Username

I formally apologize to AMD. I had a problem with a video card and my MB/CPU swap wasnt thier fault. I went from PII to 1200MHz Athlon and its a real jump in performance. I am buying AMD stock monday because I think that anyone that gets a $300 check from the US gov and doesnt take a bite outa the great mem/MB/CPU deals around is a stiff. Lewis

I would wait till after the other inf FP fixes are in. Thats after CMBB is released. There will be plenty of SMG troops around (historically too) and issues will be more relevant.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slapdragon: It still would have spotting? Or are you going with a full - blown borg spotting model (like playing ASL on a board, the other guy is always visible). What is your impulse time base?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> yes of course. but the game is built around battlefield intel also. sometimes your own units arent reported at 'CM' level. i did a writeup here once sio search on it. in fact, most of my thoughts were in that post and I cant find it. i am getting a new MB and athlon to work reliably and have some consulting/interviews next week. if all fails, i get 20 weeks unemployment so i will be back to code. damn athlons are a pain in the butt. lewis

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Maastrictian: I'm still very currious to hear Lewis's responce. It sounds like he has thought about these problems alot and I'm sure he deals with them well in his game. --Chris<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I am busy with computer problems so you can do a search. My game isnt realtime execution like BTS but an impulse based game.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slapdragon: The quality of your argument was pointed out by Lewis and his response: the best he could do was make fun of someone's picture on tehir web page, which is what he does when he has no useful commentary. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Noooo. I stated that he felt a certain way and that I thought there are bigger issues. The "guy" I made fun of, thats probably just a pic he took from a website, was an attempt to lighten up the serious thread; so get a bottle of reality elixer and take a couple of tablespoons. Now the best I can do is reiterate my "reloading SMG" idea. I would like to see predominately SMG units start out with a small loadout, lets say 20. In the course of the game, they will get to LOW status. I would like the SMG units to have the ability to ratchet up from LOW to a maximum of lets say 10. This models nicely the shock troop nature of these gangster squads. Its sort of an abstraction of the weapon systems real world individual characteristics to a squad level representation. Lewis

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Schrullenhaft: [QB] However... I still look like a math-imbecile. QB]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> You were only off by a factor of four.. Ive seen PHD "scientists" do absolutely STUPID crap and get paid 6 figures. Dont feel bad. Lewis

Anyone want to play an infantry game where every unit is LOW in ammo and every unit is also weary?

ASL Conscript Is ASL an abreviation for something that rythmes with BASSPOLE? Lewis

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kampfgruppe_Commander: Congrats, JasonC. I see you finally finished your degree in "Obnoxious Prick." When do you go for your Masters?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I dont think he is a prick. He may be a bit flustered that something he believes in is not getting the attention he feels it deserves. Myself, I think things like spotting, infantry firepower modeling, MGs, etc are more important. But thats just me. Now. To lighten up this thread. Who needs a laugh? Want a good laugh? Look at Kampfgruppe_Commander picture. Its in his bio info. Hes all dressed up fer der rumble!!!! He is one of dem drezzuppenzeetruppen!!! KG_Commando likes to dress up fer der pictures. He feels it offsets his obviously white trash breeding. Look at der nose! Like ze saukopf assault gunz! Oinken-ze-oinker!!!! Sieg heil loser! Lewis

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Schrullenhaft: Lewis - the 20.5m is not the number of square meters (area), but the length of one side of the square an AT gun would occupy. In CM turns there would almost be one AT gun per "tile". Of course this is an unrealistic deployment, but it just gives you an idea of some of the concentrations of the AT assets the Russians had prepared.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> 20.5*20.5=420.25*470=? I think the side is like 46m then isnt it? So its like 1 per 4 tiles?

I wonder what the ratio of arty shells fired were. I bet it was at worse odds than the ratio of guns. The allies went on a shooting spree with arty shells and actually were getting short of them at the end of the war. During the bulge, they really went overboard and after the battle, the situation was rationed. But ALLIED arty was like nothing the germans had faced in the east. The fact that they stood against the combined arty/airforce/armor/etc disadvantage for as long as they did is amazing. I remember a quote from Eisenhower when asked if he would be on a road, in his car, in france, if the allies didnt have air supremacy. He responded " I wouldnt even be in france if we didnt". If the germans had the arty/shells, he wouldnt be near the front either. Lewis

