Civ combat: Fact or Fiction?

Paul Hyett wrote:
> In alt.games.civ3 on Sun, 30 Apr 2006, wrote :
....
> >It doesn't matter whether the tactics used by one side to to prevent
> >the other from reaching it's goals are legitimate or illegitimate. All
> >that matters is whether they are effective. If both sides use tactics
> >that are effective at preventing the other side from making long-term
> >progress toward it's goals, then It's a stalemate, regardless of the
> >legitimacy of those tactics.
> >
> Problem is, the Americans are bound by the Geneva Convention (barring
> the occasional rogue soldiers actions), whereas the insurgents can be as
> ruthless as they like.

I think you've moved this discussion in a direction that makes it no
longer on-topic for this newsgroup. Whether or not a low-tech military
unit can have even a small chance of defeating a high-tech unit is
on-topic. The rights and wrongs of a particular instance of such combat
is not.
 >> Stay informed about: Civ combat: Fact or Fiction? 

In alt.games.civ3 on Sun, 30 Apr 2006, wrote :
>>
>> >After all, a very 'low tech' army
>> >has fought the americans to a stalemate in the streets of Baghdad - redvet
>> >
>> Since when were suicide attacks, often against civilian targets,
>> 'fighting Americans to a stalemate'?
>
>It doesn't matter whether the tactics used by one side to to prevent
>the other from reaching it's goals are legitimate or illegitimate. All
>that matters is whether they are effective. If both sides use tactics
>that are effective at preventing the other side from making long-term
>progress toward it's goals, then It's a stalemate, regardless of the
>legitimacy of those tactics.
>
Problem is, the Americans are bound by the Geneva Convention (barring
the occasional rogue soldiers actions), whereas the insurgents can be as
ruthless as they like.

If the Americans were allowed to be *that* ruthless, the insurgency
would have ended ages ago - one city razed, and they'd have to consider
whether the fight was worth it...
--
Paul 'Charts Fan' Hyett
 >> Stay informed about: Civ combat: Fact or Fiction? 

In alt.games.civ3 on Sun, 30 Apr 2006, wrote :
>> >
>> Problem is, the Americans are bound by the Geneva Convention (barring
>> the occasional rogue soldiers actions), whereas the insurgents can be as
>> ruthless as they like.
>
>I think you've moved this discussion in a direction that makes it no
>longer on-topic for this newsgroup.

It's called thread drift, but I take your point.

>Whether or not a low-tech military
>unit can have even a small chance of defeating a high-tech unit is
>on-topic. The rights and wrongs of a particular instance of such combat
>is not.
>
If someone created a Civ map of Iraq, would that help?
--
Paul 'Charts Fan' Hyett
 >> Stay informed about: Civ combat: Fact or Fiction? 

On Sun, 30 Apr 2006 08:19:45 GMT, Paul Hyett
<pah DeleteThis @nojunkmailplease.co.uk> wrote:

>Serves them right if, when they meet Allah, he says 'Sorry, all the
>virgins are taken...'

My theory:

Allah has 72 ugly, man-hating spinsters. Nobody wants them so he has
them to offer to each new holy warrior to show up.
 >> Stay informed about: Civ combat: Fact or Fiction? 

Loren Pechtel <lorenpechtel.DeleteThis@hotmail.invalid.com> wrote:
>On Fri, 28 Apr 2006 10:51:45 +0200, Jan van Beers <tnp.DeleteThis@gmx.ch> wrote:
>>> It doesn't look enough like a target for them to go for it.
>
>What I'm saying is that the missile is likely not going to consider
>the ship a valid target. It doesn't look anything like what such
>missiles are normally used against.

Hmmm, radar echo is radar echo, isn´t it?

>>>The engagement closes to gun range. That's probably 1 or 2 5" mounts.
>>
>>CIWS... HARHARHAR ))
>
>Sorry, I meant the longer range stuff.

still funny

>>nah, german F219, for example, comes with
>># 1x 76 mm OTO-Melara Geschuetz
>
>Ok, a 3" gun. How well will it work against a wooden ship in a storm?

Better than the galleys cannons.

>Will it be able to track?

For sure, fully stabilized guns are pretty common these days.

>># 2x 27 mm Rheinmetall Geschuetz (preparation)
>
>When it closes to this range yes this will be punching holes. Enough,
>though?

Think so. If they´re comparable to the Tornados Mausers (same caliber)
they´ll punch ~400 holes a minute. Half AP, half IE. Trees don´t look
good when you give ´em 20mm IE... more like a pyromans dream

>># 1x Vertical Launch System (VLS) with 32 ESSM and SM2-IIIA
>
>Probably useless.
>
>># 8x HARPOON
>
>Probably useless
>
>># 2x RAM (Rolling Airframe Missile) 21 cells
>
>A short-range SAM, probably useless.
>
>># 6x Torpedos MU90
>
>I don't know if these will engage or not.
>
>># 2 Helicopters SEA LYNX Mk 88
>
>In a storm?

....these were just mentioned to keep the peacounters at bay

still: Does the galley still want to board during a storm are are they
busy staying afloat?

>>>Add in a storm and small craft might not be tracked well enough to
>>>hit. In the end it might turn into a boarding action.
>>
>>which would be the worst choice for the galley.
>
>Why would it be so bad for the galley?

Because I messed up worst and best... gnagnagna... more coffee!

> Modern ships aren't used to fighting boarding actions!
Full ACK

Cu
Jan
--
wings and claws
 >> Stay informed about: Civ combat: Fact or Fiction? 

A speedboat and a couple pounds of c4 are still just a mite more
advanced than a wooden rowboad.
 >> Stay informed about: Civ combat: Fact or Fiction?