Brian Rock

Getting in before this one is locked up... Here's a rebuttal to the original post. As long as we're slandering we may as well spread the grief around... +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > NOTICE OF REVOCATION OF INDEPENDENCE > > To the citizens of the United States of America, > > In the light of your failure to elect a President of the USA and thus to > govern yourselves, we hereby give notice of the revocation of your > independence, effective today. Fair call, as England has never had a crisis of governance. The War of the Roses and the English Civil War were simply overenthusiastic (if misguided) English celebrations of political unity. No doubt it would be churlish to see these as a justification for giving control of England back to the Romans or the Normans. > Her Sovereign Majesty Queen Elizabeth II will resume monarchical duties > over all states, commonwealths and other territories. Such duties consisting primarily of wedding idiot children off to sluts. > Except Utah, which she does not fancy. Understandable, although she might wish to swap with Utah with Yorkshire as part of a non-cultural exchange program. > Your new prime minister (The rt. hon. Tony Blair, MP > for the 97.85% of you who have until now been unaware that there is a > world outside your borders) As opposed to the 98.75 of Britons who are unaware they are part of Europe. > will appoint a minister for America without the need for further elections. Let's consider this. England's inability to find an approriate English monarch in the 17th century prompted them to surrender the throne to the Dutch and then the Germans. This was after their abortive attempt to establish a legitimately representative democracy, so I suppose it's fair the Americans take their turn surrendering sovereignity. > Congress and the Senate will be > disbanded. A questionnaire will be circulated next year to determine > whether any of you noticed. Which is as daft as saying "we will disband Parliament and the House of Lords". I suspect the author means the House of Representatives and the Senate... It's a given that the English don't understand the difference between the Executive and Legislative arms of government, and for that matter that the US government actually still has a president. It would be unreasonable to expect the English to understand how other governments work. This would considering alternative ways of doing things, and the British haven't had any new ideas since the Adam Smith. And he was a Scot. > To aid in the transition to a British Crown Dependency, the following > rules are introduced with immediate effect: > > 1. You should look up "revocation" in the Oxford English Dictionary. The apparent rationale seems to be to arbitrarily use a dictionary produced by British elites and use this to establish a norm. This will make it possible to demonstrate that these same elites' world views are the only correct ones. We will ignore the implicit circularity of the argument. It is unfortunate that the real editors of the OED find American usage a legitimate branch of the language - but then they recognise words from Australia and even South Africa, so standards have clearly slipped in the last 121 years. > Then look up "aluminium". Unfortunately "aluminum" is in the OED as an acceptable alternative, further evidence of the declining standards of the editors. > Check the pronunciation guide. You will be amazed > at just how wrongly you have been pronouncing it. If they had been trying to pronounce "aluminium" this would be accurate. That the Americans were pronouncing the equally valid "aluminum" (on the proviso one accepts the OED's authority) does appear to weaken the argument slightly. No problem. A simple appeal to intrinsic rightness should deal with this objection. For centuries the Anglican church has relied on this technique to manage the inherent contradctions between the High and Low churches. It is much simpler than rational thought. > Generally, you should > raise your vocabulary to acceptable levels. Look up "vocabulary". Using > the same twenty seven words interspersed with filler noises such as > "like" and "you know" is an unacceptable and inefficient form of > communication. Look up "interspersed". Indeed. Please try to emulate the linguistic eloquence of soccer hooligans, East Enders and north country farmers. > 2. There is no such thing as "US English". We will let Microsoft know on > your behalf. Yes, there is only RP. That RP is an artificial construct devised early in the 20th century by British Oxbridge elites is neither here nor there. > 3. You should learn to distinguish the English and Australian accents. > It really isn't that hard. For example the typical Englishman/woman can distinguish between 387 accents: 383 regional variants in the UK, plus American, Australian, South African, and all-those-strange-woggy-noises-uttered-across the channel. > 4. Hollywood will be required occasionally to cast English actors as the > good guys. This is inaccurate. Hollywood should be required to occasionally cast any non-Americans as the good guys. Instead they should follow the British example of tolerance for foreigners. For example British films typically feature French or German heros bravely standing up to the wretched English villains. Unfortunately actual examples escape me for the moment... > 5. You should relearn your original national anthem, "God Save The Queen"... Preferably sung in French to remind us of the Norman Conquest. > ...but only after fully carrying out task 1. We would not want you to get > confused and give up half way through. The thinking here is muddled. "God Save The Queen" doesn't use the word "revocation", ro deal with any issues involving revocation. Perhaps the author should look the word up to clarify the meaning for himself. > 6. You should stop playing American "football". There is only one kind > of football. What you refer to as American "football" is not a very > good game. Oh, dear. The only thing worse than platform wars (my OS is better than your OS...*yawn*) are debates between codes of football. Akin to arguing over which animal's sweat tastes the best. > The 2.15% of you who are aware that there is a world outside your borders > may have noticed that no one else plays "American" football. If international acceptance is the defined criteria, can we take this opportunity to abolish English beer and cooking? > You will no longer be allowed to play it, and should instead play > proper football. Saying American football is not a very good game is one thing. Arguing it is not a good game in comparison to soccer is pathological. This is a game in which scoring is so rare a goal is occassion for a national holiday. There is no other game on earth that enshrines dullness so well. Except for cricket. > Initially, it would be best if you played with the girls. Which might add some interest to the game. At least there would finally be something to look at. > It is a difficult game. True. Staying awake throught he stultifying boredom requires superhuman psychological toughness. > Those of you brave enough will, in time, be allowed to > play rugby (which is similar to American "football", but does not involve > stopping for a rest every twenty seconds or wearing full kevlar body > armour like nancies). We are hoping to get together at least a US rugby > sevens side by 2005. The author is quite welcome to go onto an American football field for a quarter. His next-of-kin can write a witty rebuttal on his behalf. > 7. You should declare war on Quebec and France, using nuclear weapons if > they give you any merde. There is some merit for attacking Quebec, but the French are a priceless thorn in the hell of the English and should be nurtured accordingly. > The 98.85% of you who were not aware that there > is a world outside your borders should count yourselves lucky. Someone needs to point out to the author that England is part of the EU. He clearly belongs to the 98.75% who don't realise England is part of Europe. Or that the Hundred Years war is over, and England lost. > The Russians have never been the bad guys. Please advise the Tories and MI5. >"Merde" is French for "sh*t". As in "les Anglais sont pleins du merde" > 8. July 4th is no longer a public holiday. November 8th will be a new > national holiday, but only in England. It will be called "Indecisive > Day". The English have a long history of celebrating failures of democracy. It is based on a historical distrust of ordinary people. That is why they still have a monarchy. It sits rather well with the fine tradion of "do as you're told" that peridically leads to the decimation of generations of young British men in badly fought wars. > 9. All American cars are hereby banned. They are crap and it is for your > own good. When we show you German cars, you will understand what we mean. Absolutely correct. Which is why the British abolished their automotive industry years ago. > 10. Please tell us who killed JFK. It's been driving us crazy. Please tell us why Maggie Thatcher is still alive. We find that incomprehensible. > * Thank you for your cooperation. We look forward to rejoining Britain so we can too can slide from world dominance to a third rate regional power. > The British Empire That should read "Formerly known as the British Empire". That, or "Poor losers who still can't accept they got their asses kicked by an American-French coalition two centruies ago and really should get over it."

