Biochem can be fun

I assume you speak from experience. I guess I'll just have to take your word on that analogy. J

Flamingknives, I appreciate that you have some materials training. Armor "strength" has always been kind of a strange term for me to understand. Strength, toughness, and hardness have very specific meanings in materials science. Strength is the amount of force to failure for a material per unit area (or the elastic strain limit as flamingknives stated). Toughness is the amount of energy that a material has absorbed at failure (obviously per unit area). And hardness, well that's a little more confusing. In my work, we're generally working with nanohardness--which is a materials resistance to plastic deformation upon nanoindentation. In a nutshell it's related to the modulus (stiffness) of a material. Hardness does relate somewhat to the toughness of a material, but not exactly. Flamingknives stated that hardness is the difference between the elastic and the ultimate stress of a material. I guess I should state that I'm generally working with biological materials, so I'm in no way a materials scientist and only understand the math at a very rudimentary level. Basically, what exactly does strength mean when one is talking about the armor plates on tanks? Cheers, J

Sniff, snort, sniff... I like when people use a chemical term when they have no idea what that word actually means. It makes them sound S-M-R-A-T. Oh, I mean smart. I also heard that it pulls the chicks. But I wouldn't know--about using chemical terms that is. J

Yes, the king Boo hoo hoo

Right, sounds like a match made in heaven. It's kind of quiet in the Peng. It is Friday night/Saturday morning--But damn, has everyone already drank themselves into oblivion? Likely considering the participants J

The last time I ventured into the Peng I left with my tail between my legs. Just knowing that you're here day and night babbling away at each other makes my blood boil! Arrrgh!! :mad: After thinking about it for a couple of days, however, I realized that the sadist in me kind of enjoyed it. J

What kind of a time commitment is required to participate in an online campaign? It sounds like a lot of fun, however, I don't want to get in over my head--and most of all I don't want to hold people up. Cheers, J

Ok, got to respond to the "hitting them on the head first" post before I split. The answer is no. It's better when they wiggle. You should know CMplayer--remember, I've been to Sweden. Where do you think I've learned my "science"? J

Oh, and I do like the fish, and sometimes the Marines. Plenty of both here in SoCal. Although I think I prefer the people who post on the CM forums the most. I got to get some sleep sometime. You'll here from me again soon. Later Skaters, J

Good point CMplayer.

Oh yea Noba, updated my profile. It ain't "anyones". Just no one's. Cheers, J

Too late stikkypixie, already got plenty of them. Although, I can forward them to you, as I'm sure you're interested. J

Yep, I didn't read the rules before I posted my original post in this thread. I've read them now. Can we move on from this? Whatever. In anycase, I'm here to jaw with some fun people. Let it be that. While I have no idea of what to make of your italics CMplayer (in response to "like fish"), I'm not an organismal biologist--there's a setup for some jokes. Or should I explain what biochemistry is. Nope, that's pretty boring. Let's just have fun guys. I'm kind of getting the feeling that there's a little animosity here. Is there not enougth room in this thread for a little for more wit and funny commentary? :confused: J

Just like Skoal. J

CMplayer Right, rules. Of course, even deviants have to have rules. I found the rules after you posted this: "See what happens when Seanachai is allowed to post the rules?" One step behind you. You're right, soon I'll have my PhD (Pilled higher and Deeper degree). From Sweden? I was in Sweden at a conference at the Kristinegerb Marine Research Station at Fiskebackskil in October 03. Sweden is a beautiful country. Ah, now let me blind you with my wit you damn Swede!!! And, this is not a "personal prejudice" against Swedes. Just to quote one of the rules. Just a joke. Keep up CMplayer. i.e., "right, the clique". Again, sarcasm isn't the lowest form of humor Cheers, J

Right, the clique.

Alright deviants, I'm breaking into the Peng thread. What do you have to say about that? Anyone want to play a PBEM game? Just to make you feel better about it, it will be my first PBEM CM game--so, you pick the game (CMBO, CMBB, or CMAK), map, and force strength--and then kick my ass--or will you? I figure you can't talk to much s**t about my ability until you've beat me. sagert@lifesci.ucsb.edu Cheers to cold beer(s), J

Ah, deviants. I can relate to that. Now I feel like taking a dive into the Peng threads. See you there. J

