PatAWilson
-
Posts
91 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Never
Posts posted by PatAWilson
-
-
Somebody has to intern those wayward fliers and escapeesOriginally posted by Sergei:Not so at all, but it just is hard to imagine how one would be IN WW2 while serving in an army that is strictly out of it.
Or can I claim to have been in the Afghan civil war just because I was in FDF at that time?
.
-
Oh for a built in dynamic campaign ...
-
How about this scenario:
In early 1941 Germany forces a peace treaty on France for the return of Alsace and Lorraine. Germany then unilaterally declares peace, claiming that the humiliation of Versailles has been erased. Germany does not declare war on the U.S. with Japan and does not attack Russia. Now Germany has annexed Alsace and Lorraine from France, western Poland, and Czecheslovakia. Germany withdraws troops from all other areas.
Would Russia initiate hostilities?
Would England continue to fight?
Would the U.S. enter the war?
-
The fact that it burned easily. The Allies didn't appreciate this but the Germans sure did. Thus the nickname "Tommy cooker".Originally posted by Tarkus:Hope I am not OT but how about that :
"[The Panther] approximates (corresponds roughly to) our General Sherman, a tank which evoked complimentary comment in the Nazi press."
Really ? I'd be curious to learn what was the appreciation of the Sherman by the German at the time. "Complimentary" would not have been my guess though. Any insight ?
-
I should have been a bit more specific: it's the cement bunkers with cannons that are causing me pain and suffering. In the last game I did get in tight and kill them with infantry. My problem was that they effectively eliminated my tanks as useful contributors. The problem with a tank gun firing at the slit is that the slit fires back
. OK, sounds like I'll have to make sure that I bring along some small calibre cannons for future games. In the meantime I'll try to keep my tanks out of view and move in with the infantry. Onward for the Motherland!
-
Apologies if this has been goneover before, I did do a search but came up empty handed. Anyway ...
How does one take these suckers out? They are certainly vulnerable to infantry, especially engineers if you can get them close enough, but is there a reasonable way to take them out at range? I had one positive experience with a 20mm gun. Any other tips are appreciated.
-
I have had this feature ruin several games. I say ruin because it seemed to me that my troops were in good shape and on the verge of winning.
The worst case happening last night. It was turn 20 out of 45+. It was a very difficult attack, approaching over largely open ground with no armor. I used all of my artillery in a preliminary bombardment and it did a great job. I then performed what was probably my best ever coordinated attack. Using what cover was available I eliminated several Russian squads. I lost 3 depleted squads of my own (out of about 20) but morale was still high. My troops had broken through the Russian perimeter and were over the dangerous open ground and in the town. Resistence seemed light and, with 20 turns left and plenty of ammo at the squad level, it looked like I had a good chance of winning.
Game over. I was not happy.
The only thing that I can think of is the lack of ammo in support units. My squads had plenty, casualties were not heavy at this point and morale was fine. However, I had pretty much exhausted the ammo supply of all support units (arty spotters, mortars, and heavy MGs) trying to get my troops across the open area.
Can somebody confirm the exact reasons for auto ceasefire? Can auto ceasefire be turned off?
Thanks.
-
I think you got the decimal point wrong somewhere in the calculation. I think it works out at 12 from the data above. </font>Originally posted by Doodlebug:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by PatAWilson:
Grisha:
The numbers that you posted show an AVERAGE of over 100 kills per sniper across thousands of snipers. I do not question that the Russians fielded some superb snipers, but I have to question that the thousands of snipers fielded by the Russians averaged 120 kills each.
Obviously it is difficult to possitively refute that figure, but it does seem excessive.
-
Grisha:
I am editing this post because I have lost the ability to do basic math. To see the original in all of it's glory see Doodlebugs reply - and then ignore it
.[ August 10, 2003, 03:54 PM: Message edited by: PatAWilson ]
-
For all of its flaws, I got alot of mileage off of that and, before it, Kampfgruppe. I would dearly love to see BattleFront do something on that sort of platoon scale. Ah well, just thinking out loud ...