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>As I look out my window, I can see the moon; it is, I believe, 250,000 miles away. I had no idea radar in 1943 could function out to half that distance. If it were daylight, I think I'd be able to see even farther...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Probably not. Did you notice those little blinking things called "stars"? It's amazing how much discussion has been prompted by a rather fluffy thread. Is the cesspool full?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Gezeder - you have to find some middle ground. To be honest with you, a company commander who spends 20 minutes to "look" around, getting in little fire fights along the way, just to fight a ten minute fight and seize 500 meters of ground would be considered overly cautious, wasteful of time and assets and a poor tactician/leader. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Having said I favour scouting/recon, I certainly wasn't suggesting 20 minutes of slinking around. In practice what I do is closer to "contact with the smallest element" than a true scout's job. I wonder if some of this debate isn't semantic confusion.

I try to scout, even in smallish battles. I think gezeder has it right - better to lose a few guys finding out where the enemy is then to risk an entire platoon getting the same information. I've learned this the hard way, rushing where I was sure the enemy wasn't, only to find out where they are. A well-positioned defender can decimate a careless attacker. Look at if from the defender's point-of-view. Would you prefer: a) for the enemy to find out where you are by sacrificing a half squad or two, or b)blindly to move his main force into your kill zone?

I use view 4 about 80-90% of the time. I use views 7 and 8 mainly at game start to help analyse the terrain, and I'll pop down to view 1 if I need to check LOS or look at something cool. That's pretty much it.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I think that the customers who elect to purchase CM should have a partial lobotomy according to their stated preferences of side they play, to make them forget all these lessons.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Germanboy: this is a brilliant suggestion! How better to recreate historical stupidity than to impose it on the players? Yet another example of typical Teutonic efficiency (+2 on the innovation table), and standard Hunnish sadism (-1 on the human values table). Good to see you living up to your national characteristics. (It's also good to see a sense of humour creeping back into the thread.) Quite seriously, this does touch on a real issue - the advantage of hindsight. The only way to really simulate the learning curve is to play a game against someone whose tactical knowledge of a particular situation (eg uncertainty how to fight in hedgerow country) is comparable to the original participants. Namely none at the outset, and learning primarily through trial and error. Or through the liberal use of alchohol. That is a reasonable surrogate.

Well, at least Andrew has identified a specific behaviour the game doesn't readily capture, the ability for Russians to use human wave attacks. Otherwise it's still rather fuzzy. Specifically what is it that the Germans/Poles/Russians/Bulgarians/whatevers should do differently that can't be done with the current system? Incidentally one of the problems with Dupuy is that his samples are skewed. I don't have the reference in front of me, but I read a critique that points out his US vs German examples are primarily German defensive actions, and that from memory he only used something like a dozen examples, not hundreds. It's been a year since I read the chapter so I may well be wrong on the details.

