Mannheim Tanker

That could be, now that I reread his setup. This still doesn't answer the TacAI issue, which I now feel to be the culprit even more than before.

I agree. This gets down to the problem that several others and I alluded to. There are too many variables being tweaked at once. If you keep the TacAI in charge of "calling the shots", you'll at least rule out that possibility.

Yes, we certainly do qualify for the Dorky Grog of the Year award, don't we?

Great analysis! I believe you're confusing level of significance (commonly accepted as 0.05) with the probability of a Type I error (p-value). The commonly accepted value for significance in the p-value is 0.001 IIRC. It's easy to confuse the two, even if you deal with statistics on a somewhat regular basis. Hehe...I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong.

Is his sample unit each duel, or each set of duels? The way I'm reading it, his n=6, since there are so many dependencies (covariance) built into the experimental design. For example, the results of each duel is dependent on the results of the duel preceding it. If by the end of the replication you have 20 T-34s vs. 1 Stug, well then you will have a greater chance of some T-34 plugging the Stug while it's reloading. Therefore, I believe you need to look at each battle as an independent sample.

I do (have a background in statistics). Your sample size is way too small. Rule of thumb is at least 30 repetitions for something like this. In any case, as others have pointed out, the real sources of error creeping into your experiment are due to the other variables not being set as constants (the only variable changing should ideally be the one you're testing). In short, your assumptions are flawed. For example, were the starting positions of the AFVs identical in each run? [ October 30, 2002, 12:47 PM: Message edited by: Mannheim Tanker ]

Try using level 3, but magnify if once or twice. Using the magnification tool works wonders for some of the views, especially since the Russian tanks and infantry blend so easily into the background.

Only if they're on water tiles. Bada-bing!

Yeah, I agree. In my experience, the forums dedicated to a particular game are usually a better indicator of the performance and features of a game (or any software for that matter) than reviews.

A campaign already exists here if anyone is interested. It's not purely historical, but it does allow one to take control of a unit and lead it through an entire war.

One problem that people make in trying to judge the effectiveness of sharpshooters in CM is that they view them as snipers. They are not trained snipers in CM, but rather skilled shooters that are picked from the ranks and sent out to plink at the enemy. In other words, this isn't their job by training.

</font>

That's about how I learned it as a tanker. The only time the arcs would be considered absolute is when stationary in the defense, but then again that's the same as a vehicle-relative arc, since the vehicle is stationary it gives you the illusion that the arc is absolute. Eden, arcs are very useful in CMBB, so perhaps you're underutilizing them if you only have a "few" used for them. For starters, they force your units to watch their sectors of responsiblity, rather than having your leftmost tanks engaging targets far to their right...only to get bushwhacked by an AT gun in the sector that they were supposed to be watching. I use them all the time, and I've noticed a large improvement in my tank capabilities since CMBO.

Vils, join one of the many CMMC (Combat Mission Meta Campaigns) out there. They range from the huge and intricately detailed to the lighter Onion campaign. All allow you to gain unit experience.

Sure, the non-Sov Allies could have won the war alone. Nuke Berlin.

I agree. The East Front makes me yawn, but the improved features of the game lure me to play it. Otherwise, I'll still play CMBO.

I could run that whiney bastard over with a Stug. :mad: Something about his pleading voice that drives me up a wall (his useless products may have somefink to do with it too). "No! I don't want your friggin' CD for Winblows 98, ya idget! I'm smart enough to: 1. Use a better operating system than that 2. Figure out on my own how to use the desktop 3. Ask someone online for free if I don't (rather than buying your stupid product)

Yep. There's a good reason behind this too. Unless your machine is really crunching numbers (e.g. during turn computation), it really isn't using the proc that much. I do some heavy number crunching at work (dual 1.4 processors) yet the limiting factor is often the memory. Most peoples' processors sit idle the majority of the time unless it's a realtime game or application, as their bottleneck is their memory assets. CM is a memory hog (hi-res textures anyone?). CMBB even more so, since we have so many more textures to load including the "dynamic" ones (like smoke, rain, or trees moving).

