Monte Carlo

Here's an eclectic mix... Humpty Dumpty: Stigmatised overweight person falls from elevated position without any issued safety equipment. Inept military unable to assist. People compose amusing rhyme to celebrate tragedy. The Guns of Navarone: Trigger-happy special forces ruin Greek wedding and destroy prominent local landmark whilst contravening Geneva conventions by wearing enemy uniforms. Magnum P.I. : Traumatised war veteran attempts to blot out PTSD symptoms by growing large moustache and adopting elderly English fascist as room-mate. Star Trek: Humourless, politically-correct uber-race travel universe to educate aliens about the joys of tight-fitting unisex clothing. Those who disagree are vaporised by hi-tech energy weapons. Watership Down: Selfish rabbits frustrate scientific breakthrough on communicable disease prevention. The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe: Small imperialists thwart feminist attempt to reduce global warming in Narnia. Reservoir Dogs: Men forced into crime by societal marginalisation are set-up for brutal massacre. Speed: Senior citizen with seeking enhanced pension contributions takes direct action against under-funded public transport network. Cop forces drink driver drive bus full of civilians in order to help him blow up aforementioned senior citizen. Casablanca: Mercenary alcoholic only helps resistance fighter because he once had sex with his girlfriend. Toodle pip! MC

With regards to never making a D&D game ever again, sadly I agree. D&D is dead, 4E has killed it. Ergo, I'm actually now quite happy to see new rulesets develop. Of course, one day people might make retro-rules games using new engines (I really can imagine that one day people might find the inconsistent but oddly charming strictures of 1E AD&D appealing again). Until then, let's see what games like Dragon Age throw up (not literally of course) and see what happens. I'd like to see a fantasy game based on a GURPS derived SPECIAL-esque system, for example. Cheers MC

Gftd1, I certainly don't think you're some kind of monster. Neither do I find personal responsibility some kind of cross to bear. If we were to discuss other areas of personal responisbility, I'm sure we'd find broad agreement. On welfare, for example, I'm pretty much all about personal responsibility: I resent every tax penny the state gives to the idle and indolent. Ditto education. What I am saying, though, is that if we adapt the old utilitarian, libertarian saw about the role of the state I'm quite up for including healthcare in there. That's all. It makes perfect sense that a healthy country is going to be a more economically viable country. I'd also reiterate that because I'm not from a country with such a robust anti-statist tradition as the USA that I don't quite understand the strident notion that helping out someone with a bit less than you is somehow an aggressive affront to my personal liberty. I accept that for you it is. What would be interesting, and put this matter to bed, is this. Let us compare the post-taxation disposable income of two comparable middle-class professionals in the USA and the UK. Then let's throw some notional healthcare crises at our little control group: maybe an accident, the arrival of a child, a critical illness. Let's look at the bottom line - who's richer? Unless, of course, there is a genuine hostility on ideological principle of paying to support another. Nothing we can do about that! Government: We're gonna tax you for healthcare, but it will be 15% less than your private scheme and of equal quality. Voter: Will my tax help out someone paying less in? Government: Yep. Voter: Hell, I'd rather pay 15% more. Commie. Nothing you can do about that. Nothing. Cheers MC

