danyzn

It was always fuse in Australia. When I first saw the word fuze used in the context of artillery I thought it was some highly technical artillery-specific term that I didn't know. Then I figured out it was another case of confuzed Americans. But wait, I'm looking up the American Heritage Dictionary, Third Edition, on my Bloomberg machine, and under "fuse" it gives the full primary definition, while under "fuze" it just gives the definition as "fuse". Does this mean that even in America "fuse" is the primary spelling, or just that "fuse" comes before "fuze" lexicographically? Anyway, it's interesting that both "fuse" and "fuze" appear in an American dictionary, where I cannot find "recognise" or "realise". So fuse does appear to be a special case. After all, it doesn't end in -ise like the others.

Definitely on-board mortars in fog or night, or in all-forest map, where it is physically impossible for them to fire anything at anytime anywhere. Of course this limitation doesn't apply to the British 2" mortars, which are useless in all conditions.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Franko: Okay, I read this guys profile and I'm actually starting to get convinced that he really IS the PM of Australia. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yeah he's trying to perfect MMG tactics to give the SAS a chance against those terrifying refugees.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mace: Given your role as Prime Minister of Australia and with a federal election coming up, do you really think you have the time to discuss MMG theory? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Political power comes out of the barrel of an MMG. Especially when you have no hope of actually winning the election.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by markshot: I was wondering if this forum can be searched? If so, what do I need to do. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I think we all know the correct answer to this question is: do a search.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BloodyBucket: If there is sycophancy in the board, it is a fruitless activity, as I am unaware of any advantage that can be gained by fawning over BTS. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I agree totally. Sycophany is completely unnecessary for a company as perfect, infallible, divine, and worthy of worship as the great BTS.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by olandt: I guess the battle was called Black Wednesday because of the catostrophic casualties on both sides. [ 07-23-2001: Message edited by: olandt ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Let me lift the level of obviousness by adding my own guess: I guess the battle was called Black Wednesday because it happened on a Wednesday.

"What should we do if we do hit mine?" "Well, Lieutenant, standard procedure is to jump 10 feet into the air, then scatter yourself over a wide area."

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stixx: Australia <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I dunno, New Guinea is to the east isn't it? So they fought in the Really Eastern Front.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Priest: Amen to that!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yeah we should have listened to Adams about the dat; then we would have had a long weekend.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by easy-v: Typically, I like to play CM in series of best out of 3, with all 3 games having the same parameters, switching sides at the conclusion of each game. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Ehhh, since there were only two and not three sides in the battle, how is this possible? One of you would have to play the same side twice, and then it wouldn't really be a "fair" contest.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by thor: This is a great work on WW2: Total War: Causes and Courses of the Second World War, Revised 2nd Ed., Peter Calvocoressi,Guy Wint,R.John. Pritchard / Paperback / Pantheon Books / September 1990 <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I remember reading a previous edition of this when it was in one volume and had only 2 authors. It was great for getting the big picture, not so much on military detail. It really put the war in the larger context, containing things you don't usually see in military history, like a discussion of Chinese society. What I'd like to know is, is this new edition much different from the last one? Is it worth reading it all over again?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Rex_Bellator: On the German side there was a guy who fought a forgotten war and ran the allies ragged in East Africa for years unsupported and with almost no resources, sucessfully tying down many times his own numbers. Hopefully someone can recall his name before I can, he certainly deserves a mention.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Wasn't this in the First World War? Germany lost all her African colonies after that one.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mord: It will be BTS's penultimate triumph, work of art, game to end all games (add any cliches and or adjectives you feel would fit). <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> And the ultimate triumph would be? Retiring on the beach?

I have been playing CM on software mode on my Dell Inspiron 7500 Laptop ever since I got tired of the freezes. I tried some of the fixes but nothing worked. It's addictive enough in software mode, so I'm not complaining. Well ... OK I'm complaining a little. Some 3-D programs work fine with my system and some don't, and I can't help wondering what is the difference between the two sets of software that accounts for this, and whether there is something that BTS can do to move CM from one to the other.

I haven't played too many games, but so far I've found defending easier. Not a sophiscated defence in depth. Just sit in good cover near the VLs, wait for the attacker to show up, drop arty on him. Repeat. On the other hand I have trouble winning when attacking. Maybe I'm a bad attacker who happens to run into other bad attackers.

What gender? Is CM female? Maybe that's why it causes much tension and gnashing and teeth, and is so addictive at the same time.

I have the same problem on my Dell Inspiron 7500 laptop. I've given up and am playing in software mode now. With the fast processor it's manageable but ugly. Hopefully some future version of CM and/or DirectX and/or video drivers will fix the problem for some or all of us. By the way, you don't have to change the graphics acceleration setting to play in software mode. Just delete your prefs file, start the game, and when it asks you if you accept the resolution, say 'No' until it gets to 640x480 and 'Software Mode'.

I learnt the importance of HQ command coordination the hard way. In a recent game, in planning an infantry assault with two platoons, I gleefully and carefully plotted paths for all the squads, but in my excitement I totally forgot about the platoon HQs, who stayed behind and dozed in the woods. The results were not pretty.

Women driving vehicles should also arrive at their destination sooner because they're not reluctant to ask for directions.

In the ferocious argument raging on the QB Armor Points thread, a topic that surfaced before being drowned in vitriol is the question of the point of the Combined Arms QB. On one side we have people arguing that it is unfair that the Allies get more armor points than the Germans in a Combined Arms QB because QBs are supposed to be equal. The other side rejoins that this is more historically accurate. But QBs are supposed to be balanced, not historical, comes the reply. Here is my take on it. To be perfectly historical, the Germans would almost always fight with less resources, and this means less points (since points represent effectiveness), and this would certainly be unbalanced. So we definitely need to throw out *this* piece of history to get game balance. But this doesn't mean we have to throw out *every* piece of history to get game balance. If it is in fact true that the Allies had a higher proportion of armor in their combined arms actions than the Germans, then I don't see anything wrong or unbalancing in having different armor points for the two sides, as long as the total number of points is equal. This way we get game balance with the least historical distortion. On the other hand, there is no reason why we shouldn't be able to throw out history altogether if we want to. I would welcome a feature where either side can buy anything they want, subject only to mutual agreement. I even think it would be fun to be able to have an Allied force fight a battle with an Allied force. That way both sides draw from the same pool and there can be no question of unbalance. I think the QB feature now with the different point distribution for the two sides is great for generating reasonably balanced play with the least historical distortion. But it would be nice to have the option to throw history out the window completely for those who desire it. It would save much argument.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pvt.Tom: I am a little confused now, I thought that BTS decided what the cost of a unit would be based on it's effectiveness and had nothing to do with historical anything. But now QB points are based on historical factors, I would feel better if it was done one way throughout the whole game. I think that is what is bothering a lot of people. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> BTS said that the COST of a unit is based on its effectiveness, but what we are talking about here is not the cost of units, but how many points are allocated to armour as opposed to other categories. These are two entirely separate things. If you change the cost of a unit, you will change the number of that unit that can be purchased, without affecting the rest of the force; that would affect game balance. If you change the distribution of points among the categories, all you are doing is changing the composition of the force, without affect game balance. It makes a lot of sense to have points reflect the effectiveness of units, while having point distribution reflect historical availability. That way two forces in a QB will have the same effectiveness, but different, historical composition. I think the aim of a QB is to have ahistorical relative force sizes (for the sake of balance) but historical force composition (for the sake of authenticity). If we are aiming for perfect balance, we would have the two sides fight with identical equipment.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jarmo: The unit stats only show the kills they were certain of. If you kill an unidentified squad, you don't get kills. Arty observers usually don't get kills. And so-on.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yes, I think this is right. It would be nice if there was a way to see exactly what killed what after the battle is over. It makes sense to keep the info hidden during the battle because of fog of war, but there is no reason not to show it after it's all over. Or is the game so super realistic that it's simulating the fact that in real life you still don't know even after it's all over?

I installed an even newer (8/2000) video driver from Dell, disabled AGP Texture acceleration, disabled hardware sound acceleration, and played at 640x480 resolution. All of this seemed to delay the freeze for a few turns, but it happens anyway. I'm giving up and playing in software mode until there's a new patch or new driver somewhere. I tried a Large scenario in software mode and it is quite reasonable.

Sorry, I meant to say I have DirectX *8*