PeterNZer

JC, your numbers, are fine (in isolation, rather like Croda). But, to use another metaphor (shock horror), rather like trying to quantify how good last night's shag was by her measurements and your girth, level of innebriation and the volume of noise produced in the engagement. ie. PRETTY POINTLESS. Actually, I think the above proposition would make some worthwhile study for some chicago students, I'm sure many a fascinating conclusion would appear that sage-like profs would nod over. JC, can you not admit that your numbers added nothing to the debate at all? Nothing that wasn't already clearly outlined in your first posts. I guess I just don't understand why you bothered unless you thought they did. That is, unless you enjoy typing extremely long posts for the hell of it. I guess this is an option. I am honestly baffled. Anyway, Croda, as my Hamster Looser, get onto some formula for me. ta. PeterNZ ------------------ - Official owner of the sig files of Dalem, Croda and JeffShandorf - Der Kessel scenario design group Combat Vision movies

Bamse even tho you're swedish, I like the cut of your gyb melad. How about a game? Send me a file etc etc. PeterNZ ------------------ - Official owner of the sig files of Dalem, Croda and JeffShandorf - Der Kessel scenario design group Combat Vision movies

Indeedy, it's a good read too. If you're in the CMMC i strongly recommend heading over to see how it's done PeterNZ ------------------ - Official owner of the sig files of Dalem, Croda and JeffShandorf - Der Kessel scenario design group Combat Vision movies

Croda you little love monkey, get back in your hole. as for Isn't that, by definition, rather a silly thing to try and do? it's like trying to evaluate the sound of the squeals ones inner croda would make being squished to a pulp by a mallet, without actually doing it. PeterNZ

Crodakins, I really think Stevetherat, my cutesy little squire, should battle your little squire. At least then you will have a chance at beating me in some form or other since I think I got a dud squire.. PeterNZ ------------------ - Official owner of the sig files of Dalem, Croda and JeffShandorf - Der Kessel scenario design group Combat Vision movies [This message has been edited by PeterNZer (edited 03-22-2001).]

Hi there all Well the CPX is over, incase none of you knew. And who won? Well, that's for you to decide! I think if you look at the forums and the discussion you'll see that it was a hard-fought battle on both sides. Did the Germans overstretch themselves in their drive through the center? Are the Allies too vulnerable with enemy deep in their rear?! The CPX is currently in the debrief process. With lessons being learnt and friendly taunting all round. Best of all anyone can go read and see what went on all those months. Within a month or two we should see the CMMC up and running! Anyway, check these forums out Allied Forum Axis Forum You may have to sign up to view and then set your properties as 'advanced view', but it should all run fine. PeterNZ ------------------ - Official owner of the sig files of Dalem, Croda and JeffShandorf - Der Kessel scenario design group Combat Vision movies [This message has been edited by PeterNZer (edited 03-22-2001).]

