Shaka of Carthage
-
Posts
1,212 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Never
Posts posted by Shaka of Carthage
-
-
JerseyJohn
The bazooka was a replacement for the 37mm/57mm anti-tank weapons that the division had. Of course, once the Germans got hold of it, they copied it and then eventually improved it. The Russian copy (of the better German version) is still with us today... the RPG.
If we had used the 90mm, it would have been assigned to a dedicated anti-tank battalion.
Hmmm... maybe I answered my own question. Remember the Tank Destroyers were the one's that were suppossed to be killing the tanks. Started off with 76mm weapon. Even the "state of the art" TD only had the 76mm weapon. Guess sometime after that they found out it wasn't effective enough because they started to put the 90mm on the older chassis (M-36). So maybe we did realize that we should be using it.
-
Want strange? How about this.
British "88" ... they had a 94mm anti-air weapon. But since they were only trained to fire at aircraft, no one considered using them against tanks. While the equipment wasn't designed to be used as a anti-tank, it was more the lack of the ability to be flexible that was the British problem.
United States... We had a 90mm anti-air gun. Wonder what our reasons were for not using it as a anti-tank weapon.
British 25 pounder... This is actually a 88mm howitzer.
Everyone is generally agreed that the "88" was one of the deadliest weapons. Makes you wonder why the British and Americans didn't make more use of thier own versions of it.
Hmmmm... now that I think of it, I believe the most "effective" anti-tank weapon was the Russian 76mm. Not so much in terms of the kills, but rather in size, ammunition it used. Hence, there were towed and self-propelled versions of it.
[ May 26, 2003, 07:50 PM: Message edited by: Shaka of Carthage ]
-
Dan Fenton
Thats a excellent point that we tend to forget. To balance the game thats exactly what has been done.I presume that the UK position has been deliberately weakened there to compensate for its current unrealistic advantages in the Atlantic.I don't believe anyone would argue with you about your other points (even though you were suppossed to limit them to three
). -
So the answer to my original question then, would be yes. Especially since your subsequent post appears to be an example justifying your original position.
I agree with you that there are a large number of variables that determine the range and accuracy of the reconnaissance information that is obtained.
Its not clear what effects you are suggesting that should be added or changed in SC.
-
German 88mm would represent level 3 or 4 anti-tank tech in SC.
It depends on how you define the level 0 tech.
-
Ok... let me see if I understand this.
A Army/Corp has a spotting range of one (1). There are two (2) enemy units next to me. I MAY see one of them and I MAYNOT see the other. And the info I know about the one I see is limited.
My ability to see one would be based on a large number of variables including the INTEL Tech.
Is this the gist of it?
[ May 26, 2003, 10:56 AM: Message edited by: Shaka of Carthage ]
-
Three Simple Changes to SC for the next patch
</font>
- 90% chance if Fall or Winter, Air Unit (fighter or bomber) is "grounded" (ie AP=0, Spotting = 0)
As this removes Air from the game about 1/3rd of the year (10 out of 29 turns), easiest way I can think of to reduce the effect of air.</font> - "Flip" the Soft Attack and Defense values within the Army/Corp units.
This will correct the problem with the combat model when units that are "unequal" in effectiviness meet.</font> - Change the Tank Group attacking Army/Corp from Soft Attack vss Tank Defense to Tank Attack vs Tank Defense.
Restores Tanks to the dominance they should have if they have the technological lead against anti-tank weapons.</font>
- 90% chance if Fall or Winter, Air Unit (fighter or bomber) is "grounded" (ie AP=0, Spotting = 0)
-
Dan Fenton
THATS where it went!
No wonder I've done so bad at the tables this weekend.
Could you like pass it back please?
-
</font>
- SC II</font>
- Historical enhancements. SC Enhancements</font>
- Improved Economics. MPP+ System</font>
- Use of Manpower. (Still working on it)</font>
</font>
- (Some of us don't listen to Rock and Roll)</font>
- Joe Sample ... mood changes and memories.</font>
- War ... resentment against the world was strong.</font>
- Temptations ... my youth.</font>
[ May 25, 2003, 04:08 PM: Message edited by: Shaka of Carthage ]
-
zappsweden
There are two decisions that you made that I would like to be reconsidered (ie I'm appealing your initial rulings). I have presented my arguments on why they should be changed. I await your final decisions.