-
Originally posted by GriffinCheng+:
If that interview is not a hoax or something like that, it was an interesting read.
The "interview" is a hoax. I just posted it because, as is often the case with a good joke, there's more than a little truth to it.
-
I just had to post this here. Please note that this is a joke.
On the 1st of January, 1998, Bjarne Stroustrup: gave an interview to the IEEE's 'Computer' magazine.
Naturally, the editors thought he would be giving a retrospective
view of seven years of object-oriented design, using the language
he created.
By the end of the interview, the interviewer got more than he had
bargained for and, subsequently, the editor decided to suppress its
contents, 'for the good of the industry' but, as with many of these
things, there was a leak.
Here is a complete transcript of what was was said, unedited, and
unrehearsed, so it isn't as neat as planned interviews.
You will find it interesting...
__________________________________________________________________
Interviewer: Well, it's been a few years since you changed the
world of software design, how does it feel, looking back?
Stroustrup: Actually, I was thinking about those days, just before
you arrived. Do you remember? Everyone was writing 'C'
and, the trouble was, they were pretty damn good at it.
Universities got pretty good at teaching it, too. They were
turning out competent - I stress the word 'competent' -
graduates at a phenomenal rate. That's what caused the
problem.
Interviewer: Problem?
Stroustrup: Yes, problem. Remember when everyone wrote Cobol?
Interviewer: Of course, I did too
Stroustrup: Well, in the beginning, these guys were like demi-gods.
Their salaries were high, and they were treated like royalty.
Interviewer: Those were the days, eh?
Stroustrup: Right. So what happened? IBM got sick of it, and
invested millions in training programmers, till they were a
dime a dozen.
Interviewer: That's why I got out. Salaries dropped within a year,
to the point where being a journalist actually paid better.
Stroustrup: Exactly. Well, the same happened with 'C' programmers.
Interviewer: I see, but what's the point?
Stroustrup: Well, one day, when I was sitting in my office, I
thought of this little scheme, which would redress the
balance a little. I thought 'I wonder what would happen, if
there were a language so complicated, so difficult to learn,
that nobody would ever be able to swamp the market with
programmers? Actually, I got some of the ideas from X10,
you know, X windows. That was such a bitch of a graphics
system, that it only just ran on those Sun 3/60 things.
They had all the ingredients for what I wanted. A really
ridiculously complex syntax, obscure functions, and
pseudo-OO structure. Even now, nobody writes raw X-windows
code. Motif is the only way to go if you want to retain
your sanity.
Interviewer: You're kidding...?
Stroustrup: Not a bit of it. In fact, there was another problem.
Unix was written in 'C', which meant that any 'C' programmer
could very easily become a systems programmer. Remember
what a mainframe systems programmer used to earn?
Interviewer: You bet I do, that's what I used to do.
Stroustrup: OK, so this new language had to divorce itself from
Unix, by hiding all the system calls that bound the two
together so nicely. This would enable guys who only knew
about DOS to earn a decent living too.
Interviewer: I don't believe you said that...
Stroustrup: Well, it's been long enough, now, and I believe most
people have figured out for themselves that C++ is a waste
of time but, I must say, it's taken them a lot longer than I
thought it would.
Interviewer: So how exactly did you do it?
Stroustrup: It was only supposed to be a joke, I never thought
people would take the book seriously. Anyone with half a
brain can see that object-oriented programming is
counter-intuitive, illogical and inefficient.
Interviewer: What?
Stroustrup: And as for 're-useable code' - when did you ever hear
of a company re-using its code?
Interviewer: Well, never, actually, but...
Stroustrup: There you are then. Mind you, a few tried, in the
early days. There was this Oregon company - Mentor
Graphics, I think they were called - really caught a cold
trying to rewrite everything in C++ in about '90 or '91. I
felt sorry for them really, but I thought people would learn
from their mistakes.
