Mannheim Tanker

Hmm...I smell the potential for a lot of micromanagement here. Will there be options for automatic reinforcements (e.g. TOAW)?

I'm assuming that you were responding to me? If so, drop me an email and maybe we can set something up.

Evidently it's only playable PBEM --- no single player vs AI version yet.</font>

If it's modeled after Real Life, it shouldn't degrade. In reality, the spotter calls in the mission and makes some initial adjustments based off of the spotting rounds. Once the rounds are striking the target, the spotter gives a "Fire for effect" command, at which point there is no need for further corrections (the guns or mortars just keep shooting along the same trajectory).

IRL, MGs were (and still are occasionally) used to estimate the range. Rather than waste a main gun round due to bad range estimation, your TC is letting loose a burst of coax fire to verify that he does indeed have the correct range to the target.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Schrullenhaft: Edit: Oh well... good to see you found the solution quickly. What version of the Matrox drivers do you have loaded up (5.72.021 is the latest and 5.82.014 is the latest Beta) ? Here's Matrox's Tech Support Forums, though I didn't see anything regarding Excel or IE on a very quick scan. <hr></blockquote> Yep, it was the drivers - should have been the first thing I checked! Thanks for the help. Edit: Hehe...actually, it took me about a day to figure it out - it just so happened that the drivers issue dawned on me right after posting. Doh! Newbie error... [ 01-21-2002: Message edited by: Mannheim Tanker ]</p>

Found the problem. Updating my video drivers fixed it. Not sure why the old driver suddenly started causing problems...

Just recently, my system started exhibiting some weird problems in MS Excel and IE5.5. I'm not sure if they're related, but they both started around the same time. 1. Excel usually works fine, but one spreadsheet will not display properly (other people can open it fine). The row labels and cell contents are blank - until you put the cursor in a cell, and then you can view the cell contents in the cell entry window. 2. IE doesn't display tables properly anymore. It looks like some kind of formatting error, where the cells are all squashed down vertically, practically on top of each other. I have a screen shot here of it: Screwed up formatting It's been verified by other people as having loaded correctly for them. Can anyone tell me what in tarnation is happening? TIA! (Possibly relevent) System specs: Win2K, Celeron 450, 256MB RAM, Matrox 400

Hey Argie! How does it feel to be fighting against the Communists for a change?

Again, I think many of you are mistaken in your interpretation of the question (e.g. Benpark). I'm not referring to the tactics that will be used by the player. What I'm referring to was discussed eons ago on this board, so maybe some of the other ol' farts out there that remember it can help me out. I believe the answer has already been given (no national modifiers), but here's the question again just in case... What I'm referring to is differences in the TacAI. For instance, will orders be acted upon differently due to differences in the command and control systems in place, of doctrinal changes. For example, will Soviet infantry exhibit less initiative than German units? If you have a Soviet unit sitting quietly in the woods, would it react differently (without your express orders) to an enemy unit passing by than a German unit (all else being equal, such as unit quality, etc)?

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Porajkl: You speak about the game that will come out in about 4 months. And you speak about tactics in that game?!? How? Isn't that a bit odddddd? Nobody knows how the game will be played... Like all previews from magazines... All based on presumptions... Is it really worth the time ?<hr></blockquote> I think you are a bit confused. I was referring to BTS introducing Nationality modifiers in some way to the TacAI. And yes - it is worth the time, so go roll your eyes at someone else.

Two years ago, Steve wrote: <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>The difference in tactical AI would be much more pronounced in games taking place in early war battles (Poland, France, North Africa) before the Allies learned how to fight the Germans by, essentially, copying them. The Eastern Front is even more diversified, with BOTH sides changing tactics year after year. That is going to be a real challenge to design and code for sure!<hr></blockquote> This is from http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=12&t=000024 Since I know that BTS is really busy working on CMBB, I thought I'd ask the community this. Will there be changes in tactics as mentioned in the link above (2 years ago!)? TIA [ 11-29-2001: Message edited by: Mannheim Tanker ]</p>

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by tools4fools: They consider it gamey due to the good stealth of snipers.<hr></blockquote> Why is it "gamey" if it can be done in real life? "Gamey" use would be teleporting them into position.

