Mannheim Tanker

Hamsters (if that is your real name I had a really elaborate reply typed up, but Netscape crapped out on me. Therefore, I'll just summarize my comments for you. I appreciate your comments, and agree with nearly all of them. For that matter, I agreed with 99% of what Jason discussed early on. However, most of the four pages you referred to had nothing to do with the debate on Jason's numbers, but more to do with his pissy, condescending attitude with everyone. The topic of discussion has been dead for two days, yet Jason doesn't even realize it. The gyst of the latter posts are attempts to get the discussion back on track, as well as attempts to debate with Jason on the merits of his intelligence (That's a joke, in case you don't get it, Jason). Seriously, I've noticed a pattern lately in many of Jason's posts in other threads: Jason posts a sound recitation of facts, and somebody questions Jason on a minor point. Instead of rationally debating the point with the dissenter, Jason resorts to (not so) subtle insults and hints at his intellectual superiority. What got me wound up in this thread was that he: 1. Refused to even debate the points in a civil manner (which I can overlook on its own) 2. Childishly, and continuously insulted me, and others WHEN WE TRIED TO HELP HIM OUT. Several people even apologized to him, yet he wasn't mature enough to accept it - his responses were even more offensive. At this point I realized what I was dealing with and gave up. My attempts to steer things back on track were merely derailed by Jason's continued antics. An interesting comparison: I work with some really intelligent people (they're - literally - rocket scientists). I consider some of these guys to be among the top x% (more numbers for you to dispute yet they can carry on a conversation without resorting to antics displayed here when someone disagrees with them. Jason, I don't wish you any ill will, but you really need to learn some manners when discussing ideas with people. A condescending attitude doesn't take away from their ideas; it takes away from yours. Hope that clarifies things a little for you, Hamster. I'm embarrassed to have been involved in this discussion, even if I was at the receiving end of the antics. I stayed involved more in the defense of the others here than to continue this trash. Live and learn...next time I'll know to keep my mouth shut when someone has an ego crisis. Best to ya. ------------------ "As for Croda's spelling it was unlikely to be unintentional since he tries to put the ass in everything." - Simon Fox

..."gnads". He then promptly handed Maximus a dictionary as well . Maximus stared at the book for a moment, and then declared:"...

This may well be true, but in my experience as an M1 tanker, I can't recall ever looking through the sites and analyzing the armor facing me. All you see is "tank", or maybe the specific model of tank, and that's about it. You'd be surprised how easily details disappear into the background in a training battle, much less in a real one (not that I'd know, but I can imagine). Perhaps someone has a little more information on this than our purely anecdotal examples. I can't recall reading much about it either way. On the other hand, the comments made above regarding the actions of a tank "giving away" its experience level have merit.

Tankers often painted kill rings on their gun tubes, but I'm not sure how visible they were in the middle of a battle. ------------------ "As for Croda's spelling it was unlikely to be unintentional since he tries to put the ass in everything." - Simon Fox

Never mind...no point in kicking the horse, as some people are too stubborn to open their eyes. Thanks Croda. [This message has been edited by Mannheim Tanker (edited 03-23-2001).]

I've been giving your ideas a lot of thought (well, not THAT much, but enough). You bring up some good ideas in regards to the scale of the battles that CM is attempting to recreate, temporally and spatially. Your points could equally be applied to operational recon (as opposed to the fine-scale, last minute, tactical recon that we all strive to perform in our battles). This provides a good litmus test for determining whether historical units/actions really "belong" in CM2.

Hehe...I'd hardly call it retiring ungracefully from the field. More like growing weary from dealing with a headstrong juvenile. I'll let you have the last word (you WILL have it), as it's surely coming. Some day, Jason, you'll learn that knowing more isn't always knowing better. And the last word is... ------------------ "As for Croda's spelling it was unlikely to be unintentional since he tries to put the ass in everything." - Simon Fox

