationalised in-character as following direct orders from a superior officer. I'm fine with those too. But for a bad example, see the Companions initiation ritual in Skyrim, where there's no rational circuit breaker if you don't want to do an obviously dumb thing. Or the entire Thieves' Guild questline, which I might nominate as the worst RPG quest series I've ever encountered. It's a shame because it's contrasted in the same game by the alternative treatment of the Dark Brotherhood questline, which was great. On the other hand in Dragon Age: Origins, from what I remember, the Templars in the village tell you he awaited arrest and obediently accepted his sentence, and your character can express his or her horror to Sten when he earnestly tells you the reason he was imprisoned (to which he agrees). From a narrative perspective, these conditions seem to imply in your character's mind that there's at least a little more to Sten's story than what appears at a glance. In spite of what you believe to be the more reasonable decision being to leave him to rot, I who was trying to get as much out of the game couldn't *not* have him in my party, and I'm glad I didn't; he turned out to be my favourite character in the entire franchise.

1:57-2:20: I can say with certainty that function guarantees great sales in its target market. 4:40-4:50: Sold!

Was going to ask: "Where da Babushka women at?"

The only two sentences I can think of seeing that anorak: "I said come in! Don't just stand there!" "Get out of here, Stalker!"

Helpinghans somehow manages without em, though I definitely do in the beginning to mid-game. Generally you'll only have enough units that a single unit per key will suffice (always use "0" for artillery for on call fire support).

Strictly speaking the abilities for the DLC doctrines are available to other doctrines that come with the stock game, it's just that they don't come necessarily in the same combination. As for the styles of play they facilitate I feel the stock ones in fact have those covered (and in most cases superior to the paid ones; had I not pre-ordered and gotten them automatically on release I would only have paid for one of those new doctrines). Now, if Relic were to release DLC doctrines that included Fallschirmjaeger and Soviet Naval infantry call-in units...

I'd say that a country that resorts to using their nascent nuclear weapons program as well as their military to extort neighbouring countries as a means of political and economic subsistence has demonstrated a total unwillingness to take part in a responsible non-proliferation regime. Both South Korea and China were and are more than happy to help North Korea out of their economic woes, but the North Korean regime either dragged their feet or stonewalled them entirely, as the measures both of them were hoping for would mean admitting that the regime was a sham. Even Iran's economic troubles are mostly on their own heads (fun fact: despite being a major oil exporter, Iran imports most of its energy needs). How about I ask you this: As a pre-requisite to North Korea eventually becoming a prosperous, peace-loving nation in which case its nuclear program would be let be so long as it were solely for energy, should the North Korean leadership admit to errors in judgement on the part of the Great Leader and the Dear Leader (mistakes which continue under Kim Jong-Un's leadership)?

While I can't stand for a nuclear Iran either, it's actually quite unlikely that they would ever use it to "wipe Israel off the map." Iran has always been lacking in good relations with its neighbours since time immemorial, so nuking Israel and potentially irradiating many sites holy to Islam as well as killing a whole lot of fellow Muslims is the last thing Iran needs when they are currently the second most hated entity in the Middle East. Honestly, I don't think they actually are trying to produce a weapon, but I do believe they are developing the capacity to produce one very quickly if and when they do call for it (this capability is why Japan is considered a de facto nuclear power, as while they are banned from having military capable of force projection, they have the resources and know-how to make one). That the west and Israel has been unable to unambiguously prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they are actively producing one after all these years of cyber-warfare and defectors that my guess is that Iran is daring the US and Israel to bomb them in order to turn world opinion against them.

An anecdotal story: I had an Iranian roommate last year. I was taking a class on Cold War history, and I was given an assignment to write about Iran's role in it. My roommate saw that I had an article on Ayatollah Khomeni opened on my computer and asked me: "Why would you want to write a paper about that a**hole?" I in fact think there's more hope for Iran now than there has ever been, despite what my assessment might have some to believe. While I don't really expect it to be so within a decade, much less with this administration, a nationalist secular government a la Ataturk-era Turkey is a very real possibility in the future (many Iranians actually quietly respect Reza Shah the elder, who modeled his attempts to modernise Iran after Kemalism). Many young Iranians have or are getting educations abroad (in particular, in the universities of "the Great Satan"), so the clerics are now looking at a young population that not only doesn't like them, but also favours good relations with the west (after 4 or more years of casual sex, beer, and blazing, how many of them do you think find the idea of hardcore Sharia enticing?)

I highly suspect this to be a strategic decision on the part of the clerics. While it may very well have been that Rouhani won mathematically, it is the clerics who decide who ultimately gets the seat of the presidency, and they simply OK'd his win (while it is certainly possible that Ahmedinejad had won a majority vote the last election, it's believed that the clerics padded his lead to make it look like he had a far better mandate, something a lot of Iranians didn't believe for a second). My guess is that the clerics hoped that a "moderate" "head of state" who makes token reforms might keep urban Iranians relatively well-behaved and fool some westerners into believing the Islamic Republic is making strides to "join the international community" and that would lead to easing of sanctions later. Rouhani has no say on Iran's nuclear program, save for being its face to the rest of the world, as ultimately the Grand Ayatollah has the final word on their nuclear program. That said, Rouhani does have enough power to make economic changes, which means that he may reverse some of the bad economic decisions made by his predecessor. However, he can only do this within the limitations of the international sanctions placed on the Iranian economy (it's possible that some State Department officials were secretly hoping for another Ahmadinejad, as that would mean the effects of sanctions would be accelerated).

Now that you mention it, it sort of reminds me of this scene from Network:

My guess is that Sony's decision was more informed by the potential Japanese reaction to such a scheme than western backlash. After all, the Japanese games market isn't big on PC games save for dating sims, light novels, and H-Games, so the concept of serial keys, activation limits, and always-on may seem even more foreign and draconian to them than it is to westerners (unless someone here that's into Japanese PC gaming can enlighten me that the DRM situation is similar).

Wonder if it's possible that Microsoft can backpeddle on its used game policy mid-console cycle. I would think it's not going to be easy as releasing a patch that abolishes it once they have the hard proof that their policy was a terrible idea. The $500 console makes a little bit of sense given that surely cheaper models will come out given a few years and that the Kinect (as vestigial of a device as it is to us core gamers) is an integrated part of the package, but that on top of their outrageous "must connect every 24hrs" deal is simply outrageous.

When I heard Massive Entertainment, was sort of hoping for World in Conflict 2 (even if Wargame: AirLand Battle has sort of taken over in scratching that Cold War-gone-hot itch for me).

I was holding my breath to hear Michael Ironside's voice again. Alas as much as my subconscious tried to make me hear it, it just wasn't there.