Interviewer: Obviously, they didn't?
Stroustrup: Not in the slightest. Trouble is, most companies
hush-up all their major blunders, and explaining a $30
million loss to the shareholders would have been difficult.
Give them their due, though, they made it work in the end.
Interviewer: They did? Well, there you are then, it proves
O-O works.
Stroustrup: Well, almost. The executable was so huge, it took
five minutes to load, on an HP workstation, with 128MB of
RAM. Then it ran like treacle. Actually, I thought this
would be a major stumbling-block, and I'd get found out
within a week, but nobody cared. Sun and HP were only too
glad to sell enormously powerful boxes, with huge resources
just to run trivial programs. You know, when we had our
first C++ compiler, at AT&T, I compiled 'Hello World', and
couldn't believe the size of the executable. 2.1MB
Interviewer: What? Well, compilers have come a long way, since then.
Stroustrup: They have? Try it on the latest version of g++ - you
won't get much change out of half a megabyte. Also, there
are several quite recent examples for you, from all over the
world. British Telecom had a major disaster on their hands
but, luckily, managed to scrap the whole thing and start
again. They were luckier than Australian Telecom. Now I
hear that Siemens is building a dinosaur, and getting more
and more worried as the size of the hardware gets bigger, to
accommodate the executables. Isn't multiple inheritance a joy?
Interviewer: Yes, but C++ is basically a sound language.
Stroustrup: You really believe that, don't you? Have you ever sat
down and worked on a C++ project? Here's what happens:
First, I've put in enough pitfalls to make sure that only
the most trivial projects will work first time. Take
operator overloading. At the end of the project, almost
every module has it, usually, because guys feel they really
should do it, as it was in their training course. The same
operator then means something totally different in every
module. Try pulling that lot together, when you have a
hundred or so modules. And as for data hiding. God, I
sometimes can't help laughing when I hear about the problems
companies have making their modules talk to each other. I
think the word 'synergistic' was specially invented to twist
the knife in a project manager's ribs.
Interviewer: I have to say, I'm beginning to be quite appalled at
all this. You say you did it to raise programmers'
salaries? That's obscene.
Stroustrup: Not really. Everyone has a choice. I didn't expect
the thing to get so much out of hand. Anyway, I basically
succeeded. C++ is dying off now, but programmers still get
high salaries - especially those poor devils who have to
maintain all this crap. You do realise, it's impossible to
maintain a large C++ software module if you didn't actually
write it?
Interviewer: How come?
Stroustrup: You are out of touch, aren't you? Remember the typedef?
Interviewer: Yes, of course.
Stroustrup: Remember how long it took to grope through the header
files only to find that 'RoofRaised' was a double precision
number? Well, imagine how long it takes to find all the
implicit typedefs in all the Classes in a major project.
Interviewer: So how do you reckon you've succeeded?
Stroustrup: Remember the length of the average-sized 'C' project?
About 6 months. Not nearly long enough for a guy with a
wife and kids to earn enough to have a decent standard of
living. Take the same project, design it in C++ and what do
you get? I'll tell you. One to two years. Isn't that
great? All that job security, just through one mistake of
judgement. And another thing. The universities haven't
been teaching 'C' for such a long time, there's now a
shortage of decent 'C' programmers. Especially those who
know anything about Unix systems programming. How many guys
would know what to do with 'malloc', when they've used 'new'
all these years - and never bothered to check the return
code. In fact, most C++ programmers throw away their return
codes. Whatever happened to good ol' '-1'? At least you
knew you had an error, without bogging the thing down in all
that 'throw' 'catch' 'try' stuff.
Interviewer: But, surely, inheritance does save a lot of time?
Stroustrup: Does it? Have you ever noticed the difference between
a 'C' project plan, and a C++ project plan? The planning
stage for a C++ project is three times as long. Precisely
to make sure that everything which should be inherited is,
and what shouldn't isn't. Then, they still get it wrong.