You are walking home, alone, from a friend's house on a quiet suburban street. It's late. Suddenly, a car mounts the pavement and hits you. Both your legs suffer multiple compound fractures, your femur is broken as well as one of your hip-bones. The other internal injuries and crushed ribs are small beer by comparison, ditto the superficial maxillo-facial damage. The driver is uninsured and drunk. There are no witnesses and no obvious CCTV infrastructure to incriminate him so he reverses the car and drives off. The emergency services arrive and an ambulance crew save your life, stabilizing your condition before a doctor in an air ambulance arrives. Your are choppered to the accident and emergency ward of a large city hospital where further surgery takes place. In the totally fictitious country in which this completely notional scenario occurs, there is no socialised healthcare system. However, there is a humane system whereby emergency treatment is free. So you do not have to pay for the life-saving treatment that occurs in the weeks immediately after the accident. You are a poor student from a working-class family. You have no health insurance. So, you are alive. However, you require long-term pallative care to deal with the aftermath of the accident - physio, more operations, facial reconstructive surgery, speech therapy, equipment, drugs and all the other stuff that costs an astonishing amount of money. So, here is my question sport fans, so quit with the ideological navel-gazing and point scoring: What happens? You are manifestly not to blame for your position. How do you take responsiblity for the actions of a drunk driver? Who's going to pay? If you want to go all Ayn Rand on this and say (a) he shouldn't be poor in the first place so tough (b) I'm not remotely interest in someone else's bad lack © etc just come out and say it. It's not a problem, it's a position you can take and defend etc. I find it morally difficult, but then again I live in a society where we've squared that imperfect and difficult circle via socialised healthcare. Again, it's not perfect. It really isn't. But it's civilised. One day we all get sick and need some serious medical top-cover. The sort of top-cover where the private insurer goes "whoah! That's not on the schedule" as if health is like renting a car and cancer treatment is like wanting to rent a big SUV with no collision damage waiver. How do you get around that? Cheers MC

What I'd say about the bigger mods is lag in strategy mod (cf. Stainless Steel or Dus Lo Volt! for example). I run a fairly powerful gaming rig and had problems with that one. I can't comment on EB, haven't played it but it does look good in a sort of obsessively detailed way. The beauty of Retrofit / Grand Campaign mods is that they happily co-exist - i.e. you can choose to play either vanilla or modded. I'm sure this is true of some of the other big mods. Generally, the standard of TW modding is fairly high, but as ever do your research before installing. Cheers MC

^ Shogun was great at the time, but rendered pretty redundant by the newer games. Rome, out of the box is OK but happily there are tons of great mods for it. My personal favourite is the Total Realism mod, but beware it changes the vanilla game substantially (for example, more realistic Roman military progression) and makes it a tad more difficult. Give the vanilla game a go but I recommend giving Total Realism a try. Cheers MC

^ The link regarding the pre-release item is linked on the official DA site, Maria. I think I can be forgiven for thinking it's legitimate. As for a DA pen & paper game, hey let's see if PC > pen & paper is as sub-optimal as pen & paper > PC! Cheers MC

^ Dude, DON'T USE THE RING. Just step away from the ring. Slowly. If you do put it on you risk finishing the game quicker, thus diminishing the amount of time you have to experience the DARK HEROIC FANTASY. I'm not using it, even when it gets put up on the net about ten minutes after release. Cheers MC

Blitzkrieg Anthology, a solid bargain-bin purchase if you like thousands of quite realistically rendered little tanks blowing stuff up (I do). My only mild criticism is that like a lot of CDV tactics titles, there tends to be only one solution to each scenario and these games are one of the few I tend to reach for a walk-through at certain points, am currently on the Hamburger-Hill style Italian campaign, where my US forces are taking a hammering in the pouring rain. Cheers MC

Hey, if you pre-order you get a nifty +5 Ring of Levelling Up Fast, just in case you need to grind the orcs even faster to get to the next cut-scene! No, I'm not making this up. Cheers MC

Girls in bars are interested in how much money you have. End of. Period. Talk about how much money you have, or if not how much you are willing to borrow to impress one of these women. The only other model I've seen work convincingly is to play wingman to your best-looking friend. OK, you always end up with the sub-optimal chick but that's life. Cheers MC

The idea that US pharmaceutical companies are somehow a font of generosity and benevolence is risible. I repeatedly make the link, in a non-Mike Moore type way, about the relationship between these companies, the health insurance industry and lobbyists but you keep ignoring it. It's a closed market, a stitch-up, a con. In a genuinely free market, cartels wouldn't be able to dominate in the way they do. Jeez, this forum is full of geeks who rail about Micro$oft yet ignore the US pharmaceutical and healthcare industries. Trust me, they make MS look like Medicine Sans Frontieres.

The BBC is reporting that two people have got it here, but (and I quote) "they don't feel terribly ill." Am not putting a surgical mask on yet.

^ 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