CS Game Scale - Manual Style

[Glint]

You miss the point. Some are being too vigourous in defending their' point of view. What the 'manual' states is not the 'be all and end all'. People are playing the game according to the tools handed to us? One doesn't need to quote reference sources to prove points made. Your Tiger can knock a Sherman IV at a certain range, that's what you play with, that's what a lot of players play with. An engineer can lay a minefield in six minutes, so be it. I don't have to quote references, I just accept that's what the game engine does and get on with it.

'' As with any exchange of ideas and thoughts, is it not good debate practice to weigh in with evidence and information that supports your position? ''

- Not when one speaks from what they feel. That is in their heart, can't produce written evidence to support it.

'' I disagree with your assertion that a few players are trying to "override" others thoughts..." Everyone may post their opinions, ideas and thoughts in this forum? Should not players who post their comments and defend them vigorously, not expect the same from others? Isn't that the idea behind forums? ''

- Your interpretation of forums, mine is that forums are somewhere to help, encourage and discuss in a responsible manner, the latter being derided by a few.

''Again, posting your opinion to the forums does not guarantee that others will agree with it? Should not all players who post be allowed to support their arguments with referenced evidence? AND defend their positions as vigorously as others?''

- Agreed! But do it in a manner that doesn't abuse the other person's view?

''Stuff and nonsense Peter.'' - That is not the way to debate a point? !!!!

Someone told me a few years ago, - '' When you listen to someone's else point of view, think to yourself, 'maybe he's right and I'm wrong?'' If some of us think about that before we post, maybe we wouldn't get the eruptions that occur. That includes me, I bow to others' superior knowledge of the game but when I make a post stating a view, I don't expect to be told it's gamey, I wouldn't play against them, etc., I'm merely trying to put a point of view relevant to the post and don't expect to get categorised as such, just over a point of view? This goes back to an earlier post I made. It isn't a tactic I use, just a 'what if?' statement and it becomes a matter of pesonal attack in my eyes and, going by some other posts and e-mails I've recieved, is seen the same, so when will guys admit they are out of order?

Peter

[K K Rossokolski]

I said above that I would pull out of this, a statement I now withdraw because I have for a long time had a question about game scale, and now, with a couple of scale experts to hand, is a good time to ask it.

Ed....given that you view the scale parameters in The Game Manual as on a par with Holy Writ, I should be interested in your views on the following.
I play on a laptop, almost always in 3d Zoomout view, which means the screen is about 14 hexes...lets be conservative and call that 3km wide. With for example, a P-47 airstrike, the little aeroplane zips across diagonally, maybe 2km. But lets be conservative, and call it 1 km. I have for years tried to time this, and failed to get it exactly. It is less than a second, but let's call it one. No, be conservative and call it two seconds. So conservatively in two seconds, the P-47 travels one km. Now that, at 3600 seconds in an hour, means that little sucker can go 1800 km, which conservatively gives him a top speed of >1100 mph.
Which is a good deal faster than sound, conservatively speaking.
Most sources give the "Jug" a top of around 430mph.

Perhaps you could explain this to me?

[Glint]

Paul, feel free if that's your idea of democracy? Can't prove one wrong so ban the two?
I came back in here after earlier problems, but the problems seem the same. I'm amazed that moderators didn't intervene earlier and now, I highlight a problem and take the flak as well?
It's a game goddam it and this is a forum for discussing it, without the abuse.
Nowhere have I been abusive, correct me if I'm wrong. Others have been, surely that's a fact without having to 'show evidence' ?
Do what you feel cool about Paul, I realise it's a tough position to be in.
regards
Peter

[Steel God]

Peter;

For an explanation of why no one has intervened please see the thread entitled "Banning (of a sort)". The methods we use are explained there.

As for who crossed the line first, like I said, I have my opinion on that, but it's not relative since shots have been fired from both sides. If one side fires, and the other side doesn't return fire, but the offender gets reported, then it's a one man ban. If the fire is returned and by the time I see the reports two are involved, then it's a two man ban.

It's not perfect by any means, and I make no claims to being democratic. Just trying to keep the peace the only way I know how.

regards, and good gaming;

Paul

[Hawk Kriegsman]

I said above that I would pull out of this, a statement I now withdraw because I have for a long time had a question about game scale, and now, with a couple of scale experts to hand, is a good time to ask it.

Ed....given that you view the scale parameters in The Game Manual as on a par with Holy Writ, I should be interested in your views on the following.
I play on a laptop, almost always in 3d Zoomout view, which means the screen is about 14 hexes...lets be conservative and call that 3km wide. With for example, a P-47 airstrike, the little aeroplane zips across diagonally, maybe 2km. But lets be conservative, and call it 1 km. I have for years tried to time this, and failed to get it exactly. It is less than a second, but let's call it one. No, be conservative and call it two seconds. So conservatively in two seconds, the P-47 travels one km. Now that, at 3600 seconds in an hour, means that little sucker can go 1800 km, which conservatively gives him a top speed of >1100 mph.
Which is a good deal faster than sound, conservatively speaking.
Most sources give the "Jug" a top of around 430mph.

Perhaps you could explain this to me?

Let's do some real math.

A turn is 6 minutes (per every edition of the manual). The airstrike you quote represents 6 minutes of airstrikes.

We will use your 430 mph. Works for me. That is 691,870 meters in 1 hour.

That is 69,187 meters in 6 minutes.

69,187 metes is the equivelent of 276.7 hexes in 6 minutes.

or the equivelent of 27.7 hexes in a minute.

or 13.8 hexes in 30 seconds.

The P47 easily performs its combat mission within the 6 minutes time frame alloted and within its technical parameters.

Seriously Rod numbers and statistics is what I do for a living.

Don't trot out faultly mathematics and expect me to ignore it.

You are way of base with your example as stated above.

Get as nasty as you like with your resposes.

I will let the math do the talking.

Thanx!

Hawk

[K K Rossokolski]

I said above that I would pull out of this, a statement I now withdraw because I have for a long time had a question about game scale, and now, with a couple of scale experts to hand, is a good time to ask it.

Ed....given that you view the scale parameters in The Game Manual as on a par with Holy Writ, I should be interested in your views on the following.
I play on a laptop, almost always in 3d Zoomout view, which means the screen is about 14 hexes...lets be conservative and call that 3km wide. With for example, a P-47 airstrike, the little aeroplane zips across diagonally, maybe 2km. But lets be conservative, and call it 1 km. I have for years tried to time this, and failed to get it exactly. It is less than a second, but let's call it one. No, be conservative and call it two seconds. So conservatively in two seconds, the P-47 travels one km. Now that, at 3600 seconds in an hour, means that little sucker can go 1800 km, which conservatively gives him a top speed of >1100 mph.
Which is a good deal faster than sound, conservatively speaking.
Most sources give the "Jug" a top of around 430mph.

Perhaps you could explain this to me?

Let's do some real math.

A turn is 6 minutes (per every edition of the manual). The airstrike you quote represents 6 minutes of airstrikes.

We will use your 430 mph. Works for me. That is 691,870 meters in 1 hour.

That is 69,187 meters in 6 minutes.

69,187 metes is the equivelent of 276.7 hexes in 6 minutes.

or the equivelent of 27.7 hexes in a minute.

or 13.8 hexes in 30 seconds.

The P47 easily performs its combat mission within the 6 minutes time frame alloted and within its technical parameters.

Seriously Rod numbers and statistics is what I do for a living.

Don't trot out faultly mathematics and expect me to ignore it.

You are way of base with your example as stated above.

Get as nasty as you like with your resposes.

I will let the math do the talking.

Thanx!

Hawk

That's fine. Arithmetically correct, as is mine.
It boils down to the definition and length of an air attack. The WF manual uses the term air attack...singular. That is the basis of my reasoning, because I am one who does not believe that a turn represents 6 minutes of non-stop action.....in this case non-stop air attacks. I also note that the game only allows the execution of an air attack on a single target, unlike arty, which leads me to believe that the game air attack is a single event. In real life airstrikes may comprise multiple aircraft, but they all strike the target either simultaneously or in very quick succession.
I do take exception to the section of your reply done in bold. If you could point out to me any nasties in my respose (sic), I should be most grateful.

[Kool Kat]

Someone told me a few years ago, - '' When you listen to someone's else point of view, think to yourself, 'maybe he's right and I'm wrong?'' If some of us think about that before we post, maybe we wouldn't get the eruptions that occur. That includes me, I bow to others' superior knowledge of the game but when I make a post stating a view, I don't expect to be told it's gamey, I wouldn't play against them, etc., I'm merely trying to put a point of view relevant to the post and don't expect to get categorised as such, just over a point of view? This goes back to an earlier post I made. It isn't a tactic I use, just a 'what if?' statement and it becomes a matter of pesonal attack in my eyes and, going by some other posts and e-mails I've recieved, is seen the same, so when will guys admit they are out of order?

Peter

Peter:

Your "from the heart" response to my earlier post has me thinking along different lines then originally thought. :chin: Thank you!

I appreciate your passion for the game! :)

I've not played you, but I can read in your posts your enjoyment and excitement for both CS and desire to be an active member of the Blitz Community here at the forums.

Fantastic! I wish more players had your enthusiasm!

I would also venture that players' enthusiasm will sometimes "spill" into their posts and a vigorous defense of ideas and opinions becomes a vigorous attack against another? :chin:

Maybe it is time to forget about being right or wrong? Or who has collected the most evidence to support their opinion? Or who stated what months or years ago? Or computing gas mileage of units? Or any of that stuff?

Maybe it is time to value (or appreciate may be a better word) every players' opinions, comments, and ideas that get posted to these forums. No, that does not mean that everyone must agree with everything that is posted here. Never happen! :smoke: But, I believe that Peter makes a good point - think about your post BEFORE hitting the "Post Reply" button that "maybe he is right and I'm wrong." And I would go one important step further. Please don't launch attacks against individuals and keep the discussion contained to the ideas and opinions only. Forum Rule 101. Finally, and this is very difficult! Please try NOT to take discussion points personally. Let it go and move on. EVERYONE needs to let it go and move on. Sometimes the heart reacts before the brain engages?

Please note that I am no saint and have done my share of bloodletting on these forums. I'm not proud of that behavior and I always strive to do better. I believe it is instances; like in this thread, that highlight for me the need for all CS players to work hard to respect and value all opinions... and work even harder to discuss different opinions and ideas in a non-confronting and respectful manner.

Maybe sometimes it is about something bigger then me... like our player community here at the Blitz? :chin:

Step off my :soap:

Thanks Peter for making the above more clear to me!

[Glint]

Eureka ! I'm glad someone see's where I'm coming from Mike(?).
I have no agenda other than to try and make a post, entering into a debate whilst not putting up with some of the accusations that arise. I agree with you wholeheartedly and am glad you interpret me as you do. I have been in the blitz a fair few years and have played a fair number of players, the games have always been fun and I have enjoyed a lot of banter with the players, one of whom is a friend now that I meet a couple of times a year. Another guy in the USA is like a 'pen friend' and we are always corresponding weekly. Others have given help in projects etc., etc. That is what is good about the blitz, the comaradery and the way some of the posts develop is what I mean when I say they will harm the community.
Whilst admitting that in this post I have defended myself vigorously, I do not think I have been abusive and I do bow to others' superior knowledge, as you say, we just all need to think, 'maybe he's right and I'm wrong'. That way, I think discussions will be more productive and less hostile?
Thanks for your post, sorry, is it Mike? !!!
I just hope this post goes up before I get banned! (Only joking Paul!)
regards
Peter

[Kool Kat]

Eureka ! I'm glad someone see's where I'm coming from Mike(?).
Thanks for your post, sorry, is it Mike? !!!
Peter

You are welcome! Yes. It is Mike!

[Hawk Kriegsman]

That's fine. Arithmetically correct, as is mine.

First off your mathematics is not fine. It is wrong. You based your whole calculation on how fast the plane is moving across your computer screen. How fast a computer executes a turn is not a basis on how to calculate the aircraft's speed. Take yout computer off fast human and fast computer settings and see how fast the plane moves across the screen. You'll notice it moves very slowly.

If you want to properly calculate things you need to stick to hexes (250 meters) and time (6 minutes) and real life techical data just as the designers did.

It boils down to the definition and length of an air attack. The WF manual uses the term air attack...singular.

Agreed it does say that as it does in the EF II and RS manuals too.

But in both the EF II and RS manuals their is an aircraft list (pages 210 & 211 for EF II and page 183 for RS). You will find that an air attack is comprised of 2 or 3 SP per attack. So each air attack is actaully conducted by 2 or 3 aircraft. I am sure you have had in your games where you incoming airstrike has lost 1 SP and still arrived to attack.

That is the basis of my reasoning, because I am one who does not believe that a turn represents 6 minutes of non-stop action

And per every manual written for the game you would be incorrect.

.....in this case non-stop air attacks.

Agreed it is most likely not 6 minutes of non-stop air attacks.

It is a 6 minute sortie by 2 or 3 aircraft however.

I also note that the game only allows the execution of an air attack on a single target, unlike arty, which leads me to believe that the game air attack is a single event.

Agreed based on the resolution it represents a single attack, most likely consistng of a bombing run and a couple strafing runs and then leaving all abstracted into a single resoultion result.

In real life airstrikes may comprise multiple aircraft, but they all strike the target either simultaneously or in very quick succession.

Agreed.

I do take exception to the section of your reply done in bold. If you could point out to me any nasties in my respose (sic), I should be most grateful.

If it does not apply to you in your mind then pay it no heed.

Thanx!

Hawk