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Schrullenhaft: At that density (470 AT guns/km) a tank couldn't help but run over an AT gun every so many meters. In a square km each gun, spread out evenly, would only get approx. 20.5m square ! In a real situation this would be almost wheel-to-wheel in lots of AT gun nests.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> 1000*1000=1000000 sq-m/470=?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Vanir Ausf B: Steve's example above suggests that there is not a seperate spotting check done for each unit in LOS. Rather, the highest spotting value of any single unit in LOS is used when doing the check. If the result comes up as "spotted" all units in LOS spot it. Having more than one unit in LOS could help in that the more units, the higher the likelyhood of one of them having a higher spotting value, but it does not increase the number of checks made. If this is correct, that would mean that 1 unit with a spotting value of 20, would be more likely to spot that enemy unit than 6 units each with a spotting value of 10.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Nah thats not it. He is getting into a spotted level. That is, the game hangs the highest spotted level on the target. This spotted level reveals info. Once the info is stripped, it aint growing back. In steves example he is saying that all the spotters have attained spotting. My example, with the X's and Y's, would have came before as a pre-function to what steves explaining. That is: Determine units with LOS to target Determine if units spot target Determine highest spotted value (10, 20,etc) If already spotted, does unit lose spotting So, once spotted, you are ratchet'd up to a known-info level. If you run behind a mountain and come back, you will be at this stripped level. This is really an IDing concern but lets not get into that also. But perhaps the game should not take the highest value but the lowest or average (I can hear steve now "NO, thats not a good idea, it would be a waste of our present and possibly future time irregardless of if we do it or not!! What you want is REALTIVE SPOTTING DAMMIT!!!!"). So the real problem with spotting is that multiple units with LOS to a unit each get a shot at seeing the unit. If one is successful, then all benefit. Its like if 10 guys kick in 10 bux each invest and earn 15 dollars on the 100 spot. They all get 15 bux each. Nice deal but wrong. Also there is no limit to the number of investments each can make. Once "uncovered", its probably not that easy to get back to invisable. Its all because of SPOTTEE sided mathematics. Theres no SPOTTER accountability or limitations. Lewis

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bil Hardenberger: One of the reasons I come here less and less is because of the sophmoric behaviour as evidenced in this thread. You guys need to go out and get layed... IOW get a life. Bil<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Your getting 'layed' advice is sophmoric itself isnt it? What about us that like to stay home and get 'layed'? Do people in the Beta forum get 'layed' alot (something makes me think not so much)? Do they do it right in the forum? Bil. You just want us to know that you are in the beta forum dont you? Its like a big secret you gotta tell someone huh? Well, tell em all a big hello for us OK? 'Layed'. Get real. Lewis PS Hi Fionn

"It is a waste of our time trying to kludge something that will hit diminishing returns even before we start." Is it really possible to hit diminishing returns before you start? It would then seem that diminishing returns are independant of any time reference and could spontaneously diminish your returns at any moment. They would be something indeed to be wary of. Sort of like the spanish inquisition. Nobody expects it I hear. Steve. Are you related to Yogi Bearra? Lewis

http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/willphelps/Specs-02.htm heres a good website on the panzer IV first 4.2 second 8.1 third 13.8 fourth 20.8 fifth 29.5 sixth 38 dont have the reverse ratio. see website for final drive ratio. Lewis

The website claims that 85mm AP were only used by AA guns. Werent there T34/85 or SU85 also making a debut at Kursk?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jarmo: So basically it doesn't really help spotting to have multiple observers. I've been wondering about that before. Oh my are we far from SMG gap but who cares. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Well yes it does. look up at my example above with the X's and Y's. Each X is getting a chance at spotting the Y's. Its shared information if one of the X's gets a spot. what steve is saying for relative spotting is that there will be a routine that remembers/calculates for the unit itself what it can see. So while the target may appear "sighted" on the map, it wont be targettable to a unit that cant see it. targetting wont "stick" if you will. Since the present system is going to be used in CM2, I am hoping that theres some way around this, an abstraction or limitation, that can tone this down. Certain things have been mentioned in the past: 1. Override: this is when you target a unit and the TACAI decides that a nearer unit is a better target. The assumption is that a nearer unit is a greater threat AND would more likely be spotted by the firer. 2. Filtering: Firepower of firing unit is reduced (reported reduced in firepower factors at the end of the fire colored line string) as a function of spotting. This doesnt stop anyone from targetting anything that is absolutely spotted but the game reduces FP depending on how much spotting chance a firer has. 3. Command limitations: The game menus that pop up dont allow you to pick targets just actions. Example would be to just 'Fire' and the game would decide what the best target would be. Hated and reviled by control freaks. 4. Spotting Chance based on firer/target types: Unworkable due to coding in the game, see this thread. 5. Pinning/Hiding improvement: Since motion catches the human eye more so than anything else (besides flashing Xenon lights), perhaps units that are pinned/hiding should be stepped down in spottability. Especially in any type of cover. having this extra 'drop from spotting' ability can offset the shared spotting. Lewis

Jesus Slapdragon, tero and ridget all in one thread. I must be in hell.

