Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited


Contact Methods

  • Website URL
  • ICQ

Profile Information

  • Location
    Michigan State University
  • Interests
    BC Millennium, Space combat, Insurgency, Thought, Ladies

goaliejerry's Achievements


Ensign (1/8)

  1. My question is how long until we plant some WMD? I mean, how long are we going to admit that there are no WMD until we decide to, uh, *find* some, thereby justifying this whole war? I honestly would not care if the government did this; without any WMD being found, our motives for going to war will be called into major question and our national image will be tainted. Now actually finding some, that would be great, but I'll make due with the plant; all it incriminates is Saddam, and he's now part of Iraq's infrastructure; which is now composed in large part of rubble. My two cents.
  2. Cmdr. Skowronski Reports! Still in stasis 'till we can get this fleet into battle formation. Until that day...
  3. The real beauty of this game is in the inter-regional politics; I'm attempting to take over the delegation from the current delegate. The issues and UN votes are fun, but for me, the most fun has been gaining support for me to be regional delegate. This sort of interplay of nations, back scratching, diplomacy, and actual work is just such a fun experiment in human interaction. Very fun!
  4. It's just a very advanced cloak - she'll have to vent radiation eventually. Watch the scanners
  5. Cmdr. Skowronski reporting as ordered!
  6. Another top notch aspect that I just love about this game is the whole "valour" concept, whereby troops with experiance (or certain building upgrades where they orginate) gain valour, which directly affects their attack, defend, and morale figures (use F1 to see these figures). And when a decent general is in command, through different vices/virtues as well as his command rating, he can turn a fearful, timid, and apprehensive low valor army of commoners into a gritty and determined fighting force, who will never back down from a fight. I think this more then anything is what makes this game so real; the reputation of the general is a huge factor, just like real life. (ex. Alexander fighting Darius who had something like 200,000 men, compared to Alexanders 40,000 or so professional battle hardened soldiers; Darius fled the field, leaving his family and his riches; Alexander showed mercy and allowed his family to live I believe. Upon capturing the royal jewels, Alexander said something akin to "look at me, now I can live like a king!" -- Classic!" In this way the game accounts for great generals, and as a result, you can win battles of 2-1 or even 3-1 odds; your soldiers morale will be so high that they will fight and die to the last man. Talk about badasses! In contrast, a mediocre general will find it hard to motivate his troops in battle, and not only will they be less effective fighters, and therefore die easier without taking as many men with them, they will be more prone to turn tail and run at the first sign of trouble; "I'm not dying for this jackass cowardly general, I'm out!" And seeing your commander flee, as Darius's troops did, well there goes all hope of success. Keep the general safe and centralized and he'll be better able to command his troops. And if he dies in battle against a realitively high valor foe, well get ready to watch your line disintgrate. God I seriously will NEVER get sick of this game! If this game could birth children, I'd want it to have mine, no question about it! P.S. GreyFox, I believe the quote is actually "Ahh Kettle chips...the perfect sidedish...for Revenge!" I believe so, but I'm not absolutly positive, however I do love the simpsons too! It's on here in East lansing 3 times a day! 1700, 1830, and 2300! I watch them all and they NEVER get old! HA!
  7. I have a book called 100 Decisive Battles - From Ancient Times to the Present, by Paul Davis. If your a fan of warfare and enjoy details about actual battles this book is for you. It starts in 1479BC with the Battle of Megiddo, an eqyption battle, where the Pharaoh's power was solidifed all the way to discussing the Gulf War. The reason I love this book is because of it's format - about 2-3 pages of history as to why the opposing armies are meeting where they did, then it details what each side hoped to accomplish through their battle configuration, and then details, with nice little maps, what happened, then discusses the significance of the victory. All the greats are here: Zama, Hastings, Saratoga, Yorktown, Mexico City, Antietam, Verdun, Pearl Harbor, Midway, Isreal war of Independence, Tet Offensive. Top notch book with digestable chucks which make for a good casual or long time sit down read. Top Notch!
