arkadeyevich

It is a well known fact that the italians have lost every single battle since the height of the western roman empire.

The terrorists succseeded not only because of skillfull planning, but also because of the SIMPLICITY of the attack. Remember, the weapons where boxcutters and tons of fuel, not a highly complex device presicion-build by a team of scientists. A plan involving radioactive materials in sufficient ammounts, nuclear scientists and special tools is more likely to attract unwanted attension.

Do you think thermal imaging is some sort of magick see-through device?

Of course Raven Shield look better, but then it doesn't try to model an entire island either.

I don't think there is an ironsight view. There is a gun model but all aiming is done with the reticule. A shame really, I wish ironsight had been the only option.

The middle name of the main badguy in the Rainbow Six book.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Necromancer- @ Nov. 11 2002,15:35)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">simple....just surround it and let them hunger. (old medieval tactic)<span id='postcolor'> Do you really think the american public will have the stomach for this?

It looks like most people here agree that Saddams best option is to fight is the cities. What is the best way to attack a fortified city?

-Make every battle like Stalingrad. Don't evacuate the civilians. Â There is no painless way to conquer a well defended city. -Lob scuds at Israel. -Stay away from using chem weapons to avoid a nuclear response. -Fight the propaganda war. Get clips of bombed childrens hospital on CNN. Support anti-us/anti-israel grassroot movements is other arab states.

The choise of evils as I see it: 1. Add more encrypted gadgets or 2. Less effective air power: More restrictive ROE, more micro managing or 3. Accept that friendly fire is something that happens form time to time I don't think adding more gadgets is the answer. There is the danger of becoming dependent on them, and when the gadged fails as they tend to do from time to time, the result could be just as fatal as todays FF incidents. Besides, anything encrypted that is as critical as this is a mayor hassle to handle securely. What happens if the man carrying the codes in one squad is missing after a contact?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Balschoiw @ Oct. 31 2002,13:27)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">does this topic make sense ?<span id='postcolor'> I hope so. There should be enough wargamers here to dream up some interesting scenarios.

Asuming that the US had decided to invade Iraq alone or as part of a coalition: How do you think it is going to happen? Post a best case scenario, or a worst case scenario describing the problem an invation force would face and likely ways to solve them. NO flaming, play nice.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Jinef @ Oct. 28 2002,00:40)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Indirect fire is a good idea but there would be problems, in the ofp engine now if you are shelled you are pretty much 99% guranteed to die even if you are in a bunker.<span id='postcolor'> One of the reasons for this is that OFP threats all surfaces like it was flat hard concrete. In the real world the terrain is a lot more "bumpy" this gives infantry more places to take cover. The effect of this is that the lethal range for a shell is lesser for prone infantry than someone standing up. I am not asking BIS to imlement all those small bumps, instead how about assigning a lethal range penalty for all shells against prone infantry based on what kind of ground the soldier is in? Middle of the road -> No protection of going prone. Rough terrain -> The shell must almost hit on top of a prone soldier to kill him. A "I really love the mud" button that causes the soldier to: -get as close to the ground as possible -can't really see much other than dirt -can't fire his weapon -has increased protection against shells would also do much to simulate the effect of pinned down infantry.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Jinef @ Oct. 28 2002,00:40)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Indirect fire is a good idea but there would be problems, in the ofp engine now if you are shelled you are pretty much 99% guranteed to die even if you are in a bunker.<span id='postcolor'> One of the reasons for this is that OFP threats all surfaces like it was flat hard concrete. In the real world the terrain is a lot more "bumpy" this gives infantry more places to take cover. The effect of this is that the lethal range for a shell is lesser for prone infantry than someone standing up. I am not asking BIS to imlement all those small bumps, instead how about assigning a lethal range penalty for all shells against prone infantry based on what kind of ground the soldier is in? Middle of the road -> No protection of going prone. Rough terrain -> The shell must almost hit on top of a prone soldier to kill him. A "I really love the mud" button that causes the soldier to: -get as close to the ground as possible -can't really see much other than dirt -can't fire his weapon -has increased protection against shells would also do much to simulate the effect of pinned down infantry.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">yes, iraq supported terrorism. Â those of you who want proof... what, you want saddam to publicly admit it? Â the evidence is there, and so are the motives, so just accept it. the public receives information on a need-to-know basis... Â <span id='postcolor'> Just because Dubya says so, doesn't count as evidence ;-) If he actually had some he would have used it to gain public support, or at least to build a coallition like before the Afganistan campaign. Also seems like Congress is on a need to know basis. Face it. There is no evidence. Even the CIA can't seem to find any. Â Â