"SMG GAP" A Proposal...Take 2

[Battlefront.com]

Lewis,

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Theres something about the simultanity of many weapons at once. It denies proper response and spotting.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So very true. The player and TacAI can really feel this when done right in CMBO. Ever been in a situation where there were so many things shooting at you that you didn't even know where to start in terms of counter measures? I am sure there are players out there that, when presented say 5 targets to 1 unit, don't prioritize well and instead waste precious firepower on the wrong targets. The TacAI can do this as well, which is partly by design

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>That gives me an idea. What about 'losing spotting'. The spotting ability of a unit would depend on the number of enemy firers in relation to the friendly firers.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I forget why, but ID degrading is not possible with the current system. It doesn't have much to do with Absolute Spotting, IIRC, but rather how the system is coded. Degrading will definitely be a part of the engine rewrite and the introduction of Relative Spotting (where it will work MUCH better than with Absolute).

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I dont know if its available or possible but I think it would be great if BTS put together a field trip to some kind of MILES school. Take along the employees and actually see the amount of baffling confusion and mayhem that 'real as it gets' training demonstrates.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

We might get the chance to do this. We were invited down to watch armor maneuvers in Texas, but the timing was really bad for us (TCP/IP patch IIRC).

Well, at least we are going to have some fun with live firing WWII Eastern Front small arms. On the menu are the following... Maxim 1910 HMG, DP LMG, PPSh SMG, MG42 LMG/HMG, MP28 SMG, MP34 SMG, MP40 SMG, MP43 AR, Kar98k RIFLE, and a Czech VZ-37 HMG. Nice to have a friend with over 100 full auto weapons only a few hours away Too bad he JUST sold his Soumi M1931 and got rid of his Beretta 38/44 a while ago. Also stinks that he doesn't have any ammo for his Lahti 20mm AT gun at the moment! But I guess firing some Western Front stuff will help dull the pain

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Another spotting thing I want to bring up. Would it be possible to severely limit spotting by units that are firing? Especially beyond the range of their targets? Believe me. When in a firefight, you have little cares beyond what you are firing at. Especially when it is firing back at you.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is already in there, but of course Absolute Spotting can obscure this fact if there are a lot of units around.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Another spotting tweak could be a limit on the number of units you can spot/ID. Perhaps the IDing could get poorer with each additional one?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is not possible because there is no facility in the code to have "memory" like this. I also don't think this would be realistic unless time was factored in, which makes it more tricky to implement (even if we could right now).

HOWEVER, we already added an extra FoW level which means none of your units will ever fully identify an enemy unit. Unit type, Experience, and other ratings will remain unknown when this feature is on.

Steve

[ 07-14-2001: Message edited by: Big Time Software ]

[Username]

quote:

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

Another spotting tweak could be a limit on the number of units you can spot/ID. Perhaps the IDing could get poorer with each additional one?

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

"This is not possible because there is no facility in the code to have "memory" like this. I also don't think this would be realistic unless time was factored in, which makes it more tricky to implement (even if we could right now)."-Steve

Well yes its unrealistic now I think too. Its at one end of a scale to me. I am thinking of an abstraction to bring it away from that extreme. But as you say, its in the code.

My main concern is the number of russian units sharing info. A general reduction in spotting (for the russians) to offset sharing is tricky too I suppose.

Would it be possible for the different sides to have different levels of FOW? Say the russians have to use the new super-FOW and the germans had the present "full" FOW?

I always wanted to play the AI (in non arty intensive games) with full FOW for me and no FOW for the computer. It would give him a chance I thought.

Lewis

[ 07-14-2001: Message edited by: Username ]

[Battlefront.com]

Lewis,

As you say, both the way it works and the way you propose have their problems. Hate sounding like a broken record, but Relative Spotting offers the solution.

I remember once you saying that it was "unfortunate" that we went with a modified Absolute Spotting system instead of going whole hog for Relative Spotting. I hope that you, and everyone in general, can not see why we didn't. It will affect practically EVERYTHING in a not so subtle way. We expect to spend months on implementing Relative Spotting and the stuff it touches upon. Just too much to bite off for the first engine.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Would it be possible for the different sides to have different levels of FOW? Say the russians have to use the new super-FOW and the germans had the present "full" FOW?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't think this would be fair since even in 1941 Soviet battlefield intelligence was, in general, superior to the Germans. I know spotting and intelligence levels aren't the same, but whacking the Soviets simply because they in theory might have more units is not a good idea. What *will* factor in is that spotting is based on the Experience level of the unit doing the spotting. So, in theory, the Soviets fighting in 1941 will have a poorer ability to spot German units, and spot them correctly, because they will be Conscripts for the most part. The Germans on the other hand will be Regular or Veteran on average, which widens the gap. It also, for example, keeps the gap between Romanian and Soviet forces smaller too.