  8. Quote: "Even the Bible prophecied about Alexander the Great." Could you elaborate? Alexander lived from 356-323 BC and obviously the New Testament was written after that. Do you mean he is referanced in the old testament, and if so, how? Quote: "i mean 10 to 12 roman legions lining the field" For the sake of historical accuracy, and of course this is trivial, I don't believe that the romans every fielded, at one time under unifed command, any more the 8 legions at once, and this was done in 216BC to counter Hannibles incursions. At Zama Scipio had about 34,000 troops and 9000 calvary, and keeping in mind that Roman allies typically composed half of the Romans total strength, I speculate (I'm not sure of this number however) that Scipio had 3 or four legions in action at the battle. A little more indepth research could pin down that number more accurately, but I don't want to do that right now I know fair amount about Roman history, and it's interesting what they learned about administration from Alexander. Alexander was able to set up such a large Empire not by domination but through a relitivly hands off approch. When he'd conquer new territory, he would leave the established government in place and now it would simply pay homage to him. The Romans used this client/patron relationship generally for the boarder provinces when it reached its height of power, whereby the local governers would have to pay an annual fee to Rome while the Romans allowed the establishment to remain in place. So its not like the Romans or Alexander would swoop in, eradicate the local government and impose a new order; that causes upheaval and is just counterproductive. Rather they would fight the locals until they realized fighting was futile, then the Romans would negotiate a client/patron deal and that would be that. These client provinces would be responsible for much of their own defense and well being, however Rome would get involved on occasion as warrented. The point here is that locals were not forced to adapt the "Roman" way of life, and that made the new Roman overseers much more palatable then if peoples customs and laws and way of life are dictated by Rome.
  9. Alright I have to ask, what is "Bump"?
  10. YeaH, Rome:Total War looks sweet, and, finally, it seems like they are going to incorporate actual geographical location when factoring where armies fight, i.e., meeting in the alps, or on the banks of the danube, or in rome itself...no more set "maps" for a certain area, now the maps are rolling and constantly variable. Plus with true 3D soldiers, it'll be sweet *********As far as a War story*********** In M:TW I've been the Byzantines for quite some time, set up a monopoly on world trade, got mad rich, built massive armies, sent an Expeditionary force to the south of France, raped and piliaged the French country side, then low and behold, the sicilians and hungarians decide to destory my fleet, then do so, cutting off my expeditionary force in France and eliminating all my income from trade. (Oh Believe Me, Nobody Crosses the Byzantine Emperor and gets away with it; Hungary was suppresed into a third rate power, and the sicilians, after failed attempts at invading Greece and North Africa, blew themselves out and eventually were eliminated by rebels!)Having then over extended myself and quickly going into debt (the income from my colonies without being able to trade was not enough to provide for all my troops) eventually I ran up a debt of 200000 credits, which took 200+ years to pay down!. So, seeing my Emperor and several main armies were now stuck in France, and seeing my homeland dangerously understaffed, I decide to purge the territory I had gained in France and northern Spain, burning and piliging everything in my path, and beat a path across europe, across the alps and the north of Italy, into the area of Hungary, burning all in my path and ensuring the the area I had left behind would be infertile and unproducive for centurys after I had left, which held true! Leaving a vacuum in my path, Rebels took control of most of my abandoned colonys, with the French fighting over other scraps I had left behind. Once my empire had contracted and gained security, I expanded accross the north of Africa, ultimately holding Cordoba in the south of Spain. My standing armies fought and won many battles over decades and decades of existance without replenishment or recruiting (thanks to the foresight and wisdom of the Byzantine Emperors of old, who invested in Large Armies, before the loss of income), extended the borders of our Empire to the south of Poland and as far west as Spain, and persisted for centuries, maintaining knowledge and valor gained from years and years of campaigning. With persistent and slow progress, suppressing the odd rebellion here and there, and constantly fighting, my soldiers numbers were reduced but never broken, and eventually, through fiscal discipline and the reduction, through battle casualtys, of my armed forces, (From 20,000+ at the peak of my power to now roughly 14,000 total troops throughout the Empire, now outclassed by the french in numbers and modernity) my revenue yeilded a profit, and in 100 years I had dug my self out of debt, and now, in 1370, I stand poised to assert my dominance over the remainder of Europe, and I