dieseltaylor

I thought my memory had not played me false. However your point about the overall picture is well put. As I am totally unacquainted with Foy I took your post as the sum total of the event, not realising it was more than a skirmish. Without reading Ambrose it would be hard to say whether his account conflated the units achievement at Foy with others, or that he was summarising the overall battle results. And perhaps he did not make the distinction clear. The prior post:

Coo - but then we are amateurs rather than serious competitive players. : ) Does that clubs database record types of battle - whether planes were shot down that sort of thing? I am going out now so will not have time to join now.

In the thread "I don't like wire" the perennial argument about which of the two games is preferable surfaced. http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=92037 Unsurprisingly perhaps on a CMBB board there was a feeling that CMBB was preferable. On research last year at WeBoB I was seeing CMAK being roughly twice as often played as CMBB. I thought I would interrogate the BoBster [the statistics repository] to see what else I could learn. With CMAK six players had over 100 games recorded, with CMBB only two, and CMBO seven players. Of the current players there are : 1903 CMAK 3462 CMBB 1835 CMBO games in which they participated. Some of these would be against other current players and therefore you could divide by two for the actual games played. Unfortunately if their opponents are on leave from the club, or resigned, or be thrown out, then the maths is blown.1 : ) In the early years over 300 games would be recorded a month and nowdays it is more like 30 a month. I think other than more players, TCP/IP was much more common as CMBO was relatively simple to play quickly [and badly]. With the greater complexity of the following games and players getting more thoughtful TCP/IP or LAN became less attractive. Just a bit more on the BoBster: The BoBster was originally set up by Gustra I think when WeBoB the club started. In any event the first recorded game is 25th April 2001. Over the following years the criteria for being registered changed a bit so I think there may be a small problems with some of the figures and how they are derived. Gustra disppeared and the newly renamed BoBster was taken over by Green As Jade who has improved it considerably and made all the workings and files available. This allows me to do some stuff but the file I just tried playing with is 20MB : ) and my spreadsheet said over 65000 rows so no go. I will have to sort out what I am doing wrong. Anyway back to the story. There are 13504 games recorded and of those the vast majority are QB's - about 9681 in fact. As I said the picture is confused as at one stage players who left or were thrown out lost there records - though they may have remained in the database. Therefore I am a bit fuzzy as to the precise figures. However 3012 games were scenarios. And 243 were in tournaments/tourneys/campaigns/birthday bashes.

Getting back to Ambrose for a moment. According I think JC, apparently Ambrose wrote that E company at Foy captured 100 Germans and three Tigers left town. Waters, who was there in his autobiography says 20 prisoners and no tanks.

It was the percentage increses that I was shocked at! Ok much less obvious http://www.naturalnews.com/028831_natural_health_technology_renewable_energy.html

Just to show how diverse is the PhysOrg site there is also this thought provking article: http://www.physorg.com/news193337917.html

Kind of depressing as I am very fond of processed meats. Looks like dried cured could make a comebak ... possibly [if I knew entirely what was involved] http://www.physorg.com/news193319745.html

Strewth thats fun

I am impressd that you won with the Americans in Tiger Valley as it is entirely UK units. Perhaps your view is of another scenario. It is correct that there are some Tigers in Tiger Valley but I understand it was historically correct for Tigers to be operating in North Africa at the time. The UK does have to use its combined arms to be successfull - but I have only played it three and a half times. The best time is the first obviously as the atmosphere of not knowing what is going on is superb. I find that within the CM system that I cannot expect the game design or engine to give me the ability to do historical tactics so there is already a fudge factor to be dealt with. One of the playing problems is to translate knowledge of what should happen in RL on to the CM battlefield. The ability of super-gunned Stuarts is one glaring example. SO the CM system is a fudge and it is the best there is in the game market in terms of playability. And CMAK has less fudges than CMBB. My bogging test facts were a little rushed as it was waay past bedtime. Basically I ran five tests where twenty Stugs drove around on dry steppe for 30 minutes. The results showed that even in dry there could be bogging and immobilsation - in the five tests showed 0,1,2,2,3 as the results. It is unlikely that any vehicle would drive so far in a game so from that point it is not that useful. The bogging I did not note other than an extreme example where one bogged on turn one and then unbogged 4 minutes later - which with small numbers involved in a scenario may be very painful in terms of moving troops up regardless of anything else. During the tests the annoying habit of commanders to unbutton all the time lead to a high of 171 points for the Russian infantry solely by shooting tank commanders. Just another irksome feature of the CMBB design. As for my sixth test to have three tanks immobilised out of five in dry, that comes from following my hunch on the CM method of calculation. I don't think it much of a practical danger but in case there is anyone gamey out there I am not revealing the test parameters. The move minutes is therefore 30*20*5 which is 3000 divided by 8 immobilisations therefore 375 minutes of running time. I have no problem with that however the test may also be obscuring the more practical aspect by having big numbers running and I should do some tests with the more probable numbers of 5-10 vehicles in a smaller scenario. The other point is the time when the immobilisations occur as Turn 1 immobilisation is probably 30 times worse than a tank going immobile on Turn 30. Previous experiments have shown me no significant difference with bogging/ immobilisation rates for tanks even with different track psi - in case anyone was going to suggest it as a factor. : )

Tiger Valley - I take it you lost then. : ) Of course there are many many people who have enjoyed it and rate it highly but what do we care for their opinions! As for the artillery module ... my own preference is to have the possibility of buying it as it sows doubt in the enemies mind. On some battlefields it may actually be worth buying particularly if you are playing on an agreed map where you have seen the terrain. In actual fact it is rare that you would lose the module given the way random casualties works. I think Treebursts example was to illustrate that CMAK was improved over CMBB's. Incidentally in dry in CMBB I have had three out of 5 bog in a test I have just carried out over 30 turns. Pretty impressive. In other dry tests the immobilisation in five tests of 20 Stugs the results were 0,1,1,2,2,3, over 30 turns of movement.

There are other countries than the US who fought in the Mediterranean ... Covering some of the points: 1.Artillery I have long moaned about the bias against the Allied artillery and I believe some of my posts covered them in depth. There is a way around this and that is to use the casualties parameter which does move all the purchase parameters up. So if I were playing Allied I would ask or arrange for casualties to allow me to purchase modules of bigger artillery. Then again I would not be playing with small point battles. BTW it is almost worth asking for random casualties or a specified amount as it means your opponent cannot be sure that you have not spent points on heavy artillery. And Germans hate VT artillery. : ) 2. Attack/Defense This is busted in CMBB and has never been fixed. Essentially if you buy some of the fixed defences the points get credited to your opponent. Just to rub salt into the wound these appear on your opponents score immediately. In CMAK it works. I do regard the busted version as a complete turn-off. It was interesting to see with the advent of CMAK how few people had ever bothered with attack/assault battles because of the glitch. 3. Bogging Broken in CMBB unless one drives in perpetual sunshine which reduces the chances somewhat. This is some research that Treeburts155 carried out in 2003 Recently in damp weather and in CMBB I had 3 Stugs bog and become immobilised with 6 minutes of the start of a game out of eight vehicles. 3. Defective Russian effectiveness until January 1944 BF decided that, for some reason, that all Russian units are downgraded by one level. It may be that it was because the officer corp had been disrupted by Stalin that the lower echelons, the level that CM is at, were rubbish commanders. My personal opinion is that many designers add there own belief in Russian incompetence and reduce all Russians to green amplifying the BF decision. My opinion is that the Russian squads are quite capable of shooting straight and staying to fight and that the penalty should be in the lack of boni or little boni for the Russian officers. Therefore have squads as Regular at least. Of course the designer can boost boni for the Axis forces. If you think this bizarre ask yourself whether the Rumanians and Hungarians are really one level better across the board in man to man fighting. 4. Problems with the Russian 76mm versus Stugs ith 80mm armour There is a huge amount written on this subject but essentially the two most common weapons systems on the Eastern Front are compromised. People do workarounds but given all the other problems I find it more enjoyable to play CMAK. 5. Larger Battlefields CMAK has larger battlefields which means that movement becomes a more interesting avenue to explore. The greatest scenario - Tiger Valley - shows this off beautifully. I have played probably 150+ of each and play at WeBoB, and play for fun rather than being the winningest player. This means I can afford to play scenarios and QBs with all manner of forces so perhaps that is why I get so much fun out of it. I am swearing off CMBB again after my recent flirtation as the lethality of weapons etc means that it plays differently from CMAK! Rather as the German troops found when they shifted fronts in RL.

Art Robinson : Seems that unbridled capitalism can do nothing but good. I am confused though that sending jobs abroad WAS unrestrained capitalist behaviour. Is the guy a fruitcake. Is the petition true? Who cares??

Galbraith to senators: "I write to you from a disgraced profession. Economic theory ... failed miserably to understand the forces behind the financial crisis." An excerpt from a consummate letter to US Senators about the economic corruption/sabotage of the US economy http://www.alternet.org/economy/146883/james_k._galbraith?page=entire It is rather bleak to consider the cleansing that ought to happen and what might happen.

How deeply gratifying : ) Note the calibre of the defence lawyers?

Raw materials also figure highly - this is from 2007 but seems authoritive. And with a population smaller than the EU or the USA its running out of resources will be sometime later than the "first" world perhaps. http://www.larouchepub.com/eiw/public/2007/2007_30-39/2007-39/pdf/43-47_738.pdf As for calling someone young and immature - I think you will be probaly younger than most of the posters here. Maturity levels of course differ and are not necessarily age related : )

Product details Hardcover: 341 pages Publisher: The Bodley Head Ltd (2 Oct 2008) Language English ISBN-10: 0224079948 ISBN-13: 978-0224079945 Product Dimensions: 23.6 x 15.4 x 3.8 cm A nice review from Waterstones site

I did not set the parameters for the QB so in that respect I had no hand in it. I suppose I could have complained and asked for a new set-up and weather but one does not wish to appear churlish when playing a new player. As for whether all scenario designers in CMBB are aware of the bogging rate I doubt. However regardless of that the fact remains that 3 out of 8 within 6 minutes is excessive in anyones book . I have a theory on the way bogging was programmed by BF and randomness does not come into it : ) I have actually conducted experiments in muddy and wet terrain for a variety of tanks in CMBB to see if weight [ground pressure], speed, class of driver, make much difference. Also average GP is not actually in RL a good predictor of boggability as the heavily nosed PZIVlang had a very bad reputation. However as that is probably on a computer two generations old ........... However overall I think I will give up CMBB as the minor tweaks to lethality between the two versions means I seem to play CMBB sub-optimally as my mind does not adjust very well. Out of idle curiosity I might do some comparative work on some of the systems to see what all the differences are. I know HMG's are reportedly toned down for CMAK, as is bogging.

Thought this was an interesting piece given the hype that "allergens" now get in advertising. This article, part of it below, is only on food allergies but the principle I suspect is the same when building a marketing case. : ) http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/12/health/research/12allergies.html?src=me&ref=general PArt of the problem might be this:

In my game it was actually only damp but clear. The breakdown rate was also very high for Russian tanks [ higher than the German vehicles] but if we look at a 30 minute battle the loss of nearly half in 6 minutes shows how broke the CMBB formula was. Of course shedding tracks, track breakages etc did occur aswell as drivetrain mechanical breakdowns. Injudicious drivers may also land you in ditches or ground the tank but that has to be comparatively rare. I remember very well the big discussions on these boards regarding the bogging and various theories on avoiding it or how to get out - none proven of course. : )

http://www.physorg.com/news192822387.html And for a study using humans http://www.physorg.com/news84726094.html is very interesting in compring various options of punishment, no punishment, and reputation.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601109&sid=arFjbsBO7BS8 Very well written piece explaining in laymans language the incentives built into CDO's that meant the managers would gradually make even good stuff rotten over the years. I find it incredible that so much money could be wasted so casually. Admittedly they say some propspectuse went to 1500 pages - however that in some ways makes me think it more likely I would smell a rat. However if it was not my problem to deal with any **** if it went tits up I would accept a fee to be blind ....... Possibly not . Being honest is a nice feeling.

ME - imagining multiple interviews with Ike? Thats going a little beyond self-deceiving and into fraud when it is used to bolster sales and repute. It comes back to what should you expect of people. Both me, and hopefully society, has to have high standards otherwise anarchy looms. At this stage I would have liked to link to a computer study of various populations of AI " humans" and showing how moral groups , co-operators, and freeloaders operate and the end results. However havng only read it yesterday can I find it again!!!!? Essentially though it was a matter of critical mass in society being required to get standards. It seems to me that the US is a freeloader society and that the penalties that society has are insufficient for the task of getting a more beneficial society. When I find it again I will post. But essentially judging by what is reported in the US media the attitude to greed and white collar crimes, and lying, appear very forgiving in terms of penalties both social and legal. Obviously if you are poor then my previous sentence does not apply. hammelman - as someone relatively infrequently a poster but possibly a lurker you should know how these threads can go off on tangents! http://www.physorg.com/news192367161.html

Just for the hell of it: About 4 minutes in you get to be on the viewing end of the flame. Unpleasant. The other very interesting thing is the rapidity of fire of the jet - that is also very scary. I have been playing CM with German and Russian FT and they fire nowhere nearly as fast in firing.

SO's linky - I like it : )

http://www.worldwar2.ro/arr/?article=246 The web is a wonderful thing to search. Thats not a bad tally!