Steve

[Username]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software:

I remember once you saying that it was "unfortunate" that we went with a modified Absolute Spotting system instead of going whole hog for Relative Spotting. I hope that you, and everyone in general, can not see why we didn't. It will affect practically EVERYTHING in a not so subtle way. We expect to spend months on implementing Relative Spotting and the stuff it touches upon. Just too much to bite off for the first engine.

Steve<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think everyone, including yourself, can see the present (CMBO) "spotting" as "unfortunate" (but thats hineysight). I CAN see that RS is a difficult undertaking, noone really has done it, and it remains to be seen if BTS can pull it off (I am sure that as customers move to 1+GHz systems, it can be done).

Why you "would hope that we could not see why you didn't" needs to be explained by you. (Ahem, double negative?)

Anyway. My only concern is if the present system can be optimally tweaked for CM2. I like the downgrading of IDing especially and even had a recent thread that proposed this. I dont recall you posting in it though. To Recap: My main concern was not spotting, but rather IDing. I feel that IDing, such as infantry calling out the make/model of tanks, should be dumbed down to the point of generica. Not that some guy in the infantry squads couldnt make a Tiger from a PIV with skirts, but that his info shouldnt be in the group database (the player). Same thing with tanks spotting infantry types. Perhaps you might even consider this behaviour (I understand its already in the game) for regular/vets.

Anyway, I like the new FOW and downgrading of most inf's to green/conscript. My only scenario designed for CMBO had green US inf supported by Conscript armor. Not that the armor was a bunch of civilians but that in the context of the game (they faced no german armor), I wanted them to be cludgey to model poor inf/armor coordination. They still just kicked ass.

Lewis

[ 07-15-2001: Message edited by: Username ]

[Battlefront.com]

Lewis,

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I think everyone, including yourself, can see the present (CMBO) "spotting" as "unfortunate" (but thats hineysight).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No more so than any other wargame ever made.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I CAN see that RS is a difficult undertaking, noone really has done it, and it remains to be seen if BTS can pull it off (I am sure that as customers move to 1+GHz systems, it can be done).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh, I am positive we can do it and that it won't require a huge increase in CPU power to do it either. What it needs more than anything is time and a stable concept to build upon. We lacked both things while building CM1, so it was left out simply because we knew it was impractical. Just like leaving out 800 polygon figures was impractical (but more for CPU reasons of course).

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Why you would hope that we could not see why you didn't needs to be explained by you. (Ahem, double negative?)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Because, as is very often the case, people think a concept like Relative Spotting is "easy" to add. "Gee, all you need to do is just make each unit only shoot at what it can see, how hard can that be?" Well, to do it correctly... very hard. Probably why nobody has done it yet. But then again, nobody had attempted a 3D, WEGO, highly detailed wargame before either We just had to pick what to do first and what to add in later. Otherwise we would have taken 5 years to make the first game.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Anyway. My only concern is if the present system can be optimally tweaked for CM2. I like the downgrading of IDing especially and even had a recent thread that proposed this.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It is not possible to "lose" ID info, nor is it possible for a unit of x type to be better/worse at identifying units of y type than z type unit. The system is not designed to do this. No point wasting time on a half measure when there are so many other things that must be done first. It is also not wise to spend significant time on kudging a system that is going to be totally redone with the next version. If we had the ability to suspend time or something, then sure... no problem.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Anyway, I like the new FOW and downgrading of most inf's to green/conscript.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It sounds like this is a feature you will want to play with most of the time. I probably will as well. Not exactly what you are asking for, but it does dumb down spotting info for sure.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>My only scenario designed for CMBO had green US inf supported by Conscript armor. Not that the armor was a bunch of civilians but that in the context of the game (they faced no german armor), I wanted them to be cludgey to model poor inf/armor coordination. They still just kicked ass. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That doesn't surprise me. Armor vs. infantry (even with AT guns) is a difficult thing to counter. Plus, in real life the problems with armor/infantry coordination comes down to the inadequacies of small unit leadership and training. The player can override all of these issues because of the Borg concept. Infantry gets held up, why then... just hold up the armor. In real life the armor most likely wouldn't even know the infantry was lagging behind. The new C&C system for CMBB will make this more difficult for the player to do, but there is only so much control that can be taken away from the player.

