Bouncing HE Shells

May 9, 2000

I read all these messgaes back and forth, and have come to the conclusion that the article writer in PCGamer is correct where he says Grognards are killing off wargames. Quit bitching about small things and enjoy the GAME. GAME, not a way of life, not a warfare exercise...GAME. I find it laughable that some argue Steve and Charles are not open to suggestions, as everyone I have put up has been put in the game. EVERYONE! Make your case, then move on. Gee, I don't have a timed fuze, hmm...is GAME play going to change? No? Move on...

Keep up the crap [not you CG ] and see if they will want to make a CM2. They have put up with a lot more then I would have ever done.

Rune

May 9, 2000

<HTML>

<HEAD>

</HEAD>

rune:

You say you have read "all these messages back and forth", and this may be true. But you have not understood them, that is clear. I don't know what to say to further explain my position other than to provide two quotes from my first post in this thread:<DIR>

<DIR>

And to tell the truth I don't have an opinion either way about the 'direct-fire-HE-bouncing-shell-air-burst-thing'.... and have already conceded the Nahverteidigungswaffe issue...</DIR>

</DIR>

In other words any individual weapon system is NOT the point. Get it?<DIR>

<DIR>

If one is in and the other is out because BTS says so...THAT IS FINE. REALLY, that is fine, it is after all their game.</DIR>

</DIR>

I believe you have said as much, have you not? No, my entire point is the strong and "inconsistent" (thank you Mark IV) methods that seem to be in use.

i.e. (I further quote myself....did you really read this or did you just miss the point?):<DIR>

<DIR>

BUT PLEASE, don't erect some 'standard', and then hold it up as a 'rule' when it is applied on a select few issues, and ignored or down-played on others.</DIR>

</DIR>

If you still think this is some 'grog' whining for some micro-feature that is not included in a game (as the article you reference is about)...then I can only assume the entire discussion, nay concept of "inconsistency" is beyond you.<DIR>

<DIR>

Keep up the crap [not you CG ] and see if they will want to make a CM2. They have put up with a lot more then I would have ever done.</DIR>

</DIR>

You know I hear this a lot around here and from other game developers/supporters. And my guess is that those that say this have never developed software in the corporate world. Because I got news for you guys...this ain't NOTHING compared to what happens in the corporate world. A dozen or so posts QUESTIONING a feature or aspect here and there. Try developing a piece of software for three or more years...and having the BASIC REQUIREMENTS DOCUMENT change the day before implementation...or the even the week AFTER the software goes live (beleive it or not)! I have seen both, several times...this ain't nothin'. Quit your bitching for BTS, if they don't like it they will find a new line of work (I would suggest they stay out of corporate software development though), just as I will if it gets to be too much for me.</BODY>

</HTML>

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

Please note: The above is solely the opinion of 'The Grumbling Grognard' and reflects no one else's views but his own.

Fionn · May 9, 2000

Tom w,

Code is a funny thing. Once you code in that LOS isn't affected by "Live" tanks then creating a special case for "immobilised Live tanks" where they DO affect LOS is just inviting bugs in .

My simple point is that rather than looking at conspiracies etc you should look at CODE. Is it something I'd like to see? Sure.

Will it happen? I think so.

Do I thin Charles should rush to put it in now and run into a whole host of bugs to put in something of such minimal value? No.

Scott,

I wasn't trying to add any useful info to this debate. I was merely making a point as regards the fact that your calls of hypocricy are based on the fact that you think others have ONLY the same info you do. This would be a grossly incorrect assumption.

Ron,

There has been private comment by artillerists and ex-tankers and also behind-the-scenes research by myself which has led to the presentation of facts, opinions and data to BTS who have made a decision which was supported by EVERY SINGLE PERSON who did this research in private.

Scott,

I frankly couldn't give a damn if you have little confidence because this info wasn't given to you for peer review. it was given to some people I actually trust for review and a joint position was reached. That I chose not to show it to you but showed it to two others instead does NOT mean that peer review did not occur.

Peer review DID occur. That you weren't included in the peer review is because of other matters. That I choose not to make this info public is because I'll be damned if you ever see it.

Just so we're all on the same sheet... Peer review is NOT the same as publishing the info on the net and letting everyone in the world see it. I DID conduct peer review. I did NOT let you see it. There IS a difference.

lastly, Bandying the word "Hypocrite" around as freely as you do is the prime reason that I won't let you see ANYTHING I find due to research ever again if I can help it.

You talk to me about circular logic but you should look into the phrase " self-defeating" yourself. Because of your conduct as regards calling people names when they do research you've made sure that I won't ever willingly let you look at anything I do. You've created this situation for yourself Scott and if you'd been a bit more civil and less prone to name-calling and innuendo before I'd have sent you all my info months ago.

Helge,

You should be MUCH more careful about making assumptions like that. Also you should be more careful about saying untruths like that in public.

Some people don't like being, in effect, called liars in public.

Scott,

You vastly underestimate how much of a pain in the ass a lot of posters are. I didn't name names so there's nothing to get upset about just take it from me that there are a LOT of posters who testers and others silently groan at seeing post. Why do we groan? Cause they always bitch about something and come in with their little grudges disguised and just act like 3 year olds all the time.

Now, with that said, enjoy your evening.

May 9, 2000

<HTML>

<HEAD>

<TITLE>Peer review DID occur</TITLE>

</HEAD>

<DIR>

Peer review DID occur. That you weren't included in the peer review is because of other matters. That I choose not to make this info public is because I'll be damned if you ever see it.</DIR>

</DIR>

Yeah, "Its all my fault", right? Otherwise you would have published it long ago, right? Gee, that's convenient.<DIR>

<DIR>

Just so we're all on the same sheet... Peer review is NOT the same as publishing the info on the net and letting everyone in the world see it. I DID conduct peer review. I did NOT let you see it. There IS a difference.</DIR>

</DIR>

Yes, there is a difference. One is the principle of peer review the other is having a handpicked group review hidden data. The later can by no stretch of the imagination be considered "peer review" and if you really think that having a select few, hand-picked people review anything is "peer review" I humbly suggest you do a little research of how it is handled in a more popular area such as scientific research where it has a very, very long history...and review of hidden data by a small unnamed, hand-picked group is NOT "peer review".<DIR>

<DIR>

lastly, Bandying the word "Hypocrite" around as freely as you do is the prime reason that I won't let you see ANYTHING I find due to research ever again if I can help it.</DIR>

</DIR>

Now, isn't that the most mature reaction! But the word that fit the situation as I saw it then is what I wrote. To call it anything else would make myself subject to the same word, although I have conceded that perhaps "inconsistent" would have been better considering the attitude of some posters. But it would have the same meaning in this context IMO.<DIR>

<DIR>

You talk to me about circular logic but you should look into the phrase " self-defeating" yourself. Because of your conduct as regards calling people names when they do research you've made sure that I won't ever willingly let you look at anything I do. You've created this situation for yourself Scott and if you'd been a bit more civil and less prone to name-calling and innuendo before I'd have sent you all my info months ago.</DIR>

</DIR>

For Christ's sale Fionn, GROW UP! "Self-defeating" for what? My sole purpose was to point out a clear "inconsistency" that I saw. I think I was fairly successful. What 'other' purpose are you talking about? Your precious 'research'? Sorry, but I never asked for it. A change to the game? Nope, if you re-read my posts in this thread you see I never asked for that either. So, what are you referring to? Or are you just clouding the issue I brought up? (And you do realize that "self-defeating" has NOTHING to do with circular logic don't you???)<DIR>

<DIR>

You vastly underestimate how much of a pain in the ass a lot of posters are.</DIR>

</DIR>

I think you (and others) vastly under estimate what the real world is like in software development.<DIR>

<DIR>

Cause they always bitch about something and come in with their little grudges disguised and just act like 3 year olds all the time.</DIR>

</DIR>

Like someone saying "I have this, and no I won't tell you about it 'cause it's all you fault, nah!", when no one even asked for it?

