Debates without calcs....Crap and useless....Um ?

[Darth Wong]

And if you cant get a quantified measurement such as this.. does the fact that a marine will have been shooting his weapon longer than a cloney has been alive just get thrown out ?

Yes. Quantity of experience does not necessarily prove quality of result. We look for results, not conjecture.

If you cant go that far...is a debate then impossible ?

Let's put it this way: a debater who bases his arguments from quantifiable observations has a stronger argument. Therefore, you can still argue with your subjective tripe if you like, but your arguments will always be inferior to any argument based on quantifiable observations as a result.

Im not advocating the ridiculous idea that calcs shouldnt be used, and that as someone so kindly decided my position was born fron.

No, but you are claiming that they are not necessary for a meaningful debate. Unfortunately, debates without numbers are generally shit. Anything important from a military perspective can and is quantified. Moreover, it is usually not difficult to perform at least rough order-of-magnitude quantifications from video clips etc. So there's really no excuse to shy away from quantification.

So, we dont have any calcs on marine armour or most if any real numbers on 40k ground weapons.

But if the observable effects of say, a Lasgun/Hellgun+ a blaster weapon match, then surely there is some basis for comparison concerning their possible effects on armour

If there are observable effects, then you can put numbers to them, even if they are only rough estimates. A refusal to do so is suspicious at best, and deceptive at worst. What kind of observation is impossible to quantify?

[white_rabbit]

Yes. Quantity of experience does not necessarily prove quality of result. We look for results, not conjecture.

Results as in say a Marine snapping off shots faster than human soldiers ? or An example of a marine shooting on a range ?

Sorry, but there isnt a 40k film for me to watch, I have examples of marines shooting, at various ranges, aiming, lining up targets, snap-shots etc...but no pretty pictures..

Let's put it this way: a debater who bases his arguments from quantifiable observations has a stronger argument.

I'm not claiming otherwise...

from video clips etc

Sorry, no nice video clips..I wish there were..beyond an ancient live-action film....all 30 minutes of it! all you can draw from that is, that the marines fired their bolters a few dozen times and never missed *shrug*

If there are observable effects, then you can put numbers to them, even if they are only rough estimates. A refusal to do so is suspicious at best, and deceptive at worst. What kind of observation is impossible to quantify?

Well, there are observable effects, such as a rifle blast "incinerating his torso with a hissing detonation, the oxygen rich blood flashing into steam.."

Then theres a multimelta blast reducing an armoured bunker to molten slag....the bunker was large enough to fit a 40k tank, so thats possibly a source of some numbers..

But the above example is what I mean, Its been a while since I even opened a physics text book on anything other than astronomy, and I cant see a calc coming from an example like that..


While obviously I have a bias towards the approach in question I am most definately not refusing to put any numerical value on anything!

I certainly havent been hiding things, why the hell you are accusing me of such is a little strange..

but so be it..

[Darth Wong]

Sorry, but there isnt a 40k film for me to watch, I have examples of marines shooting, at various ranges, aiming, lining up targets, snap-shots etc...but no pretty pictures..

A range is a number. Percentage of shots hitting and missing, and sizes of targets can all be quantified. What is the problem here?

Sorry, no nice video clips..I wish there were..beyond an ancient live-action film....all 30 minutes of it! all you can draw from that is, that the marines fired their bolters a few dozen times and never missed *shrug*

Does it actually state clearly that they never missed a single shot? If so, you can use the size of the targets and the ranges to guesstimate their accuracy. I see no reason why you should pretend that it is impossible to quantify anything in this situation.

If there are observable effects, then you can put numbers to them, even if they are only rough estimates. A refusal to do so is suspicious at best, and deceptive at worst. What kind of observation is impossible to quantify?

Well, there are observable effects, such as a rifle blast "incinerating his torso with a hissing detonation, the oxygen rich blood flashing into steam.."

That is a second-hand observation of a highly imprecise nature; it does not say how much of the torso is incinerated or how much blood is boiled. However, if we assume that the effect is similar to a hit from a WP grenade, it would not be difficult to generate energy estimates.

If a description is imprecise, then you cannot derive reliable conclusions from it. It doesn't matter whether you use numbers or eschew them; the quality of the data limits the quality of the result. It's just easier to hide that when you pretend that numbers are unnecessary.

Then theres a multimelta blast reducing an armoured bunker to molten slag....the bunker was large enough to fit a 40k tank, so thats possibly a source of some numbers..

So what's the problem? Get some estimates for the size of the bunker and the wall thickness, assuming that the description is precise and not hyperbole (it would help if there was a description of what the bunker looked like afterwards).

But any attempt to generate a conclusion from this without using numbers is pure charlatanism; don't you know why scientists use numbers? It's not because they're snobs; it's because numbers are the best descriptions. If you want to work with shit-quality descriptions, be my guest, but be aware that you can only generate shit-quality arguments.

But the above example is what I mean, Its been a while since I even opened a physics text book on anything other than astronomy, and I cant see a calc coming from an example like that..

Your competence or lack thereof is hardly an excuse. Would you wander in to a debate over history and say "well, I don't know much about history, but I don't see why I shouldn't be able to participate anyway?" Your eyes work, don't they? You can pick up a book and read it, can't you? You are capable of learning elementary high-school level physics, aren't you?

While obviously I have a bias towards the approach in question I am most definately not refusing to put any numerical value on anything!

But you are refusing to acknowledge that numbers are necessary for a good argument, since we are trying to predict things, and reliable predictive models are the realm of science.

I certainly havent been hiding things, why the hell you are accusing me of such is a little strange..

but so be it..

Don't be a whiner. If you try to pretend that a purely qualitative model is not manifestly inferior to a quantitative one, you are either bullshitting or stupid. Call it whatever you like, but I'm not one to back away from a statement just because someone tries to act hurt, so you can stop playing those kinds of games right now.

[white_rabbit]

A range is a number. Percentage of shots hitting and missing, and sizes of targets can all be quantified. What is the problem here?

okay...range 7 metres...Targets 2 , hits:2

thats taken from a section of text detailing a marine shooting so humans....I dont see where that gets me ? its text..not a video clip

Does it actually state clearly that they never missed a single shot

Every shot you see them fire, hits

[

That is a second-hand observation of a highly imprecise nature; it does not say how much of the torso is incinerated or how much blood is boiled. However, if we assume that the effect is similar to a hit from a WP grenade, it would not be difficult to generate energy estimates. "


" incinerating his torso with a hissing detonation, the oxygen rich blood flashing into steam, a pile of armoured limbs and a head clattered to the floor, the gory stumps cautirised and molten "

I see no reason why you should pretend that it is impossible to quantify anything in this situation.

Whos pretending anything ?

I cant make anything out the footage, beyond what I already stated, every time the Dark Angels shot, they hit their targets, i.e. other Space Marines

Oh, and a Marine blew a pistol out of someones hand.

learning elementary high-school level physics, aren't you

just about.....

But you are refusing to acknowledge that numbers are necessary for a good argument,

No...Im refusing to acknowledge that some information has to be cut into little bits before it can even be acknowledged....calcs should follow, but useless the example is not.

Don't be a whiner. If you try to pretend that a purely qualitative model is not manifestly inferior to a quantitative one, you are either bullshitting or stupid. Call it "hiding" if you like, but I'm not one to back away from a statement just because someone tries to act hurt, so you can stop playing those kinds of games right now.

But have I tried to pretend its superior ?

No...so perhaps you could stop the tirade now ?


Whos hurt ?..I dont invest emotional content into a debate...its something thats definately useless.

Assign it to me if you wish, but its a waste of text.


I have some details on the multimelta incident, aftermath etc , I would appreciate anything anyone has to offer on them, Ive also given the full quote for the rifle.

[Darth Wong]

okay...range 7 metres...Targets 2 , hits:2

thats taken from a section of text detailing a marine shooting so humans....I dont see where that gets me ? its text..not a video clip

At 7 metres, it only tells you that they aren't completely useless. Obviously, you chose a poor example if you want to prove they are great marksmen. This hardly proves that a qualitative model is as good as a quantitative one; in fact, it proves precisely the opposite. Before you said "7 metres", I had no idea what you were really talking about. The minute you gave us a number, everyone has a MUCH better idea what you're describing. Don't you see?

" incinerating his torso with a hissing detonation, the oxygen rich blood flashing into steam, a pile of armoured limbs and a head clattered to the floor, the gory stumps cautirised and molten "

OK, so it sounds as if it somehow turns his whole torso into chowder. So you can look for ways to estimate the energy involved; since an RPG exploding in your chest might do something similar, you can say it's equivalent to an RPG, which is an implicit number (anyone can go look up how much charge an RPG carries if he wants).

I cant make anything out the footage, beyond what I already stated, every time the Dark Angels shot, they hit their targets, i.e. other Space Marines

Is this the 7-metre incident, or a different incident?

Oh, and a Marine blew a pistol out of someones hand.

Very cool. Do they do that regularly, or was it just one incident?

No...Im refusing to acknowledge that some information has to be cut into little bits before it can even be acknowledged....calcs should follow, but useless the example is not.

How is quantification and physical rationalization "cutting into little bits?" On the contrary, it is fleshing out a description, making it much more useful.

Don't be a whiner. If you try to pretend that a purely qualitative model is not manifestly inferior to a quantitative one, you are either bullshitting or stupid. Call it "hiding" if you like, but I'm not one to back away from a statement just because someone tries to act hurt, so you can stop playing those kinds of games right now.

But have I tried to pretend its superior ?

No...so perhaps you could stop the tirade now ?

<snip more sanctimony>

You have tried to pretend that it is not inferior, which is completely wrong. It is highly inferior; a description which cannot be quantified in any way is too vague to be useful. If it can be quantified, then there is no reason not to, since you can use those numbers for calculation purposes.

[white_rabbit]

The minute you gave us a number, everyone has a MUCH better idea what you're describing. Don't you see?

Yes, and I just grabbed the nearest example of them shooting, from the book Im currently reading *shrug* hell, it was at night in a storm

but yeah its a crap example of good markmenship

Is this the 7-metre incident, or a different incident?

No, the single piece of video footage for 40k is from a compilation of live action sequences made as eye-candy for the gaming conventions, in it two Dark angels marines are assaulted by several, other Marines phasing out of walls etc I;ll have to check the numbers 3-4 IIRC

The attacking marines are assault troopers/berserkers and IIRC dont shoot, they appear suddenly and attack, the Dark Angels shoot them down, single shots to the head+torso around 5-8 shots in total,, with about three shots taking a marine down, the visual then cuts back to a marine captain, who via dialogue indicates his men have ceased contack.

then the bad guy has a little gloating soliliquy and throws a marine helmet out on the floor.. I take this as good evidence the Angels lost.

Very cool. Do they do that regularly, or was it just one incident?

They usually dont bother, they normally go for head shots and chest shots with bolt pistols, or targets of opportunity, Bolters arent really a weapon with a stun setting so if somethings hit, it isnt pleasent.

Bolters and heavy bolters can be full auto, so I imagine their accuracy suffers on full auto , but otherwise a characteristic of marines has alsways been precise shooting and/or massive firepower

How is quantification and physical rationalization "cutting into little bits?" On the contrary, it is fleshing out a description, making it much more useful.

cutting it into little bits..as in seperating it out into its various numerical values, then calcing it.

I dont imply that evidence is more valuable without being expanded upon, I refuse to discard it as worthless however, when it demonstrates the effectiveness of a weapon as it is..even without rationalising it.

i.e. the Melta-rifle shot reduced an armoured 8ft tall space marines entire torso to red mist.

Even with the armour, thats a good indication of the sort of damage the weapon can do to an unarmoured human, and Marines are much tougher than humans, denser bones, a subdermal layer of some form of steel, and so on..

You have tried to pretend that it is not inferior, which is completely wrong. It

I dont think I have, I started off acknowledging it was of less value, and have explained my stance on it...I dont think its worthless, and you can take a lot of info from such descriptive scenes without them being immediately number crunched for exact weapon calcs.

[Bob McDob]

Wow, I'm glad Wing Commander debates aren't crippled by these inanities.

[white_rabbit]

Wow, I'm glad Wing Commander debates aren't crippled by these inanities.

Never played WC...

I dont get it

[Vympel]

Where do you derive the WC calcs from Bob, btw?

[Darth Wong]

The attacking marines are assault troopers/berserkers and IIRC dont shoot, they appear suddenly and attack, the Dark Angels shoot them down, single shots to the head+torso around 5-8 shots in total,, with about three shots taking a marine down, the visual then cuts back to a marine captain, who via dialogue indicates his men have ceased contack.

Right, but what's the range?

Bolters and heavy bolters can be full auto, so I imagine their accuracy suffers on full auto , but otherwise a characteristic of marines has alsways been precise shooting and/or massive firepower

OK, so they use weapons with RPG-type firepower, and take single shots rather than spraying. Do they wear huge armour suits or something? It seems odd to use weapons that powerful and inflexible against flesh and blood.

How is quantification and physical rationalization "cutting into little bits?" On the contrary, it is fleshing out a description, making it much more useful.

cutting it into little bits..as in seperating it out into its various numerical values, then calcing it.

That is not "cutting it into little bits"; that is describing it. If I say someone has green eyes, did I just "cut" the description up "into little bits" by going into details about the colour of her eyes"? Quantitative descriptions and calculations are like that; they expand upon particular aspects of a description. They do not "cut it into little bits".

I dont imply that evidence is more valuable without being expanded upon, I refuse to discard it as worthless however, when it demonstrates the effectiveness of a weapon as it is..even without rationalising it.

If the description is too vague to be quantified, then it is indeed worthless. Give me an example of a description which is impossible to quantify, even roughly, and then try to defend its usefulness.

i.e. the Melta-rifle shot reduced an armoured 8ft tall space marines entire torso to red mist.

Which can be quantified, hence useful. If it is too vague to be quantified, then it is not useful. However, it is very important to DO this quantification and then expand upon it, because reality is not necessarily intuitive. The history of science has shown us VERY CLEARLY that qualitative subjective impressions are basically worthless. Sometimes, calculations tell you something which defies your expectations.

For example, the enormous amount of energy required to destroy a planet. This is an example of quantifying a description, applying scientific principles, and performing calculations. Without it, you may have idiots claiming that 200 gigatons will destroy a planet (we had one such idiot on this board in its first month). With it, you can state very clearly how much firepower is required.

Even with the armour, thats a good indication of the sort of damage the weapon can do to an unarmoured human, and Marines are much tougher than humans, denser bones, a subdermal layer of some form of steel, and so on..

"Tougher than" is a good example of the sort of useless qualitative nonsense which has no place in a rational discussion of anything physical. The real question is: how MUCH tougher than humans are they? And for that, you need numbers.

I dont think I have, I started off acknowledging it was of less value, and have explained my stance on it...I dont think its worthless, and you can take a lot of info from such descriptive scenes without them being immediately number crunched for exact weapon calcs.

Yes, you can take a lot of qualitative info. Unfortunately, if someone wants to know: "will this weapon blast through the frontal armour of an M-1 Abrams", you'd better have some numbers and calcs which you are prepared to defend, before you give your answer. Subjective hemming and hawing and "well, they're pretty damned tough" answers don't count for shit.

[Shinova]

Wow, I'm glad Wing Commander debates aren't crippled by these inanities.

Unless you count the inconsistencies created by the kph figures, which result in WC capships being thousands of kilometers long

[Shinova]

Wow, I'm glad Wing Commander debates aren't crippled by these inanities.

Unless you count the inconsistencies created by the kph figures, which result in WC capships being thousands of kilometers long

Replace kph with kps.

[Darth Wong]

That's not hard to rationalize. We can see how big the ships are relative to the fighters because we can see the launch and retrieval areas. We can see how big the fighters are relative to humans because we can see the cockpits. Therefore, we can figure out how big the ships are through scaling, and conclude that the speedometers are shit.

[Stormbringer]

And from there conclude the ship design is shit because it couldn't possibly hold all the things it's supposed to hold.

[white_rabbit]

Right, but what's the range?

ahh, now that truly is impossible to tell, the film was made...ye gods almost 10 years ago on low..i.e. non-existant budget....so we only ever have one side in view at once.

At a wild guess, I would say short.

OK, so they use weapons with RPG-type firepower, and take single shots rather than spraying. Do they wear huge armour suits or something? It seems odd to use weapons that powerful and inflexible against flesh and blood.

oh they Spray alright, but against humans and most basic armoured humans a bolter will kill/incapacitate no problems.

Space Marines are gen-engineered soldiers, your basic "uber human" with redundant organs, accelerated healing, etc etc.

Standard armour is "power armour" which, funnily enough is powered!

several layers of armour, connected to a sub-dermal layer of sensors/pseudo nerves, allowing them to control the armour like it was their body.

Then a layer of some sort of steel, its called "plas-steel" and the Imperiums basic conventional steel.

basically plates of this over an exo-skeleton of servo-motors and pseudo muscles + sensors

then a layer of ceramite...some sort of material, ceramic based, acts like a stone or a metal depending on what hits it, i.e. when ripped off by explosions ceramite shoulder pads deform like a metal, when hit by automatic rifles they can chip it, large anti-armour rockets can crack it.

The armoru incorperates auto-senses i.e. targeting aids, tactical info, info on the armour systems, visual enhancements, flash shielding, etc

It also has a full suite of inertial dampeners, recoil absorbers and "gravitic nullifiers"

Basic marine armament is the Bolter, fires a .75 cal round, the standard round is armour-piercing, has a DU core and a mass reactive warhead....enters target then blows up.

the projectiles are self-propelled, igniting after being fired and are spin-stabilised.

Marines themselves are 7-8ft tall, armour adds to this, but not to the extent they become anime style mecha shit.

The armour enhances a marines strength, although unarmoured the marines still tend to be able to punch through humans.


Marines are deployed in small numbers and are shock/spec ops troops....their enemys either outnumber them, have better technology or are gigantic bug monsters.

hence the big guns.

If the description is too vague to be quantified, then it is indeed worthless. Give me an example of a description which is impossible to quantify, even roughly, and then try to defend its usefulness.

No quarrel from me on this score...but as i said, throwing an example away because no numbers have been given isnt right...if the example has a clear demonstration of what effect a device/whatever has..then its still viable, not as clearly put...or as valuable but worth considering.

The real question is: how MUCH tougher than humans are they? And for that, you need numbers.

A lot (cringes)

well, Ive hopefully got a marine toughness quote or 6 typed up...I hope, otherwise Im not getting any sleep.

Ill post em and see what numbers can be made...here if your interested but I think re-aquaintting myself with physics has waited overlong.

[white_rabbit]

dug up some examples of Marines getting hit by bolter fire, although this guy was in Terminator armour, not powered armour.

" A bolt took Forrix high in the temple, blasting a portion of his helmet free...slammed into his visor ripping his helmet away and shattering his jaw...he felt the wide blade of another sword pierce his chest, tear through his lungs and burst out the back of his armour, He gripped the sword blade and smashed his powerfist down upon the blurred shape, breaking it apart in a flurry of crushing blows, His chest burned in agony as his secondary heart and Multilung fought to keep him alive after the massive trauma his body had suffered "

" Gunfire hammered him and he felt the boneshield in his chest crack as a boltershell exploded inside his armour..He pulled the sword out of is chest and hacked the Marines legs out from under him"

"Forrix roared in battlefury as he felt the crackling blade of a powersword rip through his armour, between his ribs and into his heart, angrily he slammed down on the blade , removing it from the Marines grip before tearing off his arm with a backhand, he shouldercharged the other, crushing his helmet against the wall before disembowelling the marine.."

"The warrior ducked an rolled aside, Forrixs blow smashing an iron prop apart and pulverising a huge section of wall, rock and dust filled the air...He pistoned his fist through the space marines chest smashing his ribcage and ripping out his heart and lungs...bolter fire blasted the rock away and pounded his armour, Somehow a bolt found its way though his shoulder guard and blood ran from the wound"

This guy was in Terminator armour, a larger version of the basic armour, heavier, more strength enhancing larger double barreled "stormbolter" with an underslung melta-rifle, plus a close combat weapon a "powerfist" large powered gauntlet, with a "disruptive" energy field

this one guy fought and killed most of two squads of space marines in a close quarters fight, he was severely injured, but was back up and fighting in a day. two squads = 20 marines...he killed about 15

"..the air within the bunker ignited with atomic fury, spurts of vapourised flesh and superheated oxygen blasting from the weapons slits...Its walls ( the bunkers)..flowing like wax across the ground scorched and blackened limbs lay all about, remnantsthose stationed too close to the bunker, the backwash of the melta impact had burnt flesh and bone to cinders in an instant.."

thats the relevent parts of the melta cannon impact.

And this is a quote on toughness of marines..albeit Renegades,

"ignoring wounds that would have felled a normal human a dozen times over"

[xiophen]

okay well try this one more time since your being a dumb fuck if not your just posting the same answers and not reading what Im saying so ill try one more time to say what something so you brain which seems to decide to selectivly read what it wants can comphrehend........

then you cant debate this you cant use your hard numbers to prove that my super billion joule death gun can penatrate roy J bobs armor because Their is no hard number to give as a resistance for Roy J bobs armor. can a comparable number be attainted yes but it doesnt have the the Stamp of officialdum.

Are you ignorant or stupid...because honestly you've presented both in one fell swoop.

THE BURDEN OF PROOF that it is a 1 Billion Joules output weapon is on you dumbfuck.

please refrain from the coarse language... actually for numbers yes your right but if the creator chooses to not put numbers behind something then you cant get hard number you can only get numbers generated by conclusions drawn from their works.

Interesting again these said creature dont have any solid numbers on them so by earlier statement even their Might gods which are wounded by the rare weapon would be inconsequential to your hard numbers. why because again no offivcial stamp. numbers can be given but again they would be fan based.

Dork I can put a number on every marvel characters ability short of the galactus level. Marvel has well illistrate their character abilities and given hard numbers through various encyclopedias and such. their are fuzzy marks yes like the actual durability of Admantium. but you can read Thors str from their encyclopedia. they have official numbers thor can press on average from 100 tons to 150 how do I know this from thors entry in the encyclopedia* this is of course before his acquiring the oden power* the Point being everything short of the true cosmic level beings in marvel has solid official stamped numbers behind them. If you didnt know this then I wonder about how read you are at marvel no offence meant of course since I thought everyone knew about the various written resources giving Marvel official power chart. I'll have to go to the storage bin and find which box they are in.....
Oh and just so you dont doubt me try browsing through some of the large comic stores shelves they might have the encyclopedia's theirs also several offical games from which they give quanatative stats. so shut up and sit down.

Yopu didn't even read the statement did ya dumbass...guess not.

Just showing several instances where by the official literature where there is no "HARD NUMBERS* to back statement up other then what could be assumed by weapon description and usage.

My God you don't even understand how calcs are gotten...or did you think Saxton pulled 200GT out of his ass?

He did the same thing fans have been doing since these debates started? he took observed information then put together a scientific equation by taking said asteroid using a general composition formula to get its mass and density. he then generated some numbers on how much energy it would take to destroy said asteroid in the time that it was destroyed. he then applied that number to the said weapon used to basically get said weapons power output. Seems to me I know what he did real well so stop making an assumption dipshit

As for the Marvel bit you have no idea that for all their Godlike beings they still use 20TH CENTURY TECHNOLOGY...or are you leaping to conclusions because your feeble brain can't comprehend it.

YOu really think the Avenger, X-Men, Fantastic Four use 20th century tech? Ive read comics for 20 years, I have several thousand. I knew from the instant when fantastic four jumped into their hover car *boy you see alot of those arround dont you?* to seeing cyclops blasting a 20 foot gigantic robot that can fly and shoot pure energy weapons that marvel did have our level of tech. Oh not to meantion the space station that Marvels had in space since the 60's that, the shield Helacarrier etc etc. yes dardevil, punisher and a few other still use 20th century tech but the marvel earth hasnt been using 20th century tech for most of its creation considering the military battle suits high level genetic manipulation etc that you see every major marvel superpower doing. Hell I could pick up a any of the major lines short of maybe daredevil and punisher and you'll see some super high tech gadget or gizmo that cant be reproduced on modern earth.

funny enough calcs can be drawn up using creator rulings, fluff, writen references to stuff that existes today, etc that would by cals derived for other sci fi universe only differences they awould again lack your stamp of Officialdum.

Understand the meaning behind proof and how it's acquired

If you don't just shut the fuck up.

Actually what I said if you read is you can use evidence provided in both fluff, creators written opinions, game stats, gam,e comparrisons of present weapons being refered to and shown as our current weapons, actual hard numbers at the space fleet scale and titan scale.
We can hrmm create an equation using said evidence to hey see a space marine blowing up a rock with his bolter. we can take a rock give it quanatative stats then work out how much energy is needed to destroy said rock then match it with a bolter. Oh wait wasnt that how saxton did it?
yes I know how he did it yah dumb .... the only difference would be any numbers I generate wont have official stamp on them so they wont be official so I guess not hard enough like your head when anything remotly resembling a 3rd grade level problem is asked of it. sorry did I let that slip?

[Ghost Rider]

Read what Rabbit and Wong were writing and posting and you may learn something dumbass.

You do know Rabbit actually learned how to generate possibly some calcs dumbfuck?

[Bob McDob]

Where do you derive the WC calcs from Bob, btw?

I don't, that's the problem.

(Although we have a number for the Kilrathi Strontium-60 missiles launched during the Fleet Action novel, 500MT - although whether the missiles are CapShip or something more akin to torpedoes is unclear).

The speedometers aren't absolute - they use some sort of crazy relative calculation nobody's been able to explain. Although most accept combat speeds to be in the 500MPS range ...

[TC]

Where do you derive the WC calcs from Bob, btw?

I don't, that's the problem.

(Although we have a number for the Kilrathi Strontium-60 missiles launched during the Fleet Action novel, 500MT - although whether the missiles are CapShip or something more akin to torpedoes is unclear).

The speedometers aren't absolute - they use some sort of crazy relative calculation nobody's been able to explain. Although most accept combat speeds to be in the 500MPS range ...

The Kilrathi missiles used in Fleet Action are an entirely different breed of beast than the other missiles used in Wing Commander... also, the fuel usage vs consumption argument is a perfectly legitimate explanation of the reported speeds...

[gravity]

Don't be a whiner. If you try to pretend that a purely qualitative model is not manifestly inferior to a quantitative one, you are either bullshitting or stupid. Call it whatever you like, but I'm not one to back away from a statement just because someone tries to act hurt, so you can stop playing those kinds of games right now.

The problem with this is that scientific calculations work best when modeling relatively narrow things, such as whether blaster x is more power than blaster y. The more factors that you have to take into account, the more likely you are to inaccurately measure things or leave out factors that seem less important than they really are (and after all, it's probabably impossible to calculate and relate ever single factor in a complex situation.). An example of this is Earth's environment, which is extremely difficult to predict due to the huge number of factors involved, and the difficulty in accurately quantitating and relating them all.

Sure, most factors can at least potentially be taken into account, but then there's the matter of how to weight them. What's more important, energy output, range, rate/dispersion of fire, etc? When discussing that sort of thing, you get right back to the old subjective arguments, because it's easy for one person to argue that troop X would destroy troop Y due to it's superior firepower and range, while another person argues that troop Y can negate these advantages through it's superior speed and accuracy. This sort of argument can happen even if all those traits were determined as numbers, especially since there are always some unknown or ambigious factors in an SF vs. discussion (because you can't actually do real-life testing and observation of the subjects of disscussion, but have to go by relatively small and incomplete glimpses).

I hope that made sense. I'm not saying that calcs are bad or shouldn't be used; I'm just saying that you shouldn't make pretenses to being able to determine every debate perfectly objectively (though increased objectivity does help), and that you can't say that subjective interpretation of something's abilities is completely useless, because the numbers don't mean anything by themselves, and have to be put into context with each other, which, unless you have the (unlikely) ability to completely accurately model the siuation in the debate, requires subjective interpretation and judgement.

Of course, if that's not what you intended, then I apologize for misinterpreting you (and we all know how touch you are about that :p).

[Slartibartfast]

That's not hard to rationalize. We can see how big the ships are relative to the fighters because we can see the launch and retrieval areas. We can see how big the fighters are relative to humans because we can see the cockpits. Therefore, we can figure out how big the ships are through scaling, and conclude that the speedometers are shit.

That and the fact that we are also given dimensions for these ships

The original manual states that kps means "klicks per second", and it gives ship distances in meters (an encounter usually starts at 10k meters and you get in range somewhere between 2k and 4k, which is several seconds later)

Then it gives totally different values for the meaning of the units, in two different places of the manual (no it doesn't switch to "mps" or "kph" during combat). Then the MAKERS of the game themselves tell you to figure out actual speeds by estimating how long it takes for you to go from one extreme of a carrier to the opposite.

[TC]

That and the fact that we are also given dimensions for these ships

The original manual states that kps means "klicks per second", and it gives ship distances in meters (an encounter usually starts at 10k meters and you get in range somewhere between 2k and 4k, which is several seconds later)

Then it gives totally different values for the meaning of the units, in two different places of the manual (no it doesn't switch to "mps" or "kph" during combat). Then the MAKERS of the game themselves tell you to figure out actual speeds by estimating how long it takes for you to go from one extreme of a carrier to the opposite.

You're wrong. The whole 'klicks aren't kilometers' argument is stupid... Not only is it trying to deny a standard slang term for kilometers, but it blatantly denies what it says in the manuals. If you'll look at Page 43 of Claw Marks you'll quite clearly see that it doesn't only say kilometers, it specifies that klicks is an alternate term for the same. You can also see that, in the games where there is a unit specified in the target information HUD it does switch between meters and kilometers and the range decreases at the marked velocity at the relevant unit for the situation (meters/sec in combat, kilometers/sec when travelling longer distances) ...



[/img][/url]

[Darth Wong]

The problem with this is that scientific calculations work best when modeling relatively narrow things, such as whether blaster x is more power than blaster y. The more factors that you have to take into account, the more likely you are to inaccurately measure things or leave out factors that seem less important than they really are (and after all, it's probabably impossible to calculate and relate ever single factor in a complex situation.).

Which is why you perform calculations on narrow issues, and then use the CONCLUSIONS from those calculations for larger conclusions. What's the problem?

An example of this is Earth's environment, which is extremely difficult to predict due to the huge number of factors involved, and the difficulty in accurately quantitating and relating them all.

And yet, the most accurate modelling methods are still empirical and objective. No subjective weather prediction methods have ever approached the reliability of scientific methods, even if those methods aren't guaranteed either. Thanks for providing yet another example to support my viewpoint.

Sure, most factors can at least potentially be taken into account, but then there's the matter of how to weight them. What's more important, energy output, range, rate/dispersion of fire, etc?

Value judgements on the conclusions of scientific calculations do not mitigate the necessity for those calculations.

When discussing that sort of thing, you get right back to the old subjective arguments, because it's easy for one person to argue that troop X would destroy troop Y due to it's superior firepower and range, while another person argues that troop Y can negate these advantages through it's superior speed and accuracy.

Those arguments are not subjective. Do you know what "subjective" is?

This sort of argument can happen even if all those traits were determined as numbers, especially since there are always some unknown or ambigious factors in an SF vs. discussion (because you can't actually do real-life testing and observation of the subjects of disscussion, but have to go by relatively small and incomplete glimpses).

Nevertheless, only the objective should be counted, and those arguments, as flawed as they are, would be far more flawed if they are based on subjective evaluations of firepower, range, etc. rather than objective, empirical evaluations of same. There is simply no excuse for not using the most objective, empirical methods possible in any given situation. Ever.

I hope that made sense. I'm not saying that calcs are bad or shouldn't be used; I'm just saying that you shouldn't make pretenses to being able to determine every debate perfectly objectively (though increased objectivity does help), and that you can't say that subjective interpretation of something's abilities is completely useless, because the numbers don't mean anything by themselves, and have to be put into context with each other, which, unless you have the (unlikely) ability to completely accurately model the siuation in the debate, requires subjective interpretation and judgement.

No, subjectivity is utterly useless. I suggest you look up the meaning of subjectivity. Prediction accuracy is limited by complex situations, but no matter how poor it gets due to complexity, it would be even worse if you introduce subjectivities or worse yet, replace quantitative evalations with qualitative ones.

If you get into an argument over firepower and range and armour, would it help or hurt the accuracy of that argument to get rid of all the numbers and describe those quantities in terms like "pretty big", "really far", and "pretty damned strong?"

Of course, if that's not what you intended, then I apologize for misinterpreting you (and we all know how touch you are about that :p).

I'm not touchy; it's other people who get touchy when I notice and point out that they're jackasses who can't fucking read.

[Vympel]

[/img][/url]

*screams*

MY EYEZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

Fuck when I played them a few years ago the graphics were tolerable but now ... ack