intend to enrich the agricultural output of all my colonies before expanding the army and our borders in the great tradition of the Byzantium Emperors of the Past... ******************************** My only complaint is the limit on how large a single army can be, as I know at times the Romans had 30+ legions in existance at times, roughly 150000+ men plus allies. Battles of two armies with 2000 men each is impressive, but I can only imagine the difficulty involved with more then that, not to mention the computing power needed... Ahhh, I've said it before, and I'll say it again, this, and shogun total war, are my favorite games of all time (thats right, even over BCM! Sorry!), and have captured literally hundreds of hours of my life in the mock conquest of Japan and Europe. If you like strategy games and large scale battle action, then the TOTAL WAR games are for you...I'm limited in the amount of time I can spend on this game only by the need to sleep and maintain my life (eating and such). The satisfaction of building and commanding YOUR troops in battle, seeing them gain experiance, seeing great generals rise and fall, well it just doesn't get any better in my book [ 02-16-2003, 05:03 PM: Message edited by: GoalieJerry ]
  11. Exactly, I mean it's actually quite amazing that the goal, and probable outcome of this looming war, is the complete dimantling and reassembly of an ENTIRE STATE. (REF: Afganistan) The power that the United States is capable of is astounding, and the fact that I can't refute that the people we depose are completely immoral, well I think it's just unprecedented in history, and maybe it's not a bad thing. I mean, 15 billion dollars for Africa AIDS relief, I must admit, I was taken aback. And here, America, unmatched in economic power AND stability, despite economic downturn, which affects the whole world, we are still COMPLETELY capable of prosecuting two wars at once; North Korea doesn't dare. All they want is power and food. Here's the thing; as I see it, America has an unprecendented amount of wealth. And while I can see where sqaubiling over tax code and domestic policy only goes towards shaping the ideal policy, fact remains, after whatever internal revenue debates finalize, our country controls a huge amount of worth. Plain and simple. And yes, as our president pointed out, 1/3 of adults in some South African countries have AIDS, I mean think, you go to a bar, looking to meet someone, you have to consider that 1/3 of all girls you meet could have AIDS. If that isn't wrong and terrible I don't know what is, and our government, supposing congress bites on his aid package, might actually be able to stem the tide. And while we quible about income tax and other forms of governmental revenue, we deny that despite high taxes, despite the fact that we enjoy, as a county, according to numbers, a higher standard of living as compared to most other counties on earth or in recorded history, that we might, through our own power, change the world for the better...well just think of the power our country weilds. I mean certainly paying taxes and giving money to anyone but me is counterintuitive to my own self preservation, but the fact remains that my concern over a dollar might buy someone food for a day. I can't live off of $1 a day. Let me tell you. I would die, if thrown into the streets, with no means of income, depraved and without hope, and I live, in my apartment, viewing the world through a window, and only judging what happens in the world through the American based and English speaking sources I referance. We hear stories and we sympathize but we can't truly empathize until we've been there. And I hope I never go there, and I hope that through my and my country's efforts and capabilitys we work against anyone going there. And concern over dollars and whats mine is mine is trivial when compared to the value of another human beings life.
  12. Considering that an impending conflict with Iraq is unavoidable considering the ideaology that drives American rightousness, shall we or shall we not, as Americans, when the moment comes, actually declare a war on Iraq? Keep in mind that in essense an invasion of Iraq is an invasion with a total victory objective; wouldn't it be prudent for our congress to declare, for the world and ourselves, that a state of war will exist between our two counties? America has not declared an actual war since WWII. (correct me if I am wrong) Yet here, in this current instance with Iraq, it almost seems appropriate, as the purpose of our endeavour would be the elimination of a hostile, potentially dangerous and idealogically opposed state. How does this instance differ from the elimination of the axis powers in WWII such that the simple moral clarity of old that laid clear the need to eliminate evil in the world cannot be utilized here? What would be the pros/cons to an actual declaration, and ultimately which do you think would be the better course of action? [ 02-02-2003, 03:16 PM: Message edited by: GoalieJerry ]
  • Create New...