I think the point I raised has been made. If some still miss it, then it is my guess they will never get the point. So, it is at this point that I bow-out of this 'discussion'.</BODY>

</HTML>

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

Please note: The above is solely the opinion of 'The Grumbling Grognard' and reflects no one else's views but his own.

[This message has been edited by Scott Clinton (edited 05-09-2000).]

Fionn · May 9, 2000

Scott,

In the game industry where information IS proprietary it IS quite common to share it with only small groups.

Also, I'll note that I shared it with guys I trust and who know their stuff and who aren't about to get all emotive over a topic. These guys KNOW that to hold a position they need to present some form of proof for that position. All in all these guys know the rules, know not to disclose things which might be sensitive AND I actually trust them and have known them each for close to two years and have been doing "cross-checking" with them for almost as long.

THAT is quite a common and accepted practice.

Also, I'll note that when you come up with original findings you can do whatever you want with them. When I come up with such findings I'll deal with them my way.

You don't hear me posting up all the info about OOBs, battleplans etc which others have found for the CMMC. much of it has never before been seen in public.

If you want it then YOU do the research. Until then you can wait until I am god damn well and ready to share it. Whinging at me is no substitute for doing the research yourself.

What am I referring to? Gees, your long-term memory must be blown if you can't remember Scott.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Like someone saying "I have this, and no I won't tell you about it 'cause it's all you fault, nah!", when no one even asked for it?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ah, you didn't ask for it BUT you went on about how decisions based on it were hypocritical.

Stop dodging this with semantics Scott.

I really don't give a damn what you think since I don't trust you or respect you one iota. You feel the same way towards me obviously. Good !

However you should just keep your mouth shut and not keep dragging up the same old **** all the time and then running around like an innocent saying "Oh, but what did I start? I was merely making an innocent point."

You knew exactly what you were doing so stop trying to score points with the "public" and just stop posting about this. I'm sure Steve and others are as tired of hearing about this as I am.

Just quit it ok.

Mark IV · May 10, 2000

O-kay, now we're getting kind of flamey.

Quod erat demonstrandum!

May 10, 2000

Yup

that sounds like a full blown flame war to me...

Lets just say this,

If BIG "IF" , if BTS did manage to model and or simulate (in CM2) delayed fuzes and the ability to "bounce" HE rounds I would have to say that would be the single most incredible feature I have ever seen simultated in ANY game ever. The concept its self sounds to me like an after thought invented in the field by gunners that were (in the heat of battle) willing to take a "fluke" shot or two over the heads of dug in infantry using delayed fuze HE rounds. I'm quite sure that I don't know squat about this concept, I had never even heard of it until reading about it here.

But seriously, how would you attempt to model the behaviour of, or trajectory of, a round that was fired with the intention of bouncing it, in what I would consider a fluke like manner at a dug in target?

It boggles my mind to think the flight path or likely hood of the success (read; odds of kills inflicted here) of this kind of tactic could be simulated or modeled in a video game with any kind of authenticity or accurate relationship to actual historical results at all?

It sure seems to me that it is terribly unfortunate that such an acrimonius flame war has broken out on the eve (I hope) of the release of such a GREAT game over such a dubious and questionable feature as the ability to bounce a fluke shot of HE with a delayed fuze over the heads of unsuspecting infantry?

I'm truly sorry this debate has evoked such passionate disagreement, and yes Scott, I do understand exactly what you are saying with regard to peer review of information which has not been made public and issues with regard to which standard of accuracy of information is required to get a new feature or weapon system included in the game, but Fionn has described all of that and the way he and BTS do it, they have stated the info is not in the public domain, Ok end of story.

Is it possible to resolve it by calling it a draw and suggesting a cease fire?

Scott?

Fionn?

peace....

-tom w

Neutral Party · May 10, 2000

Need to calm down here gentlemen.

Some observations:

1. Bottom Line - it's BTS game and they can do what they like with it.

2. By their previous conduct they have shown beyond all doubt that they are willing in principle to make major modifications to the code. This phase is now (temporarily) suspended because the game is coming out - duh!

