dieseltaylor

http://www.forwardon.com/view.php?e=Id11f301f5f5c1becc&type=latest&time=all&b=p

I was a bit surprised at this. With a whole new game system to learn and probably 500 scenarios out there to play and you want to MOD!!!! Still each to their own : ) ..and welcome

Brian - you are obviously a very intelligent man : ) But what took you so long?

JonS I am afraid its already done Jon. New Scientist last week detailed how the Tree of Life has fallen apart with much evidence of bits odd DNA etc passing between animals, and even plants. Arguably a form of selection if the new animal/plant prospers but not "natural" as we are inclined to think of a refinement process of the existing . http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126921.600-why-darwin-was-wrong-about-the-tree-of-life.html?page=4

Hindsight? Those in power in 1930's Britain could not know there would be a war, they however did feel it prudent to anticipate to a degree that investment in defence needed to be made. Inspired guesswork on their part? Re: Russia. Attacking another country on the possibility they may be up to no good is a far more recent idea for democracies. : ) Anyway you say I cannot equate history and hindsight with guesswork. I thought those who failed to learn from history repeated the errors. The great potato famine in Ireland, the wiping out of the French vineyards and nowadays we have a virulent wheat rust, and bananas that require 40 sprays a crop and our still under threat. Monocultures are not a good thing. Particularly if you are a small poor country reliant on the crop as your main cash earner. The fact that we are talking global crops in the 2000's rather than single countries in the 1800's does not diminsh the lessons that ought to have been learned. I find it curious that whilst there is widespread acceptance that bad weather follows major eruptions: People are happy to maintain that the activities of 6.75billion people have no effect at all on the planets weather. Seems a difficult act to reconcile.

akd Could not agree more. However in previous changes when the ice sheet hath cometh the numbers of humans has dropped to very small figures. So if we were to concentrate on mankind rather than life in general it would sharpen up the debate somewhat. Thats a big jump - warm means more food. How about warm means bigger deserts and droughts. Australia's rice crop down 98% after 6 years of drought. http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/04/17/business/17warm.php The whole article is worth a read. It does point out production could rise in certain countries whilst others get deeper into trouble. The question is then do the beneficiaries want to send food to those that cannot afford it ...

Herr Hitler is re-arming Germany. I do not think it necessarily correct though to expedite arms expenditure or research. After all caution and anticipating contingencies is silly. We Europeans might feel that having Mr. Putin turning off and on the gas tap for Europe means that action is required - and digging coal or relying on oil is perhaps shortsighted. That additionally Europe could generate new industries AND reduce emissions which have a reasonable likelihood of affecting the earth atmosphere tends to make it fairly no-brainer in my book. To return to my comment that it is irrelevant whether we can currently "prove" that the agreed warming over the last 100 years is man made or natural. What needs to be thought through is the effects of dislocation of global trade that will occur if weather becomes more extreme, temperature rises reduce plant productivity, low lying lands are flooded. Given how interdependent many countries now are on other regions of the world it is foolish to think that the West would be unaffected.

Sometimes you have to go with a theory because to do nothing is worse. It is immaterial whether the warming is man-made or "natural" in that respect. The assumption that the greening is bad for the economy is rubbish. A well known fact is how war generates economic activity so if viewed as a war to change energy supplies, reduce dependence on oil, kick start multiple industries there is an awful lot of reasons to think it a good idea given the depression. Think of it as a TVA/New Deal for the 2010's. I love the hubris of those who extol mans power to do anything but who would also believe that the current 6.75billion humans have no effect on the earth in a detrimental way. Similarly I suspect that they would also see no problem in feeding and accomodating the 9 billion humans expected to be alive 2040-2050 and therefore feel no forward planning is required. Perhaps I am being cynical but I feel the idea of leaving the job to Haliburton or someone in 2039 is perhaps not ideal and despite firms and most politicians working in time frames of 5 years or less this matter is too important and too big to be left for "absolute" proof to be agreed on.

Play CMAK : ) BTW you did not say what period you were playing in. You do know that for the early years the Russian units are dumbed down by one experience level - reaction times etc etc. Despite it being cheaper to buy by tank platoons it is tactically better for the Russians not to.

Makes me kind of happy. From little acts so much follows ... http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7845518.stm

Do a search under Vista problems in these forums. I am sure you will get plenty!

Civ3 complexity - I am a little concerned as to whether Civ3 is truly complex or just very longwinded. CMAk etc I regard as truly complex as there are lots of possibilities and terrain, hundreds of vehicles, unlimited terrain ...... that all adds to gameplay and activity for the brain. I have only been playing Civ3 for say 4 months and though it has some smart ideas it also has some pretty bogus ones. A lot of the time it is the same mechanics applied again and again over the odd thousands of years. It may be better if the Wonders are removed and the units and race characteristics are not allocated. I see there are some very interesting scenarios designed for it which may be better than the game. Laughably I can build an important Ancient Wonder - alone on my island and be told someone else has built it. The fun thing is I have never met any other race, and why can there only be one anyway. Bizarre logic. Lastly it seems a poor multiplayer game. Last Friday I got a flyer with a great starting position and was top of the heap easy, my friend started in jungle and marsh and was bounced by the Portugese on turn 3. Not much fun for him.

I think I am with you on that Strider, particularly as I have four simple soulds to play LAN with. So the ideal is basic Empire/EoS, and then the complicated version

scheer - could you send me the game movie file and password. I have been intending/working on a little library of exciting moves, disasters. I would love to see it. I have a nice one of a Schrek doing 3 /4? Churchills in about 60 seconds as my star and currently sole piece though I do some more in my game files of the last 4 years.

Nice to kill the little *******ds. Of course mortaring them is fun also : )

Hmmm! Another words we make something less lethal in collateral damage terms so we can use more of them. Cute.

I would agree with ME's last post but I am concerned that the Federal system you have now is not the one that existed 50 years ago plus. It seems to me that politicians and their supporters have become much more adept/cynical about manipulating the system. Also that with modern communications the ability for spin is greatly increased. Would the Iraq war have been easier or harder to pull off? Mobilising lots of people to pester your politician must be better organised. And though I have no basis I believe that the revolving doors for politicians , Wall Street and the military industrial complex are much more used. You could say - so what - well the emasculated SEC and the increase of multiples of lending and the lack of oversight would suggest a corruption. Were people/politicians more principled in previous generations - I think so.

Sergei : ) mind you given your name is pronounced Sir Gay .... ouch Peterk very funny ME: His publisher is not putting enough welly behind the promotion tour and public signings!

Sergei : Thanks for the pics and map. the Bay of Syracuse is large but apparently the action was on the little harbour. The only map I have found so far does not reveal any details of harbour structures but we do know there was a quayside. http://www.cs.drexel.edu/~crorres/bbc_archive/Map_Syracuse_1.jpg The Google shot shows the little harbour is quite big and would no doubt have been the one that was recognised as the important anchorage for the city's defence. http://www.emersonkent.com/wars_and_battles_in_history/siege_of_syracuse.htm for more maps. I have gone back to previous siege to get an idea of the problems with Syracuse and this is very helpful: http://www.livius.org/su-sz/syracuse/siege.html

I sometimes think you do not read my links : ) Firstly waves in harbours would be rare and very small - one might almost say a requisite state for a harbour to exist. If not existing naturally it would have structures built to provide shelter. Also ships generally do not move fast in harbours because of the room they require - true even of galleys. As for time: If the elements are six inches in diameter then the two foot image is smeared out to two and one half feet. Buffon assembled 168 mirrors 8 in. by 10 in adjusted to produce the smallest image 150 feet away. The array turned out to be a formidable weapon. At 66 feet 40 mirrors ignited a creosoted plank and at 150 feet, 128 mirrors ignited a pine plank instantly. in another experiment 45 mirrors melted six pounds of tin at 20 feet. If there is doubt about Buffon's experiment consider the following newspaper report from 1975: (probably 1973) A Greek scientist, Dr. Ioannis Sakkas, curious about whether Archimedes could really have used a "burning glass" to destroy the Roman fleet in 212 BC lined up nearly 60 Greek sailors, each holding an oblong mirror tipped to catch the Sun's rays and direct them at a wooden ship 160 feet away. The ship caught fire at once.....Sakkas said after the experiment there was no doubt in his mind the great inventor could have used bronze mirrors to scuttle the Romans (image of the Sakkas Experiment from a Spanish Webpage) There seems to be ample evidence that the optics to do this was well known to Archimedes who was apparently centuries ahead of his time in this as in many other areas of science.

The ship being at sea is totally irrelevant as it was the walls of Syracuse versus the Roman army and fleet. The fleet was a problem because it gave the attacker, if he controlled the harbour, the ability not only to starve the city but also to bombard it or launch assaults. I imagine that putting siege towers or catapults on floating barges or large galleys tied together was not impossible and compared with moving them on land infinitely easier IF you could safely sail into the harbour. I am saying this without actually studying it in detail - just from what I know of ancient warfare. I also imagine that most galleys would also seek shelter at night. Anyway moved to check my feelings I find this: http://www.cs.drexel.edu/~crorres/Archimedes/Siege/Polybius.html Nothing on the mirrors in that excerpt. Incidentally if you were involved in war and a red dot started moving across terrain towards you I suppose you might decide it was not a sighting device and be relaxed? I doubt it! The whole idea of the mirrors was to demonstrate superiority and cause confusion so not necessarily an idea to dismiss casually. I thought it time to look at Greek fire and that is very interesting: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_fire and obviously not around as such at the time of this particular siege of Syracuse.

I am talking of using the mirrors - which were very much aimed weapons. : ) Mythbusters dismiss the mirror as a faint possibility but argue that with grapples and land based catapults Syracuse could kill galleys anyway. True but if you could use a hitherto unknown weapon to spread confusion and fear you would use it wouldn't you! The greeks were known for being thoughtful and devious with Alexander having very large bits of oversize armour made to "accidentally" leave at their camps when trolling through Asia. Psyops ... : ) For discussion for galleys and size, and fighting methods: http://ay-avebury.soton.ac.uk/Prospectus/CMA/HistShip/shlect26.htm http://www.atm.ox.ac.uk/rowing/trireme/ the first site is a navigational nightmare but probably is the most academic I have found : )

Always a believer that Archimedes was a smart cookie and to have been made up it was an unlikely tale: http://web.mit.edu/2.009/www/experiments/deathray/10_ArchimedesResult.html who do you prefer to believe. BTW if I were trying to set alight a galley I might choose to aim at the cordage or stowed sails for a quicker result. Also the upper part of a galley I would very likely have light wood shielding the rowers from arrows. Not 1" thick for sure. Funnily enough if Mythbusters had done any research this may have been useful to them http://www.mlahanas.de/Greeks/Mirrors.htm

WeBoB - http://webandofbrothers.de/index.htm not a ladder club as such so more wacky or relaxed games can be played. Sponsorship model to try to weed out game droppers. I have played about 136 of my last 160 games there - I have a bad memory so there is good system for keeping track of all your club games both ranking and non-ranking.

Apparently politiicians have it removed when they are pandering to the electorate: http://uk.reuters.com/article/oddlyEnoughNews/idUKTRE50E18320090115 Rather a shocking state of affairs with the Navy though. Still economic downturn should sort it out.