Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Editorial It's funny. Laugh. Real Time Strategy (Games) Entertainment Games

"Real" Real Time Strategy? 166

Posted by CowboyNeal from the zergling-rush dept.
Mr. Fluffyhead writes "This hardcore RTS gamer's rather thoughtful wish list asks the question, if somebody made a 'real' war sim, would anyone want to play it?" From the fake Newsweek cover story about the "Ultralisk Rape Scandal" to Mr. Wong's yearning to break the Geneva Convention in pixel form, this one's a humourous yet realistic look at real time war games.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

"Real" Real Time Strategy? More

"Real" Real Time Strategy?

Comments Filter:

  • Hmmm... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by SuperMo0 ( 730560 ) <supermo0@gmai l . com> on Tuesday May 18, 2004 @12:24PM (#9185565)
    Now where have we seen the "Fog of Bullshit" before.... *wink* *wink*

  • Real Real Time? (Score:5, Funny)

    by Vargasan ( 610063 ) <swhisken AT rogers DOT com> on Tuesday May 18, 2004 @12:29PM (#9185664) Homepage
    I don't know about everyone else, but I don't want to play a game that takes 5 - 8 real-time months to build a barracks. Might lose it's feel.
    • Yes, but it would be great to use a percentage of your units to shuffle around some nosy reporters, keeping them away from any real carnage (except for returning boxes) and thereby getting your enlistment numbers up. Use all of your military to fight, and you aren't harvesting that resource.

      You could have an amorphous fog of war, where you could see that something is there, but you can't be sure it's a bomb factory or a house. Your roving reporters, vulnerable to crossfire (and shuffling) by either side

  • Real != Fun (Score:5, Interesting)

    by I_Love_Pocky! ( 751171 ) on Tuesday May 18, 2004 @12:36PM (#9185793)
    I have always thought that a realistic real-time war sim would be nothing like the Warcraft/Comand & Conquer type games, because those give you way too much control. In real warfare you can't control individual soldiers. As a general you can map out a very general battle plan, and then kind of sit back and hope it works out. Even with the best communcation systems in place at best you could give orders to individual soldiers, but you wouldn't have any control over how they carried them out.

    Now, how much fun is it to play a game where you basically sit back and watch the action, rather than being able to interact with it?

    • Re:Real != Fun (Score:3, Interesting)

      by {8_8} ( 31689 )
      I suppose you could adapt the current RTS interface. It'd pretty much be like the article says. You'd click to build units. These units may or may not have defects, psychological issues, anti-war beliefs, etc. etc. Corruption might or might not result in your shiny new BigEffingTank8000 being sold to street gangs somewhere in Asia, or that vital shipment of anti-aircraft batteries being delayed until Senator Bob gets his vital SUV legislation passed. You select the units and tell them to go to area X a

    • Re:Real != Fun (Score:4, Interesting)

      by stienman ( 51024 ) <adavis&ubasics,com> on Tuesday May 18, 2004 @01:00PM (#9186167) Homepage Journal
      I agree with you, and add that games are mere simulations. Any simulation of a 'real' activity is, by definition, simplified.

      You can't account for all the random acts that may occur in any simulation. You can try to program in as many as you can think of, but how many game designers want to add the "Stupid soldier smokes while filling vehicle and blows up fuel depot" option? Now imagine that there are thousands of people, each with their own misadventures. Then you get to account for random environmental factors (more predictable than humans, I bet) and only then can you start looking at random enemy actions.

      Even if you could program a large portion of these things in, gamers don't want them. Gamers like predicatability. You've seen, I imagine, all those "Perfect run" videos where a gamer practices a game until they can run through it in a short period of time, gaining maximum points? They don't want to fail a level because of something they can't control such as the aforementioned chainsmoking fuel depot lackey. Further, once they remember that the lackey blows up the depot they want to assume that it'll happen the same way every time they go through that level - that way they know they should frag him first.

