Hunter

Fionn,</p> Can I also suggest that some simple rules be devised for how the game is setup and who challenges who etc?</p> For example, One Player chooses the scenario, the other the side.....that sort of thing</p> Bruce</p>

Jason,</p> Us crazy graph dudes gotta stick together man... </p> (and I knew my numbers were correct. I was just waiting for Fionn to wipe the sleep from his eyes and re-read it some time )</p> take care,</p> Bruce</p>

Fionn,</p> sigh... </p> I am not convinced from your reply that you have given my er, suggestion, sufficient thought. At least, your post does not show that you have. I admit that may be a limitation of this kind of forum</p> I'm really not trying to start something here, but I am trying and failing to communicate something </p> Regarding my Point (1) above:</p> Your system absolutely prevents the right result in the face of good scenario design, let alone poor scenario design!</p> Where the scenario designer has used Axis Bonus Points (especially) OR good defensive terrain, or weather, or the ability to dig in or any combination of the above to create a balanced scenario (a scenario where two equal players will achieve a 50:50 result on average), your system will penalise the player with the larger force than he 'should have' according to your system.</p> For example (and I really didn't want to have to do this ), Let's say that the attacker has 1600 points and the defender has 1000. Two equally rated players play a draw. The system says there is no rating change right? Great.</p> Now let's say we give the attacker 3200 points and keep the defender at 1000. We expect the attacker to do better. But as the scenario designer I can make it interesting by one of several mechanisms. I can add Axis Bonus Points to the defender so that getting wiped out but causing a lot of casualties still counts as a draw. I can add defensive terrain or the dig in ability or muddy terrain or whatever suits the defender. So now we have a 'balanced scenario', where the expected result is again a 50:50 result when the victory screen pops up</p> Your system would in such a situation, AGAIN penalise the attacker, even after he has accepted the penalties that the scenario designer has imposed</p>. This problem would not of course occur SO MUCH (but still somewhat) where it was a 'roll your own' scenario</p> Am I thinking clearly here?</p> Regarding my Point (2) above:</p> You seem to be making a point of including things that I never suggested (but that's OK, it just makes me think harder about the idea)</p> I would not suggest that results be altered retrospectively. The rating of a scenario would be X at a point in time when it was chosen to be played, and that would be the rating used to calculate the result. After that battle, new players would use the new rating for the battle</p> I can think of any number of ways that you can get around almost any ranking system you can suggest (so don't just pick on mine! )</p> I guess it would make sense to ensure that each battle had been played a number of times before it was made available for 'general use' or in other words had been thoroughly playtested. This could be done in a way that doesn't affect players ratings, or it could be done such that 'expert' players construct the ratings. I guess what I am heading to here is a set number of 'accredited' scenarios, any one of which you can play for ratings points. That number could be ten, fifty or five hundred, but each one would require either a history or some vetting before being 'accredited'.</p> If we allow any scenario by any player to be used for rating points, I find it hard to imagine people won't be constructing some 'interesting' scenarios and ambushing unsuspecting players with them</p> Call me a cynic (or an old CC2 player )</p> Take Care</p> Bruce</p> ps: Yobobo, I can't imagine you getting away with a chess system that doesn't take in to count the size of the win. It won't wash </p>

Fionn,</p> A few more (hopefully ) helpful comments:</p> 1. The more I wonder about this 'Attacking Forces/Defending Forces' factor, the more I convince myself it isn't necessary?! For example, imagine that the Attacker has three times the forces of the defender. As the scenario designer, I would ensure that the defender has advantages in 'Axis Bonus Points' to ensure that even a fighting loss would be a draw. But then you propose to penalise the attacker again for his overwhelming numbers?! I have already done that once as the scenario designer, in trying to give equal odds of getting a victory. </p> So in this case, wouldn't it be sensible to ignore the 'forces factor' and just see who won the game? </p> 2. IF you ARE going to have a 'forces factor' or as per my previous suggestion a 'battle difficulty factor' for each side (one the inverse of the other) THEN maybe a super duper method of maintaining fairness would be if the factor was modified by the results of the battle (and the ratings of the people playing it) ! This would mean that a result of 70:30 on a battle by two evenly matched players may give a (say) +30 rating to one, and -30 to another. It would ALSO give a change of +30/constant (or something) to the battle difficulty factor.</p> A game that results in no changes to ratings would lead to no change in the battle difficulty factor. A draw by two uneven players WOULD lead to a change in difficulty factor</p> I know this is pretty complex, and may be beyond the scope of a manual system. It would benefit greatly from an automated results posting board, where each of the battles would also be updated as the results came in. The advantage would be that the difficulty factor of battles would be continually updated and would not require anyone to sit down and look at every one to rate it 'objectively'. A 'market mechanism' if you will </p> Bruce</p>

