How Big Are these Dang Hexes!?

[JohnDillworth]

How many klicks has this thread been hijacked and how many parsecs to get back again? Screw it , I am just going to have a dram and forgt all about it!

[morganbj]

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.
 
So, Anthropoid now what?  Are you happy?  I will sleep well tonight knowing that I have a number that means nothing, since the hexes can't all represent the same distance.  Something to do with the map distortion that comes from projection of curvatures onto flat surfaces.

[dorjun driver]

ORIGINAL: JohnDillworth

How many klicks has this thread been hijacked and how many parsecs to get back again? Screw it , I am just going to have a dram and forgt all about it!

It's too late in the morning for "drams". I'm gonna have a beer.

[Brigs]

They say one picture is worth a thousand words, so maybe this will help make it easier to understand the math I use to
move ships around in the hexes.

Just to make all this clear, here is an accurate drawing of the game's strategic map. It's drawn perfectly to scale, so
you don't need to worry about that. As you can clearly see, it's obvious that the dotted line shows the most direct route
my ship should take to intercept the enemy. This is also the method that I'm currently using to set up my supply convoys.

I'll leave it to you to fill in the details.

[Anthropoid]

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.

So, Anthropoid now what?  Are you happy?  I will sleep well tonight knowing that I have a number that means nothing, since the hexes can't all represent the same distance.  Something to do with the map distortion that comes from projection of curvatures onto flat surfaces.

Thank you brother Morgan. Praise to the Cosigner. 1385.64 SQUARE Naughtical Miles. I'm thankful that there are those among us capable of rendering accurate, precise, valid, reliable, tasty, crunchy and insightful results from such challenging operations.

In answer to your query concerning my present psychodynamic state: I _AM_ happy though I suspect that might have more to do with the meds I'm taking than with the number 1385.64 Naughtical Miles. Well, maybe the Naughticoms in _interaction_ with the meds, and the realization that once 3PM hits I can get out of this godforsaken office next to the noisy asbestos abatement project which the facilities planners in their infinite wisdom decided to schedule during the middle of a semester just as I initiated a cutting-edge, state-of-the-art, multi-hundred dollar experimental psychophysiological study of gamers in my lab . . .

But I digress . . .

With respect to your assertion that the hexes would be different sizes, obviously that is hogwash; It was proven long ago that maps are flat.

I look forward to your responding to my Navy SEAL thread. I await a suitable mod that represents SEAL Team 1 complete with HALOs, HAHOs, UDTs, BUDs, LITEs, PINGs, SBIs, HOHOs, CHOCOs, and all the other high-tech gear and paraphanelia that have led the coalition forces to victory in the war on raggedy tribesmen.

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.

[Mike Scholl]

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?

[USSAmerica]

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

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.

[JWE]

ORIGINAL: USS America
2000 yards in 1 nautical mile.

1760 yards in 1 statute mile.

You do the math.

Sounds like my Marine buddy Jeremy. Every time he gets on the boat and checks the GPS he complains; "what is this nautical mile crap, how the hell do I change this stupid piece of crap to read in kilometers?"

[witpqs]

Not so fast!

Have a look: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nautical_mile

A Nautical Mile can be:

1,852 meters (exactly) international convention formulated in 1929 but not adopted by the USA until after WWII (1954).

1,853 meters (exactly) [also called Admiralty Mile/UK Nautical Mile/Imperial Nautical Mile] beginning in 1970.

6,080 feet (exactly) [also called Admiralty Mile/UK Nautical Mile/Imperial Nautical Mile] before 1970.

6,000 feet (2,000 yards) [also called Tactical Mile or Data Mile] used by NATO navies.

6,080.20 feet (based on the US foot of 1893) [also called US Nautical Mile] was used from 1893 to 1954 by the USA.

This is a period game 1941 to 1946 involving nations with varying definitions of 'Nautical Mile'. So which one did Andrew use? [;)]

[morganbj]

ORIGINAL: Anthropoid

I'm thankful that there are those among us capable of rendering accurate, precise, valid, reliable, tasty, crunchy and insightful results from such challenging operations.

...

With respect to your assertion that the hexes would be different sizes, obviously that is hogwash; It was proven long ago that maps are flat.

These two statements demonstrate that you are certainly NOT one of the precise posters. Maps are not flat when they are rolled or wadded up. So there! [:-]

[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|]

[tocaff]

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

[witpqs]

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]

ORIGINAL: witpqs

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]

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

Wikipeadia has an accurate article on the topic.

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]

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

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]

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]

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]

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

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]

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

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!