CommanderJohnson

quote:Originally posted by Supreme_Cmdr: Like I said, I do a 100% mod of B5 using the current BCM engines (even without the planned XP1 graphical enhancements) but since I don't have the license, I don't want to get involved in any kind of legal protracted nonsense. And I'm not going to get involved in any end user mod where people don't come through on their commitments. [ 01-02-2002: Message edited by: Supreme_Cmdr ] Lets all go get him the license! One of you with a lot of money, go buy it from whoever has it now. :-)

quote:Originally posted by LordDavid: Well, didn't you rip this right out of Tribes? *Waits for fireballs to shoot down from the heavens*

Gotta love SC's avatar.

It was horrible when the B5 game for PC was canceled. When playing Freespace, I thought it'd be great to mod it to B5 (because of the laser beams cutting into ships), but I doubt that the MOD for it is any good. I'll probably go get it, but someone really should develop a complete B5 space sim, or at least a REALLY good mod for BCM. If the MOD itself were good, I bet a lot of people would buy BCM just to play it. B5 rocks....

Great post Fox, makes perfect sense. They should get rid of a lot (not all, but a lot) of the stupid causalities, etc, to get out of being punished in the legal system. A jury should determine whether or not someone is fit to stand trial, if they are mentally incompetant, etc. Watch the movie "15 minutes", I know that the system isn't bad to THAT extent, but there are a lot of ways that people can get off with very little punishment.

Im pretty sure that it's highly illegal under verification measures to have more than one warhead per missile. Having more than one warhead is MIRVing missiles, which is against some treaty. Also, I bet most of Russia's would work.

I think they are working on a new high tech gun for the US military that includes some sort of attached grenade launcher and some really cool electronic scope. Not positive, saw it in some Popular Science magazine issue, saying the US was developing it and going to have it standard issue by 200x.

The whole nuclear doomsday scenario is highly possible. Remember the Cuban missile crisis? If one country is going down, they are going to try to take the other one down with them. Hey, if someone was going to murder me, i'd prefer we both die than just me. But that's not the point of this post. The point is this: In a Russia/China war, Russia would win. In current warfare (short of Vietnam/Gurrlea warfare), whoever has Air Superiority BEATS Armor/Artillary Superiority BEATS Infantry Superiority Under this logic, China would win. But then you forget about Nuclear weapons. 50-100% immediate destruction of Both countries=No Winner 50-100% immediate destruction of ONE country=less destroyed wins Yes, the fallout and explosions would probably screw up the world in the long term, but I doubt we'd ALL be dead from a Russia/China exchange. There would be some program done or developed to keep us alive. Humans are hard to wipe out. Anyway. Russia would win. China has a lot less nuclear weapons than Russia, and far less than enough to destroy most of Russia from them. China's nuclear program is far less developed than Russia's, last I checked, neither are making more weapons (China's working on longer ranged missiles, don't think on bigger or more warheads), so this is what would happen: China invades. Russia counters. Russia starts to lose. Russia loses significantly, sees defeat. Russia completely nukes China. China nukes as much of Russia as they can in the time they have with the capabilities they have. Total destruction of China. Marginal destruction of Russia (from the impacts anyway). That's ALL assuming the US, NATO, or the UN doesn't get involved and stop the war from happening to begin with. They may be ineffective, but they aren't going to let two NUCLEAR CAPABLE countries go to war. They arent *THAT* stupid. Just think about it, when have two nuclear capable countries gone to war (except India/Pakistan, but they would kill their own troops when the missiles impact the ground, sorta defeats the purpose)

Yeah, that's another important thing to think about. If anyone ever invaded the US, they'd have to somehow kill every American, since if they didn't and sent in ground troops, they'd be getting picked off more than we were in Vietnam. Millions of Civilians+Millions of Guns in Private ownership=Any bastard who's hostile to the country has a good chance of getting shot

I honestly dont know. Just was seeing if that related to SS's observations/questions/issues in some way.

I was watching my BC and a fighter in external view a few times, and it seemed to me also that AI controlled guns sweep in a line across the trajectory, pause, then do it again, never actually keeping any sort of sustained fire, but instead just strafing/sweeping. Doesn't really bug me, just a comment supporting SS's observation.

