Sneak Attack, (an idea based upon Pearl Harbor) - Page 3

ZzZ · #21 May 29th, 2001, 12:56 PM

quote:
Originally posted by jc173:
I know this is offtopic, but just a comment. Back in WWII the American military was segregated ie Afro-Americans (and even Japanese Americans to some extent) served in different units from caucasian Americans. You can probably find a listing of such units somewhere. As for the later parts of the movie I don't recall the 101st Airborne (or was it the 82nd in the movie?) having a segregated battalion or regimental combat team at the time. I could be wrong about that though.

Hmmmm .... good point. I would have to check that eventually.

I have more criticism for that movie but normally I hesitate to post that into international forums. To many idiots see that I am Germany and instantly call me (or my family) Nazi which makes me very angry.

I personally don't like how Germany soldiers are usually shown in WWII movies (especially some old french or italian movies and - of course - most of the Hollywood stuff). My grandfather served the Wehrmacht but he was no Nazi. It is sad when you listen to his storys ... how big the political pressure was for everyone. Even most of the German generals in WWII hadn't been Nazis at all (some even tried to kill Hitler).

In the movies the German soldiers are all looking like some fanatic monsters ... showing no mercy. Believe me they were also full of fear and they don't like killing other people more than anyone else on this planet. The Nazi leaders had been perverted *******s and they knew how to control the masses (especially those who weren't that clever) but the average soldier was just someone like you and me. That's what most directors forget in their movies. There were good and bad people on both sides. And it seems that Pearl Harbour makes no difference here (regarding the Japanese). I will see ... soon.

ZzZ

capnq · #22 May 29th, 2001, 04:16 PM

quote:
An anti-war movie for me should never contain hope and it must show both sides of the fighting forces.

AFAIK, _Pearl Harbor_ was never intended to be an anti-war movie. Most war movies are basically action-adventure genre; I don't think anti-war films usually make nearly as much money.

------------------
Cap'n Q

The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability of the
human mind to correlate all of its contents. We live on a placid
island of ignorance in the midst of black seas of infinity, and it was
not meant that we should go far. -- HP Lovecraft, "The Call of Cthulhu"

ZzZ · #23 May 29th, 2001, 04:25 PM

quote:
Originally posted by capnq:
I don't think anti-war films usually make nearly as much money.

That's a good point ...

[This message has been edited by ZzZ (edited 29 May 2001).]

dogscoff · #24 May 29th, 2001, 04:41 PM

QUOTE:
I don't think anti-war films usually make nearly as much money.
/QUOTE

Doesn't mean they're not worth making. Full Metal Jacket springs to mind (anyone wanting to go to war after watching that really is nuts.)

Besides, a film doesn't have to be actively anti- war. Better to honestly depict both sides, ie the horror and the (occasional) necessity of warfare and let people make up their own minds.

What annoys me are action/ war/ Bruce Willis type films which show people walking away virtually unhurt from bullet wounds / car smashes / exploding helicopters etc.

I've nothing against the principle of realistic violence in films, or even unrealistic violence in cartoons, scifi (ie Matrix) and other "unreal" contexts. However I think it is irresponsible for film makers to trivialise and glorify violence.

------------------
"Pinky, are you pondering what I'm pondering?"
"Uh, I think so, Brain, but balancing a family and a career ... oooh, it's all too much for me. "

Atrocities · #25 May 29th, 2001, 07:58 PM

quote:
Later I decided NOT to see that movie because all major german movie critics called it historically and politically inaccurate.

If I remember correctly, many Film critics denounced a little film called Star Wars because it was too spacie.

When it comes to war movies, you will always have one side saying one thing about it, while the other side says something else.

Pearl Harbor WAS NOT INTENDED to be an accurate film. It was inteded to be a movie set in and around the time of December 7th.

Please DO NOT get caught up in all this political BS, as its just a complete waste of time and eneregy.

I also would like to know what you all think of the Sneak Attack idea for SEIV.

Nitram Draw · #26 May 29th, 2001, 08:07 PM

It would be a little difficult to do your proposed sneak attack because everyone knows its coming, just not where from. It might be better to set up only one or two and not say who is going to be on the receiving end of it. Also, would the AI carry it out?

Suicide Junkie · #27 May 29th, 2001, 10:19 PM

What if each side had a specific advantage and counter?

So you have to try to figure out whos going to attack you and then build the appropriate type of defense.

Like crystalline to stop the organics, PDC ships to stop missile guys, etc etc

Give each side only one weapon tech, so the missile guy can try do attack whomever they feel is most vulnerable to them (if they can figure out what the other players have).

Nitram Draw · #28 May 29th, 2001, 10:26 PM

That would probably work better.
Definately make the AI a defender, possibly with lots of cloaked ships, WP, fighters, mines and sats to surprise the supriser.
Since it would be a scenario you could establish the victory conditions and get the AI in position to win if the human failed to attack and win the battles within a certain amount of turns.

Possum · #29 May 29th, 2001, 10:30 PM

That's one of the best things about this forum, you can take the time to give a long, thoughtful reply to someone's question, and then be completely f*cking ignored

ZzZ · #30 May 29th, 2001, 11:28 PM

quote:
Originally posted by Possum:
That's one of the best things about this forum, you can take the time to give a long, thoughtful reply to someone's question, and then be completely f*cking ignored

I have to apologize. I did not want to ignore you. You gave a good statement and it was backed with lots of true historical information. I think always have to do with power ... there is no religious or other reason for a war except the hunger for power and more power. Oil also means power ... another good reason to start a war.

ZzZ