3. Almost every thing that can be thought of is infinitely complex. This means there is a constant danger of disappearing down a very deep hole of argument. The urge to follow this path should be resisted.

4. From the point of view of the non-initiate, operationally there is no difference between saying "I have objective and irrefutable objective proof of statement x but I'm not going to show you it" and "statement x is true because I say so". If the object of the exercise is to make the non-initiate feel excluded then this approach succeeds admirably.

5. There is a phase of scientific peer review when only a small handpicked group get to see the data. This occurs when a paper is sent to a scientific journal or a grant proposal is submitted to a funding agency. Only later when the work is published openly do a large number of individuals get to pass judgement on it.

P.S. Some really crap papers get published and some really good ideas don't get funded.

6. IMO most people have neither the time nor the interest to research these minor details and will only care if some weird thing happens - like a plattoon of troops getting wiped out by a n-waffe from half a mile away.

7. It's a ****ing computer game.

Are we there yet ?

Joe

DesertFox · May 10, 2000

Final remark on this matter:

Although someone else claims that this is not the case

I AM NOT SAYING THE UNTRUTH

For me this matter is finished. I´m not discussing with people who descend to such a level of conversation.

Fionn · May 10, 2000

Tom w,

There's a bit of history here.

basically at one point I feel that Scott was extremely rude to me when he demanded research from me and basically intimated that I was making it all up. He did this several months ago.

Now, my position has always been that anyone who asks nicely for something will get the utmost co-operation from me BUT that someone who makes false accusations about me or acts like a total ass and demands stuff from me won't get anything.

Combine that with the fact that I actually had to go to Steve and get him to intervene to stop Scott's email hate campaign ( wherein he sent me emails for days after I'd asked him to stop sending them. This upset me AND my wife (who opened some of his diatribes and read all the hateful things in them).

While I could forgive him perhaps for being a bit of an ass in demanding info I won't forgive him for invading my "private life" and upsetting my wife.

So, as a result of that I'll be damned if Scott EVER sees any research from me which he wants. He's never properly apologised for his stalking and abusive behaviour in those emails and, quite simply, I'm not about to forgive or forget such behaviour.

As many, many people on this forum know I am VERY willing to answer questions which are asked in a civil manner. I answer many such questions privately every day.

That I simply refuse to do so with Scott is simply because he crossed the Rubicon when he sent upsetting emails to my wife. I won't apologise for that and look extremely dimly on anyone who even for one second thinks that Scott's behaviour then was reasonable.

Steve and I don't see eye to eye on this issue but it is something we simply can put behind us as I think Steve knows I'll never change my viewpoint as regards how dastardly Scott's emailing of me privately was. As for Scott... I avoid threads he posts to since I don't want a fight. However, when I do post this inevitably happens.

Neutral Party..

Good points in the main.

one minor clarification I'd like to make is that no-one (even uninitiates) need have anything to fear if they simply ask nicely. IF, on the other hand they demand info rudely and then stalk my family then I'll hunt them down and gut them like the animals they are. I make no apologies for this.

In my opinion whatever fights people have on this forum in NO WAY are a reason for emailing and upsetting people's wives and families and anyone who does so with mine will be looked upon exactly as Scott is looked upon.

So, basically, unless you trakc me down and bombard my home email and my family's emails with abusive mails I won't look on you as I look on Scott. No-one else in my entire history on the net has done this. Scott is in a very elite club of 1 and I don't foresee him ever leaving that club.

I hope I've made my position and reasons for going out of my way to not provide Scott with ANY information clear. I hope that none of you would behave nicely to a man who sent hate letters to you which your wife read and was upset by. This is precisely what happened and why I won't give him the time of day nevermind access to ANYTHING I find.

Fionn · May 10, 2000

Helge,

And how can you know that?

We've known eachother for a fair old time and I've never dicked you around so how can you go assuming that now without any evidence? (puzzled)

May 10, 2000

Wow.....

So much for Peace with honour

I think I'll just duck out now before this gets any

worse than it is

Thanks for the update and history

who is Helge?

