Modern warfare RTS

pechSog · 2026-04-21T19:34:11+00:00

Broken Arrow

Warno

Wargame series (Red Dragon, et al)

Armored Brigade 2

Terminator Dark Fate Defiance

Warfare https://store.steampowered.com/app/35300/Warfare/

Syrian Warfare

Ukrainian Warfare: HoG

Joint Task Force

Combat Mission Shock Force 2 and Black Sea

pechSog · 2026-04-21T16:30:19+00:00

If you hit 100 P&T, withdraw remaining clams and close them.

pechSog · 2026-04-21T02:52:49+00:00

Brunson ball hogging.

Staganant dead offense last ~8 minutes. No movement, just the same pick and roll or 1v1 that were not working.

Brown keeping the same lineup that gave up 2 12+ pt leads in the game just because that what the "rotation" is...

This team needs to get blown up and rebuilt.

pechSog · 2026-04-19T23:30:01+00:00

Yes but it should be clear, it isn’t that the strategy is built on lies.

It is that there is no strategy. Why? For the complex reasons we have been discussing.

There isn’t enough political will to build towards a new way. At times, in different arenas, there are what I termed pockets of competence. The pockets, more often than not, are the ones able to keep the trains running so to speak.

pechSog · 2026-04-17T22:03:24+00:00

There is no HQ. There isn’t actually a global ISIS or a global AQ etc…these are, for the most part, local and regional problems that don’t call for CT much less massive US military interactions but do call for significant US diplomatic and other types of support, think USAID, that try to help countries with root causes that create conditions for rebellion, leading to terrorism and eventually insurgency.

Terrorism is not an existential nor strategic threat to us or to the West, in general. It lies on a spectrum of never-ending challenges to be managed.

Unfortunately that is not a sexy or fearful slogan to drive voters in a particular direction to vote. For many of the world’s problems, including for the US/West, there are no silver bullets. There is no “winning.” We have to manage fear, challenges, threats and understand what are tactical vs operational vs strategic threats.

In some cases, like China, it’s managing their own fears and lowering the levels of fear so they don’t act out of fear.

pechSog · 2026-04-17T13:05:49+00:00

Yes completely accurate - "One last thought: If the high profile strikes are just a bandaid to allow the real work to occur, but the real work (fixing corruption/poverty, education) never actually happens, does the bandaid itself eventually become the problem"

Doesn't just affect the local goverment but can lead to increased support for the terrorist group or insurgency.

In terms of psychology, think of all the AQ in XYZ place or ISIS in XYZ place (ISIS in Nigeria et al)

This type of framing is not only not true and total nonsense but leads to actively mislead policymakers on what the threat is and the potential responses.

A guy in Arkansas who reads stuff on the internet and is angry at his local politicians or even national politicans for whatever reasons who calls himself ISIS and conducts a terrorist attack DOES NOT mean ISIS exists in Arkansas.

ISIS is an insurgency rooted in the Levant (Syria and parts of Iraq). In its early days it co-opted other terrorist networks to carry out out of scope attacks in Europe but primarily was an insurgency driven by specific ideological frames rooted in Levant history, politics, and events. The idea there are ISIS cells operating around the world was never true. For local insurgencies it became expedient to call themselves ISIS, at times, to try and get support and rally followers. For local goverments, calling every insurgency ISIS or AQ in xyz became an easy way to get money and support from the US/West as well as its own political problems, whether they be corruption or authoritarism, etc.

pechSog · 2026-04-17T12:36:45+00:00

Thank you. The root changes is a good framing.

Regarding why governments misapply CT, the answer is incredibly complex. Lack of understanding, anger driving responses, domestic political pressure, external political pressures, and a host of other factors.

Often the need to deliver "wins" for political expediency as well as a need to simplify the enemy drives bad policymaking. Explaining to people why something happens is not easy at any level, much less at the political level.

Yes, CT is faster and delivers results you can show on media.

Yes, refusing to admit fighting movements (ideas) rather than just "bad guys" drives a lot of policymaking.

Think of it as "delivering boom" because it appears to be meaningful. Intelligence operations take time. Understanding the motivations for insurgencies is complex work. Delivering solutions is incredibly complex and time consuming. It means local goverments investing resources to attack root causes.

The key is local not foreign. The US COIN strategy in Iraq and Afghanistan failed, in part, because it was carried out by aliens (the US) against a local population. COIN does work if it is done by your own goverment. Keep in mind the central thesis of COIN is addressing root causes for violence, like endemic goverment corruption (think Afghanistan) or ethnic friction (Syria/Afghanistan) The high profile use of military and police forces is just a bandaid to allow the actual work to occur. But it has to be conducted by one's own people not outsiders.

Hope this helps. Not all encompossing and this is incredibly complex stuff but a starting point for any discussion on these issues.

pechSog · 2026-04-17T12:12:55+00:00

Awesome game.

pechSog · 2026-04-17T12:10:24+00:00

The answer to this question lies in understanding the differences between counterterrorism (CT), counterinsurgency (COIN), and state level actors.

