Scipio

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Jeff Duquette: There is a British War Office report indicating the German equivalent of “danger close” for rocket artillery was something like 500 to 600 meters.<hr></blockquote> Ehm, if you mean the 'safty zone' - the minimum range or even the minum distance to firendly trrops, this number says nothing about the accuracy. The 'safty zone' for the (modern) German 120mm Mortar was about 500-1000meters - I don't remember exactly, service is 11 years ago - but the dispersion was about 50m - for about 100% of the shells. My source is speaking about only 50%, so there's already a bigger dispersion included for the other half of the rockets. [ 11-22-2001: Message edited by: Scipio ]</p>

Bumb The question is unanswered BTS, please respond!!! This is important.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Jeff Duquette: Hmmm…you changed the intent of your post while I was writing a reply to your original question which I believe was something along the lines of why is rocket artillery so inaccurate in CM…<hr></blockquote> I meant both - the accuracy in CM and the correctness of the source. Maybe CM is correct, but not the source - but I guess that CM is wrong, cause the whole artillery model is false in CM, as already known. For example - if artillery is off target, it doesn't go in a wider spread, the shells fall with the same spread, but out of the scheduled target zone... BTS has already announced changes in the artillery system - hope this will be the big changes we need.

I have found a source about the accuracy of rocket artillery: The numbers mean that 50% of the rockets hits a square of x m lenght and y m width Nebelwerfer 41 (150mm) : 130m x 80m Wurfgerät 40/41 (280mm): 160m x ? m 21cm Nebelwerfer 42 (210mm) : 500m x 130m 30cm Nebelwerfer 42 (300mm) : 175m x ? m Source is this webpage : Lexikon der Wehrmacht - Raketenwerfer Everyone who has ever seen rocket artillery in CM doesn't need a test result here. Can someone verify this numbers from other sources? [ 11-22-2001: Message edited by: Scipio ]</p>

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Clubfoot: legalities. disclaimers. copyrights. public domain. standardized release forms written in pseudo-legalese. bruised egos. tear-streaked faces... hoop-jumping. This fu@kin' sucks fellas. It's been nice knowin' ya. [ 11-22-2001: Message edited by: Clubfoot ]<hr></blockquote> What would be a wargaming community without people who wants war? My ego must be bruised sometimes, otherwise it would get to big.

You are right 2 x 105/120m mm means 2 x 105mm or 2 x 120mm or 1 x 105mm + 1 x 120mm The purchase points that can be used for artillery is shown on the left. It is always 15% of the total purchase points. [ 11-21-2001: Message edited by: Scipio ]</p>

Do someone remember the issue with a company that will publish a CD with mods and is suspected to use mods from the web? If so, where is the problem? The authors has no rights on their work anyway...

Manx, it's is not possible and expected from webmasters to confirm the authorization of every single piece that has been transmitted. But if the original authors notice that something was posted against their explizit wish, then the webmasters should react. This has been done, so no problem. Well, what if someone want to draw back his material from public access for any other reason? If you just say no, then this would implicate that the material has become ownership of the website. This is a policy I do not agree to - speaking as webmaster with my own site. OGSF - if something becomes public domain only because it has been released is questionable. Does it mean that the whole CM game is public domain, too, only because it has been released? And what makes you believe that people have a right to keep something available? Anyway, the whole issue is: if someone revised and want to publish a mod or whatever else, he can drop a line to the author. Where is the problem here? Slap, this is already in progress.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Gordon: ...web sites have to be paid for, no?...<hr></blockquote> Another untold story about a few and what they give for the common benefit...

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Gordon: I also better understand Scipio's concerns as there is also a monetary benefit to be received from visits to his warfare HQ web-site from advertising.<hr></blockquote> A monetary benfit??? So what? I guess I must talk to my partner - I have never seen a check Gordon, check your email

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Pascal DI FOLCO: Because thieves do exist should all shops close ?? <hr></blockquote> Because a lot of people steal in shops, it should be legalized, so the crime isn't a crime anymore? Pascal, it's my opinion that those people already act against the common interest. What you see now is only the consequence of the common ignorance. If you want to have a similtude, try this: BTS lives from the people who purchase their games. If a lot of people now make copys of the CD and give it away for free, you can say goodbye to CM:BB, because BTS is such a small company that software piracy can bring them down. The mod makers don't work for profit, but the effect can be the same: some people just stop to make mods, like JohnS aka Tiger. So what do you prefer : do something against mod 'pirats', or just look how one modmaker after another disappears and whine that he takes his toys when he go?

