simulation

[TimeTraveler]

Originally posted by d=me
China matching the U.S.? Impossible. Technological superority just like the Aztecs against cortes.

Perhaps, but the technological difference between Cortez and the Aztecs was over a thousand years at the very least. The United States and China certainly don't have a difference in advancement anywhere near that level.

However, I do agree that it does look like technology could win a hypothetical war. The U.S. seems to be using it quite a bit more than China is.

[Patashu]

Pah. I could destroy both the U.S. and China at the same time with my big toe.

*wiggles it around*

See? The power! The incredible continental-destroying POWER!!!

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Patashu
Pah. I could destroy both the U.S. and China at the same time with my big toe.

*wiggles it around*

See? The power! The incredible continental-destroying POWER!!!

Still need to use your BIG toe? Poor kid.

[Patashu]

Look, I'm working on it, okay??

[Skanky Burns]

/me pats Patashu on the head.

[Snowflake]

Originally posted by d=me
China matching the U.S.? Impossible. Technological superority just like the Aztecs against cortes.

But China has much more bases and population than the US. Just wait till them set SE to 80% research and half of their pop to specialists.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Their Police state setting will cut into their research rate big time. Their cultural revolution has ensured that most of their specialists are not of the lab producing types.

[GeoModder]

Thus we're save for another 15-20 years of innovative Chinese warmachinery? Well, AFAIK a lot of the 'American' scientists aren't even born in the USA...

Thus if Chinese government thinks of attracting foreign ivory tower guys AND manages to fund this sort of research...

[Nubclear]

If all nations were suddenlyh SMAC factions...
China would seriously triumph. I mean, they'd have a thousand 1-2-1 in each base, each base would have a perimeter defense, they'd be immune to inefficency so could run police state, they'd be fvcking HUGE...
The US would be in big trouble, because most of the world would declare vendetta in one to two turns. Ouch.

India would succumb to China.
Russia would capitulate to China.
Europe wouldn't stand a chance.

The only hope for others is victory by transcendence.

[d=me]

But this is real life. the F15 can take down like 30 j10s and the whole scale superiority like awacs and electronics. China is no match. Look what china has about 20 ships in total that can sail to the u.s. the people that thinks china have a number advantage against the u.s. have been playing too much games, In the real world, the zergs don't work.

[Starfarer]

Sure they do. Bugs kick arse.

Of course,. the Cinese are far from bugs. and in any case, China would probably lose due to tech superiority... the thing is, what SMAC, what, in fact, no videogame can really show accurate4ly, is that tech disparity, even across small gulfs, can seriously unbalancee a war.

Were you aware that once, in Africa, a hundred British soldiers with guns held off a massive human-wave of the Zulu warriors? In SMAC, this is roughly equivalent to a bunnch of somewhere around 6-3-1s fighting off ten times their number of 2-1-1s.

Let's face it... in SMAC, ain't gonna happen... and these Brits were, as I recall, not in any sort of base... all they had was the high ground.

Games cannot accurately represent the political climate in real life, because of one serious concept.

Nobody in REAL LIFE wants war. Well... nobody who doesn't know 100% they can win with minimum losses. Unmless they're either a lunatic or overconfident, this isn't likely. Mind you, this isn't from any humanitarian poin t of veiw as much as a "If I charge my soldiers, and I lose half my armty, that guy over there is gonna kick my butt".

However, when you're a computer playing with computer people, you don't take into account things like how many OTHER enemies you've got, or their relative power scales. Nor do you have any sort of concept of "War is bad because it hurts everyone and strengthens those outisde of it". Nor do you have the "war is bad because I might die." idea.

Whebn you boil entire armies down to numbers and such, you also forget the acts of indfividual heroism, the self-sacrifie, and the brilliancee of some leaders. all of these affect battles.

And an incredible diplomat can keep two countries from annihilating one another. Can't do taht in SMAC, no matter how hard you try. After all, if Miriam really thinks Zakky's the Devil, what in God's name (no pun intended) is Lal REALLY going to be able to do abou it other than shove soldikers in her way? Is she going to care?

Nope.

Anyhow...
Ta.

[Snowflake]

Originally posted by d=me
China is no match.

Of course China is no match. All it takes is for the US to announce that they are convinced that China has WMC.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

WMC?

[Dis]

All but that's not entirely true.

The U.S. could never conquer china.

On neutral ground, or as the U.S. defending, we'd win every time.

But at our present military strenght, we have no hope of taking over china. Even with a draft, I don't think we could do it. The only way would be to use nukes and/or tactical nukes.

so if we said China had weapons of mass destruction (which they do- they have nukes after all ), we couldn't do anyting about it.

[livid imp]

Originally posted by Dissident
The U.S. could never conquer china.

On neutral ground, or as the U.S. defending, we'd win every time.

Yup. Well summarized.

Originally posted by Starfarer
Nobody in REAL LIFE wants war.

I disagree. Anyone that gives orders to crash planes into a skyscraper to make a point is looking for a war. **cough bin laden cough**

Anyone that invades a country that has been inert for the last 10 years just to get revenge for daddy is looking for a war. **cough bush cough**

There are many people looking for a war, but they are never the people who actually have to do the fighting.