Monster Tanks Retreating #2 And Steve's List of Why the Tac AI tells tanks to retreat

[Redwolf]

Hey, Chaps,

happily blowing up Nazi tinboxes here using scoot-and-shoot (I think seek-hulldown is for shadowparkers or thinboarddrillers anyway, so I find it is rather appropriate that it makes some shooters chicken out). As far as I can can tell I am even experiencing this fun thing everybody is talking about

[Terrapin]

All I can say is that I BOW DOWN and THANK GOD to whomever at BTS coded the tanks to keep themselves alive.

I got to the fourth battle of a standard scenario (Bridgehead something), and all that stood between the Germans and total victory were my three remaining T34/83s. The Germans had at least two tigers left, when I saw one and told my T34 to attack. In the action-time section, the T34 missed. The Tiger then obliterated the turret.

Another tiger came over the hill, and my two other T34s reversed up over the berm, and into the trees. It was awesome to watch. Otherwise, I would have lost them and the scenario. I used them in the final battle.

[ December 04, 2002, 11:35 PM: Message edited by: Terrapin ]

[Seanachai]

Originally posted by redwolf:

Hey, Chaps,

As far as I can can tell I am even experiencing this fun thing everybody is talking about

Finally, for the first time in a week, I can sleep, knowing that redwolf is, with some assurance, having fun.

My work here is done. Let's ride, amigos!

[Tero]

Originally posted by Seanachai:

But the Germans and the Scandos...they put you in mind of the Icelandic Sagas. Some minor point, or some small slight or imagined slight will pass all but unremarked, but they go home and brood on it for 10 years. Then one day they gather up all their kinsmen and friends, show up at your house at midnight, and set it afire, killing everyone fleeing the flames with swords.

Islandic sagas my arse. Over here in Finland people would pick up an axe and go "find out" who is responsible for the outrage when they saw a chip float dowstream denoting somebody was building something too close to their patch of woods.

[Tero]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

You say you find it "odd", but not why. From your vague description I would say it sounds fine.

The evasion bit was not what was odd. The odd part was when the KV just sat there for several turns taking fire from the puny 20mm FLAK and did absolutely nothing for the cause. I think it is odd you can pin down the AI controlled mosters with things like a 20mm FLAK. The KV was buttoned up for most of the time and remained still. The FLAK would engage infantry and every time the TC popped the hatch the FLAK gun would squeeze a few rounds at the monster and it would button up again and sit on its hands. It did not move until I got some serious FP in LOS.

And even then it would only reverse out of sight. I left out the bit when it reversed long ways parallel to the edge of the map (quite some distance from the edge though) and once it found a T-26 wreck it reversed right into it and remained there perfectly still until I inched my Marder up to it and finished it off with nice flank shots. Only then did it start moving away from the wreck to save itself. Which it could not manage.

It was perfectly OK for the KV to shrug off the insignificant 20mm FLAK rounds. What was not OK was the getting pinned down by it. The way I saw it the crew was rattled but not enough to actually do something about it since the menace from the FLAK did not warrant it.

[Tero]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Er... I don't have a clue what you are talking about

Yes you do. Unless of course you changes the terrain tile scale and kept it a state secret until now.

[Battlefront.com]

Redwolf,

I guess now I can sleep too! Especially because it is coming up on 4am

Tero,

It was perfectly OK for the KV to shrug off the insignificant 20mm FLAK rounds. What was not OK was the getting pinned down by it.

Could have KO'd its gun (quite possible) or made the crew Panic (not likely unless Conscript). You might have (eventually) also killed the TC. Otherwise I can think of no reason the KV wouldn't return fire. But as for not moving... No, the KV will not think much about 20mm Flak. At one point heavily armored vehicles were more skittish about such fire, but this turned out to cause a problem where a couple of light guns could scare off vehicles that rarely would suffer damage from hits.

Yes you do. Unless of course you changes the terrain tile scale and kept it a state secret until now.

Er... no, I really haven't a clue what you are talking about. You made some confusing statement about hull down differences between turreted and non turreted vehicles that made no sense to me. I took a guess but apparently guessed wrong. Please state specifically what the problem is you claim CM has with hull down.

Steve

[ December 05, 2002, 03:51 AM: Message edited by: Battlefront.com ]

[Tero]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Could have KO'd its gun (quite possible)

True. But it did squeeze off rounds.

or made the crew Panic (not likely unless Conscript).

