dieseltaylor
-
Posts
5,269 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by dieseltaylor
-
-
http://killzoneauthors.blogspot.ca/2012/10/et-tu-amazon.html
And now they censor reviews.
I have done a few book reviews on Amazon and I would be very upset to be accused and banned. It seems to me that Amazon is unprepared to invest in people who can think and simply uses computers to generate a "suspicion of" list and then acts on it.
Perhaps it should realise that selling involves people and you need a certain amount of intelligent humans with powers to provide an interface for your customers. Something it could/should have learned from telephone companies.
-
Your right that we only have one side of the story but its not as though Amazon have a no capacity to respond.
On a legal point it would appear Amazon.co.uk. can disable books bought through Amazon.com which might argue they are the same company. However Amazon UK appears to be separate and most orders seem to go to Luxembourg to evade paying tax in the UK and the US.
Interesting.
-
VAB - Very true borg spotting was a problem area. I did find it was much less of a problem if you played on very large maps with decent amounts of terrain features. Thsi also had the effect of making high ground worth fighting for : )
I have suggested to BF that perhaps they look at the possibility of tightening up the spotting algorithm perhaps as a optional setting so that the spread of time goes from minutes to a range of seconds.
I am not suggesting that cover etc is not given more value but in equal situations such as :
If you think I am being daft in one testing range a Sherman was fired at five times by a MkIV at AFAIR 1800 metres with three shells bouncing of the front glacis. Not only the TC fail to see the enemy tank but he also failed to duck down to button up. Now in some of the tests spotting was virtually instantaneous. This difference is huge and in a scenario with a few tanks one side could be on the losing side of all the spotting.
Way too random for a tournament where players only play say 5 games and all against different opponents.
-
Looking forward to a society of electronic devices and DRM? I'm not so I don't use anything that is DRM'd
Outlawed by Amazon DRM22.10.12 • 158 kommentarer
Hei og velkommen! Visste du at du kan abonnere på mine artikler? Les mer...
A couple of days a go, my friend Linn sent me an e-mail, being very frustrated: Amazon just closed her account and wiped her Kindle. Without notice. Without explanation. This is DRM at it’s worst.
Linn travels a lot and therefore has, or should I say had, a lot of books on her Kindle, purchased from Amazon. Suddenly, her Kindle was wiped and her account was closed. Being convinced that something wrong had happened, she sent an e-mail to Amazon, asking for help. This was the answer:
Dear Linn [last name],
My name is Michael Murphy and I represent Executive Customer Relations within Amazon.co.uk. One of our mandates is to address the most acute account and order problems, and in this capacity your account and orders have been brought to my attention.
We have found your account is directly related to another which has been previously closed for abuse of our policies. As such, your Amazon.co.uk account has been closed and any open orders have been cancelled.
Per our Conditions of Use which state in part: Amazon.co.uk and its affiliates reserve the right to refuse service, terminate accounts, remove or edit content, or cancel orders at their sole discretion.
Please know that any attempt to open a new account will meet with the same action.
You may direct any questions to me at resolution-uk@amazon.co.uk.
Thank you for your attention to this email.
Regards
Michael Murphy
Executive Customer Relations
Amazon.co.uk
This answer was very confusing. Which account was he talking about? She had never had any other accounts at Amazon.
So, she replied to Murphy’s e-mail:
Dear Michael Murphy,
I am very surprised to read your email. What do you mean by “directly related to another which has been previously closed for abuse of our policies”. I can only remember ever having this one account, and I use it quite regularly to buy books for my Kindle, as you probably can see by my purchase history. How can there suddenly be a problem now? I use amazon.com and not co.uk for my Kindle, does that make any difference?
I sincerely hope you can help me solve this matter, because I would very much like to have my account reopened. And please let me know if there is any action I can take to help.
Best regards,
Linn [last name]
[Linn's phone number]
The answer provided no progress:
Dear Linn [last name],
As previously advised, your Amazon.co.uk account has been closed, as it has come to our attention that this account is related to a previously blocked account. While we are unable to provide detailed information on how we link related accounts, please know that we have reviewed your account on the basis of the information provided and regret to inform you that it will not be reopened.
