Re:Some would call X3 the successor...
on
Elite Turns 25
·
· Score: 1
Just to be clear - I don't want to be the cause of you upgrading your system under false pretenses:)
The X3 games are sector based games, so there are over 200 sectors connected together by Stargate-style jumpgates. Each sector, while technically unlimited in size, has all its interesting things within a box that varies between about 60km a side to 300km a side (with a few things scattered off the beaten track to reward the curious). To give you an idea, here is an X3:TC Universe Map (I wouldn't study it in detail however or you really will spoil yourself). Also planets are pretty pictures painted on the backdrop, and can't be orbited or interacted with at all.
So, coupled with the Aristotelean physics, this is not a "space simulator" in the way that Frontier was. I hope that doesn't put you off, it is a truly fantastic game, but I know a lot of Frontier fans have certain opinions about realism that X3 does not even try to meet:)
Re:Some would call X3 the successor...
on
Elite Turns 25
·
· Score: 1
Spoilers abound (but you need to spoil yourself quite a bit to learn X3 anyway IMO) and it is written for other players, so some of it may not make much sense for someone who hasn't played the game. It should give you a real idea of the possibilities of the game however - the author is an inveterate pirate, which makes for good reading, he is also very, very good at the game; there is no way I could ever pull off most of the stuff there.
Re:Some would call X3 the successor...
on
Elite Turns 25
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Yeah X3 isn't ideal if you want a believable space simulator - no Newtonian physics, no planets you can visit, tiny crowded playing area (compared to reality - it's a very big game area in an absolute sense). I've heard it described as a submarine sim with space graphics, which is fair enough all things considered.
That said I absolutely love the game, and do think of it as the spiritual successor to Elite (and even Frontier). The amount of stuff you can do in the game, from trading, to fighting, to salvaging, to exploring, to building you own space stations and automated trading fleets is huge. And the game looks absolutely gorgeous (although it is a system hog, particularly for CPU).
My current game is fairly early on - I don't have any of the huge capital ships yet - but when looking for trouble I tool around in an M6 (corvette) class, which is the smallest 'big ship' where you rely on your turrets rather than your main battery for a lot of your fighting.. I have two TM (military transport) class ships following me around, each carrying four M4 (interceptor/medium fighter) class which I order launched before going into combat. The particular TMs I'm using have very heavy shields, so they can survive a fight as well, so I have a proper little battle fleet.
My M4s are configured to use (spam might be more accurate) missiles. I produce these in my own factory complex and ferry them across to my TMs, the fighters are set to replenish there each time they dock.
I have 3 high-level automated traders which jump around the universe on their own, making me cash, and a couple more low-level ones I'm training up. A couple of stations scattered around, with automated ships buying and selling for them (there are also NPC traders which will deal with your factories), and my missile complex (several factories joined together so they share inputs and outputs, and produce some of their own intermediate goods). There are lots of randomly generated missions, which are the source of much of my income, and also multiple plot arcs which I'm going through as and when I feel like it.
I haven't played for a while, and typing this I really don't know why...:)
The game is certainly not without flaws, there are bugs (although Egosoft are amazingly good at supporting their products after release, and tend to release as free patches stuff they could easily sell as an expansion pack), and the game is hard to get into - it is intimidatingly complex and the in-game tutorial leaves a lot to be desired. But it is a game that will reward those initial hours with an amazing experience. It also has about the best gaming forum I've ever come across; player demographics are definitely skewed towards older people, and they tend to be hugely enthusiastic about the game and more than willing to help newbies come to grips with it.
Well, that's my evangelism done for today:) (If I've managed to inspire anyone, two bits of advice - buy the current game (X3: Terran Conflict) if your system can handle it, it is significantly easier to get started in than the earlier X3: Reunion. And choose the Terran Defender start, it is by far the best for newbies - very nice M4 fighting ship from the off, and you start right at the beginning of one of the major plot arcs, which has a lot of nice goodies available as rewards.)
when are we going to realise that this kind of "research" isn't right. Surely there has to be better ways of learning than this?
If we were talking about testing cosmetics then I would agree with you.
But this sort of research, and that of the neuro scientist you knew, is research that may increase our knowledge of biology. And increasing our knowledge of biology is how we go about developing new cures for sick humans.
