Terminiology

hammy · Post by **hammy** » Mon Jan 29, 2007 1:24 pm

One possible 'issue' from the weekend, we have two different tests one called a CMT and one a CT. It was noticable that a lot of people were refering to CMT's as CT's and getting confused as to the effect of generals in each one.

Is there any reason that a CMT has to be named that way? Could it be renamed to be a Maneuver Test or some other name that doesn't get abreviated to CT.

shall · Post by **shall** » Mon Jan 29, 2007 3:05 pm

I am sure we can think of something nmore distinctive. An MT why not? We'll kick it around. Any other suggestions welcome.

Si

rbodleyscott · Post by **rbodleyscott** » Mon Jan 29, 2007 3:08 pm

shall wrote:I am sure we can think of something nmore distinctive. An MT why not? We'll kick it around. Any other suggestions welcome.

Si

Or DMT

(Difficult Manoeuvre Test)

shall · Post by **shall** » Mon Jan 29, 2007 3:10 pm

Much better IMHO.

Si

madaxeman · Post by **madaxeman** » Mon Jan 29, 2007 7:20 pm

rbodleyscott wrote:
shall wrote:I am sure we can think of something nmore distinctive. An MT why not? We'll kick it around. Any other suggestions welcome.

Si
Or DMT

(Difficult Manoeuvre Test)

I think MT works better - "complex" or for that matter "difficult" doesnt really add anything, as it is a test to do a maneuver .... Leaving in the extra word also maybes reinforces the first-impression that good units can do "complex/difficult" things, which lets face it, most wargamers equate with "cheating" !!

shall · Post by **shall** » Wed Jan 31, 2007 10:11 am

A good point - the less it looks complex or dodgy the better.

Si