WineCape

I saw a flame and thrower recently in testing CMBN: the flames were on the Stummel and threw the occupants off in a hurry

Moi for one.

Almost GAJ. Gauging interest in those that might want to play in the forthcoming ROW VI. I endavour that it will be one of the most entertaining Rumblings ever. Consider yourselves lucky if you are chosen to play, not because of elitism, but given the emails I have already received, it seems ROW VI is going to be way more then the envisioned 72 players oversubscribed. We'll stick to 72 players. That's manageable for us. RoW vets will get first bite at an invite, of course. They have a proven track record of finishing PBEM tourneys. We want to make RoW VI one of the toughest and most interesting/enjoyable ROW's yet, to be remembered as that devil number 6 At this stage, we're looking at 7 round robin PBEM scenarios, (8 player groups) to be finished within 4 months time max (120 days). I'm busy compiling a CMBN scenario design requirement document for scenario creators, whom I still have to approach, as general pointers what we want and need. For the moment, we envision in the RR:- 1 x ME scen 2 x Probe Scen (Allied + Axis each) 2 x Attack Scen (Allied + Axis each) 2 x Assault Scen (Allied + Axis each) Players will play 3 Allied/4 Axis battles, or vice versa. I will, in due time, open up a sign-up thread based on those that have shown interest here. Just make sure your BFC forum email in your profile is active/correct/accessible to me when the time comes.

Will forward the concerns to Hurri and hear his input also on this specific matter Sivodsi.

Ahhh, good news. Just established contact with NABLA's creator, Dr Jarmo Hurri and he promised to look at the NABLA again and give some input into it. Without the Nabla Tournament Scoring module, Rumblings of War VI = sunk without trace.

Good suggestion. It will all depend on the ease, or not, of implementing such a change and for the code to track the looting swop around of weapons, as well as other possible issues Charles & Co might have as higher in priority on their bucket list, wish list, to-do list & dream list.

Sound, I imagine, is the least of BFC's worries

We're not supposed to give a full easter egg basket yet.

Indeed, not ALL w(h)ine is bad.

The list of things that CM simulates and abstract, compared to other tactical wargames, is astounding.

BUMP Especially for those Old hands/ROW vets returning and trickling back from captivity with CMBN's imminent release....

Did someone just described a non-ladder tournament by the name of ROW?

Seems South Africa is the only coloured-in country in Africa?

Wasn't GayLord an later incarnation of ... LEWIS?

From Dr. Jarmo Hurri's paper [NABLA's scoring system for Combat Mission] I will make the scoring paper available to all participants of the ROW VI tourney too.

Found it! The principles of the scoring of Nabla and his treatise thereon. Let's just say, you all have not given Nabla enough credit for his insight in building NABLA, and he deals with the concerns expressed here, which is reflected in his NABLA system. Even mentions NABLA is a "finer scale" of a bridge scoring method used by such tournaments. Will email it later for those that want to read his. Lemme know who needs it.

Post-Order, very soon after pre-order. Raises half a hand................

Fear not, nothing will be changed without Nabla's input. What is bandied about are some ideas, and things will become clearer once we have the working Nabla executables and specifically the Nabla Scoring Curve parameters. It may be, after seeing all the results coming in for a particular scenario/battle, that the Nabla curve will be adjusted for that specific scenario, given that the battle produced great variances in results. The Nabla Curve could then, for a specific battle, be adjusted so as not to punish extreme losses extremely (flat Nabla graph curve) via the Nabla scoring points after a certain threshold point has been reached, and vice versa. This is in contrast to having a single Nabla scoring curve for all the scenarios in the tourney. If we can get Nabla's take on this idea mathematically -- which he himself suggested -- we might have an adjusted Nabla scoring method that will cover most eventualities given the already relative robustness of the scoring method already used. I know too little to allow myself a considered opinion on this (exact) matter, without reverting to the experts in stats/maths to test our assertions/premises.

So noted Flammenwerfer. All those reporting here and RoW vets will be on the main invite list; they will be 1st in line for an ROW VI invite. Make sure your Battlefront forum email is active and that it can accessed/viewed for an official invite, a few months from now.

Interesting Sivodsi, very interesting and food for some thought .... It's time to make contact with Jarmo Hurri, known as Nabla here, who has a PhD from the University of Helsinki (Thesis: statistical properties of natural image sequences and their implications on early vision.) The reasons are obvious. Or Treeburst155 (Mike Meinecke) for that matter. None of their previous emails are active it seems. Anyone here have an idea where to reach these wallah's?

If memory serves correctly, five. 6-player groups in each section means you will play each member in your own group once, which means 5 matches, thus 5 new scenarios in 1st round.

South Africans get to the point quickly and are renowned for not mincing words. Parallels to Yorkshire's inhabitants can be drawn.

There you go. You got round to finding some (partial) solution on your own. At least the comments here provided impetus for you to do just that.

Your claim noted. It is just now a matter of establishing the claim's veracity and you will be bumped above all else in the WAITING list ;-) Seriously, I envision that established RoW vets, and quite a few, will not participate due to various reasons. I also envision, at this stage, that we will have to, at a minimum, run at least a 72-player RoW VI. I am accumulating data wrt to SCENARIO DESIGN REQUIREMENTS for RoW VI, given that I'm beta testing some CMBN scenarios, on what we want from scenario designers specifically, for example ... (1) JonS has mentioned, many times, the small but important point: the need for basic landmarks in scenarios for ease of reference in AAR reporting. (2) Scen design allowing for interesting/varied decision making choices where applicable; (3) I will also be standardizing the base format of all required AAR's; Example: Apart from the main AAR reporting, I need the players to have required headings for every AAR regarding comments on the -- (a) quality of map design, -- ( unit composition, -- © pace of scenario, -- (d) quality & accuracy of briefing and hints, if any therein -- (e) replayability of scenario, -- (f) Enjoyment factor etc.

Tossers. I know the only reason why you all post here is to rack up your post account and give the impression you know somefink. Or at a minimum, can babble bubble incessantly. Hands up who here has more then 99% of their post count related to their direct involvement in the 'Pool?