IIRC Regular. This was my original assumption until they started moveing when the Marder showed up.

You might have (eventually) also killed the TC.

True.

Otherwise I can think of no reason the KV wouldn't return fire. But as for not moving...

The not moving bit was what I found odd.

I doubt this kind of behaviour would have been possible against a human opponent.

No, the KV will not think much about 20mm Flak. At one point heavily armored vehicles were more skittish about such fire, but this turned out to cause a problem where a couple of light guns could scare off vehicles that rarely would suffer damage from hits.

I'm not wondering about why it did not bolt back in panic.

I wondering how it was possible for the pea shooter to pin the monster down so effectively so it was effectively neutralized until I could bring up stuff to deal with it.

The way I see it this is a reverse side of the this selfpreservance coin: the threat is not significant so the crew will not act to move to save itself as it were while at the same time the crew is suppressed enough to prevent any kind of meaningful responce from the TacAI.

Even when buttoned up the KV crew responded, promptly, when a "real" danger appeared. The 20mm FLAK did not trigger such responce but it prevented any kind of other action by the AI. Had the KV been able to KO the FLAK I have no doubt in my mind the KV would have proceeded with what ever plan the AI had laid out.

Please state specifically what the problem is you claim CM has with hull down.

It is not a bug, it is a feature.

In CMBO it is virtually impossible for a non-turreted vehicle to obtain a hull down position due to the terrain tile size (when under human control). In CMBB there is the Seek Hull Down command which deals partly with that problem.

AFAIK the terrain tile size in CMBO and CMBB are identical so I assume a turreted vehicle will still be more efficient in obtaining a Hull Down position compared to a non-turreted vehicle.

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Seanachai:

As I've told friends: there's this to be said for the large 'Irish' side of my family: when there's disagreement or problems, people yell, sometimes knock each other down, even, but apologize just as quickly , and will have a pint and hug a short time later.

I understand the Italians are much the same.

But the Germans and the Scandos...they put you in mind of the Icelandic Sagas. Some minor point, or some small slight or imagined slight will pass all but unremarked, but they go home and brood on it for 10 years. Then one day they gather up all their kinsmen and friends, show up at your house at midnight, and set it afire, killing everyone fleeing the flames with swords.

Do you find the Scots are like that too? Not that extreme of course, they are Celts after all, but just a tad remorseless? Black Watch, cold steel, and all that?

Michael

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Seanachai:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by redwolf:

Hey, Chaps,

As far as I can can tell I am even experiencing this fun thing everybody is talking about

Finally, for the first time in a week, I can sleep, knowing that redwolf is, with some assurance, having fun.</font>

[aka_tom_w]

'Please state specifically what the problem is you claim CM has with hull down.

It is not a bug, it is a feature.

In CMBO it is virtually impossible for a non-turreted vehicle to obtain a hull down position due to the terrain tile size (when under human control). In CMBB there is the Seek Hull Down command which deals partly with that problem. AFAIK the terrain tile size in CMBO and CMBB are identical so I assume a turreted vehicle will still be more efficient in obtaining a Hull Down position compared to a non-turreted vehicle. "

This example may seem a little too "Black and White" BUT for simplicity sake lets assume that a garden variety stone wall grants hull down status. (this is the same stone wall in CMBO and CMBB, and AFAIK it does grant hull down status for the AFV behind it)

I mention this because hull down in CMBO and CMBB only covers the lower hull. So in the example above BOTH the low sillouette StuG and the High Sillouette Sherman are in fact hull down behind a stone wall.

I do not understand this issue. IF you use hunt to the crest of a hill (and there is an enemy AFV on the other side to be hull down to) then BOTH the StuG and the Sherman will Hunt up to just behind the crest of the hill where they will both find themselves in Hull down positions EVEN if the StuG (lower) is a little closer to the crest of the rise.

NO?? :confused:

Whats the big deal here? Both end up hull down at some point when they hunt up the crest of a small hill do they not? Since only the lower hull is protected from hits in the hull down position does really matter that the low StuG gets closer to the crest of the Hill than the tall Sherman?

So if I may Ask, because I am as stumped as Steve is here, could Tero please expand on and explain what he is trying to get at when he states: "AFAIK the terrain tile size in CMBO and CMBB are identical so I assume a turreted vehicle will still be more efficient in obtaining a Hull Down position compared to a non-turreted vehicle."