Well, just something before I go to bed: Another part of the WarfareHQ policy says, we use and post only material with the permission of the author. This was an idea of my partner Don 'Maddog' Maddox. After I had doubts in the beginning how this should be practiced, I understood that it is the only way to avoid undesirable quarrels with assholes like me. Can unallowed copys, plagiats or similiar be avoided? No, of course not. But the sites that posts the stuff can be counted with the fingers - I mean the sites that has public attention and good reputation, like CMHQ, Toms', a few others. So if we agree on some kind of convention, the webmasters should also agree to it: not to post stuff from dubiously sources and people. And remove stuff that has been posted against the expressed wish of the original author. Of course this wouldn't avoid that some people post plagiats somewhere on a minor site or send it via email. But it would be much more difficult for them, and I guess only very few very spritefully will do so. Because it would be easier just to send a request if the original author prefers this.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Splash: Well remember that if you can crunch infantry that means you should be able to run your own over too. Means much more careful plotting -- I don't think it's practicable.<hr></blockquote> Hey, don't make a good idea difficult

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Marco Bergman: Maximus was banned after posting as Cubbies Phan after being banned... if that makes sense.<hr></blockquote> Not really. But good to know. <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Personally, I think we should leave Scipio alone, people. My position is that people who don't want thier work modified HAVE that right, and we ought to respect it. If that is Scipio's wish, and he has clearly stated this, then we need to accept that. And if he wishes to pull his mods, well that's his right too.<hr></blockquote> You should read Maastrictians post again. He has understood what I mean.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Panzerman: Now here is a good question for you Scipio, why should the rest of us suffer because of one or two people made a copy? <hr></blockquote> If someone - like Maximus in this case - take a mod, revise and publish it, he didn't knew that I want to be asked. So I have told him, no problem. This was several month ago. He didn't agrre, but I thought he would respect this. Last week, I noticed that he did it again. At the second time, he know that I don't like this. So I must assume that he give a damn on it. Indeed he has written to me on my request <blockquote>quote:</font><hr> Unless you want to rehash the ol' Tiger bitch and whine argument about what is good mod ethicate, then you're fighting a losing battle. Most mod authors have included in their readmes that the mods are "freeware" and that they may be modified and redistributed AS LONG as you give credit to the original author. If you've got a problem with this widely accepted policy, then you should refrain from publishing your mods on your site. <hr></blockquote> I followed his suggestion. Why? Because this is the only possibilty to make the deaf hear and the mute speak. You call me egoistic because I'm so pissed by his actions? How many modmakers do you want to loose to such people? How many has left us silently? How many never go public because they are already demotivated or want avoid the quarrel with such a... ehm, people? In my club, we have a simple policy - everything belongs to the original authors. And the idea behind it is simple. Some people just want to know that they are protected from missuse. And those people don't care if it's a missuse for profite, simple ignorance or any other reason. By the way, I wonder why Maximus has nothing to say here. And now my questions: Why am I blamed here? Why must I defend myself? [ 11-20-2001: Message edited by: Scipio ]</p>

Michael, yes, a file was wrongly included in my mods. But it was removed when I noticed the error. Still to blame for this is a bit unfair. Some time ago Tiger leaves this community. You remember him? In the end he was totally frustrated by the actions of a few. He was one of the best moders this community had. My mods are not half so good that I can claim to be named in one sentence with him. But there are some parallels. I don't know how much time I've spend to made this mods, but it's fun for me, so I don't care, and I will continue to make mods for myself. I have shared them with this community for nothing. All I expect is the little friendliness to be asked. A little respect for other peoples - in this case my own - work. I have also started some discussions here whenever I had questions, doubts and ideas. Not all of them was good. The most of them ended into nothing because always the same people in this community talked them to death, not because they have the better ideas, only just because they are against everything and like to win in the discussion. Now, when I'm totally frustrated, sick and tired, I'm blamed that I work against the common interest. I'm blamed to act like a child. I shall defend myself for the missuse of other peoples mods. I'm called an asshole on this board (in another threat). This community (except one) was silent until it must fear to loose something. Gordon - in your last mail, you proposed that I should reconsider for the benefit of this community. Gimme one, only just one good reason. [ 11-19-2001: Message edited by: Scipio ]</p>

Maybe in cases when we have infantry on one side and vehicels only on the other side? Not that this would make something better.