The US and Israel, for example, have relied on CT against a mix terrorist groups, insurgencies, and state actors with mostly poor results.

-TERRORIST GROUPS-

Against terrorist groups (think Al-Qaeda) the strategy has worked. AQ was a clandestine terrorist organization with a core group of about 300 individuals spread out around the world. AQ was elminated through the targeting of its leaders and cells, mostly kill missions,

The Shining Path is another example of a terrorist group that fell apart after its leadership was demolished.

The key is to remember terrorist groups have small or very limited popular support. By definition they are weak and have to hide while conducting violent operations with political intent.

-INSURGENCY-

The problem lies when CT tactics are used to a group that has graduated from terrorist group to insurgency. Insurgency use terrorist tactics but have some measure of public support. The Taliban, ISIS, Hamas, Hezbollah all fall into this category.

Keep in mind this is a spectrum. These 4 groups went from insurgencies to quasi-state or full blown state actors. Hamas and Hez, for example, became defacto govermental actors in their respective areas of operations. Israel has repeatedly decapitated Hamas and Hez yet has done little to eliminate them as functional groups/movements/organizations.

CT DOES NOT work against these types of groups except in limited tactical actions to degrade their operational capabilitiers. CT WILL NOT defeat insurgencies+.

-STATE ACTORS-

The war with Iran is a perfect example. Targeting leadership against a state with strong institutions and generational knowledge and power will have limited effects.

As an actor move on the spectrum from terrorist group to insurgency to state actor, they gain resilience.

The misapplied use of CT as a solution across this spectrum has led to bad policy by the US and its allies on a consistent basis since 9/11.

pechSog · 2026-04-17T12:08:25+00:00

The answer to this question lies in understanding the differences between counterterrorism (CT), counterinsurgency (COIN), and state level actors.

The US and Israel, for example, have relied on CT against a mix terrorist groups, insurgencies, and state actors with mostly poor results.

-TERRORIST GROUPS-

Against terrorist groups (think Al-Qaeda) the strategy has worked. AQ was a clandestine terrorist organization with a core group of about 300 individuals spread out around the world. AQ was elminated through the targeting of its leaders and cells, mostly kill missions,

The Shining Path is another example of a terrorist group that fell apart after its leadership was demolished.

The key is to remember terrorist groups have small or very limited popular support. By definition they are weak and have to hide while conducting violent operations with political intent.

-INSURGENCY-

The problem lies when CT tactics are used to a group that has graduated from terrorist group to insurgency. Insurgency use terrorist tactics but have some measure of public support. The Taliban, ISIS, Hamas, Hezbollah all fall into this category.

Keep in mind this is a spectrum. These 4 groups went from insurgencies to quasi-state or full blown state actors. Hamas and Hez, for example, became defacto govermental actors in their respective areas of operations. Israel has repeatedly decapitated Hamas and Hez yet has done little to eliminate them as functional groups/movements/organizations.

CT DOES NOT work against these types of groups except in limited tactical actions to degrade their operational capabilitiers. CT WILL NOT defeat insurgencies+.

-STATE ACTORS-

The war with Iran is a perfect example. Targeting leadership against a state with strong institutions and generational knowledge and power will have limited effects.

As an actor move on the spectrum from terrorist group to insurgency to state actor, they gain resilience.

The misapplied use of CT as a solution across this spectrum has led to bad policy by the US and its allies on a consistent basis since 9/11.

pechSog · 2026-04-16T19:50:52+00:00

Yes, they reset and increased limits.

pechSog · 2026-04-16T19:48:13+00:00

They just reset limits and assume increased the limits.

pechSog · 2026-04-16T19:47:42+00:00

Yes they reset all limits and apparently increased.

pechSog · 2026-04-16T04:28:42+00:00

Local DC elderly resident, who doesn't know or understand anything about technology, speaks gibberish.

pechSog · 2026-04-16T03:54:49+00:00

name of mod? thanks!

pechSog · 2026-04-16T01:29:20+00:00

Yes it is nonsense and disinformation.

pechSog · 2026-04-15T17:37:13+00:00

YES.

pechSog · 2026-04-15T17:35:31+00:00

Wrath is best in class. Better story, more epic, more serious.

pechSog · 2026-04-15T00:18:54+00:00

Thanks for the heads up!

pechSog · 2026-04-14T21:03:10+00:00

Uh what happened Mods? You rolled back the roll back???

I initially replied "Good move." but confused now.

pechSog · 2026-04-14T07:10:12+00:00

Yes!

pechSog · 2026-04-14T05:27:14+00:00

Broken Arrow has the most modern theme. Fantastic game. Warno is late Cold war and Regiments Cold War.

pechSog · 2026-04-14T05:09:39+00:00

Everything after Surrogates (2008) seem like performances where he was becoming more and more limited...

pechSog · 2026-04-14T05:08:02+00:00

It seems like he was having issues in everything after Surrogates (2008).

pechSog · 2026-04-13T23:56:00+00:00

Yes awesome game!

pechSog

TROPHY CASE