Steiner14
-
Posts
1,410 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Steiner14
-
-
:eek: It's there?! Thanks!
-
I always believed in the Hollow Earth Nazi theory, but even then I would not have expected for Kettler and Steiner to combine their forces.
And i would have not expected that an example of binary thinking would immediately follow suit...
-
Here's the thing I love, when it comes down to it who really has the closed mind? Was it Galileo for believeing only what he could observe and prove or the Papacy for believeing in what one had to have faith to believe.
Oh yeah and umm, who was actually right?
Don't you know, that the geocentric view of the world was a coherent system? Or are you really that selfrightousness to believe, people in former times were just dumb to believe fully in a illogical system?
I find the example with Galileo brought up by an ignorant very funny, because G. stood AGAINST the mainstream and he recognized, that the established system was not able to explain certain phenomenons.
I leave it to you to discover, who is taking which part.
-
I'm missing the SHIFT+7 180 degree turn.
-
Wait ... no it isn't, because that's utter nonsense. I recognise that pretty much everything is an open question. Gravity, for cripes sake, is "only" a theory.
JonS, why are you opening your mouth that wide, if you don't even have understood the principle of falsification?
-
And you were doing so well before you fell flat on your face here.
Straw man argument. No one to my knowledge, in this thread, has claimed that UFOs and that other rot are impossible.
Was Kettler not attacked even as mentally ill because of believing in it?
They've asserted that, given the evidence available, no such thing is happening. HUGE, MASSIVE difference that you should be able to grasp, because it's that sciency thing you JUST explained.The binary thinking doesn't let you escape, does it? It's a qualitative difference, if someone says there are no UFOs, because there is no evidence i know about, or if someone says there are UFOs, i know it, or if someone says, there are many observations also from pilots and other trained personal to judge rationally, maybe there are UFOs.
I'm sure you can spot the difference between these positions:
NO, because no evidence!
YES, i know it!
Possible. Show me the facts.
Given new, real evidence, people would change theirs minds to fit the available evidence. Ya know, kinda like how science works.As far as i have read the thread, there was only one who has asked John about facts, while the rest already knew everything since the discussion started.
The current excuse for evidence of this stuff doesn't cut it. If we had that low of a bar for evidence and made that many excuses for other physical facets of our lives we'd still be in the middle ages burning witches and performing exorcisms.What about the official story of 9/11? Melting steel with kerosine? How about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq? Or climate change?
-
Slysniper,
I don't want to critizice you, as you seem to be one of the very few here, that is not full of ignorance and confusing established knowledge with truth or, on the other hand, believe with facts, but you have touched certain aspects about science, that should be clarified:
Problem is, I might have a little of Storm in me, but I do beleive science and the methods in which it works.Which are:
Falsifiability.
Reproducibility.
Consistency.
Causality.
Unambiguity.
Every thesis that claims to be scientific, must follow these methods.
BUT if someone claims certain things, that go beyond the personal perception or feelings, like the existence of a certain species, or a new form of energy, then we have the above methodology to check it.
And here comes the problem John Kettler has: he claims facts, but he does not use the empiric-scientific methodology to support the claims.
But then we are no longer in the sphere of objective knowledge, if i must believe him and cannot check his claims: believe it or not. Which is not bad at all, but then it must be seen as that and NOT being confused as fact or even as proven.
Here comes also a very human behaviour into play: We tend to believe, what we want to believe. The above knowledge about how science works, can help us to question our own position: ok, i want to believe that the SS had a Haunebu, but are there hard facts for this claim? What facts are presented in the books claiming it? The author claims to know that it was real? Fine! But then he at least must have understood the energy concept of the motor, because without the working motor it can't fly. And if he know this motor works, then he must have seen it running. He should be able to REPRODUCE the effect or at least give enigneers informations to work with.
Nicola Tesla had found the use of free energy or the lossless transportation of energy? Interesting! Show me the motor. You can't show me a working aparatus? Fine! Explain the mechanism or the theory in detail to me.
It's the same with the claims about a foreign species or UFOs.