Steve

[Vanir Ausf B]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software:

It is not possible to "lose" ID info, nor is it possible for a unit of x type to be better/worse at identifying units of y type than z type unit. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

But it is possible for a unit of x type to be better at identifiying other units also of x type than z type units, right? In other words, I think you did say that armor units are better at IDing armor than infantry units. I'm just trying to clarify here.

[ 07-15-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]

[Slapdragon]

What he means is that Finnish units with Soumi Submachineguns equipped with German optics riding on King Tigers are better as spotting than A,erican rifleman cowering in the grass with broken Russian optics mounted on their uncleaned M1's after being fired upon by an old lady with a sling shot made from Liederhosen, except when the old lader over shoots after trying to cross a wooden bridge she is not rated to cross. Or something like that

[Spook]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slapdragon:

What he means is that Finnish units with Soumi Submachineguns equipped with German optics riding on King Tigers are better as spotting than A,erican rifleman cowering in the grass with broken Russian optics mounted on their uncleaned M1's after being fired upon by an old lady with a sling shot made from Liederhosen, except when the old lader over shoots after trying to cross a wooden bridge she is not rated to cross. Or something like that<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, that's definitely a keeper for the "flippancy archives."

BTW, Steve, you care to relate an added nugget or two about "C&C" for CMBB? Perhaps you were talking in the context of C&C as applied within vehicular platoons, but I personally wonder if expanded treatment may yet be availed to the company/battalion HQ teams.

[Andrew H.]

Steve wrote:

One thing we have already done is make Green the default Experience level, not Regular. Experience ranges for Quick Battles have also been adjusted downward so, for example, you get to buy Green-Regular troops instead of Conscript-Green or Regular-Veteran. This should lead to more use of Green and Regular troops and less Regular and Veteran combos.

I go away for a week and return to discover that this BBS supports sending subliminal messages via sig lines. Cool.

Seriously, this is a great idea, and I think that it will go far toward making more games realistic, whether from the lower casualty counts you usually get green troops (who certainly don't fight to the last man) or from the effectively longer ranges MGs have against greens.

Green troops tend to reward the use of historical tactics, too. They really rely on FP from support weapons, and they really need to make sure that the enemy in front of them is suppressed before advancing to close range -- especially if they have to cross open spaces.

Once again, very cool.

[Username]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Vanir Ausf B:

But it is possible for a unit of x type to be better at identifiying other units also of x type than z type units, right? In other words, I think you did say that armor units are better at IDing armor than infantry units. I'm just trying to clarify here.

]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hehe I hate when steve goes into his A, B Z's. I really once pissed him off in a kitchen sink thread when I did a parody of his 1,2,C logic. Or did I piss him off another time too? Cant recall.

I think that spotting is more critical as games get more "realistic". Thats as diplomatic as I can put it. In light of CMBO that would be my 20-20 hindsight. Hopefully the tweaks in other aspects of CM2s firepower, C&C, etc can abstract away spotting/IDing overwhelming effects.

I am just trying to look for anything else that can possibly tone down the Borg. I dont want to be a helpless God in the clouds but more rather a field level commander.

I am leaving this topic alone as it is again all over the place and some usual cutups are flapping around the carcass. I also sense a defensiveness from steve and feel that anything further will be taken wrong.

Lewis

[Battlefront.com]

Lewis,

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Hehe I hate when steve goes into his A, B Z's.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, you could try not asking questions if you don't really want to hear me answer them. Save us both time.

As for the confusion, it is really simple. A unit is "Spotted" to some degree or not at all. The different levels of spotting depend on how much a single value has been indexed. Say for example that a friendly unit spots an enemy unit with a strength of 5 points. Say it takes 50 points for the unit to show up as a Sound contact and 100 points for the lowest level of confirmed sighted location. If the enemy unit's current spotting value is at 49, then the unit is in fact spotted by sound only. If the friendly unit spots with a strength of 60 instead of 5, the enemy unit skips the sound contact and goes right to the lowest level of confirmed location spotting (with a "?"). So on and so on.