Fantastic. The church is wonderful!

Fionn,</p> While noting the errors and criticisms above, there are some nice features in your rating system. Notably:</p> 1. You take into account ratings to determine new ratings (like the chess ratings)</p> 2. You take into account the difficulty of the scenario, which is required. </p> 3. You take into account the range of results that can be achieved. This is very necessary in a game with such a wide range of results. </p> All this is pretty good </p> I have the following comments about the system, and how it may be improved:</p> Regarding (1) above - It was a while since I got my first rating in chess, but I thought they started me off at 1000 and then just applied the system to everybody I played? This sounds better than some arbitrary system below 1500?</p> Regarding (2) above - What about the terrain, the weather and ground condition? Without taking these into account (and I understand the difficulty) it will always be possible to construct situations where the 1.6 factor you mention for the Attacker is the wrong number. Some of the ex-CC2,3 players (NOT mentioning names!) would have a field day with this. Would it be possible where a scenario is published to also post a 'handicap rating' or similar? The scenario designer could note for example that the normal rating modifier of 2.5 for the attacker should be replaced with 2.8 in this instance (as the defensive position is quite strong, the ground is muddy or whatever) Writing this has made me thing again (ow!). Why hasn't the scenario designer used 'Axis Bonus Points' to even out the scenario? If he has, then we don't need to know how many forces are involved do we?</p> Regarding (3) above - Isn't it going to be very hard to progress at higher levels? Because there is a range of results (unlike chess 1,0,1/2) it seems that it will be quite difficult to improve your rating by playing very good players, as you may achieve a victory, clearly, but only a narrow one (say 60:40). This gives you a very marginal change, compared to the 100:0 result you may achieve in Chess. Can you imagine being beaten 80:20? It seems unlikely in most scenarios. I think the 'damper' effect introduced with the varying constants may need to be thought about some more </p> Keep working on it, I'm sure we will agree on it eventually </p> Bruce</p>

Maybe it was an unannouced feature but was always 'in scope'? Whatever, it seems like a nice bit of chrome to me

Charles, WOW! That is some graph you have there. Nice one. I always thought I was the only wierdo who liked to analyse the bejeezus out of my penetration chances (I did all the graphs and analysis and stuff for the CC3 strat. guide and for CC2) Is the graph available or in the manual perhaps? Thanks, Bruce

BTS, Fionn or other Beta Testers, In the unit screen at the top left hand corner, the firing values for your units are shown for a few ranges (40m, 80, 200m or something like that). Because I am used to other games, I tend to interpret that as a set of break points where I really should hold my ambush to less than, say 80m, to get full effect. Thinking about it, I imagine BTS has probably got it smoothed a lot better than that, but only shows those ranges for simplicity. True?

Thermopoly? I can't remember...is that the battle where the greeks got too hot and surrendered? or a board game where you try and form a dominating position in the energy market?

Don't all church Naves line up North-South in Europe? (or was that just a rumour?)

BTS, The argument for a minimum range is principally one of mechanics, based on how the thing worked (ie: sliding out of the tray problem). I will work on finding manuals, instructions, SOPs or anecdotes to back up the notion. Anybody else got any? Bruce

I searched and couldn't find the answer anywhere...so </p> Are you prevented from shooting a Piat at a target that is too CLOSE when you are in the top storey of a building?</p> As I understand it, the shell sits in the tray next to the spring, and would slide out before it could be fired if the angle of the tube was too great?</p> Bruce</p>

Fionn, ROTFL!