Why shouldn't be out there ETs, if in South America we can admire huge kilometer wide sized pictures drawn on the ground, if we cannot explain, how they could have been drawn hundreds of years ago? Kilometre long, perfectly streight lines? They can't explain how it was done, but they "know" there were no flying objects in the air? They cannot explain why they were painted, but the only place to see them, from high above, is out of their equation? Not really logical.
Humans tend to think binary. Who's not my friend is my enemy. What is not right is wrong. That's a perfect system for survival. And also for science.
But it also tricks most of us into the category of either believers or deniers.For example those who are attacking John Kettler for his opinion, are also binary thinkers but on the other side. They think they know he is crazy, although there are open questions they also cannot answer. But do they recognize the open questions? No! They are not sceptics, they are ignorants.
As a sceptic i find it fascinating to watch the battles between ignorants and believers and no side being capable for an objective view.
Thing is, when science has facts it is a method that comes to correct conclusions. When science has theory, then it creates facts that might not be totally correct, only correct for the present time.It is important to understand that ALL SCIENCE IS THEORY. As you can see, one aspect of science is FALSIFIABILITY. Everything that is proven to be working, can inherently be proven wrong.
The working laptop in front of you is working because of a working THEORY. But one day this theory can even be proven wrong. This doesn't mean that the laptop wouldn't work anymore, but it could be possible, that what we believed to be the reality of it's inner workings, the maxwell equations, maybe was only a small and very special part of a much greater reality.
Therefore it's a complete miracle for me how people can believe that UFOs were fantasy, if there are so many unanswered questions.
So basing ones life on what science only has proven, is not living a full life for me anyway.Very, very important!
People argueing that way in fact are very narrow minded. They haven't noticed that science can't even proove love. Feelings. Emotions. That 1 people + 1 people IS NOT 2 people, although Marxism is claiming so. What makes life worth living is outside of the scientific sphere.
Whoever is building his view of the world on science, or what is presented to him by MSM as "scientific knowledge", is also living under the false assumption, that science, scienctific theories, were something absolute and once discovered being eternal. Nothing could be further from the truth. Scientific theories are coming and going more often than religions...
Ignorance is NOT a bliss.
-
I do not agree, that reassigning units to other HQs before a battle is a good idea.
1. Scenario designers invest great amount of time to make the battles how they are. If you receive an organization that doesn't fit your wish, learn to life with it and make the best from it. This leads directly to
2. Making everything fit perfectly to the players tactical wishes is no good idea at all. A good part of the fascination of CM is a result of forced compromises and that things are NOT available as someone wishes. Learn to make the best from what you've got. Perfectly streamlined C2s would take away a very nice and important aspect of the game.
-
Perhaps, but we are not an online multiplayer game. We are a primarily single player game with multiplayer options.
I think that's an understatement. IMO playing the AI means only to discover 10-20% of CM's REAL beauty.
The cool thing is how I see the future is how the future is Well, at least with this stuff. I'm still not holding out much hopes of getting a date with Charlize Theron.I have heard success in that regard is an exponential function of lenght - of the yacht. And the earlier the release of CMFI, the earlier you can upgrade your yacht...
-
I have been heard to say upon a time that people who believe in conspiracies (at least as an answer to world conditions) have clearly never tried to run one. Somebody always screws up. Somebody always can't keep their mouth shut. Somebody gets bored and tired of the game. With the best (or worst) intentions, things just fall apart.
Yes, the sheeple who don't understand fractional banking and the credit based money-system think so...
-
John,
do you have evidences you can show us, that support your claims?
-
Triggers would not only allow reinforcements based on casualties but much more...
-
Playing with lighting conditions is the only possible solution I can see, but it will likely be very ugly looking and might not be a good enough solution. Which is why we've not explored it yet.
I was more worried, that a lower "sun" might be looking better, then the "real" sun. So when switching back the player would notice somehow a degradation, because of the more flat looking terrain.
I think it would not be good psychologically, if the normal presentation of the game would be felt as less impressive or less informative, than the look with the tool.
Therefore if you think it would look ugly, i think it's positive: the player will be happy to return to the standard view (similar to gridded terrain - it looks less good, but offers great help).