You might as well save your breath, Jason. There is nothing left to discuss regarding your numbers, since you'll argue for the sake of argument . Seeing as you're STILL missing the entire point of the "Numbers" discussion/debacle, I'll just let sleeping dogs lie with that issue. I've grown weary of even trying to have a rational discussion. If you have any comments regarding the inclusion of snipers or modification of sharpshooters, on the other hand, I would be interested in hearing those. This time, however, please keep the insults in the Pool, so we can have a productive discussion here. BTW: I have no problem reading a lengthy dissertation, but only if it adds to the discussion. Your first posting was quite compelling; the subsequent novels have been less than appealing, however. You know, most of the parrying and thrusting going on has been rooted in the headstrong, arrogant behavior you have displayed. I've freely admitted that you've made some good points, but you refuse to show any sign of humility. Michael Dorosch was big enough to apologize for his earlier tone; your response was to crank it up a notch. You surely need to learn some people skills, if that's the same approach you take IRL. [This message has been edited by Mannheim Tanker (edited 03-22-2001).]

HUGGGGG!!!! The "elite sharpshooter" solution seems to be a good compromise. Having cellars, snipers, etc would be good for scenario designers, but I agree that most battles could do without them. Bottom line is more coding = greater delay before we see CM2! ------------------ "As for Croda's spelling it was unlikely to be unintentional since he tries to put the ass in everything." - Simon Fox

Great piece of writing, Londoner. It dovetails nicely with what Jason wrote initially (discounting his statistics). To get this discussion back on track (if that's possible): Question: What do people think about modeling snipers in CM2, as opposed to the sharpshooters currently in CM:BO? I'm thinking along the lines of an earlier comment regarding having a single unit that takes 1-3 shots per game, the effects of which range for a "normal" casualty to widespread panic (squad to platoon level perhaps). I'd think that such a unit should be uncontrolled, much like the Jabos currently are used. Thoughts?

Croda: You can take the "ass" quote as a compliment. I once knew a girl who "put the ass in everything". Boy, I miss her! Nice summary of "the War" BTW! LOL!

Jason, not sure what I can add since, despite your incredibly verbose response, I sense that you completely missed the point of my posts as well as those of others. We can quibble over your math all day long (I'm not disputing your inequalities, equalities, blah, blah, blah...I AM disputing your assumptions). Ace's comments summarize beautifully what I was trying to say. My point was that you tried to neatly wrap up the Battle of Stalingrad in an equation, whether exact or inexact (if I read 'exactitude' one more time I'll smash my keyboard ), which is an impossible feat considering the number of intangibles involved. You assume that there are 5 factors, and snipers are definitely the least of the five. Maybe so, maybe not. Without knowing with any reasonable certainty which is the truth, your fuzzy math brings nothing to the debate. This was only a small quibble that I brought up in defense of Michael D's arguments. It didn't become a crusade of mine until you started treating any opposing views as ****e. Bottom line. Period. I could care less whether you take our comments personally, but it was obvious from offhand remarks that you did. I was trying to be a nice guy, help you save a little face, and let you know I wasn't attacking your ideas - just debating them. In return, you decided to simply insult me. Go figure. Next time I won't bother debating with people that refuse to debate an idea, but rather go after the messenger. Thanks for the memories... ------------------ "As for Croda's spelling it was unlikely to be unintentional since he tries to put the ass in everything." - Simon Fox Edit: Toned down a comment. [This message has been edited by Mannheim Tanker (edited 03-22-2001).]

...discussions on the statistical significance of hamster Ubersnipers (AKA semi-regular rodents firing from hidden positions) in urban battles. Particularly annoying is...

Hehe...didn't realize that I was either hot or bothered. I thought this forum was established for debate; might as well shut it down if we're all in agreement on everything.

...take measures to ensure that their beloved country (Peace, Prosperity and Good Government) was not absorbed as the 51st state of The Republic. No need to worry, however, as there is no demand for DeadHorsies in the states. There is, however, great demand for cheap Canadian electricity generated by...

"Bring out yer dead!" Gong!

plus or minus one standard deviation Sorry, couldn't resist!

No problem, Croda. I found myself nodding off in many of my stats classes - and I find it interesting! The "solution" (actually, I'd say the approach Jason would have been better off taking) would be to stick with his abstractions. The fact that you can't account for every sniper, etc is reason enough to abandon trying to assign a number to their effectiveness. It's Jason's insistence on attempting to do so that brought criticism upon him - and rightly so. Had he addressed the points brought up by others, I'm willing to guess that most of us (if not all) would have cut him a little more slack. The fact that he blatantly dismissed everyone's arguments and opinions is what brought the fury and hell of the Almighty Grog Service upon him. Your example of the fear factor may be reason enough (if backed up by enough anecdotal evidence) to include some simulation of this (panicked squads perhaps?) in CM2. Unlike a lot of the grogs around here, I don't need a leather bound thesis supported by 10 appendices of figures to convince me of the RELATIVE importance of some factor in a battle. And you're certainly right about the "dogs" on the forum! I'm sure many are sniffing me out as I write this...