I'd agree with JasonC (man, I'm a poet and didn't know it). Take the empirical route--hopefully not rout. Remember, these aren't real men and real tanks Rob. As a relatively new player of the CM series, I can relate. When you're learning, take risks and chances. The only way you learn is by playing--and the funny thing is that every new map and force mix creates new tactical problems. And that's what's great about this game!! You can't "win" in every situation. Like JasonC said, follow your intuition--sometimes it'll be wrong, but sometimes it will be right. There is a lot of help on this forum as far as tactics go. Take advantage of that. The only point that JasonC didn't mention is this: If you play enough, you will start to understand the forces involved, the terrain, and tactical situations better. Time. Just keep playing!! And above all, enjoy it!! J

Cheers to Beer!! I've been wondering these forums for a while and have always wondered about the nuts in the Peng/Cherry Waffles threads. The posts always seemed kind of like an inside joke so I stayed away--and typically their post's aren't full of very much substance. I've also wondered, wouldn't personal email be a better way for friends to rant and rave at each other? The purpose of the forum is to create a community, not cliques. Right? Oh--right, in every community there has to be cliques. Take that Peng/Cherry Waffles! Cheers to cold carbonated beers, J In my opinion, sarcasm isn't the lowest form of humor.

Michael stated in a concise manner what I was trying to express in my earlier post. I guess the question still remains: Is this a modeling error in the CM engine? J

752ndTank, Interesting Website. Nice work. In response to the original post--I've also been frustrated in CM when a tank has had its main gun knocked out and is still capable of fighting with its MGs (the whole crew is fine and the vehicle is mobile). Redwolf makes a great point about the actual mechanics of the CM game. I'm not sure his response addresses the point of the original post--Why is a tank with a damaged main gun that is still mobile not able to use MGs? 752ndTank begins to address the question. The main gun is hit; the TC has to make a decision whether or not to bail. However, 752ndTank assumes that the tank is immobile. In CM I've had main guns knocked out, the crew fine (maybe shocked for a turn or two), the tank mobile, and still unable to use the MG's. Clearly the decision has been made by the TC to stay in the tank. If your main gun is hit and you can't use your MG, why stay in the tank? I understand that modeling the response of a tank crew's reaction to any kind of a hit is difficult, but this does seem a little strange. If the crew is willing to stay in the tank with no means of fighting, doesn't that seem kind of weird? Of course, at the CM level, we can ignore the idea that they just want to save the tank for a later battle. If that were the case, wouldn't they reverse, find cover, and look for the fastest way of the map? Speaking of the difficulties of modeling a tank crews response to getting hit: In the book "Death traps", Cooper describes a situation in which a sherman was able to cause a Tiger crew to abandon their tank by a direct hit with a smoke round. You'll never see that in CM. How can you model the chaos and fear that drives a TC's decisions? Cheers, J

I definetly agree with Yaphank's take on applying mods. Also, CMMODS is an awesome site--I really appreciate all of the time that the MODer's (is that what you call them?) have put into creating their works of "art"--I've really enjoyed them. However, I do like the MOD managing program CMMOS and am curious as to why MODs aren't made compatible with this program. Is it difficult? For that matter, why haven't the participants in the CM community agreed upon one MOD managing program, making choosing and switching all MODs easier? Cheers, J

With regard to the orginal post: I have the same problem with infantry. I think it has most to do with having my supporting MGs and Mortars in the right place. For the initial assault, I can definitly get my support in the right place, however, when the assault starts developing and I need to move my MGs/Mortars, I can never move them to the where I need them in time because they are so slow in moving. In fact, by the time I get them to the next place I'd like them, I already want them somewhere else. Should I anticipate these moves at the beginning of an assault and place MGs/Mortars there or is there a better way of managing my supporting forces? I guess the point is that I generally can't keep my MGs and Mortars in a position to support my forces after the initial assault, which, I believe, causes me to not be able to take the "flags" necessary for victory. The frustrating part of it is that if given enough time, I'd take the flags as my attack is solid, just slower than needed. Cheers

I guess I have a question that goes along with this thread. In a recent operation, I opted out of the night battle, but the night battle happened anyway. This definitly made me think in defensive terms (i.e., I didn't develope an offensive), however, no one ever attacked! In the setup phase of the next battle my forces were moved back from their positions. I should mention that my forces did some good offensive work in the prevous battle and during the setup phase for the night battle I'm talking about, were in good defensive positions at the most forward portion of the "line" established by the previous battle. My question, I guess, is this--do I need to attack to maintain the current line even if the "enemy" doesn't attack? Maybe this question is more situation dependent than can be answered in a general repley, but I'd like to understand this kind of situation more. Cheers