Hey guys, how about this: just make it optional (that's the answer I always got when I posed new ideas). Just like the "gamey" issues, then it is only a matter of taste.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JasonC: On non stationary distributions for a single shooter, my point is that it is going to (1) wash out in the long run when not a systemic shift (e.g. random variations in situation are effectively ergodic) and (2) it is going to be lost in the noise of the randomness of each shot in small samples anyway.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> No doubt. This isn't what I was arguing against. My point was simply that just because Hans shot 22/25 in one battle it probably doesn't mean that he'll always do that well. There are factors that might crop up in the next engagement that had zero effects in the first engagement of 22/25. In short, I agree that people often infer too much from these extraordinary accounts and apply what they've read in a few accounts to most ordinary engagements. Hans may have simply had a really great day - and he might have had a particularly crappy day the next day due to factors not factored into the simple statistics. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> I have a somewhat different diagnosis of the general issue in these discussions, however. Whereas thinking about the whole subject as a matter of distributions of random outcomes explains things much more simply, and also accounts for a lot of the different aspects that often cause confusion or unrealistic expectation.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I fully understand what your point is here, Jason. I'm comfortable with the theory behind the statistics. Your argument is valid in an abstract sense, but conversely, I think many people that are "statistically inclined" (you know, the egg heads like us!) tend to try to simplify a complex model to the point where important components are simply brushed aside as "random" elements or noise. The fact is, this "noise" can periodically outweigh everything else in the model! If Hans suddenly hears over the radio that his buddy Fritz just got whacked by an M-18, Hans' gunnery skills might suddenly go down the drain. I agree that if you have a large enough sample size, you'll eventually encompass most of these "random" factors (they're not all random, BTW, as there is a cause-and-effect relationship in many of the human factors). I'm not arguing that. I am arguing against trying to estimate the skill of a gunner and wrap it up in a neat little mathematical model based on the results of a single engagment - and that's what this debate started out as.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Dan Robertson: At the moment the random aspect of gunnery is a bit odd, the same gunner is randomly good or bad.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I agree, and this is the point I was trying to make to Jason. He's assuming some normal distribution to the shots fired, but that distribution may change over time (if viewed as a time series).

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JasonC: Occasional short run correlations do not detract at all from the applicability of random models that get the mean and distribution shape right<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Actually, this isn't exactly correct (you can have a certain amount of "drift" or bias in your distribution), but I'm not going to argue with you about it Jason since I know I'm right. There is a often distinct difference between the classroom answer and the real world answer. I've seen this in other problems as well (one I'm working on right now for that matter). Excellent point, Jeff, about the good gunners being able to adapt more quickly and bounce back from setbacks. One of my COs preached PT like the Holy Word, and it certainly paid off. Our company consistently did better in night engagements and maneuvers as a result of being more fit (and thereby having greater stamina).

