StellarRat

Pro-Axis bias? Come on. We've gone around and around on this topic and no one has proven that this is true. The simple truth is that the Germans produced some better tank models than the Allies did, but in far fewer numbers. If you don't like that than you could say there is a pro-Axis bias. I haven't heard many people complaining that there is a pro-Axis bias concerning artillery or infantry. Also, I hope with this last patch that we will never have to repeat the hull rotation threads again. It was OK the way it was and now hopefully it will be even better and we can put this topic to rest permanently. [This message has been edited by StellarRat (edited 02-01-2001).] [This message has been edited by StellarRat (edited 02-01-2001).]

"I have not yet begun to fight!" [This message has been edited by StellarRat (edited 01-30-2001).]

Well, I know Shermans were fueled with gasoline instead of diesel so that's one reason they were so flammable. I think another reason was probably that the Germans were hitting them with more powerful guns so there was a greater chance for something to explode or catch fire. Someone else can probably comment on the damage aspect.

I hope you're not serious about this, but if you are I'd like to point out that all the wars of the 20th century wouldn't make much of a dent in the world population. The Black Plague was far more effective. Are you in favor of that too? An all out nuclear war would be very effective too. Any takers? [This message has been edited by StellarRat (edited 01-25-2001).]

There seems to be a historical cycle concerning the "sweatshop" problem. If you look back at Western history many of the Western countries had sweatshops as a result of the industrial revolution. I believe this is a phase that the Third World countries will go through as their economies mature, but eventually they will be much better off. This does not mean I approve of sweatshops, but I certainly am not in favor of international socialism to solve the problem. [This message has been edited by StellarRat (edited 01-25-2001).]

I think he was trying to say that just because someone has an historical connection to a piece of land does not mean it's OK to take it away from the current owners. By Joshik's reasoning it should be alright for a group of unhappy Italians to land in England and form a new county since they have an historical connection to England. Also, the Israelis didn't have a majority of the population to start with. Obviously, when you toss somebody off their land you automatically achieve majority over that land. Whether or not you agree with this reasoning it's pretty easy to see that this is going to cause serious problems with the newly displaced landholders. It was a foregone conclusion that the formation of Israel was going to cause massive conflict. Israel has been lucky so far that the Arabs are not more militarily adept and that the US has supported them. [This message has been edited by StellarRat (edited 01-25-2001).] [This message has been edited by StellarRat (edited 01-25-2001).]

I think he's joking.

My Mom lived through WWII as a civilian in Germany. She told me that the British put WP in their incendiary bombs, but that they were big sticks of WP (no bursting charge). Anyway, during an air raid most of the residents would go to the air raid shelter, but someone was assigned to go to the roof of their apartment building and if a stick of WP fell on the roof they would either kick/throw it off or dump it in a pale of water. From what I remember, it sounded like these fire bombs could actually be grabbed somewhere on a non-burning surface, but I can't remember exactly what she told me. (Apparently, these roof volunteers were pretty brave since HE bombs were mixed with the fire bombs.) She said they were dangerous because they would stop burning if buried or underwater, but would immediately light up again if exposed to air.

I played it a lot with my buddies on two pieces of plywood painted green. It was a lot of fun. My friend was an expert miniatures maker. He actually made molds that allowed us to make tanks and other vehicles (N scale) from plaster of paris (of course we painted them after they hardened.) We also built miniature trees, houses, hills etc... We spent a lot of weekends and summers playing. I remember that even a small battle could take hours because of the measuring and chart checking plus you had to have an umpire so it took three people to play. Ah, the good old days when I was young...sigh... [This message has been edited by StellarRat (edited 01-24-2001).]

Tracktics might have been bad but Angriff was worse! At least Tracktics took armor slope and ammo type into account.

I noticed a big improvement in response time. Thanks guys!

Well, let's see...first I played chess, then Stratego, then Risk, then came D-Day by Avalon Hill, then Blitzkrieg. My first computer wargame was StarTrek (all text based) on the mainframe at Willamette University. But here's the real gem: My friend found a book in the library called "The Wargame" by Charles Grant. It had rules in it for Pre-Napoleonic combat with miniatures (Frederick the Great's era.) We spent months building miniature soldiers out of wood and wire, plus trees, houses, cannons, etc...and you had to have colored dice, special measuring sticks and wire patterns to figure combat results. Our battlefields were laid out on an expanded ping-pong table. It was awesome! Anyone else ever play minatures with Grants rules?

Talk about beating a dead horse! This horse is about a skeleton now. Can't we move on to something more important than the QB point balance? I think it's just fine the way it is. I win with the Germans all the time, sometimes even when I give the Allies +200% points. Until I see a detailed unbiased statistical study that proves German have some "disadvantage" I fine with the current system. [This message has been edited by StellarRat (edited 01-22-2001).] [This message has been edited by StellarRat (edited 01-22-2001).]

BTS, I suggest you make rarity and force composition optional. That way the players can use them if they want to or they can allow QBs with Uber Forces etc...This will also give you a chance run test QBs before the rarity code is written. Also, I like the idea of allow the terrain to be viewed before a QB as an additional optional setting. Neither one of these settings seems like a lot of additional coding to me.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Terence: Everybody's a comedian today Seriously, though. Would it make a difference in the game that much, do you think? Cause if it would, than it might be neat to have them in, but if it really made no difference to the outcome of a given fight, than Id' say, why bother? And if, within the context of the game, it turns out to make no difference if women are pulling the triggers or not, what a victory for feminism that would be!!!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I don't think any changes would be needed to the game engine. Obviously they might need to add some women looking BMPs, but as far as combat goes I don't think there'd be any sigificant differences. I'm sure any woman in the Russian Army could pull hold her own on the physical requirements. [This message has been edited by StellarRat (edited 01-19-2001).]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Subvet: Cybeq, now you're just being cruel! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I agree. That's perfectly legit question from someone that may not know anything about military hardware. We also don't know the age of the person asking. Good thing your parents didn't treat you the same way when you were trying to learn about the world Cybeq. I suppose you knew what a recoiless rifle was without any explanation or reading?? Come on, I mean it's just two simple words together. Anyone should be able to figure it out right?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slapdragon: My only concern came after a test of 40 hot seat games over two months with 4 people randomly fighting each other on completely random boards fighting random sides, and finding that Germans did statistically better when everything else was random. This is not a fine enough study to say WHY they did better - but with all other variables controlled or randomized their is a small advantage German in quick battles more than is explained by chance.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Perhaps there are psychological reasons why the Germans are doing better? Some people feel the Germans were the underdogs in WW II (because they lost.) It stands to reason that some players would try harder when playing the Germans to see if they could beat the historical odds. Also, could it be possible that players normally favor the Germans therefore the have more experience playing the Germans hence more wins?? Just some ideas. [This message has been edited by StellarRat (edited 01-15-2001).]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by jasoncawley@ameritech.net: On the other fellow's DU question, I can explain some of the issues as I know them. DU is used primarily for its density, but it also has other useful properties. To understand all the reasons, you have to know a bit about modern composite armor. On a tank like the M-1, the armor is a sandwich of different layers, designed to defeat different aspects of penetrating rounds. First there is a plate of face hardened steel, thick enough to stop small arms and HE effects but which most anti-tank rounds can easily get through. Behind it is a thin layer of a special ceramic held in place by a titanium mesh. This is designed to shatter rapidly and thus to carry away energy from the point of impact around half of the tank. It is also heat resistent, and less dense than the steel ahead of it. It essentially crumbles into powder barely held in place by the mesh, and in doing so it makes room for molten bits of metal from the initial penetration, and tends to spread and isolate them in a sort of "sand" that resists heat. Behind the ceramic is another thick steel plate. A penetrating round has to bore through this, it is not enough to produce spalling behind it by a shock-wave of pressure through the armor, because there are further layers still ahead. Behind this second steel plate is the DU layer, about an inch thick, sandwiched into the middle of the armor. It is much, much denser than the steel plate ahead of it, which the penetrator still has to bore through. Well, boring through something is actually pushing that something back into the thing behind to make room. If the stuff behind is as rigid or more so, it is possible to just transmit the shock wave through the material without displacing it - a column through the armor acts like a nail, with the round the hammer pounding it further into the tank. Clear enough. But a denser but not as rigid layer behind makes this much harder to achieve. See, moving stuff out of the way is a function of density. Driving a shockwave through the armor itself is a function of rigidity. The ideal thing in the armor itself at this point, is very dense but with some "give" to it in hardness terms (ability to melt and compress e.g.). That is what the DU provides. It is then backed up with a last rigid plate, so that its give does not break into the tank. DU rounds will defeat such specialized armors better than non DU rounds. DU is very dense but not heat resistent and hard like tungsten is. It is comparatively softer. But even in liquid form it is much denser than solid steel. DU going through an armor plate will move between cracks in more seperated, less dense materials. (You can think of it as how "sharp" it is, heated). It is good at pushing stuff out of the way. When DU gets to another DU layer, it moves it relatively easily, but with some spreading out of the area of the impact. If the inward-moving DU is strong enough in total momentum terms it will break through the plate behind, as unable to hold up its weight in effect, rather than shattering off a small piece of the inward face. What happens when very rigid rounds hit this kind of armor? They get to the DU layer and then they cartwheel off. It is easier for the round to tear through the upper layers of steel moving sideways (rear of the "arrow" rotating upward) than to push the DU out of the way straight ahead. The round is not defeated by "out-hard-ing" it and causing it to shatter, but by making the way into the tank less easy for pushing stuff out of the way, than a deflection that cuts a groove in the upper armor. The rigidness of the round is not all gain. Understand, the kinetic energy of the round is enourmous, and it is going to go somewhere. There are only a limited number of candidate places for it to go. The best of them is to remain kinetic energy of that round while not passing through the interior of the tank. Next best is spread over as much of the tank as possible, or converted to heat over a wider area. The thing one wants to avoid is all of the kinetic energy staying focused right along the initial direction of flight, because there is enough energy there to vaporize (if heat) a thin column of armor, or accelerate that column of armor into the tank, or both - with lots to spare inside if the energy does not spread out. Conversely, what one wants in a round is super high kinetic energy to start with of course (and dense helps that), enough hardness to not shatter, and a minimum cross section not just at the point of impact (the thinness of the arrow) but through the whole length of the widdening cone made down into the armor. The chief thing keeping that "focusing" there, is just the inertia of the round. It is going so fast it doesn't "want" to change direction easily. But whether it meets anything denser than itself along the way will also effect that, as will "room" or give it meets, etc. That is about as much as I know about it. Undoubtedly there are parts missing. For what it is worth...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Great post, Cawley! Now I understand why DU is used. However, I don't know where you learned so much about composite armor and tank ammo. I thought that was a big secret! Well, I won't tell anyone else...LOL!