Whoever heard of memory leaks in a 'C' program? Now finding
them is a major industry. Most companies give up, and send
the product out, knowing it leaks like a sieve, simply to
avoid the expense of tracking them all down.
Interviewer: There are tools...
Stroustrup: Most of which were written in C++.
Interviewer: If we publish this, you'll probably get lynched, you
do realise that?
Stroustrup: I doubt it. As I said, C++ is way past its peak now,
and no company in its right mind would start a C++ project
without a pilot trial. That should convince them that it's
the road to disaster. If not, they deserve all they get. You
know, I tried to convince Dennis Ritchie to rewrite Unix in
C++.
Interviewer: Oh my God. What did he say?
Stroustrup: Well, luckily, he has a good sense of humor. I think
both he and Brian figured out what I was doing, in the early
days, but never let on. He said he'd help me write a C++
version of DOS, if I was interested.
Interviewer: Were you?
Stroustrup: Actually, I did write DOS in C++, I'll give you a demo
when we're through. I have it running on a Sparc 20 in the
computer room. Goes like a rocket on 4 CPU's, and only
takes up 70 megs of disk.
Interviewer: What's it like on a PC?
Stroustrup: Now you're kidding. Haven't you ever seen Windows '95?
I think of that as my biggest success. Nearly blew the game
before I was ready, though.
Interviewer: You know, that idea of a Unix++ has really got me
thinking. Somewhere out there, there's a guy going to try it.
Stroustrup: Not after they read this interview.
Interviewer: I'm sorry, but I don't see us being able to publish
any of this.
Stroustrup: But it's the story of the century. I only want to be
remembered by my fellow programmers, for what I've done for
them. You know how much a C++ guy can get these days?
Interviewer: Last I heard, a really top guy is worth $70 - $80 an
hour.
Stroustrup: See? And I bet he earns it. Keeping track of all the
gotchas I put into C++ is no easy job. And, as I said
before, every C++ programmer feels bound by some mystic
promise to use every damn element of the language on every
project. Actually, that really annoys me sometimes, even
though it serves my original purpose. I almost like the
language after all this time.
Interviewer: You mean you didn't before?
Stroustrup: Hated it. It even looks clumsy, don't you agree? But
when the book royalties started to come in... well, you get
the picture.
Interviewer: Just a minute. What about references? You must
admit, you improved on 'C' pointers.
Stroustrup: Hmm. I've always wondered about that. Originally, I
thought I had. Then, one day I was discussing this with a
guy who'd written C++ from the beginning. He said he could
never remember whether his variables were referenced or
dereferenced, so he always used pointers. He said the
little asterisk always reminded him.
Interviewer: Well, at this point, I usually say 'thank you very
much' but it hardly seems adequate.
Stroustrup: Promise me you'll publish this. My conscience is
getting the better of me these days.
Interviewer: I'll let you know, but I think I know what my editor
will say.
Stroustrup: Who'd believe it anyway? Although, can you send me a
copy of that tape?
Interviewer: I can do that.
-
Old or new doesn't matter. Choose the right tool for the right job. C and C++ compile to executable - that means that they run fast. Java compiles to interpreted byte code - it runs slow but is machine independent. Writing a server, use C or C++. Writing a web app, java is probably better.
Also, C++ compilers compile ANSI C just fine. IMHO you should learn the basics of C and then go to C++. First, learning all of that OO B.S. isn't going to do squat for you if you don't know how to use a pointer. Second, ANSI C is a subset of C++ so almost everything that you learn will still apply. Knowing C++ without knowing C is like knowing how to use a toilet without knowing how to unzip your pants.
My personal opinion about C vs C++:
I like C for lower level routines and very simple libraries. I like C++ for higher level code that is more naturally expressed as an object. Contrary to what people say both C "functional style" programming and C++ object oriented are still very useful.
