Holman

Ah, a thread for us Grammar Grognards... I feel for those from foreign climes who have had Internet English thrust upon them. Surely there is no less logical or systematic language than the Queen's own. Not the least of the problems is that (as Mr. Kettler's post points out) English is fond of using the same word as both a noun and a verb, but with different meanings. The quadrangle of "affect/effect" is especially tricky. While we're at it: ORDNANCE is military materiel: weapons, ammo, AFVs, gear, etc.. An ORDINANCE is a minor statute or regulation, such as when the city decides that you can't park your Sherman on Main Street. MATERIEL (bastardized from the French) has pretty much the same meaning as "ordnance," above, i.e. military equipment. MATERIAL is much broader in meaning, pertaining to just about any "stuff" or matter you can touch. I wonder if anyone has ever seriously proposed reviving Latin as the language of the World Wide Web? Martyr

If copyright is the problem, perhaps the files might still be made available, just without any mention of ASL. Perhaps someone could make a big .zip of all the scenario files that were available on the departed site. I'd love to have them. Martyr

Say it ain't so! "The ASL 2 CM site has been closed permanently!" This is the message that greets me at my bookmark for the site. Just last night I was there looking over their library of scenarios, and now... Gone? Can anyone shed any light on this disaster? Martyr

Just for the record, the author of DEATH TRAPS makes the point repeatedly that Germans would shoot at Allied tanks until they were burning. The reason was that they wanted to make the tanks unrecoverable and unrepairable.

That method would probably work (IRL) for a major, continuing, front-wide bombardment, but most of the artillery in CM seems to be more targetted and less constant. Perhaps the troops under fire can still hear the approaching tanks in the short lull between shells? Martyr

Ok, my selection is "3," since I really will play either side. In fact, I'd rather switch off than play the same side twice in a row. Totals: 1) 1 2) 0 3) 2 4) 1 5) 0 P.S. Mr. Adams, are you really the "Scott Adams Adventure" Scott Adams? If so, I must thank you for helping introduce me to the joys of computer play way back in 1980 or so (on my TRS-80). Thanks! [This message has been edited by Martyr (edited 02-06-2001).]

A quick test reveals that my response was in error. I withdraw it... [Actually, I think one side will get to have foxholes in a meeting engagement...] [This message has been edited by Martyr (edited 02-02-2001).]

IIRC means "If I Recall Correctly." Like IMHO ("In My Humble Opinion"), it's a way of softening one's tone. Martyr

I certainly won't try to argue the finer points of evolutionary biology, and neither will I dispute the fact that human animals are very good predators. Heck, I'll even admit that dogs are very sophisticated and sneaky manipulators. (Just offer one a piece of cheese...) But I must call attention to the implications of the argument that goes more or less like this: 1) Humans are good at fighting, and have always fought; 2) Wars go on everywhere and in all times because humans are natural fighters; 3) Therefore, quit complaining about the miseries of war. War is here to stay. Sign up for your local military so that your clan has a better chance of winning more of those scarce resources. The fact that a thing (killing, for example) is natural does not make the thing good. To follow this kind of argument is to abdicate the moral responsibility that comes with intelligence, which is to judge right from wrong and to act accordingly. The moral step that defines maturity, social ethics and human reason is that of admitting that ALL suffering and misery is bad, rather than just MY suffering or the misery of MY clan. This means that acting solely for one's self interest (or the interest of one's group) is literally not good enough. It may feel natural, and it may even maximize your gains, but it is not ethically correct. If you and I could produce gold by torturing slaves, this would not make our torture of those slaves any less morally heinous. Bullethead, I see the point that you are trying to make when you say that "war is simply the ultimate expression of natural competition between human groups." But I would go so far as to say that intelligence and moral responsibility preclude nature: there is no such thing as "natural competition" when humans are involved. You admit this yourself when you argue that culture has given us more incentives to fight. I agree, but I would go farther and say that the same high intelligence that has given rise to those incentives also burdens us with the responsibility of behaving more ethically than we might like. Sure, religions and governments have led to plenty of wars. That's the tragedy. But religions and governments exist not IN ORDER TO fight wars, but because our better impulses call us to devise social mechanisms that might allow us to be better people. You've been describing the way human behavior IS at its basest (and least impressive) level. I'm pointing out that human consciousness forces us to compare the way behavior IS with the way it SHOULD be. There's no getting around this responsibility, as much as some groups and some eras might try.

