Jap pilots are surperhuman!

[mogami]

Hi, pasternakski lets go get drunk. I could listen to you talk all night. I'll bring my chess board and you can buy the beer.

[mdiehl]

"irregardless" -- Yes, Mo, that word has been an irritant since the early 1980s. I threw it in because, as we all know, "postmodern discourse" is not troubled by grammar, spelling, punctuation, syntax, or usage rules.

thought through thoroughly enough (okay, I can't stop having fun).

You aren't, by chance, a Bob Dylan fan are you. I will admit that I enjoy alliteration enough that I do my level best to slip it into articles that I write for peer-reviewed journals. (Relax. They have nothing to do with military history. In this forum I'm just another mook with an opinion).

My opinion is that UV does not misrepresent Japanese pilot ability within the context of the game system. I think, though, that the "mix" of factors that go into determining air combat effectiveness aircraft by aircraft has not been thought through thoroughly enough (okay, I can't stop having fun). When you try to construct a list of what you have to consider, it becomes rather bewildering.

You start with HQs. Presence or absence has an effect on numbers of aircraft. Then you go to leader characteristics. After that, you add in squadron ratings and status (morale, fatigue, et cetera). Base status (damage, supply, and the rest) factor in. Individual pilot experience is a prime determinant. Finally, you get down to aircraft characteristics. For strike aircraft, you have search effectiveness and status. For CAP, you have radar. Then, there's weather.

It goes on and on. I am sure I have forgotten to list any number of things here. The bottom line is that you can never evaluate your air units' performance more than just generally. Over time, you get a "feel" for it, but it's still more art than science.

For this reason, I consider discussions of pilot and airplane effectiveness and how well it is represented in UV to be largely immaterial.

Well, after my fourth go around at starting scenario 14 (this is how I learn games.. I restart over and over again until I am sure that I know how to do what I want to try to do) I think, perhaps, I am working 'round to agreeing with you. I sure haven't seen the "Japs kill all" that seems implied by the "superhuman" quotes, unless it has something to do with bombing accuracy. In air to air engagements I hold my own quite nicely against the Zekes.

And I'm a rookie at this game. Maybe against a human opponent I'd fare worse, but against the AI I am having no trouble. I find the air combat challenging but not pointless.

[pasternakski]

Hi, pasternakski lets go get drunk. I could listen to you talk all night. I'll bring my chess board and you can buy the beer.

What's this, the old, "Come on over to my house for a steak dinner. You bring the steak" routine?

[denisonh]

I went and looked up decimate and sure enough its used to describe great desitruction in general by Webster's. Its root does come from the latin as others have said but many people use it everyday in the sense of of something terrible happening and thats considered right too.

Good story about Crassus, Mogami. Does anyone else think a war game about the old Roman empire would make for a good game?

Most certainly!

[pasternakski]

While Matrix is in a "port board wargames" mood, they might want to take a look at the old "Imperium Romanum II" title.

In the meantime, avail yourself of a copy of Avalon Hill's "Advanced Civilization" computer adaptation. If you get into it far enough that you understand it, it's still a real kick. I've got it on my old P233 MMX box running Windows 98, 'cause I can't get it to run on my big, bad XP boat anchor.

A fun old - and I do mean OLD - DOS computer game focused on the Roman Empire is "Annals of Rome." You play as sort of the "guiding spirit" of the Empire from just before the first of the Punic wars all the way through to about 1500 a.d., trying to build your empire while fighting off both barbarians and internal revolt and decay. It ain't easy!

(Man alive, this thread has certainly wandered off, hasn't it?)

[CynicAl]

I'm sure you're all aware by know how much I hate to argue , but Mogami's description of "quantum" is off the mark. "Quantum" is of course from the same root as "quantity" and "quantify" and many other fine words relating to "counting." "Small" was not part of its original meaning, though "finite" and "discrete" certainly were. (To a Roman, something "so slight it can not be measured" would be called, very pragmatically, "nothing.") It was pressed into service in the sciences when physicists observed that light - previously assumed to be, like sound, just another waveform acting on a medium - sometimes behaved as if it were composed of a stream of particles instead. Finite, discrete particles. Quanta.

The key to understanding the usage "quantum leap" is to recall the teachings of Master Yoda: "Size matters not." What matters here is discreteness. A sudden jump in understanding or capability, particularly if it's a dramatic shift, and even more particularly if it seemingly comes from deep left field, is exactly what "quantum leap" ought to mean.

[pasternakski]

I'm sure you're all aware by know how much I hate to argue , but Mogami's description of "quantum" is off the mark. "Quantum" is of course from the same root as "quantity" and "quantify" and many other fine words relating to "counting." "Small" was not part of its original meaning, though "finite" and "discrete" certainly were. (To a Roman, something "so slight it can not be measured" would be called, very pragmatically, "nothing.") It was pressed into service in the sciences when physicists observed that light - previously assumed to be, like sound, just another waveform acting on a medium - sometimes behaved as if it were composed of a stream of particles instead. Finite, discrete particles. Quanta.

The key to understanding the usage "quantum leap" is to recall the teachings of Master Yoda: "Size matters not." What matters here is discreteness. A sudden jump in understanding or capability, particularly if it's a dramatic shift, and even more particularly if it seemingly comes from deep left field, is exactly what "quantum leap" ought to mean.

You know, this is one of the biggest crock of quantifiable crap posts I have ever seen on these forums (should be "fora," but I defer to modern usage).

A "quantum," to a Roman, was simply a "measure," no matter its size or form. Pelts could be in "quanta" of ten, or fifty, or a hundred, for example.

[mogami]

Hi, quantum changed to quantity some where around the 15th century. It can be both a noun and an adjective. I was thinking of it more in the sense that when something is divided the smallest parcels/parts were known as quantum. (note it would not be "A dollar is made up of 100 cents (quantums)" But "The quantum (smallest part) of a dollar is 1 cent of which there are 100) The difference being that while the quanitity of cents might be any value the quantum of the subject will always be (in this case) 1 cent. So a Quantum Leap would be a leap equal to the smallest part making up the whole. To me this is not what we now use the word quanitity for. A quantum was the smallest unit any larger thing could be broken into. I know today it has other meanings. I was simply going by it's most common use when the word first appeared. Romans gave numbers quite often without using the word Quantum.

[CynicAl]

A "quantum," to a Roman, was simply a "measure," no matter its size or form. Pelts could be in "quanta" of ten, or fifty, or a hundred, for example.

Huh? I'm fairly certain that's what I was getting at, yes. Though true to form, I used more words to say it.

[mogami]

Hi, It could also be used as "As much as" "so much as" "to as great an extent"

tribus uoluminibus, uno mandata de funere suo complexus est, altero indicem rerum a se gestarum, quem uellet incidi in aeneis tabulis, quae ante Mausoleum statuerentur, tertio breuiarium totius imperii, quantum militum sub signis ubique esset, quantum pecuniae in aerario et fiscis et uectigaliorum residuis


In the above it is used not as a number but to define the units being counted
"quantum militum" the quantum is "soldiers" and then the document records how many were under arms. "quantum pecuniae" is "As much as" as records how much money was in the treasury. In the first case quantum is used to define the smallest unit of the item to be counted (A single legionaire) In the second it is used prior to giving a value to the total amount of money. But is is not the same as saying "The quantity of soldiers was (give value) It is more like saying "we are going to count soldiers there are this many. " It appears to me that we (speakers and writers) have given up using quantum to define our smallest unit and we just jump to quanitity and assume everyone knows the units we are using.