There is no way for CM to index a unit's spotting value based on the type of unit that spotted it. Thus it is impossible for a tank to spot a tank better than for a tank to spot an infantry unit IN TERMS OF THE INFORMATION IT YEILDS. What the game can, and does, do is to hinder a unit's ability to spot in the first place. Not in regards to a particular type of unit, but to all units. So a buttoned up, Conscript tank has a crappy chance of spotting everything compared to an unbuttoned Veteran.

What is getting confused here is that vehicles have their ability to switch to a new infantry based target dumbed down a bit. This has nothing to do with spotting at all, but rather targeting.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I really once pissed him off in a kitchen sink thread when I did a parody of his 1,2,C logic. Or did I piss him off another time too? Cant recall.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually, you have pissed just about everybody off on more ocasions than anybody would care to remember. You are still our reigning champion of "Please ban that SOB" requests through email and posts. You can take pride in that if you like I suppose. If people started to parody you I think we would have to ban folks We can handle one nuttball like yourself, but that is our limit.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I think that spotting is more critical as games get more "realistic". Thats as diplomatic as I can put it. In light of CMBO that would be my 20-20 hindsight. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh, we agree that it is critical. However, so is about 50 other major things. When you get around to finishing up your game, we'll talk on an even footing. Now that you are on the dole again I guess you can finish it up soon, right?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I am just trying to look for anything else that can possibly tone down the Borg. I dont want to be a helpless God in the clouds but more rather a field level commander.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And there in lies the problem. Some of the things, like poor coordination of tanks and infantry, are simply not possible without removing the player from the game to a serious degree. Sure, we can make them more difficult to do than other games (CMBO is definitely more "realistic" in this regard), but you come to a point where there can be no significant progress so long as the human can issue direct orders. Some actually do want us to mak a game where the player is but a mere spectator, but we know for sure that almost nobody would buy it. Probably not even the people who are asking for such an extreme move

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I also sense a defensiveness from steve and feel that anything further will be taken wrong.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, you see me answering your questions. I see nothing defensive, only explanations. Just because the answers aren't what you want to see doesn't make them defensive. Sorry if you don't can't tell the difference between the two. Wouldn't surprise me though since many things obvious appear difficult for you to deal with. Like being civil and showing respect.

Steve

[offtaskagain]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slapdragon:

What he means is that Finnish units with Soumi Submachineguns equipped with German optics riding on King Tigers are better as spotting than A,erican rifleman cowering in the grass with broken Russian optics mounted on their uncleaned M1's after being fired upon by an old lady with a sling shot made from Liederhosen, except when the old lader over shoots after trying to cross a wooden bridge she is not rated to cross. Or something like that<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm afraid I like that so much I'm going to try to make it my sig, with credit of course.

[Username]

So Joe McClutch, our regular frontline US truck driver, has the same spotting/IDing capabilities as Herman Actrad our regular armored recon battalion commander?

[Battlefront.com]

Lewis,

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>So Joe McClutch, our regular frontline US truck driver, has the same spotting/IDing capabilities as Herman Actrad our regular armored recon battalion commander?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not necessarily. If their experience levels are different, that right there means they would spot differently even if all else was equal. But all else is NOT equal.

Each unit, depending on a host of factors, spots differently. Either through:

Inherent capabilities - tanks have powerfull optics and a higher vantage point compared to a bazooka team for example. A Tiger is much larger than a HMG42 team, so the Tiger is obviously going to be easier to spot. A buttoned tank is particullarly blind except for a small frontal arc. Better experienced units spot better than lesser experienced ones. etc. etc.

Circumstantial conditions - two units of the same type/experience, one pinned one not pinned, the one that is not pinned spots much better. It is easier to spot a unit moving in open terrain than it is to spot the same unit in good cover. Range and weather conditions alter effective spotting ranges and quality. etc. etc.

Again, there is a huge variety in the quality of spotting, but there is NO accounting for who spotted what. Friendly A unit spots Enemy unit at x value, while Friendly B unit spots same Enemy at y value, Friendly C at z value. Each might spot at radically different levels, but the enemy's spotting value = x+y+z. I think the math is a little more complicated than that, but the basic concept is correct. And that is x, y, and z are all just numbers. They have no other attributes than that, so there is no way to weigh x more or less than y simply because of unit type. Unit type, in general, has already been accounted for when generating the x, y, and z in the first place.

