213374U

Uh, okay. HDI 2008 is ADJUSTED to take that into consideration, genius.

Yeah, those bothersome infra-humans. They aren't real citizens anyway. lololol

Yes, they did "various things", such as, nothing at all. The League of Nations (not the US) expelled the SU. And how does that compare to the economic strangulation carried out against Japan? Talk about the failure of the education system, indeed.

I'm sure they're not doing better than US, you don't know much about US. What I meant was that they'd be part of the Soviet Union, not whether they're socialist or not. Lol, another obviously well substantiated opinion, fully supported by facts. Yes. Most certainly.

Wow, Krezack actually makes sense. US imposed sanctions on Japan because of their illegal and extraordinarily brutal invasion of China. There was nothing at all wrong with those sanctions. Most of you need to study up on history before you start whining about US imperialism, which by the way saved most of your dumb asses repeatedly. Ah. So that was actually a move to protect the poor, poor Chinese, not motivated by concerns that Japan may encroach on their sphere of influence in the Pacific. A pity you didn't apply the same equal opportunity humanitarian protection before the war (Italian invasion of Ethiopia), during the war (Soviet annexation of the Baltic states and invasion of Finland), and after the war (massive deportations of German civilians carried out by the Soviets). And you demand that others take history lessons and substantiate their opinions? You are a joke. Fine. I'm not buying into any alternate explanations simply because they serve to better support my opinions, either. I believe the attack genuinely surprised the US, even if the act of attacking itself was foreseeable, and desirable even, by FDR.

I fail to see how that relates to what you quoted.

Yeah, because condescension always works as a rebuttal.

What facts are we talking about? The ABCD encirclement? The Hull ultimatum? The "Destroyers for Bases" agreement? The Lend-Lease and Atlantic convoying? The extension of the Pan-American Security Zone to Iceland? Japan was a signatory of the Tripartite Pact, as you no doubt know. Japan was also an aggressive, expansionistic power whose sphere of influence threatened US interests. Roosevelt wanted war with Japan, just like he wanted war with Germany. He couldn't just jump into the fray because of his isolationist campaigning during 1940. And, short of direct military action against Japan, he was pretty much out of options. Again, it's anyone's guess how events may have played out if Japan hadn't taken the bait, but I have very little doubt that the US would have entered the war sooner rather than later. And, of course, anything that doesn't conform to the historical version written by the victors is a "conspiracy theory". I simply cannot understand why people have no problem recognizing and condemning imperialism when it comes to Japan or the USSR, but the US is always thankfully exempt in a historical context. Oh, right. It's because of "democracy".

Not useful in the limited, theatre, strategic scales or not at all? It's hard to argue that they aren't strategically useful, what with military doctrine of the second half of the 20th century growing around the concept of deterrence. Just because they weren't used it doesn't mean they aren't useful. Fleet in being?

Not quite. Technically, you're "awsomeness".

What? Russia's influence doesn't stem from their military might nowadays. It's their oil and gas what counts. And the T-90 is a pretty good tank, btw.

Which is total bollocks. With the fall of communism, the Cold War nuclear standoff is gone. As long as Russia doesn't plan to swarm Europe with tank waves, they don't need to fear nuclear strikes, so their own need for a global retaliation capability is tenuous at best. I'd say that what they really are worried about is the possibility that their strategic arsenal may be rendered obsolete by the missile shield. They would have to embark on the good ol' arms race again, in order to keep a credible nuclear deterrent. The last arms race bankrupted the USSR, so it's understandable they are reluctant to go at it again, and against the winner of the last one, no less. But old habits die hard and nobody likes losing their superpower status.

Hmm. Let's see... I would give even less of a damn than I do now. And that's why you're a regular here.

Indeed. This game is so under the radar that lack of news is hardly... news. Sega knows this. Or perhaps they have simply forgotten about AP altogether. Imagine if Beth tried to pull something like this with TESV.

