guachi
-
Posts
1,165 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by guachi
-
-
Doug!
My fellow slack-ass posterboy.
Just head on over to http://combat_mission.listbot.com and all the posts should be there.
The email address for the CMMC message group is Combat_Mission@listbot.com if you have any specific questions.
Jason
[This message has been edited by guachi (edited 03-20-2000).]
-
AaAAAAAaAaaARrrRrRRrrrgGgGgGggGgggGGHhHhhHhhhHhh!!!!
Apparently my mail server has a maximum size on emails and I guess I exceeded it.
Now I have to do this a second time.
Jason
-
Madmatt, it is on its way!
i was uploading both the AAR text and pictures when I wrote the above message.
Still uploading...
I think you mentioned that you wanted the pictures in an uncompressed format so 15+ megs of uncompressed jpgs take a while on a phone line.
Not all of us have cable modems you know!
Still uploading...
Owen, if I said it was Riesberg what would you do?
How about this. It isn't Last Defense and it isn't Chance Encounter and it IS from the beta demo.
There! I didn't say it was Riesberg!! Besides, there is only one other Riesberg AAR and this game isn't like that one at all.
Jason
Still uploading...
-
I loved The Ancient Art of War at Sea!
Glorious CGA on a (still running) PS2/30
The very first PC game I ever bought.
Jason
-
The person that Madmatt didn't mention is me.
i am the 'other' guy.
I am finally finished! Writing it was like pulling teeth. I'm such a slow writer and mediocre typist that it took hours to write.
The AAR is hte longest thing I have ever written.
Not all of us are as verbose as Fionn.
Watch movie, rewind, write, watch movie, rewind, write - over and over again.
The game was a lot of fun to play and I hope all of you who read the AAR will enjoy it and possibly learn something new from it.
Jason
-
I like the idea.
If you were a real statistics junkie (like I am) you could even subdivide ranks by nationality (of the units commanded not the player).
This way you could have best overall, best German commander, best American commander, best British commander. Ranks could then take on nationalistic flavor - Oberst and Colonel, Hauptman and Captain. For the rankings a little jpg of the appropriate rank insignia could appear next to each persons name.
Even more statistic stuff could keep track of records for all kinds of things. Followers of sports (baeball probably being the worst abuser) know how ridiculous stats can get, but, hey, it might be useful to someone to know who has the best record in attack scenarios or who is best during night ops.
The possibilities are almost endless.
Jason
[This message has been edited by guachi (edited 03-19-2000).]
-
I figured that the formula you posted was the wrong version, as you stated.
I'm not quite sure how to change it. The We for two equal players on an equal battlefield should be .5, correct? Doesn't chess ranking have ... (thought stopped due to Yahoo search)
Found the problem. The formula I found looks like this: 1/(10^(D/400) + 1).
Sorry for the confusion, Fionn. It's amazing what the absence of a symbol will do to a math equation.
Using my example again:
A ranking difference of 400 means D/400 is 1.
10^1 is 10
10 + 1 = 11
Giving a We of 1/11
This means a person with a ranking 400 points higher than his opponent should win the game 91-9
A ranking difference of 0 would yield:
10^0 = 1
1 + 1 = 2
We = 1/2
this means players of equal rank should have a 50-50 game. (duh)
A difference of 40 points would yield:
10^(40/400)
10^.1 = 1.25
1.25 + 1 = 2.25
We = 1/2.25
1/2.25 = 4/9
This means a player with a ranking 40 points higher than his opponent should win 56-44.
As to force differences, the point I was really trying to make was that the 1000 used in your calculations is unnecessary. You could use 1 billion and it wouldn't change the formula any.
You can actually simplifiy the equation even further:
(AP/(DP*SR))^2 (The formula actually looks better on a piece of paper)
AP is attacker point value
DP is defender point value
SR is standard ratio for the type of engagement
The squaring results in a larger effect for having an above (or below) average force.
Example:
Equal players with attacker having 5% more points than standard.
We = .5 as calculated above
As far as the formula is concerned, actual points is unnecessary for this example as the formula will reduce to 1.05^2. The .05 is the 5% extra points that the attacker has.
1.05^2 = 1.1025 or a 10% adjustment to expected win percentage.
Modified Win Expectancy is thus .5*1.1
.5*1.1 = .55
This can yield some strange results.
