Wilhammer Posted October 5, 2000 Share Posted October 5, 2000 Lunch Time Reading Below are all the missing posts from Yesterday. ===================== Originally posted by :USERNAME:: It is BTS' position that the burden of proving the obvious is on the rest of the world? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- If it is so "obvious" why can no one easily show it? It is often funny how something becomes "obvious" when one can not support/prove it... Cav =================================== 10-04-200 12:27 PM Back to the begining of the thread: "For explanation for gun optics for both American and German please check the following web site: http://www.panzerelite.com/ Click on the developer Journal icon and then click on link called "Zeiss Optics" There is a big difference between Allied and German optics and I'm a bit dissapointed that it isn't modelled in CM. This I believe gives the allies a bit of an advantage. Peter" I'm sorry I can't find the thread or the reference but I have tried this tactic before, quoting that exact web page. But Steve and Charles will reply with something to the effect that they refuse to model any optics bonus in their game on what they consider questionable data in another GAME. What we really need here is the actual source of the information in that article. I have read it over myself and think that all that info regarding those German optics should be modeled in CM BUT Steve and Charles (and I think they ae wise to do this) want the source material that that article was based on and some hard data to determine what actaul long range spotting and targeting advantages (if any) should be coded into or modeled with a patch into CM. It is a fair position to take and I don't blame them. But so far I have been at a loss to come up with compelling, accurate, historical refenerences to say that this or that German weapon and optics combination are exactly this or that much more effective than, this or that weapon or site at this specific range. Without those data, or historical references or field tests, I don't really blame Steve and Charles for holding off on this one. UNLESS a case can be made for modeling it as an abstraction, because there are other abstractions in the the game, then why not the long range German optics bonus as an abstraction as well? That is the only logical (?) (slippery yes) position we could advance and it too does not hold much weight because they will say if they model the German optics bonus as an abstraction then some other group of players will DEMAND to know exactly how and why this feature made it into the game, when they have NO historically accurate facts figures or data to even base their abstraction of modeling this bonus on. I don't blame them for refusing to model the German optics bonus on another games (PE) idea's, data or information. I'm still a little frustrated on this one because I don't know where to look to find information to help them model this proposed german optics bonus into the game? -tom w ============================ 10-04-2000 12:45 PM I can´t help it but has anyone of you guys already bothered to try to understand how target pick-up and bracketing in the german tanks worked ? If not I suggest to take a course in german and read through the chapters of the Panther- and Tigerfibel. Pantherfibel: http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Capsule/2930/pantherfibel.htm Tigerfibel: http://www.geocities.com/tigerfibel/tigerfibel.htm Perhaps that could help to bring some light into the dark of this thread BTW: The Wings Team with their Panzer Elite article on german optics is right on spot. Cheers Helge ------------------ Sbelling chequed wyth MICROSOFT SPELLCHECKER - vorgs grate! - The DesertFox - Email: desertfox1891@hotmail.com WWW: http://www.geocities.com/desertfox1891 ====================== 10-04-2000 12:59 PM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by aka_tom_w: Back to the begining of the thread: I'm sorry I can't find the thread or the reference but I have tried this tactic before, quoting that exact web page. But Steve and Charles will reply with something to the effect that they refuse to model any optics bonus in their game on what they consider questionable data in another GAME. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The article can be found at http://www.panzerelite.com/zeiss/zeiss.html. Interesting to note that while those favoring increasing German optics based on this article seem to have over-looked this line in the article, "Variation in gun powder and differences between guns allowed precise shooting under 1000 meters, while those factors added a random element beyond 1000 meters. Shots beyond 2000 meters were considered lucky hits, at 4000 meters pure luck." Cav ========================= 10-04-2000 1:06 PM quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by Ron: Can you explain that comment further? After looking at a few guns and running some tests myself, I never found any % increase for the Germans in ranged fire. Actually because most Allied tanks have a faster ROF and were shooting at larger targets, they ended up being slightly more accurate at range, ie getting more hits. I would be interested in hearing more. Thanks, Ron -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I think there may be a slight misunderstanding here. I'm pretty sure there is no built-in advantage for German guns just because they are German. AFAIK, when a gun fires at a target, there are only 2 things that affect it's accuracy (we're talking CM here, not RL): 1. Muzzle velocity of the gun (higher= flatter trajectory= more accurate). 2. Size or profile of the vehicle being shot at. This assumes both vehicles are stationary and not hull down. Therefore, the 17 pndr will be more accurate than a 75/48, if both vehicles are of about the same size. But in the case of a Firefly dueling a Hetzer, the Hetzer may end up with a better to hit because of it's very low profile. The reason people say that German guns are already more accurate in CM is that most German guns are higher velocity than most Allied. However, this is somewhat mitegated by the fact that some German tanks such as the Panther have a very large profile rating in CM, making them "big targets". ------------------ So maybe you should listen to this Vanir guy instead of ignoring him -- he has the best take on the whole thing. - Combatboy ============================= 10-04-2000 1:07 PM quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by The DesertFox: BTW: The Wings Team with their Panzer Elite article on german optics is right on spot. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Which part of the article? This part: "Shots beyond 2000 meters were considered lucky hits, at 4000 meters pure luck."? Or is this a case of picking and choosing what one wants from an article? Cav ================================ 10-04-2000 1:22 PM quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Variation in gun powder and differences between guns allowed precise shooting under 1000 meters, while those factors added a random element beyond 1000 meters. Shots beyond 2000 meters were considered lucky hits, at 4000 meters pure luck. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Yep, that´s what it was. Just to add some doctrine out of own experience with the Leopard II and it´s laser beam range finder. I guess it´s the same for the M1-Abrams because AFAIK they use the same rangefinding optoelectronics and computer. Doctrine could be different of course. Doctrine is that main fighting distance is considered to be 1500 metres! And above 2500 metres it isn´t sensible to engage any target! Of course it´s possible, but you better wait for a sure kill below 2500 metres. The laser rangefinder is able to aquire targets up to 4000 metres. Beyond 4000 metres target pick-up isn´t possible with laser, you have to use your reticles and judge distance. That is possible but everything else than sensible at this distance. Cheers Helge ------------------ Sbelling chequed wyth MICROSOFT SPELLCHECKER - vorgs grate! - The DesertFox - Email: desertfox1891@hotmail.com WWW: http://www.geocities.com/desertfox1891 ================== 10-04-2000 1:26 PM quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by The DesertFox: Yep, that´s what it was. Just to add some doctrine out of own experience with the Leopard II and it´s laser beam range finder. I guess it´s the same for the M1-Abrams because AFAIK they use the same rangefinding optoelectronics and computer. Doctrine could be different of course. Doctrine is that main fighting distance is considered to be 1500 metres! And above 2500 metres it isn´t sensible to engage any target! Of course it´s possible, but you better wait for a sure kill below 2500 metres. The laser rangefinder is able to aquire targets up to 4000 metres. Beyond 4000 metres target pick-up isn´t possible with laser, you have to use your reticles and judge distance. That is possible but everything else than sensible at this distance. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ummm... isn't this article refering to WWII? ========================= 10-04-2000 1:29 PM The Wing's developer article is interesting, but very poor in its comparison with American optics. It does no comparison as if Zeiss optics are in some vacuum. It only says that American optics were poor (how did we win the war blind?) and that the site provides NO range markers. This assumes you NEED range markers. It explains Zeiss optics, and blast Allied optics WITHOUT any supporting reason to do so. Did they take the word of Germans who said the American optics were poor? Did they pay too much attention to the "Gee-Whiz" comments of GIs? No evidence is presented as to why the American system was poor, if it was poor. I remind you, after the battle prior to Kasserine Pass, the US NEVER lost another battle. We must of been able to SEE the enemy to CRUSH him. The Germans in WW2 were technology dependent to a ridiculous level at times. They trusted machine over man. Technology is NOT always the answer, and too much dependence on it cripples us when it breaks. The question is; depending on doctrine and training, as well as culture, would the different methods of finding and hitting targets mean any real difference? Do American boys, many use to hunting and 'fixin' stuff' without technology (bailing wire and spit) have a disadvantage for not having Zeiss optics? So far, I have yet to see any comparison report or history that attempts to argue and present facts to show if one system is better than the other, only stuff that reports German optics in detail in combination with American optics being called names without reference. Could someone please correct me and show such material? [This message has been edited by Wilhammer (edited 10-04-2000).] ========================== 10-04-2000 1:31 PM Sure it does. But you see that despite use of laser etc.. the distances haven´t changed that much. My above post is only meant as an example how it works today and not as a reference how I think it might have been 60 years ago. cheers Helge ------------------ Sbelling chequed wyth MICROSOFT SPELLCHECKER - vorgs grate! - The DesertFox - Email: desertfox1891@hotmail.com WWW: http://www.geocities.com/desertfox1891 =============================== 10-04-2000 1:54 PM quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by The DesertFox: Sure it does. But you see that despite use of laser etc.. the distances haven´t changed that much. My above post is only meant as an example how it works today and not as a reference how I think it might have been 60 years ago. cheers Helge -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- My point is how can the German optics be so goood if "Shots beyond 2000 meters were considered lucky hits, at 4000 meters pure luck."? So many have hung their hat on this article as "proof" yet it is saying that long range engagments were mostly LUCK! So I guess the question is, did the Germans take out 3,000 meter targets because of their optics or because they were lucky? Cav ============================ 10-04-2000 1:59 PM quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by CavScout: The article can be found at http://www.panzerelite.com/zeiss/zeiss.html. Interesting to note that while those favoring increasing German optics based on this article seem to have over-looked this line in the article, "Variation in gun powder and differences between guns allowed precise shooting under 1000 meters, while those factors added a random element beyond 1000 meters. Shots beyond 2000 meters were considered lucky hits, at 4000 meters pure luck." Cav -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- HI CAv thanks for the e-mail I believe I refered to this article back in the 88 lacking punch thread some time ago. I also am of the opinion I was the first member on this BBS to post that link and discuss its contents... Lets look at this quote... "Because you can see where your shell hit you immediately know if you guessed to high or too low. If you have a good sight to the target you can even judge the exact distance you miscalculated and thus can correct your sight and refire. That's why most experienced crews on German tanks could guarantee a hit on the 2nd shot. Variation in gun powder and differences between guns allowed precise shooting under 1000 meters, while those factors added a random element beyond 1000 meters. Shots beyond 2000 meters were considered lucky hits, at 4000 meters pure luck." I understant the author is talking about first shot hits.. "That's why most experienced crews on German tanks could guarantee a hit on the 2nd shot." I would take that to mean crack and elite German gunners in CM should have a 95% second shot hit percentage, at ranges under 1000 meters. At this time no such percentage is modeled for a second shot hit that I know of for that value for that range in CM. AND when the author says: "Variation in gun powder and differences between guns allowed precise shooting under 1000 meters, while those factors added a random element beyond 1000 meters. Shots beyond 2000 meters were considered lucky hits" EXACTLY what kind of "random element" should come into to play for ranges between 1000 - 2000 meters? I would consider that to be a reference to "FIRST shot hits" over 1000 meters being slightly more random, but still with a MUCH greater chance of a second shot hit because "you can see where your shell hit you immediately know if you guessed to high or too low. If you have a good sight to the target you can even judge the exact distance you miscalculated and thus can correct your sight and refire" This is exactly what is at issue here, High quality German sights and optics really aided those experienced German gunners in seeing where the shot fell and helped them WAY more than the ALlied sights account for the difference of where they aimed and where the shot fell. This should mean that in CM the second and third shot hit probability at ranges under 1000 meters should go WAY up. I find it VERY hard to believe that any Veteran, Crack or Elite German gunner could miss three shots in a row at a large target like a Sherman on a clear day at 1000 meters but it happens in CM alot and when it does and we discuss it here it just comes down to waht is refered to as bad luck. Well I think its bad luck because the third shot hit percentage in targeting the algorythym is not close enough to 100% in my opinion. (apparently my opinion doesn't count for much around here, so I need something MUCH more