Al Qaeda tells China's Uyghurs to prepare for holy war

[theVOID]

bah, RTS sucks.

[Violet]

---

Sae,

So you would go with a tech race instead of building appropriate defenses as you tech up? My Zerglings, Zealots, or Space Marines would be raping your base in no time!

Ok, so I prefer the long game too but while building up to the inevitable Guardian group with a couple groups of Mutalisk air defense I always scout the map with my Overlords so I know what is being done in the other camp and if I saw that you were teching up I would certainly pwn you with a Zerg rush even though I prefer to tech up myself.

I also like a good Protoss Zealot rush, but prefer to build up to Carriers with defending Scouts and a few Corsairs to tie up ground to air defenses.

When playing a Terran player and my army is the Zerg it is really fun to toss a couple groups of Zerglings at the Terrans to get the player to believe I am going to rush. They usually respond by mass producing Siege Tanks. There is nothing more fun than flying a full group of Guardians OVER their Tanks to decimate their base!

Now to apply Starcraft theory to the real world. Nations all over the planet are trying to tech up but realize the inherent weakness in not covering defenses with a mobile ground force so they feel the need to build up whatever tech they have now while researching higher levels of technology.

I can't friggin' wait for Starcraft II. It looks like it will be an awesome game with many layers of tactics.

Ich Lieber Blizzard!
Rhizo

---

Hehe, that has happened before. Usually I build a dragoon force of 5-6 to support a trio of photon cannons supported by twin pylons. I am terribly weak to a well played zerg rush before the last of my dragoons are up... but after the very beginning of the game: I dominate.

Thats why you focus on immediate defenses in the beginning, and hastily upgrade them past this point. I just love that about Starcraft: you can play any strategy, and still come out on top if you do it well enough By the middle game, I usually have the most powerful base (almost impervious to attacks, unless I am ganged up on)... and have expanded my base enough with photon cannons and dragoons that overlords who come to close get annihilated

I hate siege tanks, fyi... Toward the end-game I start a multi-base defensive expansion... and siege tanks cause me more pain than I would like (how ever briefly before they are destroyed by zealots or my airforce). lol at fake-zerg tactic ^_^

Anyway, applying it to the real world: depends on your location. Whateveristan and friends? I'm going to give up and run away Though it would be a dream to hold someplace secluded from conflict like Iceland or New Zealand.

---

bah, RTS sucks.

TBS is also awesome ^_^ The original Master of Orion... how I wish they would remake that game and improve its AI in just a few little ways and give the Mrrshans, Darlok, and other non-runaway empires a little more umph ^_^ The biggest flaw I ever found with it was that the AI didn't know how to use speed to its advantage. And it was a shame that you had to scrap ship models sometimes... esp. with a huge-ship design philosophy The Psilon are ridiculously game-breakingly OP though... encounter them on impossible while playing anything but the Klackon or Meklar and you've pretty much gotten screwed. Even then: you are in for one hell of a game.

Civilization Revolution is really fun as well I think the AI might be perfect... but the reliance on RNG on deity difficulty is terrible.

Anyway, RTS and TBS are fun gametypes for some of us... it's all subjective I particularly enjoy Tower Defense type games... gemtowerdefense.com is one that has had me coming back for years.

[Amphora]

On top ofeverything else its just too expensive, Do you know how much tanks cost these days.

No I don't but I bet they are worth millions.

Imagine what else one could do with that kind of money A shame indeed that it is wasted on the likes of mass-produced war machines.

@saerules, a shame indeed, the US could be paying off the national debt with that amount of money serously!!

What kinda of video games do you like to play the most saerules?

[leo-rcc]

On top ofeverything else its just too expensive, Do you know how much tanks cost these days.

I bet we can get cheap Chinese knock-off's.

[theblindferrengi]

With only 40-120 million you can't do shit as a government, especially for a war. If that was 40-120 billion, it would be a notable chunk of waste, and if applied elsewhere could do some good, but just millions wouldn't make a dent in the US national debt, their current healthcare issues, or R&D.

[Amphora]

With only 40-120 million you can't do shit as a government, especially for a war. If that was 40-120 billion, it would be a notable chunk of waste, and if applied elsewhere could do some good, but just millions wouldn't make a dent in the US national debt, their current healthcare issues, or R&D.

good point you have there TBF.

[Violet]

With only 40-120 million you can't do shit as a government, especially for a war. If that was 40-120 billion, it would be a notable chunk of waste, and if applied elsewhere could do some good, but just millions wouldn't make a dent in the US national debt, their current healthcare issues, or R&D.

40-120 million per tank. 2 tanks is 80-240 million.

100 tanks is 4000-12000 million.

Assuming that the US has made 1000 tanks total (although I would think they have more)... then the cost would be between 40,000,000,000 USD and 120,000,000,000 USD

Are you telling me you can't do something significant with 40-120 billion+?

(Note, there was a reason I referred to it as 'mass-production'.

What kinda of video games do you like to play the most saerules?

It would be hard for me to declare a favorite type... because I like a number of genres a great deal. I would say my most favored game-types are strategy, adventure, and shooter. I think a more telling aspect of me would be in which games I avoid. Luck and chance? Like the plague. Sports? Not interested in the slightest. Puzzle? Brief interest, rapid disinterest.

Definitely strategy is my number one though... the moment is rare when I'm not thinking about how to perfect my strategies I've spent all day trying to figure the 4th area in http://www.mytowerdefencegames.com/play/...ne-defense out ... and I've come to the conclusion that it is called 'hard' for a reason Skill points seems to have a great deal to do with it... and the lack of on-the-surface complexity within the game makes it hard to understand which tower is the 'right' tower in any instance... It's given me a poser for the day (PS: Im only playing this one because it was not blocked at school... which seems to have something against tower defenses ever since the first Bloons came out...

As for adventures... I have so many RPGs in my cabinets that I will often play one for a few days, think about a different one... play that for a few days... think of a new one... process continues... until 2-3 months later I come back to the first one and wonder just where I left off. But then I look where I am in the game, with what level characters/weapons/whatever, and figure out where I'm supposed to be going again I particularly enjoy the character development as the story progresses... it's possibly why I enjoy adventures so much

Lastly, but not least: I have a different approach to 'shooter's than I think many people For a hint of what I mean: if there is any decent melee weapons (see Gravity Hammer of Halo3) or short-ranged powerhouses (see Shotgun [from DOOM to Mass Effect to Halo and on])... I will ignore all the other weapons in the game specifically to have it. Rocket launcher? Not interested. Battle Rifle? Could care less. Fuel Rod Launcher? Go to hell green mass of doom. Please excuse all of the Halo 3 references... I just beat the game on legendary again yesterday Sadly, Wraiths, Drones, and the like force me to carry around only one melee-short-ranged weapon. Although it is a tad redundant to have two melee weapons: they only have so much ammo

[theblindferrengi]

Tanks cost less than 40 million each,

Over 8,800 M1 and M1A1 tanks have been produced.

The m1 is the United States's main battle tank.

Anyways, there is an enourmous cost of consumables for the military, fuel is one major expense, as an F-16 consumes fuel at a rate of 450 Litres/hour (118 gallons/hour), food for the thousands of troops currently deployed (MREs aren't cheap), replacement parts for machenery (tanks and helicopters are in constant need of maintanance). Just millions of dollars might be enough for a military like the Pontifical Swiss Guard, but just millions wouldnt last a month for any real military.

40 billion would be nice, buy a couple ships with that, or mabey a dozen planes. Still got to buy people and petrol though.

[Meatball]

This discussion was derailed.

The point is, war is expensive, and the return doesn't go to the general public. Billions of tax dollars are given to military contracts that ends up lining the pockets of the extreme minority: shareholders and CEOs and whatnot. It's not sustainable, and creates are disturbing inbalance in power. Do we want weapons companies to run our countries?

What if that war money was spent to provide universal healthcare? Or if that doesn't tickle your fancy, what if it never had to be collected from citizens in the first place?

I think the entire world would be a better place without the Iraqi and Afghani wars.