      Even RTSs with 'random' events (such as sim city) are extremely predictable. You just have to have a set of rules you follow, and 'stay ahead of the game.' Of course the real issue with the article is not how real the scenario is, but how the public, at a distance, interacts with the war. This is something gamers don't want - to be judged and scored according to a set of rules that they not only don't know, but that are dynamic.

      -Adam
      • I've always wanted to see a multilevel MMO game that was playable as RTS (decides where units are sent), FPS (play as an individual in the unit), vehicle sim (pilot or drive something), or engineer/artist (create more buildings/items/stuff).

        At the simplest level, you'd have RTS'ers engaged in some massive war at a high level, ordering troops around and sending out objectives, while the FPS'ers charged in with the vehicle players to try to take their objectives. The depth and randomness created by making a
      • Just a note: People are very very predictable. Weather is more unpredictable then people. It's one of those comforting myths that people hold about themselves. Like we're all individuals, and that you matter, and humans are different from animals, or hundreds of other such notions.
        • The problem is not that people aren't predictable - the problem is that you cannot predict what a person might do if you do not know that person. Cultures mold this to some degree so you can safely say that in the US a person might reasonably be predicted to answer a phone with 'hello', but beyond cultural norms you cannot predict human action for an unknown human.

          Further, when two humans who do not know each other interact (of whom you know neither) then the possible interactions multiply due to their
          • Generally people will do a certain set of things. There are always a few outlyers but those are few and far between. A soldier sees his borther and best friend shot in the chest. Well 99% of soldiers who went through boot camp will suck it up. Try to find the shooter and move on, he'll grieve later. some small percentage will react in grief and may 1-do nothing and be confused 2-go phsycho. Knowing these precentages you can predict what will happen. There aren't many options besides those 3. HE won't, for i
    • What you have just described is the Natural Selection [naturalselection.com] mod for Half-Life. There is a human commander that has an RTS interface, and gives waypoints and stuff to his fellow marines. The marines are free to do whatever they want though, even if it pisses off the commander.

      Presumably it's fun, they're doing beta for version 3.0.

    • Now, how much fun is it to play a game where you basically sit back and watch the action, rather than being able to interact with it?

      Fun, fun... when you introduce the concept of taking turns.

      America's Army [americasarmy.com] works like that, albeit at the squad level rather than the campaign level. Every "turn," i.e. every engagement, one of the players gets elected squad leader, and he's responsible for coming up with the plan of battle and ordering his fire teams around.

      Now, the squad leader is basically just a guy wi
      • i definately agree... America's army is so well done, five years ago i never thought a game with so much realism would be so much fun.

        and heck...even without planning...counterstrike aint bad.
    • Now, how much fun is it to play a game where you basically sit back and watch the action, rather than being able to interact with it?
      Done properly, it can be quite fun. Take a look at Majesty. You place your buildings ane recruit heroes, but you have no direct control over them. You can influence them and the world using spells and reward flags, but the heroes do their own little thing. While it can get frustrating, it's still one of my favorite games.
    • Total War [totalwar.com] (there's Shogun, Medieval, and soon Roman) gives you control over battalians, much like a field general, but once they engage, you have to sit and watch what happens. Some retreat, and you can't order them back, some will get too much adrenaline and keep attacking, even if you ask them to fall back, and it isn't total death... eventually the losers will start running, and, unless you have a great deal of horses, they usually escape. Truely a fantastic RTS. Definately worth trying.

    • In real warfare you can't control individual soldiers.

      Nor would it be recommended to do so even in those style of games(except for stealth/infiltration missions, but those are a seperate story.)

      In all my time playing RTSs, the focus seems to be generally around moving individual units rather than moving around groups. Sure, you can select multiple units and give them an order, but the interface is very rarely refined in that manner - they usually all try to move to a single point (and are blocked by the

    • I have always thought that a realistic real-time war sim would be nothing like the Warcraft/Comand & Conquer type games, because those give you way too much control. In real warfare you can't control individual soldiers. As a general you can map out a very general battle plan, and then kind of sit back and hope it works out.

