Hey guys, about to buy a new desktop so i can play ArmA2 and OA properly.

So here it is:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Asrock P55M Pro SKT-1156 motherboard

Intel Core i5 750 Quad CPU 4 x 2.66ghz Std, Will run at 3.8Ghz becuase of
CoolIT Systems ECO ALC water cooling system

4gb Corsair DDR3 1600Mhz

Windows 7 Home Edition

ATI Radeon HD 5870 1024MB GDDR5 PCI-Express Graphics Card

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Will this run ArmA II well with decent resolution?

Thanks in advance.

So here is the deal:

Just got home for Easter for a couple of weeks, travelling lightly I have a suitcase full of cloths and my handy, if rather limited Phillips laptop :

- Intel Core Duo 2.00 GHz
- 4GB RAM
- NVIDIA GeForce 9300M GS
- Windows....cough....cough.....Vista.....cough.....cough

The result of such a weight efficient commute has left me pants down in the game department, an opportunity, some might say, to get some much extremely necessary work done. However, there is a definitive limit to the amount of research on the East India Company's patronage of the south coast one can pursue before it becomes officially considered unhealthy.

Thus the dilemma, I require a game, a game fit for a man with limited budget and computer power. The game must meet the obvious restrictions of a laptop, but must also be available to either download directly to hard drive or be purchasable from the local Game(/station) outlet (due to the restricted length of my stay). The genre is not rigidly fixed, the absence of a joystick or wheel restricts certain options, but open minded I remain. However! a story-line of half-decent quality is a must, the staple diet of MW2 and instant Lidl noodles makes one weary of simple minded shooters. To summarise, a thinking mans game, under £20, graphics light and purchasable. Suggestions, gentlemen, are most welcome.

Played this quickly at a friends, mostly found it pretty rubbish tbh. I found it confusing that it boasted a 'huge' map and yet most of the gameplay that i experianced didnt really take advantage of this. Its not that bad, but when you have MW2 as mainstream competition on console your doomed to second place. I know which game i would prefer to play on xbox live anyway, to give you a clue ill be shooting at Russians.

Ill take your points.

Go look up the meaning of nuclear deterrent. That post was in direct responce to :-



MAD is the fundamental principle behind a nuclear deterrant. I think you understand the principle philosophy that is the centre of this debate [sarcasm]. I commented that for some NATO members the fact they come under the protective branch of a military alliance is good enough for them not to need there own individual nuclear deterrant. I understand that deterrent can refer to discouraging a conventional attack, but with your referral to the current political climate (I assumed eg. N. Korea, Iran) i really think the debate orientates around the deterrent of nuclear attack as oposed to conventional attack. A conventional nuclear deterrant can work for sure, but in the case of Britain its really not a serious concideration due to the favorable position (geographically and politicly) that our nation enjoys.



Where did i say this? Im saying we should take advantage of some of the defence they already offer us. Once again you take my words and spin your tabloid headline. You should concider a job with the Daily Mail, you like to blow things out of all proportion in order to pursuade others to your agenda. I merely suggested when would we ever use the nuclear arsenal without the backing of the United States? Besides, The last time we flexed are muscles to any degree without US backing was in Suez, nothing short of a political disaster.



oooohhhhh, applause for bringing out the "everyone who dosnt agree with me is a leftie" agrumant, highly original. Frankly, what your saying here is a complete bunch of tosh if you take any interest in British politics. However right now im not really expecting anything better from you.



Please elaborate. Nations who do not have nuclear arsenals dont have armed forces? I really dont understand how my argumant amounts to this, quite frankly.



Yes, the political map and super power relations (which includes the use of nuclear deterrant) have prevented a major war, as well as nearly potentially caused it in the early 50's. I dont dispute this. I agree, but it has nothing to do with Britains individual nuclear deterrant, its the collective arsenals of the west and east.



They are partner members in some shape or form, it really translates to prospective members. Just to confuse things a little bit more Russia actually share similar status.

Like hell did i



This is the theory of MAD, Preventing nuclear attack on nuclear attack. Its has nothing to do with preventing conventional warfare. The US act as out on our behalf as the nuclear detterant through NATO.



Somone who dosnt fully understand what NATO is? Gerogia is not a NATO member.

I cant help but feel your completely missing the point and jumping in favour of watery argumants. Give me some decent reasons why Britain should maintain its nuclear arsenal, they are some pretty convincing ones.

I didnt say "Nuclear Deterrents as a whole being useless", i said in terms of super power relations they were limited, Only someone with no grasp of international politics would say otherwise.

I have suggested Nuclear Deterrent has been useless to Britain, which when you look at the political circumstances the past 35-40 years is not exactly unfair to suggest. The argumant that NATO has not tried to prevent a war is completely irrelevant to the point i was making, NATO is a collective defence, Britain is a member and as such benefits from the nuclear deterent provided by the USA. Im not trying to deny nuclear deterrent has deferred conflicts in Europe (and in Asia), the spheres of influence that nations in Europe are alligned under have almost certinly prevented a number of open conflicts. Your showing plain ignorance to the content of my post, i really shouldnt have to repeat myself.

