posted 06-13-99 07:33 PM ET            

Modern defensive power comes from doctrine, not from the equivalent of "armor" - operational doctrine emphasizing concealment, mobility, deception, combined arms, agressive patrol and recon, etc. Getting hit in modern war is not fun - that's why the US assinine ROE's in "peacekeeping" situations are pure BS.
"Don't fire unless fired upon" is a sure way to get your ass killed.

posted 06-14-99 12:22 AM ET         

Boy I thought that was obvious.

Increasing base bonus to 50% is the best way.

posted 06-14-99 12:27 AM ET            

Shining1: "Remember that changing armour values also increases the cost of that armour." Why? They are two dif values in alpha.txt. Why not raise one and not the other?

Old BB Fan, Darkstar: What? Do you expect me to reread those old posts?

Krushaha: I thought the intrinsic defense disappeared after a PD is built, so, the adjustment wouldn't mean much, would it?

Anyway, I think I will scrap the idea, cause I don't see much evidence that the AI build armor anyway.

posted 06-14-99 12:58 AM ET            

But OW didn't like how quickly most bases fell. So he changed the base defence factor.

I don't know why they don't give you in-built base bonuses. Probably thought it was too much with elite and bonuses, perim, tachy and everything else.

posted 06-14-99 09:12 AM ET            

There are other more subtle things. Having two random events per year instead of one would favor building, because several events are a positive if you have a base facility and a negative if you don't. (Energy surge if you have en Energy Bank, network surge if you hae a node, Prometheus Virus if you have a hospital, Planet Blight if you have a biology lab etc).

Also, you could make units more expensive relative to base facilities.

posted 06-14-99 10:09 AM ET            

"Also, you could make units more expensive relative to base facilities."

posted 06-14-99 02:32 PM ET            

Units in a base do gain sensor bonus. At least, it's listed in the defense box. Units ATTACKING do not gain a bonus for being in range of a friendly sensor. That should be a double-edged sword, logically, but the attacker already has the overall advantage.

posted 06-14-99 05:29 PM ET            

Darkstar: I also use 50% for base defense - it's kinder to the A.(non)I when you're doing those laser squad rushes. Not particularly effective, but that's what a sporting chance is all about (giving the impression of better odds without actually changing the result).

And it make mindworm attacks against bases less effective. And is DOES match the bunker value, which is logical.

+75% for sensors! Dear holy f**king sh*t. I mean, why not +500%?

posted 06-14-99 06:56 PM ET            

Bunkers are relatively small, heavily reinforced hardened fortifiactions, bases are more extensive objects and nowhere's near as tough to crack. World War II demonstrated that pretty decisively, where whole German cities were flattened to rubble, but the Normandy coast still has some German coastal artillery bunkers that shrugged off repeated direct hits from Naval 11" ordnance, etc. etc. When the German bunkers were attacked by combat engineers, they used to call in artillery on each other, and they finally surrendered only when they ran out of ammo.

posted 06-14-99 10:18 PM ET            

Michael: Bunkers are different to cities. Troops inside a city can use local knowledge of streets and terrain to very great advantage - consider the tactics used during the war in Checynia - guerillas blowing the tracks off the first and last vehicles in a convoy to trap the vehicles.

Your right that cities don't provide shell proof concrete protection - but they do provide a lot more options for defenders than say open terrain does.

posted 06-15-99 12:13 AM ET            

A better example of how urban warfare should be fought is in late World War II on the eastern front. Vehicle convoys in contested cities is the height of suicidal stupidity, as the Rangers found out in Somalia (although that horse**** was dictated from Washington, not in the field), and the Russians found out in Grozny.

Tanks firing HE have some neat applications. Need to clear snipers from a multistory building? Fire HE into the ground floor and drop the whole thing - scramble the ones on the upper floor, crush the ones in the basement. Infantry also needs to be dismounted at all times, with vehicles used strictly for fire support, etc., BEHIND the damned infantry.

The Russian infantry were too poorly disciplined and led, and were loath to leave their BMP-3's and BTR-80 IFV's. Burning death in the city. Tanks also need to be closely supported by dismounted infantry, to suppress ATGM teams firing down at their top armor.

The real trick to city fighting, which the Russians were not willing to carry to the ultimate extreme, is just to level it. Sustained aerial bombardment, and artillery firing HE and WP rounds, and then methodical clearing of the rubble. As soon as it is cool enough to lie in, some enemy will return, so you have to move infantry in in massive force while the surviving enemy is still fairly stunned and useless, and disorganized as well.