LOL! Read the actual REVIEWS of ALL the worst games of the year on gamespot. If you want a good laugh, read the constant insulting those reviewers give the alternate choices and real choices for worst game of the year. Comparing unit pathfinding in a RTS game to Monty Python...priceless. Gamespot Worst Games

quote: When I placed the mzones on planets, I did that carefully so that they were reasonably beyond each other's radar range. Even in some cases however, units with long radar ranges will still detect hostiles and attempt to go there - even attempting to cross oceans in some cases. One of the things I'm going to do in a future update is prevent units from leaving their immediate mzone area. Just wondering, but don't we/you/people want there to be dynamic action on planets? Sort of like how ships sometimes randomly attacking space stations, wouldn't planetary bases launch strikes on each other?

Ok. Why is it that so many groups preach the idea that it's never a PERSON's fault something bad happens, but some other influence. I guess the best way to explain it is with examples that may be commonly heard in the media or seen in society. Why is it that some idiotic groups take the position of..... Guns: Guns are bad because they can kill people and there is no need to own them. Need safety locks, waiting periods, etc. INSTEAD OF People should be trained in safe gun usage and people who kill people are bad and should be locked up. Cars: Cars need better safety mechanisms in the event of a crash. INSTEAD OF People need to be better drivers. Taxes/Wealth: Society/Government needs to help those people who make less money than the average, since society put those people where they are. INSTEAD OF People need to work hard to achieve what they want in life, and if they don't they will stay where they are (socio-economic status) Crime/School Shootings/Murder: You cant blame them for doing what they do, since they are picked on/without money/in a lower income area/live in inner city. They had good reasons, even if they were bad and the results were horrible. (then the criminals get sympathy or out on parole in a few years) INSTEAD OF They are evil and should be locked away. There actually IS evil in the world, and there's the personification of it. You took someone's life, now your going to be locked up for the rest of yours. It was YOUR choice to pull the trigger/rape the woman/steal the car, now your going to have to deal with the consequences of YOUR choice. I don't know, it's more of an intangible discussion than most, but what do you think about it? It seems to me, that the outspoken parts of society seem to have the idea that we need to find a SOLUTION to a problem (punishment, safety regulations, gun control measures), instead of actually fixing the problem (teaching some sort of morality (yes, i know that morality is based on religion, but so is the constitution, our law, and our society), teaching people how to drive, teaching people how to use guns) I seem to be one of the few people that believe that PEOPLE are resposible for their own actions, and to solve problems you need to change PEOPLE, and not establish regulations and exterior phenomenon (laws, seat belts, safety locks, etc anything NOT directly related to a person's inner thought/upbringing), to try to "fix" problems. This is probably going to start a huge argument, but please lets ***NOT GET INTO ARGUMENTS OVER MY EXAMPLES***. Lets keep this **ON TOPIC*, aka, we discuss the *UNDERLYING MESSAGE* and not just *Gun control good/bad, law good/bad, safety regulations good/bad* I guess one question to sum up everytihng would be: Why doesn't anyone realize that people are the real problem?