In what fields? If it's in art/english/etc then perhaps they would be, in the sciences, of course not. Since we're talking history here how inclined are they to ridicule the attempt to be numerical? If not at all. Well. Need I say more about the university? JC (with an r) do you not understand the basic argument many of us are putting forward that although your numbers and propositions may be fine and dandy in the end they add absolutely nothing to the debate since they illustrate nothing new and of themselves are debatable. Simply stating - arty more important than snipping - street fighting more important than arty (followed by sources/some history) is perfectly acceptable to me (and everyone else) based on simple historical study, why the need to throw numbers at it? Your first post on the thread covered all the bases in my view And JC, I'm sorry I attempted to enliven my post through the odd allegory or hyperbole and you took it all in seriousness. Sure, my critique of your numbers and so on isn't perfect, I don't have the time to examine it all to closely, but can't you at least agree with the concept that your numbers (I repeat) add absolutely nothing to debate. I could throw in some comments from the Oxford maths grad opposite me who has read the numbers, but they aren't terribly complimentary and probably shouldn't be brought up at this juncture. Anyway, I think it is more interesting to say that this is a pretty clear example of the differences between the European and the US view on history/politics/social sciences. Something I've seen several American's unaware of. For those interested I had a prof who reckoned that the 'split' (which happened in the 50s and 60s) was caused by the massive ammounts of funding the Fed Govt had available to spend on research into stuff during the cold war. Now the Fed doesn't like paying for "Snipers weren't very effective in Stalingrad and the street to street and artillery was much more important: source" method and really dug (and more importantly, paid lots of money) the whole "snipers, out of 5 variables (1, 2, 3, 4, 5) assumed only 6.75% importance bla bla" End result is two fairly different methodologies to the study of the social sciences in Europe and America. This -always- leads to debate in acadmia and here too it seems, a reading of a few Pol Sci journals or History journals will reveal this. Through training I am disinclined to follow a method that analyzes history/politics through mathmatics because often numbers are used to claim knowledge of something that can not be known or to back a weak argument with some mumbo jumbo. Now you don't have a weak argument, JC, (we all agree and believe the historical evidence shows snipers weren't -that- important), just the numbers seem a bit pointless and potentially even silly. PeterNZ ------------------ - Official owner of the sig files of Dalem, Croda and JeffShandorf - Der Kessel scenario design group Combat Vision movies [This message has been edited by PeterNZer (edited 03-22-2001).]

I love it when we get all huggy OK, Yeah, If Jason's point was 'hey snipers don't matter that much' and he threw some numbers at it for fun, great. I think that was kinda lost in the strong defence of his thesis put forward. But I think Croda probably sees the debate more clearly despite his lack of sanity so I'll go with his thoughts. Which reminds me.. Croda since you lost a BLOOD HAMSTER (again) here's your new sig file, thanks for the inspiration: I AM CRODA, ENEMY OF THE SCIENTIFIC PROCESS, EVOLUTIONARY PROCESS AND REPRODUCTIVE PROCESS. PETERNZ OWNS MY SIG FILE AND MY MEAGRE SOUL: ANY REASONABLE OFFER ACCEPTED Mercy buckets (that's your actual french) PeterNZ ------------------ - Official owner of the sig files of Dalem, Croda and JeffShandorf - Der Kessel scenario design group Combat Vision movies

Nice post Philistine. Pretty clearly demonstrated what I am sure many people think, and that is the numbers don't add anything much to the debate. If you go to that provided link and then the PzSh link you'll see more info on the PF and PS indicating at 30m the PF 30 was 100% effective under ideal conditions. Fun Anyway, if I have a beef with PF use, it is that for me they only seem to be used when a squad comes from being totally unobserved to attack. ie. a Tank might be coming close, has no idea of the squad, squad appears and fires. Even then you'll be lucky if both PFs (assuming there is two) is used. If a squad is already spotted by inf or the tank PF use, I find, is -extremely- rare. Even targetting the tank won't cause the PF to be used. With a squad of 9 or 10 guys you think one would be able to be passed a PF and pop up to snap off a shot. I'm not arguing troops that are being shelled and are heavily engaged should fire off all their PFs, rather that if a squad is under fire from say one other squad and a tank comes into range that the be very inclined to fire. At the moment this doesn't seem to be the case.. Again, these are just my impressions. I currently haven't read enough German memoires to get a feel for PF use in the field (let alone accuracy). And JC, if these changes were made I would still remain happy to play as either side. As it is I try not to get to close to German soldiers, others are less cautious and should be punished more in my view PeterNZ ------------------ - Official owner of the sig files of Dalem, Croda and JeffShandorf - Der Kessel scenario design group Combat Vision movies

I would say that's very unlucky. Most of my pillboxes have the life expectancy of cardboard in a hail storm. Try a quick battle and buy the germans a bunch of boxes and you a bunch of bangy stuff and see how it goes. PeterNZ ------------------ - Official owner of the sig files of Dalem, Croda and JeffShandorf - Der Kessel scenario design group Combat Vision movies