Please understand that the closure of an account is a permanent action. Any subsequent accounts that are opened will be closed as well. Thank you for your understanding with our decision.
I appreciate this is not the outcome you hoped for and apologise for any disappointment this may cause.
Regards,
Michael Murphy
Executive Customer Relations
Amazon.co.uk
Not getting an answer to why the account was closed, she sent another e-mail:
Dear Michael Murphy,
Is it correct that you cannot give me any information about
1. How my account is linked to the blocked account
2. The name/id of the related blocked account
3. What policy that was violated
I have no knowledge about any other account that could be related to mine, and cannot understand how I could have violated your policies in any way.
Br,
Linn [last name]
Unfortunately, the answer was the same:
Dear Linn [last name],
We regret that we have not been able to address your concerns to your satisfaction. Unfortunately, we will not be able to offer any additional insight or action on these matters.
We wish you luck in locating a retailer better able to meet your needs and will not be able to offer any additional insight or action on these matters.
Thank you for your attention to this email.
Regards
Michael Murphy
Executive Customer Relations
Amazon.co.uk
Did she violate any terms? Amazon will not tell. Perhaps by accident? Amazon does not care. The conclusion so far is clear: Amazon closed her account, wiped her Kindle and refuses to tell her why. End of discussion.
The worst of DRM
As a long-term writer about technology, DRM, privacy and user rights, this Amazon example shows the very worst of DRM. If the retailer, in this case Amazon, thinks you’re a crook, they will throw you out and take away everything that you bought. And if you disagree, you’re totally outlawed. Not only is your account closed, all your books that you paid for are gone. With DRM, you don’t buy and own books, you merely rent them for as long as the retailer finds it convenient.
Now what?
Linn lives in Norway, far away from Amazon’s jurisdiction. How will she ever find the means to get her books back? By suing a large corporation half-way round the earth?
Linn is outlawed by Amazon.
-
My instinct is that the variability inherent in CMX2, in actually spotting another tank which in my early tests varied hugely from seconds to minutes, make a tournament as ROW was unplayable.
Now it may be the constant tweaking and version V2.00 have made it less variable but my suspicion is that it may not. So from the tank/vehicle side of things I have concerns. I will run my tests again when V2.00 is out. However if it still has the huge variability in spotting then I reckon many people playing the same scenario may get different results but not just down to player skill.
I am beginning to wonder that for all its faults CMX1 is not a better game for tournament playing. Just to illustrate the thought no one would get very excited about chess as a game of immense thought if you rolled dice whenever a piece were taken. Or bridge with wild cards!!!
-
VAB - Yes it is. Check any sport and only those originated in the US use countdown. Ice hockey is actually uses normal time system outside of North America. Possible exception is Rugby League.*
SP - I have only played a couple of games in CMBN which were ceasefire jobs and certainly we found that it continued well beyond when we both went ceasefire. Now this was under CMBN 1.00 so things may have changed.
* or possibly not
-
I am sure that North Americans, who are exposed to the few games that use a countdown clock, do find it simpler. However for the rest of the world it is not a common mechanism.
I have a problem here. In CMx1 normal time was good enough and then for no apparent reason in CMx2 it becomes a countdown timer. So I am left wondering why. More appeal to the US market? Thoughtlessness as to the effects on reinforcement calculations, appealing to a twitch market, no thought as to the H2H with players working in highly unrealistic minus time.
I am not saying that forward time was perfect as knowing how long was left in games with fixed endings could be handy in a TCP/IP game where one might fail to remember something difficult like 30 turns in the heat of the moment.
But perhaps I am wrong and droves of people wrote to BF asking for it to be made simpler though I cannot recall it being a mentioned in the forums.
It would be nice if it had to be changed if it were optional or two clocks ran. Its a right pain in the butt when running tests to be working backwards when recording events.
JonS -
" As for "helpful suggestions," how about the suggestion that if we're down to whining about the clock, then clearly must be CM in a very good state."
There seems a disconnect in the logic. I thing you misunderstand the situation if you think that there are not plenty of problems in CMx2.
As for how it shows in CMFI please do tell as I ain't buying it until CMBN version 2 has been trialled. Are you suggesting its been fixed?