I had a dream last week that the CM engine was adapted to Napoleonics. The scale was changed to 10 min turns and the units were regiments, but it was still CM. It was also true 3D. The players were playing it on a tabletop like a miniatures comp. You can do that kind of weird stuff in dreams, but I doubt that even Charles will be able to code that.

16 meg Voodoo Banshee, PII 233, 64MB. CM runs fine on my machine, but the latest whizz-bang graphic heavy games coming out now won't. I don't even bother buying most new games these days. So - if the choice is between medium-spec graphic CM that runs versus a high-spec version I can't play, I'll vote Luddite.

Everybody else has weighed in on this. I may as well take my turn. 1) Yes, I agree there were differences between armies. It does not follow that these differences applied to every unit or soldier within these armies. Consequently using a universal modifier is illogical. 2) The differences between armies at any level above the tactical situation simulated in a CM battle (eg major encriclements, or theatre logistical support) is irrelevant. We only need to look at differences between individual units on the CM battlefield. 3) Can the CM editor allow players to produce the behaviours they are looking for? If yes, then the system is not borken, and the debate is a semantic one. If it can't simulate the behaviours, specify which ones you think are required.

Kitty, you are one of this forum's true treasures.

Getting back to the issue of tactics on an open map, I don't recall anyone mentioning smoke. If you don't have cover, make it. (I must confess I am notoriously lax about using smoke in CM. Do as I say, not as I do...)

For the record, a big "yes" to TCP. I'm not quite sure why we're polling it when BTS have said it is pretty much the sole focus of the next patch...

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I cannot release the names unless they say I can. . And since these two swore me to secrecy in the first place, I doubt they'd change their minds since this would put a HUGE strain on some relationships.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I'm not calling you a liar. I can accept that you've heard something from two people. But you don't have to be a liar to be wrong. It's possible that the story you've been told may not be 100% accurate. Only having second-hand evidence makes it pretty hard to evaluate. Can you see how it weakens the credibility of a case when there are no witnesses prepared to come forward? Also I still don't understand what Matt could threaten anybody *with*. ALso, I didn't abuse you, so maybe you could drop the "idiot" comments in future.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I said contributors you idiot (Brian Rock). Obviously Steve and Charles are not the only people that contributed to Combat Mission.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> You've missed my point. Not that I'm surprised. Let me try again. There is nobody else "inside" BTS. Using the term "inside BTS" simply muddies the issue. What I wanted you to do was clarify what you mean by contributors. Names would be nice, but I suppose that might tie you down to factual evidence.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I won't even tell you the people INSIDE BTS (contributors) he has clamped down on. They even felt it was unfair<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The only people "inside BTS" are Steve and Charles- and I find it hard to imagine they have been strong-armed by Matt - so I don't know what you mean here. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>There have been so many times I've received e-mails from people saying: Please promise me you won't tell MadMatt I sent this mod to you. Why should someone who made their own mod, be scared of Mattfor sending it to someone before he posts it on his exclusive website??????<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I find this a bit hard to swallow. What, is Matt going to drive over to their places and break their arms?

Brilliant. I also like the "focus group" report. All too believable.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by jshandorf: But I wanna ask something... Why does it always seem like women don't EVER have a hobby that is so self-absorbing as much as men do, huh?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Some of them do. My ex-girlfriend was an EverQuest addict. One of the main reasons she's an "ex", so be careful what you wish for...

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>To keep the Trolls away.....<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> And there aren't any trolls here. In fact, this is the only thread posted in the last three weeks that is troll-free. The test has worked. I don't know how Aussie Smith did it, but I want to buy some.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>If you want the big boys to pay attention to you, talk to their wallet. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Absolutely right. The big game companies are motivated by return on investment. No point bitching about it, that's the way capitalism works. Soooooo... If they only are interested in what the market will pay for, it behooves us (I love the word "behooves" - it's so 17th century) to let them know what we will or will not buy. Tis a pity. Without multiplayer I won't buy it. Time to let them know. I don't expect it will make any difference with Hasbro - but it's more likely to have an effect telling them than if I just complain to myself. So all propellor-heads rise up and join the crusade to email Hasbro into submission!!! Or something like that.

This is suspiciously troll-like, given Cm is being criticised for not having things that aren't in Panzer Elite, such as individual soldiers and gore. The PzE people usually aren't into that stuff. Not quite sure what the point of Jäger's post is really...

If it went in you'd want to put a whoping big penalty on buying captured vehicles. Firstly it would help keep the proportions of national:captured at realistic levels, and secondly it would reflect how much harder it is to maintain vehicles when you're missing little things like parts.

This is only a test. Why do people keep posting and pushing this back to the top?

This is only a test. Why do people keep posting and pushing this back to the top?

This is only a test. Why do people keep posting and pushing this back to the top?