Well i thought it was funny.. Wow. Now that is insightfull. So somewhere between 1 out of 10 PFs hit and 4 out of 10 PFs hit. I see the numbers you've been working over really have provided you with some high level of accuracy. Oddly enough, I'd be -more- than happy with a 40% accuracy if the PF was -used-. Heck, one platoon would almost be guaranteed to knock out a tank (which they're not now). So thanks for 'prooving' that PFs should be more accurate. Your propositions: good stuff. Some factual info there, nice. Followed up by a drop to 4m due to training etc. Fine by me. Facts would be nice here.. but ok. That's a guess, isn't it? all guesses So in the end we have a result which could vary wildly depending on the previous numbers. And yet it still makes no sense. All it does it show, somewhat vaguely, the number of PFs fired that hit and destroyed stuff. Gives no indication of accuracy at various ranges or conditions. You could apply this magic 33% across the board to all PF usage, but clearly that wouldn't work. In the end you'd have to start guessing some more to add in factors for range and conditions and experience of the forces. The end result is no better than guesswork. Alternately, someone could do some real historical research an attempt to come up with some better thoughts. Throwing numbers at the problem doesn't provide any more clarity since the logic chaing is quite long and much of it guesswork. Why do you persist with this silly line of argument? Essentially your point is "don't change the PF" and you'll use whatever numbers you want to show it. I could of course do exactly the same and provide 'conclusive' proof that PFs hit their armored targets 80% of the time. I would then look just as silly, however. You logic is something that I don't think can accurately be used to give any reasonably indication of tactical PF accuracy. Lets get Rexford in here with some real numbers and real history please. PeterNZ ------------------ - Official owner of the sig files of Dalem, Croda and JeffShandorf - Der Kessel scenario design group Combat Vision movies [This message has been edited by PeterNZer (edited 03-21-2001).]

..so when you said earlier that other people's statements of 'less than' and 'more than' implied some kind of numerical basis you were wrong? One can conclude, now, from your debates that either: 1) You wrote those numbers up which are by your own admision above are entirely meaningless but just go to show that 'less than' is the factor not 'more than' as the very first poster of this thread claimed. Well, congratulations on using maths to 'prove' something we all knew after 5 minutes reading history anyway. 2) You do seriously believe your numbers provide more insight on the issue than plain historical study. What you're missing Jason is that this debate is rapidly moving from 'Snipers, interesting' to 'lets laugh at Jason'. I must admit between this thread and the highly amusing panzerfaust thread I am loosing respect for you, (whereas previously I'd make sure to read your posts). I know this is the case for others I've talked to on ICQ too. If you want to talk history, do so, but don't bother with those silly number games unless they are actually going to prove or highlight something useful that can't be concluded through simple reading/research. I have this funny picture of Jason trying to cross the street. Most people would look both ways to check it was clear and then walk when it was. Jason would pull out Excel and and the local traffic database to produce the statistical likelihood of their being a car on the street at the time he wanted to cross. Choosing a time where he has a statistically greater chance of living than dying, he crosses. Well looks like this time you got hit Jason. I hear you're supposed to be doing a Doctorate. I certainly hope it isn't in History or Politics because the kind of number games you present would be pinned to the profs tea-room wall for a good laugh at the uni's I studied at. This is NOT to say that you can't do interesting things with numbers, I can dig up some great papers with interesting use of algebra to describe political events. You SHOULD note that these professional papers contain much content describing the variables, why they were chossen and the probable flaws in the argument. Please just admit your variables are of your own devising and may or may not be the best ones (that's what any half-decent academic would do) and say that your model is rough at best and open to debate. These are the facts of this case and the more you argue otherwise the sillier you look. I think most people don't realise the high caliber of posters on this forum. There are people here who do this stuff -for a living- (like me and Germanboy), there are university professors here, there are known experts in their fields of history/etc who pass by as well as the usual handful of overly smart people. They are all used to critical, academic debate and know how it works. Incase you don't know Jason, it goes like this: 1) someone presents an idea. 2) Everyone else critiques it pointing out the holes 3) the person defends idea and admits when there's a mistake/error 4) person corrects his thesis 5) return to step one until there's little decent criticism. By failing to make it past step 3 you've made a lot of people have a good chuckle. Don't you see there are many valid criticism of your ideas? Or are you simply able to pull perfectly formed thesis from your butt? PeterNZ ------------------ - Official owner of the sig files of Dalem, Croda and JeffShandorf - Der Kessel scenario design group Combat Vision movies

