altipueri

+1 And disappointment has led me to buying other games such as Command Ops and Advanced Tactics. From Steve earlier in this thread: QBs are the center of some people's CM gaming experience, but not for others. Those who do love QBs don't necessarily want the sort of experience that would come from truly randomized maps. Especially the players who experienced CMx1's range of map quality (i.e. from really good to horrid) and weren't all that happy with it. In fact, guess where the idea came from to have user made maps be used for QBs? From CMx1 QB players who said "these random maps aren't very good, so how about letting us play with handmade ones?" I think this is one of the consequences (and other game companies do it too) of listening to the dedicated fans who know all the rules and tricks inside out, and paying less attention to the average customer who just wants to blow stuff up for an hour or two after work. Last night I fired up CMBN, started a QB, couldn't be bothered so got out an XP laptop and played a CMBB random map (more houses than I've ever seen before) and lost. I bet most of the regulars here don't believe you can lose a CMx1 game.

Glad I can still get my cmx1 working on windows 8.1 albeit bit of a struggle. Random maps is the go to feature for me which is why I also play Advanced Tactics. Quick battles in CMBN have been a huge let down.

Free beer for Vanir. Double plus good for perseverance.

Free beer for Vanir.

Well it's even stevens so far. Drink a bit more of that Kalmogorov-Smirnov and let's have both back in the ring for the next round.

This discussion and ranting really belongs more in a Hearts of Iron forum where there are more political options for the game concerned. And you can run that game several years past 1945. In some ways there were only two people fighting a World War - Churchill and Roosevelt. Everybody else was either sent against Germany or against Japan but not both at once.

QED I would say.

If you google (now a verb) "pak 40 manhandled" you get some interesting photos, then one of a lawn-mower. Then some other stuff. "7.5 cm PaK-40 Anti-Tank Gun The Panzerabwehrkanone 40 (PaK 40) 7.5cm anti-tank gun was an anti-tank gun used by the Germans in World War II. It was built to combat the superior Russian tanks like the T-34 and the KV-1. The PaK-40 was brought into service in November of 1941 and remained the primary anti-tank gun in service with Germany and its allies until the end of the war. With a range of 1,000 to 1,500 yards, the PaK-40 could fire a 15-pound armor piercing round at 2,598 feet per second, making it an accurate and efficient tank killer. With the later advent of the 7-pound tungsten-cored round (AP40), the PaK-40 could punch through 115 mm of steel at 500 yards, allowing it to take on virtually every Allied tank except the most heavily armored, like the Soviet IS-2 and American Pershing. The crew of eight could pump out about 10 rounds per minute. One drawback of the PaK-40 was its great weight which made it difficult to manhandle and almost impossible to move without the aid of an artillery tractor."

In that second example I don't think a crew would be able to push it up that slope. They might be able to pull it back.

I'm only groggy after a few drinks too many, but I laways (ha, that was supposed to be always - see what I mean?) - I always like Herr Kettler's grog info. Don't stop John.

Some production company spokesman said the actors were only 26 and were going through a gruelling emotional experience. It was pointed out to the spokesman that the characters the actors were playing were only 21 when they went through the real thing.

Producers of Brad Pitt's new movie provoked outrage when they filmed Nazi war scenes in an English village early in the morning on Remembrance Sunday. American director David Ayer staged pre-dawn explosions in Shirburn, Oxfordshire and had extras act out battle scenes dressed as Nazis as the rest of the UK readied itself to honour the nation's fallen heroes.

There is an Arracourt scenario in The Operational Art of War. It's my favourite. Why? It's the shortest. What's my favourite opera? La Boheme. Why? It's the shortest. When I hear the word culture I reach for my revolver.

Just Nuke'em. Problem solved. Sorry, wrong enemy.

I must say this thread had provided much more sport than actually playing the game. This is an interesting line from post 152: "Actually, CMBO was far more beer and pretzels than any game we've ever made. Which is partly why CMBB and CMAK sold so much less than CMBO."

Ouch. Petard. Hoist. These are the silhouette figures taken from CMBO equipment guide. Sherman 100 Panther 118 PanzerIV 92 Some others: King Tiger 135 JagdPanther 120 Tiger 120 Nashhorn 110 Hellcat 85 Stug IIIG 82 PSW 234/3 80 Wespe 80 Lynx 74 Stuart 73 Panzer IV/70 70 Hetzer 65

I love the idea of a series of gunfight at OK Corral tank duels. Start at opposite ends of a billiard table and see who draws first as they drive slowly towards one another. If you did Panther vs Panther you could try sort to out good commanders from less good.

Poisson = fish. Not necessarily a red herring.

Kolmogorov-Smirnov (those well known players of CMBB) are your answer. The skew is because you cannot spot in less than 0, but there is no upper limit. So it is a right skewed distribution. For most practical purposes the mean and standard deviation figures are still usable. I would take the second (Smirnov) part, neat or with a little tonic water and lemon.

I said this would drive you mad Vanir. That Panther data set looks, well, skewed with the standard deviation almost equal to the entire less than average range. (In fact they are all a bit weird; were you smoking something?) Maybe the answer is Poisson - but sounds a bit fishy to me.

A cursory analysis of weekend traffic to my company website showed a visit from someone at Battlefront.com I run a small venture capital firm - do you guys want some money? Clearly it's not just GCHQ/NSA who can track you these days!

Yes, it is actually quite important, statistically at least, that the same experiment be repeatable by other people using the same methodology. That is why the same version e.g. 2.12 should be used, and that the data and the results be shown. Otherwise there are more variables being introduced which muddies rather than clarifies things. In the meantime Vanir can dust off his stats books and remind himself how to do the Chi Squared test or whichever one it is that can test whether two or more sets of data results come from the same population.

Nothing? Buggeration.

For those who want to continue doing tests you may take some comfort from the fact that you don't need to do many before you can draw some meaningful conclusions. At least thirty should be enough for most tests, hence Vanirs 60 or so was a good choice. 600 would not give significantly more useful information. Remember to change only one variable at a time. You will of course eventually go mad.

Blimey, I didn't know I had made a joke. I apologise. I used to do this stats stuff in the days before spreadsheets and electronic calculators. But I'm too old and crusty now. After I made that post I played racketball and in the bar discussion after I was talking with an actuary friend who really does understand this stuff. I raised this very issue, two series of about sixty numbers, can you tell whether they come from a normal distribution (i.e distributed about a mean (=average) and 95% of results will fall within 2 standard deviations of the mean. Initially I just gave the figures, without saying what they represented, only later saying they notionally represented time in seconds to spot a tank at x yards. That sequence of results does look like a "normal distribution". (This sort of stuff does not affect most of your lives until you try to understand why your pension is so small.) Quick rule of thumb test - about 30% of a random set of numbers will start with a "1" (I don't remember the full explanation, but it was discovered by a monk in about 1800 who noticed that certain pages of his logarithm tables were more worn than others.) Conclusion: there is a significant enough difference in those two sets of numbers to warrant further investigation. PS - I live in Cheltenham, UK home to GCHQ (=NSA) "Spies R 'Us"; the place is crawling with spies, spooks, mathematicians, computer nerds, linguists and various other forms of low life, many of whom can carry on conversations in four languages at the same while doing a crossword and playing three dimensional chess. It's depressing, but good if you need someone to join a quiz team.