substanitial to base my third shot chance to hit closer to 100% proposal on!) What are the chances a veteran German crew firing an 88 from a Tiger will miss a Sherm three times in a row at 1000 meters on a clear day? If that number was 1 in 20 (meaning 19 times out of 20 they should get a hit on either their first second or third shot)then the third shot hit percentage should be 95%, I will bet that it is NOT modeled that way in the third shot chance to hit algorythym. But as I have stated before, I think Steve and Charles should not base thier game design decsions on how another game works. But Panzer Elite is a good place to start looking for historical source material... Thanks -tom w ======================= 10-04-2000 2:23 PM "This is exactly what is at issue here, High quality German sights and optics really aided those experienced German gunners in seeing where the shot fell and helped them WAY more than the Allied sights account for the difference of where they aimed and where the shot fell." Prove it. - Wilhammer =================== 10-04-2000 02:28 PM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by aka_tom_w: I would take that to mean crack and elite German gunners in CM should have a 95% second shot hit percentage, at ranges under 1000 meters. At this time no such percentage is modeled for a second shot hit that I know of for that value for that range in CM. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I would disagree as I have come across several articles that at under 800 meters the Germans were unlikely to be using the range finders of their sights. If true, is there any "advanatge" to unsing German optics at sub-800 meter range? Cav ====================== 10-04-2000 2:33 PM Cav, quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- So I guess the question is, did the Germans take out 3,000 meter targets because of their optics or because they were lucky? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Well I think first of all we have to answer one question: Until which distance was it possible for a gunner of a given tank to EXACTLY measure the target distance with help of his optics ? I think we can all agree that all gunners knew their business and could score a hit with at least the 3rd shot if they were able to exactly measure the distance of the target with help of their optics. Now if there is a distance difference between the optics concerning the EXACT measurement of a given target you have the answer IMHO. While one gunner still was able to measure the distance the other guy had to rely on guessing the distance. If you can answer the question which method, measurement or guessing, is the more accurate, you have the answer why one side has a higher propability to hit the target at long ranges. Only problem left is to crunch the difference between guessing and measuring into a hit propability. But this is what BTS business is. Either they make an educated guess after examining the german and US/UK optics, because I doubt that any comparision study with hard figures exists, or they leave it as is. Only problem with leaving it as is will be in CM2 where most engagements were beyond 1200 metres up to 3000 metres and the german optics allowed to exactly measure until 3000 metres (PzGr39), 2000 metres (PzGr40) and 4000 metres (SprGr). I don´t adress other ballistical factors like side wind here, which makes it even more complicated beyond 1000 metres especially for low velocity projectiles. Does anyone know until which distance the US/UK optics allowed exact measurement of distance ? Cheers Helge ------------------ Sbelling chequed wyth MICROSOFT SPELLCHECKER - vorgs grate! - The DesertFox - Email: desertfox1891@hotmail.com WWW: http://www.geocities.com/desertfox1891 =============================== posted 10-04-2000 02:45 PM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "Does anyone know until which distance the US/UK optics allowed exact measurement of distance ?" What abour eyeballs and experienced (or natural talent) dead reckoning? What was the Coax MG for? Was it not used to determine range and direction? -Wilhammer ================================= posted 10-04-2000 02:50 PM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by aka_tom_w: But Panzer Elite is a good place to start looking for historical source material... -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Once again: Simon Fox posted a rather interesting-sounding reading list in this very thread. Don't know how you missed it. IP: Logged ====================== CavScout Member posted 10-04-2000 03:04 PM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by Wilhammer: "Does anyone know until which distance the US/UK optics allowed exact measurement of distance ?" What abour eyeballs and experienced (or natural talent) dead reckoning? What was the Coax MG for? Was it not used to determine range and direction? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The bigger question in comparing optics of weapon systems is to compare EQUAL systems. German guns may have better long range sights because they were better long range guns. IP: Logged ======================= Mr. Johnson-- Member posted 10-04-2000 03:08 PM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Great debate guys. Gore and Bush wish they were this entertaining. I just think that the only way we can all answer these questions once and for all is to pool all of our money together(BTS must be millionares by now) and buy an island in the South Pacific. We can call it Wargamer's Paridise. We can build tank, rifle, gun optics, and ammunition factorys. Everyone works 5 days a week building historical accurate weapons and on the weekends we play wargames, with real tanks that we've all built. We can reproduce tank gun optics, switch them around in diffrent tanks, shooot them on the move...etc. We will have all of the answers we seek sooner or later. We will all go deaf but man It sure will be fun. IP: Logged ====================== CavScout Member posted 10-04-2000 03:17 PM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by The DesertFox: Cav, Until which distance was it possible for a gunner of a given tank to EXACTLY measure the target distance with help of his optics ? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I think more important is at what range did a gunner START to use the range finding device. Beyond that range is when you would worry about "optical" sight quality. quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Now if there is a distance difference between the optics concerning the EXACT measurement of a given target you have the answer IMHO. While one gunner still was able to measure the distance the other guy had to rely on guessing the distance. If you can answer the question which method, measurement or guessing, is the more accurate, you have the answer why one side has a higher propability to hit the target at long ranges. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- If all other things were equal, perhaps. But we know this is not the case. Even if German and Allied optics were EXACTLY equal, the Germans, for the most part, would be more accurate because their guns fired in such a way as to be more lenient because of round trajectory. quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Only problem left is to crunch the difference between guessing and measuring into a hit propability. But this is what BTS business is. Either they make an educated guess after examining the german and US/UK optics, because I doubt that any comparision study with hard figures exists, or they leave it as is. Only problem with leaving it as is will be in CM2 where most engagements were beyond 1200 metres up to 3000 metres and the german optics allowed to exactly measure until 3000 metres (PzGr39), 2000 metres (PzGr40) and 4000 metres (SprGr). I don´t adress other ballistical factors like side wind here, which makes it even more complicated beyond 1000 metres especially for low velocity projectiles. Does anyone know until which distance the US/UK optics allowed exact measurement of distance ? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- So I take it you are no longer debating for better optical QUALITY in German sights but for a better range finder? Cav =================== Wilhammer Member posted 10-04-2000 03:23 PM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "The bigger question in comparing optics of weapon systems is to compare EQUAL systems." Oxymoronic statement. We are comparing Weapons Systems, to consider apart without its interaction with the whole is to cause error. The Question, as I understand it, is "How well could the various combatants, relative to each other, at various ranges, using similar but diffirent technologies in similar weapons systems, hit a target?". To consider just the optics is to ignore the question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slapdragon Posted October 5, 2000 Share Posted October 5, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PzKpfw 1: I'd also add that no one here has sugested that the Gyro be removed, somewhere down the line, the Gyro example has been misinterpted from its original intent, the Gyro was used as an example of quantification, where some feel BTS set stricter standards for quantifing optics then what was used to include the gyro. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Again, you missed the point of 40 or so posts by BTS I and others. It is not up to BTS to prove to you that optics had no effect, it is up to you to quantify and prove to them they did. Otherwise my example of crew nutrition could also be brought up, cancelling out the German Optics advantage. After all it is logical that better optics don't help if your eyes are worse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilhammer Posted October 5, 2000 Share Posted October 5, 2000 Slappy, You are on the verge of being funny, very funny. I will take it up. "Should we factor in the nutritious eyeball factor?" Sure, I bet the US Quartermaster records will show us how many carrots were deliverd to the front. A trip to the national archives is in order. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aka_tom_w Posted October 5, 2000 Share Posted October 5, 2000 HI CavScout thanks for the e-mail I believe I refered to this article back in the 88 lacking punch thread some time ago. I also am of the opinion I was the first member on this BBS to post that link and discuss its contents... Lets look at this quote... "Because you can see where your shell hit you immediately know if you guessed to high or too low. If you have a good sight to the target you can even judge the exact distance you miscalculated and thus can correct your sight and refire. That's why most experienced crews on German tanks could guarantee a hit on the 2nd shot. Variation in gun powder and differences between guns allowed precise shooting under 1000 meters, while those factors added a random element beyond 1000 meters. Shots beyond 2000 meters were considered lucky hits, at 4000 meters pure luck." I understant the author is talking about first shot hits.. "That's why most experienced crews on German tanks could guarantee a hit on the 2nd shot." I would take that to mean crack and elite German gunners in CM should have a 95% second shot hit percentage, at ranges under 1000 meters. At this time no such percentage is modeled for a second shot hit that I know of for that value for that range in CM. AND when the author says: "Variation in gun powder and differences between guns allowed precise shooting under 1000 meters, while those factors added a random element beyond 1000 meters. Shots beyond 2000 meters were considered lucky hits" EXACTLY what kind of "random element" should come into to play for ranges between 1000 - 2000 meters? I would consider that to be a reference to "FIRST shot hits" over 1000 meters being slightly more random, but still with a MUCH greater chance of a second shot hit because "you can see where your shell hit you immediately know if you guessed to high or too low. If you have a good sight to the target you can even judge the exact distance you miscalculated and thus can correct your sight and refire" This is exactly what is at issue here, High quality German sights and optics really aided those experienced German gunners in seeing where the shot fell and helped them WAY more than the ALlied sights account for the difference of where they aimed and where the shot fell. This should mean that in CM the second and third shot hit probability at ranges under 1000 meters should go WAY up. I find it VERY hard to believe that any Veteran, Crack or Elite German gunner could miss three shots in a row at a large target like a Sherman on a clear day at 1000 meters but it happens in CM alot and when it does and we discuss it here it just comes down to waht is refered to as bad luck. Well I think its bad luck because the third shot hit percentage in targeting the algorythym is not close enough to 100% in my opinion. (apparently my opinion doesn't count for much around here, so I need something MUCH more substanitial to base my third shot chance to hit closer to 100% proposal on!) What are the chances a veteran German crew firing an 88 from a Tiger will miss a Sherm three times in a row at 1000 meters on a clear day? If that number was 1 in 20 (meaning 19 times out of 20 they should get a hit on either their first second or third shot)then the third shot hit percentage should be 95%, I will bet that it is NOT modeled that way in the third shot chance to hit algorythym. But as I have stated before, I think Steve and Charles should not base thier game design decsions on how another game works. But Panzer Elite is a good place to start looking for historical source material... Thanks -tom w Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilhammer Posted October 5, 2000 Share Posted October 5, 2000 "This is exactly what is at issue here, High quality German sights and optics really aided those experienced German gunners in seeing where the shot fell and helped them WAY more than the Allied sights account for the difference of where they aimed and where the shot fell." Prove it. - Wilhammer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilhammer Posted October 5, 2000 Share Posted October 5, 2000 The Wing's developer article is interesting, but very poor in its comparison with American optics. It does no comparison as if Zeiss optics are in some vacuum. It only says that American optics were poor (how did we win the war blind?) and that the site provides NO range markers. This assumes you NEED range markers. It explains Zeiss optics, and blast Allied optics WITHOUT any supporting reason to do so. Did they take the word of Germans who said the American optics were poor? Did they pay too much attention to the "Gee-Whiz" comments of GIs? No evidence is presented as to why the American system was poor, if it was poor. I remind you, after the battle prior to Kasserine Pass, the US NEVER lost another battle. We must of been able to SEE the enemy to CRUSH him. The Germans in WW2 were technology dependent to a ridiculous level at times. They trusted machine over man. Technology is NOT always the answer, and too much dependence on it cripples us when it breaks. The question is; depending on doctrine and training, as well as culture, would the different methods of finding and hitting targets mean any real difference? Do American boys, many use to hunting and 'fixin' stuff' without technology (bailing wire and spit) have a