Jump to content

markshot

Members
  • Posts

    806
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    5

Everything posted by markshot

  1. There are two aging hard limits: (1) Cell replication. Our genes cannot transcribe to the very end of the DNA strand. Thus, we have telemeres. Dead space at the end of the gene to allow transcription without error, but they keep getting shorter. At some point, cell replication stops. For humans this is at 50 replications. (2) It was thought we are unable to create new nerves cells. The latest research shows this is not true. But the factor that permits nerve growth is most present not just when playing games or working out problems. It is actually a combination of aerobic exercise and brain activity. A study comparing treadmill exercise and hikers, showed that the hikers generated much more new growth factor. Why? Because hiking is both aerobic, but very cognitive for maintaining balance. So, bottom line is you need to do your PBEM on a cardiac cycle if you really want to stay sharp. (let me look up the name of the factor) See BDNF (Brain Derived Neurotropic Factor)
  2. Landser, WITE2 ... it is quite clear that much thought went into the game, manual, and UI. If it is slow to play, it is due to it's traditional nature of having push every counter around or at best small stacks. With CO2, you might play the Germans by giving orders at the Corps or Army level. But CO2 cannot handle so many units over more than about 1 month of battle over such large space. I think that is why we never went East. It is harder to find small battles, and players want to go East to play the big battles. I did analysis for Panther and the engine more or less scales smoothly from 20 units to about 500 (Battle of Bulge Scenarios) on existing hardware. So, it is less work, but all that AI simulation of commanding other officers, they, themselves, delegate orders burns lots of CPU. (Like CM does not scale smoothly. Big scenarios are a lot more work, because it is not an agent based model.) Sadly Moore's Law is dead. Processing speed is not doubling every 18 months. It began to slow towards 2010. Now, it is still true if you count cores, but few games except chess engines are truly multi-threaded using all cores and showing linear improvement on 16 cores. So, gaming industry is somewhat constrained like wargames in adding ever greater scope for our battles.
  3. Chuck, There are a few short scenarios. When I say short I mean in terms of turns like 16. Full Barbarossa is 215 (one week alternating sides). I spent many years arguing strongly against TBS/IGOUGO games and developing with Panther Games. I think it is worth looking into (but only after the next patch). The game works via intelligent agents. So, many units does not mean slow and plodding. It's a great a unique system. It looks complex, but really you only need a few days for the basics, and you can play with ATTACK/MOVE/DEFEND and taking the default parameters. A good plans is far more important that lots of finesse of a poor plan. Dave, I too am finding long learning curves hard despite retirement and sheltering at home. I don't think it is odd. I also take MD classes, physics, and whatever in my spare time. As we age we decline in 3 cognitive areas: * Executive function - the ability to construct large elaborate plans. * Calculation speed - I had joined a chess site, but could not compete. I had the right solutions just too slow. With me being 2X as old as most. And it showed, because they compute metrics. * The ability to form new memories. It is easier to remember what you learned in high school than last week. It ain't retirement; it's biology.
  4. Chuck, The smallest effective unit that has independent existence on the map is the division. Smaller units exist, but not as independent counters, but attachments which can be made. I wish I could answer your question better, but I am still learning. In game parlance, the are SU = support units.
  5. Yes, I did hear something about a 4x4 MP set up. But I have no details. Also, I haven't MP since MODEMs were in use.
  6. For those of you who have nothing to say about WITE2, GG series, or Games ... please withdraw from my thread and take it outside (John I am asking for you not to lock the thread but just do some admin stuff). This happened to my last thread too. * I am not without opinions, but I come here to share my hobby which is the intellectual challenge of games (and history); I am not a warmonger nor pacifist, but I come here to escape the 365/24/7 atmosphere of hate. * I think this board is the property of BFC, and this behavior does nothing to further the sale of their games; which should, at least, be a concern for them if not for you. Thank you.