Is not the StuG and the Sherman equally efficient in obtaining a Hull Down position when using the Hunt command towards the crest of a small rise or by using the Move or Fast command to a prime location immediately behind a stone wall?

-tom w

[ December 05, 2002, 07:27 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[Tero]

Originally posted by aka_tom_w:

This example may seem a little too "Black and White" BUT for simplicity sake lets assume that a garden variety stone wall grants hull down status. (this is the same stone wall in CMBO and CMBB, and AFAIK it does grant hull down status for the AFV behind it)

Depending on the height of the wall and the height of the vehicle.

I mention this because hull down in CMBO and CMBB only covers the lower hull.

And that is the problem. A hull down turreted tank (like a Sherman) would normally be showing its turret above the crest. Now, in CM you get that for the turreted tank. The problem with assault guns are the gun is in the hull superstructure.

If all things were being equal a hull down Sherman would be presenting both the turret and the hull superstructure to the enemy, thus presenting a larger target than an assault gun would.

So in the example above BOTH the low sillouette StuG and the High Sillouette Sherman are in fact hull down behind a stone wall.

And the Sherman would be presenting almost 60% of its mass to the enemy while the Stug would be presenting 40%, relatively speaking. Or the Stug gun would not clear the wall.

I do not understand this issue. IF you use hunt to the crest of a hill (and there is an enemy AFV on the other side to be hull down to) then BOTH the StuG and the Sherman will Hunt up to just behind the crest of the hill where they will both find themselves in Hull down positions EVEN if the StuG (lower) is a little closer to the crest of the rise.

NO?? :confused:

Nope. If you Hunt you will essentially go as far as the way point unless you get presented with a target to shoot at. The place you end up in may or may not be in a hull down position relative to the target you are firing at.

AFAIK with the Seek Hull Down command the AI will seek a Hull Down position in the near vincinity of the way point relative to the terrain.

Whats the big deal here? Both end up hull down at some point when they hunt up the crest of a small hill do they not? Since only the lower hull is protected from hits in the hull down position does really matter that the low StuG gets closer to the crest of the Hill than the tall Sherman?

Not really. The thing is a I assume a turreted vehicle will be more efficient in seeking that hull down position because of the internal dealings of the game engine and by virtue of the terrain tile size.

So if I may Ask, because I am as stumped as Steve is here, could Tero please expand on and explain what he is trying to get at when he states: "AFAIK the terrain tile size in CMBO and CMBB are identical so I assume a turreted vehicle will still be more efficient in obtaining a Hull Down position compared to a non-turreted vehicle."

Actually, Steve is stumped at my remark:

CM's terrain fidelity is not refined enough to make this distinction in an exact way, but it is taken into account (roughly).

Then the (sad ) truth is in the game the assault gun will never be able to truly take up a hull down position the way it would be able to IRL, compared to a turreted vehicle. Right ?

Is not the StuG and the Sherman equally efficient in obtaining a Hull Down position when using the Hunt command towards the crest of a small rise or by using the Move or Fast command to a prime location immediately behind a stone wall?

Again, AFAIK the Hunt command will not take into account Hull Down positions when it is being executed. Why the extra Seek Hull Down command if it did ?

In Hunt, where you out the way point is where you end up unless you spot an enemy unit to engage.

But this is sidetracking from the main issue and I know Steve does not take too kindly to this. Or soon we will be hearing about the moster burrito he ate last but night which retreated out the back before he could engage the beer in his immediate LOS.

[ December 05, 2002, 08:18 AM: Message edited by: tero ]

[Redwolf]

I think I see what Tero means but I find the game to be just fine.

Here are the hit probablities of a T34 76nn/L42 at 700m:

Pz IV G 40% (silhuette 94)

StuG IIIG 35% (silhuette 78)

StuG hulldown 28%

Pz IV hulldown 24%

So as you can see the Panzer gets a much bigger advantage out of hulldown, just as it should IMHO. (an oddity is that this particular wall with one height cannot (in reality) make both these vehicles hulldown, what makes the Pz IV hulldown make the StuG gun-down, but that is a minor engine limitation).

In practice the turretless vehicles usually get a bigger advantage out of hulldown than the slight decrease in hit probablity suggests. That is because many of them have weaker lower hulls than upperhulls/superstructures, so the real advantage is that the hit don't hit the thin armor.

On the other hand, the Panzer has the weaker turret, so while the probablity got down when being hulldown, the kill chance for the T-34 goes up from "low" to "fair".

[markgame]

Originally posted by aka_tom_w:

The Uncertianty Principle (in CMBB) states in a nutshell the player CANNOT know what the universe of the CMBB source Code is like when you aren't in it.(Only Charles is in it). Therefore by trying to know the source code by simply observing its behaviour is impossible !!!

Close enough for ya?????

(Just havin' a little fun!)

-tom w

As a wargamer for almost 40 years (Tactics 2 RULES ) and a Physics major, I can't resist leaving my normal lurking mode and adding a comment.

I remember from my readings years ago that the original German for what is commonly called The Uncertaincy Principle is better translated as The Principle of Indeterminacy. It is not that the particle is traveling an uncertain path, it is just not possible to accurately determine the position of the particle in space and time.

It's applicability to CMBB could be stated in this way: No matter how many experiments are run to test the outcome of a specific combat encounter, the influence of the experimenters would always alter the results in some indeterminate way. Therefore conclusions about the actual behavior of the code cannot be accurately made.

And don't even get me started on Chaos Theory

[Terrapin]

Originally posted by tero:

It was perfectly OK for the KV to shrug off the insignificant 20mm FLAK rounds. What was not OK was the getting pinned down by it. The way I saw it the crew was rattled but not enough to actually do something about it since the menace from the FLAK did not warrant it.[/QB]

Wow. I've NEVER seen that. I've never seen a tank, of any kind, get pinned at all, and I put them into bad situations all the time! I've seen them get shocked, but never pinned. I didn't think a tank could GET pinned. It has a motor and armor!

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by markgame:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by aka_tom_w:

The Uncertianty Principle (in CMBB) states in a nutshell the player CANNOT know what the universe of the CMBB source Code is like when you aren't in it.(Only Charles is in it). Therefore by trying to know the source code by simply observing its behaviour is impossible !!!

Close enough for ya?????

(Just havin' a little fun!)

-tom w

As a wargamer for almost 40 years (Tactics 2 RULES ) and a Physics major, I can't resist leaving my normal lurking mode and adding a comment.

I remember from my readings years ago that the original German for what is commonly called The Uncertaincy Principle is better translated as The Principle of Indeterminacy. It is not that the particle is traveling an uncertain path, it is just not possible to accurately determine the position of the particle in space and time.

It's applicability to CMBB could be stated in this way: No matter how many experiments are run to test the outcome of a specific combat encounter, the influence of the experimenters would always alter the results in some indeterminate way. Therefore conclusions about the actual behavior of the code cannot be accurately made.

And don't even get me started on Chaos Theory </font>

[Battlefront.com]

Tero,

The way I see it this is a reverse side of the this selfpreservance coin: the threat is not significant so the crew will not act to move to save itself as it were while at the same time the crew is suppressed enough to prevent any kind of meaningful responce from the TacAI.

Tanks can not be "pinned" as such. What I suspect happened was that a combo of things made the KV act the way it did. What combo, or what order, I don't know. But I can assure you that the Flak gun did NOT keep the KV there unless the StratAI wanted it kept there and felt safe enough, or that some sort of damge/morale problem (i.e. Panic or worse) screwed things up. In short, the Flak gun was lucky. It managed to inflict some sort of "harm" on the big beast.

As I have said about other "reports from the front" it is absolutely futile to discuss it beyond this point without seeing a save file. I am positive that if I did see a file there would be a very logical and perhaps obvious reason for the behavior.

The 20mm FLAK did not trigger such responce but it prevented any kind of other action by the AI.

It might not have identified it. Impossible to say since this was against the AI and not a Human player. Further speculation is a waste of time.

In CMBO it is virtually impossible for a non-turreted vehicle to obtain a hull down position due to the terrain tile size (when under human control).

I disagree with this characterization. Difficult, sure. That is why we added the Hull Down command. But either through lucky placement or just plain luck, hull down positions were possible.

BTW, I might add that getting into a hull down position in real life is quite difficult to do sometimes. Don't underestimate this.

