ScoutPL Posted October 13, 2000 Share Posted October 13, 2000 There will never be a conclusive argument offered up for any of the things we discuss here. From gamey tactics to who's shorts held more crap, it'll always be a fight. Take any of the topics we've discussed. If you've read anything about the western/eastern/pacific/north african etc. fronts you should know that even the so-called "experts" cant agree on who was the toughest, who was the scaredest, who was the smartest, or "best," etc. How could a bunch of working stiffs and eggheads figure it all out? Not going to happen. I would only consider myself an expert on modern small unit tactics from an american perspective. Because thats what I've lived for the last 12 years. But I still like to debate historical and CM issues. Yeah I may be a little misinformed at times, but its all with good intentions. Just trying to discuss a point. Yeah, I may get a little nationalistic sometimes. Hey, I'm an American Infantry Officer! Would you want someone who was responsible for your sons lives to be anything less then nationalistic in his viewpoints? I am actually very liberal compared to most of my peers. I offer up the continuous threads with democrat-phobia on this board as an example. We've all got drums to beat, and I think it was great that BTS put up this board and has tolerated it for as long as they have. I've ran through more emotions reading this board then anything else outside of my family relationships. Hopefully BTS will continue to support this. I'm still a hard advocate for just one board (yeah Hamster BS and all) but if the powers that be want to move us to the bottom of the page then so be it. We'll continue to rant and rave at each other til the website crashes under our weight. But I think at the end we'll all come away with a sense of fellowship, a little humility, and possibly a little better educated too. What could be finer then that? (Other then a release of TCP/IP for CM of course.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
groundpounder Posted October 13, 2000 Share Posted October 13, 2000 Right! Nods as good as a wink to a blind horse! Where is my white tipped cane anyway? GP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiger Posted October 13, 2000 Share Posted October 13, 2000 I love you maaannnnn...*looks towards ScoutPL's Bud Light*........ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
groundpounder Posted October 13, 2000 Share Posted October 13, 2000 BTW, I'm a vet. I know the deal. I would want someone who leads from the FRONT, not the BACK. Nationalistic has nothing to do with it! Keeping your men and buddies alive while accomplishing the mission is the only imperetive when the rounds start going "crack -thump" in your ears. Just my 2 cents, GP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hamstersss Posted October 13, 2000 Share Posted October 13, 2000 I am not playing devil's advocate nor do I think it would be funny to argue about a post about arguing but I think there's more to it, Scout. You see, the old-line traditional view of history is just as you describe it, all the information is biased and you can only follow the most general trends, making more and more inaccurate abstractions based on them. There is, however, a new school of thought regarding history and the study thereof, and that school wants to treat it like a science, rather than an art. Anyone who has read Guns, Germs and Steel should know whereof I speak. You see, games like CM are the way that these things are set to rest. Basic, impartial information like weapons characteristics, the psychological effects of war and the effect of slope, thickness and quality in armor, are just the start. When we add census information, applied tactical theory, psychological breakdowns of the commanders and individual troops as well as a thousand other tangible, hard-science details, we will finally be able to come to a conclusion. When, twenty years in the future, we watch a total simulation of WWII, at 99.99999% accuracy, we will be able to know, as far as basic human understanding is concerned, what went on. That's why we argue about the numbers and the depth of unit representation, because without ALL of the pieces the simulation is flawed. CM is not and will never be the total simulation I refered to but I propose our attraction to it and games of its ilk is because we see a steady progression toward that goal. So I think that arguing about every aspect of WWII is healthy and commendable, just as I think Steve jumping in here to say, "No, we will not simulate the effects on troops of French food vs. German food vs. rations, dammit and I'm locking this 250-post thread!" is the perfect wrecking ball so that we don't go so far into the argument that we lose our effectiveness in it. Because there are things we can accomplish with these arguments. We will not suddenly hash out the code like an infinite number of monkeys with an infinite number of workstations but, once in a while, we will uncover an unnoticed but necessary and doable addition that will advance us a step in our goal toward producing that total simulation. Human beings are ultimately rational and what we think of as destructive irrationality usually turns out to be sensible actions that have incredibly complex or convoluted goals. ------------------ Did someone compare this to the Ealing comedies? I've shot people for less. -David Edelstein [This message has been edited by Elijah Meeks (edited 10-12-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScoutPL Posted October 13, 2000 Author Share Posted October 13, 2000 I dont know if I should be offended or not GP. Nationlistic fervor, also read as patriotism, is what drives our all volunteer force to join in the first place. I agree with you totally, it has nothing to do with good/bad leaders. I certainly hope I didnt give you the impression I think I'm a good leader because I can recite the pledge of allegiance. I have three years as an EM with 1-504 PIR, a combat jump into Panama, and 8 months in the desert, plus over four years as an officer with 3-505 PIR to fall back on for leadership skills, not to mention my dynamic personality. But I know that's not what you meant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest *Captain Foobar* Posted October 13, 2000 Share Posted October 13, 2000 I disagree with everything that has been said here.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScoutPL Posted October 13, 2000 Author Share Posted October 13, 2000 Meeks, my man.... Was that post for real or just an elaborate joke. No, I'm not trying to flame you, I just cant grasp your concept. You really think a computer game can simulate the fears and anxieties of a company commander in combat? He has to order men forward to certain death. Guys he has trained, coddled, disciplined, joked with and worried over like they were his sons, whether they liked him or not. He lays awake at night going over the plan, the organization, the fire support, trying to find a better way, one that wont cost his company so much. Then the next morning the attack falters and he has to move forward to the point. The PL is dead and the lead squad leader is refusing to move forward. The enemy is strong and its certain death for anyone who crosses that road, that field or that street. He has to make a decision. Does he threaten, cajole, humiliate, go first or just give up and claim the objective unattainable? Every company commander would decide differently and it happened a hundred times a day for weeks, months, years. And each decision decided who won, who lost, who was the best, who was mediocre. Can a game simulate that? I dont think so. Unfortunately I think "computer analysis" (numbers) is beginning to take precedence over "human analysis" (common sense). And it'll be those poor company commanders and their charges that will pay the price. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
patboivin Posted October 13, 2000 Share Posted October 13, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ScoutPL: There will never be a conclusive argument offered up for any of the things we discuss here. From gamey tactics to ...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Well I can answer that one at least. Cries of "gamey tactic!!! Hey you can't do that!!!" occur when one player realizes that the other is winning, therefore he/she must be losing... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuka Posted October 13, 2000 Share Posted October 13, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> I disagree with everything that has been said here.... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I disagree with everything you say, including the things you disagree about and especially the things you disagree about disagreeing about....... ------------------ Torture you? That...That's a good idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hamstersss Posted October 13, 2000 Share Posted October 13, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ScoutPL: Meeks, my man.... Was that post for real or just an elaborate joke. No, I'm not trying to flame you, I just cant grasp your concept. You really think a computer game can simulate the fears and anxieties of a company commander in combat? He has to order men forward to certain death. Guys he has trained, coddled, disciplined, joked with and worried over like they were his sons, whether they liked him or not. He lays awake at night going over the plan, the organization, the fire support, trying to find a better way, one that wont cost his company so much. Then the next morning the attack falters and he has to move forward to the point. The PL is dead and the lead squad leader is refusing to move forward. The enemy is strong and its certain death for anyone who crosses that road, that field or that street. He has to make a decision. Does he threaten, cajole, humiliate, go first or just give up and claim the objective unattainable? Every company commander would decide differently and it happened a hundred times a day for weeks, months, years. And each decision decided who won, who lost, who was the best, who was mediocre. Can a game simulate that? I dont think so. Unfortunately I think "computer analysis" (numbers) is beginning to take precedence over "human analysis" (common sense). And it'll be those poor company commanders and their charges that will pay the price.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Scout, I was trying to trim down your post to the essentials but it's impossible, the damn thing is about as tight as a drum. To answer you, in a word, yes. It won't be a game, either, it will be a simulation. Right now we can't build a computer that can play a good game of bridge (Or go, both incredibly complex games) but with quantum computers and nanotech, this thing will be possible. Couple this with advances in genetics, where we have been finding more and more that cowardice, heroism and other aspects of humanity are more nature than nurture. Add to that a further understanding of chaos theory in relation to weather, which has proven to be amazingly similar to simple societal interactions in social insects and yes, we will have the capability. This is not science fiction, nor is it idle imagination, this is the next step in humanity's attempt to understand it's world. We've started small, with mathematics and basic chemistry, but when Newton showed the math for cannonballs people reacted in the same way as you did, Scout, yet we used that math to put satellites over the world. If Moore's law (Processing power doubles every 18 months) keeps on track, 20 years from now we will be looking at machines on the scale of 10 quadrillion instructions per second, discounting advances in Q-computers. Programming languages will not sit still either and neither will grognards across the world. I may have the date wrong but there is nothing inconceivable about any of this, it's just a matter of putting all the rules into a construct and then standing back. Do I think the human psyche is unknowable? No more than others thought the human genome was unknowable. Do I think that history is unknowable? Only if it relates to matter in a quantum singularity. They won't be able to predict the future for a long time but with all of the yardsticks in history, some of them reliable, some less so, we will be able to tell the past accurately. Imagine someone describing CM to you twenty years ago, a game on the personal computer built by two guys. ------------------ Did someone compare this to the Ealing comedies? I've shot people for less. -David Edelstein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mother Theresa Posted October 13, 2000 Share Posted October 13, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stuka: I disagree with everything you say, including the things you disagree about and especially the things you disagree about disagreeing about....... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I agree with the disagreement part, but I disagree with the things you disagree about disagreeing with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScoutPL Posted October 13, 2000 Author Share Posted October 13, 2000 Meeks, I dont disagree tha the technology wont be there for the eggheads to play with. But have you ever been scared ****less? Ever been around 20 or 30 other guys that were just as scared as you were? I'm sorry but I dont think a computer program can accurately model how those guys are going to react. The historians cant even agree if every rifleman in a particular squad used his weapon or not. The problem with your idea is tha tthe program will be written by humans, which means it will be flawed from the start. Yeah you could come up with a simulation that would figure out, probably very accurately, what would have happened if Hitler had unleashed his armor on D-Day. But one that could simulate what the guys on Omaha were going through, wha they were feeling and how they reacted? I still am not convinced. And no I'm not a naysayer either. I think technology is a wonderful thing. But I have seen many of the negative connotations of a reliance on tech in the military and it makes me wary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deanco Posted October 13, 2000 Share Posted October 13, 2000 wow...very good discussion, you guys. Meeks is rational, ScoutPL mystical. Both present eloquent, convincing arguments. I feel like I'm reading a book by Kundera. Can everything, absolutely everything in the world, be explained by facts? Meeks says yes, ScoutPL no. This is an enigma that's going to be around a very long time (if Meeks is right) or forever (if ScoutPL is right). Me, I go along with Dostoyevski. If we get to the point that Meeks is talking about, I think man will "go crazy for the occaision" just to prove the math wrong, out of spite. I guess that puts me in the ScoutPL camp. DeanCo-- [This message has been edited by deanco (edited 10-13-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chupacabra Posted October 13, 2000 Share Posted October 13, 2000 I'm of the school that thinks that computers will never be able to accurately simulate humans because the way they "think" is fundamentally different from the way a human thinks. Computers think fast, humans think deep. Computers will get faster, brilliantly faster, but unless the way in which computers "think" is fundamentally altered, computers will never, and can never, become smarter. Or more human. ------------------ Soy super bien, soy super super bien, soy bien bien super bien bien bien super super. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick Reece Posted October 13, 2000 Share Posted October 13, 2000 Meeks , You'll be dried dust by the time the day you speak of arrives,if it ever does .And your statement that cowardice is a genetic trait is valid only in the sense that we've all been prgrammed for "fight or flight", since the very beginning.While this is a mutually inherited trait, the differing reactions in times of crisis come from differences in eyesight,intelligence,and many other traits,all which act in concert to give rise to "fight or flight" in a given instant.There is no way a computer or any machine will ever truly simulate that,IMHO. No offense intended here, please don't take any,merely pitching into the discussion. Dick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jadayne Posted October 13, 2000 Share Posted October 13, 2000 isn't this the part of the conversation when someone usually jumps in and says, "don't forget about chaos theory!" ------------------ "Well then private, it must be sh*t. Good thing we didn't step in it." [This message has been edited by Jadayne (edited 10-13-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mannheim Tanker Posted October 13, 2000 Share Posted October 13, 2000 Good point, Jadayne...you beat me to it! It really is relevant, since the computer can simulate - even surpass - the purely logical analytical requirements of decision making performed by humans in