      Hardly. Most every nation across the span of time has worked very hard to create communications links that work during battle to carry reports upwards and new orders downwards. F

      • It's simplified, but macro makes up the majority of "strategy" in games. The micro is "tactics". Good players master both. Decent players get one or the toehr right. You might say grabbing naother mine is simplified, but it's resource aquisition. Or building 3 barracks instead of one is just a small decision but it affects army tunr over rate and the conversion of resources into soldiers. HEck even choosing a tech path is a notable strategic choice. IT all may be simplfiied btu it has value.

    • As a general you can map out a very general battle plan, and then kind of sit back and hope it works out. Even with the best communcation systems in place at best you could give orders to individual soldiers, but you wouldn't have any control over how they carried them out.

      Now, how much fun is it to play a game where you basically sit back and watch the action, rather than being able to interact with it?

      I don't know, Highway to the Reich [highwaytothereich.com] simulates the chain of command situation perfectly, and it's n

  • Maybe Blizzard or EA should look into it.

    Rob

  • It has to be said... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    And it's been said better, that we need moral authority over the world. We really are better than the rest of the world, not perfect, just better. Naked human pyramids, guard dogs, and hoods, while not even half as bad as what our enemy does to us, nevertheless severely erode our moral authority.

    I don't think it's unreasonable for the Congress to provide a check over the executive branch when there's ample evidence that our moral credibility is slipping away, especially in a battle for the hearts and minds

    • No, it didn't (Score:2, Insightful)

      by why-is-it ( 318134 )
      we need moral authority over the world. We really are better than the rest of the world, not perfect, just better.

      Time to feed the trolls...

      I suppose that the only thing holding you back from perfection would be arrogance and an apparant lack of humility...

      Given your obvious superiority, why did you feel the need to post anonymously?

    • ...especially in a battle for the hearts and minds of the people...
      Hearts and minds are just points to aim for with the US Army in Iraq.

  • Combat mission real enough (Score:1, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward
    If you had to play real time, you would be there for years.

    I find Combat Mission:Barbarossa to Berlin to be just the right balance, some of those engagements can last days in RL, an that's often to much for most of the people.

  • Interesting way to make a political statement (Score:5, Informative)

    by the morgawr ( 670303 ) on Tuesday May 18, 2004 @12:46PM (#9185944) Homepage Journal
    Guys, in case you didn't realize, he's not talking about any game; he's making a political statement. I did find the satire and the backdrop of a video game a very interesting way for the author to express his opinion.
    • I did find the satire and the backdrop of a video game a very interesting way for the author to express his opinion.

      It was interesting, but I found his underlying premise that the ends justify the means to be rather immature and more than a little offensive.

      • I'd argue it's not immature but rather cynical and pragmatic. Immaturity is to expect being on the moral high ground would benefit you if only you knew it, or if you didn't re-enforce it with something else.

        India won it's independence not just through ghandi, ghandi was a peacful PR face to put onto the movement and was a sympathetic figure, he helped. But so did the terrorists who bombed the hell out of the railways and the threat of a colonial war.

        Isreal wasn't just constructed from guilt, the jewish te

    • Re:Interesting way to make a political statement (Score:4, Insightful)

      by I_Love_Pocky! ( 751171 ) on Tuesday May 18, 2004 @01:05PM (#9186255)
      Yeah, he made some really good points. But because he came at it from the angle he did, it made me sympathize with Bush about how hard it would be to win a war like the one we are engaged in in Iraq. All of the various things that come up that make it so you lose no matter what you do (even if you defeat the "enemy" you still haven't "won".

      So what? Real war is not a game. But to quote Wargames, "the only way to win, is not to play." The article was written as though Bush was forced into some horrible situation he has little chance of winning in. Who forced him to go to war with Iraq? Sometimes I think maybe he wanted to have a real war game, so he made one.