In the modern world, which hasn't seen total warfare since World War II, the geopolitical price for such a strategy is too high to pay, but if the militarily effective strategy is employed, city defense is a death trap for the defenders. Another real world alternative which has applicability in SMAC is just to bypass them - if they won't come out to stop you from dismantling their entire infrastructure and taking their food supply, then they are effectively useless.

US / NATO doctrine is to stay the hell away from urban warfare, and rely instead on mobility and night vision.

In real terms, vehicles are at a disadvantage attacking or defending in a city, but as an ex light infantryman and combat vet, I'd much rather defend in open terrain, under most conceivable conditions and types of engagement. There is always some cover/concealment in "open" terrain, and the flexibility of being mobile and being able to hit and run and hit again is preferable to me, in comparison with the casualty trading of static warfare in city streets and buildings. Guerilla fighters can usually afford to trade casualties straight up against conventional forces - there is a psychological edge in most insurrection/guerilla warfare.

posted 06-16-99 02:41 PM ET            

Now, rebels/liberation armies and the nation's army in a civil war might want to capture a city, but that is a different story, isn't it?

posted 06-16-99 10:39 PM ET            

I think combat engineers are heavily overrated by Americans - they can't produce entire systems of infrastructure overnight.

posted 06-16-99 10:54 PM ET            

Remember what granny told you, "Be careful what you ask for, you might get it!"

posted 06-16-99 11:59 PM ET            

The whole campaign in Chechnya was planned (if it was planned at all) as a big parade and was doomed from the very beginning. The attack on Grosny, in particular, was ordered by generals in Moscow on Grachev's birthday to "present" him the city as a gift(!). Nobody really cared about such trifles as troops coordination, infantry and artillery support and so on.

posted 06-17-99 03:35 AM ET            

So, Carpet Bomb and Incendary any city that threatens to act as a base for your enemy, whether military or serious guerilla. As I said, we are the USoA, and we don't want anymore territory. We MIGHT want what's under the ground, but that's about it. No people = no threat. Simple, but very cold logic. And to a lesser degree, this is a classic USoA tactic. We like to move in, knock out the unfriendly government, and prop up one more to our tastes, or easily manipulated by our leaders. Then we go home.

Now, if its a civil dispute (rebellion for instance), or a war of expansion, then you WANT that city, and the people that goes with it. So you don't want to eliminate or destroy the infrastructure and the people that go with it.

SMAC is a whole different story. First, you get scored on pop, so you hurt your future pop and scoreby burning down a base. Second, you have to use gas or capture it to obliterate it. Both carry their own serious negatives, unlike the real world, where the international community general ignores the situation forever. Third, unlike the real world, in SMAC, there are only 6 other entities that remember what has gone on before. All the people in a captured city WILL become as happy and productive citizens as a base built by your people. VERY democratic and idealistic, actually. Not this thing of neighbors where "600 years ago, your people stole a cow from my ancestors. Therefore, I am going to blow you, your mother, your father, and all of your siblings into a thousand seperate pieces! Die SCUM!".

posted 06-18-99 01:01 AM ET            

Using planes based at home isn't a viable tactic for combat air support - as demonstrated in Yugoslavia, you need bases within 500kms to be even semi effective at taking down movable targets. And that was against the modern warfare equivilent of fighting men in grass skirts fighting invaders with rifles and cannons (apologies to any Serb sympathisers - but 1 kill and 2 accidents out of umpteen thousand sorties isn't a scorecard I'd want to show mother).
This is why your navy airpower is so vital to your role as global police man.

I really don't think you can argue along the lines of scorched earth tactics as usable by the U.S. First of all, it failed completely in Vietnam, much to american embarrasment, and more importantly, being a democracy limits your rules of engagement quite severely - killing civilians, or at least using indiscriminate tactics that MIGHT kill civilians, is a sure way to lose public and government support.

