Monte Carlo

^ The experience of every western democratic government that attempts to provide universal health-care. None have found a perfect universal system that isn't resource-intensive. Healthcare requires logistics, policy and operational commitments that would tax a dozen generals. Most countries have opted for direct-taxation schemes, insurance only schemes or a combination thereof. None are perfect. What I'm trying to say is that you cannot divorce major public service provision (like universal healthcare) from the political tradition of the country implementing it. Obama has been given a mandate to implement something, but I've suggested that he needs to work with the grain of US political tradition, not against it. I also pointed out that despite paying for healthcare for direct taxation, I didn't have to attend Collective Farm 26 this morning to hear the latest tractor production figures (not yet, anyway ) Cheers MC

but if it could be better, at less expense, and not violate your rights, wouldn't you prefer that? an insurance-based system with little government intervention would be extremely efficient and affordable for everyone and probably wouldn't take up 15% of our entire GDP (in the US). you can't even legally sue an HMO in the US, even if they violate your contract with them (an insurance policy is a contract). what does that do? it rewards bad behavior. now we're contemplating putting what everyone knows to be a corrupt, inept, and generally worthless government completely in charge of the whole system. ludicrous. taks A system you describe would be perfect, but experience shows it unlikel to work for what we seek to achieve. If you want to work from a basic principle (and it's a lofty one) that you want to provide universal health care then something's gotta give. Personally, I think that swathes of the NHS could work on an insurance-based system but as I mentioned earlier it's a 'third rail' issue. Most people in the UK love the NHS. Political tinkering is viewed as an assault. It drives me mad, but it's become a sacred cow. Again, I think scale comes into it, as well as political tradition. I'm from a very small country. We are sceptical of government, but do not view it by default as something to be resisted. One of the fascinating aspects of the US Constitution was the way that tension was written into it, on purpose, as a failsafe. We don't have that, we have Magna Carta, then a common law system (you are still lumbered with a bastard child of the Napoleonic Code) and ergo we view the role of government in something like healthcare quite differently. I don't feel any less 'free' that the government takes a portion of my salary and uses it to run hospitals for people that need them. In fact, it gives me a warm fuzzy feeling. Again, it just depends were you come from. On other issues I'm sure I'd be on the side of muscular Republican neo-cons, but not this one. And because of where the British centre-right comes from, that really isn't a problem over here. Cheers MC

Somebody pondered why foreigners care about what happens in the USA when they couldn't care less what happens elsewhere? I don't actually believe this to be true, all I can say is that most Americans I've met here in the UK are astonished by the NHS. Car crash? Yep, that paramedic team and helo ride to Accident & Emergency was free (although the helo was paid for by charitable donations by evil capitalists), the blood transfusion was free, the after-care and physio are free. I try to explain that at-source taxation and National Insurance contributions are higher than in the US (but nowhere near as high as in Scandinava) but they don't really seem to take it in. I think they expected hospitals that you might have seen in Leningrad circa 1958 or something. I enjoyed Tak's description of what personal liberty and freedom as an American means to him, and I in no way would belittle it or presume to disagree because how I live is better ('cos it ain't). I must comment how strange it still feels for me, even though I have lived and travelled in the US as much as I have, to hear it. I have robust libertarian views and am in no way a Statist, but my Achilles heel is healthcare. I can only say that our system isn't actually bad. As far as government-run systems go, that's really good. It's a system that has saved my son's life, what can I say? I'm also proud that I help fund a system that helps people that cannot help themselves. I know, my libertarian credentials are all bent out of shape now. In other news, was somebody here dissing Ronald Reagan? Shame on you, most underrated US president ever. Negotiated the end of the USSR, rescued your collective asses from Jimmy Carter, reduced nuclear weapons and came up with lines like "what's the worst thing you can ever hear? Someone saying 'We're from the government and we're here to help.' Genius. Cheers MC

^ The UK Welfare State was unashamedly the product of WW2 - a left-wing government used the shared experience of all social classes who had fought together to argue for a more socialised, 'progressive' system. And they won that particular battle, setting socio-political parameters that remain until this day. The USA wasn't bombed or occupied and was a relative land of plenty. The post-WW2 US baby boomer generation will probably go down as the most wealthy, cossetted, spoilt and wealthy people this planet ever produced. No wonder universal socialised healthcare wasn't at the top of the agenda. The 21st century is looking, by comparison, to be pretty dystopic. It appears to be concentrating people's minds in the USA.