Im questioning the purpose of a independant British nuclear deterrent when our international political position has not moved significantly in the last 65 years, and shows no imminant threat of doing so many decades to come. Lets take the plunge like South Africa, join Austrailia, Japan, New Zealand, Canada, Spain, Italy, Germany and Holland. I dont see any Chinease, Russians, North Koreans, Iranians or French walking all over there faces.

This brings me to my next point, whats the point of spending this enormous sum of cash on a nuclear detterant when we would never use them independantly without the USA's backing anway? Its madness, its pretty much paying the USA to station an extension of there detterant in the UK.



Excuse the fact that i have had to pull it from wiki, but im pretty sure the top 10 share some sort of corrolation. Now im not trying to suggest thats becuase they dont have nuclear arsenals, but it hardly hurts quality of living not too. But i have to agree with you to an extent, the internet that is allowing us to have this debate was a technological advantage that came of the back of nuclear programs.



This is comical, your asking me to look at facts by providing questions formed from completely invented hypothetical situations. Not even to bring up the fact they share no similarity with the current situation that the UK finds itself in in 2010 and that you have once again deviated with an argumant against a quote which appears no where in the content of my post. Christ start living in the here and now, Maybe we should spend that 25 Billion on helping France extend the Maginot line to the North coast of France, would Hitler have planned a Blitzkrieg through the low countries if there was an extended Maginot line? Better yet, would North Korea have invaded South Korea if the US officers (in rather junior positions it must be noted) accepted the entire surrender of the Japanease forces on the Korean penisula rather than seeking Russian involement for conveniance? Like i said, Im talking about Britain, not Tibet or Sri Lanka or Barbados. Anyway in responce :

Falklands War - Would Argentina invade an overseas territory of the United Kingdom if it was nuclear capable? Yes - (Fact)

China - Did all the prowess of a nuclear deterrant prevent an invasion of North Korea occupied by UN forces or the consistance shelling of Taiwan islands? No - (Fact)

Nuclear detterant is not a magic wand of invulnerability, is more a barganing chip on the craps table of international politics, on which Britain was never reserved a seat. The view of this Citizen is that its time for Britain to cash up that chip and improve its decade neglected military of an overdraft.

Oh i left some spelling mistakes so you could do the [sic] stuff, you seem to like playing the English teacher. Go crazy.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8149762.stm

Nothing new in the banking system. All that tax payers cash to make sure there bonuses are back to normal by next financial year!

EDIT : just noticed i wacked this in wrong thread, cheers for moving.

Yes it is. Other nations act as the deterent on our behalf, thats the hole point of the UN and more particularly NATO. Its seems to go pretty fine for other countries...

Its pretty much pissing away £75 billion over the next 30 years whilst getting absolutly nothing back, nothing at all. The past 30 years of British nuclear deterent have all but proved that. Nuclear politics is such a limited philosophy really reserved for super power relations, and perhaps even more reserved when it is so. Useful for Britain? It really worked wonders on freezing the Argentines claims to the falklands, not to mention keeping Russia and the Middle East in check over cartelling there energy reserves.

£38.7 billion overall, 1.5 billion is for trident. The new trident plans may cost up to 25 billion to implement.

Too be fair theres a dozen of Merlins on the way, plus about 10 Chinooks. Helicopters arnt risk free, though they are a much safer way to get about when your main enemy is the IED. I dont understand why the forces dont unlock more of its helicopter fleet for Afganistan, then again its probably becuase half the helicopters are utterly outdated and fulfil no significant role, eg. the Gazelle and Lynx.

TBH the main way forward would be to scrap trident and a ridiculously redundant political asset, and used the 20 odd billion you save to bring the active parts of the armed forces out of the 90's.

made me chuckle

Limp Bizkit - Full Nelson

ahh i see, sorry i took the wrong end of the stick (ie. forgot to read the attach bit).

No its not in, A long time ago it was planned, but i think i remember BIS saying they wernt going to implement it quite a while ago. Its more than likely that it could work with scripting, after all people got it working in OFP be it with some slight issues.

Oh man i love a good de-bunking. The BBC absolutly kicked the crap out of some pretty desperate 7/7 conspiracy theories. Honestly people need to get a life and some respect. I would recomend the program with anyone lucky enough to have access to the Iplayer.

I got a GTS250, pretty happy with it. Wasnt particularly expencive either, £160 or somthing around there. Graphics cards confuse the hell out of me though, they release to many to fast for me to keep up.

Tunnels, its a old ww2 bunker system. Not really, i went for a work trip but had excellent fun.

Awsome stuff sparky, but looks dam hot.

Any of the Brits here been to UCAP airsoft in portsmouth? Really awsome stuff in the dark.

It is my understanding that Vodou is practiced in West Africa, the event reported is in Kenya. Besides its all irrelevant, a women was still burnt to the stake without a state recognised trial witch or not.

Its the same story for the door on the aircraft carrier.

Got the game today, really enjoying it so far. Citys brings the FPS right down for me but the countryside i get 45-50. About to start the campaign, hope its up to standards. ( Track IR is MUCH better than ArmA )

is it still free?

I have been really getting into Static X recently.

Just played around with the Sherman for the first time. Stunning model, absolutly fantastic work.