      • Re:Interesting way to make a political statement (Score:5, Insightful)

        by protohiro1 ( 590732 ) on Tuesday May 18, 2004 @02:05PM (#9187109) Homepage Journal
        No kidding. To that I say to Mr. Bush: "oh, you mean you are really damned if you do, damned if you don't and you are trapped in an unwinnable quagmire? Well boo hoo, if you'd listened when we told you this was a bad idea and not lied your way into this situation you wouldn't have to deal with it."

        I really disagree with him on a lot of his political points, but you've gotta love the "you can't handle the truth" hot key. I love that movie and I really love that scene. But I always interpreted the point of the scene differently. I thought the general looked pathetic, that he really believed that his mission to protect freedom made the ends worth the means. Of course, his mission was to protect Gitmo from cuba, which is a pretty damn useless missions.

        But I really like the idea of Donald Rumsfeld, standing in front of some congressional commission:

        Senator McCain: Mr. Rumsfeld, did you order the homorerotic abuse?

        Rumsfeld: I did the job you sent me to do.

        Senator McCain: Did you order the homorerotic abuse?

        Rumsfeld: You're goddamn right I did!

        • But I always interpreted the point of the scene differently. I thought the general looked pathetic, that he really believed that his mission to protect freedom made the ends worth the means. Of course, his mission was to protect Gitmo from cuba, which is a pretty damn useless missions.

          I interpreted it as a challenge to the audience. If ours really is a government "by the people", then that general was our employee. We're not just 'entitled' to the truth; we have a positive duty to judge what he's doing, b

      • it made me sympathize with Bush about how hard it would be to win a war like the one we are engaged in in Iraq. All of the various things that come up that make it so you lose no matter what you do (even if you defeat the "enemy" you still haven't "won".

        Look at how well the war in Afganistan went. Rebuilding is going well as far as I know, and the new government regime seems to be fine, and international support is posititve about that war. If it's so hard to win such a war, how did he win so thoroughly

        • I take it you haven't been paying too much attention to the news from Afghanistan, then. The new government has control of one city, and even then it's kind of shaky. The rest of the country is hell. I wish'em luck; it's just too bad that Bush and friends don't seem to be paying too much attention to that area anymore.
        • Look at how well the war in Afganistan went. Rebuilding is going well as far as I know, and the new government regime seems to be fine, and international support is posititve about that war. If it's so hard to win such a war, how did he win so thoroughly in Afganistan?

          The press was better. That's really the only thing.

          For example, things aren't going all that great in Afghanistan. The national government is having trouble projecting its power, and the new constitution is rather un-Progressive. But did
          • The problem with Afghanistan is, it has never been going that great there.

            Never ever, in many places people can point to how good it was before Colonialism or before trade came through, in Afghanistan, it's always been dodgy. So it's impossable for it to get better over night (which is what 2.5 years is in historical or political science terms).
      • Frankly, I find it frightening that some people can just assume the worst about the President of the United States.

        Arguably, we were doomed to re-invade Iraq since the end of the first Gulf War. Obviously Saddam wasn't interesting in holding up his end of the cease-fire agreement, and the sanctions/no-fly-zones/etc weren't meant to last for all eternity.

        No, something about the fact that he created a giant international web of corruption around the Oil-For-Food program kinda tipped me off that Saddam wasn

        • Re:Interesting way to make a political statement (Score:4, Insightful)

          by protohiro1 ( 590732 ) on Tuesday May 18, 2004 @02:22PM (#9187323) Homepage Journal

          You know what, you're right. Saddam was never planning on playing nice. But I still don't see why that means we were doomed to re-invade. I know its a tired arguement, but there are a lot of not nice governments and we aren't invading their countries. Saddam does not seem to have posed any serious threat to the United States, immediate or otherwise. There is no evidence to suggest any relationship between Saddam and Al Quaida, and if Saddam had any deployable WMDs (which is unlikely) they were certainly far from a state of readiness at which they would pose any threat to the even the neighbors of Iraq, let alone the United States.

