Jump to content
Special Upgrade 4 Tech Tips

Lumbergh

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    171

  • Joined

  • Last visited

    Never

 Content Type 

Posts posted by Lumbergh

    Der Manstein Kommt! (no spoiler)

    in Combat Mission Archive #4 (2002)

    Posted

    Originally posted by Schoerner:

    [QB]...slow down the bolshevistic hordes and therefore to protect Europe from becoming conquered completely by Communism.

    [QB]

    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.

    0

    Russian AA guns... my dilemma

    in Combat Mission Archive #4 (2002)

    Posted

    Originally posted by JonS:

    Not even Glantz knew about it. In fact, when he was asked about it last week he responded by saying "Well, fvck me! That explains the Soviet success at Kursk. Excuse me, if have to go now and rewrite my book."

    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 ]

    0

    The most beautiful tank IMO is...

    in Combat Mission Archive #4 (2002)

    Posted

    Originally posted by Nippy:

    The Abrams may be the best American tank (I wouldn't say it is the most beautiful of all the American designs) and the Merkava is an Israeli tank.

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Tongue was firmly in cheek there about who funds whom.

    Eh, why doesn't Israel just wait for various Middle Eastern Nations to "give" them some more of those free tanks like in 1967 and 1973?

    "Mint condition T-55 and T-64 MBTs. Never used, only abandoned once." :D

    If things ever calm down over there, I'd love to visit the Armored exibit at Latrun(sp?) some day. Then again I'd love to stop at Kubinka, Aberdeen, and Bovington too. *Sigh*

    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. ;)

    0

    Customer relations - how to do it

    in Combat Mission Archive #4 (2002)

    Posted

    Originally posted by MasterGoodale:

    LOL tanker. I find that word misused in many forums around the WWW. I think it's just a reflection of many people's grasp of the English language (not an insult to those who are not American and have done well just to learn our language)

    I think many, many English people would contest your assertion that Americans speak English....
    0

    The most beautiful tank IMO is...

    in Combat Mission Archive #4 (2002)

    Posted

    Originally posted by Commander:

    IMO, its the Merkava 4 Main Battle Tank

    http://www.army-technology.com/projects/merkava4/

    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 ]

    0

    TREE MOD: Coming to a forest near you. Big pics inside.

    in Combat Mission Archive #4 (2002)

    Posted

    Originally posted by AnonymousOxide:

    They look good, but are the accurate for the region? the reason I ask is because BTS put a lot of effort into their current tree line-up using some special tree growing tool. I'm not about to change it so quickly, although it would be helpful if I could see the infantry ;) .

    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 ]

    0

    AI cheats! (with real data)

    in Combat Mission Archive #4 (2002)

    Posted

    Originally posted by Michael emrys:

    One thing I wonder about that could possibly throw off the test results, and that is the question of how random the supposedly random factors are in all the various calculations that the program makes. Someone offered the point in a thread a few weeks back that the random number generator in CM might be wonky and, for instance on certain dates, might be cranking out numbers that aren't entirely random. This would not be a cheat but a bug, but it could by happenstance appear to favor one side over another in any specific test or series of tests conducted on a given date.

    Michael

    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.

    0

    AI cheats! (with real data)

    in Combat Mission Archive #4 (2002)

    Posted

    Originally posted by CombinedArms:

    </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Marlow:

    I saw this problem in some CMBO testing, and it was even more pronounced (i.e. lopsided towards the AI) if you allow the tac AI to do the targeting.

    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>

    0
×
×
  • Create New...