-tom w

Fionn · May 10, 2000

Sure, no problem at all Tom.

Like I said there's history and where there's history new guys like yourself sometimes don't understand why certain things will or won't ever happen.

Helge is Desertfox. Helge is his first name. I don't much understand his take on this matter since he's known me for long enough to know that my word is my bond. Ah well, I'm sure I'll found out soon enough someday if he decides to respond in more detail. If not then mox nix.

Username · May 10, 2000

I guess I lose again. Instead of discussing "Bouncing HE Shells" which is a primary armament weapon, everyone needs to dis discuss secondary and tertiary weapons.

I hate to even care but I have never read of one instance of the Nahver..ah....whatever.."panzer meatball thrower" EVER being mentioned in a combat action. Not ever. Even detailed actions like Barkmanns wild ride through american units during the Battle of the Bulge fails to mention it. He even chucks smoke grenades by hand lest he use Fionns Secret Weapon.

I hate to be this way butttttt... this whole secret stash of WWII information that BTS has privy to is just "blowing smoke out the ass".

Fionn if I recall correctly stated that AP ammo with HE burster charges were rare. Thats way back from the "Best of Both Worlds" Thread. Everyone knows that you were wrong as the germans used these to great effect. He claims to have been a tester or something on Panzer Elite. I guess the shermans with 75mm tungsten rounds didnt bother him then either.

Whats your credentials Fionn? I need to know who I am going to publically crush in CM!!!!

Lewis

[This message has been edited by Username (edited 05-09-2000).]

Fionn · May 10, 2000

Do some research and you'll find answers Lewis.

As for the other stuff. I don't even remember saying anything about AP rounds with HE burster charges. What's the URL for that thread?

Username · May 10, 2000

2-23-2000

Best of Both Worlds? Thread

Someone asked about AP ammo with HE capability and you went off on some tear gas tangeant. Pretty lamo.

Still would like to know about your association with Panzer Elite.

Lewis

May 10, 2000

(If you want the truth read...if you don't care skip)

Fionn, you (just as last time) can not let it go can you? I said I was done, I gave up...and you not ONLY must get the last word...you just keep going and going and going... I suppose if I leave town again you will just keep going for another three days again right? And you still don't seem to be able to read my simple posts correctly.

Fionn, "stalking" is a crime where I live. If you continue to accuse me of this (especailly with regards to the net) you had better start showing some proof. As a software developer I will not stand by and allow these lies to continue in a public forum, I have too much invested in my career, I simply can not afford to let you continue with these lies.

> ....Scott was extremely rude to me when he demanded research from me

> and basically intimated that I was making it all up.

This is a LIE; I know exactly which thread you speak of though. I SECONDED another person's desire that BTS (HELLO!!! NOT YOU!!!) PLEASE include THEIR sources in a bibliography for the game. YOU MISS READ THIS...and then went off...for three days. And when it was pointed out to you. No, when your mistake was clearly pointed out to you...you somehow make yourself the martyr (anyone seen this before) and slink off refusing to apologize.

> Combine that with the fact that I actually had to go to Steve and get him

> to intervene to stop Scott's email hate campaign ( wherein he sent me emails

> for days after I'd asked him to stop sending them.

More lame lies, and laughable ones at that. I think I still have Steve's only response to 'us' (after Fionn decided to copy him in on your emails--sad). It said, in effect, he wanted no part of it. The rest I will not post out of respect for him. Would you like to see it again? As for my 'hate' mail I guess you are referring to the THREE emails I sent ASKING you to apologize for no less than SIX postings you made about me (by name--another 4 without naming me directly) while I was NOT EVEN PRESENT ON THE FORUM (out of town)! You happily replied to all three of my emails...and when I called it quits (YES I STOPPED SENDING) you continued with not one but TWO MORE EMAILS! My God man do you live in a fantasyland? Who was 'stalking' whom? Or can't you count?

> ...upsetting my wife.

Bull, I even offered to apologize if she was upset in any way ...all I asked is that you tell me exactly what I said that upset her so I knew what I was apologizing for...you refused. Geeee, wonder why? This offer still stands.