^ Gfted1, that's all very well until you have a wife with a problematic pregnancy and the specialists tell you that protracted treatment is going to cost you a half a million dollars. Which you don't have. Are you a deadbeat? Would I resent paying for you to have access to that care free at point of delivery? Actually, I wouldn't. Or would you go all Spartan on us and cast the infant into a pit? I'm not that much older than some of you, but I'm older enough to have kids, elderly relatives and the start of some annoying health issues of my own. Sure, it gives me a different perspective. Sure, the unproductive underclass issue is another thing that requires addressing. Traditionally, left-of-centre parties don't go there, relying on such people as their client state natural voters. But it's another issue entirely, Europe has precisely the same problem. Primary healthcare, free at the point of delivery, should in fact reduce overall healthcare costs via prevention strategies. Or, to use a more topical example, how many Swine Flu sufferers are shivering it out at home because they can't afford a trip to a clinic, infecting several hundred others before it's picked up? To reiterate - Universal healthcare ain't perfect. I'm not even advocating full-blown NHS USA. What I'm suggesting is a critical safety net such as the one I describe. I repeat - your health insurance industry has a stranglehold on this that it won't release for reasons of utter self-interest. Cheers MC

Federal programmes in the US have a mixed record, managing a universal healthcare system will be rolling a very big rock up a very tall mountain. Obama aspires to a European social democratic model, i.e. he's moving against the grain of the American system. I mentioned this in my first post. Lefties have a tendency to impose centrist, top-down solutions - in a country like the US this is destined to fail. Enabling individual states to dwell on the actualitie whilst the centre provides broad guidelines and the funding would have more traction from my understanding of US politics. Selling the notion of a healthy population = more productive nation should be a no-brainer, but the US health insurance lobby sees that as a secondary outcome compared to profits. Cheers MC

I'm pretty sure that the Australian system is more efficient than the NHS. Note, however, the economies of scale I mentioned. Australia is a big country with a good economy and a relatively small population. In fact, I think comparison with Scandiavian countries are valid more than the UK - we are a small country with a colossal population. We're more like Japan, actually, in that respect. Let me clarify, though. My experience of our healthcare system is this - my local doctor's surgery, which is completely free at point of use (prescription fees for medicines notwithstanding) is good. NHS treatment of critical accidents and emergency is also solid - I have experience of this with my son, and there are no complaints there either. The staff and resources were superb. Where the NHS tends to frustrate, and can resemble a Soviet meat queue circa 1978, is with chronic illness and pallative care. Fracture? Physio? Pain clinic? You might as well pay your own way unless you don't mind waiting a couple of months. And the refusal of UK politicians to deal with this aspect (a 'Third Rail' issue of epic proportions) is where it all falls down. What I'm saying is that if Obama offers a system where prevention (i.e. the local doctor) and critical cover (run over by a bus? Cancer?) is affordable then he'll easily be able to sell private cover to a grateful American public for a sprained ankle, piles, migraine and other non-terminal but pesky complaints. We pay a lot of tax in the UK IMO. One year I got my money back ten times over with the resources the NHS put out for my child. It's a 50/50 and all things being equal I'm glad it's there. But I'd also like to see politicians deal with the lag in the middle and offer Medicare-style insurance to make the system more efficient. Cheers MC

I'm about to give up some Guy Lore on the internet. So listen in. Save up some money, and don't be cheap. Then book a short break somewhere nice, a weekend will do. Surprise her with it, make it look dreadfully spontaneous. There is no woman on earth who doesn't completely love this. Do it twice a year and you can be as boring as you like for the rest of the time quite easily. Trust me, I've been getting away with this for years, I even enjoy the short breaks so it's a complete win-win. Cheers MC