If my Expected win % is, say, .7 and the modification for points is 1.5 the results say I should win the game with a score of 105-0.
Basically, no matter how well you play, your ranking will drop. IOW, don't play really unbalanced scnarios (in your favor) against people far worse than you.
Net result is, the ranking system is simple (honest, it is!
). Now that I've looked at it, I like it. The only thing that may need tweaking is the point ratio used for a given type of scenario. Fionn, I trust your judgement on this. A thorough record of game outcomes should provide an indication if the ratios need to be adjusted. No doubt there will be a massive number of data points available soon after the game is out so any adjustment should be quick.
I can understand why Fionn used long hand. Math formulas look goofy otherwise unless you are used to them (like I am)
Jason
-
I re-read Fionn's initial post. He wanted comments in particular about the points factor modifier.
The idea is a good one. Basically a square of scenario force ratio to some kind of 'standard' force ratio. I particularly like the idea of squaring as it amplifies the effect of force differences.
Tangentially related to ratings is tournaments. There has been talk previously about tournament types. I don't think there is any 'correct' type so if CMHQ (or anyone else) sets any up I would like to see a variety of tournament types.
Jason
-
A few comments from the statistically inclined.
Some of your equations are over-complicated.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>WEM = Win Expectancy Modified
WEM = ( 1-We) x ( ( attackers point value squared over 1000) divided by (defenders point value squared over 1000) ) ) divided by points factor constant determined by role in game<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
'"attackers point value squared over 1000" can be re-written as AP^2/1000 and "defenders point value squared over 1000" can be re-written as DP^2/1000.
The "divided by" between the two is the same as multiplying by the inverse. This gives you AP^2/1000*1000/DP^2. The 1000s cancel out giving you AP^2/DP^2. Simplyfying a little results in (AP/DP)^2.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>We is the expected score (Win Expectancy) from the following formula:
We = 1/ (10 (dr/400) + 1)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
The We calculation is also a little too complex. "10 (dr/400)" can just be rewritten as dr/40.
Not only does the WEM formula not take force composition into account when the players are equal (as bazooka noted) the We formula seems to give strange results.
Example: I have a rating 400 points higher than you and we are playing a meeting engagement with identical points allocated to our forces.
We equals 1/((dr/40)+1). dr/40 is 10. Add 1 for 11 and the We is 1/11.
Since the forces are equal the second half of the WEM equation is 1. The WEM at this point is (1-1/11)*1. The WEM is thus 10/11.
Plug this into the first formula given and you'll see that someone with a rating 400 points higher than his opponent should win the game by a score of 91-9 jsut to keep his score from changing. That doesn't seem correct.
If, in the above example, the players were of equal rank the WEM would be 0. With a WEM of 0 no matter WHAT score you get, your rating will increase.
Jason
-
Fionn, of course, meant to type M18s vs Tigers. Those are Hellcats not Wolverines in Last Defense.
Both carried a 3 inch gun but they were slightly different models. It will be interesting to see the differences in the gun characteristics. Although I wonder how many M10s were still around from June 1944 on since prodiction had ceased by then.
Jason
-
Already done, sir!
Liked what I saw, sir!
Pz IV pics are really cool, but found the new faces shown a bit ... odd. Neither good nor bad, just jarringly different.
Liked the scenario editor description part III, especially the last line about the soldiers and there swiveling heads and emotionless faces.
One quibble - at the bottom of the Boots & Tracks page it thanks us for joining the Boots & Saddle team.
I thought CM stood for Combat Mission, not Cavalry Mission.
Jason
[This message has been edited by guachi (edited 03-18-2000).]
-
Panzershark's profile says he lives in the Netherlands.
Remember, once the game is finished, the CDs and manual still need to be printed before order fulfillment can begin. So you have to tack on some time for that in addition to the week or three for shipment.
In addition, those that have pre-ordered will likely have their orders filled first.
Jason
-
Ahh, but beta testers get their joy in dribs and drabs as a new build comes out.
we unwashed masses will get our joy in the final version in one huge excitement filled bundle. You poor beta testers will never know the happiness that we lucky slack-ass posterboys will feel upon experiencing all the wonders of CM at once.
I pity you.