  7. Thanks for or your insights. Reasons I purchased. 1) I had Matrix anniversary discount so it was only 50% for me. (although I would have got it anyway, but it was the coupon which started me looking) 2) I love computer war games. I know WITE2 is not a BG/TBS/HEX/CTR game; emphasis on BG and PC. But it is very close to its BG roots with quite a bit of automation: Air and Logistics and Theater Boxes. In a sense, BG gaming underlies many of the games I love including CM, but you can really see the evolution in the Panther Game Series or the Struggling HOI4. So, in a sense, they is like evolutionary search for the roots of my hobby. I have already done enjoyed comparing it Panther Games and HOI4. In PG, I think we really neglected the air war. I think in HOI4, everything about combat is modeled very weak. I did spend about 10 years pitching PG everyday against games like the GG series. I still the superiority of intelligent agents. 3) It seems to be the best of GG's work and I am more interested in the Eastern Front after playing MIUS. 4) Finally, I started reading the 500+ page manual before buying. It is one of the most well written tech docs, I have ever seen. (This includes both games and other computer software.) I figured if it played 50% as good as the manual, it should be fun. 5) Very well targeted YouTube videos versus the meandering HOI4 videos that are much work extract useful and current information. 6) It's a complete game, and what a game should be. Well, I would say 90% complete. But most change will be bug fixes, some mechanics, some rules ... mainly under hood, and the manual will still apply. Not like PDS, where the base game is only 10% of a title. PDS is never the game you want, but always becoming the game you want with the next DLC. GG games appear to be supported for about 10 year; the base game receives the support; and not by virture of buying one of 2-3 DLC scenario packs. So, those were my reasons for buying. I am learning now. I can push around counters, but I am not ready yet. Even if I don't play, I still feel it is a good investment as buying a book on the evolution of war gaming. It might just stick with 3D wargames: CM, MIUS, SOW, and for 2D/CTR AGEOD: AJE, ACW1, ACW2 and CO2. --- Is the game complex yes? But in a good sort of way. What I mean it is complex because many important aspects are modeled like air and logistics and weather. This is as opposed to complexity in PDS games which exist more to convince you that a DLC was worth the price as opposed to it attempts to faithfully represent some aspect of history or conflict. --- Yes, I won't lie. I really put serious time into PDS games. I wanted to know what I had missed. So, full (all 100+ EU4 DLC) games. I deleted all but City Skylines 12 hours before the Spring Sale: CK2/CK3/EU4/HOI4. Besides learning WITE2, I am in the middle of one CMBN fight and one MIUS small OP. Despite the sorry state of the world, I plan to enjoy my retirement for as long as I last. --- Thanks all for your thoughts. I will probably post when I get some real play experience. But don't expect that to be next week.
  8. I am sorry if offended anyone with the question. I really don't know how mortar aiming is handled when an HQ spots for an organic mortar (by this I mean indirect that I use the fire mission tab from the HQ, and not the target from the mortar team). I am just trying to learn to play the game better. Thank you, all.
  9. I have like 50% off from Matrix. I think it is the only title being offered that I might be interested in. But I never played any GG game before. I am somewhat concerned about monotonous micro-management. I was involved with the Panther Games series development. I like the model of real time and delegating. (Waiting for a patch to play again, but Dave's been working on one patch for 2 years.) The AGEOD games are good for the ACW, but I was thinking WWII. I tried HOI4 (DLC current), but it just seemed like one big abstract mess that has no resemblance to reality. So, I don't know if I should give WITE-2 a try. I will get it for $40 USD. (This is really cheap when look at what it offers compared to CA or PDS.) It is more question of time. I must have invested a lot more money in HOI4 and 6+ months learning. That's a lot to walk away from something. So, I want to be pulled in/immersed as opposed feel like I really have experienced a game equal to Soviet mud. CMx2, I will buy any title or pack as I like the engine ... not sure if I will ever have the patience for HUGE stuff. But if I buy anything CM as I know the engine, it will never be a waste. Well? Thanks.
  10. There is no reason why he should not have been. He was born that way; not a late life accident. His brain compensated, and he might be even quicker to notice branches not bent by the wind or turned towards the Sun, because he is more focused on angular information than pattern information.
  11. Okay, last night I had some experimentation (CMBN 4.03) with 60mm in direct fire mode vs previous experience in indirect observer fire mode. It seemed to me that direct they got on target pretty fast compared to the occasional comedy of indirect where by the time they zero the target, they are out of ammo. This got me thinking ... with indirect fire there are 3 points: TARGET, FO, GUN. Does it improve zeroing to align these points in a straight line or relatively straight line. I mean in real life, it seems aiming in a single dimension is an easier problem than two dimensions. Thoughts and/or experience (virtual or real)? Thanks.