Here we have the National Health Service (NHS), set up shortly after WW2 by the Labour (i.e. Socialist government, although no UK political party has been fully 'socialist' by any objective standard which can only be a Good Thing). That, along with the 1944 Education Act and another that I can't remember right now (I think it was socialised pensions / national insurance... it's been twenty years since I did social history) were seen as the pillars of 'The Welfare State', a cradle-to-grave system of the Government looking after everybody. Depending on your POV, this is either (a) marvellous or (b) really scary. A muscular, Ayn Rand worshipping American conservative probably thinks that people dying, untreated, of cancer living under plastic sheeting is a sort of Darwinian weeding system (I don't), but I digress. The mantra of the NHS is that the service is free to all, regardless of ability to pay. Now, I will declare my own position here. I am a small-state conservative (note the small 'c') with socially liberal views. In the UK this puts me on the Centre Right, in some parts of the US it makes me a Birkenstock wearing, Volvo driving, freedom-hating pinko (although I'm not, actually). Please view my observations accordingly. If you consider the old classical liberal saw that the primary role of government is to provide security, both internal and external, then I'd agree. But add healthcare as a 21st century take on that position. The funding of public services is a dry subject. It's never ever done me any favours on a date. However, the problem with the universal healthcare model is that you end up with rationing. You queue. You also make yourself a magnet for economic immigrants from countries that do not enjoy universal healthcare systems, putting further pressure on the system. The NHS is also the UK's biggest employer - it is a massive bureaucracy that employs more managers and logistics people than it does doctors and nurses. Despite years of tinkering with internal markets, new management doctrine and regionalised funding it is still fairly inefficient: our current government has flooded it with cash for the last twelve years with performance improvements that simply wouldn't be tolerated in the private sector. Private healthcare in the UK is, as a result, hellish expensive and you can't ensure yourself with existing ailments unless you are quite wealthy. An alternative often discussed here is the Australian insurance plan model (unfortunately, more people live in London than the whole of Oz, making it a bit of an apples-and-oranges comparison), or similar subscription based alternatives. In France, for example, you pay to see your General Practitioner, effectively the Gatekeepers of the healthcare system. So, what would I do? You know what? I don't know. On a level of principle, I agree with a non-socialised system. OTOH, I remember being in hospital in London with an American undergoing protracted treatment for a serious illness. Her mother, a wealthy realtor, couldn't believe that it was free as a dozen consultants buzzed around (she was married to a Brit, so they are entitled to the service). When I asked what would have happened in the USA, she said that she would have had to sell her house to pay for the treatment. Then it struck me that the NHS is far from perfect - funding it is like pouring money into a leaky sieve, but bejaysus when you need it and you feel the Reaper's scythe nick a loved one, you don't care. I'm not a big fan of the American Democratic party - allowing a Clinton back into public office speaks for itself. However, if President Obama does anything to put in place some sort of healthcare safety net, I think his place in the political history books are assured. The stranglehold that healthcare lobbyists have on US domestic health policy is corruption worthy of the Medicis. What he will have to do, however, is respect the robust US political tradition of self-help and make it a scrupulously efficient, waste-free system. And therein lies the rub. Cheers MC

^ There are other factors that affect public order as your empire expands... 1. New faction leader. You need to keep your faction heir busy - move him around, fight battles (even itsy-bitsy rebel bashing expeditions to keep loyalty up), go on Crusades. In the MTW2 Empires mod you can also win titles as you run certain regions which affect stats. So, when your ten-fist scored faction leader croaks, the new king isn't a two or three fist weakling with no authority. If you want to quickly build credibility and public order start mass assassinations - your dread and authority will rise. 2. Capital location. The further from the centre of Empire your capital is, the more restless the fringes will be as upstarts plot far away from the centre of power. For example, my faction leader has just croaked. My empire now stretches from Syria, the Steppe through the Baltic to Constantinople, Spain and most of mainland Europe. London is still the capital and the news of the king's demise lead to a serious public order problem in certain regions. I toying with moving it to Milan, although I could probably crush the Papacy, occupy Rome and make that my capital instead. 3. Religion. Excommunication is bad news, unless you have a mighty and terrifying faction leader backed by enormous armies led by ultra-loyal generals. Cheers MC

Er, why not check the 'Auto-Manage Region' box? Although the resource management aspect is one of the things people like about the game, it's a bit like saying you hate a football manager game because "I hate choosing players." Cheers MC

The question has already been answered by Hurlshot, but I'll throw in my agreement FWIW. Modded MTW2 is awesomely massive and satisfying on a number of levels. MTW1, although good, isn't really a must-buy in comparison. With regards to assassins, I think they were re-balanced for MTW2. In the first game I could quite easily wipe out factions with a half dozen assassins by repeatedly destroying bloodlines (although, of course, they made comebacks in the first game). In MTW2 you have to develop them (i.e. by murdering lower level opponents, i.e. rebel generals and princesses and enemy faction members) and use them sparingly. Personally, I prefer this approach - political murder becomes a bit of a gamble, a throw of the dice. And there are consequences. If you really want to annoy the opposition without kicking a war off, use your princesses as ersatz diplomats and build up their 'heart' ratings. Use them to pick off dashing rival faction members who will in turn become generals who will breed excellent future faction members. I did this to the Holy Roman Empire, severely weakening their bloodline (yes, assassinations and a short war did the rest). It is the ability to use tactics like this (i.e. all-out war / diplomacy / revanche or a combination) that makes the game so much fun. For example, I now have a tiny but militarily capable Venice as my gimp, and I'm just waiting for the day I snuff them out too. Mwuhahahahahaa!! MTW2 bribery costs, OTOH, are staggeringly high. I'm currently buying off Mongol hordes to pave the way for my invasion of the East, and a mighty expensive exercise it is too. My treasury is taking a hammering. In fact, why am I on this forum, I could be playing! Later, MC