There's no doubt the U.S could inflict terrible, terrible destruction upon any nation if it had cause too, and for a much lower casulty count than the opposition. But, DarkStar, I never trust cold logic, or logic of any kind for that matter - it's a great way to quickly lose the real complexity of a situation in a couple of quick truisms.

posted 06-18-99 03:13 AM ET            

In World War II, Moscow was definitely a target the the Germans should have destroyed, if Hitler hadn't wasted time - it was the logistical center of the USSR with it's centralized rail net, and the psychological humiliation to Stalin and disruption of the overcentralized government would have had a tremendous effect on subjugated minorities, but luckily for human history, Adolph the paperhanging Bohemian corporal did about everything wrong that could be done wrong from the standpoint of the Nazis winning the war.

My point about the ideal way to take down a city is from a grunt's point of view, assuming that you have a numerous and determined enemy that you can't bypass, and don't have time to starve out. This was common in the meatgrinder campaigns of World War II and Korea, and infantry casualties in urban fighting are horrendous.

Darkstar - remember that in war the center of gravity to which von Clausewitz refers is political, not military, so with a authoritarian or centralized government, or in an internal conflict, the psychological value of capturing a city is huge. Your right from a US doctrinal point of view, though - taking a city is a pain in the ass, since you have to run it, and everyone bitches about civilians getting hurt, and the grunts hate it because of the casualty risk, etc.

Shining again - Most infrastructure that is militarily useful can be set up by CE's pretty quick - Dhahran and KKMC in the gulf got built up real nicely, but our current leadership has let the US military slide heavily (almost enough to turn me into a card carrying republican, but most of them are equally stupid regarding the military).
The big issue with airfields is traffic control, logistics, maintenance support and personnel support. Anybody with airpower has the same problem, but we can rapidly augment your average civilian commercial airport, and mid-air refueling plus aircraft carriers gives a lot of flexibility.

Intact, undefended and relatively "friendly" cities are worth taking - what I'm referring to are the Grozny's and Pyongyang's and Baghdad's of the world - the kind full of "defend to the last man" fighters that makes any thinking infantryman wish he'd joined the navy instead. SMAC and Civ have very limited combat systems - they're cute and fun, but not "realistic" that make taking defended cities necessary.

Dim Cat - I remember Grachev - one of Boris's drinking buddies and ass kissers, and little else. But generals in Mockba or Washington can only cause so much of a problem - in the Russian case, a lot of it gets down to an extremely poor system of training and organization - Sergeants, and especially staff NCO's are what God made to protect privates from the ravages of 2nd Lieutenants, Colonels and Generals, and the Russian/Soviet army training doctrines have never acknowledged the need to create and maintain a professional NCO corps - I learned my soldiering from a bunch of 15 to 20+ year veterans with extensive Vietnam experience. The Russians have nothing similar, and their sergeants and NCO's are primarily more educated draftees - not professional soldiers.

Shining again - the grass skirts analogy is right on, but moving targets can be hit from a distance with KC-10's for refueling, and AWACS and JSTARS for tactical coordination. Air crew fatigue on the part of the strike aircraft is a consideration, but if you have enough crews to rotate, it shouldn't be a problem. I'm not an air expert, as an ex groundpounder, but I would assume the limits on effective moving target strikes in Yugoslavia were the result of several things:

1) Totally preplanned frag lists, so limited options for pilots to go after targets of opportunity.

2) Lousy weather and limited availability/higher mission priority for all weather tactical aircraft.

3) The desire to avoid AAA and SAM traps - which would necessitate dumping your weapon load immediately and evasive maneuver in a difficult flight environment

4) Serb propagandists aside, a desire to avoid inflicting heavy casualties - NATO could have extensively targeted troop concentrations and used dedicated antipersonnel weapons such as Rockeye II CBU's, but these weapons were not used.

5) A desire to avoid accidental friendly casualties, by limiting the number of sorties and the density of aircraft flying in the different route packages to and from target areas.

6) Lack of political will, and the politician's (the only dirty word to a soldier ) idea that "partial war" and "measured response" solves anything for very long.

As far as Vietnam goes, IMO that was was unwinnable by definition, since we would have had to create a stable government in the south, and all the north had to do was be a pain in the ass and outlast us. To say the US used a scorched earth policy is a little inaccurate - we scorched a patch of jungle hear, defoliated a little there (my older brother died from Agent Orange related cancers) bombed the crap out of something there, off and on, all over.