  12. I was talking about this in exactly another thread --- ask a simple specific question and learn so much more. I reloaded the bugged game (mortar indirect fire) and tried your suggestions just to learn. Simon, Thank you. Yes, the 60mm team was very quick to lay down fire where I wanted it direct, and with TARGET LIGHT really controlled ammo very well while taking apart a trench defense. The other thing I learned is that it seems that the 60mm team was a lot less noticeable firing from 200M in cover than rifle team/squads. Especially, when the first round hits, the enemy goes to ground. Chuck, Thank you. I didn't think that I just need LOS to the target and not LOF to the target. This is actually very useful for dealing with trench works, since CM trench works don't simply seem to be dug at ground level, but always have obstructing sand bags. Thus, for bullet fire it is hard to target a whole complex from one position. But your insight also help to make quick work of a trench works complex. --- Further, even if I had not experienced the bug I reported (gave John a ticket and saves), what you two propose is easily 5X faster and maybe 2X ammo efficient than what I planned. THANKS!!!
  13. If you want to understand optical camouflage a few courses in cognitive science is very useful. The brain is quite slow at math, but a massive parallel computer of pattern recognition. In general, most of what we think we are seeing is filled in (or in computer speak back filed by our brains) as our eyes have a very small field of regard. There are a ton of great psych experiments on this. So, it stands to reason that the brain can catch something out of place very fast. A child shown monkey faces and human faces at right age will be able to differentiate individual monkey as well as people. But skill will be lost if not reinforced over time. The problem with adults is that we need to learn many things like foreign languages where as during certain periods during child cognitive development the brain is very plastic and does so naturally --- like age 3 for language and grammar acquisition. Although it would be unethical having 5 year olds scanning for targets with your tank's periscope, it would probably be very effective.
  14. I wonder if my white text is overlaid by a landmark text label also red. I should try that. Right now, I am still deploying.
  15. I got 4 terrain objectives. Okay, they are labeled in white, and I can toggle them. But I only see 3. When I toggle, there is ever slight change in deployment zone shading. Any idea how I can find #4? No, I don't think it will determine the outcome of the fight. But still the question stands. Thanks! (Yes I know I could probably find it in the editor, but I don't want to do that before the fight.)
  16. So THANKS = SOLUTION TO MY PROBLEM which we see on other forums. --- I agree with you John ... it is not the forum bells and whistles but the caliber of the people present that make the community. I have never asked a question, and been told I am idiot or asked if I know how to do a search. Often I find myself asking a narrow question, but responses wonder as they tend to, and I learn so much more. It's nice gaming community.
  17. Well, that is an interest point of view. I had considered that, but the first team's target (which I did fire indirect) was a AAA emplacement. If they had been spotted, and gotten a return burst. For sure, they would all be dead.
  18. Womble and Holman, I knew CMx2 would prove Quantum Mechanics. Knowing where a bullet is means we can not know what affect it is actually having. And despite "Total Defeat" in some universe, I won! Only, my watching the movies causes the wave function to collapse and soldiers actually get hit. This is a lot more interesting than relative spotting. Cool!!!
  19. BTW, I have it zipped up. Beta or player is welcome to movies and turns if you care to take a look. Just let me know. Ticket #32584203
  20. I just created a ticket, and will skip this mission. I hope I won't see this again. But I have other games to play. Thanks for the suggestions.
  21. Still not firing. After 3 minutes. I am going to create a ticket. Rats. This is going to cost one long mission as the 2 HMG teams in nice trench are going to tear my squads to shreds.
  22. 3 spotting rounds and fire for effect --- lost about 11-12 minutes. Having been a Software Engineer, I am going to say I hit some form of bounds condition (bug) in the code. This is where you are on the border line of conditional or loop decision such that in testing it was all LEFT or all RIGHT, but this time it was down the MIDDLE, and that case never actually came up or got tested. Fog of Programming!
  23. But if he didn't see the round, then should he not call for another? That is what is so weird. 10 minutes went by with not another round. They still had 28.
×
×
  • Create New...