213374U

What, you mean that Gorbachev was an incompetent on purpose? Interesting theory.

Regardless of the hopelessly romantic prism through which you are reviewing history, are you sure that using this guy as an example of what you are saying is a good idea? The guy who peacefully dismantled the Soviet Union? Yes, that might be quite the good example. Yeah, only that wasn't his intention by any stretch of the imagination -- American geopolitical and economic machinations were much more decisive in leading to the collapse of the USSR than he was. As a statesman, Gorbachev was pretty terrible, and he's actually a better example of what Hades said than of your own thesis. Of course, we love him because he sucked at being a bloodthirsty, power-crazed communist dictator, but that's a different story...

Regardless of the hopelessly romantic prism through which you are reviewing history, are you sure that using this guy as an example of what you are saying is a good idea?

I know Kung Fu.

True in the strict sense that you haven't posted "it's justifiable for them to do that" but, in fact, false: That statement makes it clear that Hamas targeting Israeli civilians is, in your mind, less reprehensible than Israel targeting Palestinian civilians. You don't need to specifically state that Hamas firing rockets in the general direction of Israeli cities is "ok", but you are implicitly justifying it as "rising against their oppressors". Otherwise, it would be inconsequential whether they were doing it in "self-defense" or just for kicks. Something is either justifiable or unjustifiable, but not both depending on whether it's the workers of the world rising up against the tyranny of the petite-bourgeoisie, or the neo-colonialist white dogs keeping the third world down. Pick one.

Because they tend to support Israel? Unless you are sticking to some outdated and awfully exclusive international socialist definition of "left-wing", I don't see your point. Well, I do, but not in this context.

Yeah, with great amounts of "professional narrative", no doubt. lololol

AvP had squadies? He may have been referring to Gearbox's Alien: Colonial Marines. As for the game in question, I'll just wait and see. Most cross-platform shooters are turds without any redeeming qualities, though. So chances are Morgy will get his fix. \o/

They are bad in that you are no longer hearing the actor's own voice and inflections. I remember how surprised I was to discover how much acting is a voice work thing when I started watching movies in English, that I had previously seen dubbed. Other than that, no, they aren't so bad... if you don't mind re-interpretations. As for your original question, I think it's the publisher's call whether to commission localized VOs or not. So your chances of finding out would probably be better if you directed your questions to whoever is distributing the game in your country, instead.

...whoa.

Because excellent AI isn't cost-effective. People would rather have shiny graphics, cool interfaces, interesting gameplay mechanics, and any number of other more visible things, than an AI that can kick their asses without cheating if they aren't paying attention, and most importantly, surprise the player and adapt to changing conditions. Depending on the type of game, AI can also be quite processor intensive. And then there's modding. If people really want better AI and the game deserves it, the modding community will eventually produce an AI overhaul for those that do want it, which places it even lower on the dev priority scale.

ORLY? Further, I'm thinking that if the US leveled Spain, chances are the rest of the EU would thank them for freeing them from such an economic dead weight...

That's cute. Aren't you the one suffering from the "imperialist propaganda!" knee-jerk response to anything that doesn't agree with your prefab views on Russia? Suggest you start taking your own advice.

Err... Czechoslovakia was dismantled after Hitler made use of "ethnic tensions" (and a good deal of intimidation) to get Slovaks to declare independence from Czechoslovakia. Britain and France had only been involved in the Sudetenland question, and there were no clauses in the Munich Agreement that allowed for German occupation of the remainder of the country. While I understand and agree with your clarification about the M-R pact not being a "proper" alliance, the Munich Agreement just isn't the same -- one was meant to split the spoils of a planned war, while the other was, at least on paper, meant to avoid war.

1) I stand by my original statement that conventional forces alone aren't enough to completely defeat guerrilla warfare, without breaking the laws of war one way or another, generally by incurring in genocide and invariably targeting non-combatants. There's a wealth of historical examples to support this, too. In this regard, the Taliban show how, despite being in front of a multinational coalition that includes what is without a doubt the best military in the world, force alone (and what could possibly be construed as war crimes) haven't done nearly enough. You may think we are "winning", but I'm led to believe otherwise by what I've read (including, but not limited to, the links I posted). 2) The Napoleonic campaigns are quite vast in scope, and we could perhaps discuss them in a different thread altogether. What I was taught however, is that Napoleon's field armies had been generally undefeated (lol Russia) up until the Peninsular War... and that British successes in Spain and Portugal were made possible thanks in large part to the crippling effects that irregulars had on French forces. Then again, it's perfectly possible that what I was taught overinflated the importance action of guerrillas in detriment of British accomplishments... but "guerrilla" is a Spanish loanword, after all. On whether it's "ungrateful" to disparage British aid... that would require me to examine an alternate historical scenario where Spain had been more "frenchified". I'm not too impressed by our last 200 years of history, so let's not get too deep into that. And let's not forget that the British Empire seldom did anything out of the kindness of HM's heart. 3) I don't give a flying **** about who you are IRL. On the internet, I try to treat everyone (roughly) equally, but I expect people making what appear to be somewhat serious claims to provide at least a modicum of supporting evidence. So don't take it as a personal offense if I don't take your word as gospel... because I wouldn't expect you of all people to do the same with my posts. And again, I'd like you tell me where I've stated or insinuated that I'm an authority on anything. You may not be too fond of my posting style, but I never dodge, and am not afraid to admit I'm wrong -- for me it's not my ego on the line, and the sole notion brings a smile to my face. If you got the impression that I think I'm infallible... well, I can't really help you with that. Think about it: the only reason I keep participating in these boards is because I never stop learning things from people here. Take that as you will. 4) Yay, another e-fisticuffs. I've lost count now. You'd think that after the first few dozens, I would have learnt that it's actually not worth it. Sigh.