And if something looks really ugly, then there is the trick to make it look like art. Maybe a certain color of the lighting would help doing so. Maybe a certain color will also bring out the undulations' contrast even more?
So the player would be glad to have this tool, but also be glad to go back to the beautiful normal view.
-
I know its probably already been mentioned in this thread but for me I would desperately like some way to better determine terrain relief / elevation. Currently its very time consuming for me using the LOS tool to get a feel for the relief in the game map. Grids help some but I would like to see a better solution.
A classic for all tank-battle-fans.
But a long time ago sadly Steve mentioned a grid-overlay was a quite difficult task.
Idea for a solution:
Hotkey that switches off the sun and creates an artificial, but almost invisible low standing "sun", that can be moved by the player (it's last position is remembered).
Maybe two or three hotkeys, that can store an individual position, because if one part of the map is on a forward slope, while the other part is on reverse-slope, they would need different lighting conditions.
-
That being said, the option of a "proportional" VL, or a time-based one would be excellent additions to the scenario-maker's arsenal.
Nice idea. Although Steve doesn't want suggestions how things could be implemented mathematically, i think sometimes it's better to show how easy things could be solved mathematically.
As a tool against flag-rushing the random-ending was introduced. But IMO it doesn't solve the problem.
The problem with rushing the flag is, that a player can control the VL perfectly, and a big enemy tank can take his possession away and if the game ends the battle in this moment, the points are lost, although it would be clear, that the tank cannot hold the flag. A random extension cannot prevent cutting action off.
To achieve this, a kind of action measurement would be necessary, that puts not only the action into context, but also puts into context of what has happened (function with memory). Gladly mathematically this is very simple with the CM-Battle-VIX™!
This volatility index simply measures the action at victory locations. If the VIX shows increased action, it means, that the VL has recently been changing possession - lots of action going on! So an ending of the game would heavily distort the natural result. Be it a gamey flag-rusher taking the unjust merits, or a defense that is smelting like snow in the sun is rescued by the timer.
Volatility in general = (oldvalue - newvalue)/newvalue
Let's say, suddenly a VL, let's call it VL1, is occupied by a side, while last turn it wasn't. The change of the possession of this VL would be reflected by the volatility:
vola_VL1 = abs(oldpointsVL1 - newpointsVL1)/maxpointsVL1
oldpointsVL1 = VL1 player's points previous turn (or whenever it was calculated the last time by the engine)
newpointsVL1 = most up to date points
maxpointsVL1 = the maximum points a player can get for controlling VL1
Our example:
vola_VL1 = abs(0 - 100)/100 = 1 = 100%.
Next turn t+1, VL is kept:
vola_VL1 = abs(100-100)/100 = 0 = 0%.
Next turn t+2, if the VL is lost after the next minute again:
vola_VL1 = abs(100-0)/100 = 1 = 100%.
Next turn t+3, the VL is won to 60% again:
vola_VL1 = abs(0-60)/100 = 0,6 = 60%.
You get the point: the vola would measure the current action at this VL.
But it immediately drops to zero, once the VL-status doesn't change. This is not sufficient for the task. A volatility-index must be constructed, that fulfills our needs:
It must take the action of the past into account. The longer the action is back, the less weight it should have on the index's value. This most simple one would already do so:
battle-VIX = (battle-VIX + newvola) / 2
Previous example:
VL1 not occupied:
battle-VIX-VL1 = (0 + 0) / 2 = 0.
t=0 (fully occupied):
vola_VL1 = abs(0 - 100)/100 = 1 = 100%.
Gives:
battle-VIX-VL1 = 50%
(0 + 1)/2 = 0,5.
Next turn t+1, VL is kept:
vola_VL1 = abs(100-100)/100 = 0 = 0%.
battle-VIX-VL1 = 25%
(0,5 + 0)/2 = 0,25.
Next turn t+2, if the VL is lost again after the next minute:
vola_VL1 = abs(100-0)/100 = 1 = 100%.
battle-VIX-VL1 = 62,5%
(0,25 + 1)/2 = 0,625.
