Knaust

geezzzzz..in my CE with Iggi his sherman took five ricochets and stood on the field till the very end!

geeezzzzz...guys, be trustful!...my bucks are already in the hands of BTS!

hehe..don't worry bud..we know you!

geeezzzzzzz...this thread looks like the tunnel of lost files!

MajTom quoted: >I have played CE about 8+ times in PBEM, from all sides, so, it is getting a trifle repetitive< repetitive???.......uhmmmmmmmmmmm!

Thanks Dave for pointing us to a new way of doing business. We'll send you a postcard from some South Pacific island we buy with our new found profits ;D geeeeezzzzzzzzz.......my 50$!

How could you get Russia without getting Poland first?

I will play Chance Encounter!

In order to increase fog of war what about a little randomized order of battle?.....say at CE instead of 3 Stugs...2 MKIVs and a Stug...

hehe....maybe in CC4 bridges are not so large!

CoolColJ...what about my Compaq PII 450Mhz 64Mb RAM ATI Rage Pro 2xAGP 8 Mb VRAM 3D Graphics ....will it work with new graphics?...Now its very cool...thanks!

dont worry too much buddy!....maybe in the meanwhile you can repair your stugs!

hey guys you are speaking of two completely different games! I agree that CC3 and CC4 are a bit(err...lot?) sucking, but if you want an adhrenaline game, play an opponent at CC2 on the zone and you will see! If wou want a more realistic, but slow-pace game play CM. I enjoy both CC2 and CM, and I dislike religious wars!

transparentsmoke?...........wooooooooow....I LOVE THIS GAME! (err....no NBA logo) ....i love Steve......but please give us THIS GAME!.......I cant wait any longer!

As a former pro chess player I fully agree with Kevin. Moreover I suggest another hit:a player proposes the scenario, the opponent picks the side.

Captain Foobar quoted: The Victory Objectives should balance the scale, and measure the performance of both players. I am certain that I am not making any new points to anyone here, I just want to get my "vote" in for the ranking system to be inclusive of this type of scenario Captain Foobar and Fionn thats exactly what I wanted to mean. Forces may be unbalanced....but the outcome of a battle and performance of players will always result in a victory level....and who other than the creator scenario can fix them? Thus if we agree on ranking equation and all variables other than victory levels...whatever else have we to do? Anyway I love this game whatever ranking system will be adopted.

Fionn, IMHO no GOOD scenario may be UNBALANCED. I dont know how victory levels are determined in a scenario building, but I think that they must rely on a combo of losses and control of objectives. Now the balance of an initial unbalanced force strength can be attained by wise positioning of victory objectives. Say Chance Encounter….I hope that the guy who created it (Steve,Fionn,??) considered all the above said in determining victory levels…although I think that CE is strongly unbalanced in favour of the amis (but you have to find out the right strategy anyway!) After all what I want to mean is simply that victory levels are determined by the scenario creator, who must be so skilled to create BALANCED scenarios, i.e. the above said combo. That’s why I hope that for competition only official scenarios will be used, i.e. scenarios created or approved by official competent people.

Geezzzzzzzz….I think that both yobobo and Fionn are equally right….so why those harsh remarks? I think that yobobo ladder can be easily applied to Combat Mission too. Lets look at the rating formula for established players (see The Rating System in http://tournamenthouse.com/): Equation II: Rn = Ro + K(W-We) Rn is the new rating. Ro is the old (pre-event) rating. K is a constant (32 for 0-2099, 24 for 2100-2399, 16 for 2400 and above). W is the score in the event. We is the expected score (Win Expectancy), either from the chart or the following formula: We = 1/ (10 (dr/400) + 1) "dr" equals the difference in ratings. Now I am sure we all can agree that these following points can be applied to CM too: 1. the new rating depends from the old rating 2. the constant K is a measure of the increase/decrease of rating and thus can be accepted as it is 3. the win expectancy We depends from the difference in ratings and is a probabilistic measure so the only point of debate is about that in CM there are different levels of victory and not simply win draw and loss like in chess (btw draw is a different level of victory!). Now, as We is a probabilistic quantity its range is 0-1, and consequently the W range (score in the event) must be 0-1 too. Therefore we can estimate the different levels of victory,assigned by the CM After Action Report, as follows: W=1 for a Total Victory W=0.75 for a Minor Victory W=0.5 for a Draw W=0.25 for a Minor Loss W=0 for a Total Loss As for provisional players the formula is. Equation I: Rp = Rc + (400 (W-L) / N) Rp is the performance rating (i.e., the new rating). Rc is the average rating of the player's opponents. W is the number of wins. L is the number of losses (a draw counts as half a win and half a loss). N is the number of games From this formula you can see that, if a player in the first 20 games got an equal number of wins and losses or all draws , his established rating will be the average rating of the opponents. Therefore we can see that the pivotal point is the draw and it counts nothing. Now in order to take into accounts the above said different levels of victory also in Equation I, I suggest a new slightly different formula: Equation I: Rc+(400*R/N) Where R is the result of the game as follows (draw is the pivotal null point): R=1 Total Victory R=0.5 Minor Victory R=0 Draw R=-0.5 Minor Loss R=-1 Total Loss Wooooooooppppppssssssss….....just my two(??????) cents! ooppssss...hope that all harsh comments will be over forever....hope that yobobo, a friend of mine will be here again! Why to make war here and not on a CM battlefield?

hehe Tom!....Joanna (ooppss Goanna! ) accepted my challenge on Chance Encounter..he as Germans coz I said that the krauts has no chance on there! In his absence wanna try a game with me as Americans?...just to see if I am wrong! If you wish send me the deploy file!

Goanna.......not Joanna!

oh noooooooooo!...Goanna dont go away...just now I was taking your Stugs on Chance Encounter!

geeezzzzzz iggi....I didnt know I was fighting a Yoda!

Geeezzzzzzzz..are your tanks too screwed up?

Uhmmmm….I have heard a lot about tactics….but tactics cant go too far without strategic considerations! So lets have a simple strategic analysis on CE: -objectives in the woods will be clearly and easily held by respective sides - objective near the wheatfield will be easily American because it is very hard for German to go taking it without suffering heavy losses in open field Therefore the struggle will be around the church objective…this for strategy! Now lets apply some tactical hints: - concentration of power: try to deploy 5 Shermans at the same time in a position dominating the german field (yeah…you cant forget that in CE the terrain is generally sloping down from the american side to the german one) - try to screen your Shermans from panzerschrecks with your infantry (I dont think as Berli that schrecks and fausts be equalizer here if you have a good screen..BTW…Berli in his game with me couldnt hit any Shermans with those equalizers ) - Shermans are very good at pounding infantry because being plenty of HE ammo so they will be very useful against infantry and above all schrecks in the church (the key objective!) - try to get first the big things so go for tanks first Now you have 5 Shermans against 3 Stugs…why not apply concentration of power?…why not apply this principle from a dominating position?…why not apply it at the very start? And now the last hint…..BE LUCKY!

ok...I wish to try one or two more fights in CE me as american..send me the deploy file...first in first out...thx for your help!