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JasonC: Both of the effects you mentioned are perfect examples of things indistinguishable from luck. Luck is not a mystical additional force or a reflection of quantum uncertainty, it is simple the aggregate resultant of effects just like the ones you mentioned (good day, bad day, momentarily flustered, etc). You will get exactly the same effects from not modeling any such minutae and then making appropriately random "to hit" rolls. Which will streak or not, have momentary phantom correlations that then disappear, yada yada. Which is not something additional, it is the whole point of the random component of "stochastic" models.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I disagree, as human factors are not necessarily stochastic. If I start to do badly in gunnery - and get frustrated about it - the probability that I'll flub the next shot suddenly increases. Edit: I agree that in a sim (or game), however, that things like this should just be modeled as a random occurence. You're just beating your head against a wall to do otherwise LOL! [ 10-18-2001: Message edited by: Mannheim Tanker ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JasonC: "it misses the key issue - everything is dependent on the human elements" This is a basic misunderstanding about the nature of statistics and why they work.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> No need to lecture me on how statistics work, Jason - I use them all day long now that I have a job in the civvie world (in science no less). I'm a firm believer in using them to quantify results when possible. I'm not disagreeing with the findings of your statistical analysis. The point I was making was that Franz may have hit 22 out 25 shots that day, but that doesn't mean the next 25 shots (that day or the next week...doesn't matter) will have the same results as most of the variables affecting his accuracy are constant (as most human variables are). I can't even begin to count the days where I did awesome in the UCOFT one day, only to completely eat dog poo the next. Fortunately, I was usually much more focused when it came to firing real bullets on the range. Hehe...yeah, I know's it's obvious to some people, Jeff. However, there are also a lot of discussions on this board that tend to get bogged down in an effort to quantify every last element in a combat engagement. BTS has even stated that the outcomes of the battles in CM are much more predictable than anything in real life since you can never come really close to quantifying many of the intangible factors that affect the final outcome. Edit: One point, Jason, that you are realling missing. The results that you cite aren't as predictable as you might first think. An example: I shoot 5 good shots in a row. On shot #6, I forgot to toggle the ammo selector switch when I switched from AP to HE...and the shot misses by a wide margin. Frustrated by this newbie error, I'm distracted on #7 and flub that shot as well. This is exactly a scenario that I witnessed as a loader once (and learned a good lesson that I carried forth as a gunner later on). My point is that the numbers never tell the whole story. You can argue otherwise until you're blue in the face, but nearly any statistician will agree with me on this. With that said, there is still some value to stats...as long as you understand their limitations. [ 10-18-2001: Message edited by: Mannheim Tanker ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: May be useful to talk to a real living, breathing armour gunner about this issue. Lots more to consider than made up numbers.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Exactly. As a real, living gunner (former anyway) I can attest to the huge effect that the human element has on the results of any gunnery exercise. You can run stats all day long on the results, but it misses the key issue - everything is dependent on the human elements affecting the gunner during the exercise (or battle) being examined. The fact that this is so overlooked in many of the arguments on this board just makes me chuckle - I'm glad you pointed it out in this one, Michael. Did I eat breakfast that morning? Was I recovering from a cold? Was I distracted because of something that happened earlier? The list is endless... The bottom line, is that IMO any cold, fact-based statistical analysis or what-have-you is only answering a piece of the question, and that piece might not even be a large one! I won't put any confidence limits on it, though. My $.02...

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Carter: But I have heard that a diesel engine for the Abrams is being offered for export.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I seen this reported recently; it looked like they mated an M1 turret with the hull of an M60.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Herr Oberst: ditched the car and sputtered to the surface. Much to their surprise, the story line switched to the third person narrative, and they found thenselves surrounded by an angry group of Islamic fervents in inflatable dingys. "Hand over the fish, and you won't get hurt. We have been looking for this sacreligious scaly one for quite some time." The fish sighed deeply. "Yes, my name is Salmon Rushdie. I have been living an underground life for many years and..." The fish paused. "it wasn't me that wrote that book. He wrote the book and made me pretend to be the author," yeled the fish, pointing a flipper at Gutshot. "He should be your real target. Take out your holy vengeance against him!" All eyes moved to Gutshot, who looked at his former salmon friend with terror in his eyes. The fish continued. "Yes, he bids women to bare their faces, and drive cars, and wear short skirts, and play CM, and ..."<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> ...IIRC Phillies bid his farewell to CM last month (got bored, I guess). We can expect to see him back when CMBB is released, or possibly... [ 08-29-2001: Message edited by: Mannheim Tanker ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Herr Oberst: celebrating the departure of "that young college snot" who comes out here and plays at being a fisherman. "Even the greenest rookie knows that you got to go with the grain of the scales, not agin' it. Now that he's gone, we can let the Playboy bunnies out of the Captain's cabin, and start the real welcome home party! I think we'll start with Miss..."<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> ...Salmon Queen herself, the favorite poster girl of 109 Gutshot's trawler crew. Her seductive poses lured many a seaman to his fate, what with those beautiful gills and curvy fins. I'm sure that 109 Gutshot would just... (PS. Welcome back to the world of the living, Gustav!)

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by russellmz: ...that of getting whacked in the...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> ...FAQ...

The FAQers couldn't help but notice that Maxipus didn't even leave a storyline for the next poster to latch onto. The shame, the horror, the sheep...