Gaesatae (again)

[L.C.Cinna]

you can group your units...select them and then press ctrl G to form a numbered group.

[bovi]

I don't understand what you mean there?

So what if they hunt over short distances? Which you are correct, they do.

You say that two legs is more efficient at very short distances. I daresay the four legs of the big cats are way more efficient on short distances than any two-legged animal.

[pezhetairoi]

you can group your units...select them and then press ctrl G to form a numbered group.

Correct. Or you can just select ctrl-1, ctrl-2 etc to define what number you want to assign them, as well as to add previously ungrouped units onto currently existing groups.

And horst, the response implied it was a stupid question not because it was stupid (perfectly legit question), but I thought anyone who'd played RTW long enough to end up playing EB would have known that before he ended his first campaign... it's a pretty standard RTS command. o.O

[Horst Nordfink]

I've been playing R:TW since it came out and that's the first I've even heard of it! All this time and still a novice!!

[pezhetairoi]

-patpat-

There, there... happens to the best of us, it does. I played RTW for six months before learning that alt-move would preserve formation and orientation in battle.

[Horst Nordfink]

Huh?

[Tellos Athenaios]

How does armour keep you cooler?

It doesn't keep you simply cooler: it keeps you better isolated. The same way fur and clothes do.

[antisocialmunky]

You say that two legs is more efficient at very short distances. I daresay the four legs of the big cats are way more efficient on short distances than any two-legged animal.

Actually two legs are more energy efficient than four but four buys you more agility and acceleration. Depends on how you define 'efficient.'

[Pharnakes]

And anyway, there's a difference between armour and clothes, armour probably would make you hotter, but clothes would help to keep you cooler.

You say that two legs is more efficient at very short distances. I daresay the four legs of the big cats are way more efficient on short distances than any two-legged animal.

I don't dsipute that the cats are faster, but that is more an issue of greater power. Just because the cat is faster, doen't mean it is more efficent.

As an example, over distnaces of less than fifty feet or so, a fit human can run faster then a horse, for the simple reason that the horse has to gradually excelerate through its various gaits, rather like a car changing gears. The human, however, can go from stnading to sprinting at full speed much faster. Sure, the horse will catch up pretty quickly, but the human is still faster in the (very) short term.

[antisocialmunky]

Well, I would like to interject that bipeds have the advantage of instability since we have the luxury of tilting out bodyweight in the direction we move alot more than a polyped. So if we look at the net force generated by an animal, we would have to factor that out if we were only considering the force per unit of mass generated by ther legs.

Its like how jet fighters are designed to be highly unstable so they can quickly respond to commands.

[Tellos Athenaios]

As an example, over distnaces of less than fifty feet or so, a fit human can run faster then a horse

Well... actually fifty feet isn't a noteworthy distance to cover. Anywho a large cat can accelerate way faster than a human can, and the fastest accelarating animal is a flea. The better it can jump, the more accelaration it must be able to generate by the first law of Newton.

For the record: large cats don't really 'run' very much, instead they keep jumping. Cats use two legs to push, and two legs to 'steer'. Then, if you come to the specialists among the large cats... the Cheetah's: well they add in a much more flexible spine allowing them to use the spine itself to build up even greater 'power'.

If you would compare it to cars: it's like revving up the engine.

-------------

And anyway the flea is much more agile, and accelarates way faster than any other living animal - and it's got definitely more than two legs.

[Sakkura]

On the contrary, I've seen an impala being chased down this way in a TV documentary. Sure, the animal could outrun its pursuer but he could track it and had the endurance to keep up the pursuit, whereas the impala became exhausted and was trying to find shade. By the end of the chase, the animal collapsed and would have died from heat exhaustion. The kill was as much to put it out of its misery as anything, at which point the hunter paid homage

......Orda

It would just have to run out of range of sight, cross the path of a herd and kapow, no catch that day. And that guy would have wasted loads of energy for naught.
Nope, human hunting strategies were mainly based on cooperation and intelligent strategies. Like, scaring a lot of animals towards some major obstacle like a cliff or canyon.

[antisocialmunky]

It would just have to run out of range of sight, cross the path of a herd and kapow, no catch that day. And that guy would have wasted loads of energy for naught.
Nope, human hunting strategies were mainly based on cooperation and intelligent strategies. Like, scaring a lot of animals towards some major obstacle like a cliff or canyon.

Don't forget ranged projectiles, infact our brains are hard wired to be able to accurately estimate parabolic flight.

[Sakkura]

Don't forget ranged projectiles, infact our brains are hard wired to be able to accurately estimate parabolic flight.

True. Plus ever-evolving weapon technology of course. Then again, some apes and monkeys have been known to toss the odd stone or such on occasion. As soon as the hand evolved, that kind of thing became possible.

[Tellos Athenaios]

But you can't throw anything heavy accurately while running forward.

[Strategos Alexandros]

There was a documentary on the BBC once where an African tribes' test of manhood was to chase and kill an antelope single handed with one spear and it took two days to catch or fail on average.

[antisocialmunky]

True. Plus ever-evolving weapon technology of course. Then again, some apes and monkeys have been known to toss the odd stone or such on occasion. As soon as the hand evolved, that kind of thing became possible.

Or poo.

But you can't throw anything heavy accurately while running forward.

That depends, if its a staight line on flat terrain, then you can impart extra energy to the projectile. If the terrain is erratic or running isn't an option, then you can use an extended lever arm (attal attal -sp?) to increase the energy you put into the projectile.

[Tellos Athenaios]

I am fairly sure I didn't write that first comment you quoted, though.

About the second: well to accurately throw something you need to keep your arms relatively stable, which isn't quite possible when running forward.