          I assume the worst because their is no evidence to suggest otherwise. The lead up to war and the intelligence supporting it demonstrates either gross incompetence or deliberate misleading on the part of the administration. The handling of Iraq since the invasion has been a complete disaster, mostly due to an (apparhent) complete failure to anticipate anything but the most rosy of post war senarios.

          So its not an assumption. I wasn't against this war because I'm naive, stupid or ignorant. (although its possible I'm all three and don't know it...) This war never struck me as necessary. If it was the administration has completely failed to demonstrate that it has been worth the cost in lives, money and international esteem.

          If that frightens you, well, sorry. The president frighens me

          • I know its a tired arguement, but there are a lot of not nice governments and we aren't invading their countries.

            But how many of those countries do we have a tenuous cease-fire with? Where we're maintaining costly no-fly zones? Where crippling sanctions are in place? Where the provisions of the direct cease-fire are routinely flouted, and never complied with for over a decade?

            All of the above were true with Iraq. Sooner or later, that fragile setup had to end. Your problem is that you wanted to wait
          • > if Saddam had any deployable WMDs (which is unlikely)

            WMD? Like the Vx rockets found by the Brits?

            The mustard gas bomb used on U.S. troops a few days back?

            The (probable) Serin bomb that went off yesterday?

            The Vx gas they tried to use in Jordan a few weeks ago? British, Israeli, and Jordanian intellegence all point to the stuff comming from Iraq via Seria. The Al-Qaeda member behind it was in Iraq at the time we invaded and is probably still there (he is on tape cutting off some poor guy's head...

            • Like the Vx rockets found by the Brits?
              Huh? source?

              The (probable) Serin bomb that went off yesterday?
              Already shown to be unexploded ordinance from Gulf War 1.

              And that VX likely came through Saudi Arabia, who are known to support terrorism, have links to the 19 highjackers and family ties to GWB!

              I see it from the other perspective:

              The scant information that DOES support WMD is the little that could be found and the press is hawking it for all its worth.

              The truth is Pres. Bush said Saddam had tried to
              • Huh? source?

                Google it. We ain't your momma.

                Already shown to be unexploded ordinance from Gulf War 1.

                Well, first of all, no, that hasn't been shown, by anybody. And secondly, the leftover stockpiles from Iran-Iraq are precisely what Saddam was accused of hiding.

                And that VX likely came through Saudi Arabia

                Except that's not where it was found. It was found at the Jordanian-Syrian border.

                The truth is Pres. Bush said Saddam had tried to buy uraniam from Niger.. AFTER being told it was NOT true

                Excep
                • I'd like to point out to whoever modded parent "insightful," that he's actually a troll.

                  Well, first of all, no, that hasn't been shown, by anybody. And secondly, the leftover stockpiles from Iran-Iraq are precisely what Saddam was accused of hiding.

                  Which, with Iraq's shelf-life problem of the time would have been mostly harmless goo [fas.org] by the end of the 80's, let alone by 2003.

                  The truth is Pres. Bush said Saddam had tried to buy uraniam from Niger.. AFTER being told it was NOT true

                  Except it was true.
                  • Which, with Iraq's shelf-life problem of the time would have been mostly harmless goo

                    That's only true of actual agents. The weapons we're talking about here were composed of two binary reagents that, when combined, form unstable chemical agents.

                    Look, we look at it this way: you don't want nerve gas to hang around long. If it does, you run the risk of exposing your own men to it. So you want nerve gas to degrade in minutes, or hours at the most.

                    On the other hand, you don't want to have to process and dis
                • The truth is Pres. Bush said Saddam had tried to buy uraniam from Niger.. AFTER being told it was NOT true

                  Except it was true. Again with the googling.