Next turn t+3, the VL is won, e.g. to 60% again:
vola_VL1 = abs(0-60)/100 = 0,6 = 60%.
battle-VIX-VL1 = 61,25%
(0,625 + 0,6)/2 = 0,6125.
t+4, the VL1 is completely under control again:
vola_VL1 = abs(60-100)/100 = 0,4 = 40%.
battle-VIX-VL1 = 51%
(0,6125 + 0,4)/2 = 0,50625.
t+5, nothing changes, the player has secured the flag, the enemy isn't capable to retake it:
vola_VL1 = abs(100-100)/2 = 0 = 0%.
battle-VIX-VL1 = 25%
(0,50625 + 0)/2 = 0,253125.
t+6:
vola_VL1 = 0.
battle-VIX-VL1 = 13%
(0,253125 + 0)/2 = 0,13.
t+7:
vola_VL1 = 0.
battle-VIX-VL1 = 6%
(0,126563 + 0)/2 = 0,06.
t+8:
vola_VL1 = 0.
battle-VIX-VL1 = 3%
(0,063281 + 0)/2 = 0,03.
With this simple VIX the engine could extend the ending of a battle, as soon as it crosses a certain threshold at certain VLs and would allow to finish the battle, when the VIX settles down under a certain threshold and if the battle's time is over.
-
+1 for the wish to be able to make the commander leave the vehicle and spot (and remember the info when he comes back).
-
If a tank crew dismounts, walks a ways, sees an enemy, and then moves back to it's tank then the chances of it remembering where the enemy is has a lot to do with continuing LOS and what the enemy is doing.
Steve
Steve, thanks for the clarfication. IMO this is not a good solution, because in reality the TC would tell his crew something like 2 Shermans, facing east, 11 o'clock, 700m. So the gunner already chooses the correct visor (and sometimes the tungsten-ammo will be preloaded, too). Also the concentration of the crew will be extremely focused on the area, once they get LOS. IMO a HUGE spotting advantage should be preserved (if the enemy unit didn't move far in relation to the distance), too. But also the aiming should be considerably better, because the TC/crew had time to estimate the distance and was not forced to calculate the average within seconds for the first shot.
-
Actually you can dismount the crew if you want. I wouldn't cause mine would end up strolling into a minefield. It isn't quite like dismounting just the TC, but if you are looking to have them hop out and take a quick discreet peek with hopefully a chance to not be observed it is an option.
But does the crew remember where and what it spotted?
-
Though I find the ability of low experience squads to split without penalty (I think) to be questionable. Or they should generate team leaders with lower command ratings on a more consistent basis than they do currently.
For me it doesn't feel right, that splitting squads results in positive effects only without any cons, too.
-
barleyman,
That's a solution. What problem are you trying to resolve?
Problem is to keep units in C2 without wasting C2 distance. With the good old C2-lines in CMx1 it was very convenient to keep units spread close to their maximum distance with much less clicking.
-
What is PAE?
-
R35s seem to be only useful as infantry support vehicles. Not really suited to try to gain initiative with them.
Zum Leben zu wenig zum Sterben zu viel. Barely enough to keep body and soul together.
-
Really, really nice work from BFC.
Still wondering: why a frontal attack?
-
+1.
This should also open great possibilities for much more and complex calculations.
E.g. on a second core the calculations regarding the unit's "memory" could be done to support the TacAI with it's decisions.
Like in chess-games, the calculations could show which area on the map or next to the unit is threatened from wich direction, the kind of fire and how big the threat is.
Depending on spotted enemy units or expected positions, a tensor-field could be created. If a unit recognizes a movement, by comparing the old with the new positions in its "memory", the tensor-field could be updated without affecting the performance, since it would be running on a dedicated core. If a unit comes under fire, additional informations from the tensor-field would be available and could show highly or less threatened zones and the unit's TacAI could use the results for better judgements.
But it also tricks most of us into the category of either believers or deniers.
Upgrades Q&A
in Combat Mission Fortress Italy
Posted
My experience is, that those people who expect from others to deliver them everything for free, are the ones who are not even moving a finger if not being paid for!
Ironically probably the better business model for BFC would be NOT to offer an upgrade for the old title!
Because every alternative to the new title can cannabalize the selling numbers of the new one. If you want to play the new features, you must buy the new title - and not pay 10$!