Now that I have more time to write an opinnion oriented post: The right to own guns is to protect us from any sort of tyranny. It doesn't matter if we can see a problem on the horizon or not. We may think that our government would "never oppress us", or that "we would never need to own personal firearms since we aren't in danger" or even "police and the government should own guns, we don't need to." Even though that may be the situation now, if we ever give up the right to bear arms, then we aren't getting it back. If a problem EVER arises, it will be impossible to gain back the right to bear arms afterwards. There won't be any guns in stores, the government wont lose power by giving us rights BACK that they took away and no one will be manufacturing guns to begin with. Yes, by people being allowed to own guns, other people are going to die, because criminals with guns will kill them, and then be thrown into prison for life. If people were not allowed to own guns, people would still die because criminals will break a gun law, and THEN killing someone. What do they care if they get extra time in prison for breaking a gun law, which the prosecutor probably wont WASTE their time trying to get a conviction on, since the murderer will ALREADY be in jail for life. What about constitution legitimacy? I'm surprised the Supreme Court hasn't already ruled against gun control legislation. Maybe a case wasnt brought before them. In any case, the constitution is sort of straight forward that we have a RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS. I quote from the Bill of Rights: "Article the fourth...A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" Now, we've already heard the definition of Militia earlier in this thread, but regardless (English lesson time), the "shall not be infringed" directly modifies "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" It doesnt get much more straight forward than this. The framers of the Constitution, in their wisdom (which cannot be denied since their Constitution has held the government together for 200 years), said that we should be able to bear arms, and no government should be able to INFRINGE on that right. I'm not going to waste my time looking it up, but I think any gun control measures are infringing on our right to bear arms, and the assault weapons ban is probably one of the biggest infringements possible. Why? Because we should be able to own the same personal arms as any ground forces in our military, to protect ourselves as a FREE state. Finally, on a closer to home level. If all of your enemies wanted to kill you and had guns, and you think it's possible they might kill you, would you rather **be able** to have a gun or not? If you would rather be able to have a gun, but for some odd reason favor gun control measures, remember that you can simply replace enemies with CRIMINALS/MUGGERS/SERIAL KILLERS, and they sure dont have any qualms with killing you if need be. Sure, don't own a gun if your afraid your kid is so stupid that he or she wont listen to you when you say "dont play with the gun" and is going to shoot themselves through the head. Dont own a gun if you think your so incompetant that you'll let a robber/burgler/etc get the gun away from you. Dont own a gun if you actually think that you'll have ANY self-esteem or self-confidence left when some bastard breaks into your home with a gun and rapes your wife, and children and steals most of what you own RIGHT IN FRONT OF YOUR FACE. But don't you dare advocate restricting anyone else's right to get a gun when they want, where they want, and the type of gun they want. Don't be afraid of the weapon, be afraid of the person WITH the weapon. I'm starting a new topic on the whole tool/person mindset. Why is it that groups of society are blaming TOOLS instead of the PEOPLE who use them. Well, starting that on a different topic, dont post answers to it here.

quote:Besides, what's to worry. They wont push the button, each side knows the moment they push it, they both lose. Big time. To start, i'm operating under the military figures that started this topic. If India is that superior in the number of conventional forces, and assuming that they are better trained, Pakistan will lose/start to lose a conventional war. If the Pakistani government/military knows they are going to lose power since India is invading almost uncontested, they really aren't going to care if they all die, since they will probably THINK that the Indian troops are going to kill them anyway (or at least take away their power) Give India and Pakistan to China? ARE YOU ******* *crazy*?!?!?!? Instead of them nuking each other, you want them to nuke China? China has a FEW more nukes than India+Pakistan, and they have much longer range missiles to deliver them on. Not to mention, even if you get past the fact that India and Pakistan would rather nuke THEMSELVES before being handed over to Chinese rule (you all do realize China does NOT support their religion, right?), you need to look at the fact that even though China is changing, it's previous internation relations with the US were a lot less than good, it's government is totalitarian, it carries out human rights abuses, your going to be adding millions upon millions of people under a government that wont know how to deal with them that's not stable to begin with, and THEN asking the government to support them and keep order. You'll probably have the fragmentation of China by the end of it, assuming that there isnt some sort of nuclear exchange first. Oh yeah, and even if none of what I just said would happen, China would gain so much power from expanding into that region that it'd destabilize the region (the current hedgemonies in the region are Russia and the United States, neither of which would be pleased with CHINA moving in, having probably the 2nd or 3rd most powerful military in the world) So, hope that there isn't a full scale war between India and Pakistan. And hope that no one is going to let CHINA have India and Pakistan. Be better if they both nuked each other to hell. At least that way no one will WANT the land.

Sorry for the double post, but there was no indication it was read on the other topic (not even to insult the post), and the VCF hasnt shown anything relating to the problem. Ok, here are two problems I found I slammed my firestorm into the surface of a planet after launching all my shuttles, and was heavily damaged. I got out of the ship in FP mode, and ordered a shuttle to land near me. It landed. I walk up to the shuttle and I end up being able to walk through the front half of the ship, and am unable to land on top of it with my jetpack. I get into the shuttle fine with that board/dock/get into command, then I try flying my shuttle into the firestorm. I keep flying straight through it, no damage to either ship. I flew every way possible through the firestorm, through every area, almost every angle, and there is NO collision with ANYTHING or damage. Sorta ruined the realistic aspect of the game. Can ya fix it? I was on Polaris II (in case you need help reproducing it)

I just thought of the greatness of large scale multiplayer on-planet battles with fleet C&C. Just imagine a scenarion like this in MultiPlayer, since vehicles cant use DJPs: 10-15 HAVs depart from a Terran/Insurgent rolling across a planet surface to an Terran/Military base. The Ter/Mil launch aircraft to intercept the Ter/Ins HAVs, and the Ter/Ins launch air cover. With dogfights occuring overhead, the HAVs position themselves on a hill overlooking a base, and the base defenses and grounds troops exchange fire with the HAVs. Then, being heavily damaged, I ram go on a suicide run right into your HAV, exploding while taking you down with me. BCM rocks....