                  Don't think so [google.com]

                • The truth is Pres. Bush said Saddam had tried to buy uraniam from Niger.. AFTER being told it was NOT true
                  Except it was true.

                  If you are right, why did Colin Powell, George Tenet, George Bush acknowledge that the statements made in the State of the Union address were not true? Dude, what are you smoking and where do I get some?

            • WMD? Like the Vx rockets found by the Brits?

              According to all the reports i've seen that and every other chemical weapon you mentioned was identified by the military as being forgotten leftovers from before the first Gulf War, ie over a decade old. There's been no evidence to show that Saddam was manufacturing or stockpiling any WMDs since then.

              There is strong evidence that shows he was at least harboring Al-Qaeda members if not providing training and support. The media just doesn't like reporting it and

              • Twirlip's posts above and below have a few good points you might want to look at BTW.

                > According to all the reports i've seen that and every other chemical weapon you mentioned was identified by the military as being forgotten leftovers from before the first Gulf War, ie over a decade old. There's been no evidence to show that Saddam was manufacturing or stockpiling any WMDs since then.

                US intellegence actually made two claims (that then got blown WAY out of proportion by the media):

                1. Sadam hadn't got
            • There is plenty of evidence that Sadam had WMD programs and could make batches of the stuff at whim. There is strong evidence that shows he was at least harboring Al-Qaeda members if not providing training and support.

              Uh, no. There is no credible evidence that there were WMD in Iraq prior to the recent invasion. They could not, as you claim, make as much as they want, whenever they wanted. If you have any evidence to the contrary, please contact the government ASAP, as they are politically desperate to fi

          • Let's catalogue your sins.

            there are a lot of not nice governments and we aren't invading their countries

            Sin of false equivalence. If you are unable to distinguish between the government of Iraq and the government of, say, Yemen, then you are either insufficiently informed or lacking in moral conscience. To wit: Iraq invaded a neighbor, fought a war, lost, surrendered, and agreed to a set of terms that included verifiable disarmament. They refused to comply with those terms.

            Saddam does not seem to have
        • I never thought quasi-defending Saddam would seem logical to me, but, here we are...

          No, something about the fact that he created a giant international web of corruption around the Oil-For-Food program kinda tipped me off that Saddam wasn't planning on ever playing nice.

          Well, let's think about this for a minute from the perspective of Iraq. So you get slapped down for messing with Kuwait, with the US/World insisting all the while that it's about the freedom of the Kuwaiti people, and that it's cert
          • I feel embarrassed responding to such an obvious troll. However, in politics the best and most troll-like of opinions. are genuinely held by many. The US obviously wants oil. That was never doubted. The US never claimed not to want oil. Especially not in the context of the oil for food programme. That was the whole advantage of the programme. The US does (dubiously?) claim that this conflict in Iraq was not about oil. Very well. You can't argue that Saddam should have been suspicious because the oil for fo
            • The US obviously wants oil. That was never doubted. Obviously. But you'd have had to somehow slept through all of the media coverage of the Gulf War to not hear the U.S. Government say that it was not concerned with oil loudly and repeatedly. (At least, if you lived in the U.S. at that time, which I suspect you may not have.) Their concern, supposedly, was for the Kuwaiti people. This was not to be an oil war. The fact that these two countries were rich in oil, we were told, was in no way a factor in
          • Then, they tell you that they aren't going to sell you any food

            That never happened. The sanctions imposed on Iraq never covered food or medical supplies. What happened is that Iraq wasn't allowed to sell its oil on the open market, which was its only significant source of revenue. So a program was set up through which Iraq could sell some oil and use the revenues to buy certain things, like food and medical supplies. Only instead of, you know, doing that, they handed oil vouchers out like bribes instead.
        • Okay, let's game it out. It's post 9-11, and Saddam actually has WMDs. What are his options?
          • Attack one of his neighbors, either conventionally or with WMDs.

            Result: Gulf War II, only with full international support, and they don't stop short of Baghdad.

