Bay 12 Games Forum

Though it does kinda beg the question of who shows more blatant disregard for human life - the people firing artillery out of a populated city, or the people firing artillery into a populated city?

When it comes to counter-barrages? Almost certainly the ones firing first. There's disregard there on both sides, but the one actively painting a civilian target as, well, a target, is the scummier of the two.

... pretty sure standard mobile artillery tactics don't include firing from high value civilian locations. Because, y'know, counter artillery, damaged/destroyed civil infrastructure, and dead civilians. They're things. All of which you kinda' want to avoid, but especially the latter two.

There's those tiny transformers for that, I think. Cybertron provides.

Go for broke and have Ace Combat by having the PC transform into a jet

Maybe for a sequel? I'd think getting a functioning air combat system in the first go would be a bit of excessive feature creep. But yeah, maybe that or multiple characters to choose from (or just being able to choose the singular character's transformation, I suppose). I'm bollocks with air combat sim stuff, personally, so it'd be a turn off, but having that alongside ground-based transformations would be pretty great.

Still, seamless transition into a Ace Combat style flight system would also be kinda' awesome. I'd probably rather see it in a sequel or spinoff game, though.

E: Not sure about bringing it to earth, though. From a lore perspective, I'd personally be way more interested in something based on cybertron, or some other non-earth location. Lot more conceptual room to play with, imo.

... wouldn't that be a plus to the GOP, though? The party policies mostly seem to hate students. Inconveniencing them more would seem to be a bonus, not a malus, from their perspective.

... pretty sure nenjin does, too. Or at least was alive during that period. It wasn't that far back... um. Was it? It didn't turn tweeny until like the 2000s, right?

*raucous cheering*

... I mean, sure, it's probably going to get scrubbed, but still. Love me some walking hovering tanks.

E: Ooooh, or maybe not. It looks like the xammie's going to be on the probable winning team. Dander, risen.

Yes there is no record of apologizing on TV, is that what you want (as it was done in private)? Are you trying to say someone else apologies for her from US so it means the thing she said is not true on the transcript (or that generally US government said she apologies in private)?

I'm trying to say when you say a person in question apologizes, you should probably save saying that until you've got a record of it happening. If you want to say other officials said, second/third hand sources said, etc., then fine, but maybe don't say things you can't actually back up, y'know? Context and framing is ruddy important, and without that one tends to pull entirely too much from the aether.

I do not understand what you are trying to say. State department spokeswoman Jen Psaki acknowledged that the recording was authentic.

Mostly trying to say that you seem to be reading considerably more into what's actually been said than seems warranted. Psaki, who's effectively got a job description that reads "double-speak all day erry day", is going to say something like she did bloody regardless of whether the recording was authentic. Bugger'd sound like that if she were talking about the color of the sky on record.

It's going from "Other official said things" to "Nuland personally apologized for crass words" (when there's any dozen other things regarding the situation she could have been apologizing for) to "Suddenly the US is the prime driving force behind euromaidan." Which is... stretching. Just a bit.

You, possibly -- hell, even probably -- have a record of politicians being politicians. If there's anything else -- abnormal material support, obvious interpersonal collusion, etc., etc. -- it would be interesting to know, but one internal conversation does not a significant influence or interest make.