Oh, really? Then I suggest you review the thread, because nobody claimed that guerrilla warfare can't be defeated. You assumed "somebody" had said that (the closest to that being actually my stance), and proceeded to pontificate on how absurd this idea is. I agree, the idea is absurd -- that may be why nobody is actually saying that. Hence, your straw man. And where did I claim to be an expert on anything...? I post links when I think that just my saying something doesn't carry enough weight (almost always) or when somebody calls BS. Want to discuss any of them? I did notice that you didn't bother. Sorry if you feel that whatever comes up by "casually browsing the internet" isn't up to your high standards... but I think it beats expecting that hinting that you are some sort of undercover generalfeldmarschall will leave folks gasping in awe.

I took that as a reference to how the author of the AAR in question played his Germany, not as a general statement about that country's real world history.

If you dig deep enough, you can find that people have died from any number of seemingly stupid and/or harmless things. Including, but not limited to, autoerotic asphyxiation...

Right, right. How do I ever dare assume I can get even a rough picture of the goings-on in Afghanistan, when we have the great Walsingham here, to make everything clear... through a wealth of subtle insinuations and unverifiable personal assurances of experience. At BOTH the field squad AND warroom staff meeting levels. And they say I'm conceited. I go by what I read here and there, I apologize for that. I mean, this guy, Gen. McChrystal, is obviously just a chump and doesn't know what he's talking about, right? Because you say so? But yeah, I guess that, after 8+ years of Coalition operations throughout the country, things are going real well. And, heh, better not discuss Pakistan. If that was an attempt to make me sleep better tonight man, you're going to have to do better.

3. A strawman. But thanks for trying. Against guerrillas, diplomacy and intelligence work are going to be the most effective weapons. I thought you were pretty well informed on current events in Afghanistan. How else do you justify the failure of international conventional military operations in what's nearing a decade of war against "dirt farmers", and the shift to drone-executed assassinations and increasing tendency to allow local forces to bear the brunt of the conflict?

Yeah, yeah. A very focused set of core values and principles that we lowly humans aren't meant to examine or even comprehend. I got that the first 100 times I heard or read it. Mind you, I'm not saying that this invalid way of using reason to "explain" something unreasonable means that the idea of God is absurd. Discussing it, however, IS absurd and pointless, for the moment at least. It's not that I've chosen to see it this way. It's that the gift of faith hasn't been granted to me. And I can't seem to switch my brain off, for some reason.

Semantics. There is no difference between "existing outside of logic" and "being subject to divine logic". Both are the same useless cop-out, as the point is to make the listener blindly believe whatever the dude with the funny hat says, as his only and best defense (reason) is declared illegal. I have no problem with faith itself. But when people try to hide under the guise of reason what is by definition unreasonable, I get grumpy.

No, I'm going to keep whittling the timeline down until it fits my original statement that since the invention of the rifle, guerrilla tactics can't be defeated by brute strength. This is called "consistency". And please, don't bother with the cheap strawmen. I didn't say that ALL guerrilla conflicts have resulted in the stated goals of those who engage in that sort of warfare being achieved; they do, however, have an almost infinite regenerative ability, and can keep on fighting virtually forever. The Palestinians are a perfect example of this, as are the Taliban. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Pales...on_Israel,_2010

That's awesome. A shame that such a thing is only possible through massive ad-hoc customization of the games. The world in 1941: http://www.shardsofdalaya.com/images/germa.../world-1941.png

The British were utterly powerless against the Napoleonic armies' might. It was the havoc caused by guerrillas that actually allowed them to do anything. In other words, the guerrilla war was the decisive factor. Good ol' Nappy also got a taste of that in Russia. If you say so. You see, you could close the debate if you posted a single example in the last 200 years where the "tough choices" have been made and actually served the purpose you claim they would. Only... there is no such example, while examples of guerrillas taking advantage of hit-and-run tactics, difficult but familiar terrain and the support from the local populations to cripple the operational capability of larger armies abound.