AFAIK the terrain tile size in CMBO and CMBB are identical so I assume a turreted vehicle will still be more efficient in obtaining a Hull Down position compared to a non-turreted vehicle.

A turreted tank should be, in theory, more efficient at getting Hull down because in general it is taller. This means you increase the amount of options for hiding behind and still being able to see over. Unfortunately, it also means it is harder to find cover that completely obscures the vehilce from observation.

Having recently played around on a Swedish S-Tank, I can say for sure that it would have more difficulty finding hull down compared to something like an Abrams. But of course, the S-Tank is so much lower to the ground it would be harder to spot compared to an Abrams if neither were in hull down positions.

Redwolf,

Here are the hit probablities of a T34 76nn/L42 at 700m:

Pz IV G 40% (silhuette 94)

StuG IIIG 35% (silhuette 78)

StuG hulldown 28%

Pz IV hulldown 24%

Now... there is a nice little example to draw into this discussion Good job!

The big factor here is Silhuette. Obviously, as you point out, the fidelity of the terrain system is not mm for mm perfect in simulating this (see previous comments of mine for some details), it does not penalize the turretless vehicles. And if I understood it correctly, that is what Tero was saying is the case.

Steve

[Cpt.Kloss]

Originally posted by Vanir Ausf B:

Again: If you want a tank to fire a single shot while stationary and then retreat, use Shoot & Scoot. This is what it's there for. The tool you need to do what you are asking for is there. You just have to use it. I don't know why this is so hard to understand.

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

Hm....but don't you think here could be modeled opposite situation? Target is

weak, I can kill it...maybe another shot?

Anyway I agree with you on usage of this order. But shouldn't a crew asess situation and shoot befere "designated" shoot point if it gives a better tactical situation (hull down for example)

? Isn't that order a bit "artificial" given an advanced (and correct as many people claim)self preservation mechanism? Perhaps if other order than shoot'n'scoot given we, (and tank crews)should undrestand this as (engage because it is a reason to). What do you think?

[Battlefront.com]

CaptKloss,

Hm....but don't you think here could be modeled opposite situation? Target is

weak, I can kill it...maybe another shot?

I don't think that is a good idea. Most situations do not involve two vehicles in isolation from everything else but themselves. "I missed and maybe I will hit with the next shot" does not take into account other potential threats. And if the second shot misses, then what? Staying for "just one more" is a slippery slope that gamblers can tell you is not a good thing to go down.

Shoot and Scoot should be just that... one shot, one scoot. If you want to try and take a few shots, use Hull Down, Hunt, or a regular move order. Then the TacAI can decide if it wants to engage the target once or a hundred times.

Anyway I agree with you on usage of this order. But shouldn't a crew asess situation and shoot befere "designated" shoot point if it gives a better tactical situation (hull down for example)

This is asking far too much of the AI. There has to be some degree of "stickiness" for an order or it totally frustrates the player. This is, and always has been, the single most difficult problem to tackle. Too sticky and the unit is not autonomous enough during the Action Phase. Not sticky enough and it "does its own thing" too frequently.

? Isn't that order a bit "artificial" given an advanced (and correct as many people claim)self preservation mechanism?

It is designed to be "simple", "reliable", and "reealistic". The standard method of using Shoot and Scoot tactic is to not stay around long enough to evaluate the situation. What you are suggesting would actually make this order incorrect. Plus, like I said... there is a way to do this, just not with the wrong order.

Perhaps if other order than shoot'n'scoot given we, (and tank crews)should undrestand this as (engage because it is a reason to). What do you think?

Again, this runs contrary to the entire purpose of Shoot and Scoot. I'll explain it in more detail now...

1. The Tank Commander makes decision to do this maneuver.

2. Crew readies itself.

3. Driver drives in designated direction until TC says "HALT"!

4. As soon as the vehicle stops rocking from the halt, and the target is in the gunner's crosshairs, he fires.

5. As soon as the driver hears the main gun fire, he reverses to the predesignated location. He does NOT wait for the TC to give an order.

6. The tank might repeat this proceedure in the same spot, but is more likely to attempt firing from a slightly different spot in order to throw off enemy gunners.

7. After a certain number of shots, depending on the situation, the tank will abandon its position and seek another firing spot in a different location. This is to avoid flanking moves, artillery, air attack, or whatever.

Now, I am sure tanks might do this but have the driver only pull back after 2 or even 3 shots, but we feel the user interface is "full" and can not take any more additional elements. Especially not at this point in development where no new features are being added to the game.

Steve

[ December 05, 2002, 01:59 PM: Message edited by: Battlefront.com ]

[jgdpzr]

Tero,

Sounds to me like the 20mm may never have been spotted by the KV. Obviously, those little buggers can be really difficult to spot. Do you remember anything that would have indicated it had been spotted prior to the KV just sitting there?

Steve,

That S-tank is a sweet little ride, eh? Bet your weasels would look good with picket fences as well. BTW, did they let you and Charles play around in the stacks in the museum's library? And since you and Charles have now seen proof of the existence of the Panther II hull, when are we going to see said vehicle? I want a Panther with a 100mm glacis, damn-it. FIX OR DO SOMEFINK! And before you claim I am being unreasonable, it's OK if you don't include the schmalturm.

[aka_tom_w]

Tero

OK

We agree

"Again, AFAIK the Hunt command will not take into account Hull Down positions when it is being

executed. Why the extra Seek Hull Down command if it did ?

In Hunt, where you put the way point is where you end up unless you spot an enemy unit to engage.

But this is sidetracking from the main issue and I know Steve does not take too kindly to this. Or soon

we will be hearing about the moster burrito he ate last but night which retreated out the back before he

could engage the beer in his immediate LOS. "

I did not understand that you were requesting the the game engine provide more fidelity with regard to hull down status. (is that correct?)

I understand your request and thank you for taking the time to reply to my questions. I do not dispute or disagree with your answers .

-tom w

[ December 05, 2002, 02:49 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[Cpt.Kloss]

Steve, I've got a question

Is retreating the only self-preservation mechanism's option?

I observed some vehicles actually moving fast forward despite my orders. Is it an outcome of the same s-p mechanism?

regards

[Guest Mike]

Did the KV see the 20mm Flak?

I've read somewher that most (some??) of the British Matilda's KO'ed at the counter attack at Arras in 1940 were struck by light flak that caused external storage to catch fire.

[Battlefront.com]

JdgPzr,

That S-tank is a sweet little ride, eh?

Youbetchasweetass it is Major Carnes said that his lads were still talking about it 2 weeks later (it was the first time they saw it). Such a shame they are all paperweights now

BTW, did they let you and Charles play around in the stacks in the museum's library?

No, but we go back the next day to the museum propper and ran into the other Charles. He said we are welcome back any time and will fire up various AFVs if we want to record their engine sounds Just wish there was enough room to do turret rotations with a stopwatch

And since you and Charles have now seen proof of the existence of the Panther II hull, when are we going to see said vehicle?

Right after we do the Maus

Thanks again for the great beerventure over the state line. Great way to end a great day.

Cpt.Kloss,

Yes, the TacAI has other behaviors for preservation besides backing up. It can fire smoke and back up a tiny bit (most tanks don't have smoke candles or mortars), fire a Smoke round to blind a threat, drive faster if already on the move, drive forward into safer terrain, fire on the move (MUCH less so than CMBO), and probably a thing or two I forgot about.

I also agree that it is highly likely that the KV-1 didn't know where the little pesky Flak gun was. I just watched a gun do that to me the other day. Pissed me off 'cause it killed two armored cars without my overwatching StuGs being able to do squat about it. But hey... that's war

Steve

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by markgame:

I remember from my readings years ago that the original German for what is commonly called The Uncertaincy Principle is better translated as The Principle of Indeterminacy.

Very good point.

It is not that the particle is traveling an uncertain path, it is just not possible to accurately determine the position of the particle in space and time.

Even though I am not a true physics grog, I feel compelled to contradict you here. If I have it right, Heisenberg did not say that you cannot determine the position of a particle, he said that you cannot determine both its position and its momentum, because the experiment you conduct to determine the one will effect the other.

Of course, I cannot account for where quantum mechanics has gone from there. Who can? Strange charm...?

And don't even get me started on Chaos Theory

Oh please do go on, dear boy! I think a discussion of chaos (or complexity, as I think the preferred term is these days) would fit right in. But maybe start a new thread as this one is getting a bit long in the tooth and I expect it to be closed at any time.

Michael

[ December 06, 2002, 12:46 AM: Message edited by: Michael emrys ]