Jason
-
As an American and a Montanan (my state, the size of Sweden, borders Canada) I would not mind at all if Canada invaded and I became a Canadian.
I have FAR more in common with a farmer in Alberta than with some religious fundamentalist nut job living in Mississippi. These people embarass me.
Jason
My paternal grandfather was Irish (last name: McGrody) and the closest he got to WWII was in the merchan marine. One crossing of the Atlantic was enough for him.
He fit the stereotype of an alcoholic Irish catholic to a 'T'
-
Looking at the Riesberg map, there are two hills on either side of the road going in to town. Using the hills to shield movement seems like a good idea to me. the only way to do this, though is to hug the edge of the map.
The two times I have played as the Americans PBEM I did this. The two times I have played PBEM as the Germans, my opponent did the same thing.
As far as I could determine, my opponents didn't do this because they wanted to be gamey, but solely because of constraints imposed by the map.
Note: There is a major problem with edge-hugging. Units that flee off the side of the map don't come back but rather disappear off into never-never land.
I have no comments about edge-hugging in the other two scenarios as I've not used it or had it used against me.
Jason
-
All I gotta say to this is "Plug-and-Play, my ass!"
Jason
who had to return his brand-new Christmas present video card because of driver conflicts with CM
[This message has been edited by guachi (edited 03-09-2000).]
-
As the game in which I claim the sniper took out the Sherman's main gun is soon to be an AAR (as soon as I finish up my summation at the end) you can all see for yourself.
As far as I can tell, the only units that could see the tank were the sniper, Company HQ, and an MG42. The tank was targeted by the sniper. The sniper fired at 39 seconds into the turn. Until this point, no enemy units in the vicinity had fired anything the entire game. The closest enemy unit was at least 100m away. No fausts were fired. No grenades thrown.
I've gone over this dozens of times from both sides and have no idea what happened. The INSTANT the bullet hits the tank the commander buttons and the gun is damaged. I wouldn't be surprised if there was another explanation, I just don't know what it is.
This happened months ago and it didn't really bother me but since the topic was brought up...
Jason
Just checked a few things. The only German units that had LOS to the tank were the sniper and Company HQ 170m away. also, it wasn't a stray artillery round as my FO hadn't started firing yet.
[This message has been edited by guachi (edited 03-05-2000).]
-
I had a Sherman's main gun taken out by a sniper rifle.
Jason
-
Looking at the squad details provided by Steve highlights how similar the base squads of the British, Americans, and the Germans were (at least in 1944).
One high firepower automatic weapon backed up by rifles and the odd SMG. My understanding is that the SMG was not an "official" allocation to a squad but somebody had to use them all so giving a standard one or two per squad seems reasonable.
What the Americans lacked in the BAR (mostly due to its small clip size, I'm guessing) they more than made up for it with the outstanding M1 and its semi-auto capability.
Also highlighted is the manpower situations of the three countries. The Germans have nine men, the British ten, and the Americans twelve. And the VG squad are even smaller at eight men.
Something I haven't tried yet is to divide the American squads up on the attack. They are so large that even at half size (six men) they are still a reasonable fighting force.
Jason
-
Hey, It's Levittown!!!
Great POTD! Next, I think you should do a tank park! Imagine what that would look like!
Jason
-
No idea of a good on-line source.
But I do have a set of symbols already done up and on my computer.
I'll e-mail them to you.
If you want a hard copy of them, buy the US Army Handbook by George Forty. It's not an official book, but if you live in America it is only $10.
Jason
-
Sure!
As long as I get to pick the side.
Jason
-
I don't think it works with a Voodoo Card.
Works fine with my Matrox card.
Jason
-
No, that's what you do to your girlfriend.
Jason
little help...
in Combat Mission Archive #2 (2000)
Posted
I haven't found a website, but for those interested in German insignia/uniforms I have a great book entitled German Army Uniforms and Insignia 1933-1945 by Brian L. Davis.
I did a quick search on amazon and found this book is out of print. It's equivalent paperback version IS still in print. Renamed German Army Uniforms of the Third Reich 1933-1945, the cost is listed as $17.56.
Seems like a good book for re-enactors. In addition, those in the CMMC who are German commanders can help visualize what their battalion ccammander and staff officer might look like.
Jason
[This message has been edited by guachi (edited 03-21-2000).]