-
Just a helpful suggestion JonS. "We" don't understand who decided the CMx1 system needed changing. Was there a petition I missed? Does the modern US Army run in countdown mode when in a firefight?
As you are au fait with things BF perhaps you can say or find out why BF changed the way the clock worked.?
P.S. On the practical front , you may not have noticed, but in larger battles scenario designers work in forward time and give advice such as reinforcements appear in 10 minutes ,17 minutes, and 23 minutes. Helpfully all you have to do is deduct this time from the 45 minutes starting time to work out when they will reach you. Just jot down 35minutes, 27 minutes and 20 minutes for the countdown clock. Cute system and really user-friendly.
-
And whilst they are sorting out the clock can we please go back to accumulating time so that extra turns are + not - minutes. I still find it distressing that whilst the rest of the world has time going forward for the CMx2 series BF decided that a countdown clock was superior.
There are barely a handful of sports that use a countdown clock but besides that in a military simulation should not time advance forward?
-
Very interesting would be in the open. This below suggests a hit rate differential and I suspect a 105mm is more lethal.
"Neutralising effect, in NW Europe, on an enemy in open positions, was achieved with a bombardment intensity of 0.02–0.08 lb/sq yd/hr. in 25-pdr equivalents.
Lethal effect: A density of 0.1 lb/sq yd causes 2% casualties on targets in slit trenches, about 20% on targets in the open."
-
poesel:
The War Office documents that J D salt extracted data from would prove useful in setting up the tests as you may be able to get an approximation for your test design and what you are actually comparing. It is not perfect and I would hope that someone can direct you to US WW2 tests.
There is a link somewhere on this or the Brixia thread I believe or someone may have it to hand.
For kick-offs one test for the 3" mortar said a point target was a 0.06 chance of a hit per shell .... therefore 70% destruction chance for 20 shells.
Another WO document is on 81 targets in an area 150 x 100 yards and using 25pdrs, sa 105mm and a 75mm.
-
JasonC:
Next question - what is the typical lethality per shell seen in games of CMBN today? Start with the figure for 105mm artillery firing indirect. Then let's get a figure for 81mm on map fire. Targets in field fortifications as one data point to collect, targets in typical terrain cover without the benefit of field works as additional data points. We want to know the ratio of shells fired to men directly made casualties. Is it 25 to 1, 10 to 1, 5 to 1? Let's get a handle on the scale of the issue and whether it is present for the indirect FOs or only for on-map mortar fire.And when we have that info then it can be cross-referenced to what the War Department thought. Incidentally from other places ;;
Broadly, if guns fire with their barrels parallel, then their fall of shot will reflect the layout of the guns on the battery position. As already described straight line gun positions were the norm for much of the first half of the 20th century and lasted until the late 1950's when the two troop (8 gun) battery was replaced by 6 guns. This introduced battery centre instead of the pivot gun as the basis for the battery’s firing data and with it the inverted double chevron layout for the guns. This gave depth and a more circular pattern to a battery’s fall of shot when guns fired parallel at the same range. Of course the terrain often dictated something else, for example a gun line along the edge of a wood.Made me wonder if too much modern practice had tinged the artillery model.
-
I get to do nothing as BF make the game.
My guess would be that if there is a discrepancy between the WD work and how it is working in CMBN then it needs a fix. My guess would be to produce more error in firing accuracy and/or lessen the effects when going prone.
It seems , judging from the comments on the boards, that the accuracy of the small mortars is overstated. Also I suspect looking at the 2" data that there may be some wriggle room where a mortar goes from LA fire to HA fire and what the range is. At 400yds the 2" is over twice as inaccurate then it is at 200yds when firing at low angle.
Also low angle of fire presumably means the burst pattern is smaller and more elliptical than a high angle bomb.
-
My experience gained from CMX1 was that the smaller the map the more potent a threat artillery was. Playing on larger maps neutrailised its effects as the opponent was pickier, had to be pickier, on using it.
I felt very annoyed/sickened that when first playing CMBN on its launched all thos bloody stupid scenarios with fleeing infantry bouncing off invisible walls around the battlefield and running back into the barrage. Stupidest bloody thing I have ever seen in a claimed realistic game.
Salts derived War Office reports has plenty on artillery effectiveness and various cover divisors. It almost seems we inherited a CMSF artillery mod.
-
WO 291/129 Lethality of 3" mortar HE bomb.
The cast iron (Mark IV) bomb is about 70% better than the steel (Mark III) bomb, due to finer fragmentation.
Stick fuzes would probably add 65% to the effectiveness of the cast iron bomb, 25% to the steel.
Time-fuzed HE was considered "practically valueless" due to the zone of the fuze and the steep angle of descent.
"Jumping" mortar bombs might perhaps be up to ten times more effective against entrenched troops, whereas the stick fuze would be no more effective.
"Preliminary results obtained by AORS7 show that the reduction in overall lethality by small bumps may be as much as 6 times for men lying down."
Vulnerable areas are given as 3,200 square feet for the steel bomb, 5,500 the cast-iron.
Probability of incapacitation (%) for each type of bomb are given as:
Range (feet) 10 20 30 50 100
Cast iron 100 73 48.5 22 1.5
Steel 90 48 29 9.3 1.2
It is suggested that these can be usefully presented in two ways; either as percentage chances, or as odds.
As percentages at different ranges (yards):
Range (yds) 2 5 10 20 40
Cast iron 100 90 50 12 1
Steel 100 60 30 5 1
As ranges (yards) at which different odds apply:
Odds 10-1 on Evens 3-1 10-1 100-1
Cast iron 5 10 15 20 40
Steel 3 5 10 15 40
Also interesting is this:
WO 291/150 WP as an anti-personnel weapon.White phosphorous is considered especially effective against targets in slit trenches, as the burning lumps of phosphorous lose velocity quickly and fall vertically.
Soft ground decreases effectiveness; slit trenches halve the "incendiary area".
It is recommended that when WP smoke is used for screening, it should be placed directly on the enemy position to be screened. The advantages are both casualty effect and screening regardless of wind direction.
Infantry follow friendly artillery "perhaps as close as 70 yards".
"...battle experience has shown that flat trajectory support has not the same neutralising properties as 'crump', unless targets are accurately located, which is not often the case."
Four kinds of WP-filled projectile were available, with weights and fillings as follows:
Weapon Overall weight Weight of WP
77 grenade 12 oz 8 oz
2-in mortar 2¼ lb 5 oz
3-in mortar 10 lb 1½ lb
4.2-in mortar 20 lb 5 lb
The "incendiary area" (analogous to "lethal area" or "vulnerable area") of each, in square feet, is:
Weapon Troops in the open In slit trenches
Hard ground Soft ground Marshy ground Hard ground Soft ground
77 grenade 800
2-in mortar 700
3-in mortar 2700 1800 550 1500
4.2-in mortar 5000 3000
The choking effect of WP smoke is mentioned. It is also mentioned that burns contaminated with phosphorous are extremely painful, but that the effects of WP are unlikely to be lethal.
If four 3-in mortars fire 100 HE bombs into an area 100 yards square occupied by a platoon (48 men) in slit trenches, it is considered that there is a 60% chance of destroying one trench (4% of the platoon). The same number of WP bombs is expected to result in 40% casualties. The same results could be achieved with about half the number of 4.2-in bombs.
And perhaps most graphically for our purposes:
WO 291/157 Performance of 2-in mortar.Results from trials performed in 1942. Use of the no. 2 sight is recommended to improve accuracy.
The 2-in smoke bomb was criticised for leaving smoke trails that were thought to give away the firing position; in fact the problem was with smoky propellant.
It is mentioned that the chance of hitting a target under 2-in mortar illumination at night is approximately one-third of the chance in daylight.
The following table gives the hit probabilities and number of rounds needed to secure a 50% chance of incapacitating the target, a standing man, at the ranges given:
Range (yds) 200 LA 400 LA 525 400 HA 200 HA
Hit probability 10% 3.8% 6.8% 4.9% 6.0%
No. bombs 7 18 10 14 12
-
I was curious o see that the Stugs were immobilised by 3"[81mm] mortar fire. The UK tested Churchills to a 25pdr barrage:
WO 291/399 Casualties to Churchill tanks in 25-pdr concentrations.A trial conducted in 1943 tested proposed new tactics, whereby Churchills would advance through concentrations of friendly 25-pdr fire, by twice driving a squadron of Churchills through live artillery fire. It is concluded that the worst that can happen to a Churchill in these circumstances is immobilisation. The effect of a 25-pdr round exploding on a Churchill is described thus:
"There is no adverse effect on the crew from a 25 pdr direct hit. Fragments cannot penetrate the tank, and the blast is not at all uncomfortable."
The Churchill is well armoured but a 25pdr has less blast effect than a 81mm but probably flies bigger chunks of metal. In any event neither has any fragmentation effect on 0.5"[12mm] mild steel. Is this uber-mortars again? I am not saying it could never happen rather that a 100% success rate in this battle seems odd. Perhaps more testing is required including how many shells fired.
As noted since CMBN was launched the crew behaviour is positively bizarre when responding to penetrations.
-
Grog huh!
Its von Richtofen : )
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manfred_von_Richthofen
just for those "grogs" who did not know : )
-
X COM!?
Borderlands 2 its actually funny and is multiplayer. Also downright scary.
-
Its important to remember that JasonC is not always right and you need to exercise some critical faculties. The thread on the Brixia mortar is a slight case in point.
JC
In that whole mix, light mortars, like hand grenades or rifle grenades, were an afterthought residual. There is no evidence whatsoever from contemporary tactics or battle reports to suggest the calibers under 81mm had anything remotely like the effectiveness seen for them in CMx2. And even among that marginal class of weapons, the Brixia was an outlier for its ineffectiveness, weighing much more than a British 2 inch yet firing a much smaller bomb. And the Brits already found theirs so small that illumination and smoke were regarded as its most useful rounds.Whilst agreeing with Jason on the BF problem I was amused to see that in fact light mortars are in vogue now, and that production of 22 was actually 50-50 HE and smoke in WW2. Facts brought up by other contributors.
There is no doubt that a vast amount is good and he is particularly strong on banging away that war is always a matter of material.
-
ANd then therre is Borderlands2 : )
IS xCOM multiplayer?
-
Grouch!
But perhaps I have not watched lots of fawning hype so perhaps just seeing the video makes it more palatable.
-
Hister - " Hey, why are some of you guys so cranky against John?"
You have only been on the forum for a year so perhaps you are unfamiliar with some of the longer term posters previous posts. I won't go into the details as it I also prefer a BB to populated by users who are respectful and polite. And if they don't like a thread they can, as you say, ignore it.
-
I think the British got it right by mixing them up as both had strengths to play to. It also undoubtedy kept the German tankers nervous as if you saw some vanilla Shermans there was good odds that lurking further back was a Firefly or two.
I imagined the speed of the shell, if it penetrated, would bring attendant lumps and shards of metal which maybe not as satisfying but at least it got through.
-
Sorry to hear that he seems to have become a moneygrubber. Given most humans can read many times faster than a lecturer speaks I have always thought those things poor value. Also as you cannot break off to process a particular concept without losing more talk it is even more redundant.
P.S. I do find it a trifle annoying that the media can go so overboard on various personalities even if they are just spouting commonsense - I had a quick look at Suze's wikipedia article and site. Unfortunately the US does seem to need a celebrity culture more than most nations and I am left wondering why that is. My gut feeling is the media realised or generated a need to populate a "global" village filled with a limited range of characters that we all[?] have in common. : (
P.P.S Which reminds me of the idiocy of people who need to see someone in the flesh or buy garments with names on at inflated prices. humans! Huh! .....
: )
tiger spalling
in Combat Mission Fortress Italy
Posted
Can I add to VAB's request. Always report the precise tank model and gun as otherwise its pretty useless for anybody else who may have relevant tests, or anecdote, or War Department reports.
I am willing to bet that relating a spalling test on Tigers with spalling evident that the gun was very likely not a 75mm Sherman gun. As for 14.5mm ATG's knocking out vision blocks I think a moments reflection will show that thousands of rounds of HV tungsten bullets aimed deliberately at vision blocks may well be effective but actually it does not seem a fair extrapolation to take this too far.