==================================================
Z-league PBEM Games
Issue: Can a PBEM game be counted as a Zappleague game?
There are alot of players who may be limited in thier ability to play TCP. This also allows the option of starting as TCP and finishing as PBEM (or vice versa).NopeFrom the response about House Rules, I gather you are concerned that PBEM games open up the opportunity of cheating. My response is the same as below.
==================================================
Z-league House Rules
Issue: Limit on the number of air units.
(US 3, USSR 3, Germany 4, Italy 2, UK 2, Fr 2)
I think you are being a little too rigid about the House Rules. Forcing it to be part of the "standard" set of rules eliminates any player from taking a chance and trying the House Rule.Nope, z-league will not allow any house rules. The idea is, if those house rules are good (and tested in fun games) they will be standard i.e set as rules of the z-league.In effect, there is no possibility of optional rules and stifles creativity.
Valid point. You are concerned about the opportunity of abuse. You would handle it the same way you would if you thought the person was cheating.There is too much confusion, possibility of accusations and stuff if ppl use house rules. [Example] Say, one person accidently buys one air too much [House Rule limit on number of air units], does that means he loses instantly or does he have to sell it next turn? What if he already bought it and used it in a battle?I'll tell you what I would do, since everyones response would be different. After being told, or pointing it out, I would ask that they correct the mistake. As in disband the unit. Any losses I sufferred as a result, I would simply accept. Can't undo it. Second time I would do same thing. Third time, I'd finish the game, but would no longer play that person using the House Rule (probably not at all).
==================================================
[ May 25, 2003, 07:47 AM: Message edited by: Shaka of Carthage ]
-
JerseyJohn... We've had this discussion a few times already. But it doesn't hurt to hear it again. Life isn't fair. Repeat that to yourself everytime you feel you are getting screwed.
Carl G.E.von Mannerheim... Wheter Brad Tennant and yourself are, become, or were just dreaming about becoming beta testers isn't really important. Let me give you a little bit of advice that may save you some pain in your future. There are some things in life that are best left unsaid. Not because of sensitivity or political correctness. Because of compassion. Everything someone says has the potential of hurting someone else. If thats your intent, say it. Nothing wrong with saying things as long as you are aware of the consequences. Being able to determine when not to say something to avoid unnecessary hurt is something that life teaches you. Its also known as wisdom.
-
Welcome to the wonderful world of statistical mathamatics. Leave common sense at the door, because it doesn't apply here.
Here is the basic problem with your theory. You can't prove it. And the reason you can't prove it is because you can't run a large enough sample. And what is a large enough sample? How about a few million attempts. And even that is statistically small.
How do I know this? I used to gamble, then I became a card player. Whats the difference? There is no skill when it comes to gambling, it is all luck. But there is skill when you play a game of chance and you are aware of the mathamatical probablities on winning and lossing. Las Vegas was built on the perception that you could make money if you gamble. And its true, if you are lucky.
Back on topic. Let me give you an example of why your test sample will always be too small. Lets take a roulette wheel. Bunch of numbers, half of them are red and half of them are black. Right? Almost. You have zero, and zero is green. And in some places, there is a double zero, which is also green. Lets assume it is perfectly balanced (cause if the wheel tilted, it would favor one side). All of the wheels in the large Las Vegas casinos are balanced. Notice the display of the numbers that have previously hit? Notice something strange about it? You don't have to look very hard to see a pattern. Same string of numbers appears or the same color appears in a string.
That my friends, is what is known as "statistical deviation". There is no pattern. Just like there is no bias in one nation R&D tech compared to another. It just seems that way.
Flip a coin, only two results. Heads or tails. 50% probablity each and every time. Do it 100 times, and by god, you will see a pattern. Just like the above.
