Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: HardLuckYetAgain

Oh!! you are using the "Tu Quoque" Fallacy type argument. Your hatred RUNS very deep here Colbert, or whoever you are hiding behind another name if that is the case. You pointing the finger at me has the other fingers on the hand pointing back at you and the people you named. As such what I said about Crackaces stands and is true as anyone can read it. No retraction, no regrets, and by all means 100% meant it.

So I give you, Colbert, along with anyone else that wishes to join, the option of meeting me either in person or to talk on Discord. No more of the back and forth on Matrix forums solving nothing behind fictitious names. I will buy lunch/dinner for anyone that wants to meet in person(I travel often so I am sure I can meet people, even in the UK) So your choice Colbert and whoever else wants to come to an understanding and better forum friends (mates for you British people). Is that too hard for you to do Colbert? Or will you continue the "HATRED" I am sure I already know the answer but I have to try at a minimum

Reference for "Tu Quoque" fallacy is:

The “tu quoque,” Latin for “you too,” is also called the “appeal to hypocrisy” because it distracts from the argument by pointing out hypocrisy in the opponent. This tactic doesn’t solve the problem, or prove one’s point. Focusing on the other person’s hypocrisy is a diversionary tactic. In this way, the tu quoque typically deflects criticism away from one’s self or another by accusing the other person of the same problem or something comparable.

Merriam Webster Dictionary definition = a retort charging an adversary with being or doing what the adversary criticizes in others

quote:

ORIGINAL: joelmar

What a sorry discussion. Serious lack of empathy and low consciousness are at work.

quote:

ORIGINAL: xhoel

quote:

ORIGINAL: morvael

quote:

ORIGINAL: 56ajax
Just on AFV losses, the winner controls the battlefield and gets to recover their vehicles whereas the loser does not. So I would expect the Axis losses to be low in 41/42 and much higher in 43 and onwards.

This is taken into account in the formulas. The question is whether to correct degree. Also, it's very hard to adjust the formulas to achieve predetermined % gain in end numbers, as the probability formula of multiple various random tests with many subvariants is very hard to calculate.

I see a bigger problem - there is only one "damaged" status, whereas as a minimum I would love to have separate heavy (battle) damage from light (mechanical) damage. The second one should be easier to incur, especially when you move your unit a lot, but also quite easy to repair once you wait a bit, allowing for the correct large fluctuation of ready AFVs in mobile operations. Heavy damage would in turn be harder to repair, especially in restricted supply condition, and such vehicles should mostly be lost in a unit forced to retreat. Currently, the single damage status is forced to be a middle ground of the two, and it doesn't represent either of the two correctly.

That sounds like a really interesting idea actually. I don't know if it would be possible to add it properly, but I like the idea.