As far as I, and the large majority of people, is concerned, this is an ethical trade-off worth making. Yes there is suffering to animals, and I wouldn't support that if they were doing it for fun, but the long term benefits to humanity from this sort of research make it ethical; the alternative is to suspend animal research, or to restrict it so much (ie make scientists prove a direct medical benefit) that new cures will be delayed.
You may not agree, but most people do, so don't hold your breath while waiting for a change.
That's because the Maori's ate them all. Seriously, the bloody Maori's are the only native race to ever get a treaty from the vicious pommy bastard tribe!
That's an interesting assertion. How are you defining native? And treaty? (I'm assuming that 'vicious pommy bastard tribe' refers to us inhabitants of the sceptred isle) Surely Britain must have had a number of treaties with Indian principalities (although I suppose that would have been the East India Company rather than the British state). I thought however that Britain did enter into treaties with a number of native American tribes around the time of US independence.
Cells programme themselves to die when they no longer receive communications requiring them to live. It's easy to extrapolate from those findings to an individual's need to socially interact.
Er no, really really no.
You can't infer any such thing between two such radically different systems. And since there are plenty of multi-cellular organisms which are completely solitary, it is trivial to completely disprove the idea.
But really I don't see the difference between diluted Christians/Jews/Muslims/Buddhists/Hinduists and Scientologists.
I'm an atheist, and normally I don't have a problem with criticising the mainstream religions, but I think comparing them to Scientology is unfair.
No matter what you think about the Pope and the leaders of other religions, I don't think there is any doubt that they actually believe what they preach, are truly convinced that their religions are true and beneficial to humanity, and are not just trying to gull the vulnerable for their own financial gain.
Maybe in a few centuries, Scientology will be the same as any other religion (personally I hope it never gets that far), but right now it is a dangerous cult.
Presumptuous?? Isn't that how science is meant to work - collect data, try and find patterns, make presumptions (hypothesises) about the underlying systems, and then collect more data to see if their presumptions are born out.
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not Eureka! (I found it!) but rather, 'hmm... that's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov
Now there's something to consider. You register, in the process giving certain information, such as your age, sex, location, and so on. When you register, you get a cookie. Cookie allows Murdoch company to track which stories you read, how often, and when.
Allowing them to refine their targeting for the key Albanian Grandmother segment?:)
Why the hell are they using ancient greek physics for a futuristic space game?
I hate to say it, but I'm something of a heretic on this point. Bottom line, IMO, is that it is just hard to make Newtonian physics fun in a space game, or at least a space game with significant combat elements. And yes I did play Elite 2 to death, which is mainly where I'm getting this opinion from:) I suppose it would be better if they did what Archimedian Dynasty did, and make it a sub game instead, but lets face it, space is way cooler..
So yeah, the X3 universe is not real space or anything like it - the physics are wrong, it's far, far, far too small. But the wrong physics are much more fun to play, and the smallness is only when comparing it to real space; in human terms it's a very big game.
Hell yes, God I'd forgotten that game but I've lost count of how many hours I spent playing it (I think I've bought at least 2 copies and pirated it at least once). Even if the AI was so bad I had to scatter bore holes all over the map before starting a game, just so it wouldn't stagnate in the mid game. That game had soul and atmosphere in bucket loads..
>Please explain when you would want encryption but not trust?
But you only have trust if all CAs trusted by your browser are in fact trustworthy. Which they aren't. So you have no trust either way, but this way costs the site operator $$ to get rid of the warning.
I see what they were trying to do with certificates, but how the system actually exists in the real world is just a money grab.
It's nae good blamin it oan the English fir colonising us. Ah don't hate the English. They're just wankers. We are colonised by wankers. We can't even pick a decent, vibrant, healthy culture to be colonised by. No. We're ruled by effete arseholes. What does that make us? The lowest of the fuckin low, the scum of the earth. The most wretched, servile, miserable, pathetic trash that was ever shat intae creation. Ah don't hate the English. They just git oan wi the shite thuv goat. Ah hate the Scots.
heh, you could probably find most of those exact comments on any forum for an upcoming game right now, from people who haven't yet paid a penny.
I think the "gamer" bit here is something of a red herring; as I see it the meat of the idea is: "is it possible to finance a game with small investors, rather than from a single publisher?" I don't think that doing it as "very advanced pre-orders" would work (how many people are going to pay for a game several years in advance?), what is needed is investors not customers; people who are hoping to make a return on their investment rather than just play a game, and would be willing to invest a lot more than the price of an individual copy.
