jamgra

Hey, was Abbott the guy who made the 5th SS Panzer Wikings Scenario at the the Scenario Depot? That thing is getting great reviews. I'm going to play it this weekend. Anybody know which scenario I'm talking about? Anybody played it? It's supposedly a sweet, very tense defense against the AI. Master Google, if the Abbotts are the one and the same, you are very lucky boy indeed to be getting special scenarios made by him for you. Hey Abbott, if yoy make Master Google another scenario can you name the company commander after me? :mad: :mad: :mad: -jamgra

Kind of looks like one of those old folks' retirement communities...

Oh, and Master Google, you want to remember to go TOWARD the flags.

Abbot, that map is hot. Nice job.

Rust? Where? I was under the impression that the brownish spots on the tank mods were supposed to be dirt/dust.

IIRC, the level of significance, alpha, IS the probability of a Type-I error. This value is commonly set to be .05. The P-value that has been evaluated here is referring to the chance that the experimenter has of recieving those same results or results even more extreme under the current assumption that the AI does NOT "cheat". Hence, only 3 times out of 1000, according to the original experiment made here, would the experimenter expect to get those results or results even more extreme (in favor of the AI) assuming the AI does not have an advantage. So, if the p-value, the chance of recieving said data or data even more extreme, is less than the chance of a Type-I error, then the results are statistically significant. The original hypothesis, that the AI does not have an advantage, should be rejected for the alternative hypothesis, that the AI does in fact have an advantage. However, as has been noted, we really need to ask Warren what, exactly, he did in his experiment and what level of control he was exerting. The experiment, seems as if it could be sound. Their is replication in the experiment, and he controlled for any other confounding variables by switching sides from Russian to German. But, if tanks could see through the lanes of tall pines, and if he was moving his tanks around, then this experiment would certainly lose some validity. Some of the above, controlled experiments would provide some helpful insight. I, for one, am a bit skeptical as I do not believe that BTS would not mislead us as to any advantages the AI may have. Very interested to hear from Warren. -Jim

Uh...how many sexually transmitted diseases would one have to have for the number to be "excessive"? A friend of mine just wanted to know, as he likes to keep everything in moderation, and wouldn't want to be classified as a glutton.

Ok, I'm not entirely positive, but it sounds like this might be a small bug. You're getting around the delay by creating a new target for HE rounds, which gives the correct delay time, but then telling the observer to RETARGET the old target. In RETARGETing, the observer is going back to his old target, with no time delay, but however is now firing HE rounds rather than smoke. This is not correct, as the delay time that should be incurred for HE times seems as if it isn't being carried over through the RETARGET. However, I have not tried this but am taking your word for it. From reading other's posts about artillery here, it seems impossible that there would be no delay time at all in switching from Smoke to HE, which is what this bug is allowing. It seems as if the game just isn't taking into account if there is a delay time from firing new rounds when you RETARGET a target that is already receiving fire. Not the biggest deal in the world, but should be fixed and more than likely will be if BTS looks at this issue. Unless there is something I am missing.... -Jim

31 turns!?! Bah! My men were supped and napping by then!! Well...not really. I ran out of time in 26 turns, you lucky bastard!! -Jim

Do the majority of people here miss the shockwaves? I thought they looked kind of dumb. The way it is modeled now is much cleaner and more realistic looking. It almost brought a tear to my eye the first time I saw a row of my tanks firing in the demo. Very awe-inspiring.

We might be... But isn't this a spotting issue right here? I still haven't received the game, and as such am unable to run tests, but from the demo alone and from looking at tests run in previous posts, I noticed two, IMHO, very likely bugs. 1.) As far as I can tell, the LOS isn't affected by features such as wheat, steppe grass, brush, rough, even open terrain (which it is supposed to deteriorate somewhat over as well, correct?). Not only does the LOS line tool remain bright blue over fairly long distances of said terrain features, but units can fire with a greater accuracy into, out of, and across these terrain features than one would think (I couldn't even see, let alone hit a target 20m into a wheat field). Some of these terrain features should block LOS to a fairly large extent, should they not? A wheat field in summer, I should expect, would block LOS completely within a few meters of the edge. 2.) The aforementioned terrain features are not blocking LOS to the extent they should, and as such are not providing the expected cover to the units within them. In playing both scenarios in the demo, I came across many instances where troops were being spotted when they realistically shouldn't have been. Perfect example is in Citadel Shwerpunkt. As the Russians, any Tank Hunter team in steppe will be spotted by the incoming tanks at more than ranges up to 150m! This range is equivalent with the range that the unit is spotted when it is placed on the open road!! This seems a bit odd, as this unit consists of only two men, hiding in a prepared, camoflouged foxhole, across a field of (what I believe to be fairly tall) steppe grass. Shouldn't steppe grass provide a bit more concealment than a freakin' road?!? Again, I don't think steppe, brush, and wheat are blocking LOS and spotting as much as they should be. -Jim