A scorched earth policy (a la the Russian front with both Napolean and Hitler) is more concentrated and comprehensive. We could have inflicted a lot more damage on the North Vietnamese - Haiphong was a viable deepwater port through the entire war, and dams were forbidden targets. We certainly dropped enough/(too many) bombs in Vietnam, but in a micromanaged, BS politcal way, not in a sustained, concentrated, effective way.

posted 06-18-99 03:10 PM ET            

Actually, there are several STOL/VTOL aircraft in the USoA air arsenal. Including the Harrier, which is favored by the Marines. They like to just bulldoze a small path or clearing for those. You can launch an F-18 in about the space it takes to launch some WWI biplanes (a few hundred to a thousand feet), but without a catapult assist, its rough on fuel, the pilot, the aircraft, and the surroundings. But that's far less that a multi-billion dollar airfield.

But, as I said, you don't *need* local air units if you aren't sending in troops. If you ARE planning on sending in troops, then you will have need for Air Suppression. Classic USoA tactic is to fly those off the Carrier groups while the CBs build or upgrade a local air base. Fly in the Suppression... and continue the build up of troops. This is a classic deployment tactic practiced since WWII. (CBs are one of the first "troopers" in anywhere, after Recon and Intel.)

The USoA has never practiced a true scorched earth policy. Although we came close in WWII at times. In this modern day and age, a scorched earth policy would probably involve a lot of tactical nukes. Scorched Earth works, but only if you get all the SOBS... women, children, and men. We, the USoA, do not have the balls to do it, since we like to think of ourselves as "Superior Humanists". If push comes to shove, we might... if we thought the next shove was to put us over the brink.

If you look throughout history, Scorched Earth works EXTREMELY well... but only if you wipe out EVERYONE (men, women, and children older than infants). If you do it half-assed, you just create a hurt enemy that WILL pay you back... even if its 3000 years later.

Vietnam was many things, but it wasn't War. War is about taking and holding real estate. You never pay the butcher's bill for land, then go off and leave it, so that you have to pay for it all over again. That's just Hell. I think about every logical rule of war (and their are not many, as War isn't logic, its National Greed, Envy, Pride, and Killing... and to the people caught up in War, its pure surviving that Hell and living another day) was broken by our leaders in matters that only they know. You can't fight a War and obey silly strictures such as lines on a Geo-Political map or Public Polls. If a nation allows your enemy to restock, rest, reinforce, and retrain the enemy, but denies you the right to pursue and eliminate... they have sided against you. As Enemies of the State, they are legal targets and your nation automatically doesn't recognize their Soveriegn Rights.

Vietnam was many things, but it was never a war in the way the Big Ones were to the US government and its leaders. Unfortunately, it wasn't those same leaders that were the ones bleeding for their policies and attitudes.

posted 06-19-99 01:03 AM ET            

As far as scorched earth policies by the US - hey, you're a fellow southern boy - don't you remember ol' Sherman making Georgia howl? Also, Hunter and Sheridan in the Shenandoah and Central Virginia. Scorched earth is more about denial of resources to an enemy than about killing them directly, but if you look at the real consequences, the people starve.

Although we can use more primitive airfields, they are hell on jet engines, and if possible, it is just better for maintaining the readiness of the whole air inventory if you use real airfields with real support cababilities. I've got a lot of Marine air around where I live (San Diego), and the Av-8B Harrier is cool, but it is strictly a limited use aircraft with a high maintenance cost.

I don't know if you've ever been there, but the surviving and living another day and your description of the dichotomy of how war is viewed is good. I was a reservist called back to duty for the gulf, and other than boredom, it was kind of cool for most of the time. Once the oil wells got torched, it was pretty nasty, and once you got into serious contact with the enemy, the grand adventure got replaced by something else entirely. Being an infantry combat vet, and from a military family (not professional soldiers, but we all signed up at the wrong place and the wrong time) you gain an interesting appreciation for the differences in world view and the effects of real wars on the direct participants. It's not at all the same from the press or political or "folks back home" perspective.

There IS an adrenaline rush, and that is the fun part that SMAC and other strategy/war games preserve at different levels. I like wasting my enemies in SMAC, but the personal real world experience is something I hope to totally forget one of these years, but it won't happen. An interesting factor in my SMAC and other game play is that I react as if my game units are real - my play style heavily reflects my military training and experience, and unit loss is something I go way out of my way to avoid. It would be interesting to compare differnent player's fighting styles and unit choices, and try to see where those choices come from.

posted 06-19-99 02:04 AM ET            

He had a wife, two kids (a four year old son and seven year old daughter at the time) and to stepsons (11 and 15 at the time). At the time he died, he was on 100% disability for PTSD, after an 18 year fight with the VA, and 2 years total in VA psych wards. He flew as a Spec-4 door gunner in an independent helicopter company that did insertion and extraction missions for Rangers, Special Forces teams, LRRP's, etc. all over Laos, Cambodia and both Viet Nams. He volunteered for the Army, and to go to Nam, so he was obviously mental from the start, but was a classic PTSD case from the moment he got back.