[Maeran]

Atlatl- spear thrower

a flea may have 6 legs, but it jumps with 2.

And the efficiency of 2 legs over four shows over long distances too (the center of mass is directly over the supporting limbs, so less effort is involved just to hold it up there). And that means you can travel more widely looking for food than a four legged animal for the same amount of energy. Other animals are faster, other animals travel further, but human beings are amazingly efficient over long distances.

[NeoSpartan]

It would just have to run out of range of sight, cross the path of a herd and kapow, no catch that day. And that guy would have wasted loads of energy for naught.
Nope, human hunting strategies were mainly based on cooperation and intelligent strategies. Like, scaring a lot of animals towards some major obstacle like a cliff or canyon.

Exactly! And this was 1st done by Homo erectus/ergaster(sp). Later Homonins (neanderatals, sapiens) use this and other more complex hunting strategies and tactics. All of these activies demand team effort, coordination, communication, tool use, etc... in other words BIG use of the brain.

However, earlier Hominins (habilies) were primariry scavangers feedind on the remains of dead animals AFTER big predators and other big scavangers (hyenas) had their fill. With their simple stone tools they could break bone and eat bone marrow, which is rich in fat, protain and other minerals. Also, they could break off parts and carry them to a safe place to eat. In addition they ate whatever plants and roots they could find, it was pretty much a savanna where the Homo habilies lived so there wasn't much of it. (also, remember no other ape or monkey lives in flat, dry, lands. They all live in da bushes)

Bipedalism isn't really "better" than quadrupedalism (4legs). In terms of speed and exposure of vulnerable areas (soft belly) its not that great. But bi-pedalsim has its advantages. The most notable is that is allows a LOT LESS energy to be used, and is an easier way for the body to cool off. This allowed early homonins and australopithecus to live in an ever expanding savanna environment. And, for homo habilis, it allowed for the body to have spare energy and a cooling mechanism to house an expanding brain. As well as trekking large distances in a high temperature environment (in case u fellars forgot the brain is the most active of all organs, using 20+% of all energy needed by the body, while only weight a mere 2-3lbs. This high energy use also means that it also produces a LOT of heat, and is very sensitive to temperature increases). Another interesting advantage of OUR bidepalism and cooling system is that we can run for very LONG distances without overheating. We can run for so long that we can actually "hit the wall" meaning we exaust our energy storage and just collapse.

For us, and our homonin and late australopithecus ancestors bi-depalism is not really an effective way of "running away" from a large predator, nor is it good at "chasing" predators. Instead we relied (and still do) on team effort and THINKING to survive. And that is why evolution selected for a larger brain and NOT for better running legs (like an Ostrich).


p.s yes I like bio and anthropology too

[Foot]

And the efficiency of 2 legs over four shows over long distances too (the center of mass is directly over the supporting limbs, so less effort is involved just to hold it up there). And that means you can travel more widely looking for food than a four legged animal for the same amount of energy. Other animals are faster, other animals travel further, but human beings are amazingly efficient over long distances.

Indeed we are, but we are not the most efficient animals still. However, on foot, we are more efficient than all machines. On a bicycle we are not only more efficient than all machines, but all animals as well. That second part is not entirely true, as some trains at full capacity are more efficient, but seeing as that is an ideal position and no company could maintain a train service if they also achieved full capacity for each journey it is hardly a rebuttal. Of course, we must also be mindful of the food we eat, as whilst in the 1940s we made 2000 food calories for every 1 oil calory spent, in 1970 this ration became 1:1, and today (thanks to how far food travels by trains, planes and automobiles) it is 2000 to 1 the other way.

Foot

[Sakkura]

Or poo.

Will take a lot of poo to kill something though. At least in the short term.

[NeoSpartan]

but it will take about a hand full to make you get away

[Hax]

So, back to these penis guys...

[Rodion Romanovich]

There was a documentary on the BBC once where an African tribes' test of manhood was to chase and kill an antelope single handed with one spear and it took two days to catch or fail on average.

I heard the innuits are required to **** an icebear and kill a woman before they are considered men.

Sorry for off-topic :spam:

[Rodion Romanovich]

So, back to these penis guys...

Yes, let's discuss if the current length of their... ahem, equipment is historically correct!

[Cheexsta]

you can group your units...select them and then press ctrl G to form a numbered group.

You just need to press G, no Ctrl needed.

Personally, though, I tend to avoid groups at all times unless I really need to keep my whole army in formation easily. Even then, I tend to remove groups before I even make contact with the enemy - there are just too many bugs associated with groups, particularly with cavalry and missile troops. Cavalry that have been grouped together will charge the nearest enemy rather than the unit you're targetting, and missile troops will do the same with their missiles rather than concentrating on a specific part of the enemy line. It's just plain frustrating.

[russia almighty]

A human has less static friction to over come versus a horse . Once the horse over comes that it will beat the human in a race .

[Sakkura]

You just need to press G, no Ctrl needed.

Personally, though, I tend to avoid groups at all times unless I really need to keep my whole army in formation easily. Even then, I tend to remove groups before I even make contact with the enemy - there are just too many bugs associated with groups, particularly with cavalry and missile troops. Cavalry that have been grouped together will charge the nearest enemy rather than the unit you're targetting, and missile troops will do the same with their missiles rather than concentrating on a specific part of the enemy line. It's just plain frustrating.

You can use ctrl + numbers as well, then you get to decide what number the group gets.
I like them mostly because it saves their formation, making it quicker to order them around in good order when maneuvering before the lines meet. Probably even more useful in MP where there is just no time for micromanaging every unit.

[antisocialmunky]

A human has less static friction to over come versus a horse . Once the horse over comes that it will beat the human in a race .

Static friction = good = grip. Are you thinking about inertia?