I think many of us DID understand his point. That's not what the bone of contention has been over. I must be incredibly dense then (wouldn't be the first time that I've been accused of it! LOL!). It sounded to me like he was trying to place a number (within bounds) on the effectiveness of snipers in the Battle of Stalingrad, as compared to other factors. To do so would require quatifying every other factor as well. You can't selectively choose just a few without justifying your reasoning for doing so. No, I wouldn't say that any one factor contributed 1/5 of the total. That's the problem. There is no basis (at least no evidence that anyone has provided) that the five factors given are equally weighted. This is where Jason got into problems with his figurin'. Nobody was arguing that he HAD to pin down an exact statistic, but the fact that he held on to his conclusion in the face of healthy debate - and resorted to name calling and throwing big words at everyone in his defense - is the bone of contention. It's simple math, but an erroneous conclusion, due to the assumptions I described above. This is one of the first points you learn in an intro statistics course. I'm not trying be a bonehead by pointing out nitpicky details, but am rather arguing for keeping subjective arguments as abstractions. I believe Jason was the one that threw numbers into the debate. His "argument" was strong, but his assumptions were erroneous. His pigheaded defense of them in the face of contrary evidence IS deserving of the level of "crap" he received. If you look through his posts, and the responses to them, you'll see that most of the disrespect has been one-sided. I believe that he is the only one that has made this entire debate a personal matter, and that's unfortunate. Edit: HTML [This message has been edited by Mannheim Tanker (edited 03-21-2001).]

Pretty good summary there, Peter. Just to reiterate my earlier comments (because I get the feeling Jason didn't understand them - or merely dismissed them), none of my criticisms were meant to be taken personally, Jason. You've written some excellent posts in other threads, and I've usually taken an interest in reading them. Your comments over the past few days, however, have shed some doubt on your credibility. This is what I've been trying to point out to you. Throwing numbers and a large vocabulary at the masses doesn't necessarily make you an expert. It's the interpretation of those numbers and facts that shows true intelligence. If you are in fact a doctoral student, you are clearly intelligent (and many past posts show this as well). However, you do need to learn to accept criticism from others, as peer review will ALWAYS find flaws in any argument - from anyone. You may be a bright guy, but the community in this forum, as aptly described by Peter, is above par when it comes to rationally debating history. If you can't accept criticism of your ideas on this forum, you are in a world of trouble when it comes time to defend your thesis! Best of luck... As to the earlier comment on including sex scenes in CM2: I can't wait until the mod makers get a hold of that one!

I wouldn't say this is gamey at all...ahistorical maybe, but there's no reason why any CO willing to sacrifice 75% of his Stuarts to take out the KTs wouldn't do this. It would be gamey if the Stuarts had a magic charm immunizing them from Axis AT rounds. Small nitpick of mine is all...

Hehe...exactly. If your post wasnt so long, I'd put it in my sig. I think nothing more needs to be said, since Jason's last post just shows how far he is willing to go to defend his methodology in the face of healthy skepticism. Jason, the fact that you are going ballistic trying to defend purely subjective numbers merely proves the point that it's probably best just to leave such arguments as abstractions. This isn't meant to be a criticism of your conclusions, intelligence, blah, blah, blah...just a friendly criticism of your tone in your latest messages. It's tough to take someone seriously when they're ranting. Edit: Forgot to kiss the grits. [This message has been edited by Mannheim Tanker (edited 03-20-2001).]

iv) Take him immediately to the back forty and ride him into the ground like he deserves. Of course, the Canadian players would prefer to...

Correct. The hand crank on an M1 is REALLY slow (at least compared to powered mode!) and will wear you out in a hurry. We also had a Chaffee out in front of BN HQ. We tried the hand crank in it, and it was (obviously) much easier to crank, even after sitting idle for 45 years.