> So, as a result of that I'll be damned if Scott EVER sees any research from me which he wants.

I don't know what to say Fionn. I never asked you for any of your precious 'research'. I even said as much in my last post! My God Man, CAN'T YOU READ??????? The point I made was that while you continue to insist that everyone take you on 100% faith, you ask for multiple, verifiable, concrete examples before you will consider ANYTHING. That seems "inconsistent" to me. This has absolutely NOTHING to do with your providing 'research' on anything...it is the PRINCIPLE of the matter...then again you may have a hard time understanding that word "principle".

> Steve and I don't see eye to eye on this issue...

Geee, I wonder why?

> ...people have on this forum in NO WAY are a reason for emailing and

> upsetting people's wives and families....

Bull, the moderator asked us to take it 'off line'. I did WITH A SINGLE EMAIL ASKING FOR YOU TO APOLOGIZE. You refused...and continued to flame away for another page and a half...my mistake was responding after it was clear you lacked the morals or maturity to admit when you were wrong in flaming someone not even present on the board for three days. Sadly I responded twice doubling my mistake. What is really sad is that you continued to copy Steve in on the damn thing trying to win his support in some way.

I don't suppose you could provide PROOF of any of what you say about me? No, of course not. You never did, never can, and never will. Anyone want to guess why?????????

Fact is people have seen both of us in action around here. Who is most likely to 'go off' for days on end, with flame after flame after flame? Who makes accusations and then refuse to back them up with proof...only to play 'The Great Martyred One' again?

If I am the lair it should sure be so easy to prove... I mean ALL those terrible emails... But don't expect to see any proof anytime soon. Nor any other proof of Fionn's lies about me because they don't exist.

For the record Fionn as long as you refrain from posting lies about me I have no problem sharing this or any public forum with you (as I have done for the last 5 1/2 months). But don't expect me to sit back and take this crap when I you know it is a pack of lies (unless you are truly ill).

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

Please note: The above is solely the opinion of 'The Grumbling Grognard' and reflects no one else's views but his own.

Username · May 10, 2000

Thats all great but can ANYONE tell me where this uberFionn gets his divined information?

Is he some notable author of rarified documents regarding WWII? Is he some hyper-degreed engineer of sorts? Does he have power and wisdom beyond all mystical understanding?

I dunno. He aint talking. I just get the drift that someone needs his bloated ego compiled into a stinking mass of donkey dung.

I am just the wargamer to do it...

Lewis

May 10, 2000

You know... I feel like canceling some preorders. The degree of bitching, insulting, and lack of respect is simply amazing. WHO do any of you think you are? My God, we bust our asses for 3 years creating the most realistic and complex wargame ever, show a clear line of open minded thinking, and then we have a few people go idiotic on us over one MINOR AND HIGHLY DEBATABLE FEATURE.

Look it from our point of view... This is why wargame developers don't like talking to their customers. Because some are just incapable of doing anything but bitching. We would like nothing more than to have such people NOT buy our stuff and go bother some other developer into the wee hours of the night.

We have heard the evidence from both sides. It HE bouncing is an interesting thing, but it is not something that we are going to model. The reasons have been listed, but obviously not listened too. Aside from all else, we have NO CLUE how to simulate the physics of such a thing to even a remote degree of accuracy. So for that reason, and that reason all on its own, there is no point discussing this unless someone can come up with an algorithm to simulate:

The chances of a successfull skip at variable round, at a variable velocity, against variable terrain, in variable weather, at variable angles, at variable range, rising a variable number of meters per second, at a variable angle of deflection. And I am probably leaving out some factors as well.

Until someone can answer the above, we don't want to hear about this ever again. I am serious. It isn't worth our time listening to whining, bitching, and insulting over something as amazingly difficult to simulate, yet probably utterly trivial in terms of combat effectiveness.

Steve

Bouncing HE Shells

Recommended Posts

Guest rune

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest Scott Clinton

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest Scott Clinton

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest tom w

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest tom w

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest Scott Clinton

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest Big Time Software

Link to comment

Share on other sites