-
You could shoot at a sound contact by ordering area fire in the direction of the contact. It would probably be a waste of ammo but in this regard it's probably a pretty accurate simulation of shooting at noise.
-
I don't know about the "all KT" thing. I have played several PBEMs and I have yet to encounter or use one. As Germans I have used Stugs, Hetzers, Jpz IV/70s. My opponents have generally used the same. As allied I used Sherman 75s, 76s, Fireflys, and a Churchill once. The 76s and Fireflys were used at a 1-2 or 1-3 ratio to the 75s. Once again, my opponents have tended to use the same (+ Stuarts).
Moral of the story:
A. Play like minded people.
B. If it bothers you then set expectations before you get into the game.
-
Every time I see one of these dumb assed flairups I will think back to the "What kind of flame warrior are you" link that someone posted. I forget who that someone was but thank you, I now read this silliness with a smile.
-
The Marines were a relatively light force and would not have made a good match against a Panzer division. Good infantry, however, was always appreciated, and, as someone pointed out earlier, they certainly would have been nice to have at Normandy.
-
I was looking for a link to sign up but couldn't find one. How do you join?
-
German. The Eastern Front is one of those cases where computer AI really is often adequate for simulating one side. The Russians won by overwhelming numbers, not slick tactics. Pick German, give the AI lots of troops, and let the mass charges begin.
-
One huge difference between the MG42 and the M60 is the ROF. The MG42 fires over 1000 rounds a minute. The M60 fires around 600. U.S. weapons designers fealt that the ROF of the MG42 was too high resulting in wasted ammo and reduced accuracy.
As for lineage there are some components of the M60 that were taken directly from the MG42 and many others that were not. It's probably not unfair to say that the M60 is derived from the MG42.
-
What Jaja said except the tanks wold be a mixture of Panthers (for all of the obvious reasons) and StuH42 assault guns for infantry support.
Others:
Towed AT gun: mix of 88mm and 17Pdr.
Arty: U.S. mobile 105s and 155s. Nebelwerfers.
Air support: IL2
-
Everything that I have read about the SS indicates that they were probably the best defenders around, but not the best attackers at all. In defense one needs dogged determination, a quality that the SS had in spades. In the attack, however, that same determination led to the SS often taking too many casualties.
IMHO a legitimate gameplay issue is the separation of morale and skill. There should be troops that will not break regardless of skill level. BTS models this to pretty well with the "fanaticism" parameter.
Sooo ... for all those who say "the SS kicked butt" - you're right - sometimes. For all those who say "the SS got their butts kicked" - you're right too - sometimes.
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PzKpfw 1:
Now that said, I think compareing the allied rate of advance in France to the Soviets ROA on the eastren front is an overal misleading generalisation.
[This message has been edited by PzKpfw 1 (edited 08-31-2000).]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Agreed. Besides, in just over three years the Russians pushed the Germans back from Stalingrad to Berlin. Take a look at a map some time and check the distance, it's enormous. They also did this while the Germans were fighting a 1.5 front war more than a two front war; the vast majority of German resources were facing East until Normandy and beyond.
Not knocking the U.S. military here but IMHO you just have to give the Russians their due in WWII. They earned it with the lives of millions of their people.
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by David Aitken:
You'd end up always picking Elite tanks, for example, with a low-quality infantry screen.
David
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
If I use points for high quality troops it is for infantry, not tanks. I haven't noticed alot of difference between Regular and Veteran armor, but there seems to be a big difference betweeen regular and veteran infantry. In general I like to use mostly regular troops with a couple of platoons of veterans thrown in to take out hard points. Quite often more really is better.
To kick things off... a poll of sorts...
in Combat Mission Shock Force 1
Posted
MadMatt said it in his example: a campaign
. I would like to start with a core unit and command that unit through the war (or whatever segment of the war is being modeled) in different randomly generated scenarios.
Basically I want the kind of campaign that was done with a spreadsheet to be automated.