(stalks the SC's ship, waiting for invincible flag to go off)

quote:btw, as for what you describe about wanting to see inside your ship from space....if my technologies go as planned, you can expect to do just that in BCTC due out later in 2003 due to use of portal based technologies. In fact, I'll probably enable the ability to smash in airlock windows if the airlock won't open. Since those areas would be marked as presurised, breaking the window won't have any effect on the ship....unless of course someone is in the airlock area (where they shouldn't be, to begin with). Really? Your going to do that in BCTC? LONG LIVE THE SC! LONG LIVE BC! LONG LIVE DEREK SMART! That's going to be so cool, it's not even funny. Normally i'd think it's a bunch of hype if a company claimed to have cool features like that in a game, but BCM delivered, no reason why BCTC wouldn't. Come on technologies...go as planned...work....do it for Dread.....(shoots an engineer through the head) "WORK!!!!""

quote:Nuclear Weapons: 60-90/near 12 As we can see India has the advantage. I'm sorry, this really ANNOYS ME TO NO END. As we can see, they are on EQUAL FOOTING. If they both have enough nuclear weapons to wipe out most of the other, it really doesnt matter about who has the most aircraft, soldiers, etc, because one nuclear weapon can wipe them out. Who has the most nukes doesnt matter, since India and Pakistan could both easily be wiped out by that number of nuclear weapons (if not from the explosion, the radiation/fallout) Nuclear weapons arent big guns, boys and girls, they go off, you have a nice little hell. The large superiority that India has over Pakistan in conventional troops, heightens the danger in the area. India gets cocky, attacks Pakistan, Pakistan nukes them. Hey, if I was Pakistan, I sure would. I'm not going to let the people in India (who I greatly hate/despise), capture me and my country. Rather us both die than them win. (pushes the little red button marked LAUNCH)

Just something I was thinking of logistically in relation to gun ownership, rights, etc. If someone breaks into your home with a M-16, and you have a pistol, unless they are going to start shooting the walls for fun, and your house isnt wide open with only one room, i'd think you'd have an advantage. It's a lot easier to manuver a pistol in close quarters than a M-16, isn't it? Now, if you were walking across a wide open field, and a number of people carrying M-16's decided they wanted to kill you, your screwed. Arms race only applies if the need for a gun warrants it.

Ok, here's a fun little experience. Got out on a planet and told a shuttle piloted by a marine to land near me. I walked up to the shuttle, zoomed in with my rifle, and shot the cockpit about 15 times. I get in the shuttle and the marine is dead. Heh, heh, heh. That was fun. Talk about good damage detection.

Ok, here are two problems I found yesterday: I slammed my firestorm into the surface of a planet after launching all my shuttles, and was heavily damaged. I got out of the ship, and ordered a shuttle to land near me. It landed. I end up being able to walk through the front half of the ship, and are unable to land on top of it with jetpack. I get into the shuttle fine, then I try flying my shuttle into the firestorm. I keep flying straight through it, no damage to either ship. I flew every way possible through the ship, through every area, almost every angle, and there is NO collision with ANYTHING. Sorta ruined the realistic aspect of the game. Can ya fix it? I was on Polaris II (in case you need help reproducing it)

Menchise, Sorry if I missed it, but you ignored my earlier, more simple post, here it is with a small edit. I see your idea, but why exactly would anyone work without power/land/ownership to aspire to? I see the merits of your system, but it assumes that every human being is somehow intrinsicly good, and will work for a greater good for society. If I work all day as a doctor, i'd expect to get something significant from it while someone else is working in some job moving boxes, and i'd want something to show for it, as would almost everyone in the world. After all, if i'm going to be doing work that you need a lot of skill, education, and investment, all day every day for my life, i expect to have a little bit more money than a Tech Support rep answering phones, or a mover, or a job with plenty of people who can do it without much skill. That's the fundamental flaw with a socialist system, it assumes intrinsic good and desire to help society. Realisticaly, society is lazy, stupid, procrasinates, and wants as much as they can get for nothing. Even if that isnt how people in a socialist system works, that's how it WOULD work since people have been living in a basically capitalist world.