I agree with the comments re: setting up a nice kill sack in the riverbed. I found it best to use the Russian tanks as a fire brigade. Let the AT guns and rifles whittle down the German tanks. This will often stall a large portion of the German attack. You can then pull the Russian tanks forward to fire flanking shots at any German tanks that were lucky enough to survive the initial onslaught but are now stuck near the riverbed engaging the guns. By shooting and scooting, you can distract some of the Germans enough to the point that between your guns and ducking and jiving tanks, you'll probably be able to finish off the Germans ability to take the VLs. I managed to stop them cold the first time I tried this tactic (2nd battle as Russians overall vs. the AI).

Upgrade. WIN98 was a horrible OS when it debuted, and has only gotten worse now that there are better choices. I'm serious, when I upgraded to WIN2K, it was like a brand new machine. Also, I've noticed that more the proc speed (within reason), memory makes a significant difference with CM. RAM is cheap, so everyone should be playing CM with at least 256MB. Again, adding another stick to my aging Celeron 433Mhz in addition to the OS upgrade bought me another 18 to 24 months of useability for my PC. Aside from the massive scenarios, I haven't had a single slowdown in CMBB.</font>

Perhaps not, but you're still scored based upon who controls the VL at game's end.

Three words, Antawar: Avoid the middle. I found in Cemetery Hill (against the AI), that a frontal attack is very costly, as it puts you in range and LOS of the majority of the Russian units. If you attack one of the flanks (I chose the right) and put all of your main effort there, you'll be able to move as far as the Russian trenches, then turn 90 degrees and advance down the trenchline/road axis and take out the enemy positions a few at a time. This way you're only facing the wrath of a few of his units at a time. You might still want a small force to stay in the woods directly opposite the front of the Russian lines to pin down any reinforcements he sends towards your flanking troops, however. It's just too hard (impossible) to suppress enough enemy units at once to make a frontal assault possible in this scenario, so it's not even worth trying.

SPOILER * * * * * * * * I managed a tactical victory my third try at Cemetery Hill. The first two times were minor defeats (stalled out at the trenches, just short of the church). The key to victory is to avoid a frontal assault at all costs. If you attack the Russian lines frontally, you put yourself within range of nearly every Russian soldier and defensive point that they can bring to bear on you. Consequently, I found it much easier to advance if I used the recon troops and support weapons (especially the 75mm IG) to lay down a base of fire along the (German) right flank. A few turns of routing the Russians on that flank will allow you to use the Pionere troops to assault and take the woods on the Russians' left (German right) flank. I use the recon troops as a support element because their firepower rating is much higher than the German engineers', so they pin, suppress, and route the Ruskies that much sooner. Once the Russian flank is taken, you'll find it much easier to advance "down the trenches" and subsequently eat up the Russian positions one at a time. Their fire lanes are usually laid out best to defend against a frontal attack, and not a flanking movement. Therefore it's much easier to suppress a few Russian units at a time (which means a flanking attack), knock them out, advance, rinse, wash and repeat. Before you know it, you'll be in church. [ September 30, 2002, 08:41 AM: Message edited by: Mannheim Tanker ]

Upgrade. WIN98 was a horrible OS when it debuted, and has only gotten worse now that there are better choices. I'm serious, when I upgraded to WIN2K, it was like a brand new machine. Also, I've noticed that more the proc speed (within reason), memory makes a significant difference with CM. RAM is cheap, so everyone should be playing CM with at least 256MB. Again, adding another stick to my aging Celeron 433Mhz in addition to the OS upgrade bought me another 18 to 24 months of useability for my PC. Aside from the massive scenarios, I haven't had a single slowdown in CMBB.

Tell us what you really think. Edit: There was supposed to be a winking smiley at the end of this message, but the UBB forum software wouldn't let me include it. Apparently you maxed out the smiley allowance, Soddball (for real...this is no joke!) [ September 27, 2002, 12:46 PM: Message edited by: Mannheim Tanker ]