As a classic example of government efficiency, he died at 10:38 pm on a Friday night, and by 9:15 the next morning, a letter was hand-delivered to his and his widow's bank instructing the bank to return any direct deposit of his disability, since the final check would be pro-rated for the number of days in the month he'd actually lived.

The Federal government denied that death was service related (since they did not want to reopen and expand the agent orange issue) and further denied botching medical treatment, even though the autopsy showed multiple evidence of major medical malpractice, including transfusing the wrong type blood - nearly destroying his kidneys and clogging them with blood platelets while he was trying to handle experimental chemotherapy, etc. etc.

After his widow appealed the non-service related cause of death ruling, the VA then spent more time and money on legal fees and experts to fight and deny the appeals than it would have cost to continue survivor's benefits, so the only reason my sister-in-law didn't end up in the street is that her mom was the mortgage lender on their house, since no bank would lend money to a disabled vet on a disability. My sister-in-law was broke once the pension was cut off, since my brother required full time care in the last year, and the VA would not pay for outpatient nursing help. My brother's family had a choice of his living inpatient 60 miles from his home and small kids, when he obviously had limited time left, or living at home and spending his last time with his family, but at the cost of losing the only outside income they had when his wife had to give up her job.

posted 06-19-99 02:04 AM ET            

What you described was the situation the U.S airforce should be in at the moment, with marines or what-have-you digging out quick, low quality CONCEALED airbases for Harrier type jets to operate out of. Instead, you've gone the other way, and have a situation where all your best aircraft - F-15s and the Stealth jets - all require hundreds of yards of foot thick concrete to even consider taking off with a decent payload. Which then has pilots flying 12 missions to hit a single target.

Furthermore, if you ever got into a real war - say Americia wins the World Cup and Europe gets REAL pissed off - it's conceivable that most of your major airfields could simply disappear within a matter of hours. So, while those planes are extremely cool, they don't have that much practial value to you, unless you need to do turkey shoots from friendly soil like Italy and Saudi Arabia.

posted 06-21-99 03:08 AM ET            

I've always thought that the leaders that order you off to war should be in the first squad in the first action. That would cut down on a lot of unnecessary conflict in the world. And according to Military legends, they used to do such. Until they got all the brave/stupid leaders out of the way.

Funny how most grunts want to get the leaders. Must be the nature of the Beast.

Sherman was a danged Yankee. I'm suppose to count him as a scorcher? We still live and grow food in those "scorched" areas. And some have a long memory. But it did do a number on the South. But then, I have always thought both sides were pure idiots in motion, from my safe perch here in the soon to be 21st Century. I mean, the South actually THOUGHT that the Northern Banks would continue to do business with them after succeding and declaring WAR!

Shining, do you know how fast a CB team can create a nice, thick concrete airstrip? Give them a short time, and its done. IIRC, they can lay a nice 4000 ft concrete runway in a little less than 3 weeks. Sure, you got to protect them until them, but 3 weeks is nothing for making a permanent facilities. It takes longer to upgrade those fly speck airports and their runways.

You point about airbases IS on the nose, but as long as England stands, that's one confirmed piece of land closer to Eurasia than North Armerica. Besides, I can only see France getting that nasty. Like always. We should have just KEPT those cities like the Ruskies kept theirs. But no... we are the USoA.

Seriously though, with the next generation of trans-sonic bombers that can be on station anywhere in the world in less than 3 hours... It's going to get interesting to piss off a US president in just a few years. Especially if he believes that we have that SDI really working. If we have any iron bombs left, that is.

posted 06-21-99 09:20 AM ET            

Aredhran

posted 06-21-99 10:54 AM ET            

VA = Veterans Administration, now the Department of Veterans Affairs, the U.S. Federal agency for screwing over Veterans.
A few years ago, there was a funny case here in San Diego, where a Vietnam Vet with a prosthetic leg got tired of the VA computers "losing" his records. So he unstrapped the prosthesis, chased a few VA bureaucrats, smashed a window, and started throwing their computers out the window, figuring they were useless anyway, since they always forgot he existed. Being humorless, the Feds prosecuted him of course.