Um, yes well. Also, it wasn't -that- common. It happened, but not as often as people might think. PeterNZ ------------------ - Official owner of the sig files of Dalem, Croda and JeffShandorf - Der Kessel scenario design group Combat Vision movies

Since i just spent the day.. eh.. 'forecasting' the size of the US gaming market, i find the irony on this page of the thread particularly ammusing PeterNZ ------------------ - Official owner of the sig files of Dalem, Croda and JeffShandorf - Der Kessel scenario design group Combat Vision movies

Hey, we need an analyst like you here, want a job? PeterNZ ------------------ - Official owner of the sig files of Dalem, Croda and JeffShandorf - Der Kessel scenario design group Combat Vision movies

I would say not because I imagine (from reading the memoire's of a FOO) that this was included in the calculations. They had some pretty good topographical maps and if they could factor in changes of air temperature at dif. altitudes I am sure they could adjust for a mission falling slightly short or long on a slope This is to say that no, CM doesn't model that. Although going by my recent battle with Nijis where half a dozen 150mm shells fell in a line 100m short of his lines (ON MY MEN!) something is going on *sniff sniff* PeterNZ ------------------ - Official owner of the sig files of Dalem, Croda and JeffShandorf - Der Kessel scenario design group Combat Vision movies [This message has been edited by PeterNZer (edited 03-20-2001).]

(I should note we see a bit of classic US vs' European social sciences debate here. Had a lecturer US trained in NZ and we did find his whole algerbraic approach to the analysis of ethnic conflict kinda odd. Mind you, he was rather clever so it did work and was arguably predicative) [This message has been edited by PeterNZer (edited 03-20-2001).]

.. ok where's that dead horse.. but anyway Jason You give the PFs 'effectiveness ratio' but it seems you haven't put any thought into the proposition you are advocating. Dividing total number of PFs produced by the number of tanks knocked out is a bit silly really: 1) You're assuming all PFs were used 2) You're assuming all PFs were fired at tanks Clearly point 1 is a biggie, but one could assume a ratio if one really wanted to get anal and do this properly. I imagine there are some records of captured war materiel, at least on the western front (beyond those that went 'missing' or were played with by soldiers). As for point 2, I would say just about everyone has seen footage of the PF used in roles other than the AT one. I've seen it shot off at a building (this may have been for the camera mind) at least on a couple of occassions and it is my belief that this would not be terribly uncommon. Actual historical study might help here, wow, concept. Furthermore, in my mind comparing the PF to the pak is fairly nonsensical since they were totally different weapons treated in dif ways. The Pak's job was to knock out tanks and support inf on an ongoing bassis, it was not to be used as some disposable and easily replaceable weapon. Since it wasn't disposable it is guaranteed to have a better 'ratio' since it doesn't automatically fall appart when it's knocked out it's first tank and can go on to knock out more. So now we've established the whole ratio thing is a bit silly, what do we have left? Some people would like to see the PF used more, others not. Myself I find it frustrating that my men won't open up with their PFs. That's one of the things I liked about the CC series (ok, i'm NOT advocating that CC is the holy grail, i just LIKED this part of it ok? )is that the germans, when they saw a tank, opened up when it got in range! They didn't fire off one, then wait and see if it hit, then fire off another (which i seldom see in CM, since I think the inf seem to be operating on a rarity system like the way a tank is reluctant to fire off that last HE round), if a tank came into range they let loose with all they had. Which seems realistic to me (actual HISTORICAL evidence would be nice here). So, yeah, i'm one for changes. Perhaps it's just me playing as the Germans too much PeterNZ ------------------ - Official owner of the sig files of Dalem, Croda and JeffShandorf - Der Kessel scenario design group Combat Vision movies

ahh the bulldozer sim! I'd almost forgotten, thanks madmatt, hahaha PeterNZ ------------------ - Official owner of the sig files of Dalem, Croda and JeffShandorf - Der Kessel scenario design group Combat Vision movies

I point-blank REFUSE to support YET ANOTHER boring geography Peng thread. The concept was well and truely dead by the Peng in Paradise phase. Please PLEASE do something more original! I liked this thread Hamsters, well done. Mensch! Your time in Germany has robbed you of your creativity as well as your Sanity. This very much explains the rest of Germany too. I shall mourn it's passing and may or may not return. PeterNZ [This message has been edited by PeterNZer (edited 03-19-2001).]

I'm a NZ'er in London, send me a setup (anything) and i'll play you. There's about 6 or 7 of us here ranging in skill and experience PeterNZ ------------------ - Official owner of the sig files of Dalem, Croda and JeffShandorf - Der Kessel scenario design group Combat Vision movies

In news today Lorak PeterNZ - WIN Croda - STINKING DEAFEAT After around 125 file exchanges the might have fallen. Well, Croda isn't really mighty, and, well, while he did fall it probably wasn't very far. Anyway, he lost. My reinforced battalion stormed his town and utterly descimated all bits and pieces it could find. There was really no hope for the poor little bugger. PeterNZ ------------------ - Official owner of the sig files of Dalem, Croda and JeffShandorf - Der Kessel scenario design group Combat Vision movies

I quite liked it.. Hmm, but i dunno.. didn't really move me anywhere or take me anywhere. Half way through I thought I should have bought some coke and popcorn.. perhaps i got bored. Well, I did with the love story. Ed Harris was great. PeterNZ ------------------ - Official owner of the sig files of Dalem, Croda and JeffShandorf - Der Kessel scenario design group Combat Vision movies

Gosh, i'm 60% grog 40% freak! Someone do or fix somefink! PeterNZ ------------------ - Official owner of the sig files of Dalem, Croda and JeffShandorf - Der Kessel scenario design group Combat Vision movies

Hey, don't get me wrong, I fully intend to play it, I just happen to have plyed A LOT of online games now (anyone remember door games?) and basically how i describe it is how it happens. Sure, you won't survive long wandering around on your own, (unless it's late at night when that's what will INNEVITABLY happen), but in the end you will log in, find some other people on your side and wander to the front line with them. It's a FPS with some more detail. And it will play like CS I think. In CS there are those who can do EXTREMELY well on their own. This WILL be the case in ww2 online. Some just like playing that way. Clearly this is more doable in fighters. Gimme a P51 and I can outrun things in the air and shoot up most things on the ground. If I want to go it alone I can. There are also those who do well in a team. This generally comes down to a mob of folks being better able to kill someone who isn't in a mob and seldom are there more tactics than that. There will be the cool missions and stuff which means that instead of everyone running in every direction you're more likely to see your team heading in the same direction, but don't confuse this with combine arms tactics and careful planning which will almost certainly not exist out side of squads doing their weekly night. If I sound jaded it's because perhaps I am! I have played these games before. It was great fun in WB planning complex missions and the RNZAF got pretty good at it. Massed bomber formations and closing fields was a blast, but often we swarmed around in a mass zapping whoever we came across. There's nothing wrong with this, it's great fun, but don't expect the second coming when WW2 goes gold folks PeterNZ ------------------ - Official owner of the sig files of Dalem, Croda and JeffShandorf - Der Kessel scenario design group Combat Vision movies