Units spot at a particular value depending on inherent and circumstantial conditions unique to that unit, and the enemy unit, at that time in that situation. Once this value is generated it indexes the enemy unit's spotting vlaue, which in turn determines to what degree it has been spotted. There is no way to say "armor spots armor better" than infantry" other than the inherent and circumstantial variables might produce up.

Whoops! There I go again trying to explain how things work. Stupid me. Sorry Lewis, my bad

Steve

[ 07-17-2001: Message edited by: Big Time Software ]

[Username]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software:

Again, there is a huge variety in the quality of spotting, but there is NO accounting for who spotted what. Friendly A unit spots Enemy unit at x value, while Friendly B unit spots same Enemy at y value, Friendly C at z value. Each might spot at radically different levels, but the enemy's spotting value = x+y+z. I think the math is a little more complicated than that, but the basic concept is correct. And that is x, y, and z are all just numbers. They have no other attributes than that, so there is no way to weigh x more or less than y simply because of unit type. Unit type, in general, has already been accounted for when generating the x, y, and z in the first place.

Whoops! There I go again trying to explain how things work. Stupid me. Sorry Lewis, my bad

Steve

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Are you saying that its cumulative? That if one unit has a 33% chance against an enemy, another has 33% chance against the same enemy and still another has 33%, then its 99%? Does the game do this? Make one 'roll' to see the spotting status?

Are you also saying that units that do this cumulative spot can be different types, armor, inf, guns, so that its all mixed in together?

Lewis

[ 07-17-2001: Message edited by: Username ]

[Slapdragon]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Username:

Are you saying that its cumulative? That if one unit has a 33% chance against an enemy, another has 33% chance against the same enemy and still another has 33%, then its 99%? Does the game do this? Make one 'roll' to see the spotting status?

Lewis<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Lewis, that is not how percentages work. 1/3 chance figured over 3 units is not 100% chance of success. You do not add percentages to determine chance of an event from multiple discrete possibilities. That does not mean borg sighting is the ideal, just that your concept of what is the actual detection chance for multiple units with say an 8% chance of detecting an enemy.

Also, another issue not addressed, is the ability of small units to transfer information about. Maybe borg sighting is not ideal (I want to play the game you have that did not have borg sighting so I can see what it is like) but it should not be replaced with an equally unrealistic every unit is an island system. More useful would be a concentric system that recognized that information on unit sightings would spread from one unit to the next, jumping to multiple units upon encountering a leader unit with a radio, and possibly become a borg sight if an upper echelon unit directly observed the enemy units and had a working radio.

In other words, all of the permutations of borg sighting have yet to be worked out, let alone distilled into some method of coding them into an AI.

[Username]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slapdragon:

Lewis, that is not how percentages work. 1/3 chance figured over 3 units is not 100% chance of success. You do not add percentages to determine chance of an event from multiple discrete possibilities. That does not mean borg sighting is the ideal, just that your concept of what is the actual detection chance for multiple units with say an 8% chance of detecting an enemy.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hey slappy

Please dont lecture me on any mathematical issues. If you read steves post he is saying that the percentages are summed (or somehow combined into one formula). I am using an example to see if this can be clarified. The issue is:

1. Is there a single 'roll' for an instant in time when multiple mixed unit types are trying to spot an enemy in LOS?

2. How is the roll determined mathematically?

Lewis

[Slapdragon]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Username:

Hey slappy

Please dont lecture me on any mathematical issues. If you read steves post he is saying that the percentages are summed (or somehow combined into one formula). I am using an example to see if this can be clarified. The issue is:

1. Is there a single 'roll' for an instant in time when multiple mixed unit types are trying to spot an enemy in LOS?

2. How is the roll determined mathematically?

Lewis<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Lewis, you are arguing with Steve by taking abstract examples and trying to extrapolate them into exact realities. If you do that, and do it in a silly way, then of course your own misconceptions are open to discussion and setting right.

Naturally, the mathematical formulas for many aspects of the game are hidden, and can only be discussed in abstract. This is true of all games, since it keeps gamey abuse of the system from becoming common place.

[Username]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slapdragon:

Lewis, you are arguing with Steve by taking abstract examples and trying to extrapolate them into exact realities. If you do that, and do it in a silly way, then of course your own misconceptions are open to discussion and setting right.

Naturally, the mathematical formulas for many aspects of the game are hidden, and can only be discussed in abstract. This is true of all games, since it keeps gamey abuse of the system from becoming common place.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not quite perfezzor.