Why isn't it a real pattern? Because that coin, that roulette wheel, and the percentage chance of gaining a tech all have one major thing in common. They have no memory. The past does not influence the future.
If you have read this, forget giving me $5, I want $25. I will send you the address. People pay good money to learn what I have just given you above. But when its sold, they usually sell it to you as a Secrets of Winning at Gambling. And it costs alot more than what you have just paid.
[ May 24, 2003, 06:57 PM: Message edited by: Shaka of Carthage ]
-
-
Wouldn't it be a easy thing to add to Zappleague?quote:--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Shaka of Carthage:
Got a question, that has been brought up on the PBEM topic.
Can a PBEM game be counted as a Zappleague game?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nope
-
I understand the desire, but in the context of the system, what you are really asking for is to expand the current HQ leaders pool. I don't see a problem with that.... but being a history buff I would want to have the generic leaders be assigned an historical name after the rating is determinedThe "random" generic leaders are a representation of leaders whom no one has heard of. That way one of the HQ's could say CUSTER or SHAKA.
-
Got a question, that has been brought up on the PBEM topic.
Can a PBEM game be counted as a Zappleague game?
-
Here is my proposal for the HQ issue.
Headquarter Unit
Cost of 400 MPP. The leader is randomly selected by the computer from the leadership pool (ie current HQ leaders). Once that pool is gone (or the nation doesn't have any HQ leaders), then the leadership rating should be randomly determined. We could then name this "generic" HQ anything we wanted.
The existing effects of HQ would be what they are currently. We now only need one more thing to give everyone what they want.
Naval Command Ship
In effect a naval HQ. Problem is, do we really need one? That is for the rest of you to decide. And if you say yes, what effect would it have?
-
RevengeMD
Burger run... Honey, do you and your friends want to take a break and get something to eat? No dear, but if you and the kids are going out to get something, could you bring back some stuff for us? Here's the list, thanks dear, love you, could you hurry up, we;re kinda hungry. O yea, could you stop by and get some chips and beer as well?
Strangeness... I never showed up in period clothes. Does that make me normal enough?
I agree with what you say about Rule IV. I meant more along the lines of offering to give the advice, if the person says yes, then give it. Some novices don't want to hear the advice.
Rule II I disagree. You should be able to offer to concede whenever you want. If your opponent still wants to continue, then do so. The moment there are 10 or 11 air units lined up in England blowing away two or three units a turn, I don't care how far ahead I am, you have just gotten "inside my decision loop" and I'm so frustrated I'm ready to concede.
Money on the table... I'd forgotten all about that. It was as serious as you could get once you put some money up there for the winners.
-
Hmmmmm.....
Those PBM rules were written back in the days of Play by Mail. As in Postal Mail, aka snail mail. Things were slightly different back then. How many of you remember watching the postman making his way down your street and sometimes being so impatient, you actually would go ask for your mail before he got to your house?
It took a bit of time to set up for the game. Either in someone having to purchase some sort of computerized system to keep track of the map and pieces or you actually set up the map and pieces in a spare room or garage and threatened family members and pets with death if they went in there.
And remember the conventions and tournaments? Thats where us oldtimers would meet other people who played the games we liked (never say they were like us, because some of those folks were strange), we'd set up in a hotel room, drink (beer or liquor) and eat (pizza or burger run) and play all day and night( you weren't a wargamer unless you smelled!). Guess what has replaced this? Give you a hint, you are in it right now.
Alot of the posts have shown how things have changed. The setup time is non-existent anymore. For those of you who complain while waiting for your TCP opponent to connect, we oldies used to need as much as two weeks (or longer) to do the initial setup and get ready to perform the first move. Remember getting real creative and mounting the maps on the wall with a metal backing, then putting your counters in magnetic holders that were sold just for that purpose? "Locked in combat" and "stacking" had special meanings all of thier own.
Moves are not measured in terms of once a month or once a week anymore. Its more like once a day or faster now. The cursing part is kinda obsolete, as the only one who can hear you is your computer so its ok.