          • Attack Israel, either conventionally or with WMDs.

            Result: At least airstrikes. If he actually used WMDs, I wouldn't be shocked if Israel used nukes in retaliation. Conceivably Gulf War II.

          • Attack the US, with or without WMDs.

            Result: Gulf War II, squared.

  • Me and a few friends thought up this way back when QuakeWorld was on its peak of popularity. The fragsuit is something you put on before you sit down and challenge your oponent. If you get hurt, small explosives on the suit explodes, just to make you feel the paint, and when someone dies, a large explosive placed under the chair detonates. If someone is telefragged, the two persons will swich places (computers as well), where the one who died will be turned into spam, and thrown on the telefragger).

    I bet t

  • I see better option . . . (Score:3, Funny)

    by Nomihn0 ( 739701 ) on Tuesday May 18, 2004 @01:15PM (#9186402)
    Why emulate the world when you can be an active participant in the real thing? Sure, this functions as a political statement (and a good one at that). But I don't need to see the world in a videogame to be able to laugh at its irony.

    In the article, Wong says "I want an RTS game that will give me a stress headache after an hour and an ulcer after a week."
    Why bother with a game when you can easily get this from watching any fine news station. You'd even get a bonus shot of ignorance for watching Faux News! For blood-loss, watch Al Jazeera! For contrast watch CNN Headline News (the only station on which body pyramids are followed by what dress Troy McClure's husband wore to the Oscars).

    If you're really angling for some pain, you can even try to participate in the political arena itself at either the Democratic or Republican National Conventions!

  • 20. I want better death animations.

    Actually, I thought the animations from SOF were pretty realistic. You get to watch as the soldiers writhe in pain from a severed limb, or as they clutch intestines spewing from a hole in their gut, or as they choke to death on their own blood after being shot in the neck.
    Of course, when (inevitably) the celebrity-media unit is near a soldier who dies a gruesome death, you get replay clips with national news anchors condemning you for allowing such horrible things to hap
  • ...is what SC map is that in #2?

    Come on...somebody besides me has to recognize it....

  • Forgotten feature (Score:3, Funny)

    by Wubby ( 56755 ) on Tuesday May 18, 2004 @02:59PM (#9187885) Homepage Journal
    He forgot the '"Info-tru" Generator' that can be used to update the information being disseminated through the news media (which have the "CIA Influence" option set to true).

    This of course has the default settings of "Constantly Change" and "Optimize on Personal Agenda".

    And don't forget to select the "Blame the victim" option, so that when poor civilians get thier heads cut off by religious psychos, you can defame their families without having to reset your "Look like I actually care" level.

    Good news! Chocolate rations are UP!
  • I'm having a hard time finding a web-page. But here's a review.

    http://www.cgonline.com/reviews/conflictzo-01-r 1 .h tml

    Conflict Zone is an RTS that incorporates the press and public opinion. You build units based on how popular you are and how well you act for the press.

    If you have an heroic defense of a bridge or something you get lots of 'popularity' points. If you wipe out a village of civilians with misplaced fire, you lose a lot of points.

    Also, they have 'sub-commanders.' You can put entire se

  • A crock I say! A crock! (Score:3, Interesting)

    by WinnipegDragon ( 655456 ) on Tuesday May 18, 2004 @03:40PM (#9188551)
    Umm... What a thinly veiled pro-Bush, pro-Iraq-War rant. Sorry, I'm not trying to derail, but basically half of his points are essentially taking shots at those that question things like the abuse of prisoners and civilian casulties.

    The fact that he is doing it in the form of a questionably 'funny' video game list, and that it was posted here as a games topic is pretty lame.

    • ...those that question things like the abuse of prisoners and civilian casulties...

      Impossible. There are no such people. Before one might attempt to question anything about the Bush administration, Rummy has them disappeared...

      Right?

Slashdot Top Deals

Hackers are just a migratory lifeform with a tropism for computers.

Close