NCO = Non-commissioned Officer. Some countries include corporals, but generally it is the different grades of sergeant, which are the top five enlisted ranks in the US. Experience levels in infantry will generally be a minimum five years for a Sergeant to 20+ years for a Sergeant-Major.

LRRP = Long Range Reconnaissance Patrol, a U.S. Army special operations establishment in Vietnam that normally used 6 man teams to spend as much as three weeks concealed and operating in enemy held areas in North and South Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia.

SOBs = Sons of Bitches

REMF = Rear Echelon Mother F***er, an infantry term of endearment for anyone physically or organizationally behind and beyond your Company command post, or depending on how charitable of a mood you're in, you might include your Company commander as well. The infantry "attitude" originates because it is only infantry which can actually take and hold objectives, line infantry incurs about 85-90 percent of the casualties in modern war, and the infantry has the worst living conditions in the field and the slowest promotion path for long term soldiers.

VTOL = Vertical Take-off and Landing, and also some aircraft are classified as V/STOL, which is just Vertical/Short

posted 06-21-99 11:40 AM ET            

I understand quite a bit of military culture, being in the Army myself, although I must say the Swiss Army has a fundamentally different system compared to the US Army/Navy/Air Force whatever.

We have what we call a militia, ie. a small force of professionnals (high-ranking officers and instructors), and a bunch of "part-time soldiers". All the soldiers and officers are normal Swiss citizens, like me and about 300'000 others, who have to undergo a basic training period of 4 months, then serve for short periods that we call "repetition courses". They usually last 3 weeks, and are organized every other year until 300 days have been accomplished (more if you go up in rank, it's almost 600 days for me).

The hierarchy is a bit different too. The good thing is that every officer *had* to go through the lower ranks before getting where he is, so they know how it feels to be at the bottom of the ladder (unless they forget, which they tend to do a lot the higher they go ). Anyway, here it goes:

Soldier
"Appoint�" (like 1st class soldier)

Corporal (commands 4-10 people depending on type of unit)
Seargent (1st class corporal)

Fourrier
Sergeant-Major
Adjudant

Lieutenant, 1st Lieutenant (commands a platoon)
Captain (commands a company, about 100 men)
Major (commands a batallion)
Lt-Col, Colonel (commands a regiment)

Brigadier (1 star general, commands a brigade)
Divisionnaire (2 stars general, commands a division)
Corps Commandant (commands an army corps)
General (army supreme commander, only nominated in times of war)

My current function is Fourrier. I'm sort of a Logistics Officer, taking care of finding lodging for the troops, making sure there's food to eat , fuel for the trucks and jeeps, and the mail (dealing with supply lines and all that stuff). I also take care of the accounting and oversee the administrative work. I belong to the 1st Exploration Company, itself part of the 2nd Division's "Etat-Major" batallion. Like the old man (Divisionnaire) likes to say, we are his eyes and ears.

posted 06-22-99 12:45 PM ET            

Sure, we can send an Airborne unit or two anywhere in the world within 72 hours, but that is for small time stuff. Military time for serious unit build up or deployment takes forever compared to small forces (teams and platoons). And that's really all because of LOGISTICS. Food to feed the troops while they await for the go order, uniforms, munitions, medical, basic transport, fuel, quality shelter, Intel, Counter, Air Suppression... the list of things the modern forces won't do without is amazing. But much of it is still the basics used by the Romans, just organized a little different, or updated to the modern age...

Troop deployment is never a "quick" thing. Unless they are already there, outfitted, mobilized, and have all the necessary out-of-unit support in place already.

posted 06-22-99 10:40 PM ET            

Cheers for the explination of REMF - a new one on me, but it sounds pretty accurate.

Darkstar: Having leaders lead out troops into battle isn't a great idea. The ancient spartans lost hundreds of top notch warriors to an inferior opponent through this system, when the rank the king was in got rushed by a numerically superior rank. Then they lined up again a couple of years later and fell to exactly the same tactic.

It's not only the king who dies in this kind of situation. For the Spartans, it wrecked their entire country and cost thousands of irreplacable casualties from the best fighting race in the world. REMF's have their place, because war is dirty and destructive instead of heroic and glorious. But we all know, that, right?

