US Military Rank Error

(Formaldehyde) #1

Don’t get me wrong. I just love this RTCW variant and I think Splash Damage did a great job creating a free game for all of us to enjoy. Who can possibly complain? However, there is a bit if a misunderstanding about US Army ranks.

Here’s the actual US Army descriptions for the rank of general:

5 Stars - General of the Army
4 Stars - General
3 Stars - Lieutenant General
2 Stars - Major General
1 Star - Brigadier General

The game mistakenly refers to Major Generals as Lt Generals and Lt Generals as Generals. Perhaps the British developers thought it was too confusing that Lt Generals outrank Major Generals…

(digibob) #2

Yup, that’s pretty much why we did it, there were some other reasons, but that was one of the main ones.

(SmokeyTarget) #3

Grrr, they are allies - if we were US troops, we would turn up with 20 seconds remaining of the campaign. :disgust:

ST.

(ND80) #4

And win what couldnt be won before we showed up? Hmmm, sounds like a smart move :slight_smile:

j/k -dont want to turn this into a UK vs USA war.

(digibob) #5

And win what couldnt be won before we showed up? Hmmm, sounds like a smart move :slight_smile:

j/k -dont want to turn this into a UK vs USA war.[/quote]

goes to fetch his BFG

(SmokeyTarget) #6

:slight_smile:

(Freedom[]Tickler) #7

LMAO

dont tell em about the hidden ranks

6 stars - ike

7 stars - spear and magic helmut

8 stars - give all

(Formaldehyde) #8

I guess that explains the accents, PFC vs Lance Corporal, and the uniforms…

Speaking of politics it’s funny how the US has gone from being primarily isolationist to being the rest of the world’s free police force, but we get a lot more criticism now than we have ever before…

(Warrzie) #9

That’s because the US is on top, we’re in the lime light. It’s like that smart kid in class who gets great grades and rarely screws up, everyone wants him to mess up and when he does it seems like a catastrophe. Either way, the US is so powerful that we will always be stepping on other country’s toes in whatever we do. If we resided back into isolationism, we would be ignoring the world’s problems and not fulfilling our job as a super power. If we get involved, we are suddenly becoming a police force and sticking our nose where it doesn’t belong.

But either way, I’ve got nothing against the UK (you Brits can thank your Prime Minister for my new found indifference towards you).

(Formaldehyde) #10

The smart kid in class? Not fulfilling our job as a super power? Must resist typing a suitable reply…

(Freedom[]Tickler) #11

Fighting for freedom, where ever it tickles, GI Joe is there !!

Executing search warrants where ever theres suspected WMD, GI Joe is there

GI Joe, a real American hero, Fighting evil Jacues Chirac w/ a 200 tank

drive-by shooting in Baghdad, and its all the fault of Splash Damage.

OK, it doesnt rhyme, but its still a catchy tune

(Warrzie) #12

I know it would be a terrible strain on you Formal.

(Freedom[]Tickler) #13

Formal De Hyde … you French?

(ExPLiCiT) #14

No he is a Flordian, bout the same thing though. j/k form. :poke:

(Englander) #15

Blair is a fag,if its through him you give us your indifference I dont want it.

Also i have nothing against USA ,I hold this opinion from the people who I know there and I respect the guys i know in the US as much as my own people,if I do have any problems with your country you can thank your president for it.

(Formaldehyde) #16

No, I’m about as ‘American’ as you can get. I just don’t agree with our C-student “neo-conservative” President going around inflicting his puritanical views on others despite how many other lemmings happen to agree with him. There is good reason why the UN Security Council voted against our overt aggression. To attempt to blame them for our own collective stupidity is beyond comprehension.

Now back to our regularly scheduled programming…

(skinner) #17

yea we wouldn’t want to hurt the americans feelings by kickin their ass

volcano classic

(Warrzie) #18

Certainly freeing an entire people from an oppressive dictator would not be considered a “puritanical view”, would it? You can say that is a was an oil-driven war, that Bush was trying to finish what dad started,etc, but the fact of the matter is there is one less dictator in the Middle East.

To anyone who says we shouldn’t have gone to war because it was about oil, I say look at the outcome, not the motivation. If you wanted to donate some clothing to charity so you could write it off on your taxes, would that be wrong? People are still getting the clothing, you just did it for a different reason. Just because Bush’s heart might not have been in the right place does not null the fact that we still have an obligation to eliminate threats to our security while assisting the down trodden.

And Skinner: No offense, but the only gleaming quality I think your country has is porn in your newspapers. Aside from that, I’ll stick with America.

(Formaldehyde) #19

If you now want to attempt to spin-doctor this war to be one of freeing an oppressed people from their corrupt government instead of stopping a madman who was bent on our destruction via chemical and biological weapons I think you would be better off looking at countries closer to our borders such as Mexico, Guatemala or Honduras. But wait - those countries are our ‘friends’ while Iraq is no longer our ‘friend’ even though the atrocities have been going on for decades while they still were our ‘friends’.

To me that argument is the epitome of hypocricy. I can’t wait for the UN to impose sanctions against us for having more NBCs than anybody else not to mention all the alleged human rights violations by the LA Police alone.

(Warrzie) #20

Lol, the UN impose sanctions on us? We are the UN. We fund it, we made it, and I believe there is the matter of that pesky clause our founding fathers threw in that prevents us from being run by an outside force. The moment the US starts obeying UN sanctions is the day I begin amassing a small arsenal of weapons.

But Formal, why can’t there be several motivations for this war? As for looking towards threats near our own country…is Bush’s reasoning for targeting Iraq so difficult to understand? We have a blatantly hostile country actively making threats against the US government. We also know said country has the ability to manufactor chemical weapons (see the Kurds). Add to that the fact that hiring terrorist mercenaries to smuggle weapons into a country is about as easy as going to Starbucks in the US and we have a very real threat against us and our allies.