disadvantage for not having Zeiss optics? So far, I have yet to see any comparison report or history that attempts to argue and present facts to show if one system is better than the other, only stuff that reports German optics in detail in combination with American optics being called names without reference. Could someone please correct me and show such material? [This message has been edited by Wilhammer (edited 10-04-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slapdragon Posted October 5, 2000 Share Posted October 5, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jeff Heidman: Still waiting for SlapAndTickle to provide those funnly little numbers things for gyros, infantry experience bonus to firepower, odds of friendly fire incidents, increase in time for artillery strikes for inexperinced spotters, ability of scattered trees to provide cover to some number of men (and the QUANTIFIABLE difference between those scattered trees and brush), and the other dozens of examples of where CM has decided to go ahead and provide modifiers to combat results without QUANTIFIABLE data as to the real world effectiveness of those elements. Not interested in your theories about how John and I are closet Nazis, or how we hate science, or how brilliant you are when you treat your students like your personal ego booster. Just the numbers that you are so fond of demanding, and, of course, your source for those numbers. Jeff Heidman<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> You do not understand. I think the game works correctly because no one has proven otherwise, so I stand by it. It is up to you to come up with numbers that prove the game wrong, not the other way around. As for my students -- Jeff, starting a flame war is juvenile. My student like me or not -- it does not matter to this board. Please grow up and contribute something useful beside getting this board locked down. You and John are not closet Nazis. I suspect that you own a book or two on German armour, and are used to the German advantage in other games. With CM not having as extreme (or any) bias to Germans winning, it makes it difficult for you to play -- thus the attempt to rebalance the game. Being a Nazi is different that being members of the "Germans always win crowd" which I define as, 1) Use of unreasoned argument and selective anecedote in arguments. 2) unfailing alliegience to German superiority. 3) Usually, very poor reading skills vis a vis reading other posting critically. 4) Resorting to flames or threats when called on the above. By this definition you are clearly in the "Germans always win" camp. That does not make you a Nazi though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PzKpfw 1 Posted October 5, 2000 Share Posted October 5, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slapdragon: Again, you missed the point of 40 or so posts by BTS I and others. It is not up to BTS to prove to you that optics had no effect, it is up to you to quantify and prove to them they did. Otherwise my example of crew nutrition could also be brought up, cancelling out the German Optics advantage. After all it is logical that better optics don't help if your eyes are worse.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> SD I did not miss the point, if anything I think you have missed mine, its not my job to prove anything, I am pointing out a diferent POV on this subject one that has not been to my satisfaction adressed by you or BTS. As to the study, compareing POW health to frontline combat troops is subjective in itsself, as typicly POWs were undernourished as a rule, for extended periods of time they were placed in camps and fed barely the daily nutritional requirement if fed at all as rations were never in supply to feed them as their was no provision for supplying rations for POWs, rations were suplied to troops on the daily return requirements submitted by the units, these did not include POW numbers. Ie, the Germans still claim over 350,000 German POWs starved to death in US & UK camps. So my question on the report is what was the daily ration intake for each POW examined from the day of captivity till the day of examination and was their deficency condition in fact not a result of their diet or lack of while in captivity. Regarda, John Waters ------------------ Notice: Spelling mistakes left in for people who need to correct others to make their life fulfilled. [This message has been edited by PzKpfw 1 (edited 10-05-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilhammer Posted October 5, 2000 Share Posted October 5, 2000 Basic Rules on presenting an argument and earning respect while doing it. 1. Never get angry. 2. Never get angry. 3. Unless you know something to be true, and have taken an objective look at the "facts", avoid making conclusions. You will almost always be wrong 4. Facts are almost always irrelevant when stood up against belief. 5. Changing people's minds is VERY difficult. 6. Never get angry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slapdragon Posted October 5, 2000 Share Posted October 5, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PzKpfw 1: SD I did not miss the point, if anything I think you have missed mine, its not my job to prove anything, I am pointing out a diferent POV on this subject one that has not been to my satisfaction adressed by you or BTS. As to the study, compareing POW health to frontline combat troops is questionable, typicly POWs were undernourished as a rule, for extended periods of time they were placed in camps and fed barely the daily nutritional requirement if fed at all as rations were never in supply to feed them as rations were suplied to troops on the daily return requirements submitted by the units, these did not include POW numbers. Ie, the Germans still claim over 350,000 German POWs starved to death in US & UK camps. So my question on the Surgeon general report is what was the daily ration intake for each POW examined from the day of captivity till the day of examination and was their deficency in fact not a result of their diet or lack of. Regarda, John Waters <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> But that is the point. BTS does not have to prove anything to your satisfaction, they would never make any games if that was the case. Some of your arguments on the nutrition are very valid, but they usually swing the other way. German POW nutrition went up for German POWs -- but the report says, "nutrition effects on vision are long lasting, so despite several months of better rations in the prison camp numbers still reflected lower visual acuity". Still, I do not believe that nutrition is a big enough factor to model because I don't think (ie. can't find) anyone who tested it more than abstractly. Like the optics argument it is not fleshed out enough UNLESS BTS accepts pure anecedotal evidence. The 350,000 POWs deaths never happened. 10-15 thousand died in 1945 due to a flue epidemic, but in 1945 Allies were just taking in and discharging enlisted men without holding them. Interestingly, 350,000 of them, who were listed as taken from the prision rolls. This number is what revisionist try to use -- mostly the same revisionists who argue that the massacre of Jews by Nazis was a myth. Unlike the Jewish deaths, which almost 3 million have been tallied by name and linked to a death camp, rolls of Nazi POW deaths in 1945 can never talley more than 10000 on the US/UK side (although there is evidence that maybe a 100000 died in Soviet hands.