No idea at all if it could work, but I can see it might appeal to developers who are frustrated by their publisher's demands (1 single investor will always have more clout than a large group), and think they can handle distribution and marketing inhouse or through contractors.
I can imagine some games being an attractive investment.. as long as the developer and the IP had a good track record of course.. Funny how thinking about my own money makes me sound like the most unadventurous publisher out there:)
I sell a lot of hard drives. I get assured on a regular basis that $brand is awful (translates to I've had 1 or 2 of these fail before) or has a bad reputation (my mate/random guy on a forum was dissing them). I even hear about Deathstars occasionaly and that's, what, 10 years ago?
I've given up arguing and just sell them whatever brand they think is trustworthy.
I apologise for being provocative, but I stick to my main point.
What problems are you referring to, that have resulted from a liberal point of view? What problems with immigration do you refer to (I don't believe in opening our borders altogether, but at the same time, I don't have any sympathy for people whining that their jobs are being "stolen";
Mass immigration has fundamentally changed many cities this country in ways that nothing else has or could, but for years.. decades.. debate on the subject has been a taboo; we have sleepwalked into a some form of a "multicultural society" with no debate and no serious attempt to predict or influence the outcome. The people who object have been ignored or branded racists.
I don't understand why people don't see this as a problem.
Why do some people turn to the BNP? Because they are the only ones who are saying what they think - now the BNP are a bunch of lying nazi scum who shouldn't be taken at face value, but their public platform is not all that extreme compared to the views of a significant minority in this country, and many many more agree with at least some of what they say.
It isn't the liberal principles I disagree with, it is the utter lack of anything beyond them to justify immigration policy over the last decades. You can't change a country that much with so little thought. Or at least you really shouldn't; the law of unintended consequences will bite you hard.
We do agree I think. To be honest it has never occurred to me that the term "multiculturalism" had any meaning beyond it's 'popular' use in Britain; it used to sound like a good and just idea when I was a student, but over the years I've come to realise it is basically a fig leaf, behind which our leaders have tried to hide the utter lack of thought and planning that they have given to immigration and integration.
That is why I was ranting - not about the concept of multiculturalism as you say it has been successfully applied elsewhere. Or about the fact of immigration. But rather that it is something that Britain has just drifted into, and that the concerns of people who've had their lives changed most by immigration are dismissed; which I don't see as a stable solution to the problems.
No argument with any of that (well apart from the last sentence). I'm not sure what you mean by multiculturalism, but I mean it to mean the policy that has been pursued in Britain under the name of multiculturalism. You sum up its defects admirably - you cannot just add millions of people of hugely disparate races, cultures and religions and expect it all to work without any effort to forge a more unitary British identity.
Oh come on, you know exactly what he's talking about.
Now I'm not anti-immigration (I'd like some people of working age in this country when I'm drawing a pension), but if you think that immigration has been well handled over the last 40 years or so then you are blind (possibly deliberately).
The guiding doctrine has been a "multicultural society", which is something formulated by somewhat woolly intellectuals and can be basically summed up as "if we are nice and politically correct to everyone, then we can ignore all the real problems you always get when people of very different cultures live right next to each other, because we are right and everything will sort itself out as long as we stick to our liberal principles."
Unfortunately it hasn't (in the opinion of many people in this country) been as simple as that. Reality has intruded and a lot of people are extremely unhappy with immigration; any immigration at all in some cases. That is the problem, and it is a serious one.
I agree to a very limited extent - that a side effect of the rise of the BNP may be beneficial, in that they are raising issues the major parties have been avoiding.
I strongly disagree that the BNP are "the voice of a segment which didn't have a voice before". They would like to portray themselves as this, the platform they stand on is, although fairly extreme on some issues (immigration), not a nazi one.
The thing is the BNP are a bunch of lying nazis. Their platform is carefully constructed to win disaffected voters but bears little resemblance to their true aims. They are trying to attract people who have strong views on issues like immigration, but you only have to look at the personal history of the BNP leadership to see these are not people who are a little to the right of the mainstream, but actual fascists; however they try to clothe themselves at the moment.
For this reason I hope they sink without trace. We have enough evidence in Europe, within living memory, of where this road leads, to condemn nazis out of hand.
