Lumbergh

Christ man you sound like you watched a few too many Nazi propaganda films. I would think that playing CMBB would prove educational as to how desperate and furious fighting in the east proved until the end. That the Red Army was not some massive, faceless mob, but an army that adapted throughout the war to surpass the Germans in tactical, operational, and especially strategic skill. One would think that. Of course, one would also think that people would realize that in a conflict as vicious as this, there was no clear-cut "good guys" and "bad guys". I for one am happy that the Red Army defeated Nazi Germany. True, communist rule of Eastern Europe was bad...but, given the choice, i'll take that over death camps for everybody.

Try the su-100...1945 only. A bit of an eggshell with a hammer, but, still is better than an eggshell with a wimpy gun.

is this the bomb sketch? Eduard emailed the link to me. [ November 19, 2002, 12:07 PM: Message edited by: Lumbergh ]

Someone posted a picture of an Apulomet a while ago. Maybe a year ago? I am not sure. Found it. It was in the 2001 archive. Search Ampulomet and it is in the first thread. [ November 18, 2002, 06:59 PM: Message edited by: Lumbergh ]

These Easter Front battles, did they take place on Easter Island or do you mean to say they occurred elsewhere after Lent? Michael</font>

Don't forget the recent raccoon sighting, either.

General Forum?? There is probably a worthwhile thread, somewhere, that is buried under all of the stuff you are writing.

That's because rockets almost never killed tanks. I am sure someone will be along here in a few moments with statistics about how they had a 9% kill rate in Normandy or somefink. But suffice to say that this is yet another facet of real life that is well represented in CMBB.

They are Molotov Cocktail "projectors"...I like to get them to listen to the cool "cha-chunk" catapult noise.

Don't forget: -airstrikes -wet ground -driving around behind it with uber-speedy t-34s -massed ampulomet fire

That is, at least until the patch comes out. Until then, the uberdoorknocker reigns supreme over all....

How much time wasted? How many person-hours of productivity down the drain? Somebody get a consultant in here and start firing people! If I had any sort of supervisory power over anyone I would block this website. BTS: Big Time Shirking.

Speaking of that has anyone noticed even good ol' Col. Glantz refers to the gun on a Panther as an 88 in "When Titans Clashed"? Either that or I thought I was reading that book while actually I was reading "Band of Brothers"....um, yeah, very similar writing styles. Edited to make note of the fact that Mr. Soddball is trumpeting about British hygene while forgetting about British dental "hygene", a.k.a. "black, rotting, and crooked". [ November 14, 2002, 11:20 AM: Message edited by: Lumbergh ]

Can we have all of those listed chronologically? Thanks.

As I log in: "Welcome to our newest member: Guy Sajer " Let the firefight begin.

Look at it this way: you get the side-benefits of living in Alaska, one of which is not close proximity to large numbers of old tanks. Then again, having lived close to Aberdeen and Bovington, I would probably trade those experiences for living close to Denali and heli-skiing. At least from April-August.

stoopid double posts! [ November 06, 2002, 01:21 PM: Message edited by: Lumbergh ]

I think many, many English people would contest your assertion that Americans speak English....

So does that make the Merkava or the Abrams the best American tank? </font>

So does that make the Merkava or the Abrams the best American tank? Oh, and I have to say that there is no such thing as a beautiful tank. Design asthetics (at least those that could be considered "beautiful") are in direct opposition to effectiveness. But then again, what is beauty? Is there such a thing as brutish beauty? Is beauty in a tank such that a tank that displays everything that is not beautiful, the i.e. slab-sided beast-like tiger, is in fact beautiful in its ugliness? So where does that leave the moderately attractive, say, the Jadgpanther? Does its advantage is traditional beauty outweigh the "beauty in ugliness" of, say, a su-152?? [ November 05, 2002, 05:50 PM: Message edited by: Lumbergh ]

You must mean something like this tree generator? edit: grrr, can't get the URL to show up as a link. Sorry! [ November 04, 2002, 12:39 PM: Message edited by: Lumbergh ]

8937.37, of course. :cool: </font>

24 hours later and you guys are still here.... Jeez, for a bunch of scientists you guys must not be getting any research done! "Sorry, I know I outspent my grant, but I was engaged in some groundbreaking AI-simulation testing....."

This is an excellent point, although it would be pretty strange if the random number generation specific to CM is wonky (since it is just a simple call in C++ or whatever CM is programmed in to get a random number). However, and I hope there is an EE out there who knows the theory better than I, supposedly random number generation from a computer is never truly random. I have no idea as to how serious this problem is, but the fact that random calls in computer programs are used all the time would point to it not being a biggie. Maybe we're making the process non-random? If you've never seen this concept before, it is pretty interesting: the human impact on machine outcomes. It is the Heisenberg uncertainty principle to the nth degree. Not to get all spooky. I don't actually think this is what's happening.

I think the KEY question is RIGHT HERE in Marlow's statement! Do tanks perform better in tank duels when the TacAI does the targeting as opposed to manual targeting? Here's a potential hypothesis: 1. Manual targeting imposes a firing delay when compared to the TacAI's targeting, assuming one is firing in both cases at the same target (I don't know this to true, but it might be true and seems consistent with the data.) 2. Who fires first is often the crucial question in an armored duel. The first shot might be a kill, ending the battle right there. If not, the second shot is likely to be more accurate, and therefore a kill. Whoever gets in the first shot also beats the opponent to the second shot, etc., etc. 3. So by imposing a firing delay via manual targeting, Warren Peace may be significantly disadvantaging the tanks he controls. 4. And that accounts for the difference in outcome--because of TacAI targeting, the AI is getting in more first shots, and therefore scoring a higher proportion of kills. The way to test this would be for Warren Peace to play from one side first, and then the other with the same vehicles as before (e.g. Allied first, then Axis), but WITHOUT manually targeting for his own tanks. If the results turn out to be more equal between human and AI, then the problem is almost certainly with a delay imposed by manual targeting. This could also be tested by measuring the delay before firing with the same tank w/ and w/o manual targeting. This would be a very important thing to know: it would suggest than in a tank duel, we should avoid manual targeting and let the TacAI do the targeting (unless, perhaps, we disagree w/ the target chosen--e.g. HT instead of potentially lethal tank.) Just my suggestion. </font>