Snowfire: Darkstar is correctly, in that three weeks is nothing for a conventional war. Unfortunately, the current standard is a quick exchange of extremely destructive weapons. With Fuel-Air warheads, you don't even need nukes to wreck an airbase these days - you can just blow up the entire infrastructure and leave that nice, flat expanse of concrete to land your own forces on when you begin your invasion.

posted 06-23-99 02:53 AM ET            

Actually, while there is a time and place for front line leadership, you don't want to do it often. Luck is a nasty whore when men are fighting and dieing. Or about to. Plenty of examples throughout recorded military history of a good leader dieing due to luck, and that costing their side the battle before its even engaged.

Like I said, they stopped once they got the Brave and Stupid weeded out. Personally, I like the ideas of the two leaders having a nice civil contest, whether to the death or not to settle matters, but... when you lose, and have what you believe the superior military, you then go to war. That is why that system doesn't last.

Now, how can the Spartans have been the greatest Military in the world if they had to band with the Athenians to wipe out the Amazons? We have a few odd quotes that say both they and the Spartans believed the Warrior Ladies of Amazonia would have wiped them out, due to superior range, weapons, and will. THAT'S military power. Had they not combined... well, the Western World would probably be vastly different. I often wonder if it was a backlash against the Ladies of Amazonia that created the strong "oppressiveness" of Athenian beliefs about women in general (Or just reinforced it). As I said... people have a long memory.

And I would think it take more than a football game (that they weren't in!) to get England to tell us to get out. There are not many countries that understand each other as much as England, USoA, Australia, and Canada. While there are significant differences, it does seem that we are very comfortable with each other, Nationally speaking. But then, I'm a dumb American, so what do I know?

posted 06-23-99 10:31 PM ET            

Incidentally, I think americians are generally regarded as insensitive rather than dumb, unless your talking about the 'South' (damned if I can name a single member of that bunch of states either, other the world famous folk of Alabama), in which case apply liberal spreads of both qualities. Most, if not all americians I've met were either tuned in and highly articulate, intelligent folk (whatever their actual school grades, incidentally - so a dumb americian is still worth, on average, more than a dumb Kiwi or Aussie), or else smart and wealthy but without a clue about local customs, or why the hell anyone would want to do things differently than the way they are at home.

But you're right, anti-americian sentiment in the english speaking world is never more than skin deep. When the bullets start to fly, we all know who's side were on.

Amazons? I have no idea what you're refering too. The Spartans had to band with the Athenians to fight the persians (who did, incidentally, put greater emphasis on archers and cavalry, for all the good that did against hoplites), and then later they fought a war against them (plus a whole bunch of Peleponesian allies) over Athens sea empire and the general power the Athenians then had (which expanded into World War -IV, given the size of world back then).

Nothing about any warrior women with superior weapons and tactics. There weren't actually any superior tactics available against hoplite, other than stay away from flat, open ground and don't try to engage them head on. Or bring a longer spear (Alexander the Great's contribution to military technology - big two handed spears that you could hit them with before they hit you).

And you were at the world cup, incredibly enough ("game of football we weren't in..."). You were eliminated 1-0 by Iran, in what was possibly the most important game of the tournament as far as international relations go. The youth of Iran celebrated in a most overtly American fashion, too - proof that football is of more value than just as the new opiate of the masses.

posted 06-24-99 12:34 PM ET            

Just because I have lived a lot of places doesn't make me a smart person culturally. I can go anywhere and be cad. Its a gift.

Humm... Well, so much for Ancient History courses learned in school. They must have thrown that in to get our hormone ridden minds to focus on the course. Humm...

Alabama is world famous? Can't imagine it. Aside from giving rise to me and being a big cog in NASA's support, we don't do much... well, particle weapon research, Mega/Giga/Tetra-watt lasers, spy optics, deer/dove/squirrel/rabbit/possum hunting, skunk dodging, racoon chasing, fishing (and other water recreations), missile guidance design, [USoA's best] aerodynamic and hydrodynamic modelling, NASA stress testing/engine design-testing/, Anti-ICBM design and construction... that's just part of my home town. According to several industry studies, we have more engineers and geniuses per square foot than any other [non-classified] place on the planet.

posted 06-24-99 10:21 PM ET            

Just cause I live in an underpopulated country 2000km away from the nearest continental mass doesn't mean I know sh*t about anything either. Seriously though, if you ask someone about Alabama, you're more likely to get a response along the lines of "Isn't that where the dumb rednecks live?" instead of "Wow, space rockets, dude!" That's all I meant. High tech industry doesn't tend to make as big an impact in the public eye as rednecks do. (The same applies to california, too. The doped up surfer dude accent is still more well known than silicon valley).