And by this point in the war, the desperate need was for advanced fighter aircraft to stop the allied bombing offensive. I'm sure there is a bit in Speer's book, or maybe one of his interviews, about trying to convince Hitler to switch all jet production to fighter aircraft, but Hitler (who's grip on reality was seriously slipping by this point) wanted bombers to attack Germany's enemies.
Lasting change won't come about externaly, it must happen internally. Note Afghanistan and Iraq, which we attacked for our own interests. If those had both been civil wars, triggered internally, the countries would probably be well on their way to their own freedom instead of being "iffy" like they are now.
Sounds good, but that isn't actually true. The US occupied, rebuilt, and remade in their own image a number of nations at the end of World War II. If they were really willing to spend the blood and treasure over another decade or so, the same could be done to Iraq.
Slashdot Mirror
Just to be clear - I don't want to be the cause of you upgrading your system under false pretenses :)
:)
The X3 games are sector based games, so there are over 200 sectors connected together by Stargate-style jumpgates. Each sector, while technically unlimited in size, has all its interesting things within a box that varies between about 60km a side to 300km a side (with a few things scattered off the beaten track to reward the curious). To give you an idea, here is an X3:TC Universe Map (I wouldn't study it in detail however or you really will spoil yourself). Also planets are pretty pictures painted on the backdrop, and can't be orbited or interacted with at all.
So, coupled with the Aristotelean physics, this is not a "space simulator" in the way that Frontier was. I hope that doesn't put you off, it is a truly fantastic game, but I know a lot of Frontier fans have certain opinions about realism that X3 does not even try to meet
If you want something to whet your appetite there is a fantasticly well written gameplay AAR: Squiddy McSquid's possibly short life.
Spoilers abound (but you need to spoil yourself quite a bit to learn X3 anyway IMO) and it is written for other players, so some of it may not make much sense for someone who hasn't played the game. It should give you a real idea of the possibilities of the game however - the author is an inveterate pirate, which makes for good reading, he is also very, very good at the game; there is no way I could ever pull off most of the stuff there.
Yeah X3 isn't ideal if you want a believable space simulator - no Newtonian physics, no planets you can visit, tiny crowded playing area (compared to reality - it's a very big game area in an absolute sense). I've heard it described as a submarine sim with space graphics, which is fair enough all things considered.
:)
:) (If I've managed to inspire anyone, two bits of advice - buy the current game (X3: Terran Conflict) if your system can handle it, it is significantly easier to get started in than the earlier X3: Reunion. And choose the Terran Defender start, it is by far the best for newbies - very nice M4 fighting ship from the off, and you start right at the beginning of one of the major plot arcs, which has a lot of nice goodies available as rewards.)
That said I absolutely love the game, and do think of it as the spiritual successor to Elite (and even Frontier). The amount of stuff you can do in the game, from trading, to fighting, to salvaging, to exploring, to building you own space stations and automated trading fleets is huge. And the game looks absolutely gorgeous (although it is a system hog, particularly for CPU).
My current game is fairly early on - I don't have any of the huge capital ships yet - but when looking for trouble I tool around in an M6 (corvette) class, which is the smallest 'big ship' where you rely on your turrets rather than your main battery for a lot of your fighting.. I have two TM (military transport) class ships following me around, each carrying four M4 (interceptor/medium fighter) class which I order launched before going into combat. The particular TMs I'm using have very heavy shields, so they can survive a fight as well, so I have a proper little battle fleet.
My M4s are configured to use (spam might be more accurate) missiles. I produce these in my own factory complex and ferry them across to my TMs, the fighters are set to replenish there each time they dock.
I have 3 high-level automated traders which jump around the universe on their own, making me cash, and a couple more low-level ones I'm training up. A couple of stations scattered around, with automated ships buying and selling for them (there are also NPC traders which will deal with your factories), and my missile complex (several factories joined together so they share inputs and outputs, and produce some of their own intermediate goods). There are lots of randomly generated missions, which are the source of much of my income, and also multiple plot arcs which I'm going through as and when I feel like it.
I haven't played for a while, and typing this I really don't know why...
The game is certainly not without flaws, there are bugs (although Egosoft are amazingly good at supporting their products after release, and tend to release as free patches stuff they could easily sell as an expansion pack), and the game is hard to get into - it is intimidatingly complex and the in-game tutorial leaves a lot to be desired. But it is a game that will reward those initial hours with an amazing experience. It also has about the best gaming forum I've ever come across; player demographics are definitely skewed towards older people, and they tend to be hugely enthusiastic about the game and more than willing to help newbies come to grips with it.
Well, that's my evangelism done for today
If we were talking about testing cosmetics then I would agree with you.
But this sort of research, and that of the neuro scientist you knew, is research that may increase our knowledge of biology. And increasing our knowledge of biology is how we go about developing new cures for sick humans.
As far as I, and the large majority of people, is concerned, this is an ethical trade-off worth making. Yes there is suffering to animals, and I wouldn't support that if they were doing it for fun, but the long term benefits to humanity from this sort of research make it ethical; the alternative is to suspend animal research, or to restrict it so much (ie make scientists prove a direct medical benefit) that new cures will be delayed.
You may not agree, but most people do, so don't hold your breath while waiting for a change.
That's an interesting assertion. How are you defining native? And treaty? (I'm assuming that 'vicious pommy bastard tribe' refers to us inhabitants of the sceptred isle) Surely Britain must have had a number of treaties with Indian principalities (although I suppose that would have been the East India Company rather than the British state). I thought however that Britain did enter into treaties with a number of native American tribes around the time of US independence.
Er no, really really no.
You can't infer any such thing between two such radically different systems. And since there are plenty of multi-cellular organisms which are completely solitary, it is trivial to completely disprove the idea.
I'm an atheist, and normally I don't have a problem with criticising the mainstream religions, but I think comparing them to Scientology is unfair.
No matter what you think about the Pope and the leaders of other religions, I don't think there is any doubt that they actually believe what they preach, are truly convinced that their religions are true and beneficial to humanity, and are not just trying to gull the vulnerable for their own financial gain.
Maybe in a few centuries, Scientology will be the same as any other religion (personally I hope it never gets that far), but right now it is a dangerous cult.
Presumptuous?? Isn't that how science is meant to work - collect data, try and find patterns, make presumptions (hypothesises) about the underlying systems, and then collect more data to see if their presumptions are born out.
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not Eureka! (I found it!) but rather, 'hmm... that's funny...'" - Isaac Asimov
That isn't true. Peer review works fine as long as you can restrict the definition of "peer" to those who actually have something to contribute.
Allowing them to refine their targeting for the key Albanian Grandmother segment? :)
I hate to say it, but I'm something of a heretic on this point. Bottom line, IMO, is that it is just hard to make Newtonian physics fun in a space game, or at least a space game with significant combat elements. And yes I did play Elite 2 to death, which is mainly where I'm getting this opinion from :) I suppose it would be better if they did what Archimedian Dynasty did, and make it a sub game instead, but lets face it, space is way cooler..
So yeah, the X3 universe is not real space or anything like it - the physics are wrong, it's far, far, far too small. But the wrong physics are much more fun to play, and the smallness is only when comparing it to real space; in human terms it's a very big game.
Hell yes, God I'd forgotten that game but I've lost count of how many hours I spent playing it (I think I've bought at least 2 copies and pirated it at least once). Even if the AI was so bad I had to scatter bore holes all over the map before starting a game, just so it wouldn't stagnate in the mid game. That game had soul and atmosphere in bucket loads..
Have you played any of the X games? Current iteration is X3: Terran Conflict.
Not an easy game to learn by any means (more of a learning cliff than a learning curve), but it's one hell of a game once you get passed that.
>Please explain when you would want encryption but not trust?
But you only have trust if all CAs trusted by your browser are in fact trustworthy. Which they aren't. So you have no trust either way, but this way costs the site operator $$ to get rid of the warning.
I see what they were trying to do with certificates, but how the system actually exists in the real world is just a money grab.
heh, you could probably find most of those exact comments on any forum for an upcoming game right now, from people who haven't yet paid a penny.
:)
I think the "gamer" bit here is something of a red herring; as I see it the meat of the idea is: "is it possible to finance a game with small investors, rather than from a single publisher?" I don't think that doing it as "very advanced pre-orders" would work (how many people are going to pay for a game several years in advance?), what is needed is investors not customers; people who are hoping to make a return on their investment rather than just play a game, and would be willing to invest a lot more than the price of an individual copy.
No idea at all if it could work, but I can see it might appeal to developers who are frustrated by their publisher's demands (1 single investor will always have more clout than a large group), and think they can handle distribution and marketing inhouse or through contractors.
I can imagine some games being an attractive investment.. as long as the developer and the IP had a good track record of course.. Funny how thinking about my own money makes me sound like the most unadventurous publisher out there
Amen.
I sell a lot of hard drives. I get assured on a regular basis that $brand is awful (translates to I've had 1 or 2 of these fail before) or has a bad reputation (my mate/random guy on a forum was dissing them). I even hear about Deathstars occasionaly and that's, what, 10 years ago?
I've given up arguing and just sell them whatever brand they think is trustworthy.
I apologise for being provocative, but I stick to my main point.
Mass immigration has fundamentally changed many cities this country in ways that nothing else has or could, but for years.. decades.. debate on the subject has been a taboo; we have sleepwalked into a some form of a "multicultural society" with no debate and no serious attempt to predict or influence the outcome. The people who object have been ignored or branded racists.
I don't understand why people don't see this as a problem.
Why do some people turn to the BNP? Because they are the only ones who are saying what they think - now the BNP are a bunch of lying nazi scum who shouldn't be taken at face value, but their public platform is not all that extreme compared to the views of a significant minority in this country, and many many more agree with at least some of what they say.
It isn't the liberal principles I disagree with, it is the utter lack of anything beyond them to justify immigration policy over the last decades. You can't change a country that much with so little thought. Or at least you really shouldn't; the law of unintended consequences will bite you hard.
We do agree I think. To be honest it has never occurred to me that the term "multiculturalism" had any meaning beyond it's 'popular' use in Britain; it used to sound like a good and just idea when I was a student, but over the years I've come to realise it is basically a fig leaf, behind which our leaders have tried to hide the utter lack of thought and planning that they have given to immigration and integration.
That is why I was ranting - not about the concept of multiculturalism as you say it has been successfully applied elsewhere. Or about the fact of immigration. But rather that it is something that Britain has just drifted into, and that the concerns of people who've had their lives changed most by immigration are dismissed; which I don't see as a stable solution to the problems.
No argument with any of that (well apart from the last sentence). I'm not sure what you mean by multiculturalism, but I mean it to mean the policy that has been pursued in Britain under the name of multiculturalism. You sum up its defects admirably - you cannot just add millions of people of hugely disparate races, cultures and religions and expect it all to work without any effort to forge a more unitary British identity.
Oh come on, you know exactly what he's talking about.
Now I'm not anti-immigration (I'd like some people of working age in this country when I'm drawing a pension), but if you think that immigration has been well handled over the last 40 years or so then you are blind (possibly deliberately).
The guiding doctrine has been a "multicultural society", which is something formulated by somewhat woolly intellectuals and can be basically summed up as "if we are nice and politically correct to everyone, then we can ignore all the real problems you always get when people of very different cultures live right next to each other, because we are right and everything will sort itself out as long as we stick to our liberal principles."
Unfortunately it hasn't (in the opinion of many people in this country) been as simple as that. Reality has intruded and a lot of people are extremely unhappy with immigration; any immigration at all in some cases. That is the problem, and it is a serious one.
I agree to a very limited extent - that a side effect of the rise of the BNP may be beneficial, in that they are raising issues the major parties have been avoiding.
I strongly disagree that the BNP are "the voice of a segment which didn't have a voice before". They would like to portray themselves as this, the platform they stand on is, although fairly extreme on some issues (immigration), not a nazi one.
The thing is the BNP are a bunch of lying nazis. Their platform is carefully constructed to win disaffected voters but bears little resemblance to their true aims. They are trying to attract people who have strong views on issues like immigration, but you only have to look at the personal history of the BNP leadership to see these are not people who are a little to the right of the mainstream, but actual fascists; however they try to clothe themselves at the moment.
For this reason I hope they sink without trace. We have enough evidence in Europe, within living memory, of where this road leads, to condemn nazis out of hand.
And by this point in the war, the desperate need was for advanced fighter aircraft to stop the allied bombing offensive. I'm sure there is a bit in Speer's book, or maybe one of his interviews, about trying to convince Hitler to switch all jet production to fighter aircraft, but Hitler (who's grip on reality was seriously slipping by this point) wanted bombers to attack Germany's enemies.
Speer was of course a liar about many things.
Sounds good, but that isn't actually true. The US occupied, rebuilt, and remade in their own image a number of nations at the end of World War II. If they were really willing to spend the blood and treasure over another decade or so, the same could be done to Iraq.
>Need For Tweed: Underground
LOL, I'd buy it!