RE: How Big Are these Dang Hexes!? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition



Message

Mike Scholl -> RE: How Big Are these Dang Hexes!? (11/19/2009 8:42:09 PM)

So basically a land hex is 1837.34 square statute miles.  Never have so many said so much without answering the question... [8|]



tocaff -> RE: How Big Are these Dang Hexes!? (11/19/2009 10:34:04 PM)

They're just budding politicians blabbering, saying nothing to answer the questions.  [:D]



witpqs -> RE: How Big Are these Dang Hexes!? (11/19/2009 10:40:31 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

So basically a land hex is 1837.34 square statute miles.  Never have so many said so much without answering the question... [8|]


Maybe. That depends on which nautical mile Andrew used - they all convert to Statue Miles differently!

[:D]



Mike Scholl -> RE: How Big Are these Dang Hexes!? (11/20/2009 9:56:23 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

So basically a land hex is 1837.34 square statute miles. Never have so many said so much without answering the question... [8|]


Maybe. That depends on which nautical mile Andrew used - they all convert to Statue Miles differently! [:D]


Hopefully he used the "Admiralty Mile" pre-1970 (the game does take place in the 1940's). Not only did "Britannia Rule the Waves" for 100's of years before that, but 6080 feet is just the kind of "makes no logical sense" number so beloved by the English. It should be enshrined in the game... [:'(]



wdolson -> RE: How Big Are these Dang Hexes!? (11/20/2009 11:15:02 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

Wikipeadia has an accurate article on the topic.



quote:

ORIGINAL: DivePac88
Wikipeadia has an accurate entry... My God that is a surprise! [;)]


Somebody did a random compare of articles from Wikipedia and Encyclopedia Britannica and found Wikipedia slightly more accurate. Wikipedia does have accuracy problems in some areas where people want to tweak an article a lot due to some political reason (both politics politics and controversial issues). It's generally pretty good in most other areas.

I have seen errors in WW II articles, but generally the quality of the history stuff is better than you would find in a random sampling of websites on the same topics (a few may be better, but most are worse) and usually only topped by scholarly, heavily researched books.

Bill



treespider -> RE: How Big Are these Dang Hexes!? (11/20/2009 11:38:12 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl


quote:

ORIGINAL: bjmorgan

I just did the math and found that jwilkerson is correct. I got 1385.64 NM. I haven't used trig in 40 years. Since then sin and cosin were things you did while getting a loan.


AGAIN I ask..., who the bloody devil measures LAND in nautical miles? This thread began with a question about troop density per square mile (not knot) in China. So how about some math whiz crank up his brain box and give us some useful information in statute miles?




Well I guess that depends on which square mile your talking about....[:)]
-------
Of course of the ~1837 square st. miles how many are occupied by the attacking force and how many by the defenders?
-------
To me this conversation is rather pointless...as the actual battle in a given hex may focus on as little as 10 square miles...or it could be as broad as 1500 square miles...[8|]
------

Take the late '41 Battle of Changsha for example - Changsha is all of 2x5 km roughly say 3 square st. miles...in Changsha itself you had the 10th Army being attacked by the 3rd and 6th Infantry Divisions... so it was probably fairly dense there....

Now ~18 st. miles to the north of Changsha, the Chinese countered-attacked the Japanese west flank with the 20th, 73rd, 58th and 99th Armies on a front that was about 6 miles wide from Mt. Tamoshan through the towns of Hsinkaishih and Lichiao....would that the be the same hex as Changsha or would the Chinese be located one hex away from Changsha???






Mike Scholl -> RE: How Big Are these Dang Hexes!? (11/20/2009 11:53:45 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: treespider

To me this conversation is rather pointless...



It's COMPLETELY pointless, Spider..., that's the point! None of it has anything to do with the actual problem that caused the discussion. Land Artillery Bombardment is borked..., and everyone knows it's borked. But the JFB's who are exploiting it are having fun doing so, and keep tossing out "red herrings" trying to justify it. [8|]






khyberbill -> RE: How Big Are these Dang Hexes!? (11/20/2009 12:23:38 PM)

quote:

It's COMPLETELY pointless, Spider..., that's the point! None of it has anything to do with the actual problem that caused the discussion. Land Artillery Bombardment is borked..., and everyone knows it's borked. But the JFB's who are exploiting it are having fun doing so, and keep tossing out "red herrings" trying to justify it.

Hear Here!!! Two of my PBEMs have already stopped because of this issue. And one is waiting to start to see what HR is needed after Patch 2 is implemented. One wonders if the delay of the Patch 2 Beta is due to this issue....



treespider -> RE: How Big Are these Dang Hexes!? (11/20/2009 12:31:54 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl


quote:

ORIGINAL: treespider

To me this conversation is rather pointless...



It's COMPLETELY pointless, Spider..., that's the point! None of it has anything to do with the actual problem that caused the discussion. Land Artillery Bombardment is borked..., and everyone knows it's borked. But the JFB's who are exploiting it are having fun doing so, and keep tossing out "red herrings" trying to justify it. [8|]


I know other wise... but is it partially borked because people insist on cramming the entire artillery arsenal of the Kwantung Army into one hex in January 1942 instead of waiting until June 1944?





Anthropoid -> RE: How Big Are these Dang Hexes!? (11/20/2009 1:04:51 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl


quote:

ORIGINAL: treespider

To me this conversation is rather pointless...



It's COMPLETELY pointless, Spider..., that's the point! None of it has anything to do with the actual problem that caused the discussion. Land Artillery Bombardment is borked..., and everyone knows it's borked. But the JFB's who are exploiting it are having fun doing so, and keep tossing out "red herrings" trying to justify it. [8|]


On the contrary! This is a discussion of the highest caliber and imminent significance!



morganbj -> RE: How Big Are these Dang Hexes!? (11/20/2009 1:57:36 PM)

And, THIS thread seems to be about the square mileage of a hex, not unit density, or artillery effectiveness.  Or, is there a missing first poster before Anthropoid?  Perhaps his request to know what the square mileage of hex was might have prompted some of these responses.  [8|]



Anthropoid -> RE: How Big Are these Dang Hexes!? (11/20/2009 2:16:16 PM)

From my perspective this thread should be about anything that is silly and geometrical.



morganbj -> RE: How Big Are these Dang Hexes!? (11/20/2009 2:28:24 PM)

OK 'poid.  It's time you an' me SQUARE off.  I know you played the TRIANGLE in the school band, but I was in a CIRCLE of players on the football field.  And what's your ANGLE anyway?  It seems like you're living in a PARALLEL universe in some unknown AREA.  Well, PLANE [sic] and simple, I'm going to lay you out PERPENDICULAR.



USSAmerica -> RE: How Big Are these Dang Hexes!? (11/20/2009 2:30:04 PM)

Geometry geeks.  [sm=nono.gif][:D]



erstad -> RE: How Big Are these Dang Hexes!? (11/20/2009 2:31:17 PM)

quote:

This is a discussion of the highest caliber


Actually, I think the discussion was on artillery of all shapes and sizes. Not just the big guns [:D]



Brigs -> RE: How Big Are these Dang Hexes!? (11/20/2009 3:22:40 PM)

quote:

ADDIT: @ Brigs: I _think_ you might have made a slight miscalculation. I did not get my skinfold's calipers out to check
for certain, but I think that the angle that you've depicted represented at MOB' (by which I am guessing you are showing
"maximal organizational banzai?") should in fact be more obtuse.



Your guess about the named angle is absolutely correct, Anthropoid. However, I do believe my calculations are precisely
accurate. What you probably missed is the fact that the obtusion factor is diminished somewhat due to the earth's
rotation. Don't worry, though, because that's a common mistake. Look at my chart again and you'll see exactly what I mean.

I'm no expert, but I find a skinfold caliper to be useful only for computing spread velocities in trajectory tables. Others have
questioned my advanced techniques, though, so I could be wrong about that.






Braedonnal -> RE: How Big Are these Dang Hexes!? (11/21/2009 12:33:49 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

The distance between opposing SIDES being 20 nm not the distance between opposing vertices.

So the 12 embedded triangles have sides of 20 nm and ~11.5 nm with the hypotenus of ~23 nm ... so the length of the "sides" of the hexagon in question are ~23nm and the area is ~1380sqnm (6 equal sided triangles with areas of ~230sqnm).


I agree with this here for area. Something around 1385sqnm give or take. My error was figuring it point to point on the individual hexagon rather than center to center across two hexagons. Silly error on my part.



Anthropoid -> RE: How Big Are these Dang Hexes!? (11/21/2009 1:43:53 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Braedonnal


quote:

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

The distance between opposing SIDES being 20 nm not the distance between opposing vertices.

So the 12 embedded triangles have sides of 20 nm and ~11.5 nm with the hypotenus of ~23 nm ... so the length of the "sides" of the hexagon in question are ~23nm and the area is ~1380sqnm (6 equal sided triangles with areas of ~230sqnm).


I agree with this here for area. Something around 1385sqnm give or take. My error was figuring it point to point on the individual hexagon rather than center to center across two hexagons. Silly error on my part.


To Err is aviation, but to see is naval gazing.



Chickenboy -> RE: How Big Are these Dang Hexes!? (11/21/2009 4:32:22 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: 88l71


quote:

ORIGINAL: khyberbill

quote:


---And there is a nice green ball for the first to ask about knots per hour
As an ex-submariner, I prefer to think in furlongs per fortnight.


"My car gets 40 rods to the hogshead, and that's the way I like it!"

-Grandpa Simpson

DARNIT! I was hoping to get this quote in first. Curse you 88I71! [:'(]



Anthropoid -> RE: How Big Are these Dang Hexes!? (11/21/2009 4:45:18 PM)

So no real hope of this one taking over from "The THREAD!" as the longest running silliest thread on Matrix, eh?

Ah well, you can't blame a guy for trying.



witpqs -> RE: How Big Are these Dang Hexes!? (11/21/2009 4:58:22 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Anthropoid

So no real hope of this one taking over from "The THREAD!" as the longest running silliest thread on Matrix, eh?

Ah well, you can't blame a guy for trying.


You give up too easily. What if the hexes were in parsecs? In that case how big would be the planet the map was representing a part of?

PS: Provide your answer in millimeters.



Anthropoid -> RE: How Big Are these Dang Hexes!? (11/21/2009 6:02:02 PM)

@witpqs: the answer is negative-infinity millimeters, for the simple reason that, a planet that large would be too massive and would soon implode on itself, causing a massive tidal wave and forming a black hole that would make Calcutta look like a spacious well-lighted sun room.

Honestly I miss the "Disregard" thread; that one just had a certain "je ne sais quoi"



witpqs -> RE: How Big Are these Dang Hexes!? (11/21/2009 7:00:57 PM)

Sorry Antropoid but the hypothetical planet is made of ultralightium and therefore will not shrink to size of a politician's integrity. The only thing massive is the calculation required.



HMSWarspite -> RE: How Big Are these Dang Hexes!? (11/22/2009 8:12:14 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: USS America


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl


quote:

ORIGINAL: bjmorgan

I just did the math and found that jwilkerson is correct. I got 1385.64 NM. I haven't used trig in 40 years. Since then sin and cosin were things you did while getting a loan.


AGAIN I ask..., who the bloody devil measures LAND in nautical miles? This thread began with a question about troop density per square mile (not knot) in China. So how about some math whiz crank up his brain box and give us some useful information in statute miles?



2000 yards in 1 nautical mile.

1760 yards in 1 statute mile.

You do the math.

Hey, an entire thread on nautical miles, and only one misuse of Knot! (And that marginal depending on what exactly Mike Scholl meant :). And correct usage of parsec as well:). Funny how a until of velocity (knot) gets used as a length, and a until of length gets used as a time ;)... knots per parsec anyone :0



33Vyper -> RE: How Big Are these Dang Hexes!? (11/22/2009 8:27:00 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kwik E Mart

are we talking African or European swallows here?



LMAO now that is my kind of math



Anthropoid -> RE: How Big Are these Dang Hexes!? (11/22/2009 9:22:11 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: HMSWarspite
Hey, an entire thread on nautical miles, and only one misuse of Knot! (And that marginal depending on what exactly Mike Scholl meant :). And correct usage of parsec as well:). Funny how a until of velocity (knot) gets used as a length, and a until of length gets used as a time ;)... knots per parsec anyone :0


Oh no! _NOT_ knots! Please do not starting inserting knots into this discussion . . .

[image]http://www.cs.mtu.edu/~shene/COURSES/cs3621/LAB/curve/knot-insert-1.jpg[/image]

The subject is already thorny enough without you making it knotty on top of that. I just knew that Knot Insertion would get brought up.

quote:

Knot insertion is a fundamental algorithm in curve and surface design. Its goal is to add one or more knots to the knot vector without changing the shape of the curve.




Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.7810059