raven28256's forum posts

  • 15 results
  • 1
  • 2
#1 Posted by raven28256 (6252 posts) -

You know how I feel about this idea. I'm always complaining about the character limit because I'm one of those guys that is too damn fond of hearing myself talk. The character limit used to be longer, I don't understand why they changed it.

#2 Posted by raven28256 (6252 posts) -

I'm having this really strange problem and I'm looking for solutions here.

Starting a few days ago it wouldn't let me download the trials for any of the newer Indie games. I thought it might just be a glitch because everything worked fine the next day, but now I can't download the trial version of any of the five or so newest Indie games. The download queues up and then it just says "Can't Download -insert game name-" after being stuck on 1% for about 15 seconds. However, I can download older Indie games no problem, as well as Arcade games, videos, demos, and pretty much everything else on the Live Marketplace.

I got in touch with customer service and they were completely unhelpful. First they went through the usual "is your 360 connected to the Internet?" stuff, and then told me the problem is that my HDD is full. That...isn't it. My HDD still has over 170GB free, and that wouldn't explain why my issue is only with the five newest Indie games.

Any ideas?

#3 Posted by raven28256 (6252 posts) -

I've never had this issue before and it literally just started happening about an hour ago when I tried to go into Offline mode.

Basically, it is like Steam can't exit and restart properly. I have to manually end the Steam.exe process to get the damn thing to work again. Offline mode is completely and totally broken, I can't even get it to work. It just gives me error messages saying that I have either a connection issue or can't log in to the Steam network. But, in general, no matter what it is I'm trying to do I have to manually end the Steam.exe process. Trying to switch accounts? Exit, manually end Steam.exe, then restart it. Trying to just log off of Steam? Exit, end Steam.exe.

What the freaking hell is going on here? I sent in a support question, but I imagine that some bot will send me a generic, completely unhelpful response in several hours like the Steam support service always does. I've never, ever had this issue before.

#4 Posted by raven28256 (6252 posts) -

Same here. I was just online a few hours ago. That, combined with the fact that the support pages and forums are down make me think that something is up with Microsoft.

#5 Posted by raven28256 (6252 posts) -

Nevermind. Just as mysteriously as the issue appeared it has been resolved.

#6 Posted by raven28256 (6252 posts) -

I tried adding some new games to my owned games list but they never show up. I can copy games from my owned list to my now playing, I just can't add games to my tracked or owned lists from the game's page.

#7 Posted by raven28256 (6252 posts) -

Steam having an outage won't prevent you from playing your games though. You just wouldn't be able to buy and download new ones. You can still play any of the games you have previously downloaded.

#8 Posted by raven28256 (6252 posts) -



Ok. What about if you were fighting a country with similar arms. Like Russia or China or North Korea. Would tanks realy be usefuly when the enemy has highly mobile infantry units weilding javelin equivelents?


Most infantry units are not highly mobile. Those that are motorized (trucks) or mechanized (APCs) are even more vulnerable to tanks, as they are much more visible. Now, that a tank can be destroyed by man portable weapons doesn't make it useless, since most weapons have no effect on it. Men and trucks can be destroyed by light weapons, but they're still useful. Javelin-type systems are not widespread. A US infantry company (about 120 mne) has six of them. A tank company has 12 tanks. Having a javelin does not guarantee a kill, just like firing a single bullet at a man does not guarantee he'll be killed.

Russian Anti-Tank Weapons are, and are highly effective even agaist modern tanks. In 2006 during the Israel-Hezbollah war, Hezbollah had access to fairly outdated Russian Guided Anti-Tank Weaponry and still managed to do very serious damage to the largely tank based Isreali army. I think they managed to damage over 50 tanks as a result, and it was the anti-tank weaponry that is credited with the success they saw.

Agaist a modern army, tanks have limited effectiveness compared to what they once had.

That was mostly because Hezbollah managed to get tandem charge RPG rockets, and the Israelis didn't expect them to have those. There is armor designed to defeat tandem charge rockets, and the Israelis have it, they just didn't know that Hezbollah had such weapons. In general you don't see tandem charge rounds used too often, especially by insurgents. Also, the majority of the Israeli tanks used in that war were the older Merkava Mk IIIs, not the newer, more advanced and better armored Mk IVs, which were still in pretty limited production at the time. And while 50-something tanks were damaged, only about half a dozen were outright destroyed or otherwise rendered a loss...And some of those weren't even to RPGs. Most of those tanks were repaired and put back into service easily enough.

But in general, the average man-portable anti-armor weapon isn't quite as effective against modern tanks as you'd think. I remember a story from the beginning of the Iraq War were a Challenger 2 was hit with 8 RPG rockets and still would have been fully functional had it not thrown a track trying to back out of the ambush. Repairs took less than a day, and the crew had only minor injuries.

As for the original argument, in addition to some of the things other people said gunships and other aircraft have another negative: They can't fly in harsh weather conditions. Tanks can operate in pretty much anything, and while modern aircraft can operate in some pretty bad conditions, there are still plenty of scenarios where the Army wouldn't want to risk sending out Apaches due to weather.

#9 Posted by raven28256 (6252 posts) -

[QUOTE="raven28256"]The "tank" in question? It is a Cadillac Gage V-150 Commando, a 4x4 armored car. It isn't even a tracked vehicle. It seems that the media has an even looser definition of "tank" than I thought. I thought for sure the "tank" in question was probably just an M113, but it seems like it is a much more mundane V-150, something used in any routine raid carried out by SWAT if there is even a tiny risk of danger.killerfist

^ I for one didn't expect it to be a battle tank..one the army uses. I expected it to be an armored vehicle just like that, without tracks.

Still, it's a bit overkill in my opinion. And quite laughable. It's a waste of money and recourses. Especially for a guy that has no history of gun possession and was only convicted one time (for cockfighting). Or so the news says anyway.

I was giving the media SOME credit, but apparently too much. I didn't think that their idea of a "tank" was a 4x4 armored car. Hell, calling a V-150 a "tank" is basically on par with claiming that SWAT commenced a raid using tanks when they just used a standard response van. Since they were claiming that they used "tanks" I was expecting at least just an M113, a tracked APC actually used by SWAT teams in Phoenix. Apparently, any large vehicle is now considered a "tank" by the media.

I do agree that things were still a bit excessive though. They certainly didn't need two of them; SWAT teams around here regularly handle far worse situations with only one BearCat. They definitely went a bit overboard, but it seems like it was much less excessive than the articles make it seem.

#10 Posted by raven28256 (6252 posts) -

Okay guys, I was wrong. It wasn't an M113, as I assumed it probably was based on the fact that the news claimed the police used a "tank." The reality makes it obvious that the news blew this even more out of proportion than I thought. It actually doesn't seem TOO excessive, now that I've found this video:


The "tank" in question? It is a Cadillac Gage V-150 Commando, a 4x4 armored car. It isn't even a tracked vehicle. It seems that the media has an even looser definition of "tank" than I thought. I thought for sure the "tank" in question was probably just an M113, but it seems like it is a much more mundane V-150, something used in any routine raid carried out by SWAT if there is even a tiny risk of danger.

  • 15 results
  • 1
  • 2