combat. The aspect that it has great difficulty in simulating is the emotions of those men making the decision and of the men following the orders. You can program algorithms to simulate the emotions (eg. Panic and Route in CM), but it still is just a logical algorithm simulating the emotions. Until you can program the computer to "feel" the impact of its decision like in the examples that Scout PL gave, you cannot fully simulate combat on a PC. Hell, you can't fully simulate it with real men in training situations. Edit: Note to self...use the new spellchecker! ------------------ "Gun damaged are rare on Shermans because they die like red shirts on Star Trek" - Slapdragon [This message has been edited by Mannheim Tanker (edited 10-13-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tss Posted October 13, 2000 Share Posted October 13, 2000 Elijah Meeks wrote: Right now we can't build a computer that can play a good game of bridge (Or go, both incredibly complex games) but with quantum computers and nanotech, this thing will be possible. There's a lot of strange ideas floating around with respect to quantum computers. During the recent weeks I've delved into the subject for the first time. I don't claim that I understand all about the subject. To tell the truth, on the average I've been boggled a couple of times per page. But one thing that I've understood is that quantum computing is not, in the end, fundamentally different from current computers. Quantum computers may solve some problems faster than classical computers. They may even solve all problems faster but thus far researchers are found only three problems where it is actually the case. No one has been able to prove that no efficient classical method exists for them. And even if quantum computers were always more efficient, that doesn't mean that they are efficient enough. Lets say that there's some problem that takes current computers 10^50 years to solve. Then, suppose that Moore's law holds for 100 years more. The computers will be then 5.3*10^16 times faster than today. The problem will take still 1.8*10^33 years to solve. Certainly a big improvement but I wouldn't want to start that test run. Now suppose that quantum computing reduces the running time to its 10-based logarithm. Then the original running time gets down to 50 years. Woohoo. The above figures do not correspond to any real problem but serve only to illustrate the fact that no matter how fast a computer is, there are still problems that can't be solved in reasonable time with it. On a more fundamental level, Kurt Gödel proved in the 30's that there are questions that cannot be answered at all and these questions stay undecidable even with quantum computers. The interesting question now is that how difficult would a "perfect WWII simulation" be? The easy answer is "pretty helluva difficult" but let's try to quantify it more. Let's consider a 2 km x 2 km battlefield. To get a really good simulation we have to model the world detail to millimeter level (otherwise dust clouds from artillery fire will be wrong). So let's use a 1x1x1 mm cube for the basic building block of the world. It is probably enough to go about 30 meters underground in most cases but we need much more space overhead since otherwise artillery firing trajections will get wrong. To be sure, let's go up to 4.5 km. (This is enough for 60 second flight times). In the end the world simulation will consist of 2*10^6 x 2*10^6 x 4.5*10^6 = 1.8*10^18 cubes. Let's say that someone builds a hardware simulator that can find a new state for one cube using only one instruction. Now we need to know how many state transitions we need for one turn. The best AT guns had a muzzle velocity somewhere along 1000m/s. Let's take that as a guideline. That round will move 10^6 mm/s so we have to use time granularity of 10^-6 seconds. One 60 second turn will then need 6*10^6 state transitions to get a total of about 1.1*10^25 instructions. Current computers can do at most 1*10^9 instructions in one second, so the simulation would take about 3*10^8 years to process one turn. Using the above figure for the computer 100 years in the future, the time drops down to 0.2 seconds. That's certainly fast enough. Most users would be satisfied by 10 second wait. This point would be reached somewhere 90 years from now, if Moore's law continues to hold. Note that the above stuff related only to the computational aspects of the simulation. The model building would be much more difficult and practically impossible without a time machine. - Tommi Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
groundpounder Posted October 13, 2000 Share Posted October 13, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ScoutPL: I dont know if I should be offended or not GP. Nationlistic fervor, also read as patriotism, is what drives our all volunteer force to join in the first place. I agree with you totally, it has nothing to do with good/bad leaders. I certainly hope I didnt give you the impression I think I'm a good leader because I can recite the pledge of allegiance. I have three years as an EM with 1-504 PIR, a combat jump into Panama, and 8 months in the desert, plus over four years as an officer with 3-505 PIR to fall back on for leadership skills, not to mention my dynamic personality. But I know that's not what you meant. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> ScoutPL, No offense meant. I merely was pointing out that Patriotism and such is quickly distilled down to loyalty to your buddies and to the leaders who are the "thrifty" spenders of human lives when your in the middle of the s**t! GP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bobbaro Posted October 13, 2000 Share Posted October 13, 2000 A most intriging discussion; don't see old K. Godel mentioned that often. We understand the elements of our existance in many ways, language being the most noisy one of them. Old K.G rigorously proved that every symbolic system contains a contridiction, if I am putting it rightly, hopefully at least approximately. This is a right inconvienent matter for those who look to being able to someday coming up with a consistant discription of what it is all about. It is not something unanticipated with all the declarations about "Words can never describe - - - ". Anyway, I can't follow old Kurt, having little of that kind of skill, unfortunantly; but, the way it looks to me is that we keep weaving symbolic nets with which to catch an understanding of what is reality to us; yet, no matter how tightly we manage to make the weave, it is still a net and leaks. On the otherhand we do manage to slow the flow and that is useful; if we don't forget to occasionally look down and see the dripping. It is well that we don't have to understand a damned thing to exist, however much a little understanding helps to exist in more comfort and with better satisfaction. To see that this is true, you only have to look to this forum to see individual case examples - - - ----unless one recognises the limitless satisfaction in perverse and often pointless arguement. Observing the currents of human thought as performed through the medium of language, I see a pattern as complex or more so than global weather provides. The eddies swirling about with all directions of flow existing in a contrary, simultaneous continunity, and sweeping along continually changing providing a such a variety of pattern, that the professionals can model it with an infinity of possible mathmatical representations some of which have been constructed. One only needs to read the daily guesses as to what they mean in terms of rain, wind, temperature etc, to know the model's utility, beauty, wonder, and ultimately its futility in final precision. We may draw the net ever tighter, it will always leak. Should we expect that a war should be any different, especially our favorite one? So what is the point? --- to draw the net ever tighter catching smaller and smaller particles regardless of the hopelessness of obtaining final precision. Given the complexity and extent of what WWII was, it seems to me that just about any thesis can be set and proven, if sufficient limit be put on what is considered, whether it be about the details or the outcome. The human mind works that way, just look at this forum. Of course one man's proof is another's poision mild or otherwise. But, we needn't fear the hemlock; but, should embrase it; for, we took the first sip at our conception and sip it each day whether we will or not. We do not die any faster for giving the contrary arguement its due, especially if we pick it for its fiber weaving it with our own into a larger and tighter net. If we should encounter a weaver so in love with his little handkerchief regardless of the holes which he can't see, will not see, just remember he is no different in kind from us; we may have made a whole bolt of weave, but it still has its edges and it still leaks. It might even have a hole in it. We are all brothers in this foolishness. [This message has been edited by Bobbaro (edited 10-13-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snagdad Posted October 13, 2000 Share Posted October 13, 2000 great thread. if I remember anything from the one book I read on chaos theory it is that small differences in input conditions make for very large differences in the results. hence the impossibility (?) of truly accurate forecasts of say, the weather. the resolution of the models cannot and will not ever be able to sufficiently pin down initial conditions in order to predict outcomes accurately. meeks postulates that someday the machines will be able to do this, even encompassing the area of human emotions and psychology. it is a scary thought; at that point we won't have to play the football game because the outcome will be predictable (the analysis to include momentum swings, home field advantage, the cornerback's domestic problems, etc etc). anyone ever see Gattica ? not an exact example but it catches the flavor of the fear. maybe I am a kindred spirit with the original flat earth types, but I don't believe this will come to pass. even more, if it does come to pass I hope I am not around. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMC Posted October 13, 2000 Share Posted October 13, 2000 Things must be different in the 82nd than in the rest of the Army. My soldiers didn't join out of patriotism. Most join for the college money. Some for adventure. Most are patriotic in some way, but it is not a dominant force in my experience. Certainly nationalism is not integral to the success of units in battle. Studies refer back to the primary unit of cohesion being the squad. Soldiers can sustain the rigors of combat because they bond with their squad mates. I would prefer a leader to embody selfless service, loyalty to his troops, and integrity far more than mere nationalism. Note that the Army values don't include nationalism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
groundpounder Posted October 13, 2000 Share Posted October 13, 2000 Well said RMC! This is my point exactly and it is this factor (call it the "Buddy Factor") that should be the predominate force in any TACTICAL simulation. GP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M. Bates Posted October 13, 2000 Share Posted October 13, 2000 I like chocolate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts