CM 2 And Snipers

[Croda]

Originally posted by SirOscar:

...Is not CM2 to based on small unit combat on the EASTERN FRONT, not on the entire battle of Stalingrad...

Thank you sir!

Everyone wants to make monster alterations to the game engine just to accomodate Stalingrad. I say "TO HELL WITH STALINGRAD!" Ok, maybe that's a bit strong, but out sewers, out snipers, out NKVD killing their own. CMBO's beauty is in replay ability. Pigeon whole CM2 towards city fighting and you lose some of that.

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

Woot! - Maximus2k

Stick around while the clown who is sick does the trick of disaster.

You are quite correct, but sniper is an easier term to use than 'Semi-regular soldier hiding out and shooting enemies unawares.' - wwb_99

The New CessPool

I AM CRODA, ENEMY OF THE SCIENTIFIC PROCESS, EVOLUTIONARY PROCESS AND REPRODUCTIVE PROCESS. PETERNZ OWNS MY SIG FILE AND MY MEAGRE SOUL: ANY REASONABLE OFFER ACCEPTED

[Philistine]

My $.02,

1st: Logically, I would think that the "random" (or really any) type of sniper should only be available to the defender in an attack or assault game. Only there would the sniper have the ability to scout the land and choose an appropriate sniping position and get there unobserved.

2nd: I don't think that the time-frame/scale of CM lends itself well to snipers. A CM game generally represents the very end-game of a battle. Essentially all of the pre-manuvering and set-up has taken place (off-screen) and the CM game represents the "pointy end of the stick." It seems to me that a sniper is really more effective either before or after a CM battle, but not during.

Frankly, if I'm taking fire from a two squads and a machine-gun, I probably won't notice a sniper's shots. I just don't think they were either common enough or effective enough in the CM-type of engagement to warrant their inclusion.

If you really care, take an elite sharpshooter...

With regard to the whole numbers argument.... wow. Guys, can't we disagree without calling each other names or impugning knowledge, education, and maturity? A bit of this from both sides, it seems... I kinda liked Croda's group hug to finish the issue.

--Philistine

[Mannheim Tanker]

Originally posted by Philistine:

With regard to the whole numbers argument.... wow. Guys, can't we disagree without calling each other names or impugning knowledge, education, and maturity? A bit of this from both sides, it seems... I kinda liked Croda's group hug to finish the issue.

--Philistine

HUGGGGG!!!!

The "elite sharpshooter" solution seems to be a good compromise. Having cellars, snipers, etc would be good for scenario designers, but I agree that most battles could do without them. Bottom line is more coding = greater delay before we see CM2!

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

"As for Croda's spelling it was unlikely to be unintentional since he tries to put the ass in everything." - Simon Fox

[Michael Dorosh]

The answer to all this is quite simple. BTS buys the rights to Deer Hunter, redoes the engine to make it Russian Sniper, and makes a zillion bucks.

I like the point made about the likelihood of even spotting a sniper (or hearing one) in the midst of a firefight. Something to strongly consider, and I think now that snipers would be most dangerous and effective in situations outside the scope of our little game - ie quiet areas.

[lcm1947]

Now see what you started Sir Wamers Kahlenberg. Just kidding. Boy, what an interesting thread. And all this time I actually thought snipers did play a big role in that battle. Extremely interesting and enjoyable story Jason. I learn something new everytime I get on this forum.

[jasoncawley@ameritech.net]

Once more into the breech my friends.

Mannheim Tanker, with a plea that my posts are too long to read, and Ace, with the excuse that he just arrived and hasn't read what I've written, each repeat the argument that I must have assumed I had exhausted all the factors, otherwise my math doesn't follow.

Sorry, I didn't make any such assumption, and the math still follows. I would only need that assumption - or the related one Mannheim Tanker talked about earlier, that each of the factors was equal in size - if I wanted to deduce from them, an *equality*, rather than an inequality.

But I didn't need those assumptions, and I didn't make them, and the conclusion still follows. I was preserving the truth of a "less than" statement. You can do more things when that is the claim being made, than when claiming an equality.

There can be as many factors as you like. They can have any relative sizes you like. So long as 4 of them are greater than the sniper one, the less than 1/5th conclusion, still follows. It is just math. See the proof in my long previous post if you need every step justified from the axioms of arithmetic.

The objections of others will be addressed seperately, in order to keep this post short enough to be read by Mannheim Tanker and Ace.

[jasoncawley@ameritech.net]

To Peter, and Michael, and German-Boy, and Londoner -

None of your did your homework assignment. I am so dissappointed, I thought you would perform wonders. But once again, everybody is too darn smart to need to do homework assignments.

The paragraph in question was stated once, pointed out a second time, repeated verbatim in quotes a third time, and then after that didn't work, assigned as homework, and none of you wrote it done. The first sentence of the paragraph was, and I quote -

"It is doubtless vain to parcel out the various contributions, but it would go something like this."

Am I quoting Mr. Dorosh? No. Am I quoting PeterNZ? No. Am I making up some new reaction, long after the fact? No. I am quoting my own opening line in the very same paragraph that set you all off.

Mr. Dorosh accused me of a pretence of exactness. This may have reflected his heartfelt view than numbers are always out of place in history. But all of you (many honorable exceptions to be sure - thanks Croda, among others) simply assumed that the charge was just, that I had in fact made such exact claims. And I simply never did. And you were so happy crusading against numbers in history, that you never bothered to go back and see that I hadn't, despite my repeatedly calling it to people's attention.

And every time I disputed some less defensible claim - as the claims that I had made a mathematical error, or that I was talking about casualties, or that my conclusion did not follow because not all factors had been accounted for, or that I had assumed all the factors named were equal - every time I responded to these unfounded criticisms, you all assumed that I must be crusading for the exactitude of 1/5th.

Or something. Just what you were pretending I was saying, is a little vague you see, since I hadn't said it in the first place.

Some of you made the principled argument that numbers should be banned from history, or are only allowable if they are exact. tss was a little more careful and restricted himself to the lesser claim, "exact enough" or some such fudge.

And I defended putting wide ranges of numbers on things. I defending making true deductions, even when the horrid little crawly things, numbers, are involved. But I did not pretend any exactness in doing so. Instead, Mr. Dorosh pretended that I had so pretended, and then criticised me for it. And the rest of you just went right along with that charge, like a ton of bricks, without looking to see if it was true.

I have thus been in the position of having half a dozen would-be dons screeching at me that "it is doubtless vain to parcel out the various contributions", without being aware that I already said so. Indeed, portending every sort of real life and professional doom, and lack of credibility, and obvious foolishness, for not saying - what I had already said.

And no matter how many times I instructed you to go look for yourselves, and react to my actual statements (instead of Mr. Dorosh's unflattering mischaracterization of them), you all ignored the request, and went blithly on, laboring under the comforting illusion that it could never have entered my head to see or say such a thing, without the help of your enlightened flagellations.

You even had the help of people like Terence and Croda coming along, assuring you that you had missed the point. You seemed a little mollified, as long as your point should prevail and the accursed heathen who threatened it were duly chastised. But it never occurred to you that the accursed heathen - said it first.

[Mannheim Tanker]

You might as well save your breath, Jason. There is nothing left to discuss regarding your numbers, since you'll argue for the sake of argument . Seeing as you're STILL missing the entire point of the "Numbers" discussion/debacle, I'll just let sleeping dogs lie with that issue. I've grown weary of even trying to have a rational discussion.

If you have any comments regarding the inclusion of snipers or modification of sharpshooters, on the other hand, I would be interested in hearing those. This time, however, please keep the insults in the Pool, so we can have a productive discussion here.

BTW: I have no problem reading a lengthy dissertation, but only if it adds to the discussion. Your first posting was quite compelling; the subsequent novels have been less than appealing, however. You know, most of the parrying and thrusting going on has been rooted in the headstrong, arrogant behavior you have displayed. I've freely admitted that you've made some good points, but you refuse to show any sign of humility. Michael Dorosch was big enough to apologize for his earlier tone; your response was to crank it up a notch. You surely need to learn some people skills, if that's the same approach you take IRL.

[This message has been edited by Mannheim Tanker (edited 03-22-2001).]

[jasoncawley@ameritech.net]

And thus, the Mannheim Tanker, without admitting the slightest possible error in his previous charges about what I must have assumed, retires a little ungracefully from the field.

Adieu good sir. It was a pleasure, and you were one of the very few brave enough to actually state a claim that could be falsified. One drop more of courage, and you'd overflow, admit the trivial mistake, and there would be no field to retire from, but perfect amity.

[Mannheim Tanker]

Originally posted by jasoncawley@ameritech.net:

And thus, the Mannheim Tanker, without admitting the slightest possible error in his previous charges about what I must have assumed, retires a little ungracefully from the field.

Adieu good sir. It was a pleasure, and you were one of the very few brave enough to actually state a claim that could be falsified. One drop more of courage, and you'd overflow, admit the trivial mistake, and there would be no field to retire from, but perfect amity.

Hehe...I'd hardly call it retiring ungracefully from the field. More like growing weary from dealing with a headstrong juvenile. I'll let you have the last word (you WILL have it), as it's surely coming. Some day, Jason, you'll learn that knowing more isn't always knowing better. And the last word is...

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

"As for Croda's spelling it was unlikely to be unintentional since he tries to put the ass in everything." - Simon Fox

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Mannheim Tanker:

Hehe...I'd hardly call it retiring ungracefully from the field. More like growing weary from dealing with a headstrong juvenile.

Amen.

I can't even bring myself to read the latest round. Sorry I brought it up, everyone.

"As for Croda's spelling it was unlikely to be unintentional since he tries to put the ass in everything." - Simon Fox

[PeterNZer]

JC, your numbers, are fine (in isolation, rather like Croda). But, to use another metaphor (shock horror), rather like trying to quantify how good last night's shag was by her measurements and your girth, level of innebriation and the volume of noise produced in the engagement. ie. PRETTY POINTLESS.

Actually, I think the above proposition would make some worthwhile study for some chicago students, I'm sure many a fascinating conclusion would appear that sage-like profs would nod over.

JC, can you not admit that your numbers added nothing to the debate at all? Nothing that wasn't already clearly outlined in your first posts. I guess I just don't understand why you bothered unless you thought they did. That is, unless you enjoy typing extremely long posts for the hell of it. I guess this is an option. I am honestly baffled.

Anyway, Croda, as my Hamster Looser, get onto some formula for me. ta.

PeterNZ

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

- Official owner of the sig files of Dalem, Croda and JeffShandorf -

Der Kessel scenario design group

Combat Vision movies

[Mannheim Tanker]

Originally posted by Philistine:

My $.02,

1st: Logically, I would think that the "random" (or really any) type of sniper should only be available to the defender in an attack or assault game. Only there would the sniper have the ability to scout the land and choose an appropriate sniping position and get there unobserved.

2nd: I don't think that the time-frame/scale of CM lends itself well to snipers. A CM game generally represents the very end-game of a battle. Essentially all of the pre-manuvering and set-up has taken place (off-screen) and the CM game represents the "pointy end of the stick." It seems to me that a sniper is really more effective either before or after a CM battle, but not during.

Frankly, if I'm taking fire from a two squads and a machine-gun, I probably won't notice a sniper's shots. I just don't think they were either common enough or effective enough in the CM-type of engagement to warrant their inclusion.

If you really care, take an elite sharpshooter...

With regard to the whole numbers argument.... wow. Guys, can't we disagree without calling each other names or impugning knowledge, education, and maturity? A bit of this from both sides, it seems... I kinda liked Croda's group hug to finish the issue.

--Philistine

I've been giving your ideas a lot of thought (well, not THAT much, but enough). You bring up some good ideas in regards to the scale of the battles that CM is attempting to recreate, temporally and spatially. Your points could equally be applied to operational recon (as opposed to the fine-scale, last minute, tactical recon that we all strive to perform in our battles). This provides a good litmus test for determining whether historical units/actions really "belong" in CM2.

[Guest Ace]

Originally posted by Mannheim Tanker:

Without knowing with any reasonable certainty which is the truth, your fuzzy math brings nothing to the debate.

Ahhh, fuzzy math... Reminds me of a recent election somewhere south of the 49th...

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

That 75mm howitzer's AP rounds had about as much chance of penetrating the panther as I have of penetrating Pamela Anderson. - wwb_99

1 SRSHOASEU would change the whole fate of one section of the city

[Guest wwb_99]

Well, seeing as I am gaining places in immortal taglines, as well as being loaded, I must comment.

Jason: One thing I learned early on in my college days was that if you were going to argue from conjecture, as opposed to fact, you must keep it short and sweet. Always remember the audience has better things to do than read your piece. Not to mention who the hell are you to be assigning homework assignments. . .

In general, numbers apply to arguments when hard, factual figures can be applied. Which is generally not the case in military history.

And on SRSHOASEUs, well, they were there, and they contributed an unquantifiable amount of hell to the horror which the other combatants were already undergoing.

That is all. Continue on.

WWB

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

Before battle, my digital soldiers turn to me and say,

Ave, Caesar! Morituri te salutamus.

[jasoncawley@ameritech.net]

Who, to be giving out homework assignments? Why, I am the one that was being lectured on the mores of academe, science, my future career, and sundred other subjects, by folks who thought they were informing me of something I had blatantly missed, even including actual alleged errors of arithmetic, who had said everything sound in what I was being lectured about before I even began the exercise ("It is doubtless vain to...")

And why? Because Mr. Dorosh was good enough to not pay any attention to what I said, and mischaracterize it uncharitably, and then the rest of the whole sick crew just assumed his characterization must be so, without reading what I wrote. Despite my repeated calls for them to do so, and my actually quoting it, twice. So far, one man confessing his "bafflement" has been the only result.

To PeterNZ, I am pleased that you have stated your situation so honestly. And believe me, I am quite sympathetic to it. You can hardly imagine why I would bother to speak of literal relative weights, when I was capable of writing, at the very point of doing so, "doubtless it is vain to..." etc. And you have been laboring for quite some time under the impression, that whatever Mr. Dorosh and company ascribed to me as motive or claim made, must be so.

But in the second of those, you have simply been misled by another person's slander or misunderstanding, nothing more. As several others have observed for you along the way, Terence and Croda and others, I did not claim too much for my little numbers. In fact, I called them a vain errand, before anyone else mentioned the least limitation about them.

I certainly claim the right to play with numbers whenever I please, and I certainly claim that the manipulations of numbers I performed, did not violate the rules of logic, as some claimed. Since I was assailed by people who questioned me about both, and by people who pretended I had claimed things I had not, who ignored my previous words and my repeated calls to read them again, I was certainly not going to claim that all of my critics were paragons of virtue and insight.

But your puzzlement remains. Why on earth would you have made the number analysis in the first place, knowing that "it is doubtless vain to..."? Everyone is ready to ascribe to me a motive of claiming ridiculous exactitudes. Everyone is ready to ascribe to me a penchant for showing off. Everyone is ready to ascribe to me closedness against all reason. Naturally, since after all Mr. Dorosh mischaracterized my claims, and they believed them. But none of the above can explain the mysterious motive, that could lead a man to give a numerical analysis, that he himself had just pronounce "doubtless vain". Why on earth, indeed?

Because somebody asked.

You see, gentlemen, I do not come here and write things in this forum to try to appear smart to you. I don't know you, for one. And I do not have any trouble appearing smart to everyone I've run into since I was five, because I am. There is no boast in that, it is simply factual. I have never cared about, because frankly there is no novelty in, what people think of my head.

I come here and I write things, because I am trying to be helpful to people asking honest questions, questions they do not know the answers to. Sometimes I don't either. Then I go look.

I don't care about the other would-be experts on this forum, or impressing them. I could care less. But the people who want to know something, something they know they do not already know, I simply and plainly want to help. So when such a question is asked, I answer it.

In another thread, another fellow said as a form of criticism, that what he liked about having me here, is that I made him look humble. I am glad to be of such service sir. I wasn't aware that the fellow in question, was in any particular danger of not appearing humble, but for my services.

Oh, and I am stubborn too. But you've probably figured that part out.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by wwb_99:

Well, seeing as I am gaining places in immortal taglines, as well as being loaded, I must comment.

Jason: One thing I learned early on in my college days was that if you were going to argue from conjecture, as opposed to fact, you must keep it short and sweet. Always remember the audience has better things to do than read your piece. Not to mention who the hell are you to be assigning homework assignments. . .

In general, numbers apply to arguments when hard, factual figures can be applied. Which is generally not the case in military history.

WWB

Oculus Tauri.

I really must say, I admire the way you post when loaded. I usually use font size 48, bold, italicized and underlined, which I realize isn't possible here, but would probably have settled for all-caps. You, on the other hand, are a paragon of admirable restraint.

This thread reminds me too much of work (you'll have to excuse me, I'm loaded on cold medicine right now). A 72 year old lady coded on the ward, and because the family wouldn't sign a piece of paper saying to just let her go peacefully, the code team rushed to her room and tried in vain to revive her. She was already gone, but only after much undue commotion.

Today upon a midnight, dreary, while I ponder - weak and weary,

Over many a quaint and curious posting, devoid of any gore,

While I nod off, nearly napping, suddenly comes at me a yapping,

As of some one rudely crapping, crapping on my fresh washed floor.

"Tis just a math man," I mutter, "yapping on and on - oh, what a bore! - A simple boor, and nothing more."

Ah, distinctly I now recall, it was in the recent Fall,

And each seperate forum posting had fresh thrills over which we all did pore.

Eagerly, I wished the morrow - time was scant, one had to borrow,

But for that I was in sorrow - sorrow deep into my core.

For the time to read was lacking, and board threads full were always packing -

Packing full with stuff galore.

And the fun and funny postings of each educated person,

Thrilled me - filled me with fantastic stories never heard before.

And so now, we've come to this, and so, I sit repeating

"Spare me please the math and fractions -

Give me tales of men in action,

Blood and guts mean so much more."

But here our fun grows smaller, numbercrunching's getting taller,

"Man," says I, "where's the beef at? I want the facts! I do implore!"

But the fact is we have none here, simple guesswork, decimals outpour,

All we have to read here? "Jason says!" Or there's the door!

That's what we have - and nothing more.

[This message has been edited by Michael Dorosh (edited 03-23-2001).]

[Mannheim Tanker]

Never mind...no point in kicking the horse, as some people are too stubborn to open their eyes. Thanks Croda.

[This message has been edited by Mannheim Tanker (edited 03-23-2001).]

[Croda]

I think I'm going to put into a call to the DeadHorse.

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

Woot! - Maximus2k

Stick around while the clown who is sick does the trick of disaster.

You are quite correct, but sniper is an easier term to use than 'Semi-regular soldier hiding out and shooting enemies unawares.' - wwb_99

The New CessPool

I AM CRODA, ENEMY OF THE SCIENTIFIC PROCESS, EVOLUTIONARY PROCESS AND REPRODUCTIVE PROCESS. PETERNZ OWNS MY SIG FILE AND MY MEAGRE SOUL: ANY REASONABLE OFFER ACCEPTED

[jasoncawley@ameritech.net]

And thus those who started the whole thing in the first place, retire with one of the last possible arguments, that those they have assailed without basis, have been long-winded in defending themselves.

Everyone is supposed to think I started it, when somebody else did. Everyone is supposed to think I made everything a matter of numbers, when somebody else made that the whole issue. The flame war is all the fault of the man flamed.

Incidentally, I was told at the outset that my description of the battle was "spot on", and that even the disliked conclusion was "valid". It was only numbers that were objected to, and incidentally only 2 of them.

I wrote 25 paragraphs on the battle of Stalingrad, and I mentioned the width to breath of the city, the length of time for various things to happen, several numerical descriptions of areas and distances, one numerical referrence to nutrition, and dozens of comparative "several", "large", "few", raised prices and lengthened times, extreme this and increasing that, none of which bothered anyone a bit. But horror of horrors, in 25 paragraphs of narrative, 2 of a dozen (that's 12) numbers offered, did not make sense to some of our dear readers.

Therefore, I supposedly leave all the human history out of war and waste everyone's time with stale numbers, while those who start useless flamewars over that exact subject and keep on after it like energizer bunnies, are poets and heroic martyrs to the human drama of war. You can tell, because they cared so much more for my narrative, than for the 2 numbers they didn't "grok". Right?

[This message has been edited by jasoncawley@ameritech.net (edited 03-23-2001).]

[Michael Dorosh]

I think perhaps what upsets you most is that while we agreed with your regurgitation of Stalingrad's history, expertly culled from either your reference library or your memory, we disagreed with the only thing you could actually claim sole authorship to - the questionable numbers.

Most of all, though, I found your juvenile reaction to this entire episode most offensive, and quite revealing.

Before Simon Fox hits me with a stick, I'll stop - I really do think you are quite bright, Jason, but if you don't watch it you'll end up like Jon Gawne. If you want to know what I mean, you're free to email me. I certainly wish you no ill will, but I'll respectfully say that you have some growing up to do.

Being well respected in this community is quite important to you - we all feel the same way.

But respect is earned - not given, and certainly not demanded. And sometimes, its even lost entirely.

[Guest Germanboy]

Originally posted by jasoncawley@ameritech.net:

You can tell, because they cared so much more for my narrative, than for the 2 numbers they didn't "grok". Right?

Hmm, so at the University of Chicago tehy dig people who don't get the difference between descriptive and analytic? Why does that not surprise me.

Well Jason - you did not get a single of my arguments, and you never will, because you are too smart for your own good. You have a lot to learn.

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

Andreas

Der Kessel

Home of „Die Sturmgruppe“; Scenario Design Group for Combat Mission.

[Guest Germanboy]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

But respect is earned - not given, and certainly not demanded. And sometimes, its even lost entirely.

That about sums it up.

For the record Jason - I did not retire in the face of your arguments or your dazzling intellect (yeah right...), but in the face of your ignorance, unwarranted arrogance and narrow-mindedness. You simply don't get it.

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

Andreas

Der Kessel

Home of „Die Sturmgruppe“; Scenario Design Group for Combat Mission.

[jasoncawley@ameritech.net]

No sir, what upsets me most is that the entire thing is based on a complete fabrication, an imputed meaning or intent (to be exact, etc) that I explicitly denied in the very paragraph that set you and others off. You have been slandering me, but arguing against a straw position of your own contruction, despite repeated calls upon you (and others) to examine and react to what I actually said. This has been pointed out to you, several times, by others as well as by me. You haven't taken the slightest notice of any of them, and have persisted in the lie that I made claims of exactness I never made, which others acknowledge I never made, and which I have proved I never made. And I don't give a damn what you think of anything, because I consider you - to put it delicately - inclined to prevarication in your favor in the heat of debate - but I am interested that others see that I have not said, the things you persist in attributing to me, for your own rhetorical purposes.

[This message has been edited by jasoncawley@ameritech.net (edited 03-23-2001).]

[jasoncawley@ameritech.net]

To German Boy -

"It is doubtless vain to parcel out the various contributions, but it would go something like this."

"It is doubtless vain to parcel out the various contributions, but it would go something like this."

"It is doubtless vain to parcel out the various contributions, but it would go something like this."

Who said it? Did you teach it to me? Did MR. Dorsosh? How many times do I have to quote the qualifications I made before I even began the exercise, before you will acknowledge that I made them?