I'm tired of this bull****. Michael, you are right with everything. Because of this, I will keep them offline. I will not make further mods, graphical or sound, for public use. This is a great victory for you. I hope you're happy now. [ 11-19-2001: Message edited by: Scipio ]</p>

Michael, do you want to discuss every single sentence until you can nail me down on something? I want to be asked, and over. If the people don't want to show this simple friendliness, then thanks and goodbye. [ 11-18-2001: Message edited by: Scipio ]</p>

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Berkut: I am assuming that you also go by the name of Tasker at warfareHQ? If so then I can shine some light on the problem. Before the last turn we played I suspected that you might try a rush for the flag. I reversed a PantherA(VET) back from it's ambush position to one closer to the flag. There was also A PzIV (Veteran) across the road from the PSW234/1 and therefore quite close to the VL Simply put there was more german armour in the vicinity of the VL than american. Still I do feel that it should have been based on kills acheived rather than points in the event of a draw. But that was the rule they decided on sorry Berkut<hr></blockquote> Berkut, I refer to the battle, but I don't work for Tasker. This is a question that should be answered, cause it has influence on the most important aspect of the game: the victory. Anyway, those axis tanks you are talking about are more then 200m away from the VL, while another Allied tanks is only 160meter away. So I guess this doesn't clear the situation.

Oohps, double post [ 11-18-2001: Message edited by: Scipio ]</p>

Gordon, it was also documented that and how the mods are revised for the package. Maybe some people have missed it, but communism is out. Everything does not belong to everyone. Anyway and once again: I just want to be asked. This is just a frienly geste. This is not expected to much. Yes, I can't be sure that everyone will do this. But if they not do this , and most peoples agrees to some kind of convention, maybe those pseudomoders can be teached that we don't like such actions. And BTW, I din't know that M has no access to the board - he can send me mails without problems. [ 11-18-2001: Message edited by: Scipio ]</p>

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: Why?<hr></blockquote> Well, I propose you take a book, change the end and publish it. On the first page you write, thanks to XYZ, the original author, for his outstanding book, but I don't like the end, so I have changed it. And by the way, maybe it would be okay if the mod is now better - but it isn't. And that's the why I want to be asked. I won't be related to something that refers to my name and has a quality that I'm not contented with.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: Forbidden is a strong word, as no one has the authority to prevent someone else from modifying a mod and using it for their own.<hr></blockquote> Indeed I don't care what someone does with my mods on his own computer. And why should I? But I'm really pissed when someones comes up, simply runs a sharpening filter and post 'his mod', even if he refers to me. I also don't like to see them posted somewhere without a request (even unrevised). Well, indeed there's no way to avoid it then the way I have chosen: I've taken my mods offline last week because of such a copyright violation, and I seriously consider if will publish further mods. Those plagiators forget that the modmakers take no harm when they don't share their mods.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Peter Svensson: My conclusion was that LOS was immaterial, but that in some cases, elevation was critical. If both sides have units within 80 m of the VL, the units that are higher in elevation than opposing forces sometimes count at about five times their value in determining control of the VL. I'm not entirely sure that elevation is the hidden factor, because sometimes it clearly doesn't influence VL control, but it sure does explain the weird results I've seen. I'd also love to hear from BTS on this.<hr></blockquote> The axis forces are indeed in slightly higher terrain - but the SPW is out of the 80m zone - so this would mean, ONE single crew man 79m away and a few meters above can beat a Sherman??? If so, then I would already call it a bug! This is absolutly unrealistic and unlogic.