Hmmmmm interesting. But I was refering to Tobruk not SL/ASL.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software: Sortof. As I said before, I didn't remember exactly how it works so I asked charles. Basically, the highest spotting value "wins". For example, various spottings of a single Enemy unit over time... Unit A spots Enemy unit with value 10 - Enemy unit's spot value goes to 10. Unit B spots Enemy unit with value 20 - Enemy unit's spot value goes to 20. Unit C spots Enemy unit with value 10 - Enemy unit's spot value remains at 20. The current spotting value determines what the friendly side gets to see/know about the Enemy unit. Steve<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I think I get this but when you say 'Unit A spots...', how is that determined? I assume there must be a determination of: 1. LOS 2. Probability of spot (whats the math behind this? Is it on a unit-to-unit spotter-to-spottee basis?) I guess the new FOW level will deal with the unfortunate 'getting info-stripped tag'. Its probably going to be the only way I would want to play. lewis

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slapdragon: If X>Y then the unit is OK If Y>X then the unit is progressively disabled. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> What if X=Y? Is it pinned/disabled/perturbed? This all has a Avalon Hill Tobruk type feel to it.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slapdragon: This is a bit vague. Sort of like saying that you intend to build a sky scraper and when asked what it will look like you reply it will be tall. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Noooooo. Its like theres an existing building and I want to renovate it and I would like the floor plans. Steve would be able to find those out. I respect that he might be reluctant to disclose any exact coded math but I believe I do have a point (if spotting works the way I think). Y1 Y2 Y3 Y4 X1 X2 Consider that the 'Y's are inf and that the spotting routine is going to determine if X's can see them. The game, I think, determines what chance X1 and X2 (who are the same experience, size, everything) have of spotting Y1. Its somehow mathematically cumulative. Lets say 50 percent for each X1 and X2. Lets use an assumption that the games present engine determines that theres a 75% chance then that Y1 gets spotted by the combined 'X' effort. What I am saying is that this should be toned down. How much?, depends on the real math but somewhere between 50 < Z < 75 probably. I would also assume that the game does not degrade either the number of 'spotting chances per spotter' or subsequant spotting ability (ie he can spot as many times as he can without taxing him anyway in acuity). But this is all getting far ahead. maybe Steve can jump in. Lewis [ 07-17-2001: Message edited by: Username ]

I am going to try to ignore slappy. I am literally befuddled by his posts. What I was thinking of, about the spotting, is as follows: If the spotting 'roll' is a mathematical cumulation, can it be toned down as a function of additional 'spotters'. That is, as more spotters are tallied, there contribution is of decreasing significance? More so than the direct math would tally? This would be somewhat elegant because individual spotters, like a one-on-one situation could remain realistic, and the Borg-Hive-telepathy is toned down but not eliminated entirely. I hope MOST people here can see my intent. This is a last ditch effort to get tweaks included in CM2 that can have game-wide improvements. I really dont want to get into a citizenship award ceremony. If the game (CM2) was going from West front to Africa, I dont think I would care that much. Open battlefields considered, I wouldnt have that big a problem with the present CMBO spotting being 'non-tweaked'. It would probably work OK. But since I am like a lot of WWII fans waiting on a great East front game (besides my own), I want the best that can be wringed out of the present system. My own personal convictions, towards anything I work on, think about, etc, is that it can always be improved. Makes me a bit of a pain but thats the way I tick inside. Lewis

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slapdragon: BTW Lewis, I know when you are running out of arguments because you start making fun of people's race, religion, or in my case, a nearly fatal disability. Very predictable, but a comforting sign that a point was scored. It is only when you maintain yourself on an even keel that I question my conclusions. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I cant recall ever making fun of anyones race here. As far as I know, I am not aware of anyone's particular religion to even make fun of it. So, How is that predictable? Maybe you can let me in on the statistical analysis. Are unfounded statements part of your analytical process? Part of your disability? Inquiring minds want to know. I hope Steve can see past this crap and address the spotting issue. Lewis