82nd AIRBORNE is obviously behind schedule, but the designers have said that the project is still on track. I'd expect it sometime before this summer.

Hmmm. The old saw that "humans are predators" just doesn't hold water. For one thing, most of the evolutionary evidence points to the fact that human animals developed social groupings and culture (not to mention intelligence itself) by exploiting tendencies to cooperation over tendencies to competition. If hamsters could work together the way our primate ancestors did, they'd probably be on Mars by now. More to the point, however, is the fact that the main part of being human is having consciousness and a conscience; that is, having an awareness of consequences and a sense of right and wrong. To say that "war is inevitable, so just accept any and all outbreaks of it" is to abdicate morality entirely. The very facts of human society and culture show that, most of the time, we've been much better than that.

Cavguy, Nice post, and thanks for the info. I have a question in a slightly different direction, but this seems a good place to ask it: what is the reasoning behind the transition from the regimental and divisional structure of the WW2-era to the brigade structure of the present (US) military? Am I correct in thinking that the division has given way to the brigade as the core unit of operational thinking? I'm not sure that I understand the reasons and the ramifications, but I'm hoping that someone might be able to explain it in a small space. Thanks.

I can't claim to be a pacifist by the definition above (i.e. "no war at any cost"), but I certainly see war as a last resort that any decent morality requires us to avoid where possible. Of course, it's the "where possible" part that is so debatable. My story is probably not unusual. As a kid and a teen, I was very attracted to the power and glory that seemed attached to war and struggle. As I grew older and my politics moved towards the left, I became more suspicious of that so-called glory. At present, I suppose I'm what you might call a liberal cynic: willing to support the use of force where necessary to prevent a greater wrong (mass-murder or slavery, for instance), but suspicious of black-and-white (or hidden economic) justifications for state violence. The most crucial argument against war is that, in the modern world at least, war's horror is much more likely to be inflicted on the innocent than on the guilty. That is, we may go to war against The Evil Dictator, but it's The Evil Dictator's hapless subjects (civilians and children, most of them) who will suffer the misery that we dump on EvilDictatorLand. And that's real misery, misery for which we are responsible, not TV misery or "just somebody else's problem." Until we develop a good workaround for this problem, I'll remain suspicious of the military option. And yet I remain fascinated with military history and with the nuts and bolts of modern warfare, especially World War 2. There is a great deal of human character packed into the experience of war, and I can't help but be fascinated by the sight of it. Thankfully, I get to experience it all as games or fiction rather than on a real battlefield. Plus, like others here, I love to give orders and blow up tanks. Martyr

Ok, here's a one for the ol' institutional memory. (No, not institutionalizable memory, you cheeky Cess divers!) Can someone tell me how the "Sneak" command has or has not been changed over the course of CM's development/patching? I do a search, but there are so many varying Sneak explanations that I get easily confused. More easily than the usual easiness, even. I'm particularly wondering if Sneak has ever been changed and then changed back, or not, and, if so, why or why not. See? Give me the theory! Thanks! Martyr P.S. Oh, also, does a good hard BUMP damage a Stuart?

Fernando, Your units' markings are actually quite well subdued, especially on your halftracks. I think I first noticed that unit markings stood out too much when I saw a screenshot several weeks ago of some Free-French Shermans with quite large and clean markings (very very white). I can't remember whose mod it was, actually. Perhaps bright markings are particularly noticeable on Shermans, which tend to be dark green or deep olive. Any full-color marks really stand out against such a base. Martyr [This message has been edited by Martyr (edited 01-16-2001).]

Hi all, I'm very impressed with the quality of the mods that the artists among us are able to create, and I have many on my system. However, I have held off from downloaded some of the recent tanks with detailed division and other insignia because the markings seem to stand out too brightly in screenshots. In other words, the tank might be subdued and weathered, but the division flash seems to stand out like a neon sign. Is there any way to wash these symbols out a bit more? Wouldn't they then seem more authentic and less freshly painted? Thanks again for all the great work! Martyr

I'm certain that the actual turn math (including the random elements) is performed after the second player in a turn gives his orders and *before* he mails it off to his opponent. These calculations are indicated by the blue bar that runs from empty to full after the player gives his orders. This generates the movie, but of course this player doesn't get to see it until his opponent sees it and then sends it back. Am I mistaking the subject of the debate? Paul "Martyr" Roberts

Henri, As the owner of the Stuart in your anecdote, I have to say that I was as surprised at the result as you were. From watching the film several times over, it seems to me that my Stuart was just fast enough to to stay on the edge of your Hetzer's firing arc while climbing the hill (a FAST command). Once my tank was abreast of the Hetzer at 9 meters, putting even a 37mm AP round though the side armor was fairly easy. I'm really enjoying our match in the fog, by the way! But perhaps that's only because luck does seem to be running my way when our tanks stumble over each other... Martyr

Would someone remind me of when the film is opening? Thanks!

Don't "hiding" tanks also hold their fire unless an enemy comes particularly close? I understand that hiding tanks make less noise, but I've been assuming that they also won't give away their position by firing. Martyr

I second the recommendation of Richard Rorty. He writes clearly and well, and he is as smart as a whip. He also refuses to retreat into the academy and forget the rest of the world. The philosophical landscape can be roughly divided into two continents: Anglo-American philosophy and Continental (i.e. French and German) philosophy. This may sound like the old CM "national traits" debate, but the issue here is more one of academic traditions and long, ongoing lines of influence. Basically, the Anglo-American school continues to wrestle with problems taken up by Locke, Hume and Kant, while the Continental line works in the shadow of Hegel and Nietzsche. Anglo-American philosophy is more rigorous and analytical, while Continental philosophy is riskier, sexier, and often runs the risk of being incomprehensible. Both can produce very important work, however. If Rorty is one of the best examples of Anglo-American philosophy, then probably the best example of continental philosophy (besides the mysterious Jacques Derrida) is Michel Foucault. One good place to start with Foucault is his book "Discipline and Punish," which is a sort of history of social order written as a history of prison systems. In fact, the book is relevant to an understanding of modern militaries, too...

At the risk of sounding like I'm reversing my earlier posting, I'll complicate it by saying that perhaps there is yet some good coming out of the apparent glut of philosophical writing in the academy. For the most part, people who write in the humanities mean well, and they make an effort to do a good job. With this many smart people writing so much, there is bound to be some good work produced... The problem, of course, is weeding out the chaff. Sometimes it takes a generation or two before the best ideas from previous generations are really identified and made useful. A person interested in the living issues of contemporary intellectual writing would do well to seek out some of the overviews and reader's guides available. A good bookstore (especially one near a good university) can offer some help.

One of the problems with modern academic philosophy is that it is written only for other academics. This is similar to most academic literary criticism, which is written not for the general intelligent reader but, again, only for highly specialized scholars. I could go into the reasons for this, but they mostly have to do with the "publish or perish" system. Professors *must* write several big books over the course of a career simply to keep a job, and you can imagine what this inflation does to the average level of quality. However, amid all the verbosity there are some good and intelligent writers. One I can think of immediately is Charles Taylor, whose book "Sources of the Self: the Making of Modern Identity" is an excellent discussion of the idea of individualism in the West from Plato to the present. Martyr

CM is by far the best wargame I've ever played. But let's not forget 101st Airborne in Normandy--a great game, very much underappreciated, and there is a sequel (82nd Airborne in Normandy) coming out pretty soon. I for one can't wait. What about the just-released Combat Command 2? Has anyone played it yet? I still haven't seen any reviews. Martyr

Most scenarios in CM are balanced for human v. human play. Against the AI, I usually give the AI a +1 bonus in experience and a +25% bonus in force strength. This tends to even the odds somewhat. To simulate a big attack (or to make things desperate for you), you might even double the enemy force size. The AI tends to be better on defense than on attack. Also, of course, if you have already played a scenario through once, you have a huge advantage over the AI (which has no memory of previous games). I've had CM put up a very good fight several times. It's certainly better than any other AI I've seen. Martyr