So I think rule number II, should be retired:
II. Thou shalt not concede (especially if you begin with the initiative).
If you have ever played Terif or some of the other SC veterans, they have shown the way rule IV has evolved.
IV. Thou shalt make allowances for novices. If you want some advice, feel free to ask.
Rule number VIII, (VIII not IIX yes?), should be retired as well. What we consider strategy tips are not what this rule was trying to deal with. And the circumstance it is addressing doesn't really exist anymore.
IIX. Thou Shalt not solicit "detailed" advice from others... sending your "board" to a more experienced player for detailed advice is absolutely bad form.
I would amend this for a TCP game though, to state that Thoul Shalt not hijack the posted TCP address of another player.
Lastly, this rule used to be conditional.
X. Thou shalt maintain thy sense of humor.Unless it was a tournament. Then, we played for "blood" as in , if you didn't know what you were doing, you could watch the masters once you got eliminated, cause nobody was gonna help you or be nice to you.
So, in honor of this Brave New World, how about this...
Lets get some replacements for Rules number II and IIX and vote on amending Rule IV. Then lets take the revised 10 rules and post them in the New Player thread sticky. How does that sound?
Brainfart... do you realize that we are Citizens in this Athenian Democracy (a true Democracy as long as you are a citizen), where citizenship is determined by owning a PC? And Mr H is Zeus. So I ask you God Zeus, when are you gonna split your head open and let out Dianna? I've got the need to, lets say, go hunting in the moonlight.
[ May 22, 2003, 03:01 AM: Message edited by: Shaka of Carthage ]
-
Military Economic Spending
Lets do an exercise. If I take SeaWolf_48s' numbers, here are the MPP equivalents.
................3R.........SW48.............SC
Italy...........60...........15.............115
Germany....120.........120.............120
France.........68...........??............100
UK............100..........96............178
USA..........216..........287............180 (720)
Soviets.......72..........122............480
Japan.....................48
Using Well Dressed Gentlemens' calcuations, and taking the midpoint (ie 3x's lend lease), then the USA should have 720 MPPs.
Taking any of these historical numbers would destroy the balance of the game.
-
Ain't that the truth. Especially when most of them are using the same sources!I did the same research and every book and writer has different numbers for every topic, it's very confusing. -
If the economic model reflected the historical realities, then you would have a very unbalanced game.
SC does not have in place all the other constraints necessary to balance the economic realities between the Axis and Allies.
-
Immer Etwas
I have a proposal for the logisitcal side of it in terms of handling supplies. I should be able to present it within the next week or so.
-
Steve C
I know, but I still want my $5.
SC - Move Capital Option
in Strategic Command 1
Posted
santabear and Bill Macon bring up a good point about re-examining the whole surrender process. Surrendering is all about the will to resist.
Lets start off with one of the best examples, France 1940. Within the first week of the Germans invading, the French top leadership was telling the British that they had lost. It had very little to do with the number of units that had been lost. The Germans had done something the French thought was impossible and since the French top leadership doctrine was all about defending, they felt they were now in a hopeless situation. Hence, two weeks later, they surrendered. But they had "lost" in the first week.
So how do we recreate that in SC?
We've got some of the elements already. Capture of a capitol city is a major blow, but sometimes isn't enough by itself. Destroy enough of the enemies army and even if he has the will, he doesn't have the ability to resist. And lets not forget the morale of the civilian population. Italy is a good example of what happens when that dips low enough.
National Will
This is a number (0 to 100) that is effected by the following:
</font>
There are more effects, its just a question of how detailed you want to get. Initial number for France would be much lower than Russia. The reverse of the above would be some of the positive effects. Could even go so far as to offer a "random" option, that way France would fight to the bitter end, while Russia may surrender as soon as one city falls.
Now, if the National Will is high enough, the capitol will move. If it doesn't, just assume your top leadership is trapped in the capitol. This will solve the initial problem that Edwin P brought up (unless of course your leaders get trapped in the capitol).
One last thing. We as players should never know what the exact "value" of the current National Will is. Something general like "people are concerned", "protests in the streets", "there has been an attempt on your life" should be all we know.