The Final Word on Ajacent Hex Damage (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Steel Panthers World At War & Mega Campaigns



Message

Khan7 -> The Final Word on Ajacent Hex Damage (8/2/2001 4:51:00 AM)

Quote from Mike Wood: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hello... When we modeled the high explosives system, we assumed that the round does not always land in the exact center of the hex or even in the portion of the hex which contains the target. In the case of smaller caliber ordinance, when this occurs, no casualties are produced. In the case of larger caliber ordinance, casualties in the target hex and adjacent hexes can still be produced, because of the size of the explosion. Within our system it is quite possible to kill no one in the target hex at all, and yet destroy a squad in the adjacent hex. In this case, the round landed near the edge of the hex and micro-terrain protected the unit in the target hex. Hope this helps to understand our logic... Michael Wood >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> RRRRrrrgg.. Okay, here is a semi-complex mathematical analysis of all this. We assume in the following that the total significant blast radius is 25m (so that it would fill a 50m hex if it struck in the center). The following was found with a bunch of math that I won't bother to write out here, but if feel like doubting it I'll show all my work. 25% chance of the shell landing within 12.5m of the center. We will assume that a shell landing in this range would significantly affect the target hex ONLY. 31.2% chance of the shell landing between 12.5 and 18.75m from the center. This would on average spread the blast about 2/3 in the target hex and 1/3 in ONE other hex. 43.7% chance of the shell landing between 18.75 and 25m from the center. We will assume that this affects the target and ONE other hex about equally, with a tendency to affect the target hex slightly more. In situation one, a unit in the target hex would invariably be exposed to the blast and would not be able to escape it. In situation two, a unit in the target hex would have a 1/3 chance of being completely out of the range of the blast, and a unit in the one other hex affected would have a 2/3 chance of being completely out of danger. The difference between target hex and other hex damage would be increased even more by the fact that the whole of the most intense part of the blast would be contained within the target hex. In situation 3 a unit in the target hex and a unit in another affected hex would have about equal chances of being out of danger, and the blast would be approximately equally distributed between the two hexes. The target hex would of course have a tendency to take a slightly greater beating. The anylysis above assumes that the shell will only ever affect one other hex, but this works for our purposes, as it could only ever realistically affect 2 other hexes, and if it did the affects would be divided between the two. We must also remember that the unit in the adjacent hex can too take advantage of microterrain, a fact which Mike Wood seems bent on ignoring. Conclusions: -Damage can only be done to one or perhaps two adjacent hexes. - .25 x 1 + .312 x .66 + .437 x .5 = .67742 = 67.742% - Therefore the target hex will overall take somewhat more than 2/3 of the damage (remember also that they will take the more intense parts of the blast radius), meaning that the ratio between target and adjacent hex damage should be at least 2 to 1. -The fact that the current system deals damage to ALL adjacent hexes at the ratio of 3.4 to 2.2, only about 1.5 to 1, is a very serious and damaging game flaw that cannot be overlooked. I hope this finally puts all questions to rest on the matter. For more background on this debate, visit the original thread. But I think this pretty much finishes it.



Paul Vebber -> (8/2/2001 8:41:00 AM)

Your analysis is based on the two seriously flawed assumptions: 1) that the fragmentation pattern of an HE round is less than 25m in radius 2) that that pattern is circular. Neither condition is true, so your "last word" is no better than the games "first word" in trying to allocate casualties from HE shrapnel. http://members.tripod.com/~nigelef/id23.htm has an excellent depition of the area of a 25lber for example and the dangerous area extends almost 150m. Now we are limited to dealing with circles the way the game is set up, we can do better "butterfly" patterns in Combat Leader, but even a 25lber has a significant chance of causing casualties far outside one hex. Beacause of these restrictions the casualty routine is based on determining the casualties for a barrage, not for individual rounds. We are well aware that abstraction often makes it difficult if not impossibnle to perform "realistic" casualty caluculation of each round fired. Even if the casualty producing algoritms were 'realistic' the NET EFFECT OF ARTILLERY FIRE would be significantly higher than "reality". That makes no sense you say! IF I model damage mechanisms precisely I will get realistic results, won't I?!? Well, that is a mistake that I have to correct in professional Modeling and Sim neophytes in my "real job"... One can't simply model the details and past then together and expect them to produce reality. The game essentially models the Command Control of Borg Collective. Each "node" in the "hive" immediately knows what every every other node sees the instant it sees it. IF one want so to point out a "damaging game flaw that cannot be overlooked" that would be the big one... Because of that hive mind at your beck and call, you can apply artillery with far more precision than the Army could ever hope to achieve with its new Crusader, let alone WW2 proceedures. So the details of modeling casualty rates on a round per round basis is hopelessly over shadowed by this C2 "flaw". This requires a "toning down" of casualties and the overall effect of HE to be somewhat abstracted. Your on the right track, but I'd have to give you a B- for not thinking the problem all the way through... Try playing a "realistic" game where what you see on the board is only 60 or 70% accurate (for your troops) 20 or 30% accurate of the other guys troops and oh by the way represents the situation 10 turns ago. That is realistic. IF you would listen to folks like Mike Wood (who programmed the game in case you haven't heard and as far as I know INVENTED the term "micro terrain") you might learn that there is a lot more to game design than meets the eye... You have a lot of good comments, but we have not fallen off the turnip truck here... [ August 01, 2001: Message edited by: Paul Vebber ]



Khan7 -> (8/2/2001 9:37:00 AM)

I will reassert the correctness of my analysis at some later time, as currently I'm somewhat tired from daily activities. For now, I have this to say: Your sureness in the infallibility of yourself and anyone who was directly involved in the game design or production is baffling. I am also having a hard time figuring out what you find so offensive. I never suggested that somehow all you guys' hard work on the project was worthless based on my anylysis of a few oversights, or even that I could've done a better job. A little exasperation might be in order if I was really, truly SOOO incorrect, but your confidence in this is quite unfounded as I will show at some later time. Also, you seem to devote a lot of time to expounding on a point that at this time seems to me less than relevant: that complex microcosmic figurings don't always make a good big picture when you put it all together. I couldn't agree with you more. I still don't see how you can use this assertion to get around the fact that the game engine DOES deal with each individual shot, and you DO have to model the effects for each individual shot, even if all the time you are trying to look at a larger effect or picture, such as the effect of the entire barrage. Also, have I ever suggested that C&C in SPWAW wasn't somewhat wacked? I thought I'd expounded on this subject a few times in other threads.. however, THIS problem would take an entirely new game, where as the issue I'm dealing with here would not be a very hard fix. I'm not saying it's the biggest problem, I'm just equating its importance to things u guys do like dealing with MG effectiveness etc. (which, by the way, I realize I lost the argument over). To sum it all up, I am inferring from various *SMALL* hints in your post that you don't like my attitude-- well, that's just fine, cuz I really don't like yours either.



Paul Vebber -> (8/2/2001 10:11:00 AM)

Well, I too have better things to do. Suffice it to say when on multiple threads you basically say you know the game design better than the designers, it should not surprise you the response is a bit chilly. Nowhere have I said I'm infallible (you are the one claiming the "last word" with your flawed analysis). I tend to respond in kind to posters here and your arrogance invites the same in response. Feel free to overanalyze the situation to your hearts content, but its "in the noise"...as I tried to explain. Did you study "significant figures" in school? Might want to refresh your self on it. Your inistence that individual round depiction requires that individual rounds be dealt with in minute deatil demostrates you don't understand much about game design. Sorry to be blunt, but when you go around saying this and that is "ludicrous" and "can't be overlooked", you should not be surprised when I don't sugarcoat my response. I like your posts, and I like the fact you take a critical eye to looking at things, but if you are going to be so forceful claiming things are screwed up, I won't pull any punches pointing out where you are mistaken. One can take ANY aspect of the game, dissect it and find it wanting. Just like taking a magnifying glass to a painting reveals drips and blobs that bear little resemblence to what they are supposed to represent. But if you step back from trying to micro-analyze the details, the "art" of game design comes in making the equivilant of those imperfect brush strokes impart the sense of the scene as a whole. Its old news that a great many things in SP:WaW are "wrong" and that is why we are working hard on Combat Leader and why I have no more time right now to carry this further. Post your analysis though, such contributions are always welcome. But look to the way your attitude comes off, before you take me to task for mine :p I am simply responding in kind :D [ August 01, 2001: Message edited by: Paul Vebber ]



victorhauser -> (8/2/2001 11:17:00 AM)

Khan7: I'm guessing that you spent some time working out the mathematics on your artillery damage area calculations. How long did you work on those calculations? An hour? A day? Several days? However long it took you, you mentioned in this thread that the calculations were complicated and you would be willing to show your work but in the meantime you asked our indulgence to take your word that the results you obtained were valid. I have no problem with your mathematics, Khan7. What I do have a problem with is your inexperience with this problem. The Steel Panthers series has been around for over 5 years now and, as far as I can tell, the artillery system has never worked right. People have been complaining about the artillery system for a long long long time. You aren't the first and you definitely won't be the last. How many people have devoted long hours trying to "fix" the artillery system? I don't have an exact number, but I'm guessing that in the 5+ years that Steel Panthers has been around (in one form or another) there has been a dozen or so different versions of the artillery system--none of them completely satisfactory. I'm not saying that greater minds than yours have attempted to solve that problem less-than-succesfully. But I am saying that you aren't the only person who has spent long hours trying to solve the problem. As alluded to, it is possible that the artillery system is impossible to "fix" given the limitations of the game engine itself. I do agree with you that the current version of the artillery system seems to be too destructive at the large-caliber end and not quite (but almost) destructive enough at the small-caliber end. But. And this is the point. The current version of the artillery system works as well or better than every previous version. Have you played all those other versions? I have. At least in this version I can adjust artillery effectiveness and infantry toughness percentages--many previous versions did not have that option. I applaud you in your quest for the Steel Panthers artillery Holy Grail, but remember that Matrix has devoted even more hours than you have (with greater resources at their disposal). Perhaps they have had this discussion/argument many many times. You think? Perhaps they also have complicated mathematics behind their artillery concepts that would take even longer to explain than yours would. You think? Years ago when I worked for GR/D (as magazine editor and project developer for the Europa series of boardgames), people would call me all the time and complain that such and such didn't work right and needed fixing and that they had the answer. The problem was that for every person who called to complain about one thing, another would call to praise the very thing the other person had complained about--and vice versa. The only solution in that kind of environment is to try and please MOST of your consumers MOST of the time. Matrix does this by giving players many optional settings to make the game as "customizeable" to every indivdual as possible. Just because i'm not entirely satisfied with the current artillery system, at least I've played the other versions to know that this version is at least as good as any previous one (to me) and I have the options in this version to adjust the settings as best I can to make it the way I believe it should be. If you want your efforts and suggestions to gain acceptance and credibility, then I suggest that gentle, even if tenacious, persistance often yields the results you seek.



Warrior -> (8/2/2001 5:12:00 PM)

Khan: I suggest you play the game, have fun with it, and quit trying to reinvent the wheel.



Kluckenbill -> (8/3/2001 12:41:00 AM)

quote:

EDITED COPY - Originally posted by Paul Vebber: Try playing a "realistic" game where what you see on the board is only 60 or 70% accurate (for your troops) 20 or 30% accurate of the other guys troops and oh by the way represents the situation 10 turns ago. That is realistic. [ August 01, 2001: Message edited by: Paul Vebber ]
You're right. That would make for a fascinating, if exasperating game! I gather that CA/CL (the game after SPWAW) will have more uncertainty in it regarding enemy units, but it would be interesting to develop some method of illustrating the lack of accurate reports reaching the company/batallion/brigade commanders. I think in a WEGO system, it might be possible to have a certain amount of uncertainty about terrain until your units actually travers that terrain.



Tombstone -> (8/3/2001 1:59:00 AM)

It makes you feel sorry for commanders. How stressful it must probably get. You know what the real last word of this discussion should be? "Boy, I can't wait until Combat Leader comes out." Tomo



Del -> (8/3/2001 7:09:00 AM)

What everyone needs to remember is that this is a turned based GAME. Although allot of people have valiantly tried to make it resemble real life it will always fall very short of achieving this goal. I am the first to admit to complaining about some things that were put into the game to prevent people from producing unrealistic tactics and therefore unrealistic results. I have to stop and remember, it's a game and nothing can be done to make it resemble an actual battle except in a very abstract way. I don't think SSI ever intended to have the game engine represent reality except to a limited extent. More importantly they wanted the GAME to be FUN so people would buy it and SSI would make a buck. Other people took that restrictive game engine and made it work in ways SSI never imagined. It has gone about as far as it can in the hands of Matrix and the Camo group. Anything beyond what it now is would only be tweaking to the tastes of different individuals. Kind of a House of Mirrors thing where each reflection is the same but different. So many different versions you would be hard pressed to find an opponent that played your personal favorite blend. Bottom line, don't sweat the small stuff. Either play the game and have some fun or look for something else that works better for you. I think this poor old horse has been beat as much as it can be. :p



Lynx -> (8/3/2001 11:17:00 AM)

Egads... SpWaW is the best title out there.. and its free...=O Ok ok, lets not stop critiqing it, but there's a level of appreciation that should be considered before asking for free code Lynx



RockinHarry -> (8/3/2001 5:59:00 PM)

After some more playing and testing I found the adjacent hex damage thing Ok. Same as with the other game calculations, itīs heavily related with unit experience, so the below 70+80 experience units catch considerably lots more shrapnel while moving around. The newbie grunts obviously hit the deck much later than the veterans. :D _________ Harry



Paul Vebber -> (8/4/2001 1:38:00 AM)

Harry - if you could - could you see if you see a relationship to "extra" same hex casualties and range? At least for MGS. I did a quick test and found that outside 4-6 hexes the casualties to the "target" were running about 2-1 to "other occuoans, But between 4-6 hexes it even out and inside 4 hexes it shifted infavor of the non-target. This may be what folks are seeing. I can;t see an obvious reason in teh code and might jsut have been bad luck on my part...but the "same hex damage" may be related to some obsure range related interaction. Thanks for looking into things!!



Nikademus -> (8/4/2001 6:41:00 AM)

The only "final word" on any SP related issue that i'm aware of is that my generalship........."sucks" (good thing i dont have to pay for all scrap metal i've created on my side.) :p



Khan7 -> (8/4/2001 8:59:00 AM)

Well well. It is intersting to see people run around here with a whole bunch of philosophical talk about how the game engine is limited and about brush strokes and how it can't be fixed and how we shouldn't worry, and then people still go right ahead and want more specific and complex tests to analyze the game in greater detail. The reams and reams of philosophy offered in this thread are all good and fine in their own place and time, and if I ever seemed to blow things out of perspective, I'm sorry and you all seem to have put things into proportion well enough again. But none of what you said really has anything to do with the topic of this post (i.e. whether there is something wrong with adjacent hex damage, and whether my particular figurings have any validity), neither does it have any effect on the aforementioned. So, after posting this disclaimer that YES THIS IS NOT A BIG DEAL, YES I KNOW LOTS OF WORK HAS BEEN DONE ON THIS, and YES I KNOW THIS GAME IS FLAWED, I will proceed to reassert that my theories are correct. P.S.: I've been playing the Steel Panthers series since shortly after it came out, have become quite proficient at a considerable number of wargames including the SPs, and am an avid reader of literature on military history, theory, etc. So I'm not exactly a googley-eyed moron, though my credentials don't nearly match up to others, such as those who DESIGNED SP etc.



A_B -> (8/4/2001 9:12:00 AM)

quote:

One can take ANY aspect of the game, dissect it and find it wanting. Just like taking a magnifying glass to a painting reveals drips and blobs that bear little resemblence to what they are supposed to represent. But if you step back from trying to micro-analyze the details, the "art" of game design comes in making the equivilant of those imperfect brush strokes impart the sense of the scene as a whole.
I liked that analogy.



Paul Vebber -> (8/4/2001 9:49:00 AM)

I said quite specifically that the way the game handles adjacent hex damge is "wrong" (ie it uses an abstration that is quite common, to wit, if an area is affected that is very complex, then approximate it with a simple area of equal probability. This allows an abstract representaion of effects across a range of sizes (the bigger teh warhead size the bigger the potential area of effect. Yes that means that two casualties 100yards apart could be casued by a shell landing in a hex between them and doing nothing in the hex. Now why is it incongrous to want to see the details of what you think to be correct. THis is shold be about learning from each other and the fact that from what you revealed (assuming all rounds affect a 25yardcircle that is randomly centered in the target hex) can be shown to be just as "wrong", if not more so than the game's wrong answer. BUt who know's you might have other insights that are interesting. My strong response was to let you know that there is little point to making pronoucements about how "wrong" game pieces are. EVERY game system can be shwn to be "wrong" in some way or another. If you have what you think is a better way of doing things, rather than announce that this game system is "ludacrous" and that one "needs immediate fixing"...Play Jeopardy and post your answer in the form of a question and propose to discuss the pros and conns of it vs teh games system? Scientists typically don't start a paper with "Newton was all dorked up, you need to use relativity NOW or be screwed". Reasoned debate proposes alternatives and explores pros and conns. Charging in like a bull in a china shop is one way, but others tend to be more successful.



A_B -> (8/4/2001 10:16:00 AM)

quote:

If you have what you think is a better way of doing things, rather than announce that this game system is "ludacrous" and that one "needs immediate fixing"...Play Jeopardy and post your answer in the form of a question and propose to discuss the pros and conns of it vs teh games system?
On the other hand, if you start a thread in a reasoned fashion, it never gets anyones attention. I've posed some qustions, on areas of concern, and gotten either no or limited responses from the matrix people or the general board population. So maybe the thread name was merely marketing. On the other hand, lets stop talking about SPWAW for a few months, and concentrate on CA/CL



Paul Vebber -> (8/4/2001 10:29:00 AM)

I've read a lot of posts I have never had time to respond to, or where simply good ideas without the need of response but prommpted me to put something in the game. Many of theses sorts of discussions are general enough to be applicable to CL. I feel more obliged to post to a thread where something needs correction, bu that is not an efficient use of my time. If your goal is "getting attention" then I suppose flaming in a scorcher does have a high chance of getting a response, but if too much of that happens, then its self defeating being I know I spend too much time trying to correct misconceptions or demstrate that some problems aren't. So ultimately "crying fire" gets attention, but ultimately results in noby responding to anything, becasue we have onlyso much time to devote to forum posting.



Khan7 -> (8/4/2001 10:35:00 AM)

lol, I never thought anyone would defend such an obviously flawed system so tenaciously. That sort of thing is the penchant of the medieval Catholic Church and American religious organizations.. Alright, it seems that you agree that the system, if looked at on a small scale, is wacked. So I won't even go there anymore. You want big picture evaluations, I'll give you them. Here are some tests I did with the game: I set up 4 '41 Russian infantry platoons (av. experience ~60, ~70 for elites), entrenched, all in separate parts of the map and all adjacent to a KV heavy tank. The were to be attacked by aircraft carrying medium to large sized bombs, who would target the KV and release their bombs in the hex in which the KV resided. Situation 1 represents a Soviet rifle platoon of 43 entrenched in a large woods, attacked by a Ju-87b-1 (1x250kg bomb, 4x50kg bomb). Situation 2 represents a Soviet rifle platoon of 42entrenched in rough terrain, attacked by a Bf-110d (4x250kg bomb). Situation 3 represents a Soviet Marine platoon of 41(elite), entrenched in rough terrain, attacked by a Ju-87b-1. Situation 4 represents a Soviet Marine platoon of 44, entrenched in a large woods, attacked by a Bf-110d. Due to the effectiveness of the 20mm cannon on the Bf-110d, and its lack of good fire control, it sometimes would drop its bombs in the wrong hex (mainly because the tank was already dead). These instances are noted. Trial 1 1: 21 survivors 2: 7 survivors 3: 12 survivors 4: 21 survivors, offcenter 1: 12 survivors 2: 17 survivors, offcenter 3: 4 survivors 4: 21 survivors, offcenter 1: 23 survivors 2: 24 survivors, offcenter 3: 14 survivors 4: 3 survivors If this is the way it really was, one would wonder why the Germans even bothered with so many tanks in Barbarossa. If a cheap Junker can in a single sortie rip apart an entire reasonably-spread out platoon of infantry heavily entrenched in rough terrain and roust them from their positions, why spend money on so many expensive Panzers? An entire platoon of ABRAMS tanks would be insufficient for the task just described, and could only hope to win the position from the infantry by besiegement. Granted the tanks would do fine if they had some infantry along for the ride, but who needs infantry when you've got UberJunkers? C'mon, gimme a break. Call this a clear and reasonably well-proportioned picture? I call it a Picasso.



Charles2222 -> (8/4/2001 9:34:00 PM)

Khan7:
quote:

That sort of thing is the penchant of the medieval Catholic Church and American religious organizations..
Okay bud, let's stop with the cheapshots now!!! You have not only cut my church down, but also ALL American religious organizations, not only Christian ones. [ August 04, 2001: Message edited by: Charles_22 ]



Khan7 -> (8/5/2001 4:28:00 AM)

If you are ignorant or in denial about the history of your Catholic (or whichever) Church, then your faith is meaningless. And in my experience American Protestant organizations are quite proud of their stand against accepted scientific wisdom. Hey, I tend to get along with people of all beliefs, but that doesn't mean I'll always keep my mouth sealed shut. [ August 04, 2001: Message edited by: Khan7 ]



Truckeye -> (8/5/2001 4:52:00 AM)

accepted scientific wisdom? are you aware scientists are flocking away from the THEORY of evolution and themselves labeling it as a religeon? simply due to lack of scientific evidence and evidence to the contrary? i think you really ought to stick to the topics of this board and leave your personal religeous vendettas/beliefs to another forum. if you would like to dig into some of the "scientific wisdom" via email, ill be glad to site studies, reports, books, PhDs etc and perhaps shed some alternate scientific wisdom that is widely accepted within science even if not widely reported. So PLEASE, lets keep in on track here before we offend 90% of the board and bore the others to death.



Khan7 -> (8/5/2001 5:00:00 AM)

You see? Truckeye is a perfect example of a vibrant, defiant American religious man. I shouldn't be worried about statements I make because I can't hurt people like him, who seem to predominate American religion. And thanks for the offer truck, but I really didn't come here looking for quite that type of fight. And I don't know how it would look to an impartial observer, but it seems to me that YOU are the one bringing your own personal vendettas to this board. Don't take stuff so seriously. It is the great unfinished task of modern religion to transform itself from the cause of wars to a universal force for peace. Don't upset the applecart after so much very encouraging progress has been made.



Khan7 -> (8/5/2001 5:02:00 AM)

Did I forget to mention? It's all good!! No hard feelings! Be happy!! :-P



sjohn -> (8/5/2001 5:14:00 AM)

Wow, a thread that delves into statistical analysis, abstracted models, the history of the Catholic Church, the concept of the American religious male, a subtly brilliant conceit of painting techniques capped off with a nod to Picasso and a shout out to Jeopardy to boot! Pass the popcorn, dude! If someone can work in references to the Thirty Years War and Madonna's new album, I'm calling Dennis Miller! Writing jobs for everybody! This is one of the best threads I've ever seen!



Truckeye -> (8/5/2001 5:17:00 AM)

i made no statement of my personal religous beliefs, so you are working on assumption. im merely pointing out if youre not looking for that sort of "fight" then dont bring it up to begin with. in addition, i was pointing out that your sweeping statement on your perception of the american religous community are best made elsewhere. i believe anyone with a neutral belief in creation/evolution for one example would agree when seeing the facts that there is room for much debate on those THEORIES and that people who claim enlightenment and like to look down on the "poor dumb religous people that cling to outdated beliefs" (as you infer) are themselves just as bad or worse for labling, making stereo types, and NOT checking the available facts first. you certainly have lost credibility for doing such a thing here. since you choose to avoid discussing the facts of the can of worms you opened, then i suggest you stick to what you are apparently here for, and by your actions that is picking fights with the designers and members while degrading this great GAME at every chance.



Khan7 -> (8/5/2001 5:34:00 AM)

Okay, I'm going to have out with it once and for all-- the people who frequent these boards are a bunch of gutless womany pussies. For Pete's sake! I make comments on the game, and when I'm not scared off by a few dirty looks from the establishment all of a sudden I am a ruthless psycho bent on destroying all SPWAW has come to be!! On this board, nearly every criticism and analysis I have made has been taken as insult, and every joking prod been taken as flame!! Arguing and debating things tenaciously, even forcefully, is something that grown people should be able to do without passing from fleeting furor to malice, from frustration to hateful resentment. Frankly I very often have a hard time believing that I'm posting in a forum for WARgamers, who one would assume would be tougher even than the average joe. So basically I've had enough experience to know that I've done nothing that warranted any enemies or big wars, and if all hell breaks loose right about now and a mob shows up at my door, no one will convince me that it was my fault. LOL!! :-P



sjohn -> (8/5/2001 5:49:00 AM)

Like I said, this is the best thread I've ever seen! Matrix Max - Beyond Forumdome! Two men enter, one man leaves!, no wait, three men ent- no, four men-, oh, now there's five guys! Stop the madness! Can't we all be peace loving brothers who happen to really like simulating combined arms warfare on a battalion level?



Truckeye -> (8/5/2001 6:01:00 AM)

I agree entirely. thats why im pushing to stick to the point. everyone knows politics and religon spark many heated debates. To take the opening shots at folks then go crying foul when people respond to that attack is a mystery. here i thought i offered to discuss issues like he wants to, and now im akin to an angry mob. Would be like attacking Pearl Harbor and then saying hey, i dont want a war here. you americans are wussies for not understanding my intentions. lets bronze this now infamous thread and move on. i will say Khan, i do agree with you in that units in the hex that is hit, would logically take more damage than those adjacent. but, it seems that issue is settled as far as matrix is concerned, and thats fine with me. now I need to adjust the way i play to take into account the gameplay.



A_B -> (8/5/2001 6:04:00 AM)

I agree with some of what Khan7 is saying. The catholic church showed great intolerance during the 30 years war. And you should have heard what the pope was just quoted as saying about Madonnas new album (not that good, i know, but i didn't put a lot of time into it :) ).
quote:

the people who frequent these boards are a bunch of gutless womany pussies. For Pete's sake! LOL!! :-P
OK, AmmoSgt will be here shortly to invite you to a nice, friendly email game of SPWAW.
quote:

On this board, nearly every criticism and analysis I have made has been taken as insult, and every joking prod been taken as flame!!
Well, this should tell you something Khan7. It's not the message, but the messanger. In order to be a skillful debator, you need to be a good messanger. I think many of the great debators here have been extremely tolerant of the way you ask things or pose questions. As they should be, IMO. You obviously care about the game, are serious about realism, and want improvements. A commendable message. Now work on the delivery. You'll be happier with the results.



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
3.390625