Kanonier Reichmann

Hi Treeburst. Your listing above of the original Nabla parameters as applied to this tournament seem about right to me from my non scientific viewpoint as it provides results that, as has already been said, more rewards consistency rather than the spectacular one-off. This is a good thing as anyone can get lucky in any one battle where, for instance, a lucky airstrike can destroy one sides armour support and cause a blowout of the score. For example in Push to Maleme, my score in that battle could well have become an outlier if the Stuka airsupport had hit it's target of 3 tightly bunched Vickers tankettes probably resulting in a premature Allied surrender. This would not be reflective of gameplay however since such an incident is completely outside of the players control. Overly rewarding a player for one potentially lucky result is not a good thing for this type of tournament in my opinion. The original Nabla system seems to succesfully correct for this possibility as far as I can tell. Regards Jim R. [ June 17, 2005, 09:26 AM: Message edited by: Kanonier Reichmann ]

That doesn't seem right Cpl. Carrot. If you take my group for example (Group 5), I managed to achieve the equal top score for the axis side in Wet Triangle yet Jon L. in the same group who achieved the second best score for the Allies in that scenario obtained an adjusted score more than twice that of mine. Also Sripe in group 8 for the same scenario managed a huge Nabla adjusted score which pretty much achieves what was trying to be avoided where the one big win can get you through to the finals. Comparing Malakovski's battles with Sripe in that group you can see that Malakovski actually did better than the median (i.e won) all 5 scenarios yet isn't within a bulls roar of Malakovski's final adjusted score. I think the original Nabla formula may not be applied properly based on just these two observations. Regards Jim R. [ June 16, 2005, 07:25 AM: Message edited by: Kanonier Reichmann ]

Seems like a reasonable outcome to me Treeburst with that extreme example you've provided. Regards Jim R.

Tell me about it. I had my best German Company commander rush into a heavy building to assist friendlies in their attempt to clear it out only to be gunned down to a man from the cross fire from two "friendly" squads. That particular bungle would have cost me big time in victory points. Regards Jim R.

The other thing to consider with night time fighting is that troops tend to panic much quicker when under fire then run away which of course is suicide when being fired on at close range. I think that is a fair part of the problem leading to increased casualties at night time. Regards Jim R.

Hi Ace. You just need to resend the email again as my email a/c is set up to sift out spambots that don't know how to respond to such a request for a resend. Regards Jim R.

O.K., I obviously stuffed up then. I've now sent the AAR that Cpl. Carrot already has to you instead. I promise I'll try & do better next time. Regards Jim R.

I must admit I was a bit surprised by the large differences that emerged with players scores in this latest ROW tournament. I was used to the "old" Nabla formulae which did, as you say, produce much closer overall results between opponents. The old method tended to benefit more consistant players that battled and scrapped their way to a win rather than rewarding perhaps the more flambouyant player who could manufacture spectacular wins but also suffered from occasional losses for taking the risks they did. It comes down to what type of player style should be rewarded which seems dependant upon the type of Nabla system to be used in my opinion. Regards Jim R.

It is alright to send the AAR's to Cpl. Carrot as an alternate isn't it? Did I stuff up and not realise that they all had to be sent to Ace Pilot instead? Regards Jim R.

It occurs to me that this tournament should have a new moniker of GOW, which of course stands for Grumblings of War. Regards Jim R.

Dawg Bonz, your offer to withdraw from the tournament is not appropriate as you clearly won your group fair & square with, as Malakovski pointing out, your big score being in an even battle. The even battles is not where the problem lies & therefore you should reconsider your action. If anyone has emailed Dawg Bonz about this suggesting he didn't deserve to go through then they're completely wrong and is extremely poor form. As I've said in a previous post, we all agreed to the scoring system we have so no-one can't complain about it for this tournament but can suggest improvements for future tournaments. Regards Jim R.

True, but whatever tactical options one chose there was no way getting around the fact you had to attack at just the one point on the map. Therefore the German player knew exactly where you were attacking and could set up accordingly. No fudge factor or uncertainty with regard to where the Soviets would attack at all. Regards Jim R.

I think this summary is the best I've seen to date. I'm sure calculating the difference between the total Nabla points available for the Axis & Allied sides in Wet Triangle would produce similar large differences. Therefore, to a significant degree in unbalanced scenarios, the ability to score really well in a battle comes down to which side you're lucky enough to draw at the outset. This doesn't seem right to me from a logical point of view. In theory, a player could perform exceptionally well in just 2 scenarios that happened to be unbalanced playing the non-favoured side and obtain scores of around 2 to 2.5 in each but then simply hold his own or even nominally lose the 3 remaining scenarios that were relatively balanced. The end result would be a very good score of around 4.0 that should be enough to win the group yet another player in that group could have consistently done well in all 5 scenarios winning all 5 with good margins yet miss out because he wasn't lucky enough to play the unbalanced scenarios as the non-favoured side. Note: this is simply trying to highlight the flaw in the Nabla scoring system but in no way should be interpreted as a request for a review of the current scores since we all agreed to the scoring system from the outset in ROW V. However, if it can be adjusted for future iterations of ROW tournaments by somehow scaling back the potential extreme results in unbalanced scenarios that would be a good thing in my opinion. Regards Jim R.

This is actually a very interesting observation as it appears that the players who were "lucky" enough to have the non favoured side in any battle (which tended to be the allies) stood a much better chance to score highly and therefore win their group compared with the ones who had the favoured sides. Perhaps this type of scoring favours the underdog side too much by rewarding a reasonable result disproportionally? Perhaps backing up this theory is that the 2 players who absolutely blitzed the rankings with their Nabla adjusted high score managed to play the Allies 4 out of 5 times and, coincidentally, happened to play exactly the same side for each battle. I'm not trying to detract from their ability mind you as they are clearly excellent players as I can certainly attest to having played Londoner & Walpurgis Nachts previous record speaks for itself. Regards Jim R. [ June 11, 2005, 09:25 AM: Message edited by: Kanonier Reichmann ]

Tell me about it..... BTW, my personal preference for the battles was: 1. Highlanders 2. St Edouards 3. Map o' Tassie 4. Moltke Bridge 5. Maleme Regards Jim R.

Sheeesh! Tough crowd in this competition. There I was sitting back smugly thinking my score of 93% in Wet Triangle would result in huge bonuses whereas all it did was produce a score of one. One single solitary digit. What does a guy have to do around here!!! :eek: BTW, thanks once again to the tireless efforts of Kingfish & Cpl. Carrot for making ROW V run so smoothly. Your efforts are certainly greatly appreciated. Regards Jim R. [ June 10, 2005, 07:49 AM: Message edited by: Kanonier Reichmann ]

So it is going to be set in Russia then judging by the terminology. :confused: Regards Jim R.

O.K., now that I can see some information about the new game from BFC in its own thread I'm more than happy to apologise if I upset anyone with my concerns that CMX2 may be vapourware. Clearly this is not the case from what I have now read and I'm very glad that I've been proven wrong. Good to be able to find out about the game progress and the concepts behind it without having to scan every single post made in obscure threads which, on initial inspection, were of little to no interest to me. Regards Jim R.

O.K., now that I can see some information about the new game from BFC in its own thread I'm more than happy to apologise if I upset anyone with my concerns that CMX2 may be vapourware. Clearly this is not the case from what I have now read and I'm very glad that I've been proven wrong. Good to be able to find out about the game progress and the concepts behind it without having to scan every single post made in obscure threads which, on initial inspection, were of little to no interest to me. Regards Jim R.

Yes, but no South Aussies to add class to the accents! Regards Jim R.

Are you ever happy about anything? </font>

Judging by the lack of any sort of feedback from BFC for months it semms more and more likely that CMX2 may well be vapourware! I'm now not all that hopeful with my line of thinking being if the next generation of Combat Mission will be released rather than when. Regards Jim R.

True. I assume you've just viewed the documentary on SBS on the subject? Quite an interesting programme, especially when they highlighted that after bombing the absolute bejeezus out of the monastery there was no follow up attack on the devastated area until a few days later. This allowed the Fallschirmjager troops to occupy the ruins & fortify the position without being harrassed by an impending attack. Really poor planning one has to say and it beggars the question...why the hell bomb what was thought to be a critical part of the Germans defences but then not follow up with an immediate attack? A complete stuff-up all round it appears to have been. Regards Jim R.

My guess would be no....since individual infantry units never influence AFV's in the game so I'm assuming that this also applies to HQ units spotting for mortar halftracks. Their only interaction seems to be to allow the halftrack to fire indirectly. As you can see...the definitive answer. Regards Jim R.

Nope. I've never designed a scenario remotely close to what you've described. I believe the (in)famous "Brian" of Bren tripod fame did however. Regards Jim R.