Are there trenchlines in the game?</p> If there are, is the ability of certain tanks to drive over them modelled? AFAIK the maximum distance that a tank could cross was an important design consideration / critical parameter, which again serves to differentiate the vehicles in the game (Or am I just being confused by the lovely demos that our tankers like to put on every year, and it really isn't a battlefield issue?</p> Thanks,</p> Bruce</p>

Is anybody going to answer Tankersley's question or do we have some determined ignoring going on here?!

Given that we agree that the more sales of CM that occur, the more money will flow to BTS and the more chance of a CM2,3,4 etc flowing from their keyboard(s)......</p> It is in our interests to help to generate sales of CM</p> I therefore recommend you all contact your wargaming buddies, net friends and old CCX series enemies (all future opponents) and alert them to the way of life that is CM.</p> What other things can we do as a community of gamers to generate sales and ensure the future of CM?</p> Bruce</p>

Thanks guys, that's excellent

Good point bullethead</p> Mortar strikes will generally be a number of rounds hitting the one spot, with minor correction to 'walk' onto the target point. It is odd to see these 'dynamically rolling barrages' going on</p>. Maybe one for the CM2 list?</p> Bruce

Beamup,</p> Nice one.</p> That's it! I can't play this buggy and unrealistic game until they put that '0' back into the value.</p> grin.. </p> Bruce</p>

BTS,</p> I noticed in Reisberg that my US tanks had two different ground pressure values. The M4A3(75)W has 14.3 PSI (1.0 Kg/ccm). The heavier + version has listed 15.5 PSI (1.9Kg/ccm). </p> One of these conversions is wrong isn't it? I don't have a calculator on me, or I would tell you which :-Þ</p> I'm also a bit confused about the Kg/ccm measure. Shouldn't that be Kg/scm? or Kg/sm in SI units?</p> I know I'm getting really picky now </p> Bruce</p>

Noted. Thanks, Bruce

BTS, Does the angle of attack (Enfilade etc) for a MG shooting at infantry targets provide a greater chance to hit and/or morale impact? It seems on first inspection that the fire value is more closely linked to range, but this would surely be modified by angle? ps: I did read the thread on grazing fire and note that this will have an impact where multiple sections are assaulting in line. Thanks, Bruce

Fire Discipline - Yes it is sometimes annoying.....</P> Company Commander, 3rd Battalion (in the last defence) gathers his support weapons crew and NCOs together to brief them on the upcoming defensive battle</P> Thankyou gentlemen for responding to my warning order. We have a situation here...</P> Situation: Enemy Forces: The Germans will be coming in with tanks and infantry combined. We expect some armoured infantry, and we expect that the Halftracks will be coming in real close...</P> Mission: The mission for the support weapons (this means you!) is to destroy the attacking halftracks. I say again, the mission for the support weapons is to destroy the attacking halftracks. </P> Execution: General Outline: Don't open fire until the enemy is within 400m. The killing zones are here, here and here. (Points to mudmap)</P> Command and Signal: I will be remaining here to supervise the firing of the 0.50 Cal. etc, etc</P> Do you have any questions?</P> Silence.</P> I have some questions for you. What is the primary target that the guns are to engage? You...Gunner..</P> The Halftracks, Sir!</P> That will be all gentlemen. Good luck...now to your posts</P> The battle commences....</P> German armoured vehicles emerge from the distant woods. Infantry seems to be infiltrating along the flanks. Finally, german halftracks emerge and move to within effective firing range, say 400m.</P> Company Commander watches anxiously, then announces the order. There, that halftrack (he points along the barrel of the 0.50 Cal HMG), take it out now!</P> The gunners respond..</P> (Gun team turns the barrel 450 mils left and engages a fairly non-threatening german infantry team which is about to be anihilated by rifle teams in the area)</P> Commander: "What the @#%*" </P> ps: Nice to see that a 'tweak' has been applied </P>

Brian, I agree. In fact, compared to me, you are a control freak (I see your tripling and double it!) Bruce