If you have recovered from your brain injurys fully, you might have noticed that I am pretty good at getting info out of Steve. Its a nightmare of a discourse, but great tidbits come out about CM2 and sometimes improvements go in. I think even this thread might lead to some meaningful tweaking.

I think that the effects of the game's Spotting/IDing are pretty much UNhidden. Thats the problem, units cant stay hidden. So my point here is for Steve to let us in on the ground floor (without disclosing everything) so that discussion about this can be meaningful. In fact, what I am trying to do, is get better abstractions out of the games realities!

But I really would like Steve to comment on the math so as to clarify.

Lewis

[Sergei]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by panzerwerfer42:

I'm afraid I like that so much I'm going to try to make it my sig, with credit of course.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

At least you could then correct the typo: Suomi ("Finland"), not Soumi (sounds more like French to me).

[Slapdragon]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Username:

If you have recovered from your brain injurys fully, you might have noticed that I am pretty good at getting info out of Steve. Its a nightmare of a discourse, but great tidbits come out about CM2 and sometimes improvements go in. I think even this thread might lead to some meaningful tweaking.

I think that the effects of the game's Spotting/IDing are pretty much UNhidden. Thats the problem, units cant stay hidden. So my point here is for Steve to let us in on the ground floor (without disclosing everything) so that discussion about this can be meaningful. In fact, what I am trying to do, is get better abstractions out of the games realities!

But I really would like Steve to comment on the math so as to clarify.

Lewis<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Possibly, but many times you could get a lot from just doing a closer read of Steve's comments. Your previous example was similar in many ways to how my mother's 3rd grade reading class reacts to simile in literature. They try to take it literally. As Steve said, the math is more complicated than his example. His example was abstract.

A better way of going about this would be to construct a math engine yourself that dealt with spotting. That way it could possible be coded. It is not impossible to do, I am constructing one for posting on a different forum as a suggestion for a model of concentric spotting methods. In a few days I will present my model, a few dozen people will test it and come back with some problems with it, and I will try and fix them. You are going about this all in a very hard way.

[Slapdragon]

BTW Lewis, I know when you are running out of arguments because you start making fun of people's race, religion, or in my case, a nearly fatal disability. Very predictable, but a comforting sign that a point was scored. It is only when you maintain yourself on an even keel that I question my conclusions.

[Username]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slapdragon:

BTW Lewis, I know when you are running out of arguments because you start making fun of people's race, religion, or in my case, a nearly fatal disability. Very predictable, but a comforting sign that a point was scored. It is only when you maintain yourself on an even keel that I question my conclusions.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I cant recall ever making fun of anyones race here. As far as I know, I am not aware of anyone's particular religion to even make fun of it. So, How is that predictable? Maybe you can let me in on the statistical analysis.

Are unfounded statements part of your analytical process? Part of your disability? Inquiring minds want to know.

I hope Steve can see past this crap and address the spotting issue.

Lewis

[Slapdragon]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Username:

I cant recall ever making fun of anyones race here. As far as I know, I am not aware of anyone's particular religion to even make fun of it. So, How is that predictable? Maybe you can let me in on the statistical analysis.

Are unfounded statements part of your analytical process? Part of your disability? Inquiring minds want to know.

I hope Steve can see past this crap and address the spotting issue.

Lewis<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Race: 761 thread

Religion: Jewish brigade thread

I wish I could provide links, but my book marks now say, "That server no longer is in operation". A few people though will remember both threads.

However, that is all immaterial. Before you started to get nervous and touchy, I was just saying you should read Steve's comments more closely. Rather on purpose or by accident, it seems you often post at a left tangent to what has previously been said, and I for one do not think you have a reading impediment.

Also, you ignored my comments about a better way of going about this. Let us see your numbers first, then I and others can look them over and kick their tires so to speak. I and several others would be interested in seeing how you would go about quantifying all this. Of course we know that it would have to be abstract, the whole issue is abstract, but you hold a very strong belief and it would be interesting to read it in the form of a flow chart or some math than can be run through a spread sheet.

[Slapdragon]

Honestly, to your benefit Lewis, I do not really think you are a racist or against any religion. I just think you get flustered and you make comments that can be construed as making fun of disabilities when you are up against a mental brick wall. I have seen you do it with Germanboy, and several others. So I will apologize now if it sounded like I was accusing you of racism. Poor taste yes, racism, no.