Just to add my two cents worth. I much rather have my tank turn towards a "real" threat than worry about a possible threat coming over the horizon. Some of the posters have complained that this might allow someone to distract the tank with non-threatening unit; well that seems pretty realistic to me. Infantry units can be a deadly threat and the TC may not be able to see what they're armed with so he should treat all of them as potentially dangerous. If your tank is in a "target rich" environment (meaning he's going to be outflanked) it won't make much difference which way he faces. Someone is going to get a flank shot, so better to turn towards the target and try to dispatch it quickly then you can deal with the other targets.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by StellarRat: Calling all Rexford's! I'd like to know if DU works better because it's denser (adding mass to the round) or because it's harder (or both). I keep thinking they use it as a core material to add mass, but the casing is some other hard material. Anyone?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Calling all Rexford's! I'd like to know if DU works better because it's denser (adding mass to the round) or because it harder (or both). I keep thinking they use it as a core material to add mass, but the casing is some other hard material. Anyone?

Somewhere (a long time ago) I read about a club (I think in England) that was actually fighting battles with RC tanks. They had "real" weapons are were capable of actually destroying each other. Anyone else remember this?

I usually have the infantry lead because tanks are too easy to kill with hidden weapons. Once I've identified the enemy positions I move the tanks into the safest possible location and begin blasting. You have to be super careful with Allied tanks because just about anything the Germans have can destroy them. I usually employ American armor from behind the infantry and in covered positions. The German tanks are more useful because some of them can be moved into the open as long as the front armor is facing the enemy.