Let's see - Christchurch, New Zealand. Known for gardens, boredom, canterbury plains (flat and boring), chimney smog, boredom, university, cricket (not boring, despite what 3/5ths of the english speaking world think), rugby (definitely not boring), the big church here and conservativeness. And for being generally boring. On the other hand, from Christchurch you have access to the mountains, the sea, the west coast (beautiful, wet, and not boring until you talk to the locals), and Queenstown, which is about as unboring as New Zealand gets. And we have at least some attempt at high tech industry here, too.

Alabama has it I think - by a whisker. At least it's not dull there.

I don't believe you about the high school classics stuff, unless you were studying Hercules or something, which has a bit about the Amazons.

As for football, well, you have a population of 280 relatively healthy, well fed, educated individuals, so thats a good start (New Zealand has 3.7 million, and can manage a vaguely competitive third rate sqaud, drawn from virtual amateurs). And your own league is starting to get some of the better know talent from south america and europe.

Heh heh. One day, America will wake up and realise that baseball is the slowest, dullest sport in the world. They'll say "What the hell were we thinking!" and "My god, how the crap did we watch that sh*t for fifty years." And the world will know the oneness that comes from the beautiful game. And there will be peace.

posted 06-24-99 10:31 PM ET            

http://www.an.i-dentity.com/ac.cgi/main

posted 06-24-99 10:40 PM ET            

That, and it's actually quite fun to play in all honesty (though that means nothing when it comes to spectator sports).

But before you cast the first stone (well, okay, I've already done that... but the second, anyway), I'll claim self defense and provocation, after hearing some of your countrymen talk about cricket. Take that attitude, turn it around 180 degrees, and you get my attitude to base ball.

posted 06-24-99 11:06 PM ET            

http://www.an.i-dentity.com/ac.cgi/main

Check in now and then; party hardy SMACERS!

posted 06-25-99 02:12 PM ET            

Queenstown, New Zealand, I have heard of. But that was probably from you.

Alabama is very DULL. But then, so was Atlanta and Boston. Boredom and dullness are universal constants, unfortunately. Once you get used to something, its dull. That's why you have to find your own things to do. And your own people to do it with.

Rednecks and share-cropping. That is about what people remember about my home-state as far as I know. So I like to get on my high-horse now and again, and try to educate. The only people I know that KNOW about my home town are people that used to be here. Heck, some of the locals here haven't a clue that we are anything other than a great place to get cable and satellite service. But then, the same is true for so many places in the South. If its not Florida, Atlanta, or Nashville, it seems you are in redneck central in the woods... just a gas-station and motel stop over point between Florida and the rest of the US.

Funny thing is, The Great Redneck Empire extends throughout the world. When all is said and done, I think they when. Adam and Eve were rednecks, so we are just in trouble. Its what we were created to be, it seems. Star Trek ALMOST had it right...

"Jim, Spock just tuned our phasor rifles up. Let's beam down to the planet and do some coon hunting. They got 'em big here, and with nice fine gold coats on 'em."

"Sound's good Bones. I'll get the rifles, you get the beer!"

Baseball is boring. But then, I think Basketball is boring (Hey, cut the whole game down to just 5 minutes, and you STILL have as much game. IM-U(ugly)-O) Not my sports. I understand its the ticket for others though, so I try not to provoke them to much. They have a powerful following, you know.

posted 06-28-99 01:12 AM ET            

Yeah, he still plays, but he's failed to make the All Blacks first 15 this year. A kidney disease kept him out of action for nearly a year and a half - but he's starting to show touches of form again. Just in time for the world cup, too.

And english rugby is constantly being handicapped by it's own administration, rather than anything else. You have a bigger club base than anyone else in the world, with some excellent players in their own right - but coaching and management, not to mention leadership and marketing, probably rate as the worlds worst. It seems to be generally acknowledged that internationals are a lower priority than first division games, where the REALLY important stuff happens. "Who cares we lost 76-0 to a minor nation no one gives a damn about - what matters is that we beat Wasps!"