On balance, I'd say MTW2 as well. The campaign map on the original MTW is, however, beautiful. More abstract, with that wind noise in the background... I love it. So, why MTW2? As already suggested, the graphics in the battle mode are much better. The visceral crunch of your cavalry hitting the flank of a unit of spearmen, and seeing them rag-doll into the air, is pretty cool. Furthermore, the expansion pack is good (even though it doesn't convert into the vanilla game). The AI point is also well made. The answer, however, is out there and it's free i.e. the Grand Campaign Mod, which morphs all the features of the Kingdoms XP into a massive campaign spanning 600+ turns. I'm halfway through a game at the moment, it's an epic and satisfying undertaking. Am looking forward to invading the Americas in a hundred or so years time. If you like the Medieval srtting, tactical combat and empire-building then it's a fantastic package, especially as the mods are free and the game / XP is in the bargain bin. Highly recommended (when modded as described). Cheers MC

^ Fair point Gorgon. However, Nero appears to have worn a laurel leaf on his head and Ghengis a sort of oily fur thing with ear flaps. Not cool. Cheers MC

It must be a generational thing, because when I see hats like that I simply think of old war movies or pure, unaldulterated evil. An observation only, not a criticism. A UK magazine editor was once sacked for suggesting that Erwin Rommel* was a style icon. Which was a tad unfair, but goes to show the strong feelings the iconography of Nazism still provokes. * And remember, Rommel was the model 'Good German.' Cheers MC

When posting on this forum I tend to wear a WW1-era Picklehaube helmet, mit spike. It helps me concentrate.

Top Nation always gets it in the neck, 'tis just the way it is. As an Englishman, I know this. We haven't been Top Nation for many years, yet we still suffer residual hatred for it. Personally, having lived and travelled extensively in the USA, I find these stereotypes amusing (altho' the notion of two coastlines occupied by liberal elites flanking a big central bit full of Conservatives strikes me as having a little merit as a crude generalisation). That the USA doggedly refuses to see itself as an Empire (of sorts admittedly, the Pax Americana is a subtle but tangible thing) is part of the problem. When all is said and done, Euro liberals, who've lived under the umbrella of US military protection for sixty-odd years really should ask themselves if they'd prefer Russia or China to be providing it, and what the quid pro quo might be. I know where I am on that one, which is with Uncle Sam. P.S. Three simultaneous head shots on three moving targets from a pitching / yawing firing platform is no mean feat of arms. Semper Fi and all that. Cheers MC

Precisely, however in case of the Zulu Wars sheer weight of numbers (and, no doubt, sheer bravery... a difficult factor to measure) had something to do with it, which clearly isn't part of the equation. Ditto Communist Chinese 'wave attacks' in the Korean War. Which is why this programme, although it sounds amusing, is utterly pointless. One high-tech Delta commando versus ten bog-standard third world infantrymen with AKs? Action movies notwithstanding, the smart money is on the ten guys with AKs. However, factor in force multipliers like comms, indirect fire support, aerial surveillance, night vision and you have a different story. You see, there's actually an interesting counter-factual military history programme lurking in there, somewhere. It just hasn't actually surfaced. Cheers MC

Clearly, the chariot issue goes without saying. Ben Hur versus, say, the 12th SS Panzer Division? No contest.

Which is about as useful as saying "A grapefruit beat an orange in a zesty-fruit drink competition." Gladiators came from any number of backgrounds with a range of martial skills and abilities over a period of hundreds of years. How did they configure their 'typical' model gladiator, just out of interest? Mind you, an Apache armed with a Winchester rifle owns the average Gladiator wielding a cestus or trident, I suppose. Cheers MC

They need to make "Ultimate Geek!" where different groups of gamers could show off their skillz. Series One could focus on the eternal emnity between WoW button-mashers and Goth V:TM LARPers.

^ Huh? I am a small principality noted for it's casinos. Ergo, I am fully entitled to style myself as such.

Have you ever seen the movie Speed? If you haven't I'd give it a miss because it won't help your dilemma. Cheers MC

Dave Arneson has died of cancer, within a year of Gary Gygax. RIP Dave. Arneson isn't as famous as Gygax, but he was the guy who added the primary role-playing elements to D&D, turning it from a fantasy-based wargame into something else completely. He will be missed, but his influence on gaming has been profound. Cheers MC

I'm still only turn 250-something into the MTW:2 Grand Campaign mod, i.e. halfway through. England has established a mighty empire that stretches from Spain (all of the peninsula) to Lithuania. A fledgling English presence is making a nuisance of itself in the Holy Land and nibbling at the Byzantine underbelly (the AI has decided that they will be tough - they field extremely well-equipped armies of heavy infantry and superb cavalry). My long-term strategic plan is (a) to conquer the Americas and (b) to equip the most modern, fantastically led armies and march on the Mongol lands to finally meet a foe worthy of my ire. When this game's over I'll finish Storm of Zehir and then ponder what next. Mount and Blade looks fun. Cheers MC