While it's anyone's guess how things would have turned out without the bomb, the numbers for Warsaw Pact conventional forces sure are scary. It's difficult to explain such massive military buildup as "defensive in nature". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank_formatio...ng_the_Cold_War

The fanbase probably this, Bioware likely that. Only... it's just you I hear. All you have to support your claims about the "user base" is your own opinion. Bioware was doing fine before they started watering down their gameplay. BG2 was as party-focused as it gets, and you can solo just fine. All it takes is *gasp* careful planning. Ah, **** it. I'm really sick of these same old discussions. And people would rather read that Twilight tripe than Brave New World, so you're probably right, too. I'll be in the HoI3 thread.

Fallout? Also, read the rest of what MC has been posting for the last two pages... customizable difficulty. So you, um, keep charging the adamantine golem until it rolls enough 1s in a row that your monk can beat it into submission? The DnD magic system means that unless you're a sorcerer, you need to have foreknowledge of the encounter for your mage to stand a chance. That's not a problem with BG2 (which it is, due to the blatantly cheat-scripted AI spellcasting), as much as it's a problem of the ruleset. Luck plays a central role, but since DA doesn't use the DnD ruleset, I don't see how that applies to this. The BG system is hardly perfect. It was quite unforgiving (insta-chunking) but mostly it was random. The weight of chance was overbearing, especially at lower levels. Can't we find a middle ground between that and what is essentially a retinue of immortal meatshields?

Interesting...

Hardly anything so dramatic. Was BG built around the death system? They simply accounted for the fact that X or Y may die if you were careless, and not be present for interjection with Z. I may be inclined to think they actually promoted NPC deaths, the way some were written... I don't know man, a central part of the fun in games that aim to have a strategy component is the looming consequences for bad calls. If you screw up, you learn, you get better. If the game doesn't have a way of telling you "charging the Adamantine golem may not be the smartest approach", there is no learning curve -- it's a plateau. The player will not refine his tactics, as there's no need. And when the big climactic fight comes, the player will wipe and blame the crappy encounter design, the terrible difficulty curve, or whatever. Or, conversely, the big climactic fight will not be quite so climactic from a gameplay standpoint, and beating the game will feel hollow and pointless. This is the approach taken by BIO ever since BG2. Remember Dave Gaider's Ascension? Yeah, that was pretty silly.

Before or after they magically get up a while after receiving the coup de grace? Just because I can "pretend" there's consequences to death in the game it doesn't mean those consequences are real.

Cute. Apparently, now the job of the US President is to be Mr. Nice Guy. I suppose that, by extension, the US should be the world's largest charity organization. Oh wait... He's a VAST improvement only in PR. So far he has done nothing. Except stepping up UAV assassination strikes in Pakistan.

90% of the time? Um, learn to play? Or, failing that, learn to spam potions. Let the player make that call.

Oblivion Lost re-enabled grenade throwing for enemies, presumably using the original mechanics which the devs chose not to use in the game. Every lousy bandit had an uncanny ability to hit you in the head with grenades, regardless of distance and field of view. That, coupled with the fact that grenades made no sound when landing among the abundant foliage and their lethality made the game quite difficult. They didn't really fix this for CS, they simply added a HUD warning that a grenade was flying towards you, and a rather mild sound for grenades hitting the ground. STALKER/CS is not a very good example of balanced (read: fun) grenade implementation. I remember reading one of the previews where the devs were repeatedly owned by bandits essentially spamming grenades everytime the player went behind cover. They reduced the frequency and STILL it was pretty ridiculous. You were actually safer in the open exposed to direct fire than behind cover...

Got banned there, too. I don't think Wals' comment was directed at me, though. Also, I'm probably a total n00b when compared to vets from countries such as the UK or the US. But hey, it's the feeling that counts, right? Thoughts: i. I never saw any gays while serving. Your guess is as good as mine as to why ii. The only people whose morale would have been damaged if that were the case would be the gays themselves, what with NCOs and corporals being for the most part a bunch of ****ing cavemen -- people with brains were unfortunately in the minority iii. I fully agree with lof on his ideas about anti-gay policies, in the army and elsewhere -- yet another example of the nefarious influence of the Pope iv. I also agree with GD on the (in)convenience of things, but depending on who you ask, the purpose of a school is debatable... Also, "reasonable" is closer in meaning to "consensual" than it is to "rational". In reality it has very little to do with actual rational reason. edit: just realized that lof's original post (the one Wals was most likely replying to) has gone *poof*. Coming close to becoming a non-user, I see!

Think again.