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aka_tom_w Posted October 5, 2000 Share Posted October 5, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Wilhammer: The Wing's developer article is interesting, but very poor in its comparison with American optics. It does no comparison as if Zeiss optics are in some vacuum. It only says that American optics were poor (how did we win the war blind?) and that the site provides NO range markers. This assumes you NEED range markers. It explains Zeiss optics, and blast Allied optics WITHOUT any supporting reason to do so. Did they take the word of Germans who said the American optics were poor? Did they pay too much attention to the "Gee-Whiz" comments of GIs? No evidence is presented as to why the American system was poor, if it was poor. I remind you, after the battle prior to Kasserine Pass, the US NEVER lost another battle. We must of been able to SEE the enemy to CRUSH him. The Germans in WW2 were technology dependent to a ridiculous level at times. They trusted machine over man. Technology is NOT always the answer, and too much dependence on it cripples us when it breaks. The question is; depending on doctrine and training, as well as culture, would the different methods of finding and hitting targets mean any real difference? Do American boys, many use to hunting and 'fixin' stuff' without technology (bailing wire and spit) have a disadvantage for not having Zeiss optics? So far, I have yet to see any comparison report or history that attempts to argue and present facts to show if one system is better than the other, only stuff that reports German optics in detail in combination with American optics being called names without reference. Could someone please correct me and show such material? [This message has been edited by Wilhammer (edited 10-04-2000).] <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Good Post, and good qestions I agree with you that it is difficult to quantify what we are suggesting as and advantage that we believe the german gunners had as a result of better optics. It is beginging to prove impossible, and I agree the onus is us to prove and present some valid historical data. I do not have any numbers, I've been called a "slack ass poster boy" because I have no numbers (working on it though) BUT..... I would say these four factors should modeled when constructing the second and third shot chance to hit algorythyms for the high velocity German main weapons like the 88 1. better smokless gunpowder leads to better observation of where the shot fell if it missed. 2. high velocity rounds traveled in a flatter and more predictable trajectory 3. multi times zoom capable clear high quliaty German gunnery optics let gunners see where the shot fell 4. Experience of the crew the quote above (if it is to be believed) says ""Because you can see where your shell hit you immediately know if you guessed to high or too low. If you have a good sight to the target you can even judge the exact distance you miscalculated and thus can correct your sight and refire. That's why most experienced crews on German tanks could guarantee a hit on the 2nd shot." I would say in CM Verteran Crack and Elite crews should not only perform more quickly and efficiently but have a higher second and third shot hit percentage, to account for thier years of gunnery experince in adjusting for where the shot fell, short or long. AND Lastly in the case of the land based flak 88 with the donkey eared range finders (standard equipment, off to the side) a better long range first shot chance to hit should be modeled. -tom w Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slapdragon Posted October 5, 2000 Share Posted October 5, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Wilhammer: Basic Rules on presenting an argument and earning respect while doing it. 1. Never get angry. 2. Never get angry. 3. Unless you know something to be true, and have taken an objective look at the "facts", avoid making conclusions. You will almost always be wrong 4. Facts are almost always irrelevant when stood up against belief. 5. Changing people's minds is VERY difficult. 6. Never get angry.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Beautiful, but it will go unread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Heidman Posted October 5, 2000 Share Posted October 5, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slapdragon: First off Jeff- your "start a flame war and get the subject locked down" strategy is silly. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> First off SlippySlap, your constant lies about the motivations of people you have never met is not jsut silly, it is insulting and shows a lack of self control on your part. You and yours started the flames. Quit sniveling about it when theya re returned. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> 1) No one has presented data that is quantified the advantage of German optics, if any. If and when someone quantifies the results so that they can be coded, and backs up that quantification with more than "my german tanks should never miss" whining, then I bet BTS will code it. As it is, there is no way to do it because it appears that it may be a small variable whose presence or abscense will not effect things. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> More lies from the SlapMeister. Please provide the quote where someone said "my german tanks should never miss". Do you know what a quotation mark means? <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> 2) Other variables could also be coded -- crew nutrition, work space, weapon wear, etc, but are not because like optics, there is not enough data to make them change accuracy, and they are not supported well enough in even subjective data to include, just like optics. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> There is ample subjective data to suggest that optics might have had some effect on gun accuracy. You attempt to falsley equivocate is obvious. You keep changing your demands. Try to stick to quantifiable evidence, since that is the sticking point. If you think there is equivalent subjective evidence for the inclusion of other factors, make that argument. But I am not talking about those things, now am I? Sorry if I decline to take up your strawman argument <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> 3) The construct of green to vet to crack is a subjective construct over an objective scale based upon research into firing habits - moving habits, etc. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Exactly. It is subjective. Just like the construct of superior optics is subjective by its very nature. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> It is arbitary in its construct but it is a useful construct due to the fact that it allows us to buy units. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> buying units has nothing to do with it. Another SlipperyTickle attempt to draw the arguemnt away from the point. We are talking about firepower effectiveness using experience level as a variable. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Here I would say reread my previous post, but it was written at a 10 grade level, when it probably should have been written at an 8th (where newspapers write by the way). <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Perhaps you should have shoved it where the sun doesn't shine instead? The point remains. Please provide the QUANTIFIABLE data. You cannot, and continue to use ad hominen and obfuscation. You previous point refused to answer the question, just like this one does. AGAIN, PLEASE PROVIDE THE QUANTIFIABLE DATA THAT SHOWS THAT A VETERAN INFANTRY SQUAD HAD 10% GREATER FIREPOWER AT A RANGE THAN A REGULAR INFANTRY SQUAD If you cannot, concede the point. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> 4) John did question the inclusion of gyros, so it was answered. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Liar. He questioned on the basis of YOUR demanded criteria. Now you are desperately holding on to that instead of actually adressing the issue. So address it. PLEASE PROVIDE THE QUANTIFIABLE (those little number thingys) DATA FOR THE EFFECT OF A GYROSTABILIZER ON GUN ACCURACY. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> 5) It is up to you to prove the game is wrong, not BTS to constantly prove you are wrong. No amount of flames will change that. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Funny how you, Scoutboy and Steve whipped out the napalm and claimed everyone who disagreed with you was a german loving, anti-science conspiracy, and now you whine and cry about flames. I agree that the burden of providing evidence rests on thsoe asking for a change. But you and BTS are demanding a level of evidence that is impossible to obtain regardless of the validity of the claim, and then refuse to apply that same standard to other aspects of the simulation. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> ...bet BTS will also be happy to read it, but by this point the amount of ignorance and fear in the "Germans always win" group has probably tainted there reading of this thread.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> You sir, are a liar. What is worse is that you KNOW you are a liar, and yet continue to lie anyway. The level of intellectual dishonesty you willfully display is astounding. Ignorance and fear. That is a riot. Yes, we are all just terrified of your stature and intellectual elitism. If you had half the intelligence you think you do, you would be four times smarter than you have shown yourself to be. Jeff Heidman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilhammer Posted October 5, 2000 Share Posted October 5, 2000 POWs, what an issue. Huge damn issue. Germans went rushing to the West because they knew they would get better treatment than the Soviets would hand out. German POWs spent much of the time in the US or Canada, and many got work release and became farm hands, etc. In Louisiana, a national disgrace was exhibited when German POWs were allowed access to facilites that were denied to Black Soldiers. Horrible. The Germans killed, tortured, and worked to death, and starved all Slavic prisoners, unless the conscripted them on the West Front, in which case they were fodder and labor. The Russians probably still have German prisoners, and Italians, and Spanish, and others, along with piles of the dead in mass grave sites. War is horrible, ain't it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aka_tom_w Posted October 5, 2000 Share Posted October 5, 2000 wow.. Hey Jeff do you really need to shout? Come now In some place's raising your voice can be considered an act of violence, and I think we model enough of that on the battle field that we don't need it in here. Could this not be considerd the "chamber of sober second thought" perhaps a scholarly discussion to try to make this great game better. I find the name calling a flaming here rather distasteful, but it seems to just go with the subject matter around these parts, I guess Anyway... please, lets stay positive and constructive -tom w [This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 10-05-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilhammer Posted October 5, 2000 Share Posted October 5, 2000 Adding to my "Rules of the Argument" with these corollary; 1.Name calling, even if you think it is deserved, will always cause your argument to be consdidered withour merit. 2. No one is stupid. They may lack facts or research, but they are not stupid. How else could thet play CM? Come on guys, let's avoid the Ad Hominim barbs and stick to the argument. If you think someone's point is dubious, logically state why and provide damn good reasons. Calling folks liers, etc, is destructive and contributes nothing but animosity. Also, it takes two to tango, so if you are the subject of a misunderstaning or verbal attack, try not to join into the fray. Can we all kiss and make up? "Just the facts, ma'am" Joe Friday. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slapdragon Posted October 5, 2000 Share Posted October 5, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jeff Heidman: You sir, are a liar. What is worse is that you KNOW you are a liar, and yet continue to lie anyway. The level of intellectual dishonesty you willfully display is astounding. Ignorance and fear. That is a riot. Yes, we are all just terrified of your stature and intellectual elitism. If you had half the intelligence you think you do, you would be four times smarter than you have shown yourself to be. Jeff Heidman<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Jeff, debate like an adult or not at all. Repost the above lacking the flames and I will reply. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Heidman Posted October 5, 2000 Share Posted October 5, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slapdragon: You do not understand. I think the game works correctly because no one has proven otherwise, so I stand by it. It is up to you to come up with numbers that prove the game wrong, not the other way around. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I specifically stated that I think the way that BTS models the examples I cited was just fine. I am making no effort to show that there is a problem with the examples cited, I am pointing out your ignorant and willfull refusal to apply your standards consistently. You know this though. You just refuse to address the point me and John have made time and again, and decide instead to intentionally misread the point in an effort to avoid addressing it. So, once again: PLEASE PROVIDE THE QUANTIFIABLE DATA THAT SHOWS WHY VETERAN SQUADS GET A 10% FIREPOWER BONUS OVER REGULAR SQUADS You claim that there cannot be a optics bonus without a quantifiable model. Please tell me why that criteria is not applied to something else. You won't, but I'll keep pointing out to everyone your insistence on dishonesty. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> As for my students -- Jeff, starting a flame war is juvenile. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Well, duh. So why did you and yours whip out the Napalm? Why do you continue to use ad hominen instead of making an argument? Whya re you such a whiny baby when someone has the audacity to treat you the way you treat others? <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> My student like me or not -- it does not matter to this board. You and John are not closet Nazis. I suspect that you own a book or two on German armour, and are used to the German advantage in other games. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The Germans did have some advantages. The Allies had some advantages also. The entire point of a wargame is to model those factors. As far as your students go, you brought it up. Quick sniveling when someone calls you on it. Go get a tissue or something. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> With CM not having as extreme (or any) bias to Germans winning, it makes it difficult for you to play -- <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> How can you spout this crap with a straight face? I happen to win about 70% of the PBEM games I play. I am not sure, since I do not care, but I imagine I play Allies as much, if not more, than I play Germans. Hate to burst your bubble and all. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> thus the attempt to rebalance the game. Being a Nazi is different that being members of the "Germans always win crowd" which I define as, 1) Use of unreasoned argument and selective anecedote in arguments. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> So, then you, Steve, and Scoutie all qualify. Go on. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> 2) unfailing alliegience to German superiority. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Then me and John certainly do NOT qualify. Can you provide me some examples of this unswerving allegiance outside the scope of this thread? Didn't think so. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> 3) Usually, very poor reading skills vis a vis reading other posting critically. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Possibly one of the more stupid things I have seen you post, and that is not trivial. And, as with #1, you fit the description perfectly. Example: the entire gyro/infantry/friendly fire examples. You still do not get the point. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> 4) Resorting to flames or threats when called on the above. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Replay response immediately above. Fits you to the T. You flame, and then cry like a two year old when someone flames back. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> By this definition you are clearly in the "Germans always win" camp. That does not make you a Nazi though.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Your definition is quite simple, and has nothing to do with anything logical or scientific. Anyone who makes an argument you are incapable of responding to in a meaningful manner is a "German always wins" proponent. This is right up there with your recent racist bull**** you spouted off when you got spanked in THAT argument. You make Lewis look like a genius. Jeff Heidman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilhammer Posted October 5, 2000 Share Posted October 5, 2000 Jeff and Slappy need to do PBEM, Hellcats vs. Tigers. Jim Lehrer can moderate. ============ Hmmm. A new ladder setup. 2 guys decide they want to play and another guy sets up the battle. This can't possibly be an original thought, but it is an interesting idea. [This message has been edited by Wilhammer (edited 10-05-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Heidman Posted October 5, 2000 Share Posted October 5, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slapdragon: Jeff, debate like an adult or not at all. Repost the above lacking the flames and I will reply. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Damn that is funny. Coming from the guy who claims that anyone who disagrees with him is alternately racist, a Nazi, or anti-science. But gosh, he has never flamed anyone, oh no. You will not respond because you are incapable of responding. Now you are going to try to climb up on a pedastil as a way of avoiding the need to respond. Hardly surprising. I am certianly sorry that this has devolved into this kind of mess, but I am absolutely not going to take responsibility for it. That lies completely with SlippySlap and Steve. When someone calls me stupid, or repeatedly intentionally ignores points I make in a reasoned manner while responding with lies and flames, I am going to call him on it, and I feel no need to be nice about it. SlippySlap has repeatedly lied, so I will call him a liar. He has repeatedly flamed and used ad hominen and strawmen to avoid the points made in a reasoned and intellectual manner. He has dragged this down to his level, and now is looking around with bemusement like he is Mr. Innocence, and some people are actually buying it. Amazing. Jeff Heidman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slapdragon Posted October 5, 2000 Share Posted October 5, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jeff Heidman: Your definition is quite simple, and has nothing to do with anything logical or scientific. Anyone who makes an argument you are incapable of responding to in a meaningful manner is a "German always wins" proponent. This is right up there with your recent racist bull**** you spouted off when you got spanked in THAT argument. You make Lewis look like a genius. Jeff Heidman<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Again I will repeat: Jeff, debate like an adult or not at all. Repost the above lacking the flames and I will reply. As for Infantry- reread my previous post were I explained how it was arrived at. I will rewrite one for tonight at an easier reading level -- honestly it is written "above the heads" of some people -- a good argument should occur at an 8th grade reading level and that was definately much higher -- and hence not understood. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilhammer Posted October 5, 2000 Share Posted October 5, 2000 Jeff, Please drop it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Heidman Posted October 5, 2000 Share Posted October 5, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Wilhammer: Jeff and Slappy need to do PBEM, Hellcats vs. Tigers. Jim Lehrer can moderate. ============ Hmmm. A new ladder setup. 2 guys decide they want to play and another guy sets up the battle. This can't possibly be an original thought, but it is an interesting idea. [This message has been edited by Wilhammer (edited 10-05-2000).]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I'll PBEM anyone who wants to. Not sure what it would prove thought. SlipperySlapper would still be a liar, even if he spanked from here to Berlin. Jeff Heidman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slapdragon Posted October 5, 2000 Share Posted October 5, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jeff Heidman: Damn that is funny. Coming from the guy who claims that anyone who disagrees with him is alternately racist, a Nazi, or anti-science. But gosh, he has never flamed anyone, oh no. You will not respond because you are incapable of responding. Now you are going to try to climb up on a pedastil as a way of avoiding the need to respond. Hardly surprising. I am certianly sorry that this has devolved into this kind of mess, but I am absolutely not going to take responsibility for it. That lies completely with SlippySlap and Steve. When someone calls me stupid, or repeatedly intentionally ignores points I make in a reasoned manner while responding with lies and flames, I am going to call him on it, and I feel no need to be nice about it. SlippySlap has repeatedly lied, so I will call him a liar. He has repeatedly flamed and used ad hominen and strawmen to avoid the points made in a reasoned and intellectual manner. He has dragged this down to his level, and now is looking around with bemusement like he is Mr. Innocence, and some people are actually buying it. Amazing. Jeff Heidman<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Jeff, no one called you stupid (I admit to calling lewis stupid though), I called your arguments stupid. I did say you did not read posts and resorted to flames when loosing, that is still so. I did say you were in the "Germans always win group", which is, by my definition, equally so. Since cognition requires repetition: Debate like an adult or not at all. Or better yet, bring in some data instead of flames. I really am trying to rewrite a discussion of categorical systems design at a lower reading level to make it accessable. It was read and not understood by you, thus I need to rewrite it using more accessable language. I will in fact do so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilhammer Posted October 5, 2000 Share Posted October 5, 2000 Looks like we got a game! I will gladly set up one for you both, just ask. I will have some time late tonight. You can send me the movies and I can write the AAR. I will design the parameters, you will make your purchase, and maybe can have some fun with the "Slappy and ThickHeidman Show"! Gotta laugh. Serious leads to a heart attack. [This message has been edited by Wilhammer (edited 10-05-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts