BGForums

Ya i had thought someone had mentioned it before..but since this thread is 40 odd pages long and I have a constantly full message box I wasn't going to search for it. If people want to make sure something gets done it needs to be posted on its own thread in my forums where I can find it without searching. Cause chances are if you message me or post here Its going to get lost by the time I start working on the mod.

(of course i've been saying this for months now, so its doubtful anyone is going to listen now)

_________________
Si vis pacem, para bellum
my Supreme Ruler Cold war mods Site
Redistribution of my mods is prohibited. By downloading them you agree to not redistribute the file(s) without expressed permission.

Back to the subject, the only reason I said:

was because I wrongly assumed that clarifying why a 4t heavier tank has the same speed and range as the lighter one would be useful and that you need the data to create a unit in your mod or something like that. The around is used for ingame weight, the real one was written in "equation" that followed, the should was used in a sense "needs not to be changed" (this was referring to editing units as usually people take a one specific unit and then modify it to get the new one=my mistake about your need of the data you asked for), the last should be and around 700km was also written for editing purposes.
So, I admit that I was wrong in assuming why you need the data.
In general, my mistake was that I made the answer to your original question to much complicated and I „bothered“ you with details (or better said explanations). If only I knew at the beginning your real reasons for this discussion I would have saved you and me a lot of time and just write the following:

M-84D
weight: 48,5 t
speed: 70 km/h
range: 700 km

now, go and enjoy your game


I'm glad you wrote the sources of your posts so I can recognize where the problem comes from. You are copying in 2012 what other people wrote in 2005.

Jane`s Tank Recognition Guide by Christopher F. Foss (Publication Date: April 4, 2006)
- the line you quoted or better said misquoted (intentionally or unintentionally) is the only reference to M-95 in the book

The World Encyclopedia of Tanks by George Forty (Publication Date: Mar 29, 2005)
- still trying to get hold of the above book to check what it actually writes there but even if it says what you quoted, it sounds like he is describing M-84D but I can't say for sure until I see the book.
Furthermore if he truly is referring to M-95 and the "traces its origins back to..." and "specifications are sketchy, but it is based closely" refers to the general intention that the M-95 keeps the low silhouette, high movability and range of M-84 than, yes, it is based closely on M-84.

Also, one should consider that at the time these publications were written (or even published), only one built M-95 prototype existed, so even considering the high credibility of Mr. Foss and Mr. Forty, there is no way they could have had all the facts right. Not to mention that at that same time M-84D project was also in the works so with all the secrecy that usually military projects are wrapped in, I can understand how those two got mixed together (in other sources on the internet) and very often are wrongly considered the same tank with different designation (even among local reporters of that time).
But no need to bother with this subject any more, now that you have explained the nature and level of your interest in it.


Also, as yours, this reply is not intended to prove me right or that you are wrong (I never post under those intentions as they rarely do anything useful as you can't force others to accept your opinion no matter if you are right or wrong), just to share the info I have to anyone of interest.

_________________

"If everyone is thinking alike, someone isn't thinking."
- General George Patton Jr
In Brazilian IAAR as Pascoal Humberto de Souza Branco

Yes, it made the answer unnecessarily clouded and at least seemingly off course.

Thanks, I`ve been doing that for quite some time! Those are exactly those mentioned by wikipedia so I assume, after all, wikipedia was right all along. If we take its note on the reactive armour(as part of the weight of both tanks designs) into consideration than it also means that the Degman and the M-84D were indeed identical in all those 3 regards.


Well, writing the source, providing proper quotation and generally mentioning a book is a first to the discussion and it deserves celebrating indeed. That said, are there more recent books in english dealing with the M-84 and the Degman that you have read and could recommend? I have not found any so suggestions, I`d assume, would be welcomed by anyone that followed the conversation on the M-95 and M-84.


Quoting, dear user, quoting. The quotes came with proper accreditation of their source. There`s a world of difference between just copying information without mentioning the source and the proper way to do it which is the path I`ve taken.
Both those books have been edited and republished. It`s not something uncommon for books and you should have taken into consideration that there are different editions for some book titles. Jane`s Recognition guide mentions 2006(maybe it suffered later edits, I don`t know) and George Forty`s encyclopedia mentions 2010 along the 2006 date.


Well, your post would be ok overall, but for that blatant slander of having "misquoted" for which you can`t avoid saying a "mea culpa" as I`ll demonstrate bellow.
The latest edition of Jane`s tank recognition Guide has an entire article on Degman(it calls it Duro Dakovic Degman MBT, not the M-95) and another article on the M-84. The Degman is mentioned in this latest edition at pages 26-27 and the M-84 at pages 80-81. The quote mentioning the layout is on page 27 and the quote mentioning the similarity is on page 80. There are two lines quoted by my above post and they are part of two articles that are on different pages. Not one line as you`ve falsely claimed. If you`d actually had the book you`d know this. And the quotes are, of course, correct and proper. Next time you`re not sure on something ask before you throw an accusation. It`ll save you from an apology as is the case now.

EDIT: I`ve rechecked and the Jane`s Tank recognition guide that I`ve mentioned has this on its first pages: fourth edition HarperCollins Publishers 2006.


I wasn`t mentioning this edition though. As I`ve said, it got republished. Together with an afv encyclopedia it formed: The World Encyclopedia of Tanks & Armoured Fighting Vehicles: An Illustrated History Of The World's Most Important Tanks And Afvs From The Beginning ... To The Present Day. Published by Lorenz Books/Anness Publishing. The date is 2010 I believe, but I don`t know how much of it got revised since the last publishing. The quotes that I`ve given are part of the article on Alan Degman Main Battle Tank found on page 163. As I`ve said above: anything unclear, ask and the explanation will be provided.

Both books(by Foss and Forty) btw, having been relatively recently republished are still in shops and you`ll have no problems finding them. I do recommend that you buy a copy of each.


Well, that`s debatable of course. My point was that the line of thought seemingly dominating the english language writers on armour atm is the one that I`ve mentioned and until someone can provide different info to the general english public they`ll form the mainstream opinion and people who know differently(you in this case) should not wonder why such believes are spread among others.

The M-95 has a weight of 44.5t with the reactive armour. And this is the only quote I'll comment separately.

As for the rest, I was meaning to comment all segments separately as usual, but since every new "edition" of your original post you made, poured more and more bile in my direction I gave up on that.

So, I write my final post considering this discussion with you and after that I have no intention of debating anything else with you since clearly you are not capable of conducting a mature and respectable (decent) conversation.

In opposition to your post, I never called you a Iiar, slandered you or blatantly accused you of anything.
The edition of the Jane’s Tank Recognition guide I finally got my hands on was indeed an earlier (second) edition from 2000 (was meaning to sincerely apologize for suggesting you misquoted the book - 'cause that’s all I really did) but after things you wrote I couldn’t care less what you think or how do you feel.

If by any chance someone thinks like you, that I manufactured the quote I presented and didn’t even look at the book, here is the link for that individual, where he or she can see on page 127 (EDIT: full screen viewing option is page 127 / the actual book page is 126) the passage, where I copied (or quoted, since it’s only semantics to me) the “controversial single line I falsely claim exists” (that is part of two sentences in the middle, on the right side of the page): http://www.scribd.com/doc/65461073/Armo ... tion-Guide (it takes time to open, so please, be patient)

Also, for anyone else following this, do not expect any books about this tanks in English language (or in any language for that matter) anytime soon because as said before, these projects are still considered military secret (however it my sound funny to someone).
As for the Forty’s book, I just said I haven’t got to it yet (and I commented on the quotes you presented) so all I see is more rants that are uncalled for.

Your recommendation to buy the books in question is noted but ignored since I can’t see them being of any real importance in my life.

In the end, about the line of thought dominant on this matter, in any language writer on armour today or general public opinion, I personally couldn’t care less who thinks what and I certainly have no intention on going on some sort of internet crusade to rectify something that has no real life impact on me.
I don’t know where you got that, but I never wondered why such believes are so wide spread over the internet as I witnessed with my own eyes and ears the Croatian MoD saying things on this subject that clearly show he has no idea what is he talking about. If a MoD of a country building a certain military design doesn’t know what is he talking about than I don’t see why would I express wonder to anybody else’s opinion or belief.

Have a nice day.

_________________

"If everyone is thinking alike, someone isn't thinking."
- General George Patton Jr
In Brazilian IAAR as Pascoal Humberto de Souza Branco

I haven`t edited that post for a few hours I think.

Well, you should, because it was entirely your mistake on that one and the whole thing was handled baldy to put it euphemistically. But that`s that.


There are no rants there. Just information about where the information can be found exactly.

Thanks for your input on the croatian tanks! I have no further questions regarding this subject.


Same here, all the best!

Is that semi-existant tank worth all of this??

No, in my opinion. It should have been dropped many posts back I think. I apologize for my part in the distraction! I`m going to move on from this particular debate and also try to avoid getting into something like this in the future.

Definitely not, but it is serves me right for leaving my "too lazy to write" mode

Fist, once again, sorry for the thread hijack. You know I had only good intentions

_________________

"If everyone is thinking alike, someone isn't thinking."
- General George Patton Jr
In Brazilian IAAR as Pascoal Humberto de Souza Branco

OK, have someone of you folks any info on equipment and quantities that new Libya still have?

Hi, so I really suck with computers, I downloaded the self extracting RAR file, and extracted it to my Supreme Ruler Cold War file, and I couldn't figure out how to get to the mod. Tried to extract it to the cache inside the file, but I still couldn't find the mod when I played the game. I reset my pc, no luck. Any help you could offer would be awesome. I just installed the game last night, so I'm all caught up on the update.

If you use the self extractor to directly extract it into your main SRCW folder (the one where the .exe is) Then when you start up the game you should have the modern world option under sandbox and custom scenarios.

_________________
Si vis pacem, para bellum
my Supreme Ruler Cold war mods Site
Redistribution of my mods is prohibited. By downloading them you agree to not redistribute the file(s) without expressed permission.

I'm not not sure which file/folder that would be in.... I feel like a total retard for not being able to do this..

I don't know where you installed it. Easiest way to find out is to right click on the short cut you use to play the game, select properties then the "find target button". Should take you directly to the folder.

Windows 7 has some funky install paths so I won't even attempt to tell you the default Install path.

In windows XP its something like C:/ProgramFiles/Supreme Ruler Cold War.

Pretty much whatever folder supreme ruler cold war is installed in.

All else fails do a search on your computer for SupremeRulerCW.exe

_________________
Si vis pacem, para bellum
my Supreme Ruler Cold war mods Site
Redistribution of my mods is prohibited. By downloading them you agree to not redistribute the file(s) without expressed permission.

so I found the target:
"C:\Program Files\Paradox Interactive\Supreme Ruler Cold War\SupremeRulerCW.exe"
But when i try to download/install the mod in that folder, it tells me it is not accessible ...

That sounds like you don't have the privileges required to install it. Try running the self extractor as admin. If your on a limited account its possible you don't have access to the program files folders.

The target for the extractor should be C:\Program Files\Paradox Interactive\Supreme Ruler Cold War

_________________
Si vis pacem, para bellum
my Supreme Ruler Cold war mods Site
Redistribution of my mods is prohibited. By downloading them you agree to not redistribute the file(s) without expressed permission.